Skip to content
Leading with Care

Leading with Care Facilitator Guide

Six live virtual sessions that extend the Leading with Care course through discussion, scenario practice, reflection, and application.

⬇ PDF

Live Session 4 · 90 minutes · Virtual

Draft · open items highlighted

Equity vs. Equality: Supporting Access and Participation

Keep the standard. Question the method.

Session Overview

Module(s) covered

  • Equity vs. Equality: Supporting Access and Participation (Lesson 6)

Toolkit resources used

  • Equity and Access Decision Guide: Clarify What Must Stay → Locate the Access Gap → Decide What Can Change → Match Support to the Gap → Make the Alternative Count → Review the Outcome
  • Pause & Check: When “Same” Feels Fairest

Session purpose

Give learners repeated opportunities, through scenarios and discussion, to work through one of the most easily oversimplified ideas in the course: fairness does not always mean giving everyone the same thing, but different does not automatically mean equitable. Equality asks what should remain consistent. Equity asks whether the conditions provide a fair opportunity to meet that shared expectation.

Facilitator watch-for

Avoid reducing the session to “equality = same” and “equity = different.” Keep asking: What is the shared standard? Where is the barrier? Does the adjustment change the expectation or only the conditions for meeting it? Does the alternative actually count?

Learning objectives

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

  • 1.Distinguish equality, equity, access, inclusion, and belonging in practical situations.
  • 2.Explain why equality and equity are not opposing approaches.
  • 3.Separate a shared standard from the method used to meet it.
  • 4.Identify where an access barrier actually sits before choosing a support.
  • 5.Decide what can reasonably change without removing the purpose or expectation.
  • 6.Check whether an alternative participation route carries meaningful weight.
  • 7.Use the Equity and Access Decision Guide to evaluate a realistic access challenge.

Key course concepts

Equality and equity are not opposites

Some expectations appropriately remain consistent; equity examines whether the conditions for meeting them are workable.

Same is not automatically fair—or unfair

The goal is not to make everything different for everyone.

Keep the standard. Question the method.

Separate what actually has to stay the same from the way it has traditionally been done.

Support should match the barrier

Locate where participation is getting stuck before choosing an adjustment.

Access is not the end of the story

An alternative route is only equitable if the contribution is treated as credible and meaningful.

Belonging

Leaders cannot guarantee belonging, but they can create conditions that make belonging more possible.

Before the Session

Learner pre-work

  • Complete Equity vs. Equality: Supporting Access and Participation (Lesson 6), including the Equity and Access Decision Guide and Pause & Check: When “Same” Feels Fairest.
  • Have the Equity and Access Decision Guide available in the Digital Binder.

What learners were asked to bring

  • One de-identified requirement, activity, deadline, participation structure, or access challenge (Lesson 6 ‘Bring to Next Class’): the shared expectation, the access gap, what could change, what should remain consistent, and how an alternative would carry meaningful weight.
  • No private or identifying information about another person, and no need to explain why someone needed support.

Facilitator preparation

  • Prepare a poll or continuum for the opening fairness statement.
  • Prepare the Which Fairness Question Are We Asking? scenarios.
  • Prepare the Keep It, Change It, or Check First? scenario cards.
  • Prepare the Community Kitchen Skills Check and Feedback That Counts scenarios.
  • Set breakout groups of 3–4 for the scenario labs and the Equity Case Clinic.
  • Have the fallback fictional access challenge ready.
  • Confirm Digital Binder access.

Materials / technology

Breakout room setup (virtual)

  • Scenario Lab: Community Kitchen Skills Check: groups of 3–4, 10 minutes.
  • Scenario Lab: Feedback That Counts: groups of 3–4, 8 minutes.
  • Equity Case Clinic: groups of 3–4, 10 minutes.
  • Paste instructions into chat before opening rooms and broadcast a 2-minute warning.

90-Minute Run of Show

TimeActivityPurposeMethodFacilitator notes
0–1010 minOpening Discussion: Fair Means the Same? ↓Surface beliefs about fairness.Agree / Disagree / It depends by poll, reaction, annotation, chat, or voice; do not reveal a correct answer.If the conversation becomes “So equality is bad?”, clarify that sometimes sameness is exactly what fairness requires.
10–2212 minWhich Fairness Question Are We Asking? ↓Distinguish equality, equity, access, inclusion, and belonging.Five short situations; learners name the most useful question and concept.Distinguish the concepts through situations rather than definition review.
22–3715 minKeep It, Change It, or Check First? ↓Separate standards from methods.Learners choose KEEP IT, CHANGE IT, or CHECK FIRST for four scenarios, then defend their choice.Clarify the standard. Locate the gap. Then decide.
37–5215 minScenario Lab: The Community Kitchen Skills Check ↓Work through a nuanced equity decision.Small groups (3–4) use the six steps of the Decision Guide; whole-group debrief.10 minutes in rooms, 5 minutes debrief.
52–553 minBreakModel pacing and predictability.Short break with a visible timer.Say when you’ll restart and what comes next.
55–6813 minScenario Lab: Feedback That Counts ↓Distinguish access from influence.Small groups (3–4) work the questions; whole-group debrief.8 minutes in rooms, 5 minutes debrief.
68–8214 minEquity Case Clinic ↓Apply the Decision Guide to learner examples.Groups of 3–4 use the access challenge a learner brought (fallback scenario if no one wants to share); challenge the proposed solution.10 minutes in rooms, 4 minutes debrief.
82–886 minDigital Binder: Strengthen Your Equity Decision ↓Strengthen the learner’s own plan.Learners privately revise their Equity and Access Decision Guide using the eLearning example or today’s case.Responses remain private unless learners choose to share them.
88–902 minClose + Prepare for Session 5Bridge to inquiry and lived truth.Closing prompt by voice, chat, or private reflection; preview Session 5.Do not require exact course wording. Remind learners to download a binder backup.

Facilitation Guide

A guide for each major activity. Suggested language is a starting point—adapt it to your voice and your group.

0–10 min

Opening Discussion: Fair Means the Same?

PollChatMain room

Purpose

Surface existing beliefs about fairness before applying the course language.

Set-up

  • Load a poll: Agree / Disagree / It depends.
  • Offer reactions, annotation, chat, or voice as alternatives.

Facilitator language

“There’s no correct answer to reveal here. Let’s notice what we’re each imagining.”

“Sometimes sameness is exactly what fairness requires. The task is to identify what truly needs to stay consistent.”

Instructions

  • 1.Display the statement and run the poll.
  • 2.Invite reasoning from more than one position.
  • 3.Use the debrief questions without resolving the debate.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

“Fair means everyone follows the same rules.” Agree, Disagree, or It depends?

Debrief questions

  • What kind of rule are you imagining?
  • When would the same rule be important?
  • When could the same rule create a barrier?
  • What would you need to know before deciding?

👂 Listen for

  • Safety and core-purpose rules where sameness matters
  • Methods that may not be essential

👀 Watch for

  • “So equality is bad?”—clarify
  • Learners feeling judged for their position

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 6 → Pause & Check: When “Same” Feels Fairest
10–22 min

Which Fairness Question Are We Asking?

PollChatMain room

Purpose

Distinguish the five course concepts through short situations rather than definition review.

Set-up

  • Prepare each situation as a slide or poll with the five concepts as options.

Facilitator language

“These concepts are connected but not interchangeable.”

Instructions

  • 1.Present one situation at a time.
  • 2.Ask: What is the most useful question here?
  • 3.Reveal the concept and move on.

📋 Facilitator reference — answers, don’t paste to learners

Facilitator reference: A. Everyone must follow the same protective-eyewear rule in a workshop space. → What should stay consistent? → Equality B. Everyone submits one reflection by Friday, but it may be written, audio, or another accessible format. → What support affects the ability to meet the shared expectation? → Equity C. A registration website is open to everyone but cannot be navigated with a screen reader. → Can people actually use the opportunity? → Access D. Ideas may be submitted on sticky notes or aloud, but only spoken ideas are discussed when decisions are made. → Do contributions have a meaningful place and influence? → Inclusion E. A learner sees their ideas invited, credited, and taken seriously without hiding their communication needs. → What conditions communicate that they are a valued member? → Belonging

Debrief questions

  • Where did the concepts overlap?

👂 Listen for

  • Someone can have access without full inclusion
  • An equitable adjustment does not guarantee belonging
  • An equal standard can coexist with equitable support

👀 Watch for

  • Using the five terms interchangeably

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 6 → Lesson Review: Five Parts of the Experience
22–37 min

Keep It, Change It, or Check First?

PollMain room

Purpose

Practice separating the actual requirement from the familiar method.

Set-up

  • Prepare each scenario as a three-option poll: KEEP IT / CHANGE IT / CHECK FIRST.

Facilitator language

“Clarify the standard. Locate the gap. Then decide.”

Instructions

  • 1.Present each scenario and run the poll.
  • 2.Invite learners to defend different choices.
  • 3.Share the facilitator note.

📋 Facilitator reference — answers, don’t paste to learners

Facilitator reference: 1. A youth cooking program requires handwashing before handling food. → Likely KEEP IT: the safety standard is essential. 2. To demonstrate understanding of a project plan, every participant must explain it in a five-minute presentation to the full group. → Likely CHANGE IT, or at least question the public presentation requirement: understanding may be essential; public performance may not be. 3. Applications are due Friday because selections are made Saturday. One participant asks for a Monday deadline. → Likely CHECK FIRST: is Friday truly necessary, what creates the access problem, and could another adjustment preserve the selection timeline? 4. A participant asks to replace a hands-on safety demonstration with a written explanation. → Likely KEEP the demonstration requirement while considering whether timing, setting, equipment, or audience can change: a written explanation may not demonstrate the same skill.

Debrief questions

  • What changed when you were allowed to choose CHECK FIRST instead of automatically granting or denying the request?

👂 Listen for

  • Naming the actual standard before deciding
  • Recognizing when information is missing

👀 Watch for

  • Automatic yes or automatic no
  • Treating the familiar method as the standard

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 6 → Lesson Review: Separate the Standard from the Method
37–52 min

Scenario Lab: The Community Kitchen Skills Check

BreakoutMain room

Purpose

Work through a situation where the standard matters but the familiar method may not.

Set-up

  • Groups of 3–4.
  • Ask learners to open their Equity and Access Decision Guide.
  • Paste the scenario and steps into chat.

Facilitator language

“Equity does not require the outcome to be easier. It requires the route to the shared expectation to be genuinely usable.”

Instructions

  • 1.Read the scenario.
  • 2.Work through the six steps.
  • 3.Decide on an adjustment and how you would know it worked.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Scenario: A community cooking program ends with a food-safety skills check. Participants must prepare a clean workspace, handle food safely, and explain what they would do if cross-contamination occurred. The facilitator has always required each person to demonstrate alone at the front of the room while everyone watches. A participant says, “I can do the skills, but I don’t think I can demonstrate them in front of everyone. Could I do it another way?” Another facilitator replies, “If we let one person do it differently, that’s not fair to everyone who has to present.” 1. Clarify What Must Stay: What is the actual standard? 2. Locate the Access Gap: Where is participation getting stuck? What is known and what still needs understanding? 3. Decide What Can Change: Which parts of the method are essential and which are simply familiar? 4. Match Support to the Gap: What adjustment could preserve the skill requirement? 5. Make the Alternative Count: Would it demonstrate the same skill and carry equal legitimacy? 6. Review the Outcome: What would tell you access improved without changing the standard?

Debrief questions

  • Would allowing a private demonstration lower the standard? Why or why not?
  • What would actually lower the standard?
  • What understanding of fairness sits underneath “everyone has to do it the same way”?

👂 Listen for

  • The skills (not the audience) as the standard
  • An alternative judged against the same criteria

👀 Watch for

  • Removing the demonstration entirely
  • Asking the participant to explain why

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 6 → Build Your Toolkit: Equity and Access Decision Guide
55–68 min

Scenario Lab: Feedback That Counts

BreakoutMain room

Purpose

Show why providing another access route is not enough if that contribution has less influence.

Set-up

  • Groups of 3–4.
  • Paste the scenario and questions into chat.

Facilitator language

“Being able to submit a contribution is not the same as having that contribution influence what happens.”

Instructions

  • 1.Read the scenario.
  • 2.Work through the questions.
  • 3.Decide what must change before the next funding decision.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Scenario: A neighborhood arts program is choosing three projects to fund. Community members can speak during an evening meeting or submit comments online. At the final meeting, the committee discusses only comments made aloud. Online comments are in a document but are never referenced. One member says, “At least everyone had a way to give feedback.” • Was there an access route? • Did the alternative route carry equal weight? • Where does the process break down? • What should remain consistent? • What would need to change before the next funding decision? • Is this primarily an access problem, an inclusion problem, an equity problem—or more than one?

Debrief questions

  • Where did the process break down?
  • What does “equal weight” mean here?

👂 Listen for

  • Equal weight does not mean every suggestion must be adopted—it means each route is considered legitimately using the same decision criteria

👀 Watch for

  • Stopping at access (“there was a form”)

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 6 → Build Your Toolkit: Equity and Access Decision Guide (Step 5: Make the Alternative Count)
68–82 min

Equity Case Clinic

BreakoutMain room

Purpose

Apply the toolkit to a realistic situation from a learner’s setting.

Set-up

  • Groups of 3–4; one learner shares the de-identified access challenge they brought (Lesson 6 ‘Bring to Next Class’).
  • Offer the fallback scenario if no one wants to use a personal example.

Facilitator language

“You don’t need to share anyone’s private information or explain why someone needed support.”

Instructions

  • 1.Work through the six case clinic questions.
  • 2.Challenge the proposed solution with the four test questions.
  • 3.Use the facilitator prompts as you visit rooms.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

Fallback scenario: A weekend training requires a group planning exercise from 9:00–10:00 a.m. One member regularly arrives at 9:30 because the first accessible transit option reaches the site after the program starts. The facilitator has been recording “Late – incomplete participation” and says, “I understand the transportation issue, but everyone else has to be here at 9:00.” Case clinic: What must stay consistent? Where is the access gap? What can change? What support actually fits the gap? How will the alternative carry meaningful weight? How would we know whether the adjustment helped? Challenge it: Does this address the actual barrier? Does it preserve the purpose? Does it protect dignity? Does it create a genuinely fair opportunity to participate?

Debrief questions

  • What did the challenge questions change about your solution?

👂 Listen for

  • A named barrier before a named solution
  • The alternative counting in the same way

👀 Watch for

  • If the group jumps to a solution: What barrier are you solving?
  • If they say “make an exception”: What is the shared standard?
  • If they insist on the same method: Is that method actually part of the purpose?
  • If they offer another route: Will it count in the same way?
  • If information is missing: What would you need before deciding?

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 6 → Bring to Next Class: An Access Challenge
82–88 min

Digital Binder: Strengthen Your Equity Decision

Individual

Purpose

Capture the learner’s strengthened decision in the binder.

Set-up

  • Share the Lesson 6 binder link in chat.

Facilitator language

“You can revise your eLearning example or use the case we discussed today. This stays private unless you choose to share it.”

Instructions

  • 1.Reopen the Equity and Access Decision Guide and update Complete the Adjustment.
  • 2.Update your equity commitment in Pause & Check: When “Same” Feels Fairest.

💬 Paste into chat / broadcast to rooms

leadingwithcare.vercel.app/sections/equity-access/binder#l6-equity-access-guide The shared standard is ___. The access gap is ___. I can change ___ without changing the purpose. I will support access by ___. I will make sure this contribution counts by ___. I will know the adjustment helped when ___. When I hear myself thinking, “but everyone has the same ___,” I will pause and ask ___.

👀 Watch for

  • Learners whose binder isn’t saving—point them to Back Up & Restore or a note-taking alternative

📓 Digital Binder connection

  • Lesson 6 → Build Your Toolkit: Equity and Access Decision Guide (Complete the Adjustment)
  • Lesson 6 → Pause & Check: When “Same” Feels Fairest (My Equity Commitment)

Close

Reflection

  • In your Digital Binder (Lesson 6 → Your Notes): What is one sentence you would use now to explain the difference between equality and equity?

What to carry forward

  • Use the Equity and Access Decision Guide on one requirement or participation structure you control.
  • Notice whose contributions actually shape decisions in a group you lead.

Next module / pre-work

  • Complete Inquiry, Curiosity, and Navigating Lived Truth (Lesson 7) and Applying the Care-Centered Lens to Practice (Lesson 8).
  • Have the Lived Truth and Inquiry Framework and the Care-Centered Practice Review Lens available.
  • Bring the de-identified Lived Truth and Inquiry Framework example (Lesson 7 ‘Bring to Next Class’).
  • Download a binder backup: leadingwithcare.vercel.app/backup

If learners remember only two lines

Keep the standard. Question the method. Protect the shared purpose. Remove unnecessary barriers to reaching it.

Facilitator Reflection After the Session

  • Sameness: Did I treat any familiar method as though it were part of the actual standard?
  • Barrier: Did I understand where participation was becoming difficult before offering support?
  • Flexibility: Did I make clear what could change and what genuinely needed to stay consistent?
  • Influence: Were different participation routes treated as equally credible and meaningful?
  • Discussion: Did I allow learners to disagree and defend different reasonable conclusions?
  • Language: Did I unintentionally frame equity as giving some people special treatment?
  • Evidence: Did we evaluate whether an adjustment would actually improve access?
  • Adjustment: What is one thing I will change before Session 5?

Learner binder: leadingwithcare.vercel.app

← Session 3Session 5: Inquiry, Curiosity, and Navigating Lived Truth + Applying the Care-Centered Lens →