Equity is Everywhere and Nowhere: Examining Educational Leaders’ Understandings of Equity and School Improvement Planning

• In Event: Spinning in Circles or Driving Change: The Possibilities and Constraints of Racialized Change and Learning

Abstract

Objectives

Redressing inequities continues to be a persistent challenge in education (Welton et al., 2018) and, as such, has become an integral part of policy efforts to improve education in general and schools in particular (DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009; Gutiérrez & Dixon-Román, 2011; Noguera, 2008). In fact, some scholars argue that redressing inequities is a necessary part of school improvement efforts and that failing to address inequities will hinder school’s ability to improve (Dumas, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 2006). This need to redress inequities within school improvement efforts suggests that educational leaders must first understand redressing inequities as part of those efforts. However, there is limited research focusing on the intersection of equity and school improvement (Irby, 2021; Harrison & Stevenson, 2024). This study focuses on the school improvement planning (SIP) process as it is one prevalent policy lever for organizing and motivating school improvement efforts. More specifically, I ask: (1) How do state, district, and school leaders describe the relationship between equity and the SIP process? and (2) To what extent and in what ways do these descriptions vary across the state, district, and school levels of the education system?

Theoretical Framework

This study applies a critical policy analysis (CPA) lens as this lens can be particularly useful when interrogating policies like the SIP process for whether and how they reinforce or redress inequities. This work is specifically focused on two CPA concerns (Diem et al., 2019): the disconnect between policy rhetoric and implementation, and understanding the role of policy in reinforcing inequities in the broader society.

Methods and Data Sources

This study is situated within a larger case study of the SIP process in an elementary school in a Mid-Atlantic state. I conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 educational leaders (eight school leaders, five district leaders, and two state education leaders) and collected artifacts from state and district websites as well as those used within the SIP process. To analyze these data, I used critical discourse analysis (CDA) as outlined in Mullet’s (2018) analytical framework for CDA.

Results

I identified two themes in educational leaders’ descriptions of the relationship between equity and the SIP process: SIP as a process that could surface and redress inequities and equity as silent. These themes largely surfaced in varied ways across levels of the education system. For example, in relation to equity as silent, I found that the school leaders charged with implementing the SIP process were more likely to discuss equity as absent from the process while district leaders were more likely to discuss equity as implicit within the process.

Significance

These findings suggest a disconnect between policy rhetoric and implementation as district leaders in particular described equity as an implicit part of the SIP process while school leaders viewed equity as absent within that process. Equity cannot be rendered silent within school improvement efforts like the SIP process because the unintended consequence is that equity may be viewed as absent by the educators or educational leaders tasked with implementing these efforts.

Author

• Latrice Marianno, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville