Equity in Process: Inhibiting School Leaders’ Equitable Practices within the School Improvement Planning Process

• In Event: Shifting Paradigms: Understanding Critical Policy Analysis as a Lens for Equity-Focused Education Policy Research

Abstract

Objectives

Redressing inequities has become an integral part of policy efforts to improve education in general and schools in particular (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). 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.

It is necessary to uncover how school leaders are implementing this process as their implementation directly shapes their ability to redress inequities through the SIP process (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020). Toward that end, I ask (1) to what extent and in what ways do school leaders engage in equitable practices within the SIP process? and (2) what factors, if any, inhibit school leaders’ ability to engage in equitable practices within the SIP process?

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 (Diem et al., 2019). Further, this work rests on the notion that school leaders are better equipped to redress inequities when (a) those school leaders are framing disparities and action in relation to systemic oppression, (b) they engage in collective decision-making and further incorporate varied perspectives into their decisions, and (c) they engage in ongoing reflection around data to disrupt normalized assumptions when using data to make decisions (Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020).

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. Data sources include interviews with school leaders (n=8), district leaders (n=5) and teachers (n=5), and observations of instructional leadership team meetings where school leaders collectively engaged in the SIP process. Data analysis consisted of analytic memos (Saldaña, 2021) using Galloway and Ishimaru’s (2020) continuum to characterize the extent to which school leaders were engaged in equitable practices and identify factors inhibiting their engagement with equitable practices.

Results

I found that school leaders frame disparities and actions through overlooking systemic oppression, constrain opportunities for shared decision-making, and analyze data with limited reflection. Further, time and expertise were salient factors that inhibited school leaders’ engagement in equitable practices. More specifically, school leaders felt they lacked time to deeply discuss and reflect within the SIP process and the expertise necessary to facilitate and engage in discussions around academic data.

Significance

School leaders’ limited engagement in equitable practices suggests that the SIP process is likely to reinforce rather than redress inequities. This work raises concerns regarding how school leaders might be supported to engage in equitable practices while also offering insight regarding how the SIP process might be structured to better support school leaders to engage in those practices.

Author

• Latrice Marianno, Southern Illinois University - Edwardsville