University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Structures for change: involving faculty in equity-based decision-making in independent schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Structures for change: involving faculty in equity-based decision-making in independent schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Structures for Change:
Involving Faculty in Equity-Based Decision-Making in Independent Schools
Kendall Beeman
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Kendall Beeman 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kendall Beeman certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Ruth Chung
Maria Ott
David Cash, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
To create the adaptive change necessary to dismantle educational inequities, school leaders need
to involve faculty in the change process. Prior research outlines how schools use committees,
department meetings, and other methods to involve faculty in change; however, there is limited
research on the efficacy of these structures. This study fills that gap by examining the
relationship between the use of the structures to involve faculty in change and the perceived
degree of faculty involvement in equity-based change. This research took an explanatory
sequential mixed-methods approach utilizing a survey of 206 independent school teachers and
in-depth interviews with ten of these teachers. The first research question examined the
frequency of use and the perceived usefulness of six structures through which independent
schools involve faculty in equity-based decision-making. The study found that committees and
department meetings were both used most often and perceived to be most useful by faculty. The
second research question sought to better evaluate the usefulness of the structures by comparing
the frequency of use to the perceived degree of faculty involvement in decision-making. Multiple
regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the use of committees, full-faculty
meetings, and open forums and a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based
decision-making. The third research question aimed to identify any racial or gender differences
in the results. There were no gender-based differences in the perceived degree of faculty
involvement at schools, but there were racial group differences. There were no racial or gender
differences between perceived structure usefulness. The final research question used qualitative
research to seek to explain the results of the study, particularly the positive correlation between
the use of committees and full-faculty meetings and a higher degree of perceived faculty

v
involvement. The analysis revealed that committees effectively involve faculty in equity-based
change when they are given value, have a clear purpose, and have structures for reporting out to
the faculty. Further, full-faculty meetings effectively involve faculty in equity-based change
when they provide faculty a chance to discuss ideas in small groups and share the feedback with
administrators.

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Cash, Dr. Chung, and Dr. Ott, for their
support with my research. Thank you to Dr. Cash for his feedback throughout the process. Thank
you to Dr. Chung for her support with the quantitative research and for taking the time outside of
class to teach me to conduct quantitative analysis. Thank you Dr. Ott for the thoughtful feedback
on the proposal. I would also like to thank the educators who participated in this study both
through the survey and the interviews.

Table of Contents
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Significance of the Study 4
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 6
Organization of the Study 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review 10
Introduction 10
Theoretical Framework 10
Participative Decision-Making 12
Historical Context 12
Value of Participative Decision-Making 13
Job-Satisfaction 14
Commitment 15
Counter Arguments 16
Decision-Making Structures for Involving Faculty 18
Committees 20
Professional Learning Communities 21
Teacher Leadership 22
Teachers' Unions 22
Effectively Involving Teachers in Change 23

Conditions 24
Areas of Influence 24
Barriers 25
Involving Teachers in Equity-Based Change 26
Independent Schools 29
Comparing Teacher Involvement in Public and Independent Schools 29
Models of Faculty Participation in Decision-Making in Independent Schools 30
Equity-Based Change in Independent Schools 31
Challenges 32
Conclusion 32
Chapter Three: Methodology 33
Statement of Problem 34
Purpose of the Study 34
Research Design 35
Sample and Population 36
Quantitative 36
Qualitative 39
Instrumentation 41
Quantitative Data 41
Qualitative Data 42
Data Analysis 43
Quantitative Data 43
Qualitative Data 45
Validity and Reliability 45
Researcher Positionality 47
Summary 48
Chapter Four: Findings 49

Introduction 49
Quantitative Analysis 49
Preliminary Descriptive Analysis 49
Preliminary Correlational Analysis 52
Research Question 1 54
Finding 1 57
Research Question 2 58
Finding 2 61
Research Question 3 62
Finding 3 65
Qualitative Analysis 66
Research Question 4 66
Committees 68
Committee Types 68
Committee Selection 72
Committee Function 75
Full-Faculty Meetings 77
Faculty Meeting Structure 78
Other Modes of Involving Faculty in Equity-Based Decision-Making 83
Diversity Coordinators 83
Department Meetings 86
Reading and Research 87
Ensuring Faculty Feel Heard 88
Finding 4 91
Finding 5 92
Summary 92
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations 95

Discussion of Findings 96
Quantitative Findings 96
Finding 1 97
Finding 2. 97
Finding 3 98
Qualitative Findings 100
Finding 4 100
Finding 5 102
Recommendations for Practitioners 103
Utilize full-faculty meetings, committees, and open forums to involve faculty in equitybased decision-making. 103
Create Value for Committees 104
Use Full-Faculty Meetings to Seek Input 106
Create a Culture of Openness to Feedback and Change 107
Limitations and Further Research 108
Conclusion 109
References 113
Appendix A: Survey 12124
Appendix B: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol 13133
Appendix C: Consent Form 135

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Participants 37
Table 2: Interview Participant Demographics and Survey Selection Items 40
Table 3: To what extent has your school discussed changes in each of the following
areas with regard to improving equity? 51
Table 4: To what extent have faculty been involved in discussions on change in
these areas? 52
Table 5: Preliminary Correlational Analysis 53
Table 6: Mean Rankings of Decision-Making Structures 55
Table 7: Frequencies of First Choice Rankings 56
Table 8: Frequency of Structure Use 57
Table 9: Summary of Multiple Regression ANOVA 60
Table 10: Summary of Two-Way ANOVA Comparisons for Degree of Perceived
Faculty Involvement by Gender and Race 63
Table 11: Summary of One-Way ANOVA Comparison for Degree of Perceived
Faculty Involvement by Race 64
Table 12: Means and Standard Deviations for Race 64
Table 13: Interview Participant Demographics and Survey Selection Items 67

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of Perceived Degree of Faculty Involvement 50
`

1
Chapter One: Introduction
Background of the Problem
American educational institutions were built on exclusionary practices that limited access
to privilege and power, and independent schools are even more complicit in these exclusionary
practices (Spring, 2016). Independent schools were created to only provide access to those who
could afford an elite and separate education. Further, independent schools provide access to only
those they want to admit. While many independent schools see their work today as separate from
these origins, the @blackat___ movement in the summer of 2020 exposed the inequities still
entrenched in the fabric of independent schools. During this movement, Black students and
alums shared their stories about attending primarily white independent schools and facing both
implicit and explicit racism from their peers, teachers, and administrators (Shah, 2017). In
response, many independent schools have recommitted themselves to a vision centered on equity
and inclusion.
Heads of Schools and Senior Leaders have been central to leading these equity-based
changes. However, leaders often make these changes in silos without gaining input and buy-in
from the faculty (Evans, 2009). Independent schools have also increasingly hired diversity
coordinators or directors to lead this work (Hall & Stevenson, 2007). However, one or two
individuals cannot do equity work in schools alone. Instead, “schools must explore ways to
integrate diversity work into the mainstream culture of the school rather than simply make
“diversity” the task of a special committee” (Hall & Stevenson, 2007, p. 20). Educational
inequity is an adaptive problem that requires an adaptive transformation of the organization.
Scholars have overwhelmingly agreed that faculty need to be involved in decisionmaking and change in some capacity to implement the change effectively (Keung, 2008; Lin,

2
2014). Further, it is even more important to involve key stakeholders, such as faculty, when
making a change to improve equity and expand access, creating a more inclusive environment, or
increasing diversity. Doing so ensures that a multitude of voices is heard and represented. In
2021, only 11% of Heads of Schools and only 17% of senior administrators at independent
schools were leaders of color (NAIS - Four Key Findings from the 2021 State of Independent
School Leadership Study, 2021). Thus, faculty often represent a more diverse set of identities
than administrators. In addition, they are closely engaged with the students. Being involved in
the decisions will make them more likely to support the change efforts (Lin, 2014; iNandi and
Gilic, 2016).
While scholars agree that school leaders need to involve faculty in equity-based decisionmaking (Berg, 2021; Sağnak, 2016), many independent schools have been unable to do so
effectively. Many schools rely primarily on the committee model in their efforts to involve
faculty in change-making processes (Hall & Stevenson, 2017). Faculty members volunteer or are
recruited to join a committee at these schools. The committee focuses on a specific issue at the
school and meets many times over the year or sometimes over many years. The committee then
often presents its change proposal to the school leadership (Hardcastle, 2021). While using
committees is common, some scholars have found that teachers feel they lack power and voice
on committees (Conley, 1991). Either the teachers on the committee or the committee lack the
real power to make change. In addition, while a committee involves faculty members, it does not
always involve all faculty members. Hall and Stevenson (2007) explain that equity work should
not be the task of just one committee but the school as a whole. Thus, for change to succeed, all
those responsible for carrying out the change must be committed to it (Evans, 2009).

3
Some schools utilize faculty-wide meetings to discuss decisions and allow for more
voices to be heard. These schools may even follow these discussions with faculty-wide votes on
these decisions (Printy et al., 2009). However, this method can have drawbacks as well. In large
faculty meetings, more vocal individuals are heard, and others feel reticent to speak up (Conley,
1991). In addition, faculty-wide voting can lead to change processes taking longer or to changes
being more in line with faculty needs than those of the students (Gruber & Trickett, 1987).
Lin (2014) explains that faculty participation in decision-making is difficult for schools
to implement because of the lack of time and the vagueness of the models used in schools.
Conley et al. (1988) explain that how leaders involve faculty in decision-making varies greatly,
and not all methods effectively ensure that faculty feel involved. Thus, while there is a clear
theoretical need for faculty to participate in change processes to create equity-based change,
schools have had difficulty involving faculty in these processes in practice.
Statement of the Problem
Educational inequity is an adaptive problem that is embedded in independent schools. To
create the adaptive change necessary to dismantle these inequities, school leaders need to involve
faculty in decision-making around equity-based issues (Berg, 2021; Gant, 2021; Teitel et al.,
2021). However, while many leaders state that they would like to involve their faculty in
decision-making, there are barriers to effectively doing so.
Purpose of the Study
This mixed-methods study aims to identify the usefulness of actions taken by school
leaders when engaging faculty in equity-based decision-making. The study examines the
following questions.

4
I. What is the perceived usefulness of structures used at independent schools (committees,
open forums, faculty meetings, department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) in
involving faculty in equity-based decision-making? (Descriptive Quantitative)
II. To what extent do different types of structures used (committees, open forums, faculty
meetings, department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) predict the degree of
faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making? (Correlational Quantitative)
III. Are there racial group and gender identity differences in the degree of involvement or
perceived usefulness of structures used to involve faculty in equity-based decisionmaking? (Exploratory/correlational quantitative)
IV. How do faculty members who indicate high degrees of perceived faculty involvement
describe the way school leaders involve faculty in equity-based decision-making?
Significance of the Study
This research utilizes two interconnected theories: Lewin’s change model theory (1947)
and Khalifa’s culturally responsive leadership theory (2018). Lewin’s change model theory
divides organizational change into three phases: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Lewin’s
theory includes group decision-making as a central tool for unfreezing, driving, and sustaining a
change (Lewin, 1947; Crosby, 2020). Involving faculty in change processes supports the
sustainability of the change itself. It is associated with higher faculty morale, commitment to
change, and collective efficacy (iNandi & Gilic, 2016; Lin, 2014). Involving faculty also allows
individuals with meaningful influence on the outcome to commit to the change before it is
executed (Jacobs et al., 2016).
Culturally responsive school leadership theory contends that for schools to become more
equitable, change processes should involve the community and include multiple voices and

5
perspectives (Khalifa, 2018). A culturally responsive school is a collective effort between
teachers and administrators where school leaders empower rather than give directives (Khalifa et
al., 2016). Thus, as independent schools seek to become more equitable and culturally
responsive, involving the community, including teachers, in decision-making is essential.
While both theories justify the need to include faculty in change, there is limited research
on effective methods to do so. Some researchers have outlined the various models schools use to
include teachers in decision-making, such as principals' advisory councils, instructional support
teams, school improvement teams, lead teacher committees, and action research teams (Hallinger
& Richardson, 1988; Lambert, 2002). However, this research has focused solely on public
schools and has not explored the efficacy of the models in ensuring teachers feel heard and
included in the decisions. Further, there is limited research that connects participatory decisionmaking to equity-based change in schools.
Many school leaders are working to make reforms in their schools to create more
equitable institutions. Effectively involving faculty in change processes is essential to these
efforts. Thus, this research on effectively involving faculty in decision-making will be directly
applicable to school leaders as they seek to transform their schools. School leaders must
understand how to effectively involve their faculty in this transformation to create lasting equitybased change.
Researchers have clearly identified the need to include faculty in decision-making, so this
research contributes to further research on ways to effectively do so. In addition, this research
makes the link between prior bodies of research on including faculty in decision-making and that
on culturally responsive school leadership and equity-based change. Thus, it contributes to
research that pairs both concepts together.

6
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study is limited to faculty at independent schools. Thus, the research is specific to
this context. The questions focused on the methods used to include faculty in decision-making
for equity-based change and what conditions allow for faculty to feel heard and included.
The delimitations of this study were the number of teachers surveyed. In addition, survey
questions focused on the efficacy of existing models rather than exploring possibilities for other
models to involve faculty.
Definition of Terms
@blackat__ movement: A series of Instagram accounts created in protest following the death of
George Floyd and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer of 2020.
These accounts served as an anonymous forum for current students and alums to share their
experiences of prejudice as students at elite private high schools (Shah, 2017).
Equity: “Providing resources according to the need to help diverse populations achieve their
highest state of health and other functioning. Equity is an ongoing process of assessing needs,
correcting historical inequities, and creating conditions for optimal outcomes by members of all
social identity groups” (APA, 2021, p. 3).
Equity-Based Decisions: School changes made with a focus on being more inclusive of all
identities, providing more equitable access to opportunities, and expanding the diversity of
students and faculty.
Committee: A group of faculty and/or administrators who come together to work on a particular
issue, task, or topic for the school.
Culturally Responsive School Leadership: “Culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL) is
characterized by a core set of unique leadership behaviors, namely: (a) being critically self-

7
reflective; (b) developing and sustaining culturally responsive teachers and curricula; (c)
inclusive, anti-oppressive school contexts, and (d) engaging students’ indigenous (or local
neighborhood) community contexts.” (Khalifa, 2016, ebook).
Department Meetings: Meetings of the faculty who teach the same discipline or subject.
Distributed Leadership: “Leadership practice [that] takes form in the interactions between
leaders and followers rather than as a function of one or more leaders’ actions” (Spillane, 2005,
146).
Equity-Based Decision-Making: Equity-based decisions are any decision in which a purpose is
for the school to improve the inclusivity of all identities, provide more equitable access to
opportunities, and expand the diversity of students and faculty.
Faculty Meetings: School meetings that include the entire school’s faculty or the full faculty for
one division (lower, middle, or upper).
Independent Schools: Educational institutions that are driven by a unique mission and funded
by tuition and donations rather than public funding (NAIS - What Are Independent Private
Schools?, 2023).
Open Forums: Opt-in meetings for faculty focused on a particular topic or issue. Often led by
administrators or committees.
Participative Decision-Making: The inclusion of those with less power in the decisions
typically made by those with more power. Participation is thereby “a conscious and intended
effort by individuals at a higher level in an organization to provide visible extra role or roleexpanding opportunities for individuals or groups at a lower level in the organization to have a
greater voice in one or more areas of organizational performance.” (Glew et al., 1995, p. 402).

8
Shared Leadership: A model of leadership that shifts the responsibility for leadership from a
single leader to the other individuals who are seen as partners in change (Lindahl, 2008). As
Dary and Pickeral (2013) explain, “Shared leadership means a shift from the formal leader to a
shared leadership model resulting in shared power and decision-making” (p. 5).
Transformative Leadership: “Transformative leadership is, at its heart, a participatory process
of creative collaboration and transformation for mutual benefit” (Montuori & Donnelly, 2018, p.
321). It is distinct from transformational leadership in that leadership is not just found in one
individual but is “an “everyday, everyone, everywhere,” relational process” (Montuori &
Donnelly, 2018, p. 322).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation will be organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of
the purpose of involving faculty in change processes and its significance toward creating
equity-based change. Chapter 2 presents a literature review of prior scholarship on change
theory, faculty involvement in change, equity-based change models in schools, and change
processes at independent schools. Chapter 3 describes the methodology for this study, including
an explanation of the sample of participants, the data collection, and the data analysis. Chapter 4
presents the findings from the survey and the qualitative data collection. Chapter 5 summarizes
the findings and conclusions while discussing implications for practice.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
To research how to involve faculty in change planning, it is important to understand why
faculty should participate in these processes and what structures are currently used to involve
faculty. Many researchers have found that teacher participation in decision-making can lead to
higher rates of job satisfaction and increased support for the decisions being made (Duyar et al.,
2013; Lin, 2014; Sarafidou & Chatziioannidis, 2013). Researchers have also found that teachers
want to participate more in decision-making (Sarafidou & Chatziioannidis, 2013). While
participative decision-making can occur through informal collaboration, research also shows that
schools need structures in place to allow faculty to participate in decisions (Printy et al., 2009).
Scholars have outlined various structures used by public schools; however, there is little research
on the efficacy of the structures themselves (Lindahl, 2008). There is also limited research on
involving faculty in change in independent schools. Thus, there is a need for research on the
conditions that support faculty involvement in decision-making at independent schools.
Theoretical Framework
Lewin’s theory of change will be a central theory that guides this research. Lewin (1947)
describes change as moving from the current level to the desired one. Further, to change the
equilibrium, one needs to consider the relationships and values of all groups and subgroups
involved in the change. Lewin breaks change theory into three phases: unfreezing, moving, and
refreezing. He explains that influencing a population to make a change requires breaking an
established custom or habit. Next, the group needs to move to a new level with a changed set of
habits. Last, and key to the processes, the group needs to refreeze into the new habit to maintain
it.

10
In all levels of planned social change, Lewin found that group decision outweighs
individual decision. For example, when a group engages in a discussion that leads to the change,
they are more likely to remain committed to the change than when individuals listen to a lecture
on the reasons for the change. He explains that if an individual makes a change on their own, the
force of that change only relies on that individual. Thus, the individual’s reliance on preestablished habits will ultimately aid in the resistance to change. On the other hand, if “one
succeeds in changing group standards, this same force field will tend to facilitate changing the
individual and will tend to stabilize the individual conduct on a new group level” (Lewin, 1947,
p. 36). Therefore, group change processes ultimately substantially impact the organization's
ability to refreeze at a higher level. Lewin explains that group decision facilitates change because
individuals act as group members and more often put personal preferences to the side. In
addition, while both a lecture and a discussion may motivate individuals to change, motivation
alone does not lead to change. Motivation needs to lead to action. Group decision leads
individuals to act and commit to change because they feel more responsible for the decisions
they were a part of and the group with which they made the decision (Lewin, 1947).
Khalifa’s culturally responsive school leadership theory will also guide this research. The
theory contends that for schools to become more equitable, the community should be involved in
change, and this involvement must be inclusive of multiple voices and perspectives (Khalifa,
2018). Khalifa explains that creating a culturally responsive classroom and school requires a
joint effort between teachers and school leaders. He positions this joint effort as paramount to
transformational leadership. In doing so, culturally responsive leaders empower their faculty to
make change rather than simply giving directives. Further, culturally responsive school leaders
create decision-making groups that are inclusive of non-dominant groups and diverse viewpoints,

11
especially those that are different from the leaders’ own viewpoint and identity (Terrell et al.,
2018).
Participative Decision-Making
In research on schools, group decision-making is often referred to as participative
decision-making. As Bouwmans et al. (2017) explain, “Participative decision-making implies
that the decision-making process is not regulated by and reserved for team leaders and a few
teachers, but that each team member has the opportunity to participate in decision-making” (p.
73). Further, participative decision-making theory argues that involving subordinates in decisionmaking is most effective when they can contribute expertise and the decision is personally
relevant (Hoy & Tarter, 1993). Participative decision-making describes the efforts of those at a
higher level in an organization to involve those at a lower level in decisions that impact
organizational performance (Bouwmans et al., 2017).
Historical Context
In 1986, there was a significant push at the national level to involve teachers in decisionmaking. The Carnegie Commission published a report calling for schools to give teachers greater
voice in school-wide decision-making. The National Governors Association also issued a similar
call for teachers to become more involved in school decision-making. The National Education
Association and the National Association of Secondary School Principals also jointly produced a
report calling for increased teacher participation in policy-making. The reform reports called for
teachers to be more involved in school decisions around curriculum, staff evaluation, facilities
planning, teacher development, budgeting, and other larger-scale school decisions. The central
argument behind both calls to action was that school reform would be most effective if those
closest to the students were involved in the change-making processes (Conley, 1991).

12
Researchers continue to make this argument, contending that because teachers are at the core of
teaching and learning, they need to be involved in decision-making, and their involvement can
bring innovative perspectives and positive change (Ni et al., 2018).
At the time, researchers found that there was a significant need for teachers to be
involved in decision-making processes. They found that while administrators have the authority
to make a change, teacher involvement is necessary for the change to be implemented because
teachers are often the ones responsible for executing the change (Hallinger and Richardson,
1988). In addition, researchers found that teachers often felt deprived of the ability to be a part of
decision-making, especially around grading policies and reporting procedures that impact their
day-to-day life in schools (Conley, 1991). Because of this historical push for teacher
participation in decision-making, there is a large body of research on participative decisionmaking in schools from the years following 1986 (Conley, 1991; Hallinger & Richardson, 1988).
The research from these years will be used to contextualize more recent research in this literature
review.
Value of Participative Decision-Making
Involving teachers in decision-making at an early stage increases the likelihood of lasting
change. Through participative decision-making, innovation becomes a collective process. Instead
of being individual actors, teachers become joint developers who take ownership of the change
and feel responsible for its success (Fred et al., 2020). Thus, researchers have found that
participative decision-making increases job satisfaction, commitment, and trust (Conley, 1991;
Duyar et al., 2013; Lin, 2014; iNandi & Gilic, 2016)

13
Job-Satisfaction
Participation in decision-making has historically been correlated with teacher job
satisfaction, lower stress levels, loyalty, and perceived organizational effectiveness (Conley,
1991; Conley et al., 1988). More recent studies have also affirmed these findings. Sarafidou and
Chatziioannidis (2013) conducted a study using a Likert scale to assess the relationship between
participative decision-making and perceived school climate, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction in
Greece. The scholars found that participation in decision-making regarding teacher issues was
correlated with higher levels of job satisfaction and feelings of self-efficacy. Lowery-Moore
(2016) found that participation in school change was associated with an increased level of
teacher confidence. Duyar et al. (2013) found that teacher collaboration with leadership was the
strongest predictor of job satisfaction. On the contrary, Lambert and Paoline (2008) identified a
negative relationship between involvement in decision-making and job stress when studying
individuals in correctional institutions. While this finding is important to participative decisionmaking theory, it is less relevant to the current study than the studies focused on teachers and
school leaders.
Scholars have consistently found that teachers do want to be involved in decision-making
in schools. The Sarafidou and Chatziioannidis (2013) study also examined the variation between
teachers’ desired and actual participation in decision-making. The study found that teachers were
not satisfied with their levels of decision-making authority and desired greater impact even
though Greek education policy encourages the participation of teachers in decision-making.
Mualoko et al. (2009) conducted a similar survey of teachers in Kenya and also found that
teachers desire a greater level of involvement in decision-making. Benoliel and Barth (2017)

14
found that the extent to which teachers were involved in decision-making was related to lower
levels of teacher burnout.
Commitment
In addition to promoting job satisfaction, scholars have found that participative decisionmaking strengthens teachers’ commitment to the decisions being made and thus improves the
outcomes. Lin (2014) explains that there is a positive relationship between teacher involvement
in decision-making and their commitment to carrying out those decisions. Because they are a
part of the decision-making process, the teachers feel more responsible for successful outcomes
from those decisions and thus are more likely to implement them. Similarly, iNandi and Gilic
(2016) explain that because teachers are often responsible for carrying out the decisions they
need to be committed to these decisions. In a quantitative study of 597 primary school teachers,
they found a positive relationship between teachers’ level of participatory decision-making and
their cognitive readiness for change (p<0.01). Likewise, Sağnak (2016) studied the relationship
between participative management and change-oriented behavior in a survey of 850 elementary
school teachers. He found a significant relationship (p<0.01) between participation in decisions
and both intrinsic motivation and change-oriented behavior. Thus, involving teachers in
decision-making increases the likelihood that the teachers will be motivated to carry out the
change.
When teachers are committed to the decisions being made, they have a greater ability to
control their work environment, and so there are improved school and teacher outcomes (De
Nobile et al., 2013). Therefore, scholars have found an indirect relationship between participative
decision-making and student achievement. Louis et al. (2010) conducted two national surveys of
4,491 U.S. teachers and 3,900 U.S. teachers. Their regression analysis demonstrated a positive

15
relationship between shared leadership and a professional community and trust. Subsequently,
having a professional community and trust in the principal had a significant positive relationship
with student outcomes. Hallinger (2011) also found that while there is no direct effect of
collaborative leadership on student achievement in elementary schools, there is an effect of
collaborative leadership on other factors that impact student achievement. Thus, he found an
effect of shared leadership on building the school’s capacity for academic improvement and the
capacity for improving student learning. Lastly, Ingersoll et al. (2017) found that teacher
participation in decision-making around school discipline procedures was strongly associated
with school achievement.
Researchers have consistently noted that for a school leader’s change to be effective, the
school leader needs the commitment of the teachers (Hallinger, 2011; Benoliel and Barth, 2017;
Lin, 2014). As Hallinger (2011) explains, “The principal is important, but s/he can only achieve
success through the cooperation of others” (p. 137). Similarly, Jacobs et al. (2016) contend that
one person cannot work alone to meet school needs, and thus shared leadership facilitates the
ability of the leader to impact the organization. In addition, it is difficult for one leader to have
all of the knowledge and skills necessary, and shared decision-making allows for multiple
experts to be involved (D’Innocenzo, et al. 2016). Because participative decision-making
impacts teacher commitment to the decisions being made, it has the capacity to impact the
success of the school (Hallinger, 2011; Louis et al., 2010; Sağnak, 2016).
Counter Arguments
Turnbull (2002) studied the relationship between teacher participation in school-wide
reform efforts in New Jersey and teacher buy-in for the decisions. Results indicated that teacher
participation in selecting the reform program was not a significant predictor of buy-in. The

16
teachers who chose the reform programs chose those that required the least amount of change.
Instead, teachers had the highest levels of buy-in when they believed their administrators thought
the proposed reform model was the best choice for their schools. However, this study cannot be
used to dismiss the positive effects of participative decision-making found by other scholars. In
the New Jersey study, the teachers needed an 80% staff agreement to adopt a reform program.
Participative decision-making is not meant to be consensus-seeking and instead is meant to
involve multiple voices in the process (Bouwmans et al. 2017). The 80% threshold is likely the
reason the teachers chose the models that required the least change because those were the only
models that could garner the support of such a large percentage of teachers.
Somech (2010) conducted a critical analysis of the literature surrounding participative
decision-making and found the research to be inconclusive. She argued that while it has an
intuitive appeal, the empirical evidence of its value is not generalizable. Her central finding was
that the links between participative decision-making and teacher and school outcomes were
context-specific. Further, the way in which participative decision-making was carried out in the
research varied significantly from school to school. She explained that the variety of structures
and processes used by different schools yielded different outcomes. In addition, for the
participative structures to achieve the intended outcomes, they needed to be executed and
sustained over time. Thus, she contended that participative decision-making does not
conclusively lead to improved job satisfaction, teacher outcomes, or school outcomes. Somech’s
analysis only highlights the need for research on effective models of including faculty in
decision-making. The analysis highlights the variety of modes used and the varying efficacy of
those modes. In addition, for faculty inclusion in decision-making to effectively produce these
intended outcomes, contextual conditions must exist (Somech, 2010). Thus, it is essential to

17
study the contextual conditions and structures that allow faculty engagement in change to
produce its intended values. The research consistently shows that faculty inclusion in change
creates a higher level of commitment to the organization and change initiatives (Lin, 2014;
Sağnak, 2016); however, not every approach to faculty involvement in decision-making
produces this outcome (Somech, 2010).
Decision-Making Structures for Involving Faculty
Since it has been established that faculty engagement in change is valuable, researchers
have outlined various models that schools use to involve teachers in change processes. While
minimal research has been done on the efficacy of the models, some research has been done to
explain the models themselves (Conley, 1991; Printy et al., 2009).
Following the national push for participative decision-making in 1986, researchers
outlined the various models used in schools to involve teachers in decision-making. Conley
(1991) found that teachers participate in decisions through department structures, teacher teams,
and grade-level meetings. In addition, while there is some participation through teacher
committees, school councils, and faculty meetings, teachers noted that they often lacked
opportunities for input in these existing structures. He also found that schools use school-site
councils, advisory boards, and decision-making boards as models for shared decision-making
(Conley, 1991).
Hallinger and Richardson (1988) outlined four models schools use to involve teachers in
decision-making: principal’s advisory councils, instructional support teams, school improvement
teams, and lead teacher committees. The principal advisory council model consists of a group of
teachers run by a teacher with the support of a principal. There are typically monthly meetings
that all staff can attend that include teacher-led discussions around a topic the principal has

18
chosen. In this model, principals make the decision and the council holds advisory power. The
instructional support team is made up of teachers from multiple disciplines who diagnose and
solve learning problems encountered in student achievement and curricular coordination. These
teachers either volunteer or are appointed by the principal. A school improvement team consists
of elected representatives who meet regularly outside of normal teaching hours to establish a
mission, set annual schoolwide goals, and collect and analyze assessment data. Lastly, lead
teacher committees receive a special assignment through their contract to provide instructional
leadership at the school often centered on teacher coaching and mentoring.
More recent studies have also outlined school approaches to involving faculty in
decision-making. As Lambert (2002) explains, “The days of the principal as the lone
instructional leader are over. We no longer believe that one administrator can serve as the
instructional leader for an entire school without the substantial participation of other educators”
(p. 37). She explains four models of shared leadership in schools. Study groups discuss research,
action research teams study phenomena in the school, and vertical learning communities work to
align skill development across the grade levels. The fourth model is leadership teams, which are
the most relevant to the present study because of the focus of this model on participative
decision-making. In leadership teams, representatives are selected or nominated by the other
faculty members. The goal of the team is to work on the school improvement plan, and meetings
are open to anyone who wants to attend (Lambert, 2002). Louis (2007) explains the role
department meetings can play in involving teachers in change. Schools use these meetings to
develop a shared vision, particularly for curriculum in the department. Lambert (2002) notes the
importance of the use of these shared leadership models with a quote from a Missouri principal,

19
“The more adept I became at solving problems, the weaker the school became” (p. 41), thus
demonstrating the importance of involving the school community in decision-making.
Committees
Printy et al. (2009) conducted an in-depth case study of four schools with well-regarded
processes for participative decision-making. Many of these schools utilized the committee
model, and teachers were either chosen by the principal or volunteered to join committees.
Committees had a say over instructional decision-making, planned professional development,
and evaluated student achievement data (Printy et al., 2006; 2009) At one school, the principal
gave committees the authority to make decisions through votes. Teachers were involved in the
school’s steering committee and many ad hoc committees that were created around initiatives
and needs. The principal summarized his role as “making sure we meet, making sure we have
agendas, making sure there is staff development, making sure we train teams of teachers how to
work together as teams, providing release time, staff contract time” (p. 519). However, this
model was rare in the study and other schools had more isolated committee models or lower
numbers of teachers who played a role on the committees.
While many of the schools in the Printy et al. (2009) study utilized the committee model,
the level of authority and efficacy of these committees varied from school to school. At one
school, teachers frequently brought forward initiatives that were carried out by committees and
decisions were highly democratic including groups beyond each committee itself. At another
school, teachers noted that participation in decision-making increased their sense of
professionalism and responsibility for the success of the school as a whole. However, the
committee model was not always effective. At one school, committees and other teams operated
independently of each other which led to competition between groups for decision-making power

20
and authority. Thus, the use of committees did not always lead to successful participative
decision-making and was dependent on other structural and leadership factors. As Visone (2021)
explains, collaborative teams are essential, but these teams cannot be isolated from one another
or from the greater school structures. Further, teachers need to believe that they have the skill set
to make decisions that will best serve the school and its students (Visone, 2021).
Professional Learning Communities
While shared decision-making was emphasized more heavily in earlier literature, it is still
present in literature today, especially through the newer emphasis on teacher leadership,
professional learning communities, and distributed leadership (Castagno & Hausman, 2017). In
the past decade, professional learning communities have come to the forefront in both literature
and practice as a model for involving teachers in school improvement (Culp, 2019; Datnow &
Park, 2018). Culp (2019) defines professional learning communities as “any organization that
utilizes reflective practices to enhance the professional abilities of its members” (p. xxi). Datnow
& and Park (2018) define professional learning communities as teacher teams centered on
student achievement. Professional learning communities are yet another way schools have sought
to engage teachers in institutional advancement. Like participative decision-making, schools
have implemented professional learning communities in a variety of different ways leading to
mixed results. In less effective cases, professional learning communities become a misnomer for
faculty meetings (Datnow & Park, 2018). In more effective cases, professional learning
communities have been able to “transform the culture of the school, the administrative
procedures, and the atmosphere of the larger community” (Culp, 2019, p. xxii). Parlar et al.
(2019) found a significant positive correlation between the presence of professional learning
communities and a climate of innovation in schools. Effective schools have also used

21
professional learning communities to advance equity by centering conversations on educational
inequalities within the school (Poekert et al., 2020).
Teacher Leadership
Recent literature has also called for increased teacher leadership to strengthen teacher
empowerment and involvement in school change (Castagno & Hausman, 2017; Jacobs et al.,
2016). The increasing push for teacher leadership is based on the central idea that one person
working alone cannot effectively meet the constantly changing campus and district needs (Jacobs
et al., 2016). Teacher leadership is also an approach to distributed leadership, a model in which
the authority to make decisions is spread out across both formal leaders and non-leaders in the
school (Paulsen et al., 2016). Teacher leaders engage in leadership activities by experimenting in
their classrooms, mentoring other teachers, and working collaboratively with other groups of
teachers. Some teacher leaders have formal authority for coordination and management within
the school and others have informal authority through social capital and collaborative work. In
either case, teacher leadership empowers individual teachers who are high-performing and
committed to supporting school change (Jacobs et al., 2016). However, this study is focused on
engaging all faculty in the unfreezing and changing process, especially those who may otherwise
resist it. Thus, because teacher leadership just involves certain high-performing teachers, it will
not be a focus of this study.
Teachers' Unions
In public schools, teachers' unions play an important role in the way decisions are made
and are one mode through which some teachers are involved in decision-making. Teachers'
unions make collective bargaining agreements with administrators which regulate many aspects
of teachers’ work and school operations. Collective bargaining agreements cover topics such as

22
teacher assignments, teacher evaluations, class size, student placement, curriculum, preparation
periods, the frequency of meetings, the school schedule, and non-instructional duties (Cowen &
Strunk 2015; Strunk, 2011). Local unions negotiate these contracts with administrators, and
teachers may be involved in these negotiations depending on their role in the union and the
bylaws for developing these contracts. Thus, in states and schools with collective bargaining
agreements, these decisions are predetermined by union contracts and the administrators
negotiate with the unions to make any change in these areas (Strunk et al., 2018). In private
schools, on the other hand, administrators have the authority to make these decisions and are
responsible for determining the extent to which they involve faculty members in the process.
Even though unions are largely responsible for decisions regarding non-teaching duties, class
sizes, and teacher assignments, Ingersoll's (2006) analysis of the Schools and Staffing Surveys
showed most teachers only feel like they have a minor influence on these policies. Thus, while
teacher unions may be teacher-driven, they should not be seen as the only solution for teacher
involvement in decision-making.
Effectively Involving Teachers in Change
Conley et al. (1988) explain that while participation in decision-making is associated with
positive outcomes, this participation is not guaranteed to achieve results. Instead, the results are
dependent on the structures created by the leader to support decision-making and the school
culture. They explain that “when employees have the formal authority to make decisions, but
their actual discretion is tightly circumscribed by prescribed agenda, organizational norms,
resource limitations, or similar factors, the purported benefits of participation strategies are often
minimal or nonexistent” (Conley et al., 1988, p. 260). Therefore, the conditions and structures
around shared decision-making are important to the ability of those models to impact change.

23
Conditions
Printy et al. (2009) found that schools with successful participative decision-making had
a few commonalities in culture and leadership style. These schools had respectful relationships
between administration and faculty where the leaders recognized the importance of teacher
contributions. Further, the decisions teachers were involved in were consequential ones that
would impact teaching and learning rather than purely managerial ones. Where participative
decision-making was effective, teachers analyzed data and developed programming and
instructional strategies. Each effective school had policies and structures that enabled
participative decision-making. The structures “established expectations that these learning and
decision-making interactions would occur…[and] served as guidance for facilitation for how
they would occur and what they would concern” (Printy et al., 2009, p. 528). Thus, it is
necessary for structures for participative decision-making to be in place for this type of decisionmaking to occur.
There is limited research on the models of participative decision-making in schools and
their efficacy. Lindahl (2008) explains that shared leadership is largely untested as most schools
rely on hierarchical leadership models involving only a few, selected teachers in leadership roles.
Thus, there is a need for additional research on how schools can increase the level of teacher
participation in decision-making.
Areas of Influence
To understand where teachers currently have influence, Ingersoll (2006) examined data
from the Schools and Staffing Survey, a national survey of public and private school teachers
and administrators. He found that teachers in all contexts indicated that they have the greatest
degree of control over course objectives, homework levels, grading standards, and concepts

24
taught. While they indicated moderate to major levels of control over these classroom-based
decisions, teachers indicated less than moderate levels of control over school-wide instructional
decisions. These school-wide decisions included changes in the curriculum, textbooks, and
overall instructional program and offerings. On average, teachers also indicated less than
moderate influence on resource allocation decisions and administrative decisions such as
schedule and hiring.
Lindahl (2008) argued that a central reason schools have difficulty with models of shared
decision-making is that the types of decisions allocated to teachers are inconsequential. For
example, when site-based management is focused on minutiae such as buses, books, and
schedules, that were more related to management than to leadership, the teachers realized that
these decisions were time-consuming and did not directly impact student learning. Thus, teachers
in these cases resist shared decision-making because they do not see it as worthwhile.
Principals have difficulty giving up control over larger areas of impact (Lindahl, 2008;
Weiner and Woulfin, 2018). In a qualitative study of teacher leaders, Weiner and Woulfin (2018)
found that principals had difficulty sharing authority over topics that were traditionally in their
domain such as school policies and the creation of a mission or vision. Thus, teacher leaders
became frustrated that they were unable to impact system-level changes in their schools. Lindahl
(2008) explains that principals often gain their positions because of their strengths as hierarchical
leaders who take command of situations; thus, it is difficult for principals to take the opposite
approach and give up control.
Barriers
Scholars have also identified numerous barriers to involving faculty in decision-making.
Lin (2014) explains that teachers may not have the necessary knowledge about the operation and

25
outcome of school policies, especially regarding budget and staffing decisions. Scholars also
identified concerns that teachers would complain about an increased workload, political
pressures of decisions, and the vagueness of many of the models used for shared decisionmaking (Lin, 2014). Jacobs et al.’s (2016) study focused on teachers who were given leadership
opportunities. However, he found that these teacher leaders still strongly resisted change.
Mayer et al. (2013) conducted a two-year study of six schools that were part of an
initiative to increase teacher decision-making authority. Only two of the six schools could
implement greater teacher agency, and the researchers found that school culture and principal
support for decision-making structures impacted these results. In some schools, the environment
was highly political as teachers competed for influence through relationships with leaders rather
than through structures and data. The leaders at the unsuccessful schools also did not attach
themselves to the success of the reform or purposefully implement structures to improve teacher
involvement in decision-making. Lindahl (2008) also noted that shared decision-making can
become problematic when no one feels directly accountable for the outcome. Thus, there must be
processes in place for the leader to guide the decision-making toward a shared vision and resolve
contentions between parties as they arise.
Involving Teachers in Equity-Based Change
Scholarship on equity-based change in schools calls for school-wide commitment to an
equity-based agenda guided by a clear vision (Teitel et al., 2021; Gant, 2021). Castagno and
Hausman (2017) conducted a qualitative study on the relationship between shared governance
and a school’s ability to advance equity-based change. One central finding was that individual
school leaders need to be committed to an agenda of advancing equity. Issues frequently arose
when there were district-wide mandates but a lack of commitment from the school-based leaders.

26
In these cases, the teachers would blame the district office for the policies, and the district office
would blame the teachers for being unable to implement the policies. Similarly, Teitel et al.
(2021) argue that enacting equity-based change requires a clear shared vision and shared
ownership of that vision across the school. Gant (2021) also argues that leaders and school staff
need a shared vision of what educational equity means and how the school can move toward this
vision.
In addition to this shared vision, the leader needs to hold people accountable to the vision
and work toward it through critical reflection and dialogue (Ward et al., 2015). In a qualitative
study of 16 teachers from 14 different countries, Gozali et al. (2017) examined the ways teachers
discuss equity and access. They found that teacher perspectives varied significantly but
demonstrated the necessity of including teachers in these discussions. Several teachers identified
issues that arose from top-down state policies intending to promote equity that ended up
backfiring because of a lack of understanding of the school context (Gozali et al., 2017).
Ishimaru and Galloway (2018) conducted a qualitative study of two schools that involved
teachers in equity-based change through equity teams composed of teachers, administrators, and
a small number of students. In both cases, the team was operating under the theory that to make
equity-based change, a group must first raise heightened awareness of the issues and change the
hearts and minds of the educators. They found that while seeking to change thoughts and beliefs
is important, doing so does not automatically translate into changes in practice and policy. They
also argued that these teams were not able to make substantial change because of the top-down
structural norms in schools that inhibit teachers from making policy and organizational change.
They propose that participative decision-making would provide the framework to make changes

27
to current practices while still building new knowledge and understanding, thus substantiating
the need for this research.
Many schools involve teachers in equity-based change through professional learning.
Poekert et al. (2020) conducted a systematic literature review of professional learning focused on
educational equity. In this study, the researchers found that ongoing dialogue and inquiry are
essential to bringing about equity-based change. In addition, they advocate for the use of
professional learning communities (PLCs) to advance equity. They contend that PLCs make
equity inquiry routine and center conversations on race and inequities. Park (2018) also argues
that professional learning communities are valuable to creating equity-based change because
they normalize conversations around race and inequities. Ezzani (2018) found that involving
teachers in the leadership of PLCs transformed school culture to empower teachers to be a part of
equity-based change. Furthermore, Reed and Swaminathan (2016) examined how one school
leader used distributed leadership in tandem with professional learning communities and social
justice leadership. The leader created an inclusive leadership team and collaborative structures
for teachers to participate in equity-based change. The research demonstrated that school leaders
need to utilize a combination of leadership modalities to bring about substantive change.
Berg (2021) contends that involving teachers in equity-based change is essential for the
change to be effective. She states that “the inequitable systems …have become part of the
wallpaper,” and thus, teachers need to engage in collaborative inquiry to transform our schools
(p. 42). She explains that through collaborative inquiry cycles, teachers commit to addressing a
specific inequity and analyzing data together to both change the targeted inequity and build a
stronger understanding of inequities in education as a whole. Further, without these systems for
investigating educational inequities, teachers often avoid making suggestions around equity-

28
based change because they fear they will be viewed as complainers or as they are not taking
accountability for what is happening in their classrooms (Berg, 2021). Thus, systems through
which teachers can intentionally investigate inequities are essential to involving them in this
change.
Independent Schools
Non-public schools are privately financed and mission-driven. Independent schools are
private institutions operating as tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations funded by tuition
and donations. While private schools may be religious or governed by another corporation,
independent schools are governed by an independent board of trustees and thus are allowed
significant latitude. They operate according to contract law rather than constitutional law. Thus,
independent schools operate without outside interference and have the opportunity to experiment
in a way that is not always possible with governmental mandates (Gulla, 2021).
Comparing Teacher Involvement in Public and Independent Schools
Ingersoll (2006) studied Schools and Staffing Survey data and found that teachers in
private schools reported a higher level of control over school decisions than teachers in public
schools. This difference was particularly consistent when school size was taken into account. In
large public schools, 41% of teachers reported having a great deal of influence on decisions
regarding academic instruction, and 14% of teachers reported having a great deal of influence
over social decisions. On the other hand, in small private schools, 51% of teachers reported
having a great deal of influence on academic instruction, and 21% of teachers reported this level
of influence on social decisions. Thus, teachers in private schools report a somewhat higher level
of influence on decision-making than their counterparts in public schools even though teachers in
private schools do not have the structure of a union for voices to be heard. This difference may

29
also be due to the lack of state and federal policy influence on private schools, allowing for
greater decision-making flexibility.
Ceng (2016) also compared teacher involvement in decision-making between
independent and public schools through a dissertation survey of 82 teachers. Regardless of the
type of school, Ceng (2016) found that the best predictor of the perception of effective leadership
was the opportunity for teachers to participate in discussions related to larger-scale decisionmaking. 92% of private school respondents and 84% of public school respondents agreed to
some degree that there was an opportunity to discuss topics relevant to school operations. 92% of
private school teachers and 51% of public school teachers reported that their principal has
approached faculty or staff regarding school-wide decisions. Interestingly, he also found that
male teachers were more likely to report having a voice in decision-making at schools regardless
of school type. However, no statistical tests were run in the research to determine if this
comparison was significant or generalizable. Thus, there is a need for additional research on the
types of decision-making that involve such large percentages of respondents in independent
schools. There is also reason to examine teacher demographic differences in these results.
Models of Faculty Participation in Decision-Making in Independent Schools
The research on change models at independent schools is limited. Similar to public
schools, independent schools use committees, advisory councils, and full faculty meetings to
make decisions. Many Quaker-independent schools utilize a consensus decision-making model
(Dougherty, 2008). Consensus decision-making is predicated on the principle that everyone
involved in the decision agrees. The Quaker school in Dougherty's (2008) study utilized both
consensus decision-making and top-down decision-making models. He found that faculty valued

30
meetings driven by consensus decision-making. These meetings would occur to determine if a
student should not be asked back to the school and to determine student awards.
D’Entremont (2016) researched independent school leaders and openness to change in
independent schools. In his findings, he found that independent school leaders support faculty
involvement in school change by holding full faculty brainstorming sessions, pre- and post-year
reflection faculty meetings, and open sessions to discuss concerns of the community.
Independent school leaders also typically involve all community members, including teachers, in
their strategic planning process every 5-10 years. In these processes, schools identify major areas
of focus for the school as it looks forward (National Association of Independent Schools, 2007).
Equity-Based Change in Independent Schools
Few scholars have studied equity-based change at independent schools, and those who
have, have only done so at the dissertation level. Smith (2021) and Gross et al. (2022) each
conducted qualitative studies in independent schools to understand how these schools are
operationalizing diversity initiatives. Both studies found that independent schools were most
often hiring diversity coordinators and establishing affinity groups. In addition, Smith (2021)
found that schools were focusing on educational curriculum, recruitment and hiring, professional
development, and retention. Perez del Toro (2017) conducted a similar study and also found that
schools focused on curriculum, professional development, and hiring directors of diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Additionally, she found that schools were focused on recruiting
underrepresented students and establishing equity committees.
Perez del Toro (2017) detailed two committees from her qualitative research that
involved faculty in equity-based decision-making. The school’s overall committee was called the
Supporting a Diverse Community (SDC) committee. The committee included 27 members from

31
all school divisions and in roles as teachers, students, division heads, staff members, and trustees.
The school also had a lower school-specific committee titled the Justice, Action, Inclusion, and
Diversity Committee (JAID). This committee involved both teachers and students and focused
on equity-based curriculum decisions in the lower school. In Perez del Toro’s (2017) research,
faculty frequently cited these committees as a way the school supports diverse students on
campus.
Challenges
A few scholars have identified challenges independent schools face when seeking to
make lasting equity-based change. Perez del Toro (2017) explained that equity work is often
spearheaded by faculty of color and resisted by the Board of Trustees and key administrators.
Schools have difficulty implementing equity-based change when it is not among the school’s top
priorities, and thus is not supported structurally and programmatically. Hall and Stevenson
(2017) explain that teachers and administrators often look toward the diversity coordinator to
make the change. Thus, instead of creating lasting change as a school, the leadership offloads
this work to a diversity coordinator. They explain, “One person should not shoulder the burden
of diversity work in the schools. This leads to coordinators becoming lightning rods for
resistance by being identified with change that others find threatening. Ideally, others should be
included, including Whites” (Hall and Stevenson, 2017, p. 20). Therefore, additional research
needs to be conducted to determine how schools can involve more faculty in change efforts.
Conclusion
Evans (2009) highlights six key modes of building a successful culture of participatory
decision-making. First, he argues that leaders must be clear about decision-making and the level
to which teachers will be involved in the process and the ultimate decision. Second, he advocates

32
for the use of more informal structures rather than formal ones. He argues against the creation of
many official committees that make formal recommendations and instead for an open-door
policy and open meetings. Third, he explains that leaders should seek informal ways for staff to
assume leadership roles. Instead of taking and managing concerns, a leader should see problems
as “opportunities to empower staff” (p. 249). Fourth, he advocates for flexibility in plan
implementation, and fifth, being open to conflict in implementing change. Lastly, he explains
that a key vehicle for empowerment is staff meetings devoted to the question, “How are we
doing?” (p. 250). These opportunities allow leaders to “gather feedback and empower people,
reduce resistance and reinforce collegiality, and build momentum for change” (p. 251). While
Evans (2009) makes these arguments based on a breadth of experience and expertise as an
educational leadership scholar, these assertions do not result from an empirical study. Further,
there is a gap in the empirical literature on the conditions that support participatory decisionmaking, particularly in independent schools.
In the 2021 Survey of Independent School Innovation Leaders conducted by the National
Association of Independent Schools, 56% of the 388 administrators surveyed cited teacher
resistance as a barrier to implementing new programs (National Association of Independent
Schools, 2022). Thus, there is a need for additional research to support teacher involvement in
decision-making and, ultimately, enable schools to innovate and lead change that is supported by
all constituencies. This research fills this gap by examining the extent to which various factors
support faculty participation in decision-making in independent schools.

33
Chapter Three: Methodology
Statement of Problem
Independent schools are actively seeking to improve equity, diversity, inclusion, and
belonging. Scholars tend to agree that involving faculty in decision-making is key to culturally
responsive leadership and long-term commitment to change initiatives (Khalifa, 2018). Thus, to
dismantle inequities in independent schools, leaders need to involve faculty in decision-making
around equity-based issues. However, while many leaders state that they would like to involve
their faculty in decision-making, there is limited research on how to do so effectively.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this mixed-methods study is to identify the usefulness of actions taken by
school leaders in engaging faculty in equity-based decision-making. First, I determined the
perceived usefulness of the decision-making structures being used at independent schools. Next,
I examined the relationship between the decision-making structures being used and perceived
faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making through a quantitative approach. I also
determined whether there was a relationship between race and gender and these results. Finally, I
explored the conditions that teachers identify as contributing to the usefulness of each structure
through a qualitative approach. The following questions guided the research.
I. What is the perceived usefulness of structures used at independent schools (committees,
open forums, faculty meetings, department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) in
involving faculty in equity-based decision-making? (Descriptive Quantitative)
II. To what extent do different types of structures used (committees, open forums, faculty
meetings, department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) predict the degree of
faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making? (Correlational Quantitative)

34
IV: Structures used (committees, open forums, faculty meetings, department
meetings, informal conversations, surveys).
DV: Degree of perceived faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making.
III. Are there racial group and gender identity differences in the degree of involvement or
perceived usefulness of structures used to involve faculty in equity-based decisionmaking? (Exploratory/correlational quantitative)
IV: Race and gender.
DV: Degree of perceived faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making.
IV. How do faculty members who indicate high degrees of perceived faculty involvement
describe the way school leaders involve faculty in equity-based decision-making?
(Qualitative)
Research Design
This mixed-methods study took an explanatory sequential approach. In an explanatory
sequential design, the quantitative data is the focus and the start of the study. Qualitative data is
then used to support the explanation of the results (Lochmiller & Lester, 2016). I started by
conducting a quantitative survey of 206 classroom teachers at independent schools in the United
States. The survey asked participants about the extent to which their school involves teachers in
equity-based decision-making and their perceptions of the usefulness of the structures utilized at
their school to involve them in equity-based decision-making (Appendix A). I analyzed the
survey according to my three quantitative research questions. I then sought to gain insight into
these quantitative results through qualitative interviews of 10 teachers. I identified interviewees
who indicated that their school uses one or more of the positively correlated structures and
represented the diversity of the survey participants. The goal of the interviews was to understand

35
the conditions that allow for these structures to be useful in involving faculty in equity-based
decision-making.
Sample and Population
While all schools face equity-based challenges, this study is focused on independent
schools because of the autonomy independent schools hold in their decisions and the structures
used to make decisions. Thus, there is an increased opportunity for experimentation and design
that may not be possible with federal, state, local, and union policy influence (Gulla, 2021).
Because my focus is on the involvement of teachers in equity-based change, I focused my
research on the experiences of the teachers themselves. While school leaders are most often the
ones designing the structures for involvement, these structures are designed to ensure that faculty
feel heard and involved in the decision. Thus, it was important to study the teachers themselves
to determine the relationship between the use of these structures and perceptions of involvement
in decision-making.
Quantitative
The quantitative research primarily used a convenience sampling approach. With a
convenience sampling approach, the researcher selects participants based on the accessibility of
the participants to the researcher (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Convenience sampling is a form of
non-probability sampling. Probability sampling ensures all qualifying individuals have an equal
chance of being selected. Non-probability sampling is impacted by researcher selection
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2016). While non-probability sampling is not an ideal approach, it allowed
me to gain access to the most independent school teachers at a wide range of schools.
I first utilized snowball sampling by contacting individuals I knew at independent schools
across the country and asking them to send my survey to the faculty at their schools. This method

36
gained fewer responses than anticipated, so I moved to emailing teachers directly at independent
schools across the country using faculty directories on the school websites. Because the focus is
on involving teachers in school-wide equity efforts, I selected schools across the country that
included equity in their mission, vision, or strategic plan. I sent the survey to about 20-50
teachers at each school depending on school size. Survey participants were offered a $5 gift card
as an incentive to complete the survey.
I invited teachers from 80 independent schools across the country to participate in the
survey over six weeks from May to June 2023. To participate, respondents needed to indicate
that they work at an independent school, teach as their primary role, and their school has a
mission, vision, or strategic plan that includes equity. In the end, 206 teachers participated in the
survey. Participants taught at schools that ranged in size and grade level. Based on information
from those who submitted their email, the survey participants were from at least 70 different
independent schools in at least 16 different states in addition to Washington, D.C. Based on
survey responses, 95% of participants were teachers at schools with over 250 students, and the
school sizes were relatively evenly distributed above 250 students. The majority of participants
primarily taught in high school (N=127, 61.7%). In addition, 60.5% of participants taught at
schools that serve all grade levels from K-12 (N=124).
The participants’ gender identities closely reflected the demographics of teachers at
independent schools and their racial identities were slightly more diverse than those of the target
population. In the 2022-2023 school year, 69% of independent school teachers were female, 31%
were male, and less than 1% were non-binary (NAIS). As shown in Table 1, 66.02% of
participants identified as female (N=136), 32.04% identified as male (N=66), and 1.94%
identified as non-binary (N=4). Thus, these demographics were similar to the overall

37
demographics of teachers in independent schools. In the 2021-2022 school year, 20% of
independent school teachers identified as teachers of color. 41.6% (N=84) of survey participants
identified as teachers of color by selecting one or more races other than white. The largest
race/ethnicity represented was White (n= 125, 60.7%) with the next largest races/ethnicities
being Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander (n=31, 15.0%) and Black/African American
(N=29, 14.1%).
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Participants (N=206)
Variables N Percentage
Gender
Female 136 66.02
Male 66 32.04
Non-Binary 4 1.94
Race/Ethnicity
Asian/Asian-American/Pacific Islander 31 15.0
Black/African American 29 14.1
Latin American/Hispanic American 20 9.7
Middle-Eastern American 3 1.5
Multi-Racial (Not Specified) 8 3.9
Native American 1 0.5
White 125 60.7
School Size
Less than 250 students 10 4.9
250 - 500 students 43 20.9
500 - 750 students 60 29.1
750 - 1000 students 49 23.8

38
1000 + students 44 21.4
Primary Division Taught
Elementary 27 13.1
Middle 52 25.2
High 127 61.7
Grades Served
Mostly Elementary 12 5.9
Mostly Middle 2 1.0
Mostly High 67 39.5
K/PK-12 124 60.5
Note: Participants were able to choose more than one category.
Qualitative
The qualitative research utilized a purposeful sampling approach. With purposeful
sampling, the researcher selects participants based on identified criteria (Lochmiller & Lester,
2016). In this study, I selected participants who volunteered to be interviewed on their survey.
Participants were offered a $25 gift card for the time they spent being interviewed. Of the 206
participants, 100 volunteered to be interviewed. From this group, I selected participants who
rated the perceived degree of faculty involvement (DFI) in decision-making highly at their
schools. The DFI scale was an average of three 6-point Likert scale survey items. On these items,
teachers to rated the extent to which they agreed with a statement such as “At my school, school
leaders ensure wide participation in decisions about equity-based school improvement.”
Indicating strongly disagree was represented by a 1, and indicating strongly agree was
represented by a 6. Interview participants had an average DFI scale of 4 (somewhat agree) or
higher. I interviewed faculty at schools with higher degrees of faculty involvement because the

39
goal of the qualitative portion of the study was to explain the relationships found in the
quantitative portion. In addition, I identified participants whose schools use one or more of the
structures found in the quantitative research to be correlated with high faculty involvement in
decision-making. These structures were committees, full-faculty meetings, and open forums.
Purposeful sampling allows the researcher to identify participants with specific characteristics to
provide a deeper insight into the experiences the researcher aims to explore (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2016). Thus, purposeful sampling allowed me to gain deeper insight into faculty
perceptions of the structures used at schools to promote faculty involvement in equity-based
decision-making.
The ten interview participants taught at ten different schools in seven different states. The
demographics of the participants interviewed were mostly similar to the survey participants
overall. Five taught in high school, four in middle school, and one in elementary school. Seven
interviewees were female and three were male. Racially, the interviewees were more diverse
than the survey sample overall. Five interviewees were Black/African-American, two were
White, one was Middle-Eastern, and one was Asian/Asian-American.

40
Table 2
Interview Participant Demographics and Survey Selection Items
Pseudonym Teacher Type State Race/Ethnicity Gender
Perceived
Faculty
Involvement
Alicia HS English NH Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 6.0
Brenda MS Language NY Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 5.0
Cara HS Math CA Middle-Eastern
American
Female 4.0
Dahlia ES Science MD Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 5.0
Eli MS Language NY Asian/AsianAmerican
Male 4.0
Francesca HS Math MA White Female 5.0
Greg HS History CA White Male 4.0
Henry HS English CT Multi-Racial Male 4.0
Iris MS Computer
Science
NJ Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 4.0
Jade MS Language NY Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 4.0
Instrumentation
Quantitative Data
The primary data collection instrument was a 15-minute Qualtrics survey (Appendix A).
First, the survey asked participants three qualifying questions to ensure they met the criteria to
respond. The survey asked participants to identify various demographic information about their
school and themselves. The survey defined equity-based decision-making as decisions grounded

41
in the reasoning of the school becoming more inclusive of all identities, providing more
equitable access to opportunities, or expanding the diversity of students and faculty.
To measure the degree of faculty involvement in decision-making, the survey utilized an
instrument adapted from Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) ɑ = .78. This shared decision-making
scale instrument develops the dependent variable, the degree of involvement in equity-based
decision-making. The instrument is useful because it measures faculty perceptions of the way
school leadership involves faculty. For example, the original tool asks teachers to rate their
agreement with the statement, “Teachers have an effective role in school-wide decision-making.”
I adapted this statement to fit my research question and read, “Teachers have an effective role in
school-wide equity-based decision-making.” While many instruments measure the degree to
which the respondent feels involved in decision-making, few others focus on the faculty as a
whole in the way Wahlstrom and Louis's (2008) tool does. For the adapted scale, ɑ = .918.
The survey was also used to identify the relationship between the independent variables,
the decision-making structures used, and the dependent variable, perceived involvement in
equity-based decision-making. On a six-point Likert scale, participants indicated how often their
school used each structure to involve faculty in equity-based decision-making. Participants were
also asked to rank the structures from most useful to least useful in involving faculty in equitybased decision-making. The decision-making structures measured include committees, open
forums, full faculty meeting discussions, informal discussions, department meetings discussions,
and surveys. The independent variables were defined through research on common structures
used in schools to involve faculty in decision-making (Dougherty, 2008; D’Entremont, 2016).
The survey also included preliminary research to inform my qualitative interviews on
conditions that contribute to a structure’s usefulness. These conditions were informed by other

42
qualitative research on effectively involving faculty in decision-making. These included whether
or not the agenda is open/closed, whether involvement is open/closed, and the level of impact on
the ultimate decision, structure clarity, and meeting participation (Conley et al., 1988; Printy et
al., 2009; Smooch, 2002; Evans, 2009).
Qualitative Data
Following the analysis of survey data, I conducted semi-structured interviews with ten
teachers (Appendix B). The interviews allowed me to gain further insight into teachers’
experiences with the structures used by their school or participative decision-making and the
conditions that make these structures effective.
Each teacher was interviewed for approximately thirty minutes over Zoom. The audio
was recorded over Zoom as well. Interviews took a semi-structured approach because of the
flexibility and consistency of this method (Maxwell, 2013). Each interviewee signed an informed
consent form before the interview. I started each interview by explaining the purpose of the
research and why they were selected. I also reminded participants that their participation was
voluntary and all data would be deidentified and shared under pseudonyms. After receiving
permission to record, I began by asking participants about their role at their school. I then
defined equity-based decisions using the same language as I used on the survey. I asked the
interviewees to reflect on a recent equity-based decision at their school and describe the process
through which the decision was made. I then asked about the structures brought up in that
response and other structures used at the school. In the end, I made sure each interviewee
described how committees and faculty meetings work at their school and how they are used for
equity-based decision-making. I also ensured each participant described multiple examples of
recent decisions or conversations on equity-based change and explained the extent to which they

43
felt faculty were involved in the process. The interview questions asked for both generalized
reflections as well as the recall and description of specific class experiences. Maxwell (2013)
highlights the importance of this interview protocol design strategy to provide “greater depth of
understanding rather than simply greater breadth or confirmation of the results” (p. 104).
Data Analysis
Quantitative Data
To analyze the quantitative data, I used SPSS. I created a codebook to assign numeric
values to each data point. I standardized the dependent variable values for the adapted
Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) perceived degree of involvement scale. Numbers were assigned as
an average based on the six-point Likert scale.
My first research question is a descriptive quantitative question on the perceived
usefulness of structures used at independent schools (committees, open forums, faculty meetings,
department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) in involving faculty in equity-based
decision-making. To examine this question, I described the parametric data resulting from the
usefulness ranking of each structure. I first found the mean and standard deviation of the ranking
for each structure. I then determined the frequency at which each structure was ranked first. In
addition, I examined the data for how often each structure was used and found the mean and
standard deviation for each one. I described the frequency of use so that I could compare it to the
faculty rankings of the usefulness of each structure.
H0= The type of decision-making structure used (committees, open forums, faculty meetings,
department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) does not predict the degree of faculty
involvement in equity-based decision-making.

44
My second research question is quantitative correlational and examines the relationship
between the use of a decision-making structure and the degree of faculty involvement in equitybased decision-making at the school. To examine this question, I used a multiple regression
relating the frequency at which a structure was used to the degree of perceived faculty
involvement.
H0=There are no racial group and gender identity differences in the degree of involvement or
perceived usefulness of structures used to involve faculty in equity-based decision-making.
My final question is an exploratory correlational quantitative question. The ANOVA test
is helpful when comparing variance between multiple groups (Lochmiller & Lester, 2016). Thus,
I used a two-way ANOVA test to examine the relationship between gender and race and
perceived degree of involvement. I then used one-way ANOVA tests to examine the
relationships between gender and race alone and perceived degree of involvement. For the
second part of the research question, I utilized a 2-way MANOVA test to examine the
relationship between the perceived usefulness of each structure and race and gender.
Qualitative Data
To analyze the interview data, I categorized and coded interview transcripts in two stages
using Dedoose, a qualitative data analysis platform. In the first stage, I categorized similar data
according to descriptive labels. These included structures discussed, such as committees, faculty
meetings, and surveys. They also included more specific codes such as committee types,
committee selection, and changes made. In the second stage, I created a categorical coding
matrix according to these categories identified throughout the coding process. I examined all
coded data for each pattern to identify themes. Maxwell (2013) contends that the matrix allows
the researcher to identify patterns and develop conclusions around the data. I then examined the

45
relationship between the quantitative and qualitative data based on the trends I found in
quantitative analysis.
Validity and Reliability
To measure the reliability of my survey instruments, I used Cronbach’s alpha.
Cronbach’s alpha is commonly used in quantitative research to measure the internal consistency
reliability of survey instruments (Salkind, 2016). My central instrument to determine the degree
of involvement in equity-based decision-making was adapted from Wahlstrom and Louis (2008).
Their original instrument had a score of ɑ = .78. The adapted instrument in my study had a score
of ɑ =.918.
The content validity of independent variables was based on a comprehensive review of
research on participative decision-making in schools. Researchers identified many structures that
are used in schools and involve faculty in decision-making such as advisory councils, task-based
committees, topic-based committees, pre-and post-year reflection meetings, department
meetings, division meetings, full faculty meetings, opt-in open meetings, surveys, and informal
conversations with administrators (Dougherty, 2008; D’Entremont, 2016; Printy et al., 2009). I
categorized the structures mentioned in the research into six categories which serve as my
independent variables and are defined in the survey: committees, open forums, full-faculty
meetings, department meetings, surveys, and informal conversations. I also included an option
for participants to select others and add their responses. In field testing, participants added no
additional categories, which helped ensure the independent variables were comprehensive. In the
actual survey administration, only six responses were added and included mention of an
administrative equity team or further clarification on the extent to which voices are heard or how

46
this has changed since the pandemic. Thus, the structures provided as options were largely
comprehensive.
To ensure the validity of my semi-structured interviews, I field-tested the interview
protocol beforehand. I utilized the protocol with two teachers at independent schools who were
not a part of my research. I also identified and analyzed discrepant data and negative cases.
Maxwell (2013) explains that discrepant data should not simply be set aside but rigorously
examined to understand how it may impact the conclusion.
Finally, I utilized triangulation to ensure the validity of my research as a whole.
Triangulation involves collecting information through a variety of methods to reduce the risk of
systematic biases and allow a better assessment of the data (Maxwell, 2013). In this case, I
triangulated my data by examining survey results in conjunction with interview results. I also
utilized researcher triangulation to verify the data in the context of prior research.
Researcher Positionality
In my study, I surveyed and interviewed teachers to ask about their experiences being
involved in equity-based decision-making at their schools. In some ways, I hold a similar
positionality to many of my participants because I am also a teacher. I have taught middle and
upper school history for eight years. In other ways, I hold a different positionality because of my
interest and experience in administration. I am a student dean and aim to be a school leader.
While some of my participants may also hold this identity, the focus of my research is on the
inclusion of all teachers, not just aspirational school leaders.
My study is also focused on equity-based decision-making in independent schools. I am a
white, upper-middle-class, cisgender, woman. Thus, I have been traditionally privileged in
independent schools. I also have my own experiences attending an independent school and

47
spending my career in three independent schools. Improving equity and inclusion in independent
schools is my life’s mission because I have seen firsthand the opportunities these schools can
provide and I want to expand access to those opportunities and improve belonging for all
students within these schools. However, as a white woman, I have most often been included and
felt belonging in these schools. Thus, while improving equity and inclusion in these schools is
personal to me, it is not as personal as it may be to my participants who teach in these spaces and
are marginalized in them.
Most of my participants did not directly interact with me because they received my
survey electronically. Thus, for the quantitative portion of my study, it was most important to
ensure my survey itself did not assume certain positions of power or levels of comfort in the
independent school space. For my interviews, I was directly interacting with teachers who hold
different positionalities than I do in one way or another. It was important to ensure I did not
center my own positionality and instead focused on ensuring I was allowing them to share their
own experiences. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend identifying and monitoring one's own
positionality and potential biases rather than seeking to fully eliminate them.
Summary
This research took an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach to understand
faculty participation in equity-based decision-making in independent schools. I first utilized a
quantitative survey to identify the structures used at independent schools and then the
relationship between decision-making structures used and faculty involvement in equity-based
decision-making. I also used the quantitative survey to examine whether there were racial or
gender identity differences in perceived faculty involvement or usefulness of structures. Lastly, I
utilized interviews to better interpret and analyze the quantitative data. Interviews examined

48
teachers’ experiences with being involved in equity-based decision-making at their schools.
Chapter 4 will present findings from both parts of the study, and Chapter 5 will discuss the
implications of those findings.

49
Chapter Four: Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this study was first to investigate the perceived usefulness of structures
(committees, full-faculty meetings, open forums, informal conversations, department meetings
surveys) used at schools to involve faculty in equity-based decision-making. Second, the study
aimed to examine the relationship between the structures used at schools and the perceived
degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making. Third, the study sought to
determine if there were any racial or gender differences in the perceived usefulness of the
structures or perceived degree of involvement. Lastly, the qualitative portion of this study was
used to gain insight into the quantitative results and determine how the structures are used
effectively to increase the perceived degree of faculty involvement.
Quantitative Analysis
Preliminary Descriptive Analysis
The survey measured the perceived degree of faculty involvement (DFI). The DFI was
measured as an average of the three components from the scale adapted from Walstrom and
Louis (2008). The scale was measured with a six-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to
6 (strongly agree). A lower score indicated that the teacher perceived that faculty were less
involved in equity-based decision-making. A higher score indicated a perception that faculty
were more involved in equity-based decision-making. The histogram below describes the
perceived degree of faculty involvement for all participants (M=3.39, SD=1.18). While the mean
was closer to 3 (somewhat disagree), the mode was a 4 (somewhat agree). Very few respondents
had a scale score over 5 (agree) which would indicate higher overall levels of agreement.

50
Figure 1: Distribution of Perceived Degree of Faculty Involvement
The survey also asked respondents to rate the extent to which their school discussed
changes with regard to improving equity in multiple areas (Table 3). These included hiring
practices, grading practices, behavior practices, financial aid practices, admissions, student
support, curricular decisions, and course tracking. The responses were measured with a fourpoint Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very often). Thus, a higher value indicates a category
that is frequently being discussed concerning equity. Four categories had a mean rating of over 3
(somewhat often): admissions (M=3.23), curricular decisions (M=3.20), student support
(M=3.13), and hiring practices (M=3.12). Thus, these are the categories in which schools were
most often engaged in discussions around equity-based change.

51
Table 3
To what extent has your school discussed changes in each of the following areas with
regard to improving equity?
N Mean
Standard
Deviation
Equity and Course Tracking 155 2.42 0.98
Equity and Behavior Practices 195 2.75 1.04
Equity and Grading Practices 199 2.87 1.02
Equity and Financial Aid Practices 160 2.95 1.04
Equity and Hiring Practices 188 3.12 0.95
Equity and Student Support 194 3.13 0.89
Equity and Curricular Practices 200 3.2 0.82
Equity and Admissions 182 3.23 0.92
The survey then asked respondents to rate how often faculty are involved in discussions for any
category they had rated somewhat often or higher on the equity scale in the prior question.
(Table 4). On the faculty involvement scale, only two categories had a mean rating of over 3
(somewhat often): grading practices (M=3.05) and curricular practices (M=3.1). The next highest
were course tracking (M=2.7) and student support (M=2.63). Thus, when faculty are involved in
equity-based decision-making, it is often around classroom-focused practices such as grading,
curriculum, course tracking, and student support.

52
Table 4
To what extent have faculty been involved in discussions on change in these areas?
N Mean
Standard
Deviation
Faculty- Financial Aid Practices 123 1.59 0.9
Faculty-Admissions Practices 150 1.79 0.92
Faculty- Hiring Practices 170 2.31 1.04
Faculty - Behavior Practices 162 2.59 0.98
Faculty- Student Support Services 177 2.63 0.96
Faculty - Course Tracking Practices 113 2.7 0.88
Faculty- Grading Practices 170 3.05 0.92
Faculty- Curricular Practices 191 3.1 0.93
Preliminary Correlational Analysis
To examine the overall relationships between the major measured variables, a Pearsonproduct correlation analysis was conducted. Table 5 provides the summary. For this study, each
structure studied was directly correlated with the perceived degree of faculty involvement (DFI):
the use of committees (r = .536, p < .001), open forums (r = .503, p < .001), full-faculty meetings
(r = .603, p < .001), informal discussions (r = .472, p < .001), department meetings (r = .502, p <
.001), and surveys (r = .456, p < .001). Thus, predictably, the more a school used any decisionmaking structure to involve faculty, the more faculty members felt involved in decision-making
at their school. In this analysis, race and gender were not found to be correlated with the degree
of faculty involvement or ranking of the structures.

53
Table 5
Preliminary Correlational Analysis
Gender Race
DFI (Perceived
Degree of
Faculty
Involvement)
Frequency -
Committees
Frequency -
Open
Forums
Frequency -
Faculty
Meetings
Frequency -
Informal
Doscussions
Frequency -
Department
Meetings
Frequency
- Surveys
RankCommittees
Rank -
Open
Forums
Rank -
FullFaculty
Meetings
Rank -
Informal
Discussions
Rank -
Department
Meeting
Discussions
Race Pearson Correlation .050
Sig. (2-tailed) .482
N 199
DFI (Perceived
Degree of Faculty
Involvement)
Pearson Correlation .044 -.005
Sig. (2-tailed) .537 .939
N 200 203
Frequency -
Committees
Pearson Correlation .062 -.012 .536**
Sig. (2-tailed) .384 .868 <.001
N 201 203 205
Frequency - Open
Forums
Pearson Correlation .089 -.106 .503** .488**
Sig. (2-tailed) .207 .133 <.001 <.001
N 201 203 205 206
Frequency - Faculty
Meetings
Pearson Correlation .017 .074 .603** .453** .433**
Sig. (2-tailed) .814 .296 <.001 <.001 <.001
N 201 203 205 206 206
Frequency -Informal
Discussions
Pearson Correlation -.002 .069 .472** .363** .432** .542**
Sig. (2-tailed) .973 .331 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
N 201 203 205 206 206 206
Frequency -
Department
Meetings
Pearson Correlation -.032 .030 .502** .497** .392** .535** .518**
Sig. (2-tailed) .655 .671 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
N 201 203 205 206 206 206 206
Frequency - Surveys Pearson Correlation -.064 -.008 .457** .381** .375** .498** .426** .516**
Sig. (2-tailed) .367 .909 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
N 201 203 205 206 206 206 206 206
Rank- Committees Pearson Correlation .112 .075 -.136 -.250** .003 -.031 -.060 -.040 -.120
Sig. (2-tailed) .140 .324 .071 <.001 .965 .684 .421 .599 .110
N 176 176 178 179 179 179 179 179 179
Rank - Open Forums Pearson Correlation .057 .049 .101 .069 -.004 .195** .143 .111 .169* -.087
Sig. (2-tailed) .453 .522 .179 .360 .960 .009 .057 .137 .024 .245
N 176 176 178 179 179 179 179 179 179 179
Rank - Full-Faculty
Meetings
Pearson Correlation .003 -.055 -.124 -.025 -.159* -.124 .002 .036 .029 -.233** -.086
Sig. (2-tailed) .970 .467 .099 .739 .033 .099 .979 .634 .697 .002 .250
N 176 176 178 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179
Rank - Informal
Discussions
Pearson Correlation -.132 -.019 .141 .136 .192* .063 -.038 .070 .070 -.195** -.126 -.337**
Sig. (2-tailed) .080 .806 .061 .069 .010 .403 .617 .349 .350 .009 .092 <.001
N 176 176 178 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179
Rank - Department
Meeting Discussions
Pearson Correlation -.016 .067 -.110 -.044 -.094 -.141 -.087 -.267** -.123 -.229** -.286** -.160* -.203**
Sig. (2-tailed) .831 .380 .144 .555 .209 .061 .249 <.001 .100 .002 <.001 .033 .006
N 176 176 178 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179
Rank - Surveys Pearson Correlation -.006 -.098 .130 .095 .074 .063 .049 .096 -.021 -.133 -.305** -.282** -.144 -.177*
Sig. (2-tailed) .938 .195 .084 .207 .327 .399 .519 .201 .784 .076 <.001 <.001 .055 .018
N 176 176 178 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179 179

54
The frequency at which committees and department meetings were used was correlated with the
rank given to those structures. The frequency of the use of committees was indirectly correlated
with the rank of committees (r = -.250 p < .001). Thus, increased use of committees was more
related to a more preferable rank or lower number on a scale of 1-6. The frequency of the use of
department meetings was also indirectly correlated with the rank of department meetings (r = -
.267 p < .001).
Lastly, the frequency of use of each structure was directly correlated with the frequency
of use of other structures. Thus, the more a school used any one structure, the more likely they
were to use another structure as well. Each structure frequency variable was correlated with the
rest of the frequency variables at p <.001. For example, the frequency of committee use was
directly correlated with the frequency of faculty meeting use (r=0.453, p<.001), and the
frequency of faculty meeting use was directly correlated with the frequency of department
meeting use (r=0.535, p<.001).
Research Question 1: What is the perceived usefulness of structures used at independent
schools (committees, open forums, full-faculty meetings, department meetings, informal
conversations, surveys) in involving faculty in equity-based decision-making?
The first research question is focused on teachers’ perceived usefulness of the structures
typically used at independent schools to involve faculty in equity-based decision-making. The
structures examined were committees, open forums, full-faculty meetings, department meetings,
informal conversations, and surveys. A committee is a group of faculty and administrators who
come together to work on a particular issue, task, or topic for the school. Open forums are opt-in
meetings for faculty focused on a particular topic or issue. Full-faculty meetings include the
entire school faculty or the full faculty for one division (lower, middle, or upper). Department

55
meetings are meetings between all faculty who teach in the same discipline. Surveys are forms
sent out to the faculty to gain feedback or ideas. To examine the perceived usefulness of each of
these structures, participants ranked the structures from most useful (1) to least useful (6). As
shown in Table 1, the highest-ranked structures were Committees (M= 2.34, SD= 1.41) and
Department Meetings (M= 2.87, SD= 1.61). The structures ranked least useful were informal
discussions, surveys, and open forums. Informal discussions were ranked the lowest (M=4.26,
SD=1.59). Thus, teachers indicated that committees and department meetings were more useful
than surveys and informal discussions in involving faculty in equity-based decision-making.
Full-faculty meetings and open forums were ranked in the middle, indicating less strong
preferences for or against these structures. There was also the least variability in faculty ranking
of Committees (SD=1.41) and the most variability in faculty ranking of Full-Faculty Meetings
(SD=1.70).
Table 6:
Mean rankings of decision-making structures
Structure Mean SD
Committees 2.34 1.41
Department Meeting Discussions 2.87 1.61
Full Faculty Meetings 3.46 1.70
Open Forums 3.96 1.42
Surveys 4.12 1.62
Informal Discussions 4.26 1.59
N=179 (1 - Most useful to 6 - Least Useful)

56
To examine the perceived usefulness, I also examined the frequency at which
respondents rated each structure to be the most useful. Again, the structures rated most useful
were committees (38%) and department meeting discussions (26.8%). As shown in Table 7,
64.8% of teachers selected one of these two structures as the most useful. Thus, the structures
ranked most useful were also most frequently ranked first.
Table 7:
Frequencies of first-choice rankings
Structure Frequency Percent
Committees 68 38.0
Department Meeting Discussions 48 26.8
Full-Faculty Meetings 26 14.5
Informal Discussions 13 7.3
Surveys 13 7.3
Open Forums 11 6.1
N=179
Finally, teachers’ rankings of the structures were also similar to the frequency at which
the structures are being used at schools. Teachers were asked to indicate how often each structure
was used at their school on a scale of 1 (never) to 6 (always). As shown in Table 8, committees
were used most often (M=3.88, SD=1.14), and department-meeting discussions were used
second-most often (M=3.68, SD=1.12). Open forums were used least often (M=2.97, SD=1.19).
Thus, the structures used most often at schools were also those ranked the highest by teachers.
The frequency of use was similar to the frequency at which each structure was ranked first. The

57
structures followed the same order for both scales, except that informal discussions and fullfaculty meetings were switched when measuring the frequency of use. Therefore, schools are
typically using the structures that teachers prefer more often and those that teachers see as less
useful less often.
Table 8:
Frequency of Structure Use
Structure Mean SD
Committees 3.88 1.14
Department Meeting Discussions 3.68 1.12
Informal Discussions 3.41 1.16
Full-Faculty Meetings 3.32 1.25
Surveys 3.29 1.22
Open Forums 2.97 1.19
N=206 (1 - Never to 6 - Always)
Finding 1: Committees and Department Meetings are perceived by faculty to be most useful
and are the most commonly used structures to involve faculty in equity-based decisionmaking.
Faculty perceive committees and department meeting discussions to be the most useful
for involving faculty in equity-based decision-making at their schools. These structures were also
the most frequently used at their schools. Thus, the current structure utilization aligns with
faculty perceptions of which structure is most useful. This finding is logical for two reasons.

58
First, most administrators were once faculty, so it makes sense that administrators would also see
these structures as useful. Second, faculty perception of the utility of the structures could be
influenced by how often they have seen the structure used and how effectively it has been used at
their school site. Thus, it is important to assess utility beyond this measure. Schools are most
frequently using committees and department meetings to involve faculty in change, but that does
not necessarily mean that these are the most effective structures to involve faculty in change. It is
important to assess the relationship between these structures and the perceived faculty
involvement in decision-making to better determine which structures schools should use. Thus,
the second research question seeks to examine this relationship.
Research Question 2: To what extent do different types of structures used (committees,
open forums, full-faculty meetings, department meetings, informal conversations, surveys)
predict the degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making?
The second research question examines the relationship between the frequency at which
each structure is used at a school and the degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decisionmaking. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine this correlation. The
independent variable was the frequency at which each structure was used, measured on a sixpoint scale from 1 (never) to 6 (always). The dependent variable was the degree of perceived
faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making (DFI). The DFI was measured as an
average of the three components from the scale adapted from Walstrom and Louis (2008). The
scale was measured with a six-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
A lower score indicated that the teacher perceived that faculty were less involved in equity-based
decision-making. A higher score indicated a perception that faculty were more involved in
equity-based decision-making.

59
Ha= The type of decision-making structure used predicts the degree of faculty involvement in
equity-based decision-making.
For the dependent variable, the degree of perceived faculty involvement in equity-based
decision-making (DFI), a multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine if the
frequency of use of each structure predicted DFI. As shown in Table 9, the overall regression
model was significant with the frequency of use of decision-making structures predicting DFI
[F(6, 199)= 32.565, p < .001]. The r-squared accounted for 49.5% of the variation in overall DFI
(R2 = .495, p < .001). Thus, a higher frequency of structure use was correlated with a higher
perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity–based decision-making. Among the various
decision-making structures used, three of the six decision-making structures had significant
relationships with DFI: committees, open forums, and full-faculty meetings. The betas revealed
that committees accounted for 21% of the variation in DFI (p = .001). Open forums accounted
for 17% of the variation in DFI (p =.006). Full-faculty meetings accounted for 30% of the
variation in DFI (p < .001). There was not a significant relationship between informal
discussions, department meetings, surveys, and DFI.

60
Table 9:
Summary of Multiple Regression
Model R2 F B SE βeta Sig
Regression .495 32.565 <.001
Committees .22 .07 .21 .001
Open Forums .17 .06 .17 .006
Full-Faculty Meeting
Discussions
.28 .06 .30 <.001
Informal Discussions .08 .07 .08 .232
Department Meetings .09 .07 .08 .221
Surveys .08 .06 .08 .185
Teachers at schools that used committees, open forums, and full-faculty meetings more
often were also more likely to indicate a higher degree of overall faculty involvement in equitybased change. Of the structures, committees were used most often in schools (M=3.88,
SD=1.41), and this regression analysis demonstrates that their use accounts for 21% of the
variation in the perceived degree of involvement. In addition, 38% of faculty ranked committees
first when ranking structures from most useful to least useful. While it is helpful for faculty to
perceive the structure as useful, this correlation demonstrates that the use of the structure also
predicts a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement.
Full-faculty meetings and open forums were used less often in schools but directly
correlated with the perceived degree of faculty involvement. Full-faculty meetings accounted for

61
the highest level of variation in the DFI (β=30%). Therefore, faculty at schools that used fullfaculty meetings more often to involve faculty in decision-making were more likely to have a
higher perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making. However, fullfaculty meetings were only the fourth most frequently used of the six structures. Similarly, open
forums were used the least often at schools (M=2.97, SD=1.19); however, a greater use of this
structure accounted for 17% of the variation in DFI.
On the other hand, department meetings and informal discussions were used more often
but were not found to be associated with the perceived degree of faculty involvement.
Department meetings were second-highest ranked by faculty (M=2.87, SD=1.61) and the
structure used second most often (M=3.68, SD=1.12). However, they did not predict a higher
level of perceived faculty involvement in equity-based change. Informal discussions were the
structure used third most frequently (M=3.41, SD=1.16) but were not found to be correlated with
the degree of perceived faculty involvement. Informal discussions were also ranked the least
useful by faculty (M=4.26, SD = 1.59)
Finding 2: The use of committees, open forums, and full-faculty meetings each predict a
higher degree of perceived faculty involvement in equity-based change.
The use of committees, full-faculty meetings, and open forums were each correlated with
higher degrees of faculty involvement in equity-based change. The use of full-faculty meetings
accounted for 30% of the variation in DFI. The use of committees accounted for 21% of the
variation in DFI. The use of open forums accounted for 17% of the variation in DFI. Thus, the
more often schools used any one of these structures, the more likely the respondent was to rank
indicate that the school involved faculty in equity-based change. The first finding shows that
committees were the structure used most often in schools. So, this finding aligns with the current

62
utilization. However, full-faculty meetings and open forums were used less often and were the
fourth and sixth most used, respectively. Thus, there is reason to believe schools seeking to
increase perceived faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making may consider increasing
their use of full-faculty meetings and open forums to discuss equity-based change. Department
meetings, informal discussions, and surveys were not found to be correlated with a higher degree
of faculty involvement. So, even though department meetings are used frequently at schools and
ranked highly by faculty, they were not found to be correlated with a higher perceived degree of
faculty involvement.
Research Question 3: Are there racial group and gender identity differences in the degree
of involvement or perceived usefulness of structures used to involve faculty in equity-based
decision-making?
The third research question examines the relationship between race and gender and the
perceived degree of faculty involvement in decision-making. This question also examines the
relationship between race and gender and the perceived usefulness of each structure. The
independent variables of race and gender included three racial groups (Asian/Asian-American,
White, and Black/African American) and two genders (male and female). Due to the limitations
of the sample size, racial and gender groups comprising less than 10% of the overall sample
population were excluded from the analysis to ensure enough data points were used to measure
the data accurately. The sample population was 60.7% White, 14.1% Black/African-American,
and 15% Asian-American/Pacific Islander. The sample population was 66.02% female and
32.04% male. All other racial and gender groups comprised less than 10% of survey participants.
Participants who identified in two of the three racial categories analyzed were excluded from this
comparison.

63
For the first part of the research question, the dependent variable was the degree of
perceived faculty involvement scale (DFI), a six-point scale with 1 indicating minimal
involvement and 6 indicating maximal involvement. As shown in Table 10, a two-way ANOVA
analysis demonstrated that there was not a significant relationship between race or gender and
DFI. In addition, a one-way ANOVA analysis did not show a significant relationship between
gender and DFI. However, as shown in Table 11, a one-way ANOVA analysis using race found
a significant relationship between race and DFI, F (2, 177) =3.539, p=0.031. Asian/AsianAmericans reported the lowest DFI (M=3.09, SD=1.21), then White Americans (M=3.43,
SD=1.23), and the highest was Black/African-Americans (M=3.91, SD=0.92) (Table 12). Thus,
Black/African Americans indicated the highest perceived degree of involvement in decisionmaking, and Asian/Asian-Americans indicated the least perceived degree. Therefore, there is a
relationship between race and the degree of perceived faculty involvement.
Table 10:
Summary of Two-Way ANOVA Comparisons for Degree of Perceived Faculty Involvement by
Gender and Race
Variable Test Statistic df Sig
Race 7.105 2 .089
Gender .825 1 .451
Race*Gender 1.214 2 .658

64
Table 11:
Summary of One-Way ANOVA Comparison for Degree of Perceived Faculty
Involvement by Race
Variable Test Statistic df Sig
Race 9.945 2 .031
Table 12:
Means and Standard Deviations for Race
Variable N Mean SD
Asian/Asian-American 31 3.09 1.21
Black/African-American 27 3.91 .93
White 122 3.43 1.23
N=180
The second part of the research question examined the relationship between the same
independent variables, race and gender, and a different dependent variable, perceived usefulness.
The dependent variable was the perceived usefulness of each structure ranked from 1 (most
useful) to 6 (least useful). This was modeled using a two-way MANOVA. The overall model for
the perceived usefulness of structures by race and gender was not significant [F(10, 288) = .489,
p = .897, Wilks’ Lambda = .967]. Thus, there was no evidence that the decision-making
structures were more or less preferred when examining the data by racial and gender groups.

65
Finding 3: There are racial group differences between the perceived degree of faculty
involvement but no gender-based differences. There are no racial or gender differences
between perceived structure usefulness.
There were racial group differences in the perceived degree of faculty involvement at
schools. Black/African-American faculty perceived faculty involvement in decision-making was
highest (M=3.91), White faculty perceived DFI was in the middle (M=3.43), and Asian/AsianAmerican faculty perceived DFI was the lowest (M=3.08). Thus, overall, Black/AfricanAmerican faculty felt that the faculty at their schools were more involved in decision-making
than their White and Asian/Asian-American counterparts. Asian/Asian-American faculty felt that
their schools did not involve faculty as much as their white and Black/African-American
counterparts indicated.
Considering that most independent schools are primarily white institutions, it is
somewhat surprising that Black/African-American teachers perceived the degree of faculty
involvement at their schools to be the highest. Black/African-American teachers are significantly
underrepresented in independent schools and make up only 5.61% of the teaching population.
White teachers, on the other hand, make up 81.37% of the teachers at independent schools, and
indicated a lower perceived degree of faculty involvement than their Black/African-American
peers. Thus, there is research to be done on the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. It
could be a possibility that Black/African-American teachers are more often brought into
conversations about equity-based change because of their race and minoritized status.
Asian/Asian-American teachers, on the other hand, reported the lowest degree of faculty
involvement. Asian/Asian-American teachers are also underrepresented in independent schools
and comprise only 4.65% of the teaching population. Thus, this finding leads to questions that

66
may need to be further investigated to understand how different racial groups are involved in
equity-based decision-making at independent schools.
There were no gender-based differences in the perceived degree of faculty involvement.
In addition, there were no racial or gender differences between which structures faculty found to
be most useful. It may be assumed that certain structures would favor a particular gender or race
and thus should be avoided. However, the present study did not find any discrepancies in how
faculty perceived each structure based on gender or race.
Qualitative Analysis
Research Question 4: How do faculty members who indicate high degrees of perceived
faculty involvement describe the way school leaders involve faculty in equity-based
decision-making?
Interview participants came from ten different schools in seven different states. Each
interview participant was chosen because they rated the perceived degree of faculty involvement
(DFI) in decision-making highly at their schools. The qualitative portion aimed to explain the
quantitative findings which demonstrated correlations between the use of particular decisionmaking structures with high faculty involvement. The use of committees, full-faculty meetings,
and open forums was correlated with a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement at the
school. As the aim of this research is to understand how administrators can use structures to
better involve faculty members in decision-making, I interviewed faculty at schools that used
these structures and indicated a higher perceived level of faculty involvement. Thus, the analysis
seeks to explain why the structures used at these schools support higher levels of faculty
involvement. By focusing on faculty members at schools where faculty are more involved, these
models can be used as an example for other schools. Thus, I interviewed faculty members who

67
indicated that faculty were more involved in decision-making at their schools and sought to
understand how the actions of school leaders helped the faculty to feel the higher degrees of
involvement. In addition, by comparing several effective examples, my analysis can identify
patterns that support the quantitative results. The interviews focused on committees and fullfaculty meetings because these structures were found to be correlated with a higher perceived
degree of faculty involvement. While open forums were also correlated, few schools and
interviewees utilized open forums, and thus, there was not enough information in the qualitative
portion to identify patterns relating to open forums.
Table 13
Interview Participant Demographics and Survey Selection Items
Pseudonym Teacher Type State Race/Ethnicity Gender
Perceived
Faculty
Involvement
Alicia HS English NH Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 6.0
Brenda MS Language NY Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 5.0
Cara HS Math CA Middle-Eastern
American
Female 4.0
Dahlia ES Science MD Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 5.0
Eli MS Language NY Asian/AsianAmerican
Male 4.0
Francesca HS Math MA White Female 5.0
Greg HS History CA White Male 4.0
Henry HS English CT Multi-Racial Male 4.0
Iris MS Computer
Science
NJ Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 4.0
Jade MS Language NY Black/AfricanAmerican
Female 4.0

68
Committees
Committees are designated teams of faculty within a school that discuss and work on
specific issues or topic areas. In the quantitative analysis, committees were consistently ranked
highest by faculty for making them feel involved in equity-based decision-making with 38% of
respondents ranking them highest in perceived usefulness. Committees were also the most
utilized structure. Further, the regression analysis demonstrated that the use of committees
accounted for 21% of the variation in the degree of faculty involvement. Thus, faculty members
recognize committees to be useful, and their use is correlated with a higher overall degree of
perceived involvement in equity-based decision-making. I utilized the interviews to examine
why faculty members found committees to be useful and identify how committees are being used
at schools with high degrees of perceived faculty involvement.
Committee Types
The interviewees each had different types of committees that were used at their school to
involve faculty members in equity-based decision-making. Thus, the type of committee used to
involve faculty in equity-based decision-making seems to be less important than the existence of
committees.
Alicia and Cara listed a wide range of committees used at her school to involve faculty in
equity-based change specifically. When asked about committees that involve faculty in equitybased change at her school, Alicia responded,
Oh, gosh, I've been on.., well one, we have our MLK Day celebration committee. That's a
big committee on our campus. I've been on the committee for Financial Inclusion, which
is for students. Oh, my gosh, I'm on the Community Support Fund Committee, which is
an equity thing. I've been in our anti-racist educator's committee. I am a Dorm Head of

69
the all-gender dorm. And so there's another committee that about like supporting LGBTQ
students on campus.
These were just a few of her school's committees and ones she had been involved in herself. Her
repetition of “oh my gosh” while listing the committees implied that there was an overwhelming
number of them at her school. Cara’s school had ongoing committees, such as the Grading for
Equity Committee, and short-term committees on redesigning the teacher evaluation survey and
reconsidering gender-based advisories. She also explained one committee that was borne out of a
third-party equity audit survey. She shared, “There was one demographic, maybe it was Latino
teachers, or one of the demographics, were not as happy as the others. So, I know that they now
have a committee this year focused on addressing that.” Thus, some committees are specifically
focused on a single inequity. She also stated that “every committee I’ve been on has been pretty
quick, about a year.” The range of committees at both Alicia and Cara’s schools was largely due
to the specificity of the types of equity-based committees.
Brenda, Dhalia, and Jade’s school had ongoing committees as well as broad-based equity
committees. Brenda explained that there are “various committees like the PCC which I was on is
the Professional Concerns Committee… benefits committee….[and] compensation…maybe
about seven of them.” Thus, there was a set number of committees that ran year to year. Dahlia’s
school worked similarly, but the committees may have subcommittees for specific issues. She
explained, “We have a diversity, equity, and belonging committee. We have a separate one for
the Lower School and another one for the middle and upper school.” In the past year, there has
been a discussion on bathrooms and changing rooms for transgender students at her school. She
explained that “there was a subcommittee just for that, but it was under the Diversity and Equity
Committee.” Henry also shared about his school’s equity-focused committee, “ we have a group,

70
which I'm a part of, called Driving Equity at [School]. So we're specifically selected because of
our diverse backgrounds to provide another avenue for faculty members, particularly with
regards to equity, inclusion, and race, to have their voices heard and to create some sense of
change.” Jade discussed a grading for equity committee and a hiring process task force, in
addition to her school’s broad-based equity committee and the community and multicultural
development committee. She shared,
We do have something called a community multicultural development team… that meets
regularly throughout the year to discuss topics related to how we can be improving
…related to DEI at our school. This committee usually … oversee[s] and support[s]
affinity group leaders, they oversee our academic calendar to make sure that we are
supporting religious observations, cultural observations, they advocate for the different
events and celebrations that we have, and related to celebrating the diversity of our
campus.
Jade also explained that being on this committee is a paid position because of the level of work
that the committee members are engaging in. Thus, this diversity, equity, and inclusion team is
utilized as a central group for change efforts regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Greg, Francesca, and Eli’s schools did not have many committees and involved faculty in
other ways. Greg explained, “We'll have very temporary committees. It's not like, they're very
permanent. Oh, if we're going to have if we're going to have an open house, the committee plans
the open house, and then that's it…. last year, there was a hiring committee for assistant head of
school.” Thus, committees were not a key way that the school worked toward larger-scale
equity-based change. When I asked Eli about committees at his school he discussed a Parent
Advisory Committee, but in regards to faculty committees, he said, “Now I think about it, really

71
not that many, no. We did start a sort of committee, a more or less informal committee, but I
think we're going to have it pick up in the coming months and years to study the role of AI.”
Francesca shared that while there used to be some committees, after the pandemic and with a
new administration, many of them no longer exist. She shared that her administration recently
sent out a survey asking, “What committees should we have? What would make things easier
and streamlined? What do you think works and doesn't?” So, the school leaders are currently
thinking critically about how to use committees to effectively involve faculty in decisionmaking.
While committee types did not often reappear from school to school, many schools did
have some form of faculty council or faculty committee. Five of the ten interviewees had some
form of faculty council. The focus of these committees is two-fold. First, many of these
committees were used to share faculty concerns with the administration. Second, they were also
used by the administration to ask faculty about potential changes or concerns and hear feedback
and ideas. At Alicia’s school, this committee was called the Agenda Committee. She explained
that the purpose is “to pass messages from administration to faculty…So if teachers feel like a
policy is wrong or something, it's our job to poll the teachers.” She also shared that they often
poll teachers anonymously. At Francesca’s school, the role of their Faculty Council was to bring
issues to the administration anonymously and support faculty in difficult situations. Iris
described her school’s Faculty Committee as “ a group of people who were nominated and
elected to help advise the head of school.” She also explained that the committee would email
the full faculty with notes after each meeting and share that they can come to members of the
committee with any questions or concerns. Henry also shared that the Faculty Committee at his
school makes all notes public. He shared how, for one issue with faculty housing, “concerns

72
were shared with the faculty committee, and that forced the administration to become much more
transparent and astute or at least respond to why they made the decisions they made.” He also
shared that the faculty committee has “a large voice, they represent the faculty. And I do think
that what they suggest to the administration is not ignored.” At Brenda’s school, this was the
Professional Concerns committee to which faculty can share concerns about perceived
workplace inequities. Thus, these faculty committees are used to share concerns with the
administration and ask for faculty feedback on potential changes.
Committee Selection
While the only consistent type of committee was the faculty committee, there were many
consistencies in how committees were selected at these schools where faculty felt a high degree
of perceived involvement in decision-making. At each school with committees, all faculty had an
opportunity to express their interest before committees were chosen. Four of the eight schools
with committees had a process by which faculty would vote on who would serve on the
committee. At Alicia’s school, individuals could nominate themselves or others to be on
committees with spaces available. She explained, “Some of them go by nomination. When I was
on, our agenda committee, they'd put out a call and anybody who wants to be on the committee
can say [they] want to or can nominate somebody else. And then everybody gets that list…And
then we go, and then we vote on who whoever whoever wants to be on that on that committee.”
Some committees have a three-year rotation and others are ongoing. Brenda’s school works
similarly, where individuals nominate themselves and then faculty vote; however, she also
explained that if the committee needs representation from multiple divisions or departments, the
voting will be broken down by these categories. She stated,

73
They actually ask people to nominate people for these committees….or you can selfnominate. And so you'll get emails [saying] in two weeks, we'll be holding an
election…And within that process, they actually will say, we want two people from the
upper school, three people from the Lower School, for one person from the middle
school, or whatever….And then you have to pick within like those categories.
Thus, the process allows for representation from each division. At Henry’s school, some
committees, such as the faculty committee, are also elected by the full faculty. He explained, “At
the end of every year, there's a formal ballot that goes out to vote on the faculty committee. And
that's just that purely elected by faculty. So administration doesn't have any say in any of that.”
Therefore, the process is intentionally designed to ensure that those on the committee are truly
representing faculty voice.
At Dahlia’s school, the committees are chosen through an interview process where
faculty members apply to be on the committees for a two-year rotation. She explained, “And
then you actually have to apply. It's like, it's like a job interview that you have to go through to
be part of the committee. So you have admin interviewing you you have other staff members, or
other teachers interviewing you asking you why you want to be part of this committee. What can
you bring that's new? How do you think you can make things better?” Thus, there is a robust
process for selecting those who represent faculty on the committee. She also explained that the
two-year rotation is “just to give everybody the chance to be part of the committee that they
want.”
Jade explained how some committees are paid positions where people apply or are
elected. Other committees, or task forces as she referred to them, are open to the entire faculty
and anyone can attend the meetings. The diversity and equity-focused committee is “a position

74
that they put out to the public that you can apply to be a part of, and there is an interview process
for it.” At Iris’s school, which only has a faculty committee, there is a two-year term, so when
slots open up faculty “reply to the head of school with a little paragraph of why you're interested
and what you think you can bring.” The committee then votes on new members. At Cara’s
school, many committees were open to all who were interested and others were selected to have
a representative from each department. She explained, “There are some committees where they
say, whoever wants to be part of this, and then there's some… where the people are
approached…where maybe they're just trying to get a representative from each [department].”
Thus, at each of these schools where faculty felt a high degree of involvement in equity-based
decision-making, faculty had an opportunity to nominate themselves to be on committees they
were interested in. These committees did not include every faculty member who was interested
but had a transparent process for how the members were selected.
In addition, at each of these schools, serving on a committee held a level of importance.
At some schools, this level of importance was shown through the election process which occurs
at least once a year. At other schools, this was shown through the interview process in which
individuals apply for a committee as they would for a job. At Jades’s school, being on a
committee is a paid position, and at Henry’s school it counts as part of a faculty member’s
workload like coaching a sport would. Henry also explained, “I think I feel that there's a lot of
appreciation for those committees, because we know how tight our time is here, and we know
that they're putting the time into these things.” Thus, it can be important to place value on
serving on a committee.

75
Committee Function
The committees at the participants’ schools worked differently in whether they had a
short-term or long-term purpose; however, the purpose often involved gathering information
from faculty. Alicia’s school had some committees with specific, more short-term charges and
others with ongoing purposes. She explained that some committees are focused on planning a
particular day whereas others are tasked with investigating student conduct issues. At Brenda’s
school, all committees were ongoing, and at Cara’s school, committees most often only existed
for one year. At many of these schools, committees were charged with gathering information and
finding out what faculty thought about a particular issue. Alicia discussed the role of committees
in gathering information and asking open-ended questions of the faculty through surveys. Jade
also shared that committees would send surveys that include multiple-choice and open-ended
questions while allowing faculty to share their ideas anonymously. She also said that “if people
want to follow up after the surveys, they could also schedule meetings with the committee or the
individual that hosted the survey.” Dahlia explained that committees would first lead full-faculty
discussions on an issue and then send a survey to ask for feedback on the discussion and the
issue. At Henry and Dahlia’s schools, committee members would be tasked with asking
individuals and specific groups, such as departments, about the issue that the committee was
focusing on. Henry explained,
So we had a regularly scheduled meeting and we were, ‘given homework.’ And so …. we
had some department heads in that group, who would then go to their department
meetings going, ‘Okay, here's where we're at, here's what we're thinking about.’ I was a
member of the [equity committee] so I go to that group and ask them about that. So it will
get it was an intentionally thought of group who had enough feelers, various parts of the

76
campus to make the decision feel thoughtful and equitable because at least we're getting
all these different voices.
Thus, these committees are often used to gather information from the faculty at large to allow the
group to make a decision that represents the views of the faculty.
The committees at these schools also often had a structured way of reporting out to the
committee on what was being discussed or recommended. For many of these schools, this
occurred through full-faculty meetings or by sending out written notes. Alicia and Cara both
explained that committees use full-faculty meetings to report out to the community. Cara gave
the example of one committee that led a change in the evaluation process and in the meetings
before school started, “they presented the new evaluation system, [and] most of them were
teachers.” She explained that this reporting out is effective because it allows “us to see…look at
all the faculty they included.” She also discussed a change to the gender segregation of advisory
where a committee discussed the issue and ended up voting on a change. She shared that they
then presented that decision to the faculty. Jade explained that committees will primarily report
on the information they gathered from the community. At both Henry and Iris’s schools,
committee meeting notes are made public to the faculty community. Henry explained, “We're so
tied in with the community … we make all of our notes public. So. if we made these suggestions
to the administrators … [and] they go against it, it's very public.”
Some committees present their findings and also lead a larger discussion with the faculty
or make recommendations to the Board. Dahlia also explained that committees will share their
observations and recommendations with the faculty in a larger faculty meeting. At her school,
the committee will then lead a discussion on what faculty think of the issue and then hold a vote.
For example, she explained one recent discussion where they presented, “This is what this

77
committee has observed. These are their suggestions. What do we do as staff? Think about the
ideas.” She then said that at the end of the meeting, “we actually came up with a vote. And that
was the decision that was made.” Alicia explained that some committees “make
recommendations to the principal or to the trustees, or they'll meet with the trustees when they
come.” Thus, in these schools, the recommendations are shared with the broader community and
there is transparency around what the committee is discussing and deciding.
Full-Faculty Meetings
Full-faculty meetings are meetings with the entire faculty in the school or a particular
division (elementary, middle, high). The quantitative analysis demonstrated that full-faculty
meetings were not used as frequently at schools as committees. They were the fourth most
utilized structure of six. However, there was a significant correlation between the use of fullfaculty meetings to involve faculty in equity-based decision-making and the perceived degree of
faculty involvement (DFI). In fact, the use of full-faculty meetings accounted for 30% of the
variation in DFI. Thus, the more frequently a school used full-faculty meetings in this manner,
the more likely the degree of perceived involvement was high. However, overall, full-faculty
meetings were not ranked as highly as committees, likely because not all schools use them in this
manner. Thus, in my qualitative interviews, I sought to understand how full-faculty meetings are
used effectively to strengthen perceived involvement in equity-based decision-making. Of the ten
interviewees, five were at schools that used full-faculty meetings for school-wide discussion on
equity-based changes before decisions were made. These interviewees were Cara, Dahlia, Eli,
Greg, and Jade. Iris and Francesca are at schools that formerly used full-faculty meetings for
discussion and decision-making but now primarily use full-faculty meetings for announcements.
Two, Alicia and Henry, were at schools where meetings were used for reporting on decisions and

78
giving time for questions and discussion of those decisions before they were implemented.
Brenda’s school primarily used full-faculty meetings for announcements and training.
Faculty Meeting Structure
At schools where full-faculty meetings were used for faculty to be a part of equity-based
decision-making, there was consistently a structure that allowed for faculty to work in small
groups and report back to the administration in the meeting.
At Cara’s school, full-faculty meetings were often used to determine whether there was a
need for a change and for a committee to work toward that change. She explained that typically,
“we get into groups during the meeting, where they have us talk about something and then we
want to have like one of the people in the group, take notes and then send it to the principal.” She
discussed one recent change to the faculty evaluation process. Before a committee was formed,
they were put into groups at assigned tables during a full-faculty meeting. The question at this
stage was, “Is there even a need for change? Let's see what the faculty thinks.” She explained
that this is often the process where these full-faculty meetings are used to determine if a change
is needed and if it is determined that one is needed, a committee forms from there. She further
commented that this structure helps the faculty feel heard and feel like the administrators want to
hear their voice, “they often do that, like at meetings where they have us talk to each other. And
then they want us to send the notes. And so obviously, they want to hear what we're saying.”
Thus, these full-faculty meetings are effective in helping Cara feel involved in equity-based
decision-making at her school.
Dahlia’s school also uses full-faculty meetings for school-wide discussions on equitybased change. At her school, these discussions are often led by committees. She explained that
her school uses one Wednesday a month for professional development. School ends at noon and

79
the rest of the day is used for discussion. As an example, she discussed a recent day focused on
gender and changing rooms. She explained,
We usually receive an email before [saying] this is going to be part of the discussion
come prepared to share your thoughts…on that day, we had the Director of Diversity,
Equity, and Belonging, give background about our student population, and the fact that
some of the families have expressed concerns….Then she expressed that she reminded
the whole faculty, the whole staff about our pledge to really have the entire community
feel included, feel like they belong, and this was an equity and inclusion issue that needed
to be solved.
She continued to explain that the committee shared what they observed and their suggestions.
They then asked the faculty. “What do you think we can do? ….What do we as staff think about
the ideas? And we actually come up with a vote. And that was the decision that was made.” She
shared that this decision wasn’t made in a day, but the day was central to the decision-making
process. After the meeting, the committee sent out a survey asking, “What are your suggestions?
What did you think about the discussion? How do you think we can improve our decision or
improve the current situation? Do you want to be part of the committee?”Thus, in this situation,
faculty had many opportunities to be involved. She also explained that more generally, “the
agenda [of faculty meetings] is such that it always has a part about diversity, equity, and
belonging. How are we doing? How do we want to be at this time? What can we do to improve?”
Her reflections demonstrated that discussions around making the school more equitable were a
consistent throughline in full-faculty meetings.
Eli’s school also uses full-faculty meetings to hear faculty perspectives on potential
equity-based changes. He said that division meetings always start with announcements and then

80
there is a theme that the division discusses as a whole. He was anticipating a meeting this year to
discuss pronoun practices. He also reflected on discussions on grading for equity and progress
reports. He explained, “They’re very discussion-based, there's maybe a short presentation and
then we split into pairs groups of three, four, we talk amongst ourselves.. and then we get
together and then we share out our thoughts.” Similarly to Cara’s school, the groups take notes to
share with administrators. He said, “often what happens is faculty have a chance to share out via
jam board or something like digital, and then that goes to admin and then admin will look at it,
and then sometimes there will be like a follow-up conversation, like in another faculty meeting.”
Thus, the faculty produce tangible notes which the administrators then use for decision-making
and follow-up conversations.
Greg also explained that full-faculty meetings at his school help him to feel more
involved in equity-based decision-making. He noted, “We have a faculty meeting here [and]
teachers speak. And, you know, that never happened at my old school.” He explained that at one
meeting last year, they broke into table groups and discussed the question, “What are some
inequities that we still haven't addressed?” He shared that this discussion led to a change to help
make students feel more comfortable using the extended time room. Greg shared that he thought
the model at his school was the ideal way to include faculty in equity-based decision-making. He
stated,
It's just nice to give input and also as a teacher, you have so much that you're trying to do
on your own, you have a whole little industry going on in your classroom, and that's your
primary focus. So, I don't want to be responsible for implementing all these things, but I
do have input. You know, I see students every day and I interact with them every day,
probably more than administrators do. So it's nice to be valued and share my opinion, but

81
I don't have time to do stuff. So to me, a nice forum where there's a format where we can
discuss, offer suggestions, and then be told the outcome.
Greg appreciated the use of full-faculty meetings because they allowed him to share his ideas
without having to put in much work outside of his teaching load.
At Jade’s school, full-faculty meetings have been used for small groups to come together
to brainstorm and implement ideas. At the end of the school year, teachers were able to submit
ideas for what they wanted to discuss at the end-of-year meetings. Faculty could then choose two
groups to work in during full-faculty meetings. The topics involved equity-focused issues and
others including incorporating affinity groups into the schedule, AI, screen time, empowering
student voice, and conduct. She explained that they brainstormed ideas and then “our
administrative team looked at all the recommendations over the summer. And then when we
started in August, we picked back up with those recommendations, and we could make final
decisions.” This way, groups were able to share ideas and focus on topics that interested them. In
addition, the administration could make progress over the summer while ensuring that teachers
felt heard.
At Henry and Alicia’s schools, full-faculty meetings were most often used for faculty to
provide feedback on decisions before they were implemented. Henry explained that full-faculty
meetings occur weekly, and while there is a lot of reporting out from both committees and
administrators, there are also times for open conversations. He explained that “there are times
usually to debrief why decisions are being made… I sort of see our faculty meeting as an
opportunity for us to all be together and to work through some of the implications of these
decisions…there are opportunities to question and to push back.” Thus, these meetings allow for
discussion and allow for faculty to share input on decisions. Alicia also explained that full-

82
faculty meetings at her school also involve reporting out from committees and administrators.
She shared, “It can really be a challenge for them to keep us on track, moving through the topics,
but still give us time to talk. So that's also where that agenda committee comes in, so if
somebody said, Well, I don't think that what was said was right, you can go through them.”
Thus, faculty meetings have fewer discussions, but the agenda committee can be used as a mode
through which to give feedback on topics discussed in the full faculty meeting.
A few teachers shared that they felt their voices were heard more before the pandemic
than after. Iris said that “prior to COVID, I felt that we would have meetings and discuss and our
voices were heard, but when the shutdown happened” she explained that that changed. She said,
“For me, it's a matter of not wasting my time making me think that this is a consensus-building
meeting where we're then going to vote on a decision where the decision has been made.”
Francesca also noticed a shift since the pandemic in the way her school makes decisions which
she attributed to a new administration. She said,
The faculty meetings that happen once a week are basically the administrators telling us
information. In past years, before our new administration took over and before the
pandemic, there was much more of an interaction between the two of us, we would have
conversations, we'd have debates, we'd have discussions, and then it'd be about at the end.
We've got brand new administrators, we have a brand new dean of faculty, we have a
brand new dean of residential life, we've got brand new roles that have never existed
before and everyone's trying to figure out, you know, what's my role in this? And how do
we incorporate the faculty and so it's right now it's very bumpy.
When discussing the meetings before the pandemic, she explained that they were largely
discussion-based with a parliamentary format. She said, “We did Robert's Rules….and faculty

83
would be present no different from administrators. Then there would be discussion, we were
asked questions, we had a discussion back and forth, and the entire faculty would be there… at
the very end, someone would call for a vote, and someone would second, and then we would all
vote.” She explained that she missed those meetings even though they were long. She said that
before “we felt very much that our voice was heard, but it was it was a very long meeting and
drawn out and it could be draining at times, but they felt like they were effective in the sense that
we were heard and we felt like we were had a voice and what was happening at the school.”
Thus, she currently feels like she has lost the opportunity to have a voice in larger-scale decisionmaking at the school.
Other Modes of Involving Faculty in Equity-Based Decision-Making
Diversity Coordinators
Many schools involved faculty through paid diversity coordinator positions or a similar
structure. This pattern reflected the literature identifying diversity coordinators as a way
independent schools are seeking to address inequities (Hall & Stevenson, 2017). However,
instead of depending on this coordinator alone, many schools have developed teams of equityfocused practitioners. Each interviewee’s school had a designated director of diversity, equity,
and inclusion. Most often, this person was on the senior leadership team. However, to involve
faculty in decision-making, some also designated faculty members as middle-level diversity
leaders. At some schools, this was referred to as a DEI office, at others it was related to a
position, and at some, a committee served a similar purpose. However, regardless of what the
role was called, each gave faculty a role in planning DEI-related programming and supporting
students when identity-based harm was done.

84
Eli was the middle school diversity coordinator at his school. He said, “Lower school has
one middle school has one, but upper school has two.” When asked about his role he shared, “I'm
in charge of some of the DEI programming at the middle school, first and foremost. So for
instance, we do Heritage Month celebrations and I like to help coordinate the events for the
middle school…. If there's anything related to DEI work in the middle school, I help either create
lesson plans or am usually a part of that conversation.” He also shared that when offensive
comments are made he will “have a conversation with both students, the student who caused the
harm and the students who were harmed.” Finally, he discussed that he is regularly in
conversation with the other coordinators and the director of diversity at his school. While he does
not receive a course reduction for the role, he does receive a diversity coordinator title and a
stipend of 3600 a year about which he said “with the amount of work and planning, it is not the
most lucrative.” At Eli’s school, the diversity coordinator role is the method for creating a team
of teachers who are focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus.
Greg and Henry discussed their school’s DEI offices which are comprised of a Director
of DEI and a few faculty members with lightened courseloads. Greg explained that there are
“three dedicated teachers who … only teach a limited number of classes. Each of them only
teaches one class, but then they’re full-time operating the DEI office. In that sense, I wouldn't
call it a committee, but like they're permanent.” Henry also shared, “We actually have a pretty
robust, Equity and Inclusion office. So there is the director of multiculturalism, equity, and
inclusion, and …she has two assistants, one who deals with students, and one who deals with
faculty…. And those people have lightened workloads as a result, so they teach two fewer
classes as a result.”

85
While Alicia’s school does not have faculty in the DEI Office, she explained that the
office does work with the faculty advisors of the affinity groups on campus. When discussing
changes to the calendar to support Muslim students who were fasting she explained, “the Office
of Equity and Inclusion work[ed] with Muslim faculty members on campus, like the Muslim
Student Association, advisors. And then the adults start[ed] talking, and they sa[id], ‘Well,
what's possible, what could we do?’ Thus, the equity and inclusion office allows for another
avenue through which faculty can be involved in equity-based decision-making.
At Jade’s school, the Community and Multicultural Development team, while in some
ways seen as a committee, serves a similar role. She shared, “We do have something called a
community multicultural development team….There is one teacher from every division in
addition to the chair of the committee and our director of diversity, equity inclusion,” However,
what makes this ream more robust than a typical committee is that they are not only involved in
discussing equity-based decisions, but “they're also a point of contact for students who in their
time of need, or if there's an issue in that realm that a student is experiencing, they also support
students.” In addition, it is a paid position for which faculty members need to apply.
Brenda explained that the DEI office at her school involved her in equity-based decisionmaking by forming a small team to discuss inclusive pedagogy and language.
Brenda explained, “They want teachers across the board to be well-versed. …in certain issues
that the students might also question. So when you're in your classroom, and a student asks,
‘How come they say this, but I see this’” the teachers understand and are prepared to to answer.
Thus, she worked on this small team to prepare materials for teachers and educate teachers on
language and key issues relating to inclusive pedagogy. She explained that this was “one of those
stipended positions… [and I] actually wasn't really interested… But then I got a call saying, ‘Oh,

86
I thought you might be interested in this.’ And [I thought] well, I wasn't that's why I didn't apply.
But then, if I see that no one else is doing something then I do.” Thus, she was asked to be
involved and ended up being a part of this team.
Department Meetings
Department meetings were the second highest-ranked structure by faculty, and the
second-highest used structure in schools. However, they were not found to be correlated with a
higher perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making. The interview
questions focused on faculty meetings and committees which were found to be correlated, but
department meetings still did come up when interviewees were asked about how the school
involves faculty in equity-based decision-making. For instance, Eli explained, “I do think that
sometimes things also go through department chairs, I find that, for example, my department
chair is very keen on equity-related things.” Cara also explained how some equity-based changes
relate directly to departments, and thus, it makes most sense to discuss them in departments. She
shared, “A few years ago, we were discussing [students] moving from regular classes to honors
classes. And so we decided on an A- rule. So every department had to, think about it and
brainstorm what they thought.” She also explained that the current conversation around moving
away from APs is mostly happening in department meetings.
Francesca also explained that since the hiring process is decentralized, departments are
heavily involved in diversifying the faculty through hiring decisions. She explained, “Whenever
we hire someone it is decentralized, so we would have conversations in the department itself
…and we would get together we talk about what type of candidate we would want, what are we
looking for?.... equity has always been number one, in our concerns, because of the way we look
at each other.…we think it's really important to have a really diverse population here.” Thus,

87
because departments are largely in charge of hiring new members of the department, increasing
faculty diversity relies on the department itself.
Reading and Research
Many interviewees explained that their schools have the full faculty read the same book
over the summer, and this has led to increased discussions around equity-based change amongst
faculty. Eli shared, that at his school, “we always have a summer book…. [and] many of the
books that we read have an equity and inclusion lens.” Francesca also shared that her faculty
community also “spent time reading the entire book Blind Spot and we sat in two groups outside
of our departments and we'll have conversations.” Jade also shared that they started this school
year “discussing the book Belonging [and’ how we were going to incorporate what we learned
from the book.” When asked if this felt effective, she explained, “I do. It does help to have set
aside that time to really talk about it and to show that it is a priority.” Thus, a faculty book over
the summer has helped these schools start the year with faculty conversations around equity.
Alicia’s school had a unique way of involving faculty in equity-based decision-making
through research. She explained that the school has a Center for Teaching and Learning that has
fellowships to enable faculty to study issues at the school. When considering biases in course
placement, she shared that “they'll let you study this at the school. And so this person said, ‘What
happens if you make all the placement tests anonymous?’... [and] they noticed that Asian
students were being told to push themselves more to like aim for higher math classes and other
students weren't.” Thus, the faculty can apply for a fellowship to study inequities at the school
and seek to make change.

88
Ensuring Faculty Feel Heard
The interviewees explained that ensuring faculty feel involved in decision-making was
reliant on both the structures and the way administrators approach their faculty. Thus, there
seems to be a need to both have the structures in place and also have administrators who
prioritize hearing faculty voices and make that known.
The interviewees explained that the structures in place allow for faculty to feel like they
have a platform and a way to share their ideas. For example, when I asked Cara why she thought
faculty felt involved at her school, she explained, “Because they often do that at meetings. They
have us talk to each other and then they want us to send the notes. And so obviously, they want
to hear what we're, you know what we're saying.” Thus, having and using this faculty-meeting
structure to ask faculty about issues and changes at meetings, allows faculty to at Cara’s feel like
the administrators want to hear their ideas. She explained, “I would think that if they didn't go
through that process, then teachers wouldn't feel heard. You know, if they didn't, if they kind of
just like said, Okay, here's a new rule without involving any faculty. Yeah, I would think that
teachers are upset about that.” Henry also shared that “it feels like we have these groups [the
committees], the structures in place that gives us at least some type of platform and some type of
voice.” Thus, having the structures allows Henry to know that faculty voice is valued at his
school and that he knows how he can be involved in equity-based change if he sees an issue or
wants to push forward an idea. When asked about the ideal way to involve faculty in equitybased change, Jade explained, “I think that some of what our school is doing is really important,
actually having opportunities for faculty to share their thoughts.” Thus, there is a need to have
structures in place to allow faculty to share their opinions.

89
Beyond the structures, many interviewees discussed the way their administrators
emphasized wanting to hear faculty voices. Brenda explained that at “the beginning of the school
year, the head said, if there is anything that you feel you need that I’m not doing, voice it.” Thus,
she shared that faculty at her school often feel comfortable asking for what they need. Greg
explained, “They are very responsive… they welcome [faculty input] because they're like, you're
the eyes and ears.” Hence, the administrators at Greg’s school vocalize their desire to hear
faculty input. He also explained that “when there's a problem, [the administrators] don't say,
‘Why are you blaming me for that problem?’ They say, let's do something about the problem”
Thus, demonstrating that they are open to faculty voice and want to make sure faculty are
involved. However, requesting faculty voice is insufficient without the structures in place to
involve faculty. Greg explained that at the end of a professional development day at his prior
school, the principal was giving “parting notes and no teacher had spoken all day. Not one
teacher had spoken, just administrators. And then he went into this lecture about how he, you
know, he was… here to listen….And it was a monologue about how much he wants to listen…
like, yeah, you're not getting the irony here.” Thus, school administrators can say they want to
hear faculty voice, but the structures and processes that give faculty a voice are important for
helping faculty feel involved.
Involving faculty does not always mean that the administrators act on all faculty
requests; however, there is transparency around them. For example, Dahlia shared that “It's
usually during a whole faculty meeting, they will share a concern that was expressed by one of
the staff or one of the teachers, and then they're also going to talk about what they have been
doing to address that concern.” She explained that at a meeting the principal will say, “I've heard,
I hear your concern. I hear you very well, but I can't at this time,” and explain why the change

90
won’t work given other school needs. Greg also emphasized the importance of administrator
follow-up. He said, “Even if it's something that like, can't be done, it's nice for faculty to know
that, well, we considered what you said.” Thus, transparency allows for faculty to feel heard
even if the decision isn’t in their favor.
Interviewees also discussed transparency in terms of how decisions are made and why
issues are being brought up. Iris explained, “I think just being open and honest about which
decisions we actually can impact and which ones we have no voice….making sure there's a clear
distinction between consensus building, versus announcing the decision that's been made.”
Henry shared, “the better the more administration is transparent about their process, the better
transparent in terms of … Where's this need coming from? And more specifically, where…are
we hoping to go?” Greg shared that when there is a clear change that was brought about from the
faculty voice, “you're like, wow, we talked about it. We made a decision. We implemented it.
That's awesome.” Thus, it can go a long way in building a culture where faculty feel valued
when there is a transparent impact.
Many interviewees also described a school culture that is open to faculty voice. Henry
shared that “a lot of has to do with sort of just a school ethos in terms of like, let's not do things
for the sake of doing them. Let's be a school that is open to change. Let's involve faculty Be
transparent and how we include them.” Thus, it is not limited to one structure or speech, but a
culture of involving faculty in change. Dahlia also shared, “I find the administration more open
to listening to the teachers. I know that if I want to schedule a meeting with my vice principal,
for example, I just have to send an email and I feel like I'm heard as a professional.” Hence,
Dahlia feels heard because she knows her administrators are open to hearing her concerns. Iris
explained the importance of “having a culture of a feedback loop so that… there are ways for

91
communicating your feedback and they are in the process from the beginning” Alicia shared that
there is a culture around “ how we make decisions and we want as much input as possible…
people are more likely to say like, is there something I'm missing? Like? What do you think?
And does this make sense to you?” Since she is at a boarding school she explained, “You can
talk about something in the dining hall. Or when you're just you're walking your dog and you see
somebody else.” Hence, there is a culture of discussing change at the school and seeking to
involve others in decision-making.
Finding 4: Committees effectively involve faculty in equity-based change when they are given
value, have a clear purpose, and have structures for sharing recommendations with the
broader community.
While the types of committees at each school varied, they had commonalities in the way
they were formed and the way they shared recommendations. At these schools, faculty had an
opportunity to nominate themselves for the committees they were interested in. Once individuals
nominated themselves, they were chosen through a vote or an interview process. A few
interviewees discussed a formal election process each year for all committee openings.
Regardless of the method, each interviewee discussed a transparent process for choosing who is
on the committee that allowed faculty the chance to self-identify their interest in serving. In
addition, the committees often served to gather information from faculty and report on findings
and recommendations to the whole community. At some schools, this involved presentations to
the faculty or leading discussions in full-faculty meetings. At other schools, this involved making
the notes from the meeting public. Either way, the committees would not make decisions or
recommendations behind closed doors. Instead, they were used as a tool to further involve
faculty either through information gathering or through sharing with the whole faculty. Thus, at

92
these schools, committees and full-faculty meetings are often used in tandem to involve faculty
in equity-based decisions. The committees serve to gather information, discuss an issue, and
often determine recommendations. The committees then use full-faculty meetings to share that
information and provide an opportunity for all faculty to give input.
Finding 5: Full-faculty meetings effectively involve faculty in equity-based change when
faculty are given a chance to work in small groups and report back to the administration.
Schools that used full-faculty meetings to involve faculty in equity-based change shared
commonalities in the way in which they structured these meetings. Administrators or committees
would share out on an issue or findings. Faculty would then split into smaller groups to discuss
the topic or issue at hand. While some interviewees discussed voting on decisions, in many cases
decisions would not be made in the full-faculty meeting itself. Instead, faculty would have a
chance to share out and report back. Many utilized a structure that involved producing tangible
notes from each small group discussion that the administrators could then review when making
the decision. Thus, utilizing full-faculty meetings to involve faculty does not necessarily mean
giving control over the decision or having a full-group open discussion on the issue. In these
cases, it most often involved providing faculty with the opportunity to discuss an issue and then
report back with their ideas.
Summary
Key findings from this chapter focus on the usefulness of decision-making structures to
involve faculty in equity-based decision-making. The first research question examined the
frequency of use and the perceived usefulness of six structures through which independent
schools involve faculty in equity-based decisions: committees, full-faculty meetings, open
forums, department meetings, informal discussions, and surveys. The data showed that faculty

93
identified committees and department meetings to be most useful in involving faculty in equitybased decision-making. These were also the two structures that schools used most often.
The second research question sought to better evaluate the usefulness of the structures by
comparing the frequency of use to the perceived degree of faculty involvement in decisionmaking at the school. There was a significant correlation between the use of committees, fullfaculty meetings, and open forums and a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement in
equity-based decision-making. There was no relationship between the use of department
meetings, surveys, and open forums and the perceived degree of faculty involvement.
The third research question sought to identify any racial or gender differences in the
perceived usefulness of the structures and the perceived degree of faculty involvement in equitybased decision-making. There were no significant differences in the perceived usefulness of any
of the decision-making structures. There was no significant gender difference in the perceived
degree of faculty involvement. There were significant differences in the perceived degree of
faculty involvement concerning race. Black/African-American participants ranked the degree of
faculty involvement highest, followed by White participants, and then by Asian/Asian-American
participants.
The final research question sought to use qualitative research to explain the results of the
study, particularly the second finding which found a positive correlation between the use of
committees, full-faculty meetings, and open forums and a higher degree of perceived faculty
involvement in equity-based decision-making. This portion of the study identified participants
whose schools used those structures frequently and identified a high degree of faculty
involvement in equity-based decision-making. The interviews revealed that these schools have
clear processes through which faculty members can become involved, share input, and report out

94
to the faculty and administration. Administrators at these schools valued faculty involvement and
created structures for committees and faculty meetings that allowed faculty members to become
involved in equity-based decisions. The next chapter provides implications for practice and
recommendations for further research.

95
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Educational inequities are deeply entrenched in the fabric of independent schools. These
inequities are adaptive problems that require adaptive change to be dismantled. To create such
change, school leaders must involve faculty in equity-based decision-making. Involving faculty
in decision-making creates longer lasting and systemic change. Involving faculty builds the
support of the people who are instrumental in carrying out and sustaining the change (Berg,
2021; Gant, 2021; Teitel et al., 2021). While significant bodies of research have studied the need
to involve faculty in change, there is minimal research on how to effectively do so. This study
seeks to fill a gap in the literature and evaluate the structures currently utilized to involve faculty
in equity-based change. The study used a mixed-methods approach to identify the usefulness of
structures utilized by school leaders in engaging faculty in equity-based decision-making. The
study focused on the following questions:
I. What is the perceived usefulness of structures used at independent schools (committees,
open forums, faculty meetings, department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) in
involving faculty in equity-based decision-making?
II. To what extent do different types of structures used (committees, open forums, faculty
meetings, department meetings, informal conversations, surveys) predict the degree of
faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making?
III. Are there racial group and gender identity differences in the degree of involvement or
perceived usefulness of structures used to involve faculty in equity-based decisionmaking?

96
IV. How do faculty members who indicate high degrees of perceived faculty involvement
describe the way school leaders involve faculty in equity-based decision-making?
(Qualitative)
Chapter Five discusses findings as related to implications for practice for administrators
to better involve faculty in equity-based decision-making at their schools. The chapter will
discuss the main findings and examine the connection to prior literature. The chapter will also
outline implications for practitioners. Finally, the chapter will discuss limitations and
recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Findings
Quantitative Findings
The first research question examined current practices and perceived usefulness. Prior
research on school change models and structures has primarily been qualitative (Printy et al.,
2009; Louis, 2007). This research fills that void by identifying how often each structure is used
at schools and conducting quantitative analysis to identify usefulness. The second research
question sought to understand the relationship between the use of a structure and the degree to
which faculty felt involved in equity-based decision-making at the school. Prior research has not
yet identified a relationship between the use of these structures and higher levels of faculty
involvement in equity-based decision-making (Printy et al., 2009; Louis, 2007). Finally, the
quantitative portion examined the relationship between race and gender and the perceived
usefulness of each decision-making structure, and the perceived degree of faculty involvement in
equity-based decision-making making which prior research has not yet done.

97
Finding 1: Committees and Department Meetings are perceived by faculty to be most useful
and are the most commonly used structures to involve faculty in equity-based decisionmaking.
To involve faculty in equity-based decision-making, schools primarily utilize committees
and department meeting discussions. Faculty also identify these two structures as the most useful
in involving faculty in these decisions. Generally, the order in which faculty ranked each
structure aligned with the order for how frequently each structure was used in schools. Prior
research identified committees as a commonly used structure to involve faculty in decisionmaking (Printy et al., 2009). Department meetings are also discussed in prior literature as a way
to involve faculty in change (Louis, 2007). These prior studies on the frequent use of structures
such as committees and department meetings have been qualitative. This study identifies the
frequency of structure use and the perceived usefulness of each structure from a quantitative
lens. Thus, this first finding provides quantitative support for prior qualitative research.
However, when the utilization of these decision-making structures is compared with the
perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making at the school, only
committees are correlated. Thus, the findings for the first research question are most significant
when examined in conjunction with the findings for the second research question.
Finding 2: The use of committees, open forums, and full-faculty meetings each predict a
higher perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based change.
This research demonstrated that the increased use of full-faculty meetings, committees, or
open forums at a school predicts a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement in equitybased decision-making. Though department meetings were one of the most frequently used
structures, they were not correlated with a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement. The

98
frequent use of surveys and informal discussions was also not found to be correlated with a
higher degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making. Thus, current practices
do not fully align with this result. Schools frequently use committees and this practice is
associated with a higher degree of perceived faculty involvement. However, the frequent use of
department meetings in schools is not aligned as they are not associated with a higher perceived
degree of faculty involvement. Further, schools use full-faculty meetings and open forums more
infrequently though these structures were found to predict higher degrees of faculty involvement
in equity-based decision-making.
Prior research has described how schools utilize committees and full-faculty meetings to
involve the faculty in change (D’Entremont, 2016; Printy et al. 2009). However, prior research
has not yet identified a relationship between the use of these structures and higher levels of
faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making. These findings fill that void and show a
strong link between the increased use of committees, full-faculty meetings, and open forums and
higher perceived degrees of faculty involvement. These findings also indicate that the frequent
use of department meetings, informal discussions, and surveys to involve faculty, may not bring
about the intended outcomes as the use of these structures did not predict a higher perceived
degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making at schools.
Finding 3: There are racial group differences between the perceived degree of faculty
involvement, but no gender-based differences. There are no racial or gender differences
between perceived structure usefulness.
The quantitative portion of the study found that Black/African-American teachers
perceived higher degrees of faculty involvement at their schools compared to their White and
Asian/Asian-American counterparts. Asian/Asian American faculty perceived lower degrees of

99
faculty involvement at their schools. Scholarship on equity-based change in schools calls for a
school-wide commitment to such change (Teitel et al., 2021; Gant, 2021). However, prior
research has not yet examined the extent to which faculty feel involved in change based on race
or gender. This finding demonstrates that involvement in such change may vary based on race
leading to differing degrees of perceived involvement. In the qualitative portion of the study,
many Black interviewees discussed being tapped to participate in a committee or an initiative.
One interviewee explained that while she did not always feel like she had the time to participate,
she ended up participating on one equity team because an administrator called her and said she
may be interested. Even though she was not initially interested, she realized that no one else was
doing it so she should step up. The quantitative finding shows that Black faculty perceive faculty
at their schools to be more involved in equity-based decision-making than their peers of other
races do. This finding could be explained by the frequency at which Black faculty are tapped to
participate in equity-based change compared to their White and Asian/Asian-American
counterparts. However, further research would need to be done to substantively explain this
finding.
In addition, there was no relationship between gender or race and the perceived
usefulness of the structures utilized to support faculty involvement in equity-based decisionmaking. It could be argued that the use of some structures like full-faculty meetings preference
those who already hold positions of power based on gender or race. In addition, if gender and
race did predict which structure an individual found to be most useful, there would be reason to
consider such data in determining which structure a school should use. However, in this research,
there was no link found between race or gender and the perceived usefulness of these structures.

100
Qualitative Findings
To understand how to use committees and full-faculty meetings to effectively involve
teachers in equity-based change, the qualitative portion of my study examined commonalities
between these structures at schools with high perceived levels of faculty involvement in equitybased change. Prior research contends that it is essential to involve teachers in equity-based
change for the change to be lasting and effective (Berg, 2021). Prior research also identifies
having the structures in place as essential to effectively involving faculty in change (Printy et al.,
2009). The interviewees affirmed the prior research when explaining that effectively involving
faculty in equity-based decision-making requires having structures in place and administrators
who value hearing faculty voices. They shared that structures provide a platform through which
faculty can share their ideas and also show evidence that administrators value their ideas.
However, there is minimal research on how to effectively utilize structures to involve faculty.
Thus, I examined how schools that have a high degree of faculty involvement in equity-based
change use committees and faculty meetings to effectively involve faculty in change.
Finding 4: Committees effectively involve faculty in equity-based change when they are given
value, have a clear purpose, and have structures for sharing recommendations with the
broader community.
Schools with a high degree of faculty involvement in equity-based change had several
commonalities in how they used committees. The types of committees present at a school seem
to be less important than the existence of committees and the purpose thereof. In each of these
schools, value was placed on joining a committee, committees had a clear purpose, and
committees had a way to report out to the faculty.

101
Whether committees focused on a broad or specific topic, they had a clear purpose and
value associated. The committees at the interviewee’s schools ranged from focusing on specific
topics such as Martin Luther King Jr. Day or grading for equity, to more broad-based Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion committees. Each had a clear charge whether it be to plan a day, research a
potential academic change, or gather input from faculty. Value was also associated with serving
on these committees because of the selection process. All faculty had a chance to nominate
themselves for open positions on committees and then they were selected by faculty vote,
appointment by the existing committee, or through a formal application process. Consistently,
individuals felt that there was value placed on being on a committee, and these committees could
have a significant impact on the school.
Committees also had structures through which to demonstrate their impact to the broader
faculty community and to gain input beyond the voices of those on the committee. The
committees were often used to gather information from the faculty at large so that the group
could make a decision or recommendation that represents the views of the faculty. The structure
also provided an opportunity for committees to report out to the wider faculty whether through
shared notes or full faculty meeting presentations. Many committees presented to the faculty at
faculty meetings and led discussions on the topic at hand, at times, leading to a vote. These
committee-led presentations and discussions allowed interviewees to see the impact the
committees had on change and the extent to which faculty were being involved in the decisionmaking process.
Prior research demonstrates that the efficacy of committees varies significantly from
school to school (Printy et al., 2009). Specifically, committees were shown to be ineffective at
schools where they would be operating in isolated teams and separate from the greater school

102
structure or from other committees (Printey et al., 2009; Visone, 2021). This research identifies
commonalities that exist when committees do work effectively. Specifically, each committee
discussed in this research had a way to report out and be involved in the broader school structure.
Thus, ensuring that decisions are not being made in isolation. Hall and Stevenson (2007) explain
that equity work should not be the task of just one committee but the school as a whole. By
having multiple committees focused on specific equity issues and involving the whole faculty
community in the work of the committee, the equity work done in the committees becomes the
work of the school as a whole.
Finding 5: Full-faculty meetings effectively involve faculty in equity-based change when
faculty are given a chance to work in small groups and report back to the administration.
The schools that utilized full-faculty meetings to involve faculty in equity-based change
did so with a structure that allowed faculty to share ideas in small groups and then report back to
the administration or full group. These discussions were either led by committees or
administrators. The leaders would start by sharing information on the issue at hand and then ask
faculty for their ideas, thoughts, or feedback. In addition, interviewees consistently explained
that the structure used for the meeting provided a way for all faculty to share this feedback with
the leaders directly. Often, this involved taking notes in small groups and then sharing those
notes with the administration. Other times, the discussions would culminate in a vote or a survey
to share ideas and feedback. The interviewees appreciated this structure because it allowed them
to share their ideas without putting in as much extra work as they would need to on a committee.
They also felt heard by the administrators because the decisions made following these meetings
would often reflect the discussions in the meetings. At times when administrators could not make

103
a decision that many faculty were pushing for, they would acknowledge that and explain what
limitations impacted that decision.
Prior research discusses the use of full-faculty meetings to involve faculty in change.
However, the central problem identified is the more vocal individuals are heard in these settings
and others feel they lack a voice (Conley, 1991; Printy et al., 2009). When the interviewees in
this study discussed full faculty meeting discussions, they rarely discussed full group
discussions. By utilizing smaller group discussions within a larger faculty meeting, more faculty
have a chance to speak. In addition, by asking for each group’s notes to be shared with
administrators, the teachers in this study felt that everyone’s voice could be heard.
Recommendations for Practitioners
Utilize full-faculty meetings, committees, and open forums to involve faculty in equitybased decision-making.
School leaders often lean on committees and department meetings to hear faculty
feedback and involve them in equity-based change. While committees are correlated with a
higher degree of faculty involvement, department meetings are not. Instead, school leaders
should seek to utilize faculty meetings and open forums more frequently to involve their faculty
in decision-making processes. Faculty meetings may be within one division or across the whole
faculty. Open forums are opportunities for any interested faculty member to come and discuss a
potential change with administrators directly. When teachers feel involved in decision-making,
they are more likely to feel committed to carrying out those decisions (Lin, 2014). This is
especially important for equity-based decisions which even more so require the commitment of
the whole faculty (Hall & Stevenson, 2007). Thus, administrators need to utilize the structures
that are correlated with faculty feeling a higher degree of involvement. This study found a

104
significant correlation between the use of committees, faculty meetings, and open forums and a
higher degree of involvement. Respectively, these structures accounted for 21%, 30%, and 17%
of the overall variation in perceived degree of faculty involvement.
Create Value for Committees
While many school leaders utilize committees, not all committee models are effective.
In schools that frequently used committees and had a high perceived degree of faculty
involvement, there were also structures in place that gave these committees such value. This
value was created through the selection process for committees, the purposefulness of the
committees, and the structures for reporting back to the faculty.
To create value in the selection process, school leaders should provide all faculty with the
opportunity to volunteer and utilize a democratic process to select the representatives. The
schools that were studied did this through full faculty votes at the end of each school year or by
the committee itself voting. Other schools followed an interview process. Regardless, these
models made serving on a committee hold a level of importance in the eyes of the faculty.
Schools also created value by providing stipends for serving on certain more taxing committees
or considering this service as equivalent to coaching a sport for one’s workload. When one is
elected for a committee or specifically chosen, they may be more likely to commit to the work of
the committee.
School leaders should also seek to create committees with a clear sense of purpose and
with a level of authority that would allow them to act on that purpose. For more general
committees such as a faculty council or an equity committee, this purpose was often focused on
information sharing between faculty and administrators: an opportunity for faculty to share input
and gather input from their colleagues, as well as an opportunity for administrators to discuss

105
potential changes with faculty before fully executing those changes. For more specific
committees, the purpose was more task-focused allowing for the committee to make a decision
or proposal around a specific issue. For example, a committee on gendered bathrooms could
gather information, lead discussions with the faculty, and ultimately hold a vote or present a
proposal. A Martin Luther King Jr. Day Committee is responsible for planning a day of
activities. Committees need a clear purpose and an understanding of that purpose. In doing so,
these committees become important in the community, and serving on a committee may feel
more worthwhile.
School leaders may consider creating a faculty council or faculty committee to provide a
platform through which faculty can share ideas with the administration and vice-versa. Five of
the ten interviewees had a faculty council-type committee at their school with the specific focus
of gaining input from teachers and sharing concerns of the faculty with the administration. These
committees often weighed in on issues of equity or shared equity-based concerns with the
administration. Interviewees explained that these committees gave faculty a place to share their
concerns and gave administrators a place to discuss potential changes with a smaller group of
faculty before rolling them out more broadly.
Finally, school leaders should create a structure that allows committees a chance to report
back to the faculty on their work. In this study, committees would often investigate an issue and
then hold faculty meetings where they would present their findings and then lead a discussion.
This structure creates a system of accountability for the committees and allows the whole faculty
to understand the decisions being discussed and see that their colleagues are involved in making
those decisions. The interviewees appreciated these chances to discuss the key issues and see
how many teachers had been involved in the process. Other committees, often the more broad-

106
based ones, would have public notes that faculty could access at any time. Interviewees
explained that this way the faculty could see what was being discussed and recommended by the
committee. This added value to the work of the committee because the view of the faculty on the
committee was documented. This documentation also created an accountability system between
the committee and the school leaders.
Use Full-Faculty Meetings to Seek Input
It is a common trope that many meetings could have been an email. This is especially the
case for full-faculty meetings in many schools. With such a large group, it can be difficult to
have a discussion and make progress. However, in the schools that utilized full-faculty meetings
often for equity-based decisions, the goal was not to have a full-faculty discussion or to always
come to a consensus. Instead, school leaders or a committee presented a problem or a set of
findings. They would then break the faculty into smaller groups to provide feedback or share
their ideas and perspectives on the problem. In some cases, the question may be whether or not
the faculty thinks there even is a problem worth addressing. In other cases, the question may be
around a particular policy change or seeking solutions for a key inequity the school wants to
address. At the end of the faculty meeting, the groups would share their feedback with
administrators through recorded notes or a survey. The interviewees expressed that this helped
them feel like the administrators cared to hear their ideas. In some cases, the faculty would vote
on the issue after the discussion.
School leaders should follow this model to involve faculty in decision-making during
faculty meetings. Breaking faculty into smaller groups allows for all voices to be heard and not
just those confident enough to speak up in front of the whole group. Asking for notes from each
group to be shared allows school leaders to see the ideas of all faculty groups. In addition, this

107
can give administrators a chance to parse through the ideas and not feel like they need to make a
decision in the moment or focus on any particular idea or grievance. The angriest voices are
often the loudest voices in a school, and administrators often hear most from those who are
seeking to complain. By seeing the feedback from all faculty digitally after the meeting,
administrators can then have a more accurate sense of how the faculty are feeling about a
potential change or issue.
Create a Culture of Openness to Feedback and Change
Administrators should regularly ask for faculty input and follow up on that input
transparently. Interviewees described their administrators as being open to change and open to
feedback. Instead of becoming defensive about a problem, the administrators would hear
concerns and brainstorm solutions with faculty. While it was not always possible to act on all
concerns, there was transparency around the process and the reasoning.
Most importantly, administrators need to take accountability for their decisions and
provide clarity on why and how the decision was made. Many interviewees shared that this
transparency allowed them to feel heard whether or not the decision aligned with their desires.
School administrators should use faculty meetings to share decisions and the rationale behind
them. In that rationale, leaders should explain how that decision aligns with the faculty input and
be transparent about the reasoning when it does not align. Doing so allows faculty to feel like
their voices are heard and considered.
Limitations and Further Research
This study is limited in scope as it is focused on independent schools. Independent
schools can be helpful settings for research because of the flexibility in the governance structure.
However, they also tend to be smaller than public schools. Thus, findings could vary in another

108
context. This research could be expanded to better understand how these findings would apply in
public or charter school settings.
In addition, this study was limited to teachers in schools that were already committed to
engaging in equity work. In doing so, the focus was on the structures that support faculty
involvement in that work. Some interviewees discussed the barriers at their schools to pursuing
equity work either from parents, the board, or the administration. They explained that teachers
are largely on board with equity work and did not need as much convincing to be committed to a
new equity initiative. Thus, further research could be done to understand how schools can better
involve other constituencies in the change process to gain commitment from those groups. In
addition, since this research focused on schools with a commitment to equity in their mission,
vision, or strategic plan, further research could be done on schools that are less holistically
dedicated to equity work.
The third research question asked whether there are racial or gender differences in
perceived faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making and structure usefulness.
However, due to the number of participants in each racial and gender category, the comparative
quantitative analysis was limited to two genders (male and female) and three races
(Black/African-American, White, and Asian/Asian-American). Thus, while there was not a
relationship between these genders and races and structure usefulness, there may be if other races
were examined. In addition, there was no difference in perceived faculty involvement when
examining two genders, but the inclusion of a larger sample size of other genders could lead to
different results.
The central finding for the third research question was that there were racial differences
in the perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making. Black/African-

109
American faculty rated DFI highest, then White faculty, and then Asian/Asian-American faculty.
This finding could be significant in understanding how our schools involve or do not involve
certain racial groups in equity-based decisions. However, the quantitative position of the study
did not have questions that would explain this finding. In addition, the qualitative portion only
included one Asian-American interviewee who was very involved in equity-based decisionmaking at his school. Thus, further research should be done to determine why this racial
difference exists in the perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decisionmaking.
Conclusion
Educational inequities are deeply entrenched in the fabric of independent schools. The
@blackat___ movement in the summer of 2020 showed just how much work independent
schools have to do to become more equitable institutions. Since that summer, many independent
school leaders have stated a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion through their
mission, vision, or strategic plan. Heads of Schools and Senior Leaders have sought to lead these
changes (Shah, 2017). However, to create the change necessary to dismantle these inequities, the
full faculty community must be involved in the change process (Berg, 2021; Gant, 2021; Teitel
et al., 2021). Scholars agree that involving faculty in the decision-making process supports more
effective implementation of the change (Keung, 2008; Lin, 2014). Thus, to create the adaptive
change necessary to dismantle these educational inequities, school leaders must effectively
involve their faculty in the change processes.
Many school leaders state that they want to involve faculty in change processes at their
schools. However, there has been limited research on how to effectively do so. Prior research
outlines how schools use committees, department meetings, and other methods to involve faculty

110
in change (D’Entremont, 2016; Printy et al. 2009). This study expands the prior research by
identifying a relationship between the use of these structures and higher feelings of faculty
involvement in equity-based change. Specifically, the increased use of full-faculty meetings,
committees, and open forums to involve faculty in equity-based change was found to predict
higher perceived degrees of faculty involvement in equity-based change at the school as a whole.
Further, there was no relationship found between the increased use of department meetings,
surveys, and open forums and a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement.
Both the qualitative and quantitative portions of this study affirmed that having structures
in place to support faculty involvement in change was related to higher levels of faculty
involvement. In the quantitative portion, a higher frequency of use of the six structures examined
together was correlated with a higher perceived degree of faculty. In the qualitative portion,
interviewees explained that the structures in place at their schools allowed them to feel involved
in decision-making and to know where to go if they had an idea or concern.
To involve faculty in equity-based change, it is important to consider how race and
gender may relate to the perceived usefulness of a structure and perceptions of faculty
involvement. Thus, this study examined whether there was a relationship between race or gender
and the extent to which faculty perceive a decision-making structure to be useful. However, there
was no relationship found. In considering how race and gender relate to feelings of involvement,
this study found no relationship between gender and feelings of involvement but a significant
relationship between race and feelings of involvement. Black/African-American faculty
perceived faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making at their school to be highest,
followed by White faculty, followed by Asian/Asian-American faculty. Thus, there is more
research to be done to understand why these patterns exist. There may be a difference in how

111
often Black/African-American faculty, White faculty, and Asian/Asian-American faculty are
tapped to be involved in a change which could predict different perceptions of faculty
involvement overall. However, this study did not determine the reasons for these differences, it
just found that they do exist.
For school leaders to consider how to effectively involve faculty in equity-based
decision-making, it is important to understand how to effectively utilize the structures found to
be correlated with higher degrees of perceived involvement. The qualitative portion of this study
examined the way schools with high perceived degrees of faculty involvement used committees
and full-faculty meetings. Committees were effective when there was value both in serving on a
committee and in the outcomes of committee work. Individuals were chosen for committees by
their peers through a vote or a process led by school leaders and thus felt a sense of importance
associated with serving on the committee. Committees also had clear purposes and authority
within that purpose. Finally, committees reported out to the faculty and sought the voices of
faculty members outside of the committee. There was often a link between the use of committees
and the use of full-faculty meetings because committees would report out to the full-faculty or
lead discussions in faculty meetings. Faculty meetings effectively involved faculty in change
when they were centered on smaller group discussions on key issues with a way for each group
to report their feedback to the leaders.
Making educational institutions more equitable is a charge that will require more than
any one committee or faculty meeting can provide. However, creating the systems and structures
in our schools to support effective equity-based change will provide the foundation for this
change to occur. These structures create the school-wide commitment to change and provide the
forums through which more change can occur as more voices are heard. Ultimately, these

112
structures support schools as they help schools progress toward becoming more equitable
institutions.

113
References
Alégroth, E., Gorschek, T., Petersen, K., & Mattsson, M. (2020). Characteristics that affect
preference of decision models for asset selection: An industrial questionnaire survey.
Software Quality Journal, 28(4), 1675–1707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-019-09489-
8
American Psychological Association. (2021). Inclusive language Guidelines. American
Psychological Association.
https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf
Benoliel, P., & Barth, A. (2017). The implications of the school’s cultural attributes in the
relationships between participative leadership and teacher job satisfaction and burnout.
Journal of Educational Administration, 55(6), 640–656. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-
2016-0116
Berg, J. H. (2021). To lead for equity, learn from teachers. Learning Professional, 42(6).
Bouwmans, M., Runhaar, P., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2017). Fostering teachers’ team
learning: An interplay between transformational leadership and participative decisionmaking? Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 71–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.010
Castagno, A. E., & Hausman, C. (2017). The Tensions Between Shared Governance and
Advancing Educational Equity. The Urban Review, 49(1), 96–111.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0383-8
Ceng, Tarkan. (2016). A comparative analysis of participatory leadership practice of elementary
school principals between public and non-public schools [Dissertation, The Sage
Colleges]. 10244477.

114
Conley, S. (1991). Review of research on teacher participation in school decision-making.
Review of Research in Education, 17(1), 225–266.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X017001225
Conley, S. C., Schmidle, T., & Shedd, J. B. (1988). Teacher participation in the management of
school systems. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 90(2),
259–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818809000208
Cowen, J. M., & Strunk, K. O. (2015). The impact of teachers’ unions on educational outcomes:
What we know and what we need to learn. Economics of Education Review, 48, 208–223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.02.006
Crosby, G. (2020). Planned change: Why Kurt Lewin’s social science is still the best practice for
business results, change management, and human progress (1st ed.). Taylor and Francis
Group.
Culp, B. D. (2019). Professional learning communities: The ultimate blueprint for academic
success. Rowman & Littlefield.
Cutler, R., Hosseinkashi, Y., Pool, J., Filipi, S., Aichner, R., Tu, Y., & Gehrke, J. (2021).
Meeting
Effectiveness and Inclusiveness in Remote Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on
Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449247
Dary, T., & Pickeral, T. (2013). School Climate Practices for Implementation and Sustainability
(No. 1; School Climate Briefs). National School Climate Center.
www.schoolclimate.org/publications/documents/SchoolClimatePracticeBriefs -2013.pdf

115
Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2018). Professional Collaboration With Purpose: Teacher Learning
Towards Equitable and Excellent Schools (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351165884
De Nobile, J., McCormick, J., & Hoekman, K. (2013). Organizational communication and
occupational stress in Australian Catholic primary schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 51(6), 744–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2011-0081
D’Entremont, J. (2016). Leadership in New Hampshire independent schools: An examination of
trust and openness to change [New England College]. 10119265.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different
forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7),
1964–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205
Dougherty, J. N. (2008). Engagement: How the faculty of one independent school understands
its role within the community and implications for school leaders. University of
Pennsylvania.
Duyar, I., Gumus, S., & Sukru Bellibas, M. (2013). Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes:
The influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration. International Journal of
Educational Management, 27(7), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107
Evans, R. (2009). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life
problems of innovation. Jossey-Bass.
Fred, H., Meeuwen Pierre, V., Ellen, R., & Marjan, V. (2020). How to enhance teachers’
professional learning by stimulating the development of professional learning
communities: Operationalizing a comprehensive PLC concept for assessing its

116
development in everyday educational practice. Professional Development in Education,
46(5), 751–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1634630
French, B. (2017). Diversity: Words, Meaning, and Race at Predominantly White, Independent
Schools. Race and Pedagogy Journal: Teaching and Learning for Justice, 2(2).
https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/rpj/vol2/iss2/2
Gant, M. M. (2021). A culture of equity calls for leadership from the top. Learning Professional,
42(6).
Glew, D. J., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1995). Participation in
organizations: A preview of the issues and proposed framework for future analysis. A
Special Issue of the Journal of Management, 21(3), 395–421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90014-4
Gozali, C., Claassen Thrush, E., Soto-Peña, M., Whang, C., & Luschei, T. F. (2017). Teacher
Voice in Global Conversations around Education Access, Equity, and Quality. FIRE:
Forum for International Research in Education, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.18275/fire201704011107
Gruber, J., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Can We Empower Others? The Paradox of Empowerment in
the Governing of an Alternative Public School I. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 15.
Gulla, J. (2021). Why Do Independent Schools Exist? National Association of Independent
Schools, https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/fall-2021/why-
do-independent-schools-exist/

117
Hall, D. M., & Stevenson, H. C. (2007). Double Jeopardy: Being African-American and “Doing
Diversity” in Independent Schools. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship
in Education, 109(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710900102
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Hallinger, P., & Richardson, D. (1988). Models of shared leadership: Evolving structures and
relationships. The Urban Review, 20(4), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01120135
Hardcastle, T. (2021). Leadership Lessons: Combating Committee Fatigue. National Association
of Independent Schools. https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/summer2021/ leadership-lessons-combating-committee-fatigue/
Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1993). A normative theory of participative decision making in
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 31(3).
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239310038804
İNandi, Y., & Giliç, F. (2016). Relationship of teachers’ readiness for change with their
participation in decision making and school culture. Educational Research and Reviews,
11(8).
Ingersoll, R. M. (2006). Who controls teacher’s work? Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/doi:10.4159/9780674038950
Ingersoll, Richard M.; Sirinides, Philip; and Dougherty, Patrick. (2017). School Leadership,
Teachers’ Roles in School Decisionmaking, and Student Achievement. CPRE Working
Papers. http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/15

118
Jacobs, J., Gordon, S. P., & Solis, R. (2016). Critical Issues in Teacher Leadership: A National
Look at Teachers’ Perception. Journal of School Leadership, 26(3), 374–406.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461602600301
Keung, C. C. (2008). The effect of shared decision-making on the improvement in teachers’ job
development. New Horizons in Education, 56(3).
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally Responsive School Leadership:
A Synthesis of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Lambert, E. G., & Paoline, E. A. (2008). The influence of individual, job, and organizational
characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33(4), 541–564.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016808320694
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 59(8), 37–40.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science;
social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Lin, Y. J. (2014). Teacher involvement in school decision-making. Journal of Studies in
Education, 4(3), 50. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v4i3.6179
Lindahl, R. (2008). Shared leadership: Can it work in schools? The Educational Forum, 72(4),
298–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720802361894

119
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. SAGE.
Louis, K. S. (2007). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal of educational change, 8, 1-24.
Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student
achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 21(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486586
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed). SAGE
Publications.
Mayer, A. P., Donaldson, M. L., LeChasseur, K., Welton, A. D., & Cobb, C. D. (2013).
Negotiating site-based management and expanded teacher decision making: A case study
of six urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 695–731.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13492793
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (Fourth edition). Jossey-Bass.
Montuori, A., & Donnelly, G. (2018). Transformative Leadership. In J. Neal (Ed.), Handbook of
Personal and Organizational Transformation (pp. 319–350). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66893-2_59
Mualuko, N. J., Mukasa, S. A., & Judy, A. S. K. (2009). Improving decision-making in schools
through teacher participation. Educational Research and Review, 4(8), 391–397.
National Association of Independent Schools. (2007). The strategic process: 10 steps for
planning your independent school’s future. National Association of Independent Schools.
National Association of Independent Schools. (2021). Four Key Findings from the 2021 State of
Independent School Leadership Study. NAIS. https://www.nais.org/learn/independent-

120
ideas/september-2021 /four-key-findings-from-the-2021-state-of-independent-schoolleadership-study/
National Association of Independent Schools. (2022). 2021 Survey of Independent School
Innovation Leaders. National Association of Independent Schools.
National Association of Independent Schools. (2023). What Are Independent Private Schools?
NAIS. https://parents.nais.org/learn/what-are-independent-private-schools/
Ni, Y., Yan, R., & Pounder, D. (2018). Collective leadership: Principals’ decision influence and
the supportive or inhibiting decision influence of other stakeholders. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 216–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17723427
Parlar, H., Polatcan, M., & Cansoy, R. (2019). The relationship between social capital and
innovativeness climate in schools: The intermediary role of professional learning
communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(2), 232–244.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2018-0322
Paulsen, J. M., Hjertø, K. B., & Tihveräinen, S. P. (2016). Exploring the moral and distributive
levers for teacher empowerment in the Finnish policy culture. International Journal of
Educational Management, 30(6), 756–770. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2015-0015
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (n.d.). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (part 2 of 3).
Perez del Toro, J. (2017). Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Independent Schools: How Silence
and Privilege Hinder the Work [Dissertation]. University of California, Los Angeles.
Poekert, P. E., Swaffield, S., Demir, E. K., & A. Wright, S. (2020). Leadership for professional
learning towards educational equity: A systematic literature review. Professional

121
Development in Education, 46(4), 541–562.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1787209
Printy, S. M., & Marks, H. M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory
Into Practice, 45(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4502_4
Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and
teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School
Leadership, 19(5), 504–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460901900501
Ríos, R. (2017). Teacher agency for equity: A framework for conscientious engagement.
Routledge.
Sağnak, M. (2016). Participative leadership and change-oriented organizational citizenship: The
mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
16(62). https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.62.11
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. (2022). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using
Microsoft Excel (Fifth edition). SAGE.
Sarafidou, J., & Chatziioannidis, G. (2013). Teacher participation in decision making and its
impact on school and teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2),
170–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297586
Shah, N. (2017). Race, Ideology, and Academic Ability: A Relational Analysis of Racial
Narratives in Mathematics. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in
Education, 119(7), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900705
Smith, M. (2021.). Perceptions of Teachers of Color in Independent Schools: Factors Associated
with Teacher Retention.

122
Somech, A. (2010). Participative Decision Making in Schools: A Mediating-Moderating
Analytical Framework for Understanding School and Teacher Outcomes. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 174–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510361745
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678
Spring, J. (2016). Chapter 1. In Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Strunk, K. O., Cowen, J. M., Goldhaber, D., Marianno, B. D., Kilbride, T., & Theobald, R.
(2018). It is in the Contract: How the Policies Set in Teachers’ Unions’ Collective
Bargaining Agreements Vary Across States and Districts. Educational Policy, 32(2),
280–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817741546
Strunk, K. O., & McEachin, A. (2011). Accountability Under Constraint: The Relationship
Between Collective Bargaining Agreements and California Schools’ and Districts’
Performance Under No Child Left Behind. American Educational Research Journal,
48(4), 871–903. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211401006
Terrell, R. D., Terrell, E. K., Lindsey, R. B., Lindsey, D. B., & Alpert, D. (2018). Culturally
proficient leadership: The personal journey begins within (Second edition). Corwin, a
SAGE Publishing Company.
Teitel, L., Antón, M., Etienne, W. S., Loyola, E., & Steele, A. (2021). For improving equity and
dismantling racism in schools. 42(3).
Turnbull, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives.
Learning Environments Research, 5, 235–252.

123
Visone, J. D. (2021). Empowering Teacher Leadership: Strategies and Systems to Realize Your
School’s Potential (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003190370
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How Teachers Experience Principal Leadership: The
Roles of Professional Community, Trust, Efficacy, and Shared Responsibility.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458–495.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321502
Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Woods, P., Hamilton, T., & Roberts, A. (2015). School
leadership for equity: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 19(4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.930520
Weiner, J., & Woulfin, S. L. (2018). Sailing across the divide: Challenges to the transfer of
teacher leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(3), 210–234.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775118766319

124
Appendix A: Survey
As a part of my graduate school program at the University of Southern California, I am researching and
writing about faculty participation in decision-making. I want to help leaders to find more ways to include
faculty in decision-making.
This survey will first ask for demographic information and then have you reflect on how your school
involves faculty in equity-based decision-making. The survey is completely optional and all results will
be unidentifiable and anonymized. The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. If you
are one of the first 150 people to complete the survey, you will receive a $5 Starbucks Gift Card for your
time.
By continuing, you are consenting to participate in this survey.
Q1 Do you work at an independent school?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q2 Is teaching your primary role at your school?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Q3 Is equity a part of your school's mission, vision, philosophy, or strategic plan?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
The survey will continue if all are yes
End of Block: Introduction and Consent
Start of Block: School Demographic Information
Q4 How large is your school?
o Less than 250 students (1)
o 250 - 500 Students (2)
o 500 - 750 Students (3)
o 750 - 1000 Students (4)
o 1000 + Students (5)
Q5 What grades does your school serve?

125
o K-5 (1)
o K-6 (2)
o K-8 (3)
o 6-12 (4)
o 7-12 (5)
o 9-12 (6)
o 9-PG (7)
o Other (8) __________________________________________________
End of Block: School Demographic Information
Start of Block: Teaching Demographic Information
Q8 For how many years have you been teaching?
________________________________________________________________
Q9 For how many years have you been at your current school?
________________________________________________________________
Q10 Select the all grades that you teach:
▢ Pre-K/Nursery (1)
▢ K (2)
▢ 1 (3)
▢ 2 (4)
▢ 3 (5)
▢ 4 (6)
▢ 5 (7)
▢ 6 (8)
▢ 7 (9)
▢ 8 (10)
▢ 9 (11)
▢ 10 (12)
▢ 11 (13)
▢ 12 (14)
▢ PG (15)

126
Q11 If you hold any titles at your school outside of teaching, please add them here (advisor, department
chair, dean, coordinator, etc)
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Personal Demographic Information
Start of Block: Involvement in Decision-Making
Q12 Equity-based decisions are any decision in which part of the reasoning was for the school to be more
inclusive of all identities, provide more equitable access to opportunities, and expand the diversity of
students and faculty.
How often does your school discuss making equity-based changes in each of the following areas?
Not at all
(1)
Sometimes
(2)
Somewhat
often (3)
Very Often
(4)
I don't know
(X)
Hiring practices (1) o o o o o
Grading practices (2) o o o o o
Behavior/discipline
practices (3)
o o o o o
Financial aid practices (4) o o o o o
Admissions practices (5) o o o o o
Student support services (6) o o o o o
Curricular practices (7) o o o o o
Course tracking practices
(8)
o o o o o
Q13 How often are faculty involved in discussions on change in these areas?

127
Not at all (1) Sometimes
(2)
Somewhat
often (3)
Very Often
(4)
I don't know
(X)
Hiring practices (1) o o o o o
Grading practices (2) o o o o o
Behavior/discipline
practices (3)
o o o o o
Financial aid practices (4) o o o o o
Admissions practices (5) o o o o o
Student support services (6) o o o o o
Curricular practices (7) o o o o o
Course tracking practices
(8)
o o o o o
Page Break
Page Break
Q14 Rate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements (Adapted from Wahlstrom
& Louis, 2008)
Strongly
disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Somewhat
disagree
(3)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Agree (5) Strongly
agree (6)

128
At my school, teachers
have significant input into
school-wide plans for
improving educational
equity (3)
o o o o o o
At my school, school
leaders ensure wide
participation in decisions
about equity-based school
improvement. (2)
o o o o o o
At my school, teachers
have an effective role in
school-wide equity-based
decision-making. (1)
o o o o o o
End of Block: Involvement in Decision-Making
Start of Block: Structures
Q15 How often does your school currently use each of the following structures to involve faculty in
equity-based decision-making?
Never (1) Rarely (2) Sometime
s (3)
Often (4) Very
Often (5)
Always
(6)
Committees (Select groups
of faculty that focus on a
particular task or area of
interest) (1)
o o o o o o
Open Forums (Opt-in
meetings around a specific
issue and decisions around
those issues) (2)
o o o o o o

129
Full Faculty Meeting
Discussions (Meetings in
divisions or as a full
faculty where potential
change is discussed) (3)
o o o o o o
Informal Discussions
(Administrators hold time
and space for faculty to
meet and provide input on
decisions) (7)
o o o o o o
Department Meetings
Discussions (Meetings by
department where
potential change is
discussed) (4)
o o o o o o
Surveys (Forms where
faculty can provide input
on potential decisions) (5)
o o o o o o
Other (6) o o o o o o
Q16 How useful is each of the following structures in involving faculty in equity-based decision-making?
Extremely
useless (1)
Moderately
useless (2)
Slightly
useless (3)
Slightly
useful (4)
Moderately
useful (5)
Extremely
useful (6)
Committees (Select
groups of faculty that
focus on a particular task
or area of interest) (1)
o o o o o o

130
Open Forums (Opt-in
meetings around a
specific issue and
decisions around those
issues) (2)
o o o o o o
Full Faculty Meeting
Discussions (Meetings in
divisions or as a full
faculty where potential
change is discussed) (3)
o o o o o o
Informal Discussions
(Administrators hold time
and space for faculty to
meet and provide input on
decisions) (7)
o o o o o o
Department Meetings
Discussions (Meetings by
department where
potential change is
discussed) (4)
o o o o o o
Surveys (Forms where
faculty can provide input
on potential decisions) (5)
o o o o o o
Other (6) o o o o o o
Page Break
Page Break
Q16b Rank each of the following structures from most useful to least useful in involving faculty in
equity-based decision-making.
______ Committees (Select groups of faculty that focus on a particular task or area of interest) (1)

131
______ Open Forums (Opt-in meetings around a specific issue and decisions around those issues) (2)
______ Full Faculty Meeting Discussions (Meetings in divisions or as a full faculty where potential
change is discussed) (3)
______ Informal Discussions (Administrators hold time and space for faculty to meet and provide input
on decisions) (7)
______ Department Meetings Discussions (Meetings by department where potential change is discussed)
(4)
______ Surveys (Forms where faculty can provide input on potential decisions) (5)
______ Other (6)
Q17 How important are the following conditions to allowing faculty to feel involved in equity-based
decision-making?
Not at all
important
(1)
Low
importance
(2)
Slightly
unimportant
(3)
Moderately
important
(4)
Very
Important
(5)
Extremely
(6)
Faculty have full
impact on the final
decision made (1)
o o o o o o
Structure has an open
agenda (any issue can
be brought up) (2)
o o o o o o
Allows all interested
faculty members the
chance to participate
(3)
o o o o o o
All faculty voices can
be heard (4)
o o o o o o
Faculty know how
the final decision will
be made (5)
o o o o o o
End of Block: Structures
Start of Block: Demographics
Q6 Race/Ethnicity (Select all that apply)

132
▢ Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander (2)
▢ Black/African American (1)
▢ Latin American/Hispanic American (4)
▢ Middle-Eastern American (7)
▢ Multi-Racial (5)
▢ Native American (6)
▢ White (3)
Q7 Gender Identity (Select all that apply)
▢ Female (1)
▢ Male (3)
▢ Non-Binary (2)
▢ Prefer not to disclose (7)
▢ Other (8) __________________________________________________
End of Block: Demographics
Start of Block: Interview
Q18 We are looking for participants to participate in 30-minute Zoom interviews to discuss these topics
further. Interviewees will receive an additional $25 gift card. Would you be willing to be interviewed?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question: If We are looking for participants to participate in 30-minute Zoom interviews to
discuss these topics... = Yes
Q19 Thank you for volunteering to be interviewed. Please provide your email below so we can reach out
to you. All of your information will be anonymized in the study.
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Interview

133
Appendix B: Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
Introduction
As a part of my graduate school program, I am researching and writing about faculty
participation in equity-based decision-making. I want to help leaders to find more ways to
include faculty in equity-based decision-making. I have selected a small number of teachers
based on their survey responses. You were invited because you indicated that faculty have a
higher level of involvement in decisions than others and your school uses one or more of the
structures found to be related to high levels of involvement.
Please note that your name won’t be associated with anything you say in my report as was stated
on your consent form. Also, remember that this is completely voluntary and if you want to stop
or not answer a question, that is completely fine.
To accurately capture our conversation, I would like to record it. Do I have your permission to
record our conversation?
Questions:
1. What is your primary role at school?
a. Do you have any additional roles or responsibilities?
Equity-based decisions are defined as decisions made with a focus on being more inclusive of all
identities, providing more equitable access to opportunities, and expanding diversity of students
and faculty.
2. Describe a recent school-wide equity-based decision that involved faculty in the process
to any extent.
a. How were faculty included in the process?
b. How much impact did the faculty have on the decision in the end?
c. What factors helped you to feel involved in the decision?
3. What types of faculty equity-based committees exist at your school if any?
a. What role do these committees play in school-wide decision-making, if any?
b. How effective do you feel these committees are at involving faculty in decisionmaking? Why?
4. How would you describe a typical full-faculty meeting at your school?
a. How effective do you feel full faculty meetings are at involving faculty in
decision-making? Why?
5. Describe a recent school-wide equity-based decision where you felt faculty were not
involved or heard in the process.
a. What factors led you to not feel involved in the decision?
Thank you. Now, I want to understand your ideas about how your school can best involve faculty
in decision-making.
6. What do you think is most important for school leaders to do to effectively involve
faculty in decision-making?

134
a. Why?
7. What do you think school leaders do that makes it harder for faculty to be involved in
decision-making?
a. Why?
8. Would you describe the ideal way for your school to involve faculty in school-wide
decision-making?
9. What didn’t I ask you that I should have asked?
Closing
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. If you think of anything else that
you wish you had said, you are welcome to email me. I may also reach out to you to ask for
further clarification. Thank you, again.

135
Appendix C: Consent Form
INFORMED CONSENT FOR RESEARCH
Study Title: Faculty Involvement in Equity-Based Decision-Making
Principal Investigator: Kendall Beeman
Department: Rossier School of Education
INTRODUCTION
You are being invited to take part in a research project about faculty participation in equity-based
decision-making at independent schools. Your participation is voluntary. If you do participate, you will
partake in one 30-minute interview over Zoom with the researcher, Kendall Beeman.
Before you decide to participate, read this document to understand the study. You do not have to make a
decision now. If you do not understand what you are reading, ask Kendall Beeman to explain. Please
take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may want to discuss it with your family, and
friends. You can also ask someone to read the form to you. If you decide that you agree to participate,
please sign this form electronically and download one copy so that you can have our contact information
and answers to questions about the study.
KEY INFORMATION
The following is a short summary of this study to help you decide whether you should participate.
More detailed information is listed later in this form.
1. Being in this research study is voluntary–it is your choice.
2. You are being asked to take part in this study because you took our survey on faculty
involvement in equity-based decision-making and indicated that you volunteered to
participate. The purpose of this study is to help leaders find effective ways to involve faculty
in equity-based decision-making. You will be interviewed over Zoom for approximately thirty
minutes. You may receive an email after your Zoom interview to check to ensure the
researcher is accurately interpreting your responses.
3. The risks to the study are minimal and no greater than the risks of everyday life. If you feel
uncomfortable with any questions, you will have the option to skip questions. In addition, your
participation will remain confidential and the data will be reported under a pseudonym. Your
participation will be unidentifiable in the report.
4. If you participate, you will receive a $25 gift card to a place of your choice. You will also
help us understand how school leaders can involve faculty in equity-based decisions.

136
5. You may choose to join the study or you may choose not to join the study. Your participation
is voluntary. There is no penalty if you choose not to join the research study. You will lose no
benefits or advantages that are now coming to you or would come to you in the future.
DETAILED INFORMATION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to identify how school leaders can effectively involve teachers in equitybased decision-making at independent schools. The goal is to learn about the conditions that allow for a
structure for involving faculty to be effective. We hope to learn about your experiences participating in
equity-based decision-making at your school. You are invited as a possible participant because you
identified that faculty are involved in equity-based decision-making at your school. About ten participants
will be interviewed in the study
PROCEDURES
If you decide to take part, you will participate in a thirty-minute interview over Zoom. During the
interview, you will be asked about the ways your school has involved faculty in equity-based decisionmaking. You will also be asked why you felt those processes were effective or not effective. The
researcher will audio-record the interview. You may receive an email after your Zoom interview to check
to ensure the researcher is accurately interpreting your responses.

RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
The risks to the study are minimal and no greater than the risks of everyday life. Some of the questions
may make you feel uneasy or embarrassed. If you feel uncomfortable with any questions, you will have
the option to skip questions or stop answering. Your data will be reported under a pseudonym and your
participation will be unidentifiable in the report. There is a minimal risk of someone unaffiliated with the
study gaining access to the data. All precautions possible will be taken to prevent this. All data will be
secured in password-protected files and databases
BENEFITS
If you participate, you will receive a $25 gift card to a place of your choice. You will also help us
understand how school leaders can involve faculty in equity-based decisions.
PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we are
required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. Efforts will be made to
limit the use and disclosure of your personal information to people who are required to review this
information. We may publish the information from this study in journals or present it at meetings. If we
do, we will not use your name.
The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Human Subject’s
Protections Program (HSPP) may review your records.

137
Your data will be coded, with a letter-based label in research notes and pseudonyms in the research paper
itself. Your school will also be made unidentifiable with a pseudonym and generalized information.
All information will be stored in password-protected databases and all identifiers will be removed. Your
name will not be used in the research notes or the report.
Your information will be de-identified. De-identified means that all identifiers have been removed. The
information could be stored and shared for future research in this de-identified fashion. It would not be
possible for future researchers to identify you as we would not share any identifiable information about
your child with future researchers. This can be done without again seeking your consent in the future, as
permitted by law. The future use of your information only applies to the information collected in this
study.
ALTERNATIVES
An alternative would be to not participate in this study. You may choose to join the study or you may
choose not to join the study. Your participation is voluntary. There is no penalty if you choose not to join
the research study. You will lose no benefits or advantages that are now coming to you or would come to
you in the future.
PAYMENTS / COMPENSATION
COST
There is no cost to you for taking part in this study.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
It is your choice whether to participate. If you choose to participate, you may change your mind and leave
the study at any time. If you decide not to participate, or choose to end your participation in this study,
you will not be penalized or lose any benefits that you are otherwise entitled to.
WITHDRAWAL FROM STUDY INSTRUCTIONS
Should you decide to leave the study, your data will not be used in the research and will be destroyed. If
you no longer wish to be in the research study, please email Kendall Beeman at kbeeman@usc.edu.

138
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, complaints, or think the research has hurt you, talk to the study
investigator, Kendall Beeman, at 908-419-2413 or kbeeman@usc.edu.
This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a research
review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a research participant or if you
have complaints about the research. You may contact the IRB at (323) 442-0114 or by email at
irb@usc.edu.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a chance to
ask questions. All my questions have been answered. By signing this form, I am agreeing to take part in
this study.
_____________________________ ________________________________ ___________________
Name of Research Participant Signature Date Signed
(and Time*)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract To create the adaptive change necessary to dismantle educational inequities, school leaders need to involve faculty in the change process. Prior research outlines how schools use committees, department meetings, and other methods to involve faculty in change; however, there is limited research on the efficacy of these structures. This study fills that gap by examining the relationship between the use of the structures to involve faculty in change and the perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based change. This research took an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach utilizing a survey of 206 independent school teachers and in-depth interviews with ten of these teachers. The first research question examined the frequency of use and the perceived usefulness of six structures through which independent schools involve faculty in equity-based decision-making. The study found that committees and department meetings were both used most often and perceived to be most useful by faculty. The second research question sought to better evaluate the usefulness of the structures by comparing the frequency of use to the perceived degree of faculty involvement in decision-making. Multiple regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the use of committees, full-faculty meetings, and open forums and a higher perceived degree of faculty involvement in equity-based decision-making. The third research question aimed to identify any racial or gender differences in the results. There were no gender-based differences in the perceived degree of faculty involvement at schools, but there were racial group differences. There were no racial or gender differences between perceived structure usefulness. The final research question used qualitative research to seek to explain the results of the study, particularly the positive correlation between the use of committees and full-faculty meetings and a higher degree of perceived faculty involvement. The analysis revealed that committees effectively involve faculty in equity-based change when they are given value, have a clear purpose, and have structures for reporting out to the faculty. Further, full-faculty meetings effectively involve faculty in equity-based change when they provide faculty a chance to discuss ideas in small groups and share the feedback with administrators.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Faculty learning and agency for racial equity

PDF

Equity-focused school boards: supporting K-12 suburban districts

PDF

Minding the gap: an evaluation of faculty, staff and administrator readiness to close equity gaps at the California State University

PDF

An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness

PDF

The positionality and power dynamics of high school math departments

PDF

Leading for educational equity: how superintendents champion the importance of equity-based change

PDF

Rural school equity in California: a leadership perspective

PDF

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

PDF

The antecedents and consequences of low franchisee satisfaction and its effect on retention: an exploration of a critical issue through the lens of Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory

PDF

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

PDF

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

PDF

Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames

PDF

Leadership, accountability, and decision-making: An examination of first-responder experience and self-efficacy in real-time decision-making to improve community outcomes

PDF

What can districts do to retain their high school principals?

PDF

Shattering the glass ceiling: examining invisible barriers to women’s career progression in South Korean international schools

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

Higher education faculty and reflective practice

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

Barriers to gender equity in K-12 educational leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Fostering leadership resilience: examining the influence of social networks on female administrators’ capacity to lead in times of crisis or organizational change

Asset Metadata

Creator Beeman, Kendall (author)

Core Title Structures for change: involving faculty in equity-based decision-making in independent schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 02/13/2024

Defense Date 01/29/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Committees,decision-making,Education,education administration,equity-based change,equity-based decision-making,faculty involvement,faculty meetings,independent schools,involving teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,private school,school leadership,structures for change,structuring change

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Chung, Ruth (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email kbeeman@usc.edu,kendallbeeman@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113839164

Unique identifier UC113839164

Identifier etd-BeemanKend-12662.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-BeemanKend-12662

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Beeman, Kendall

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240226-usctheses-batch-1126 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu