Teaching for more equitable outcomes: The missing ingredient

Why equity initiatives can fail and what teachers can do about it.

Photo by CDC on Unsplash

A few weeks ago, we asked 120 preservice teachers a simple question: “How do you think teachers should go about fostering more equitable outcomes?”

The most common responses?
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP).
Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
Social-Emotional Learning (SEL).

That wasn’t surprising. These three frameworks dominate today’s conversations about equity in education. They focus on making classrooms more welcoming, respectful of diverse cultures, and emotionally safe. The core idea is that when students feel included and supported, they’ll be more engaged, and engagement leads to better learning. In theory, this leads to more equitable outcomes.

There’s truth to that. A safe, inclusive classroom is a necessary condition for equity. But it’s not a sufficient one. Even in classrooms that celebrate diversity and promote emotional well-being, students can continue to struggle and fall behind.

Let’s take a look at what these popular frameworks get right, and where they fall short. Each one is grounded in a different theory of what causes inequity, and what schools should do about it. Let’s break them down.

1. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP): Making Learning Personal and Meaningful

CRP is built on the idea that students learn best when their identities, cultures, and experiences are reflected in the classroom. At its core, it’s about valuing where students come from, and using that as a bridge to academic success.

The thinking here is that many students, especially those from marginalized communities, face inequities because traditional schooling ignores or even invalidates their ways of knowing. CRP aims to change that. By affirming cultural identity, encouraging critical thinking about social issues, and connecting to lived experiences, it hopes to create classrooms that are more inclusive and empowering.

What does the research say?
CRP has been linked to increased student engagement, a stronger sense of identity, and greater belonging (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). But when it comes to promoting academic achievement, the evidence is thinner. That’s partly because many CRP studies are qualitative (e.g., case studies) — rich in insight, but light on standardized outcome data. In fact, some CRP scholars actively reject the idea of measuring learning through traditional assessments, arguing that these tools reinforce the very systems of inequity they aim to dismantle. A few quantitative studies have shown gains, but in general, the field lacks large-scale, rigorous controlled research (Sleeter, 2012, Lim et al., 2024). The relationship between CRP and long-term achievement is unclear.

---

2. Social-Emotional Learning (SEL): Supporting the Whole Child

SEL is all about helping students develop social and emotional intelligence. This includes things like self-awareness, empathy, goal-setting, building good relationships, and responsible decision-making. The underlying assumption? Kids can’t learn effectively if they’re overwhelmed, lack self-regulation, or feel socially disconnected. So, SEL focuses on building the metacognitive and interpersonal skills students need to thrive, not just academically, but as human beings navigating the world.

What does the research say?
Research shows that SEL can improve behaviour and emotional regulation (Durlak et al., 2011). However, its impact on academic achievement is less clear. Some meta-analyses (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2019) find no measurable academic benefit, while others report modest gains, with lots of variation depending on how SEL is implemented (Durlak et al., 2022). At the moment, the main challenge facing researchers is that SEL can look wildly different from one classroom to the next, which makes it hard to pin down what’s actually working.

---

3. Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Designing for Flexibility

UDL flips the script on traditional teaching by asking educators to design lessons from the start with student variability in mind. Instead of accommodating students after-the-fact, UDL encourages proactive planning, offering multiple ways for students to engage with content, access information, and show what they’ve learned.

UDL assumes that if you build flexibility into your instruction, more students are likely to succeed. In its early years, UDL focused on removing learning barriers for students with disabilities. However, by the 2000s, UDL had expanded into a general education philosophy aimed at supporting all learners. Advocates of UDL now argue that all students should be offered multiple ways to learn, engage, and express understanding, and that classroom lessons should be designed accordingly.

What does the research say?
UDL is extremely helpful for students with disabilities (Hehir et al., 2016). However, the claim that it benefits all learners is unproven. Critics argue that UDL’s definitions are often vague, implementation is difficult for teachers, and the overall impact on academic outcomes is under-researched (Boysen, 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). As Capp (2017) observes, “The impact [of UDL] on educational outcomes has not been demonstrated.” (abstract).

Summary

Each of these three approaches — CRP, SEL, and UDL — brings something valuable to the table. They push educators to think about motivation, cultural relevance, emotional intelligence, identity, self-awareness, safety, accommodations, and inclusion. All of these are important. But there’s a noticeable gap. None of them focus directly on one crucial element: actual academic learning.

And that’s what we’ll explore next.

The Missing Ingredient

Let’s start with an example.

Imagine a student struggling with algebra because they never mastered multiplication facts or how to convert fractions. They get frustrated each time they’re faced with an algebra problem that contains a fraction, or requires multiplication, uncertain how to proceed.

How can we help this student? Let’s consider the three frameworks we’ve already discussed. CRP might be used to make the algebra questions feel more culturally relevant. SEL might help the student better regulate their frustration. UDL might let the student demonstrate their lack of understanding in multiple ways. But none of these approaches deal directly with the student’s core problem: they lack key math knowledge.

What this struggling student really needs is instruction that builds the math knowledge they lack. They need to develop proficiency with multiplication and fractions. Only by filling in these knowledge gaps will they develop confidence and success in mathematics.

The Science of Learning is the ingredient that is missing from most modern-day equity initiatives.

The Science of Learning

The Science of Learning is a field that studies how people learn, and how different teaching methods affect learning outcomes. Here are three research-backed approaches, grounded in the Science of Learning, that consistently help struggling learners succeed — and everyone else, too.

1. Explicit Instruction

Explicit instruction is a clear, direct, and structured way of teaching in which the teacher explains exactly what students need to learn and shows them how to do it, step by step. It includes modelling, guided practice, and feedback before students try on their own. It’s been found to be especially effective for students who are struggling or who don’t have strong background knowledge.

Study after study has shown that teaching with explicit instruction helps all students succeed, but it helps disadvantaged students the most (e.g. Baker, Gersten, & Lee, 2002; Andersen & Andersen, 2017; Kroesbergan et al., 2004). One large study involving 56,000 students found that explicit teaching narrowed achievement gaps, especially for students from less-educated families.

In some ways, it should be obvious why explicit instruction supports equity: If you clearly explain to students what they’re trying to learn, and if you break down the content for them, and if you provide lots of guidance, examples, feedback and practice, then more students will be in a position to succeed.

2. Retrieval Practice

Retrieval practice is a learning strategy where students try to recall information they’ve been taught from memory, rather than just reviewing it. By bringing information to mind—through quizzes, flashcards, or simply trying to write down what they remember—students strengthen their memory and deepen their understanding. It’s been found to be one of the most effective ways to boost long-term learning, and works even better when spaced out over time.

Asking students to recall information (rather than just rereading or reviewing it) strengthens memory and understanding. It works for students of all ages and abilities. However, research shows it’s especially effective for students who struggle with the subject matter (Agarwal et al., 2017; Agarwal et al, 2021).

3. Formative Assessment with Feedback

Formative assessment with feedback is an approach where teachers regularly check in on student learning during the lesson and use that information to guide instruction. The key is that students receive timely, specific feedback that helps them understand what they’re doing well, where they’re going wrong, and how to improve.

When teachers use low-stakes checks for understanding and give timely, targeted feedback, student learning improves, particularly for lower-performing students. One very powerful study was a randomized controlled trial involving 140 secondary schools in England involving 25,393 students aged 14-15 (Speckesser et al., 2018). This research found that the students enrolled in the Embedding Formative Assessment schools made the equivalent of two additional months’ progress. More importantly, they also found that the additional progress made by children in the lowest third of the class was greater than that made by children in the highest third.

When formative assessment and feedback is properly implemented as part of routine teaching practices, the benefits for disadvantaged students can be significant.

Science of Learning Summary

The Science of Learning equips teachers with evidence-based insights about how students learn best, helping them design lessons, assessments, and classroom routines that improve understanding, memory, and long-term achievement for all learners. And what’s notable about these techniques is that all three of them have been shown to reduce achievement gaps — i.e., they benefit struggling students the most.

These aren’t just good teaching practices. They’re evidence-based strategies that drive equity. And yet, they’re rarely framed that way.

Why equity initiatives often fail

Here’s the problem: When new teachers are taught about equity in their teacher preparation programs, they’re often told to implement frameworks like CRP, SEL and UDL. They’re told to focus on things like inclusion, belonging, cultural relevance, student choice, and emotional safety—all of which are important. But they are not enough as is. Real equity also depends on something else: knowledge.

Many students who struggle in school aren’t failing because they aren’t smart enough, or lack motivation. They’re struggling because there are gaps in their knowledge. Maybe they didn’t grasp a concept last year. Maybe they had poor teachers. Maybe they’ve moved schools or missed classes. Whatever the reason, they’re lacking foundational knowledge.

If we want to close achievement gaps and help all students succeed, we need to do the hard work of identifying what struggling students don’t know, and then give them clear, structured support so they can thrive.

In the end, equity isn’t just about how students feel in the classroom. It’s also about what they know and are able to do. Helping struggling students build a strong foundation of knowledge is one of the most powerful things we can do to support our most vulnerable learners.

What teachers can do about it

If we want classroom equity efforts to succeed, we need to expand what we mean by the phrase “equity work.”

This isn’t a call to abandon CRP, SEL, or UDL. Far from it. CRP, UDL, and SEL are each valuable because they alert us to different possible ways that inequities can arise. However, it’s a mistake to assume that these approaches, by themselves, will produce equitable academic outcomes. In fact, there is surprisingly little hard evidence that any of these approaches, on their own, are effective in shrinking academic disparities. To do that, teachers should consider augmenting their equity initiatives with explicit instruction, regular feedback, and lots of retrieval practice, all of which have been shown to help struggling learners.

So when we teach future educators about equity, let’s be sure we tell them about how memory works and how people learn things. Let’s teach them how to identify student knowledge gaps, how to provide effective feedback, and how to teach in ways that allow all children to be successful.

Ultimately, equity can’t be achieved through good intentions and inclusive practices alone. Rather, it also requires that struggling students build the knowledge and skills they need to catch up. That takes explicit teaching, feedback, and practice. If we’re serious about equity, we have to be serious about learning.

---

References

Agarwal, P. K., Finley, J. R., Rose, N. S., & Roediger III, H. L. (2017). Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity. Memory, 25(6), 764-771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1220579

Agarwal, P. K., Nunes, L. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2021). Retrieval practice consistently benefits student learning: A systematic review of applied research in schools and classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1409-1453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9

Andersen, I. G., & Andersen, S. C. (2017). Student-Centered Instruction and Academic Achievement: Linking Mechanisms of Educational Inequality to Schools’ Instructional Strategy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 533-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1093409​​​

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The Theory and Practice of Culturally Relevant Education: A Synthesis of Research Across Content Areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1) 163 –206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Baker, S., Gersten, R. & Lee, D. (2002). A Synthesis of Empirical Research on Teaching Mathematics to Low-Achieving Students. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1086/499715

Boysen, G. A. (2024). Lessons (not) learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and universal design for learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 10(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000280

Capp, M. J. (2017) The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791-807, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D. & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1): 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Durlak, J. A., Mahoney, J., & Boyle, A. (2022). What We Know, and What We Need to Find Out About Universal, School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Children and Adolescents: A Review of Meta-Analyses and Directions for Future Research. Psychological Bulletin, 148(11-12), 765-782. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000383

Goldberg, J., Sklad, M., Elfrink, T., Schreurs, K., Bohlmeijer, E., & Clarke, A. (2019). Effectiveness of interventions adopting a whole school approach to enhancing social and emotional development: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34, 755–782 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0406-9

Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the research evidence on inclusive education. Instituto Alana. https://alana.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_on_inclusive_education.pdf

Kroesbergen, E., Van Luit, J., & Maas, C. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1086/499751

Lim, J.H., Rho, E., & Yang, C. (2024): Evidence-Based Practices of Culturally Responsive Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, School Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2024.2432853

Sleeter, C. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47, 562–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911431472

Smith, A.M., Florerke, V.A. & Thomas, A.K. Retrieval practice protects memory against acute stress. Science, 354(6315), 1046-1048. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah5067

Speckesser, S., Runge, J., Foliano, F., Bursnall, M., Hudson-Sharp, N., Rolfe, H. & Anders, J. (2018). Embedding formative assessment. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/32012/1/EFA_evaluation_report.pdf

Zhang, L., Carter, R.A., Greene, J.A., & Bernacki, M.L. (2024). Unraveling Challenges with the Implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(35) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7