The Art and Science of Educational Change: The Modern School District as a Site for Healing and Equity

• In Event: At the Nexus of Continuous Improvement and School District Research: Possibilities, Dilemmas, and Provocations

Abstract

School districts are a mainstay of American educational governance (Honig & Rainey, 2020; Spillane, 1996). Researchers studying school districts have generally drawn from three main lines of thinking. First, researchers have examined how school districts implement specific policies, often finding that educator interpretation varies from the intended policy outcome (e.g., Hodge & Stosich, 2022). A second area of school district research examines the capacity and sensemaking of school district leaders who implement instructional change (e.g., Tichnor-Wagner, 2019). Finally, a third line of school district research examines processes used for school improvement such as data use, social networks, strategic staffing, and continuous improvement cycles (e.g., Liou & Daly, 2018; Park et al., 2013; Woulfin, 2018). In all of these cases, there is an underlying assumption that the school district can serve as a site of change for instructional improvement.

Responding to a recent rise in educator stress (Schwartz & Diliberti, 2023; Steiner et al., 2022), the attempted erasure of racialized histories and curricular materials through so-called “critical race theory bans” (Stout & Wilburn, 2022), unprecedented anti-queer legislation (Block, 2022), and a call for greater attention to student well-being (Holzer et al., 2021), we build on prior school district research by arguing that the system can serve as a site of healing and equity, as well. This conceptual inquiry stems from empirical work on care, healing, and humanizing pedagogies and practices (Authors, 2019; 2020; 2022; Sosa-Provencio, 2017; Walls et al., 2021). We ask: How might school districts serve as sites of innovation towards healing and equity?

We craft a case for districts as sites of healing and equity in three parts. In part one, we critically examine extant literature on school districts from 1996 to present, sketching out patterns, gaps, and possibilities. In part two, we build on the insights gleaned from our critical examination by putting into conversation ideas taken from improvement science and continuous improvement (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d.). with recent work on care and equity, proposing a Continuous Improvement Framework for Healing and Equity. Finally, in part three, we draw on three recent studies to reflect and refine the tenets of this Framework.

Our Continuous Improvement Framework for Healing and Equity adds to the literature on continuous improvement and improvement science by lifting up the art of healing and equity work, namely: a) relationship building, b) humanizing struggles, c) centering local communities’ wisdom, d) shaping care, e) defining equity gaps, f) affective data use, g) thoughtful and healing inquiry, and h) harnessing the collective. In sum, our Framework suggests complementary tenets that add to the broadening literature base on improvement science (Authors, 2022b; Biag & Sherer, 2021; Bush-Mecenas, 2022). This Framework centers healing and equity in the interest of improvement research that “is about making social systems better” (LeMahieu et al., 2017, p. 3) by constructing more expansive, healing educational possibilities.

Authors

• Kate Kennedy, University of Cincinnati

• Lok-Sze Wong, University of North Texas