Equity Director Voices: Leading Amidst the Conflict Campaign

• In Event: Teaching, Learning, and Leading Amidst the Conflict Campaign: Voices From Educators and Youth

Abstract

Objective

Bridging education research with scholarship on contentious politics, this fourth study explores local district leaders’ experiences of P–12 anti-equity organizing over the 2020–2022 school years. To analyze local experiences of pushback against district equity work intended to better support students of Color and LGBTQIA students, the study used interviews with district “equity directors” (EDs) across the nation. Exploring EDs’ experiences, the study analyzes how together national, state, and local forms of reactive contention led to district equity “shutdown”—school board members, district leaders, EDs, and educators suspending, restricting, or eliminating district equity work in three major ways.

This analysis examined the efforts and local consequences of opposition to district equity work during the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 school years through the experiences of 71 district EDs across 29 states and all nine U.S. census divisions. Equity director roles are mid-level central office leaders tasked with advancing DEI (see e.g., Irby et al., 2022). Using interview data with 71 EDs, the study answered the following research question: How are P–12 district leaders responding to current, nationally coordinated local opposition to district equity work, with what consequences for existing equity effort? According to EDs specifically, how, if at all, did reactive, anti-equity contention drive instances of district equity-related “shutdown” locally over the 2020-2022 school years?

Data Sources/Methods

This research used a qualitative design to explore EDs’ experiences of local opponents’ attempts to restrict district equity efforts, and subsequently, district responses to anti-equity organizing locally. Analysis primarily drew on interviews, after website review across a strategic sampling of districts most likely to have EDs (see Greene & Paul, 2021) to locate districts with ED roles; emails to such districts’ EDs; and finally, over 100 hours of interview data with 71 EDs working across 29 states and all nine U.S. census regions, seeking to interview as many EDs nationally as possible.

Theoretical Perspective, Results, Significance

This research paired EDs’ experiences of local reactive contention (Tilly & Tarrow, 2015; Wiener, 2017)—colloquially known as “pushback”—with data on district leaders’ responses, to explore instances of district “equity shutdown” amidst the conflict campaign. These forms of shutdown included censoring equity-focused communication and language, eliminating district equity-focused programming or personnel, and restricting books and learning resources. Over 90% of EDs reported experiencing some form of the national campaign to restrict learning about race, gender, and sexuality in their district; 40% of EDs reported at least one form of district equity shutdown; and nearly 25% of EDs reported experiences of personal intimidation. This study furthers scholarship on the politics of equity-focused district improvement with attention to how district leaders respond to opposition to district equity work. Further, this study provides one of the first windows into district leaders’ responses to local opposition to equity work, specifically in districts where such opposition was often strong. District leaders’ responses to local opposition are significant as they often impact thousands of educators and tens of thousands of students, with educators often looking to district leaders for guidance and equity advocacy.

Author

• Andrew Matschiner, Chapman University