Racialized Building Blocks: A Systems View on the Policies, Infrastructure, and Leadership for Equity-Oriented Science Instruction (Poster 3)

• In Event: System-Building for Improving Elementary Science Teaching and Learning: From the Classroom to the Central Office

Abstract

Purpose
This study applies a systems-view to theorize the implementation of equity-oriented science instructional reform.

Theoretical Framework
We define equity-oriented science instruction as inclusive, relevant, and engaging for all students, particularly those who have been marginalized in science spaces and beyond. To engage in such pedagogy requires teachers to deliver science content in ways that challenge the status quo by: infusing sociocultural perspectives (Lemke, 2001) and socioscientific issues (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009); attending to issues of representation and making sociopolitical connections (Boutte et al., 2010); and demonstrating for students the potential for science to be a tool for liberation, despite its contributions to inequity (Crabtree & Stephan, 2022).

Modes of Inquiry
Bringing together literature from sociology, policy, and science education, we put forth a framework for analyzing and documenting possibilities and barriers for the enactment of equitable science instruction. This framework permits explicit understandings of how racialized macro, meso, and micro organizational elements shape the implementation of science instructional reform (Ray, 2019).

Conceptual Findings
To help address how to foster substantive, equity-oriented science instructional improvement, this framework addresses the interrelationship of policy structures, infrastructure, and leadership.

1. Policy structures equity-oriented science reform
Operating as racialized, macro-elements, numerous policies—from the federal, state, and district levels—steer science improvement efforts (Coburn, 2016). For example, NGSS, with a push for “science for all” has been embedded into national/state policies. And district policies/procedures related to hiring science educators influence the enactment of equity-oriented science reforms.
2. Infrastructure bolsters equity-oriented science reform
At the meso-level, a district’s improvement infrastructure influences the nature and depth of implementation of equity-oriented science instruction (Hopkins et al., 2013; Authors, 2018). Infrastructure is comprised of interconnected pillars of curriculum, professional development, and leadership that cultivate the learning of teachers and leaders and catalyze organizational change. Equity-oriented science teaching requires teachers to challenge traditional beliefs and practices; these shifts can only be catalyzed through coherent learning opportunities. Importantly, we will grapple with racialized infrastructural pillars. For example, racialized patterns in school funding affect staffing for science, particularly in schools serving historically marginalized students.
3. Leaders influence equity-oriented science reform
District and school leaders shape the racialized design and implementation of science instructional reform. We underscore the role of district leaders in framing the rationale for equity-oriented science instruction, creating conditions for educators to learn about science instruction, and providing resources for educators to adopt and continuously improve instruction (Elfers & Stritikus, 2014). And we point to the agency of district and school leaders to ensure teachers have time, space, and other resources for fully implementing equity-oriented science reform. As such, we attend to the logistical nuts-and-bolts of instructional improvement.

Significance
This paper contributes to understanding the implementation of equity-oriented science instructional improvement efforts by delineating how policy, infrastructure, and leadership shape educational change. By applying racialized organization theory and concepts of infrastructure, our framework offers ways to construct new possibilities for equity-oriented science instruction.

Authors

• Britney L. Jones, Fairfield University

• Sarah L. Woulfin, University of Texas at Austin