While developing and promoting a shared vision is an important role for educational leaders, an increasing body of evidence demonstrates that leaders face a number of obstacles in promoting an equity-centered vision. These challenges include navigating varying perspectives on what equity means as well as leading in polarized contexts that question or oppose equity ideas and initiatives. In this chapter, the author draws upon scholarship and a decade of school and district leadership experiences to offer six questions for educational leaders to consider in developing or revising an equity vision.
Top1. What Does Equity Mean?
Although many scholars agree on the visionary role of leaders, there is considerable variation in the extent to which scholars and practitioners advocate for visions that include equality and equity and are truly for all students and families. Moreover, equity is not consistently defined or used in scholarship or the field, which further complicates leaders seeking to revise, develop, or promote equity visions. For example, the focus may be on all students’ academic success (DuFour et al., 2021), anti-racist practices (Raskin et al., 2021), a vision of inclusive practices (Frattura & Capper, 2007; McCart & Miller, 2020), eliminating the marginalization of students based on race, social economic, disability, and other social identities (Radd et al., 2021), leadership for social justice (Marshall & Oliva, 2010), and/or leading a transformative vision that includes students developing as future, justice-oriented citizens (Kose, 2009, 2011).
Thus, to develop or examine an equity vision, it is important for leaders to clarify the meaning of equity. As will be discussed subsequently, much of the opposition to equity is rooted in ambiguous and inaccurate ideas about equity (Gooden et al., 2022). Metaphorically, some of the equity disagreement and opposition is due to individuals comparing apples and oranges. In other words, attempts to forge a shared vision of equity seem futile until relevant stakeholders have developed a shared understanding of what equity means. Kendi (2019) makes a similar argument about antiracism:
Definitions anchor us in principles. This is not a light point: If we don’t do the basic work of defining the kind of people we want to be in language that is stable and consistent, we can’t work toward stable, consistent goals. Some of my most consequential steps toward becoming antiracist have been the moments when I arrived at basic definitions. (p. 17)
An important starting point is to distinguish equality and equity. Equality and equity are sometimes used interchangeably, and the meaning of these ubiquitous terms varies amongst scholars and practitioners. Equality may be critiqued when it is interpreted to mean sameness or treating all students the same. But equality and equity are both important (Radd et al., 2021; Williams, 2022). A major goal of equality is for all students to reach desired outcomes. Equal outcomes may include content area proficiency, a desired grade point average, high school graduation, cultural competence, social-emotional skills, or wellness. Equality might be assessed by the proportionality (and avoidance) of negative outcomes, such as suspensions, expulsions, school dropouts, depression, harassment, or assaults. Similarly, equality and equity goals are often labeled with the language of excellence to signal that the goal is not for equal mediocre, low, or undesired outcomes (DuFour et al., 2021; Childress et al., 2013). Equality may also include access to desired opportunities (e.g., particular programs, field trips, etc.).
While disparities may occur among individuals or groups, inequalities are typically centered on social group or social identity disparities. These disparities may exist along racial, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual identity, language, or other social group lines (Radd et al., 2021). Disparities may be compounded by intersecting identities (e.g., students of color who are also low-income). As for the interpretation of why these disparities exist, rather than deficit thinking theories that suggest the biological or cultural inferiority of social groups, equity-centered theories explain disparities by recognizing the negative influence of historical, social-political, and institutionalized barriers (Banks & Banks, 2019; Nieto & Bode, 2017; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017).