Not All "Equity" Is Created Equal: Resource Distribution, Race, and Power

• In Event: Problems of Practice in Research on Educational Inequalities: Lessons From the Los Angeles Region

Abstract

Purpose
Although equity is discussed more today than possibly ever before, educational institutions continue the systematic disenfranchisement of students of color (SOC) relative to their more privileged peers (Darling-Hammond, 2018). I assert that we are missing the mark because education leaders have different conceptualizations of equity and are distributing resources in accordance with these perspectives, which do not always benefit SOC. Through an analysis of the literature, this paper explores how various conceptualizations of equity influence school leaders’ budgetary practices and thus differentially impact SOC.

Theoretical Framework and Modes of Inquiry
Drawing from Guiton and Oakes (1995) and Allbright et al. (2019), institutional actors mainly fall into four ideological categories—libertarian, liberal, democratic liberal, and transformative—impacting their beliefs about when equity has been achieved. This paper explicitly names that all equity perspectives are not created equal, but rather, some are privileged over others and are operationalized as such. To address this privileging of perspectives, this paper draws on critical policy analysis (CPA) and critical race theory (CRT).

CPA maintains that policy and policy-setting cannot be separated from issues of power, voice, and resistance (Apple, 1982) and is used to call attention to the relative power accompanying each equity perspective. CPA rejects the notion that some equity perspectives are simply better or more popular than others, instead stressing that ideologies such as the libertarian and liberal perspectives reproduce systems of power. School-level budgetary practices are connected to district and state education finance policies and are thus impacted by ideologies and power.

CRT is employed to adequately contend with the pervasive role of race in the distribution of educational resources. CRT acknowledges that race and racism are ingrained within the fabric of American society (Bell, 1995), and highlights the ways in which "our beliefs, practices, knowledge, and apparatuses reproduce a system of racial hierarchy and social inequality" (Rollock & Gillborn, 2011, p.2). In this paper, the “beliefs” are equity perspectives, and the “apparatuses” are school budgets. CRT predicts that administrators will tend to distribute school resources in ways that privilege white middle-class values and interests. This paper analyzes the literature on K-12 school budgetary practices and educational leadership with a specific focus on critical policy and critical race applications.

Significance
Since budgets are a commonplace administrative responsibility, there may be an inclination to consider resource distribution to be a rational and neutral process. However, this is not the case—resource distribution is value-laden and power-driven (Alemán, 2006; Rubenstein, 1998). When education leaders discuss equity, they often draw from their personal perspectives of what equity is and distribute resources accordingly, which may harm SOC. Thus, a school leader’s equity perspective matters, and the equity theory implicit in school budgets matters. This study contributes additional specificity to the conversation on educational equity and will help inform equity-minded (Bensimon, 2005) budgetary practices for school-level leaders.

Author

• Taylor Enoch-Stevens, University of Southern California