University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Equity-Focused School Boards: Supporting K–12 Suburban Districts

by
Anisha Ismail Jogee

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 2022

© Copyright by Anisha Ismail Jogee 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Anisha Ismail Jogee certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Eric Canny
Maria Ott
Kim Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Racial inequity in school districts is a persistent issue impacting students. This investigation
focused on school boards governing suburban K–12 districts to examine members’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences to adopt and implement policies focused on racial
equity. This study provides recommendations to K–12 districts on how boards of education can
advance racial equity in their school communities. This research investigation utilized a modified
version of the Clark and Estes’s gap analysis framework. It followed a qualitative research
design encompassing interviews with school board members, document analysis, and
observation of meetings. Overall, the findings demonstrated that districts with the most advanced
equity-focused boards, had members who had a clear understanding of racial equity and why it is
important to advance it as part of their roles. These boards also emphasized effective governance
with a racial equity lens, and consistently invested time to develop and learn as a group.
Additionally, the exemplary school boards established organizational structures like an equity-
focused strategic plan, and a related mission driven superintendent hiring and evaluation
processes. With an aligned vision and courageous conversations, the school boards in
collaboration with their equity-minded superintendents, made equity part of their district and
community-wide cultural ecosystem. It is noteworthy that the equity work was mostly initiated
by Board Members of Color, who were then able to motivate their board colleagues to advance
the work collectively. Finally, results showed that the choice to make a positive impact with a
racial equity-focused lens lies in the hands and mindsets of school board members and the voters
who elect them.
Keywords: education equity, racial equity, race, school board, effective governance

v
Dedication
To My Grandfather Whose Footsteps I Walk In
I am a global citizen, a product of diaspora
I am proud of carrying forward the legacy of my heritage.
I look into my past and see my grandfather bravely boarding a steamship departing India
I see him envision his future ahead as he sails the Cape Route to Africa.
I am moved to tears when I think about his noble life as a pioneer in Malawi
I marvel at his sense of adventure, setting up a shop to establish a new home for his family
I sense his generosity as he graciously hosted loved ones from the Subcontinent
I am inspired by his transformative leadership mobilizing an immigrant community to serve
I breathe in the energy that my people birthed for a love of their new country.

I see my history of color, my birthplace in all its tropical glory
I hear many languages shared in the British-African colony I called home for my formative years
I hurt thinking of the suppression of cultural expression
I recall the threats of school detention if languages other than the colonial tongue were spoken
I only realize in hindsight the effects of being immersed in culturally irrelevant pedagogy
I am confused why in the Warm Heart of Africa my curriculum centered on the British Isles
I wonder why I was never exposed to the devastations of colonial oppression
I feel the void of the diversity of my rich identity never being acknowledged
I appreciate my mostly White teachers, but sense a dominant Anglo-Saxon narrative
I wonder why I never questioned the lack of representation in my schools
I realize the implicit bias and hidden curriculum that manipulated my way of thinking.

I am a proud granddaughter of immigrants, and it feels natural to carry the baton forward
I move to the United States with my father’s encouragement, to live out the American Dream
I say goodbye to my parents and home in Malawi, college-bound with their blessings
I find courage in the legacy of my grandfather’s pioneering and kind ways
I am amazed how I still draw kinship from this founding father, who died before I was born
I miss meeting this legendary figure, but my Nana’s values live on in my extended family.
I witnessed firsthand the principles he instilled when my dear uncle sponsored my resettlement.
I became a U.S. citizen; the same way chain migration scattered my family across continents.
I am propelled by my legacy of service and contribute with deep love to better my new country.
As a first-gen high schooler I challenge myself to amplify my impact pursuing a doctorate
I become a strong advocate for inclusion and scholar practitioner to propel equity
I understand through experience that everyone has a longing for belonging
I push a dream that one day this Land of Immigrants lives out its hopes of unity.

vi
Acknowledgements
As a first-generation high school student, I stand on big shoulders to complete this
doctoral program. To my grandfather Ibrahim Hasan Hajat, you passed away before I was born,
yet your legacy lives on in me—thank you for paving the way, so I can walk in your footsteps.
To my late father, you broke tradition and encouraged me to spread my wings from my African
hometown to pursue an American education—I wish you could be here to see the fruits of your
gift. To my mother, thank you for all the sacrifices that helped me climb to this place. To my
family, friends, colleagues, and community, thank you for your belief in me as we make a
collective impact to leave our world better than we found it. To my USC professors and support
team, thank you for opening the door wide, you made me believe in myself, and welcomed me
into a space that will continue to foster wonderment in me. To my extraordinary Organizational
Change and Leadership Cohort 15, your thought partnership helped me through our journey
more than you will ever know. To my dissertation committee, you guided me through what
seemed like the impossible, and for that I am grateful. To the school board participants in this
qualitative study, your perspectives are powerful—Thank you for your impactful contributions to
this research. As education advocates, effective school board service provides the golden nuggets
needed for positive change in communities. To the many locations I comfortably escaped into to
write this dissertation, thank you for your warm hospitality. Whether in America or abroad, in
libraries and on soccer benches, from coffee shops and airports to our family office in our home,
every venue provided me refuge to reflect.
Saving the best for last: To my dearest husband, Sajid, I am so grateful for your
unwavering support and for always pushing me to be my best self. To our four children, Alya,
Samara, Aleena, and Khalil, you will forever inspire me.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 4
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 7
Racial Inequity In K–12 Public Education ......................................................................... 7
Role of the Board in Addressing Racial Inequity ............................................................. 12
Challenges To Establish and Implement Racial Equity Focused Policies ........................ 19
Solutions for School Boards to Address Systemic Racial Inequity .................................. 27
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 36
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 43
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 43
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 43
Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 48
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 50

viii
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 51
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 53
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 54
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 57
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 57
Findings............................................................................................................................. 61
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 121
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 123
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 124
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 139
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 149
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 150
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 153
References ................................................................................................................................... 156
Appendix B: Interview Protocol Worksheet, Semi-Structured Interview Protocol .................... 185
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 191
Appendix D: Observation Analysis Protocol .............................................................................. 192

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 45
Table 2: Participant Characteristics 58
Table 3: Presence of Racial Equity Focused Visible and Written Cultural Settings 101
Table 4: Racial Literacy Experience, Training and Continuous Board Governance
Development 112

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Clark and Estes Modified Gap Analysis Model Utilized as Conceptual Framework
for Research Investigating School Board Advancement of Racial Equity Focused Policies 37
Appendix A: Illinois State Board of Education’s Resolution Affirming A Commitment to
Eliminate Racial Injustice 184

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
This dissertation addresses the problem of systemic racial inequity in K–12 school
districts. The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences of school board members to establish and implement policies focused
on racial equity. This problem is important to address because racial inequity is a persistent issue
impacting students (Ladson-Billings, 2006), and school boards have the power to advance equity
in K–12 districts (Turner, 2015). Racial inequity has deep political and societal roots in the
United States and lingers to the present day: From the prohibition of the education of slaves, to
Jim Crow laws, Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and continued
legal battles regarding race-based education cases (Bell, 1980; Clinton, 2005; Siegel-Hawley &
Frankenberg, 2018).
This troubled racial history of U.S. public schools continues to manifest as ongoing
disparity problems in K–12 public schools in America. School board members as policy makers
influence racial equity in districts (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). As public officials, they can be
at the forefront of larger societal movements, and as policy makers, they have a responsibility to
become proactive change agents in creating social cohesion (Frankenberg, 2012). K–12 school
boards are gatekeepers who can maintain the status quo or help undo racism in their
organizations (Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015). This problem is important to address because the
persistence of racism in K–12 districts impacts social transformation for district communities
(Letki, 2008), and members can impact positive change. They have the power to influence an
equity-focused organizational culture, which will ultimately support an inclusive environment
for all students (Turner, 2020).

2

Context and Background of the Problem
The study focused on school boards governing suburban K–12 districts in the
metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois. The research was conducted in districts in the north,
northwest, and west Chicagoland suburbs. These boards, like others in the United States, serve as
local governmental entities responsible for K–12 districts. The nation’s approximately 95,000
members serve on 15,000 local boards of education (Land, 2002). They are responsible for the
well-being of 52 million children, the expenditure of $600 billion per year, and the supervision
of six million employees (Hess, 2011; Howell et al., 2011). Illinois has 852 school boards (IASB,
2017b). This research focused on the suburban Chicagoland area to examine how school boards
advance equity, especially in the light of the growing diversification in the area’s K–12 districts.
The demographic landscape of the United States is changing at a rapid pace, and one of
the most notable changes has been in suburban areas. According to data released in the 2010
census, more than half of all minority groups reside in the suburbs (Welton et al., 2015). The
evidence also highlights that in the context of metropolitan areas, during the 1970s, White flight
resulted in a higher percentage of Caucasians moving to the suburbs. The racial and ethnic
diversity in suburban regions gradually followed, causing some resistance to racial inclusion
from dominant groups (Diem et al., 2014). Suburban areas are undergoing a noticeable
demographic shift, and the tremors of that shift are shaking the core of suburban communities
and schools (Williams, 2012).
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd became an inflection point in the modern civil
rights movement (Bell, 2020). Minority students in majority White suburban districts faced racial
obstacles jeopardizing their sense of belonging and achievement with a void of culturally
relevant practices (Bell, 2020; Welton et al., 2015). The murder of George Floyd (AACTE,
2020) resurrected a long-standing injustice and catalyzed conversations for systemic change of
3

the status quo across institutions, including the field of K–12 public education (Dixon & Dundes,
2020). In June 2020, following Mr. Floyd’s death, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)
approved a resolution to end racial injustice. In this document, the ISBE, under the leadership of
Dr. Carmen Ayala, the first woman and Hispanic state superintendent of education, encouraged
all “Illinois public school boards to join in a commitment to critically examine policies and
practices with a racial equity lens, eliminate racial injustice and, as an important message to their
communities, adopt and publicly post resolutions affirming that commitment” (ISBE, 2020, para.
9). Boards of education, as district policymakers, have the power to positively influence racial
equity in public schools, including suburban districts (Turner, 2020).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of school board members’ efforts to adopt and implement racial equity-focused
educational policy. The qualitative research explored what participants are doing to establish and
implement educational policy to promote racial equity in the Chicagoland suburban K–12
schools. This investigation used a modified gap analysis framework to evaluate knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences regarding racial equity (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
knowledge gained from this study may inform and influence policymakers at the local, state, and
national levels to ensure that inclusive K–12 policies positively affect all students’ learning. The
following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs within the school board to adopt and implement
policies focused on racial equity?
2. What are the motivational assets and obstacles school board members face to adopt and
implement policies focused on racial equity in the district?
4

3. What are the organizational assets and barriers school boards face related to adopting and
implementing policies focused on racial equity in the district?
Significance of the Study
School board members have the power to create and enact systems and structures to
cultivate racial equity (Delagardelle, 2008; Hirschman, 1970). Evidence shows how the failure to
address race-related issues in suburban school districts undergoing demographic change further
perpetuates racial inequities in public schools (Welton et al., 2015). Once home to mostly White
students, currently, more than half of all minority students in metropolitan areas attend suburban
schools (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2008). Furthermore, Welton and colleagues (2015) added to the
purpose of this study by explaining that there is relatively little research on suburban school
districts’ policies in response to demographic change to advance racial equity. There is also a
lack of research on how these policies affect equity and access in suburban schools (Welton et
al., 2015). This study provides recommendations to K–12 districts on how board members can
advance racial equity in their school communities.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes’s (2008) modified gap analysis problem-solving framework served to
explore the problem of practice. The selected methodological approach examined knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influence that may be impacting a school board’s ability to
advance racial equity (Clark & Estes, 2008). This research examined knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences to analyze how to implement systemic change to address racial equity.
Using this gap analysis framework was appropriate to explore this problem of practice because it
identified needs and assets when adopting and implementing policies focused on racial equity.
This qualitative study entailed semi-structured interviews with school board members in
5

suburban Chicagoland K–12 districts. Document analysis and observations followed the
interviews to gain insight into the participants’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influencing systemic change toward racial equity. While many groups contribute
internally and externally to racial equity policies, the stakeholder group of focus in this research
were board members because of their roles as policymakers. Document analysis investigated
district and state agency websites, board records, and newspaper articles regarding racial equity.
Observations examined school board-related meetings discussing an equity-focused agenda item.
Definitions
The following definitions clarify concepts related to the problem of practice. It is
important to establish a common terminology. Since this study pertains to race, it is difficult to
talk about what is essentially a flawed and problematic social construct without using language
that itself may be problematic (Tatum, 2017). This study used research-based definitions in the
context of the problem of practice.
Race is a social construct with cultural ramifications and enforces a definite social order
(Omi & Wubabt, 2015).
Educational equity is a commitment to ensuring that every student succeeds academically
by addressing their education and social needs (Bishop & Noguera, 2019).
Racial equity in a system like K–12 districts is one in which racially diverse perspectives
are equally embedded in institutional power structures, policy-making processes, and the cultural
fabric of organizations, such as the mission statements, strategic plans, curricula, and other
artifacts and processes (Museus et al., 2015). Racial equity is corrective justice for Communities
of Color that have suffered oppression. It is the absence of institutional and structural barriers
6

that minoritized people experience based on race or color that impede access, opportunities, and
outcomes (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the study by
outlining the problem of practice. It describes the organizational context and the purpose behind
researching racial equity systemic change in K–12 schools. It also presents Clark and Estes’s
(2008) gap analysis model and definitions of the terms used. The second chapter reviews the
literature regarding racial inequity in K–12 districts, the role of school boards in advancing racial
equity, the challenges they face in establishing and implementing racial-equity-focused policies,
and solutions to address systemic racial inequity. The data collection methodology is reviewed in
Chapter Three, followed by the data analysis of the findings. The fifth chapter provides
recommendations and solutions for the problem of practice.

7

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter examines the literature regarding the problem of practice of systemic racial
inequity in K–12 school districts. The literature review centers around school boards as the
stakeholders of focus. This section begins by presenting evidence of racial inequity in public
schools, followed by the members’ role in addressing the problem. An analysis of the literature
also discusses the challenges related to establishing and implementing racial-equity-focused
policies and outlines solutions to these obstacles covered in the research. Following the general
literature review, this section concludes with the conceptual framework, turning to Clark and
Estes’s (2008) modified gap analysis framework, specifically knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influence the promotion of racial equity in K-12 districts.
Racial Inequity In K–12 Public Education
Racial inequity has existed in the United States since settlers conquered the land by
oppressing Indigenous Americans (Omi & Wubabt, 2015). Since the 17th and 18th centuries,
enslaving Africans and displacing Native Americans was justified based on the social and
political construct of race (Smedley & Smedley, 2005). The foundation of K–12 education was
built on supporting the privileged White male (Harper, 2012). It is important to note that racism
was not spread just by ignorant individuals but strategically by some institutions (Simms, 2019).
Creation of Education Inequities
Inequities have accrued throughout American history, resulting in the current education
disparities, which Ladson-Billings (2013b) termed the “education debt” (p. 1). The inequities
have resulted in a decades-old opportunity gap created by economic, political, and moral
decisions impacting the education of the nation’s youth. The opportunity gap frame shifts
attention from outcomes to inputs (Welner & Carter, 2013). Rather than blaming Students of
8

Color for underachieving, the opportunity gap frame focuses on systemic disparities that failed to
provide for them (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Evidence of the education debt can be pinned to
slavery as an institution, which banned the education of the captured and inflicted a tyranny that
still burdens African Americans today (Coates, 2014; McGee & Stovall, 2015). In the 1800s, the
United States Congress, as a political institution, made it illegal for Indigenous Americans to be
taught in their native languages, thereby inflicting an inferiority complex on their language and
culture (Ladson-Billings, 2006). In the 20th century, with the start of compulsory K–12
education, leaders justified segregated schools with inadequate resources by dehumanizing
People of Color as inferior to Whites (Harper et al., 2009). Government programs created
housing segregation and red lining for minoritized communities, further removing their access to
good education. The Federal Housing Authority subsidized builders who mass-produced entire
subdivisions for Whites, with the requirement that none of the homes were to be sold to African
Americans (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Rothstein, 2017).
Since its inception, racial inequity has been a central element of the structures, policies,
and practices in the U.S. public education system (Kohli et al., 2017; Ladson-Billings, 2006;
Spring, 2016). More than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, America has not found an
inclusive education system for all students (Bell, 1980; Bowman, 2014; Brownstein, 2014;
Noguera et al., 2015). Policy solutions focused on racial equity are critical in K–12 public
education, especially because of its history of racialization and racism (Kohli et al., 2017),
putting Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) at a disadvantage. Additionally, schooling
steeped in institutionalized racism maintains the status quo for the White, Anglo-Saxon Christian
male (Heinrich, 2015).
9

The majority of schools do not foster 21st-century skills of global readiness that should
prepare students to communicate effectively with people from diverse backgrounds (Reimers et
al., 2016). Schools are also not preparing students to be responsible citizens in a global era.
Instead, a culturally irrelevant curriculum, harboring an insular perspective, leaves Students of
Color, many of whom are newcomer immigrant students, lacking a sense of belonging (Aronson
& Laughter, 2016; Crosnoe, 2011; Reimers, 2006). The evidence demonstrates that society has
not addressed systemic racial inequity in K–12 schools effectively, with marginalized students
falling short in achievement compared to their White peers (Carter & Welner, 2013). The
influence and persistence of racism in K–12 education suggest a need for districts to commit to
social justice to confront and change beliefs, policies, and practices that perpetuate racial
oppression (Sugrue & Daftary, 2021). As President Lyndon Johnson (1965) stated during a
speech at Howard University,
You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him,
bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all
the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. (p. 766)
The education debt has led to entrenched inequities in K–12 public school districts
institutionalized by normalized district practices.
Normalized K–12 Inequity Perpetuation
Long periods of socio-political factors have left normalized educational philosophies that
continue to plague K–12 districts (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Districts are hindered in closing racial
gaps because of deficit thinking, a pseudoscience founded on racial and class bias (Yosso, 2005).
It blames the victim for academic failure instead of examining how schools are structured to
prevent poor students and Individuals of Color from learning (Valencia, 2012). Colorblindness is
10

another form of racism that was naively embraced as a positive practice perpetuating race-neutral
district policies by not differentiating individuals’ needs by race. However, not acknowledging
race prevents education leaders from seeing the historical causes and persistence of racial
inequity (Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Stereotype-threat exists in K–12 education, where students and
district stakeholders are burdened with negative generalizations made because of their racial
identity (Steele, 2010). The American idealistic belief in meritocracy is also an educational
philosophical myth that has to be challenged. The combined effects of non-merit factors like
inheritance, social and cultural advantages, unequal educational opportunity, and discrimination
in all of its forms hinder People of Color from achieving success (McNamee & Miller, 2018). A
lack of awareness of the compounding impact of intersectional awareness also affects the social
well-being of a district community. Intersectionality investigates how intertwining power
relations of race, class, gender, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, and language – among others,
influence social relations across diverse societies as well as individual experiences in everyday
life (Crenshaw, 1989; Collins & Bilge, 2020).
Blatant bullying based on race is also prevalent in schools (Dupper, 2013). One out of
every five (20.2%) students report being bullied, and race is one of the reasons the students were
targeted (NCES, 2019). Intersectionality comes into play as multiple identities may amplify the
bullying incidents. These every day, subtle, intentional, and sometimes unintentional
interactions, also known as microaggressions, communicate bias towards historically
marginalized groups, including People of Color, causing racial fatigue and mental-health
consequences for district educators, students, parents, and other stakeholders (Smith et al., 2011;
Sue, 2017). The K–12 system across the U.S. faces a myriad of normalized practices that has a
11

distressing effect, as witnessed in the existing inequity-data impacting stakeholder social-
wellness and the success of students and educators.
Manifestations of Inequity
Teacher-student racial match is beneficial for students’ learning, and the research
demonstrates that Students of Color have a greater sense of belonging and connection to
Educators of Color (Cheng & Helping, 2016). However, since 2014, the K–12 public schools
have been majority-minority in the United States, with 53% of Students of Color (Maxwell,
2014), while 80% of the teaching staff is White (NCES, 2021). In addition, 23% of K–12
students are immigrants who are mostly low-income and minority students (U.S. Census Bureau,
2020). White students in public schools have greater access to teachers who represent their own
racial identity. This demographic teacher match benefits White students with increased academic
perceptions, personal effort, happiness in class, feeling cared for, and college aspirations (Egalite
& Kisida, 2017). This match also creates inequity, as there is a low percentage of Teachers of
Color in the public schools: 7% Black, 9% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 1% American Indian and Native
Alaskan (NCES, 2021).
Not only is there a lack of Teachers of Color, but the same is true for District Leaders of
Color in public schools. Ninety-four percent of superintendents are White (Kowalski, 2013), in
addition to 80% of principals (NCES, 2021) and 78% of school board members (NSBA, 2018).
The demographics indicate a minority number of BIPOC district leaders: 6% of superintendents,
about 20% of school board members, principals, and teachers, influencing the education of more
than 50% of Students of Color (NCES, 2021). This racial underrepresentation causes inequities
before any curriculum or pedagogy is delivered (Egalite & Kisida, 2018).
12

Inequities in the educational inputs reflect negative student outcomes and experiences for
many Students of Color. There is a consistent gap in advanced placement (AP) credits earned
and reading and math achievement between White students and Black, Hispanic, and Native
American students, as White students perform better in K–12 grades (NCES, 2021). The data
show a deviation in outcomes for Asian Americans, who fare better academically than their
White peers; however, there is extensive literature that discusses the model minority myth and
the evidence of anti-Asian discrimination and low sense of belonging in schools (Kohatsu et al.,
2011; Sue et al., 2009). In terms of high school dropout rates, there has been an improvement for
Hispanic and Black students in the last decade; however, in 2019, these rates for Hispanic (7.7%)
and Black (5.6%) students remained higher than for White students (4.1%) (NCES, 2021). High
school graduation rates also show a similar trend, with White (89%) students graduating at a
higher rate than Hispanic (82%), Black (80%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (74%)
students (NCES, 2021). The research establishes racial inequity in K–12 schools. The next
section highlights the literature regarding the role of school boards in addressing these inequities.
Role of the Board in Addressing Racial Inequity
School boards have the positioning and power to create more equitable outcomes (Diem
et al., 2015; Turner, 2020). Operating with an equity lens empowers them to intentionally
allocate resources, instruction, and opportunities according to need, requiring the eradication of
discriminatory practices, prejudices, and beliefs (NSBA, 2021). Their primary role is to improve
student academic achievement by focusing on policy making, accountability, leadership,
budgeting, and adequate evaluation and training (Land, 2002). They can ensure equity in school
funding, access to a high-quality curriculum, access to effective teachers, safe and supportive
school climates, and foster meaningful community engagement (NSBA, 2021). In their role,
13

board members serve as critical gatekeepers that can hinder or advance racial equity through
action and inaction (Rorrer, 2006; Turner, 2020). Diem and colleagues’ (2015) research data
from two districts and Turner’s (2020) interviews with 37 school district policymakers,
respectively, showed that a commitment (or lack thereof) to racial diversity can greatly influence
what policies are implemented and what resulting outcomes are achieved. The evidence shows
that school boards are critical players in the school change process as they have the power to
propose and approve equity-focused policies and practices (Sampson, 2019). Delagardelle (2008)
distinguished a difference between effective and ineffective school boards based on five main
conditions that can also drive racial equity: Setting clear expectations for measurable outcomes,
ensuring conditions for success, building the collective will of staff and community, learning
together as a board, and accountability for themselves and the staff to reach instructional goals.
This section will draw on literature regarding the members’ role in reducing racial inequity and
promoting access and opportunities for every student to succeed.
Schools Boards Set Strategic Vision and Mission
School boards can drive equity by defining their school districts’ mission, vision, and
core values (Burgett, 2014; Campbell & Fullan, 2019; NSBA, 2021). They play a central role in
determining district ends by outlining the mission, vision, values, and goals and codifying board
expectations in district policy (Lipton, 1996; Rice, 2019). Of all the board’s governance
responsibilities, the most important is setting the strategic direction for the school district through
a well-developed, transparent, and highly focused set of policies and strategic goals (Abramovitz
& Blitz, 2015; Campbell & Fullan, 2019; Lipton, 1996; L. Saunders, 2015). The school board is
the entity charged by law with governing a legally defined school district (Burgett, 2014). As
elected or appointed officials, members must best serve the needs of their student population
14

(Sampson, 2019), which is increasingly racially diverse (Turner, 2020). They must ensure that
the strategic plan is equity-focused to ensure policies address racial disparities and proactively
promote opportunities for all students (Turner, 2015, 2020; Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; Rorrer
et al., 2008).
An equity-centered strategic planning process typically involves six steps: developing a
vision, and a set of core values, conducting an environmental scan, outlining goals and strategies,
implementing and assessing the plan, and revisiting the plan (Rorerr, 2006; Saunders, 2015).
Through the strategic planning process school boards can create an opportunity road map for all
students, inclusive of learners of color (Welner & Carter, 2013). Turner (2015, 2020) discussed
including diverse stakeholders in strategic planning to ensure school districts effectively manage
race and inequity. Turner’s findings also encourage members to review policies that
inadvertently foster racial prejudice by using cultural deficit frameworks (Turner, 2015). As the
demographic make-up of public schools’ shift, the role of school boards become critically
important in implementing and maintaining policies to promote equal opportunity that may
challenge the status quo (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). They are responsible for adopting
strategic plans with clearly crafted and implemented equity-centered vision and mission
statements that influence the organization in its day-to-day activities and assist in attaining
district goals (Odden & Picus, 2011; Taiwo et al., 2016). They also have to ensure that strategic
planning involves diverse community input and is conveyed to all stakeholders (IASB, 2017a).
School Boards Connect with the Community
In the school board members’ ongoing two-way communication with the district
community, they can establish and convey a culture of equity (Burgett, 2014; Campbell &
Fullan, 2019; NSBA, 2021). First, by connecting with the community, they have the advantage
15

of getting to know the demographic make-up of their community and, in many cases, learning
about the growing racial shift in their school districts (Turner, 2015, 2020). This connection
enables them to follow through with their responsibility to listen to all community voices and
make informed decisions to advocate for and ensure the education of all children (IASB, 2017a).
District-wide involvement, including outreach to marginalized populations, creates ownership of
the board’s strategic mission and vision, which is key to real change by creating empowered
communities who can contribute their input to district direction (Gill, 2002; Kezar, 2001; Kotter,
1995).
Effective school boards also communicate and define the value of equity and the vision
of achieving it; they specify the strategic and tactical details (Austin, 2016) of how to provide
opportunities to students of all racial backgrounds. Effective members lead with an equity lens to
create substantial change for the entire community by incorporating strategic goals and
opportunities to benefit all students (NSBA, 2021; Savage-Williams, 2020). They create avenues
for listening and responding to community input through open meetings, surveys, and
community listening sessions (IASB, 2017a; NSBA, 2021). They are trustees of public education
for their local community (Alsbury, 2015). Therefore, they are responsible for connecting with
their stakeholders and communicating an equity-focused vision for the district while empowering
and holding the superintendent accountable for bringing that vision to reality (Rice, 2019).
School Boards Employ Equity-Minded Superintendents and Provide Accountability
School boards can also address racial inequity in their most visible and important work as
employers and evaluators of district superintendents (Campbell & Fullan, 2019; DiPaola, 2010;
IASB, 2017a; NSBA, 2018). To begin with, they must hire equity-minded superintendents, who
play a vital role in incorporating equity work throughout a school district (Clayton et al., 2020).
16

Clayton and colleagues conducted qualitative research by collecting data from 22 suburban
school administrators. They focused on superintendent efforts to advance equity in a suburban
district and found that these district leaders’ role was instrumental in building the foundation for
equity work through relationships, breaking down barriers, building bridges, creating an
organizational focus, common language, expected mindset and behaviors, and moving beyond
seeing the students as subgroups to the individual (Clayton et al., 2020). Ultimately, the
superintendent’s beliefs and actions define the path to inclusivity, supporting the board in
creating and implementing a district equity-focused strategic plan and promoting community
buy-in (Ezzani et al., 2021). Once the board hires an equity-minded superintendent, they are
required to evaluate them.
The need to effectively evaluate the superintendents of schools annually is a primary
responsibility of the boards that employ them and is legally required in most states (DiPaolo,
2010). The Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB, 2017) outlines the following:
In their role to hire the superintendent as the district’s chief executive officer, the board
delegates authority to him or her to operate the district and provide leadership to staff.
Delegating authority empowers the superintendent and staff to pursue board ends - its
mission, vision, and goals. The board then has the responsibility to monitor performance,
ensuring that the district is making progress towards its ends and is following written
board policy (p. 4).
Additionally, the literature recommends ensuring that the strategic plan has quantifiable
goal statements, with a focus on ensuring that the superintendent’s goals are measurable. Quality
goal setting can be ensured using SMART goals (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2005; Doran, 1981).
Doran’s (1981) original definition, as cited in Haughey (2014), refers to goals that are specific
and strategic in targeting a specific area for improvement and measurable in quantifying, or at
17

least suggesting, an indicator of progress. The definition also includes goals that are assignable,
specifying who will accomplish them. Goals must also be realistic in that they can be achieved
with available resources, and they must be time-bound with specific dates for meeting them. This
simple goal-setting framework ensures the management of clear and measurable goals (Balch &
Adamson, 2018). Once the board sets up an equity-focused strategic plan, the district’s goals
should be incorporated into the superintendent’s evaluation to ensure that the district's mission
and vision are realized and that there is accountability for addressing inequities (Henrikson,
2018; Turner, 2015, 2020).
Additionally, state and national school board associations indicate that in fulfilling their
role to hold superintendents accountable in general and specifically towards the promotion of
equity, school boards look to national guidelines like the Professional Standards for Education
Leaders (IASB, 2017b; National Policy Board for Education Administration [NPBEA], 2015;
NSBA, 2021). The most recent revisions to the national educational leadership standards call out
equity and cultural responsiveness as a core responsibility for district leaders (Farley et al., 2019;
Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020; Mayger & Provinzano, 2020; NPBEA, 2015). These national
standards were compiled by the NPBEA, a consortium of professional organizations committed
to advancing school leadership (including the NPBEA, 2015).
Another important purpose of school boards to evaluate superintendents is to provide
constructive input to support superintendents in their continual professional growth (Corbett,
2016; DiPaola, 2010; Dubnick, 2014; Henrikson, 2018; IASB, 2017b). The evaluation feedback
can prompt superintendents to participate in specific professional development to meet district
goals and national equity standards (IASB, 2017b; NSBA, 2021; Stone & Heen, 2014). The
literature finds that even though the national standards for superintendents had incorporated
equity and cultural responsiveness, the expectations to address race, class, and intersecting
18

disparities faced by marginalized People of Color is beyond the current knowledge of K–12
public school leadership. Therefore, superintendents and boards will have to engage in
professional development to meet all students’ needs (Cochran-Smith, 2021; Farley et al., 2019;
Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020).
By providing formative feedback, superintendents will be prompted to pursue
professional growth opportunities to fill equity and social justice knowledge gaps (Armstrong,
2017; Furman, 2012; McKenzie et al., 2008). When the new NPBEA equity standards are tied
into the superintendent evaluation, the accountability measure will foster professional
development growth opportunities to develop skills needed to tackle what Farley et al. (2019)
described as “wicked problems of equity and social justice” (p. 1). Meeting equity-based
evaluation goals can motivate superintendents to participate in diversity, equity, and inclusion
development for their growth, and subsequently, this will benefit the whole district as racial
equity-based goals gain traction (Hall et al., 2017; McGee & Johnson, 2015).
Finally, it is the role of school boards to create a clear and robust superintendent
evaluation process to create opportunities for open communication and a strong relationship with
the superintendent. This leads to a high functioning district (IASB, 2017b; NSBA, 2018; Wang
et al., 2019) able to address inequity among other issues. Alsbury (2008, 2015) pointed to
positive board/superintendent interaction as the most important factor in successful district
governance (Burgett, 2014; Campbell & Fullan, 2019; DiPaolo, 2010). By creating robust equity
accountability for the superintendent (Henrikson, 2018), the board will foster a climate where
equity benchmarks throughout the district will create opportunities for all students (NSBA,
2017). Both formative and summative superintendent evaluation measures hold the district
accountable for operationalizing its equity policies (Levin et al., 2018). These incentives and
positive culture are key to organizational change (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004) and will
19

support establishing and implementing policy to address racial equity, as discussed in the next
section of this literature review.
Challenges To Establish and Implement Racial Equity Focused Policies
To understand how school boards can address the disparities that Students of Color
experience, the literature review will examine the challenges they face in establishing and
implementing racial equity-focused policies. First, the literature reveals that politicization makes
it difficult to challenge the status quo while serving stakeholders with conflicting interests (Diem
et al., 2014; Hochschild, 2005; Marschall, 2005). Next, the evidence demonstrates that the lack
of minority representation hinders racial-equity advancement in school districts (Ishimaru &
Galloway, 2021; Rorrer et al., 2008; Trujillo, 2013). Finally, the research will point to color-
blind leadership as an obstacle to creating and maintaining equity (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Diem et
al., 2016; Kohli et al., 2017; Welton et al., 2015).
Politicization of School Boards
School boards declare they exist in an apolitical sphere; however, the research
demonstrates that socio-political forces influence them because they are local policy-making
governmental entities (Alsbury, 2015). Furthermore, boards are school districts’ trustees, with
the fundamental obligation to equitably educate the public to contribute as citizens of our
democracy, which is essentially a political purpose (Mountford, 2004; Turner, 2020). The more
than 100,000 members of the country’s approximately 15,000 school boards constitute the
largest group of elected officials in the United States (Hess & Leal, 2005). They are elected by
their local communities, including parents, homeowners, business managers, retirees, taxpayers,
and teachers, with different stakes in the school district (Turner, 2020). Research has found that
board members believe that, as trustees for public education, they should keep politics out of the
20

board room. However, politics and policy are inherently connected when serving diverse public
interests (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; Holme et al., 2014; Turner, 2015). Research conducted in
districts in two counties in North Carolina found that policy implementation is fundamentally
political and reflects the power of institutional forces and the actors involved, who may have
contradictory views and may resist threats to the status quo (Diem et al., 2014).
School boards must implement policies to ensure every child has the opportunity to meet
their potential; however, the challenge lies in being accountable to diverse constituencies and not
explicitly pandering to their political bases and special interest groups (Hess, 2011; Wallis &
Gregory, 2009). Interest groups can play a large role in policy decisions and in who sits on the
board (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). The low voter turnout of less than a quarter of eligible
voters deciding races allows special interest groups to sway elections to serve their interests
(Diem et al., 2015; Hess & Leal, 2005). The literature also demonstrates that members who
mostly serve on a voluntary basis, spend more than half of their time on administration and
responding to parents’ and interest groups’ concerns, leaving little time to develop or oversee
policy (Hochschild, 2005). Additionally, Hess and Leal (2005) discovered that while interest
groups played a part in campaigning and funding elections, the strongest participation was from
teacher unions, followed by White, mostly affluent, parents; the least active interest groups were
racial and ethnic communities (Hess & Leal, 2005).
Low civic engagement and political awareness of Communities of Color impact the
progression of racial equity policies (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). Kogan et al. (2021) examined
voter files in large states with many school districts, such as California, Illinois, Ohio, and
Oklahoma, and found that White voters who may look out for their racial advantage are over-
represented in school board elections. Most majority-nonwhite school districts also have a
21

majority White electorate. Kogan and colleagues (2021) also provided important context for
understanding the role of political pressure in perpetuating educational and, ultimately, societal
inequity.
Ladson-Billings (2006) highlighted that minoritized groups have historically not had
opportunities for access points to prepare them to successfully run for school board, like
involvement in parent-teacher organizations, district committees, and other possibilities for
democratic participation (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Moreover, Turner (2020) found that suburban
areas in countywide school districts create distinct enclaves, where parent populations are
significantly Whiter, more affluent with established political capital. Frankenberg and Diem’s
(2013) observations in two county-wide district systems facing demographic shifts revealed that
board members may face contradictions inherent in some school districts as entities that should
provide equity in opportunities yet maintain a raced and classed White status quo. In the case of
diversity policies, politically contested elections have added to the tensions between policy and
politics (Diem et al., 2014).
The literature states that resistance is more prevalent when dominant groups pressure
school boards to negate attempts to incorporate racial-equity-focused policies (Hochschild, 2005;
Trujillo, 2013). Diem and colleagues (2014) shared an example of an election resulting in a new
board majority opposed to diversity efforts in the Wake County school system. This instance
indicates that political instability and voters pushing to dismantle policies that do not serve their
interests can overturn diversity policies in a single election (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). In
some instances, racial equity policies receive push-back due to a misunderstanding of critical
race theory (Ladson-Billings, 2013a; Yosso, 2005).
22

Critical race theorists have stated that racism embedded in policies and procedures leads
to disparities in U.S. social institutions like education. The emphasis on institutional racism is
being misinterpreted and marketed as an admonishment of all White people (Love, 2021; Ray &
Gibbons, 2021). Trujillo (2013) conducted a study in one district, analyzing data from 72
interviews with 46 participants, about 60 hours of meeting observations, and 50 documents. The
results showed that due to political pressure and resistance, districts nullified policies that aimed
for equity-oriented, rigorous changes when school boards opted to pacify constituents rather than
uphold controversial policies (Trujillo, 2013). In their qualitative research analyzing 37
interviews with school district officials and community stakeholders, Diem and colleagues
(2015) found that a lack of strong community support leads to difficulty surviving the politics of
diversity. Additionally, they found that school boards face the difficult task of navigating the
politics of their communities and deciding on policies that accommodate and appease their more
vocal constituents (Diem et al., 2015). Therefore, a dominant White voter base may hinder the
advancement of racial equity-based policies, and the lack of minority representation further
exacerbates that hindrance.
Lack of School Board Racial Representation Is a Challenge for District Equity
The literature concludes that greater minority representation on school boards can
increase educational achievement for both White and minoritized students (Kogan et al., 2021).
However, throughout the U.S., only 20% of board members are People of Color (NCES, 2021),
with suburban districts having predominantly White homogenous boards (Frankenberg & Kotok,
2013). Kogan et al., (2021) indicated that even a single Board Member of Color could have a
meaningful impact on decision making. This impact may also explain why even small gains in
minority representation can improve student outcomes for all students. The evidence also claims
23

that majority-minority boards have a more pronounced positive impact on implementing equity
policies (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; Kogan et al., 2019; Samuels, 2020).
Additionally, the research demonstrates that greater minority representation on school
boards increases the hiring of Principals of Color, as this recruitment effort is more in the
superintendent’s control with direct answerability to the board (Kogan et al., 2020; Wallis &
Gregory, 2009). Principals of Color were then able to implement building-wide equity practices,
increasing the sense of belonging for minoritized students (Kogan et al., 2021). Overall, an
increase in BIPOC membership is also associated with higher levels of political trust, efficacy,
and knowledge; and increases the board connection to and civic engagement of marginalized
families (NSBA, 2021), which supports racial equity-based policies (Marschall, 2005).
Using data drawn from a 2009 nationwide survey of 900 school board members across all
50 states, Blissett and Alsbury (2018) found that a member’s identity can be attached to the
policies they support, with a direct link between minority board members and the adoption of
racial equity policies. According to Kingdon’s (1984) multiple-streams theory, people’s
identities influence their perspectives on pressing issues, viable solutions, and political
opportunities. The findings on the presence of Hispanic and Black people on local school boards
were that both racial groups played an important role in improving the quality of schooling
outcomes for minority students strengthening representative democracy in the U.S. (Marschall,
2005).
A study by Sampson (2019) found that Latinx school board members’ own experience
with inequities often informed their efforts in addressing disparities and that they are often
amongst the most committed to improving educational equity for underserved populations.
Finally, board members’ identities can influence what they perceive to be important problems or
viable solutions. As such, the findings tended to support the notion that board diversity of
24

identities may translate to creative problem solving (Page, 2017), which is needed to address
racial disparities (Blissett & Alsbury, 2018). Despite the evidence presented regarding the
benefits of racial representation, local democratic governance in the American public school
system sustains racial, ethnic, and class hierarchies in society (Hochschild, 2005) and the
prevalence of color-blind leadership maintains this social order (Bonilla-Silva, 2006).
Colorblind Leadership Hinders Racial Equity In K–12 Districts
Colorblind ideology refers to avoiding explicit acknowledgement of race, which
manifests as a detriment to advancing the conversation about racial disparities (Bonilla-Silva,
2006). The research points to colorblind leadership as an obstacle to creating and maintaining
equity (Diem et al., 2016; Irby & Clark, 2018; Turner, 2020; Welton et al., 2015). This assertion
is supported by Welton and colleagues’ (2015) case study that was part of a large, eight-state
study of suburban diversification’s impact on school districts. The 54 interviewees included
school board members. The researchers concluded that instead of directly addressing issues of
race in the district, the district’s response was colorblind in design which did not support
effective racial equity transformation, especially in the face of demographic change (Welton et
al., 2015).
Scholars refer to colorblind policies and practices as resulting in a new racism, erasing
the lived and systemic oppression of Communities of Color (Bonilla-Silva, 2015). Silence
around race maintains and legitimizes racism, constructing difficult racial climates for Students,
Staff, and other Stakeholders of Color (Kohli et al., 2017). Research has found that racism as a
social construct is often not directly named or addressed in education (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Irby
& Clark, 2018; Kohli et al., 2017). Irby and Clark (2018) interviewed 44 district stakeholders in
a high school where 25% of the students were Students of Color. They found that when
25

participants used race-specific language, they identified more problems and drew on multiple
frames toward equity solutions. Racial equity may be more difficult to achieve when racism is
not acknowledged; therefore, colorblind ideology is an obstacle that will continue to perpetuate
injustice in K–12 schools (Ladson-Billings, 2013b Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Yosso (2015)
found that there is, at times, a lack of a commitment to developing schools that acknowledge the
multiple strengths of Communities of Color. The power of racial injustice and oppression renders
it unlikely that a cautious voice, no matter how well-intentioned, will result in change (Sugrue &
Daftary, 2021) in school districts, including those in suburban settings facing dramatic
democratic shifts (Turner, 2020).
The literature demonstrates that colorblind leadership results in race-neutral and color-
mute policies that fail to translate into effective responses to racial diversification, especially in
suburban areas (Diamond & Lewis, 2016; Diem et al., 2016; Welton et al., 2015). Diamond and
Lewis (2016) conducted 170 interviews in a suburban high school district where White students
made up less than 50% of the student population and accounted for 90% of Advanced Placement
classes, and Black students made up 70% of in-school suspensions. Their research findings
pointed to the need for districts to recognize how racial meanings become part of how the
institution functions, with race-neutral policies reproducing inequality (Diamond & Lewis,
2016). Disparities can only be solved by outlining the underlying problems; however, colorblind
ideology exacerbates race inequities by avoiding direct racial language to name the issues
(Bonilla-Silva, 2015; Turner, 2020).
As public officials, school board members have to model racial literacy and are
responsible for enacting color-conscious policies acknowledging the institutional effects of their
decisions (Samuels et al., 2019; Welton et al., 2015). As the elected governing body, school
26

boards set the tone of race-conscious conversations, which trickle down throughout the district,
ultimately impacting civic student discourse with an understanding of being part of a diverse
democracy (Apfelbaum et al., 2008). Additionally, Roegman and colleagues (2020) found
effectiveness in members clearly communicating and attaching meaning to their district mission
to meet all students’ needs by inspiring color-bravery. In addition to failing to catalyze racial
equity, colorblind board leadership also leads to a lack of guidance on effectively supporting
equity, especially in light of suburban diversification (Diem et al., 2016).
Welton et al. (2015) found that colorblind board policies caused district administrators to
overlook Communities of Color, not serve their needs, and actively harm them. Race-evasive
policies do not inform the direction that district educators should take, and the research found
that the void was consequently filled by attempting to improve instruction in race-neutral ways
rather than altering instructional and school practices to be more culturally responsive (Welton et
al., 2015). Roegman and colleagues’ (2020) investigation of New Jersey districts found that,
because they are located furthest from the daily interactions at the school level, boards were less
attuned to demographic shifts’ effects on suburban schools, which resulted in their color
muteness and reluctance to talk about issues of race. In the meantime, in the absence of guidance
from race-conscious board policies, district administrators and principals who are more aware of
the needs of their Students of Color resorted to placing most of the burden and blame for racial
achievement gaps on Students and Families of color (Valencia, 2012).
Colorblind leadership is a form of racism laced with microaggressions harmful to
minoritized students and stakeholders (Turner, 2020). Kohli and colleagues (2017) call this the
new racism, with normalized deficit-based policies and practices keeping Communities of Color
at a disadvantage through an evasive and subtle hidden curriculum under the guise of non-racial
27

terms like multiculturalism and “high-need” students (p. 2). Scholars have highlighted racial
literacy and talking about race as essential capacities for improving schools and addressing racial
and other disparities (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2021). Therefore, addressing inequity necessitates
challenging conversations that many school boards are reluctant to have due to political
resistance (Pollack & Zirkel, 2013) and the defensiveness that may come with privilege from
members who are majority White (DiAngelo, 2011; NCES, 2021).
Welton and colleagues (2015) suggested that instead of being fearful and avoidant of
making race a taboo topic, districts have a moral responsibility to normalize the conversation
about race and the institutional barriers that impact Students of Color. The practice of colorblind
leadership has to be challenged because race-specific language is essential to advance
organizational learning about the racialized nature of school problems (Irby & Clark, 2018).
Sidestepping race only reproduces racial inequities (Diem et al., 2016). Race is an observable
trait and is linked to stereotypes and unconscious biases, which will take a conscious color-brave
effort to address (Omi & Wubabt, 2015; Steele, 2010; Sue, 2005). Finally, Turner (2020) claims
that race equity and the future of public education are intimately linked. They both depend on
finding solutions to move beyond color-blind leadership or color-blind managerialism.
Solutions for School Boards to Address Systemic Racial Inequity
The final section of the literature review examines what scholars have outlined as the
solutions for school boards to address systemic racial inequity. First, the findings discuss a
unified vision to drive an equity mission with the execution of institutional-level strategic
planning and organizational change (Turner, 2020; Welton et al., 2015). Secondly, the literature
points to developing equity-focused leadership with training to cultivate a culturally responsive
system-wide lens (Ezzani et al., 2021; Ishimaru & Galloway, 2021; Roegman et al., 2020).
28

Finally, the research demonstrates district-wide gaps via equity audits provide informative data
to catalyze systematic change (Green, 2017; Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020; Skrla et al., 2011)
Racial Equity Change Frameworks
Welton and colleagues’ (2018) research brings to the K–12 field a combined approach to
racial equity that combines key concepts from anti-racism and organizational change. However,
this relatively new change framework does not have sufficient empirical evidence to support the
framework. Irby and colleagues (2020) indicate that beyond conceptual frameworks, very few
studies exist that offer an empirical basis for understanding how school leaders synthesize anti-
racist and improvement approaches in K–12 settings. Dowd and Liera (2018) also recommend
more empirical studies to demonstrate how district leaders engage in organizational change
initiatives to address racial equity.
One of the exceptions that demonstrates a successful implementation of the Welton and
colleagues (2018) anti-racist change framework is the empirical study conducted by Irby (2018)
at a suburban high school going through demographic diversification. Input derived from 14
teacher focus groups found that providing diverse data types reflecting racial perspectives
offered cues that enabled organizational members to notice and begin to disrupt the personal and
organizational racism and race-evasive tendencies to address organizational discipline culture
and climate problems (Irby, 2018). Additionally, Turner (2020) after research in two districts
with 37 current and former school district policymakers, noted that Welton and colleagues
(2018) framework would help educational leaders ensure that interventions attend to the political
and normative challenges of antiracism work and that they do so in ways that are likely to
change an institution with normalized practices.
29

The antiracist change framework offers an approach to guide equity work at a district
level by addressing anti-racist themes (pedagogy, individual learning and resistance, and
systemic level commitment) and organizational change (context and conditions, focus of change,
scale and degrees, and leadership) to guide institutional-level strategic planning (Turner, 2020;
Welton et al., 2015). To achieve racial equity in education, individuals’ mindsets need to shift to
a more anti-racist ideology, and actionable institutional change must be the goal (Ishimaru &
Galloway, 2021).
The research shows that racial-equity-focused change efforts should incorporate a
continuous assessment and an improvement cycle since the work needs to be systematic and
ongoing (Alsbury & Miller-Jones, 2015; Armstrong, 2017; Vibert, 2014). With 70% of all
organizational change efforts failing, agile feedback will be necessary to drive sustained
behavior change (Beer et al., 1990; Church & Dawson, 2018). By using accountability as a
solution measure, school boards ensure that the superintendent effectively operationalizes equity-
focused strategic plans and policies (Kezar, 2001; Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Progress can only
occur if accountability measures are put into place (Frederickson & Dubnick, 2014). Holvino’s
(2008) research also incorporates assessment and gap analysis to inform research on
multicultural organizational development, examining systems-wide missions, structures, policies,
leadership, and other factors in an evaluative equity-focused rubric. Therefore, the research and
different equity-focused frameworks highlight that anti-racist change recognizes that we are not
beyond the context of a post-racial society but that the solutions will have to be complex,
dynamic, and ongoing, requiring organizational capacity building as well (Welton et al., 2018).

30

Organizational Knowledge and Capacity Building
Equity-focused leaders need a learning organization culture to advance systemic change
(Ezzani et al., 2021; Jones, 2001; Rice, 2019; Senge, 1990). As Garvin (1993) noted, learning is
a key component to building high-performing organizations and the capacity to change. If the
rate of learning is not as great as the rate of change, the organization will suffer. Continuous
improvement requires a commitment to learning (Garvin, 2000), as “board members cannot
monitor what they do not understand” (Brenner et al., 2002, p. iv). Therefore, as a monitoring
body assessing the superintendent’s performance to operationalize the district’s equity-focused
strategic plan, school board members need to understand racial equity in order to measure
progress (Eaden et al., 2020). They collaborate with district leaders to implement systemic
change, and Honig and Hansa (2020) highlighted the value of professional learning with high-
quality support and communities of practice for superintendents and district leaders.
Senge (1990) suggested using five component technologies: systems thinking, personal
mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. Effective change requires meaning,
management, and measurement (Senge, 1990). School board members and superintendents have
to prepare to be equity warriors committed to achieving high performance for all students,
regardless of their race, class, or other demographic characteristics (Leverett, 2011). Equity-
focused leaders strive to eliminate disparities by creating a shared vision of an equitable district,
welcoming changing demographics as benefitting their schools’ diversity, and engaging
communities in long-term, systemic reform with continuous professional development
supporting participants to examine their racial perspectives (Roegman et al., 2020).
Equity-focused district-wide professional development can remedy existing situations
where school boards and the educators they partner with may not have the skills or capacity to
31

fulfill their commitments to Students of Color (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Galloway et al., 2015).
Samuels and Samuels’ (2019) qualitative study at a suburban middle school, found that it is
important to examine educators’ perspectives on how increased awareness of existing inequities
coupled with ongoing professional development can better equip them to understand their
identity, engage in meaningful dialogue, and lead in culturally responsive ways. In addition,
Galloway et al.’s (2015) research examining leadership for equity for 114 school and district
leaders posited that leadership development and professional growth tools can counter status quo
leadership practice.
Galloway and colleagues (2015) and Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2020) research also found
that individualistic changes on the part of a few do not equate to sustained organizational change.
Therefore, political buy-in and outcomes-based policy implementation throughout the district
require a system-wide, top-down approach to equity training. Board training must also consider
the research that indicates that some district leaders may lack vital knowledge, skills, and
capacities for effectively addressing equity issues in their schools and systems (Galloway et al.,
2015; Omi & Wubabt, 2015). Additionally, school boards and school administrators may
struggle to have open, deep, and critical conversations about race and oppression (DiAngelo,
2011). They may be afraid to admit the presence of racism in their settings (Ryan, 2006) and
may need more specific training or tools to address racial conflict, build community among
diverse groups, or lead for social justice (Theoharis, 2007).
Samuels and Samuels (2019) also found that district leaders must clearly understand their
own assumptions, beliefs, and values about people from different races and cultures. To advance
racial equity, individuals must reflect on their positionality (Hoffman & Mitchell, 2016) and
assess their racial literacy, cultural humility (Green, 2017), and awareness (Ishimaru &
32

Galloway, 2021). While this process can be challenging, it is essential on the journey of equity
advocacy, as individuals cannot unlearn misconceptions if they do not first explore how they
came to know them (Samuels & Samuels, 2019). Samuels and Samuels’ research also outlines
that champions of equity recognize and examine issues of race, racism, and racial disparities;
explore the impact of privilege and oppression; reconsider practices and policies; interrupt and
respond to inequitable practices; promote proactive strategies for sustainable change, and
facilitate advocacy steps to turn equitable visions into equitable realities.
Ezzani et al. (2021) found that professional learning opportunities and small incremental
policy changes could increase equity. To institute systemic policies, school boards must
participate in professional development that addresses the inclusion of historically marginalized
students (Ezzani et al., 2021; Valencia & Solorzano, 1997). Ezzani et al., (2021) also posited that
advancing racial equity requires culturally responsive leadership to cultivate and advocate for
students of diverse backgrounds. Those in charge of evaluating superintendents should model
cultural proficiency, especially in light of the standards of education leaders to demonstrate
equity and cultural relevancy (NPBEA, 2015). Finally, it is key to advocate for equity through
professional development by garnering wide support from district constituents via effective
communication pathways determining how and in what ways knowledge and skills were
disseminated and implemented districtwide (Lewis, 2011; Schein & Schein, 2017). Aligning
professional development to operationalize an equity-focused strategic plan is a means of
justification to meet district goals to support all students (Lipton, 1996; McGowan & Miller,
2001) and other gaps that can be revealed via equity audits (Skrla et al., 2011).

33

Equity Audits to Uncover Disparities
Equity audits are a systematic way for district leaders to assess equity and inequity (Skrla
et al., 2009). By approving funding to carry out district-wide equity audits, school boards will
enable the implementation of much needed streamlined, practical strategies in the hands of
leadership practitioners (Skrla et al., 2011). Skrla and colleagues (2004) introduced the concept
of an education equity audit in the early 2000s. The purpose of the equity audit was to ensure
that board members, as policymakers, and educators who may be unaware of inequities in
various aspects of their schools, had a systematic way to examine opportunity gaps and could
then plan for ways to eliminate the disparities (Skrla et al., 2004). Through equity audits, Brown
(2010) analyzed quantitative data collected to scan for systemic patterns of equity and inequity
across 24 elementary schools. The results indicated that equity audits are a practical, easy-to-
apply tool to identify inequalities objectively (Brown, 2010).
An additional remedy that school boards can employ to implement racial equity policies
is developing strong partnerships with stakeholders outside of their schools in the form of
community-based equity audits (Green, 2017). A community-based equity audit is an instrument,
strategy, process, and approach to guide district leaders in supporting equitable school-
community outcomes (Skrla et al., 2009). Green (2017) examined the community audit process
over 2 years, observing principals in training implement the strategy successfully in their
communities with 9-12 stakeholder participant groups. Community audits uncover the societal
roots of equity in issues like a living wage and affordable housing, which directly impact district
inequities as well (Turner, 2020). The community equity audit approach will also support
reconsidering underserved communities by having insight into their perspectives and building
stronger district-community connection, which is one of the roles of school boards (IASB, 2017a
34

NSBA, 2021). To address the growing inequity in schools, it is essential that school board
members, in partnership with district administrators, be prepared to understand and work with
school-community stakeholders to tackle these concerns (Green, 2017).
Finally, Green (2017) found that the community-based equity audit is most effective
when it is carried out with asset-based optimism and cultural humility, with faith in
communities’ rich history, racial backgrounds, cultural diversity, and people’s capacity and
agency to enact community change for an equitable transformation for students and the
neighborhoods they live in (Green, 2017, Skrla et al., 2009). In 2011, Skrla and colleagues
stressed that even though equity audits effectively demonstrated disparities, merely carrying out
the equity audit at the district and community levels will not automatically lead to a plan for
change. They noted that implementing changes highlighted by the equity audit requires
courageous conversations and advocacy (Skrla et al., 2011).
Courageous Conversations Create Equity-Focused Change
An equity audit provides solutions, but due to varying degrees of acceptance and
resistance to racial change and disruption of entrenched institutionalized systems, the tool may
not be embraced by all and will require board members and fellow educators to engage in
courageous conversations (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006; Singleton & Linton, 2006; Skrla et al.,
2011). For instance, Skrla and colleagues (2004) faced acceptance, resistance, and, at times,
hostility when they implemented equity audits with about 50 board members across districts.
Organizations are composed of the people in them; if the people do not change, there is no
organizational change (Schneider et al., 1996). Therefore, members, individually and
collectively, must discern how to work as leaders with all stakeholders to facilitate change
(Kezar, 2001; Skrla et al., 2011).
35

School board members have to work as equity-oriented change agents, which requires
persistence, patience, coherent focus, treating everyone with respect, appreciation, and care even
if others are resistant to racial equity change (Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015; Singleton & Linton,
2006; Skrla et al., 2011). Before implementing the equity audit and after changes are
recommended to address gaps, members will have to establish a culture that embraces
constructive conflict and discourse management to address difficult issues because remaining
silent about race and not engaging in courageous conversations may inhibit effective board
governance, ultimately hindering racial equity change (Ford et al., 2016; Grissom, 2014;
Lencioni, 2002; Patterson et al., 2002). Additionally, it is important to incorporate the voices of
community stakeholders, as racial equity work needs diverse perspectives, ownership in the
change process, and allies (Green, 2017; Turner, 2020).
Racial equity change requires passion, persistence, and practice to unsilence the taboo
around race and launch courageous conversations to create sustainable systemic change
(Samuels et al., 2019; Singleton & Linton, 2006). Savage-Williams (2020), an educator in the K–
12 field, and president of a school board of a diverse district, indicates that to move the needle on
racial equity in K-12 schools, district public officials have to be on board with a unified
commitment to drive change by expanding unconscious bias and engaging in courageous
conversations. This district is listed as a prime example of where the school board committed to
racial equity implemented equity-focused policies to drive district change (Savage-Williams,
2020). Additionally, Mansfield and Jean-Marie (2015) examined an original study at a public
magnet school, with data from 35 interviews of educators, parents, and school board members.
Their empirical findings demonstrated that courageous conversations about race can be the
impetus for transformative actions, which, in turn, leads to all students’ educational achievement
36

(Mansfield & Jean-Marie, 2015). Similarly, as public officials representing PreK–12 district
communities, boards of education have the responsibility to bring racial disparities and systemic
injustices to light; if not, they are complicit in perpetuating a climate where issues of racism and
injustice go unchallenged (Samuels et al., 2019). Thomas Bertrand, the Illinois Association of
School Board’s Executive Director, discusses the role of school boards in having a unified vision
with a shared definition of what equity is, engaging community stakeholders to inform the
development of a local equity policy (IASB, 2017a). Equity-focused leadership also moves
districts from a united vision to action and consistent accountability to ensure continuous
improvement to address gaps (Bolger, 2020; Dubnick, 2003; L. Saunders, 2015; Welton et al.,
2015).
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) modified gap analysis model was the conceptual framework
used to examine how school boards can adopt and implement policies focused on racial equity in
K–12 districts. Figure 1 summarizes this framework. A conceptual framework is the system of
concepts, assumptions, and beliefs that support and guide the research and the relationships
between the various factors (Osanloo & Grant, 2016; Maxwell, 2013). Fullan (2004) argued that
reform needs to happen at three levels: School-community level, district level, and system or
policy level. Clark and Estes’s model considers this systemic change perspective and calls for
addressing three core components: knowledge, motivation, and organization. Additionally,
Rueda (2011) argued that most school reform efforts centered around performance and
achievement problems are rooted in knowledge gaps, motivation gaps, and institutional gaps.
This research used a modified gap analysis model to examine both needs and assets
demonstrated by school boards to advance equity.
37

Figure 1
Clark and Estes Modified Gap Analysis Model Utilized as Conceptual Framework for Research
Investigating School Board Advancement of Racial Equity-Focused Policies

38

Knowledge
Individuals operating in an organization must have the skills, knowledge, competencies,
and specific organizational awareness to support an equity-focused mission and vision (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Galloway et al., 2015; Rorrer et al., 2008). Knowledge and learning are distinct and
foundational to organizational racial equity progress (Rice, 2019). To move towards the outcome
of ensuring a healthy ecosystem embracing equity and inclusion, school boards must first outline
the knowledge gaps in the current district model (Clark & Estes, 2008), such as racial equity
awareness, diversity training, and color-blind leadership (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Diem et al., 2016;
Turner, 2020; Welton et al., 2015). As elected representatives, they must then know how to
advocate for policies to meet the needs of marginalized stakeholders and promote the larger
society’s diversity (Turner, 2020). Boards must understand and incorporate tools to hold the
superintendents accountable for operationalizing school policies with an equity-focused lens to
advance racial understanding for all students (Bovens & Schillemans, 2014; Church, 2018; Clark
& Estes, 2008; Dubnick, 2003, 2014; Flinders, 2014; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Marsh et
al., 2006).
Motivation
According to Clark and Estes (2008), there are three core facets of motivated
performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is when action replaces
the intention to pursue a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this study, active choice is where school
board members move to propose and implement equity policies. Persistence is continuing to
work on a goal in the face of distractions and resistance to racial equity (Trujillo, 2013),
especially when pursuing a goal in relation to balancing and prioritizing multiple goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Finally, adequate mental effort has to be invested to achieve a goal like equity-
39

based professional development (Ezzani et al., 2021). The appropriate level of confidence plays
an important role in assessing the correct amount of mental effort to direct toward a goal (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Overconfidence leads to underinvestment of effort, and under-confidence leads
to not being able to sustain or reach goals effectively (Clark & Estes, 2008).
It was also noteworthy to examine the process of learning about how to incorporate racial
equity and the influence of self-efficacy on impacting change in the implementation of equitable
practices and policies in education (Bandura, 2000). By instilling a sense of self-agency,
adopting and implementing policies will ensure that school board members and educators are
intrinsically motivated to perform or change behavior (Zimmerman et al., 2017). Utilizing
expectancy-value theory enhances motivation, learning, and performance, ensuring that the
leadership and change initiatives are designed to increase stakeholder value for the goals by
igniting intrinsic value (interest), extrinsic value (utility), attainment value (importance), and cost
value (benefit), which are all factors in expectancy-value theory (Clark & Estes, 2008). Cultural
humility will be required to initiate intrinsic motivation to address racial equity and an
understanding of attainment value, referring to the perceived importance of performance on a
particular task (engaging in equity policy implementation) to one’s sense of self-identity (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield et al., 2016). Motivation, learning, and performance are
enhanced when organizational learners have positive expectations that their efforts will result in
successful outcomes, such as enhanced student achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008; Skrla et al.,
2009).
Organization
The third component of Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework is centered around
organizational barriers. Since this study utilized a modified model, I also examined
40

organizational assets to implement racial equity-focused policies. As Fullan (2006) explained, it
is important to change both individuals and systems. Many times, organizational issues, such as a
fragmentation of approaches, a misalignment of approaches and goals, and a failure to match
solutions to problems, are at the root of performance problems and can lead to additional
knowledge and motivational gaps (Rueda, 2011). The overarching organizational structure
consists of factors in cultural models and settings.
Cultural models concentrate on the values, beliefs, and attitudes embedded in a field’s
invisible culture, including historically evolved shared ways of perceiving and thinking (Bolman
& Deal, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The added factors that
incorporate cultural models are the norms, behaviors, language, expectations, and modes of
interaction among the people who collaborate in K–12 settings (Clark & Estes, 2008; Fullan,
2006). Regarding cultural models, effective equity-focused school board governance and follow-
through with leadership principles and attitudes, such as deficit or asset-based thinking about
Students of Color, were also analyzed to demonstrate levels of inclusiveness for diverse
perspectives and commitment to racial equity (IASB, 2017; NSBA, 2021).
Cultural settings are different from models in that they provide insight into visible
manifestations of the cultural model (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this study, the relevant cultural
settings included equity-minded vision and mission (Welner & Carter, 2013), colorblind or
color-conscious policies (Turner, 2020), culturally relevant curriculum and resources approved
by the board (Krathwohl, 2002), construction of an equity-focused strategic plan (Alsbury,
2015), and a corresponding superintendent hiring process and evaluation tool utilized by boards
to assess and provide feedback to advance racial equity (Henrikson, 2018).

41

Justification for Modified Gap Analysis Framework
The gap analysis modified framework used is important to understand to affect racial
equity change. It took into consideration school board knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. As Clark and Estes (2008) noted, no real change can occur without diagnosing the
human causes and identifying appropriate solutions. In this study, the purpose of the modified
gap analysis was to identify whether there is sufficient knowledge, motivation, and
organizational support to achieve equitable outcomes for all students (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Clark and Estes’s gap analysis model offers a framework for education leaders and policymakers
to explore the problem embedded in the public school system and to select the right solutions for
filling the voids resulting in inequitable outcomes. Identifying the assets provided an opportunity
to understand the solutions better to drive recommendations to advance equity. The three areas of
K–12 board members’ performance gaps resulting in inequity were examined: knowledge and
skills to adopt and implement policies focused on racial equity, motivational obstacles, and
assets to implementing those policies, especially compared with other goals they must also
achieve and organizational barriers and assets to implementing equity-focused policies.
Therefore, using the modified model supported exploring assets and obstacles, identifying
causes, and moving toward equity.
Summary
This chapter began by presenting the research evidence that racial inequity is a problem
in K–12 schools (Ladson-Billings, 2006). It illuminated the persistent opportunity gaps
throughout the history of the United States that have created entrenched institutionalized
inequities in schools (Harper, 2012; Omi & Wubabt, 2015). The literature review then centers on
K–12 school boards as the stakeholders of focus. The research showed that this public
42

governance entity has the power to implement key levers to create more equitable policies and
outcomes, such as defining districts’ missions and visions, connecting with their communities,
and hiring and evaluating superintendents to operationalize equity-based strategic plans and
policies (Alsbury, 2015; Burgett, 2014; Campbell & Fullan, 2019; Diem et al., 2015; NSBA,
2021; Turner, 2015, 2020; DiPaolo, 2010; Henrikson, 2018). The literature review also examined
the challenges board members face, like politicization, a lack of racial representation, the low
civic engagement and political awareness of Communities of Color, and colorblind leadership
(Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Diem et al., 2014; Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; Hochschild, 2005; Kogan et
al., 2020; Kohli, 2017; Marschall, 2005; Welton et al., 2015). The challenges lead to the
solutions to address systemic racial inequities by presenting research on racial equity change
frameworks that combine anti-racism and organizational change (Welton et al., 2015),
organizational capacity building, and an emphasis on being a learning organization (Ezzani et al.,
2021; Roegman et al., 2020). In addition, the adoption of equity audits was outlined through
conversations that unearth motivational roadblocks to move the discussion toward action to
support all students (Green, 2017; Skrla et al., 2004).

43

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine school board members’ knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences on establishing and implementing racial equity-focused
educational policy. This chapter presents the methodology and justification for its use. I will
outline the guiding research questions that steered this study, followed by an overview of the
methodological design. I will also discuss the setting of the research, data sources, and my
positionality. Lastly, I will present issues of validity and reliability, ethics, limitations, and
delimitations.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs within the school board to adopt and implement
policies focused on racial equity?
2. What are the motivational assets and obstacles school board members face to adopt and
implement policies focused on racial equity in the district?
3. What are the organizational assets and barriers school boards face related to adopting and
implementing policies focused on racial equity in the district?
Overview of Design
This study utilized a qualitative methodology. Qualitative research is an approach to
exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human
problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this case, qualitative research focused on the human
and social problem of systemic racial inequity. Qualitative methods produce findings not
discerned by statistical procedures or other means of quantification. Instead, data were collected
through interviews and a review of documents (Aliyu et al., 2015; Hughes, 1990). In this context,
44

qualitative research illuminated the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and
challenges of K–12 school officials to advance racial equity. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
explained that the overall purpose of qualitative research is to understand how people make sense
of their lives, delineate processes of meaning-making, and describe how people interpret what
they experience.
This study’s data collection methods included interviews, document analysis, and
observations of school board-related meetings, which are some of the most common methods of
data collection used by education researchers (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The most obvious
strength that open-ended interviewing brings to inductive research is the ability to pursue topics
that emerge during the conversation (Morgan, 2017). Furthermore, document analysis provides
opportunities to understand the organizational achievements and obstacles in achieving racial
equity (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The combination of interviews, document analysis, and
observations allowed me to ask additional questions to provide a broader understanding of the
organizational factors that impact systemic change towards racial equity in K–12 schools. Table
1 indicates the research questions and the applicable data sources.
Research Setting
The setting for this study was the suburban districts in the Chicago metropolitan area in
Illinois, commonly referred to as Chicagoland. The research was conducted in three districts that
are in the north, northwest, and west Chicagoland suburbs and are organized under the following
three regional offices of education: North Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties. This area of
suburban Cook County covers 90 K–12 school districts.

45

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Interviews
Document
analysis
Observation
What are the knowledge assets
and needs within the school
board to adopt and implement
policies focused on racial
equity?
X X X
What are the motivational assets
and obstacles school board
members face to adopt and
implement policies focused on
racial equity in the district?
X
What are the organizational assets
and barriers school boards face
related to adopting and
implementing policies focused
on racial equity in the district?
X X X

This Chicagoland suburban K–12 setting was selected because of the changing
demographics of this suburban area. Education organizations have a pivotal role in establishing
social cohesion (Order, 2005). The study examined K–12 school board members' knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences impacting racial equity in the suburban Chicagoland
area.
The Researcher
In qualitative investigations, the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection
and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Creswell, 2018). During this study, I was a school board
member myself. I examined districts other than the one I served to ensure there was no conflict
46

of interest. I was in my second term, and fifth year, as the first school board member of color in
the suburban setting I lived in. In addition to addressing the problem of practice of racial inequity
in K–12 schools, I had to be attentive to my own emerging biases as a parent to minoritized
children in public schools. I was also a former K–12 teacher and administrator who worked in a
system with a 96% White teaching staff and a 100% White school board. My lived experiences
had to be checked as I objectively listened to gain credible data. I am also a South Asian
immigrant woman born and raised in Africa and living in the United States for over 25 years. I
had to be cautious and examine blind spots that emerged from my global perspectives and my
own immigrant experiences.
Maintaining objectivity and checking personal bias was key (Locke et al., 2010) because,
as a researcher, my positionality as a suburban School Board Member of Color was tied to the
setting and focus of the study. In terms of ontology, reality is one’s relationship with the truth
(Wilson, 2008). Therefore, being aware of my positionality was important, understanding that, as
a qualitative researcher, interpretation of the data and meaning-making were going to be based
on my experiences. Journaling and reflection through the dissertation process helped me mitigate
potential biases and assumptions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I also practiced disciplined
restraint in maintaining objective composure to not lead participants with any nonverbal or
verbal cues during qualitative interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At every stage in research,
a researcher may make assumptions: epistemological—assumptions about knowledge,
ontological – assumptions about the nature of reality, and axiological—assumptions about values
and ethics (M. N. Saunders et al., 2019). Practicing reflexivity was critical; I questioned my
thinking and actions to examine beliefs to articulate why I made certain assumptions (Berger,
2015). Additionally, to maintain reflexivity, I had to adhere to a statement of values to help me
47

understand axiological assumptions (M. N. Saunders et al., 2019). My role as a researcher was
not that of an advocate but of an objective data collector (Glesne, 2011). By identifying my
reflexivity based on biases, values, background, identity, and socioeconomic status, I critically
shaped interpretations formed during the study (Creswell, 2018).
Additionally, as an elected school board member, I was aware that researching the topic
of racial equity can be politically charged. Therefore, it was key to establish relationships and
gain trust by making research intentions clear through the interview protocol, listening without
sharing emotions, and taking time off to be mindful of positionality (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
By conveying my positionality and experiences with the sensitivities around K–12 leadership
and school board governance, I tried to establish a credible relationship with fellow educators
and board members to advance ethical practice (Glesne, 2011). At the same time, to mitigate any
power dynamics, I stressed to participants that my role during the study was purely that of an
academic researcher (Buckholder, 2019; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). The participants were in high-
stakes roles, where the political burden of policy implementation is steep (Diem et al., 2014).
Establishing researcher rapport and trust was critical.
Social construction, as defined by Kang et al. (2017), is evident in how others identify an
individual and how I categorized myself as well. As an immigrant woman raising American
children of Indian and African descent (due to diaspora), being aware of my privilege and
marginalization was important in shaping my perspectives on racial inequity and the research
lens through which I addressed my problem of practice. My lived global experiences and my
immigrant encounters provided me with empathy towards the access gaps in school systems and
made me aware of my blind spots, ensuring that I examined the topic objectively, actively
collecting data to inform my research.
48

Data Sources
Data sources for this qualitative study were interviews, documents, and observations
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Methodology axiology asks how valid
knowledge can be acquired, and it analyzes the different methods used in research (Aliyu, 2015).
In this study, interviews launched the data collection, followed by document and observation
analysis to gain insight into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors of school
board members in influencing systemic change in racial equity. Interviews gained information
from semi-structured questions asked to school board members (Patton, 1987). Document
analysis investigated written content related to racial equity, including district and Illinois state
agency websites, board records, district documents, opinion pieces, social media, and newspaper
articles (Bowen, 2009). Observations reviewed board meeting recordings related to racial equity
agenda items (Bogden & Biklen, 2011).
Interviews
The first data source was interviews. DeMarrias (2004) described a research interview as
a process in which a researcher and participant engage in a conversation focused on questions
related to a study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this research, interviewing was necessary to
understand participants’ behavior, feelings, and interpretation of racial equity issues (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The questions and interview protocol were also piloted
several times to maintain my composure, objectivity, and clarity of communication (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Semi-structured interviews were used with probes to explore participant
responses regarding their knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impacted racial
equity systemic change in their districts.

49

Participants
Purposeful sampling was utilized to recruit interview participants, as this allowed the
investigation to discover, understand, and gain insights from a sample from which the most could
be learned (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, network sampling was also used as I
interviewed early key participants by requesting references from other participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The goal was to interview members of two or three school boards, with a total of
10 to 12 school board members in the suburban counties of North Cook, DuPage, and Will. The
study resulted in a thorough comparative analysis of three different school boards, where six
members of each board agreed to be interviewed, including the officers of each board:
presidents, vice presidents, and secretaries. Therefore, 18 board members participated in this
study. This resulted in diverse viewpoints regarding their boards’ efforts to advance racial equity
policies.
To ensure there was no conflict of interest, participants were not recruited from the
district where I serve as a school board member. The selection of the three district school boards
was criteria-based. Initially, a scan of various district websites, board agendas, social platforms,
media articles, YouTube webinars, and word of mouth from educators and other board members
confirmed the efforts of the three boards in advancing racial equity policies, which were also
reflected through their programs, practices, and initiations of district-wide equity audits.
Secondly, their participation as boards and individual members in professional development
activities was listed on their website, and network sampling confirmed their training efforts
through the Illinois Association of School Board publications, conference participation and
presentations, and other training sessions. Participants represented a mix of experiences, race,
50

genders, professional backgrounds, and ethnicities, resulting in diverse perspectives (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Instrumentation
The interview protocol had 24 questions and followed a semi-structured approach,
allowing for flexible execution with probing questions when necessary to allow the respondents
to elaborate with follow-up inquiry to inform the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
interviews were executed via a recorded Zoom web-based video application to capture the body
language and responses to the questions. The interview encouraged the respondents to consider
their knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). The goal of using
open-ended questions was to gain further insight to inform the research focus that may not have
been revealed in the literature review (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each question was aligned to
the key concepts being addressed. The interview protocol can be found in Appendix B.
Data Collection Procedures
As Bogdan and Biklen (2007) explained, data refers to the rough materials researchers
collect from the world they are studying and make the basis of analysis, providing both evidence
and clues. As an educator who was serving as a school board member during the study, I initially
leaned on my network to identify boards that would meet the study’s participation criteria. Once
the three boards were identified, I contacted the districts to learn more about their policies for
getting approval to approach board members for interviews. In some cases, I was referred to the
board president. In others, it was the superintendent, who then followed up by getting written
approval for me or referred me to complete the district’s research application process. I then
submitted research proposal requests and completed the districts’ application forms. All three
districts granted official approval.
51

After receiving district approval, I reached out to the board members via email, inviting
them to voluntarily participate in an hour-long research interview. Eighteen synchronous
interviews were scheduled and conducted via Zoom (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This also allowed for safety, geographical access, and ease of research during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews were conducted from my home office, which was set up as
a professional backdrop. Interviews were recorded with each of the participants’ approval. Zoom
and Rev transcription services were used to convert the audio files to word documents. All
personal identifiers were replaced with pseudonyms to protect the participants’ anonymity.
Field notes were taken during and immediately after the interviews, as it was imperative
to write a full narrative of the interviews to capture enough detail so that readers feel as if they
were there, seeing what I experienced as the interviewer, and have a reflective component of my
investigation commentary (Bogdan & Biklen, 2011; Patton, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I
also took notes during the interviews to help pace the questions and provide nonverbal cues
about what was important (Patton, 2018). I maintained consistency in timing, question types, and
demeanor to ensure trustworthy data collection. The questions guided the participant to consider
select areas that support Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework.
Data Analysis
The data were filtered through the theoretical and conceptual framework chosen for this
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Conclusions drawn from the research were only as sound as
the research itself (Duke & Martin, 2011), and for interviews, document, and observation
analysis, data interpretation began during information gathering. I wrote analytic memos after
each interview, document, and observation analysis (Buckholder, 2019; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I documented thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in relation to the
52

conceptual framework and research questions. Once I collected the data, I transcribed and coded
the interviews using the application Atlas.Ti. In the first phase of analysis, I used open coding,
looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework. The
second phase of analysis involved aggregating empirical and a priori codes into analytic/axial
codes. The third phase included identifying pattern codes and themes that emerged in relation to
the conceptual framework and study questions.
Document Analysis
Document analysis requires systematically reviewing and interpreting data to elicit
meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge (Bowen, 2009; Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). Publicly available written documents, including board documents, agendas,
minutes, district websites, superintendent hiring and evaluation descriptions, policies, state
agency documents, blog posts, opinion pieces, social media, and newspaper articles, were
reviewed to get perspectives on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of
school board members and district administrators to establish and implement racial equity-
focused educational policy. I found the documents via online searches. Additionally, during the
interview, I asked participants if they would like to recommend or share any publicly accessible
documents to help me understand the districts’ equity efforts.
According to Bowen (2009), analyzing documents involves content and thematic
deduction. Content analysis is the process of organizing information into categories related to the
central research questions on racial equity-focused policy implementation in K–12 districts.
Thematic analysis is conducted to develop a form of pattern recognition with the data, with
emerging themes becoming the categories for analyses (Bowen, 2009). I used document and
observation evidence combined with data from interviews to minimize bias and establish
53

credibility. I analyzed documents and artifacts by utilizing qualitative coding for evidence
consistent with the conceptual framework (Bowen, 2009; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Johnson &
Christensen, 2015).
Observation Analysis
Observation analysis occurred through viewing one board-related meeting at each of the
three participating districts when racial equity was on the agenda. Some of the observations were
of meetings referenced by the participants during the interviews to triangulate the information
shared. Strengths of observational data include that the evaluator has the opportunity to see
things that may routinely escape conscious awareness among participants in the program. The
observer can gain information participants may not discuss in an interview, and observations
permit the evaluator to move beyond others’ selective perceptions (Patton, 1987). As
recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), I used an observation protocol (Appendix D) to
make a note of the data to gather information focused on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors.
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stressed that ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative
research involves conducting the investigation ethically through careful attention to a study’s
conceptualization, how the data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted, and how the findings are
presented. To ensure qualitative validity and reliability, I checked for the accuracy of the
findings by employing triangulation to seek corroboration and convergence through different
data sources and methods (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative document analysis was also employed to
confirm the validity of the data, making sure it is triangulated through multiple data sources to
support conclusions and reduce biases of specific methods (Maxwell, 2013). By triangulating
54

data, I attempted to provide a confluence of evidence that breeds credibility (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Eisner, 1991; Bowen, 2009).
I made an effort to convey a rich, detailed description to share findings regarding
participant knowledge, motivation, and district organizational factors, giving readers a clear and
detailed account (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, I consistently examined my worldview
and assumptions via memos written during data collection, reflexive journaling recording my
rationale for the study, assumptions, values, and relationships to the participants in terms of
culture and power (Burkholder et al., 2019). Racial equity can be perceived as a controversial
topic by some, and to maintain validity and reliability, negative or discrepant information that
runs counter to the themes was also presented (Creswell & Creswell, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I incorporated peer debriefing with my network of education leaders to enhance the
accuracy of the account (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Even though I
investigated the data independently, I engaged my network of doctoral colleagues and professors
to assist in assessing and validating the study as external auditors (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Qualitative reliability was further achieved by recording as many of the steps of the interviews,
document, and observation analysis procedures as possible to ensure there are no obvious
mistakes in transcripts and coding (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Ethics
To a large extent, a study’s validity and reliability depend on the investigator’s ethics
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There should be trust in the process (Horsager, 2012), demonstrating
that the study was carried out with integrity and involved my ethical stance as a researcher. I
only began collecting data before I received approval from the institutional review board (IRB).
Additionally, I adhered to all IRB guidelines for protecting human subjects. I acquired additional
55

training and certification to conduct social-behavioral human subjects research as a requirement
from the University of Southern California. Although policies, guidelines, and codes of ethics
have been developed by the federal government, institutions, and professional associations, I was
aware that the actual ethical practice came down to my values and ethics as a researcher
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study collected data through interviews, documents, and
observations, which all involved ethical measures to protect the methodologic integrity. The
interview protocol (Appendix B) outlined the right to privacy through anonymity and a verbal
requirement of informed consent to participate in the study voluntarily. I was also forthcoming
with the intention of the data collection and my positionality regarding the focus of the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Since this study on racial equity can be perceived as politically
charged, participants who were elected or appointed officials were assured that they would not
be identified to maintain their anonymity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). At the same time, over-
sensitivity to racial topics did not jeopardize the integrity of the purpose of the study, and I was
forthcoming regarding the focus of the research (Harper, 2012).
Privacy is often the participants’ primary concern in qualitative research; therefore, I
reminded participants that the Zoom recording was only for my research analysis purposes and I
would destroy it after data analysis (Glesne, 2016). I explained the benefits to the subject and
society by informing participants that the research will serve the interests of public schools and
society at large in ensuring their continued effectiveness and growth. The research methodology
also ensured that all potential risks of participating in the study were eliminated (Glesne, 2016).
Racial equity is a charged topic in this socio-political time frame, and I navigated this study with
this understanding (Murphy & Skillen, 2015). If the interviewee perceives the interviewer as a
person of power, this can influence or limit what is reported (Glesne, 2016). Additionally, to
56

establish appropriate reciprocity, I shared that I would disseminate the results via publications
and conferences at state and national school board associations, education platforms, and other
avenues as a helpful study highlighting recommendations of K–12 school board members’ role
in promoting racial equity policies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Wilson (2008) articulated that
axiology is based on being accountable to your relations and becoming part of the research.
Therefore, it was important for me to interpret knowledge in a way that respects and edifies the
relationships I formed in doing the work with a vested interest in the integrity of the
methodology, incorporating respect, reciprocity, and responsibility (Wilson, 2008).

57

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the participant s’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on establishing and implementing policies focused on racial equity.
This study utilized a modified version of Clark and Estes’s (2016) gap analysis framework
following a qualitative research design. This chapter outlines the following elements of the
research: participants, interview results, and a summary of the findings. Three research questions
guided this study:
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs within the school board to adopt and implement
policies focused on racial equity?
2. What are the motivational assets and obstacles school board members face to adopt and
implement policies focused on racial equity in the district?
3. What are the organizational assets and barriers school boards face related to adopting and
implementing policies focused on racial equity in the district?
Participating Stakeholders
Participants were 18 school board members from three Chicagoland suburban public
districts. The boards were purposefully selected for their efforts to advance racial equity. The
participants were also selected for their location in the metropolitan Chicagoland area. Six out of
seven board members participated from each of the three school boards: all the presidents, vice
presidents, and secretaries. The officials and their corresponding districts were assigned
pseudonyms to maintain their anonymity: From District Durio (DD), I interviewed Participant
1/DD to Participant 6/DD; from District Emory (DE), I interviewed Participant 7/DE to
Participant 12/DE; and from District Sabal (DS), I interviewed Participant 13/DS to Participant
18/DS. Table 2 provides a key and captures the participants’ characteristics.
58

Table 2
Participant Characteristics
Name Board position Initially
elected or
appointed
Professional
background
Race Board
tenure
(full
terms)
Years
lived
in
district
District Durio
Participant 1/DD President Elected Education White 1 6–10
Participant 2/DD Vice president Appointed Education BIPOC 1 6–10
Participant 3/DD Secretary Appointed Other White 1 6–10
Participant 4/DD Member Appointed Other BIPOC 1 6–10
Participant 5/DD Member Elected Other White < 1 6–10
Participant 6/DD Member Elected Education White < 1 0–5
District Emory
Participant 7/DE President Elected Education BIPOC 2 30+
Participant 8/DE Vice president Elected Other BIPOC 1 30+
Participant 9/DE Member Elected Other White 3 30+
Participant 10/DE Member Elected Education White < 1 11–15
Participant 11/DE Member Appointed Education BIPOC < 1 21–25
Participant 12/DE Member Elected Education White 1 21–25
District Sabal
Participant 13/DS President Elected Other White 1 26–29
Participant 14/DS Vice president Elected Other White 1 11–15
Participant 15/DS Member Elected Education White < 1 16–20
Participant 16/DS Member Appointed Other White < 1 16–20
Participant 17/DS Member Elected Other BIPOC 2 6–10
Participant 18/DS Member Elected Education BIPOC < 1 30+

59

Of the three participating boards, District Emory was the most advanced equity-focused
board. As a more experienced board with longer-tenured board members who had launched
equity work in the district over 10 years ago, they had advanced racial equity in their district and
made it a priority in their community-at-large as well. The board members, on average, had been
district area residents for longer and had stronger ties to their community. It is noteworthy that
the majority of the board members were educators, and for the most part, their board had
significant experience related to facilitating and promoting racial equity efforts in their
professional capacities as well. They also placed emphasis on board development as a group.
Additionally, they had one additional Member of Color than the two other participating boards.
Overall, District Emory had the highest level of knowledge, motivation, and established
organizational structures that they continued to develop to advance racial equity in their district.
District Emory was a large, one-high-school district with over 3,000 students. The district
was a majority-minority district, with close to half the student population being White. Most of
the school board and the district educators, as well as the superintendent, were White. The
majority of the interviewees from this board had an education background. The other two
members were from other professions. For the most part, this was a fairly experienced board
with four members having served from one to three terms. Only two board members had served
for less than a full 4-year term. The board also had a significant history as residents, with the
average time lived in the district being 24 years. Three members had lived there for more than 30
years, and one of them was born in the same town. Of the three boards, District Emory was the
most experienced.
District Durio had taken positive steps forward to launch their equity work. It is worthy
of mention that their racial equity efforts only began after they elected their first Person of Color
60

a few years before this study. In addition to this Individual of Color, there were also two
additional board members who were educators who referenced their professional backgrounds in
informing their district governance efforts. The racial equity work in District Durio gained more
traction after a second Person of Color joined the board. However, their initiatives in this area
were just beginning, which is important, as they faced some change effort challenges discussed
later in this chapter.
District Durio was a small K–8 school district with fewer than 5 schools and about 1,500
students. The district was a majority-minority district, with close to half the student population
being White. Most of the school board and the district educators, as well as the superintendent,
were White. Half of the interviewees from this board came from an education background. The
other three participants came from diverse fields. The board had gone through significant
turnover, with the longest-tenured participant being the president, who had served on the board
for 5 years. From the three boards examined in this research, Durio had the most members who
joined the board through appointment versus a contested election. The length of time that the
study participants have lived in the district ranged from 5 to 10 years. This was also significantly
less than the two other participating school boards, whose board members had lived in the area
between 10 and over 30 years.
District Sabal was not as successful as District Emory in implementing racial equity
policies; however, they had only been doing this work for a few years after a Person of Color
launched the efforts. Their board, together with their administrators, were in the process of
strengthening their cultural settings with the intention of creating a more streamlined equity
vision. Their board members, on average, were longer-term residents and had more history living
in District Sabal than District Durio members had been living in their area. District Sabal had
61

two Members of Color, and a majority of the board members were strongly aligned in their racial
equity goals.
District Sabal was a very large K–12 district with many schools across several towns.
From the three boards, District Sabal’s members oversaw the largest school district. Like the
other two boards, District Sabal was a majority-minority district, with a lower White student
population than the other systems. The school board’s racial makeup and the district educators
are majority White, as was the superintendent. Two of the participating board members are from
the education field, and the other four represent diverse professional backgrounds. A majority of
the members had served less than a 4-year term. The members ranged from serving less than a
term to one member serving over two terms. The board members ranged from living in the
district between 10 and 30 years, with the majority having lived in the area for over 16 years.
It is noteworthy that each of the three participating boards had more than one Person of
Color, and the findings will also demonstrate the positive influence their White allies played in
the advancement of racial equity in their districts. The most exemplary participating boards were
also able to advance the work because of their strong collaboration with equity-minded
superintendents, who in this study happen to be White men. A detailed description of all three
participating boards will further elaborate on their positioning to advance racial equity in their
respective districts.
Findings
The data presented below is organized by the school board members’ assets and needs
related to their knowledge, motivation, and organizational influencers to adopt and implement
policies focused on racial equity. These inter-related factors identified in Clark and Estes’s
(2008) modified gap analysis as referenced in the conceptual framework and the literature review
62

provided the theoretical lens for the data analysis. The findings analyzed information gathered
from qualitative interviews, document analysis, and school board meeting observations. The
chapter concludes with a summary and synthesis of the results and findings.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What are the knowledge assets and needs within the
school board to adopt and implement policies focused on racial equity?” Knowledge includes the
distinct areas of factual and conceptual declarative understanding in addition to procedural and
metacognitive awareness (Krathwohl, 2002). Declarative knowledge is information about why or
what. Procedural knowledge is information about how and when (Clark & Estes, 1996). To
increase performance, gaps in these areas of knowledge must be identified and addressed (Clark
& Estes, 2008). In this modified gap analysis, this research also highlighted the assets found to
share promising practices. Overall, the knowledge findings demonstrated a clear knowledge asset
when school board members had a solid declarative understanding of racial equity with a
conceptual understanding of why it is important to lead with an equity lens in order to address
racial disparities. The findings also showed that for school board members to advance racial
equity, they need the procedural knowledge of how to govern, and specifically to do this with a
racial equity mindset. School board members also had to know how to advocate for racial equity,
delegate authority to administrators while monitoring their performance, and collaboratively
communicate clear equity accountability measures to the superintendent.
Declarative Knowledge
The purposefully selected equity-minded school boards examined in this study generally
had some level of declarative knowledge, as in the factual understanding of terminology and
elements such as the definition of racial equity, the difference between equity and equality, the
63

relationship between equity and excellence, awareness of color-based disparities, and the harm of
racial predictability. They also had a conceptual understanding of why it is important to lead with
an equity lens. Different boards had different levels of declarative knowledge depending on how
long and how effectively they had been engaged in racial equity efforts.
A comprehensive conceptual understanding of racial equity recognizes that it is a form of
corrective justice for communities of color that have suffered oppression (Dowd & Bensimon,
2015). It acknowledges eliminating racial disparities and addressing institutional barriers to
ensure that institutional power structures, policy-making processes, and the cultural fabric of
organizations are intentional in providing access and opportunities to marginalized Communities
of Color (Museus et al., 2015). A little over half (10) of the participants had a comprehensive
color-conscious understanding of racial equity. Whereas District Emory’s board provided in-
depth knowledge, there was a mixture of responses on the other boards, with some members
whose definitions were race-neutral and did not acknowledge institutional barriers or opportunity
gaps. The following definitions of racial equity provided by individual members from each of the
boards give an idea of the different levels of declarative knowledge. Participant 6/DD, said that
racial equity was “meeting kids where they’re at to provide great opportunities for all.”
Participant 16/DS stated, “I would define racial equity as giving opportunities to sort of non-
white students so that they can be all they can be, achieve maximum potential.” Participant
10/DE defined racial equity as,
I think the simple answer is the idea of providing excellent education to all students.
That’s the generic answer. But it’s doing that with a consciousness of systemic inequities
and that there are times and circumstances and lenses through which we have to, as
educators and policymakers and administrators, need to be aware of and mindful of how
64

our practices and policies are not only benefiting all students but impacting students who
are more marginalized or overlooked in conventional and traditional and historical
practices. So, it’s remedying the harms that have been perpetuated historically but doing
that with an awareness and an understanding of how those policies and practices have
harmed Students of Color in particular and working to address those and rectify those
historic inequities.
These definitions showed a range in understanding, with evidence of declarative knowledge
needs and assets. They happen to have the commonality of all being White and serving less than
a 4-year term on their respective boards. Interview findings confirm gaps in understanding racial
equity terminology among newer board members, especially when they do not have sufficient
board training, professional background, exposure to diversity, or lived experiences. In the
examples quoted, the last one from District Emory showed advanced knowledge of declarative
understanding of what racial equity was. The definitions from District Durio and Sabal
demonstrated knowledge needs.
A majority (14) of the study participants also demonstrated their awareness of the
inequities and racial predictability of academic and social disparities. As Participant 8/DE
described,
I can close my eyes and hear a report regarding our achievement of students and know
that race is still the predictability of achievement [in our district]. I can tell you in order
who they’re talking about without them revealing the subgroups. That is still an issue.
And so, it is one of our goals, as mighty as it may be, to erase that racial predictability.
And we have not.
65

Participant 15/DS shared factual awareness that “young men of color and young women of color
were being disproportionately disciplined.” Participant 4/DD remarked with disappointment the
facts, however, admitting that the data was still helpful to have:
The awareness that students are being disciplined at higher levels that fall into these
racial backgrounds, connecting that performance issues can be based around students
learning in an environment that contains teachers and administrators of their ethnic or
diversity backgrounds. And seeing some of those gaps and how they exist in my district.
So, those are the things that are out there that stand brightly in my eyes. It’s needing
fixing that I haven’t seen energy being placed towards.
Knowing that there were gaps in their districts was helpful to the participants to understand that
steps had to be taken to address the problems.
A majority of the interviewees (15 out of 18) mentioned having a racial equity lens as a
knowledge asset. The term “lens” was brought up 47 times. It was mentioned by every
participant from District Emory, five from District Sabal, and four from District Durio. As
Participant 11/DE indicated, “I see a school board member having to keep race and a racialized
lens on the table at all times: JEDI mindset. That’s the justice, equity, diversity and inclusion,
JEDI questions/mindset.” Participant 2/DD shared, “When you’re talking about racial equity,
there’s specifically a lens on race and ensuring that, despite race and across races, each
individual is getting what they need in order to thrive.” The evidence across the boards indicated
that having knowledge of why it is important to have a racial equity lens increases opportunities
for BIPOC students.
Five board members also brought up the terminology of equity versus equality in relation
to excellence. As Participant 15/DS said, “Equity, of course, is different than equality. So, when
66

we’re talking about equity, we’re trying to give others a boost so that we all end up on the same
playing field to start.” Participant 3/DD said that attending IASB conferences and having
presenters speak to their board “led to changes in how I view equality versus equity.” Adding to
this understanding, Participant 8/DE shared,
I was running for office my first term, and the question was something around “Can you
have equity and excellence?” I was like, "You can’t have equity without excellence” to
get people to understand that it’s not, “I’m going to give this and take this away” because
we think that equity means that “Oh, now all of a sudden, you’re going to let everybody
in the honors class. And now that means that it’s going to be less excellent than it was
supposed to be.” So, I absolutely agree with our equity statement. I helped devise that as
a board member.
Again, among different board members, there are different levels of understanding of the
terminology equity and equality in relation to excellence. District Emory’s school board had the
most advanced level of declarative knowledge and had been doing racial equity work for longer
(about 10 years). They also had a more senior tenured board. On the other hand, District Durio’s
board had a lower level of declarative knowledge since they had recently embarked on equity
work. They also had significant board turnover, with a majority of their board having only served
around 4 years, and two members who onboarded during the pandemic. District Sabal has a mix
of longer serving and newer elected board members. They had been working on incorporating a
racial equity lens for a couple of years and cumulatively had more of a moderate level of
declarative knowledge. The evidence showed that how they used this knowledge also influenced
the effectiveness of their district’s advancement of equity-focused policies.
Procedural Knowledge
67

Procedural knowledge is assessed in relation to knowledge of how to use racial-equity-
specific skills and techniques and when to use the appropriate procedures (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001). Advanced equity-minded school board members have significant procedural
knowledge and understand how to govern in general and do so with a racial equity lens. They
know how to clarify the district’s purpose through policies, how to employ and evaluate an
equity-minded superintendent, how and when to delegate authority while advocating and how to
establish accountability and monitor progress.
All the participants had some level of procedural knowledge of their governance role as
school board members. In particular, the eighteen participants were clear on their fundamental
responsibility to set the direction for the district by outlining expectations through policy to
ensure equitable outcomes for all students. Participant 1/DD, District Durio’s board president,
explained,
Ideally, I see [racial equity] as a lens through which every decision is made and that at
any point, when we’re talking about budgeting, when we’re talking about education,
curriculum, extracurricular activities, discipline, truly everything. I think that we are in
decision-making as board members. We need to be considering how equity is a lens for
weighing our decisions.
One-third (6) of the participants also mentioned how their boards incorporated an
understanding of individual bias in their role as decision-makers. As an example, Participant
17/DS emphasized her board’s gained procedural understanding of how to incorporate their
awareness of implicit bias: “helping people understand how it affects our decision making, how
it is implicit. I think it’s helped us tremendously to realize how much that exists even though we
68

can’t see it because we don’t recognize it.” District Emory had learned how to ensure they
considered their own biases when recruiting a superintendent. Participant 8/DE explained,
So, [board bias training] is Step 1. That’s before we even come up with the job
description, or revise the job description, or post the job description, or start the hiring
process. We’re setting the tone for the board to be prepared to support whoever walks
through that door.
This procedural knowledge of how their biases impacted their decision-making as board
members influenced one of their fundamental roles of hiring a district leader.
Alternatively, through participant anecdotes, it was evident that there was a procedural
knowledge need in that some board members did not know how to use a racial equity lens
through policies. First, some board members (5) explained in disappointment that they hardly
had any racial-equity-focused policies to inform their governance. Participant 2/DD said, “I
would say that from a board seat, I don’t see a lot of equity-focused policies.” District Sabal’s
board president, Participant 13/DS, shared a clear board knowledge need when they stated that
one of the weaknesses that hindered the adoption and implementation of racial equity-focused
policies was
Probably not being aware of all the nuances of an equity policy. I think we should go
through the IASB training. I think that would be valuable. That’s one of the many things
on our checklist of things to do. I think that’s probably one of the weaknesses that we
may not always think of what some implications are of some of the issues.
On the other hand, in District Emory, all interviewees were clear on how to advance racial equity
through their policies. Participant 7/DE, the board president, stated,
69

So, I feel like everything we do, every policy, every time we have a conversation, and we
use the policies from the Illinois Association of School Board, so every time we look at
policies, I think we look at it with a racial equity lens. Everything. So, when we are
looking at specific policies, not all policies will speak to race, not all policies speak even
of equity, but we’re still looking to make sure that race and equity are included.
The varying evidence from the three boards shows the interviewees were clear on how to direct
the district by having strong procedural knowledge of having an equity lens to address racial
disparities.
The evidence also highlights procedural knowledge assets and needs in relation to not
understanding how and when it is appropriate for board members in their governance roles to
advance racial equity in a school district. Participant 9/DE, who had the longest tenure of all
participants, shared their views on the board’s role in advancing racial equity:
I think [the school board] should play the role. I think the line from the IASB about board
governance that says we’re supposed to be on the balcony and not on the dance floor.
Well, I always hated that metaphor. My response to that, whenever we had our training
was always, "Yeah, we may be in the balcony, but we get to choose the music." And I
think that’s this idea that, in conjunction with your superintendent, you set the policy for
the district.
Participant 9/DE was not alone in bringing up their oppositional views of the dance floor-
balcony analogy related to their board’s role in advancing racial equity. Across the three boards,
six interviewees brought up varying understandings of what staying in their lane or staying on
the balcony versus the dance floor meant to them. Four of them had opposing views, of whom
three were People of Color. Two board members of two different boards were proponents of
70

staying on the balcony as far as advancing racial equity: two were White, and two were Members
of Color. The qualitative anecdotes presented demonstrated the contradicting perspectives.
Participant 4/DD, the second Person of Color ever to get elected on their board, noted,
The board should support and intervene when progress is slow or nonexistent because it’s
truly an educational imperative. The school board should not, again, this is an overused
term in our board meetings, this staying off the dance floor thing. So, that’s where I think
the board is most effective, where it’s able to have a direct hand in accountability, direct
hand in judging how well the administration is measuring and adjusting to the data that
it’s seeing. We got demographics out there that try to stay off the administration’s dance
floor and then use that language, and it’s almost been weaponized because it doesn’t hold
district administration accountable in the space of providing services for students who
have been historically disenfranchised in these spaces. I’m a part of that affected
demographic. I tend to cross the line, but then it’s really a gray line, I would say, in
getting on the dance floor versus staying off the dance floor, and the need to press the
diversity ball forward as hard as possible right now because it hasn’t gained the
momentum or gotten the attention. When you have administrators that are predominantly
White, who don’t see through the racial equity lens, who aren’t exposed to the racial
equity lens. So, you have individuals who don’t know what they don’t know…So, we
[the two board Members of Color] are a part of the demographic group that requires
change and requires the dance floor to be stepped on.
These two board members’ anecdotes demonstrate that they believe that the staying off the dance
floor analogy is misunderstood, causing board members to have a procedural knowledge gap in
71

how and when they should direct, advocate and hold the district accountable for adopting and
advancing racial equity policies.
On the other hand, the majority of the interviewees shared their procedural understanding
of their role pertaining to setting the policies, then monitoring progress, and ensuring that an
equity-minded superintendent is put in place to follow through with the boards’ goals. Participant
3/DD explained,
I think it’s important that the board set the tone for priorities for the administration. It’s
important certainly for the board to play a role in helping bring in an administrator that
has that viewpoint, follows the administrator’s recommendations with respect to a plan to
forward that goal. And then the board needs to monitor the progress. But again, there’s
only so much the board can do. We can develop as many policies and procedures as we
want, but at the end of the day, it’s our administration that needs to implement. It’s that
whole cliched statement of the board is in the balcony [and] the administration is on the
dance floor. We don’t need to be on the dance floor. It’s not our role to run the school,
the day-to-day. We appoint the superintendent who helps fill out the rest of the
administration that implements those policies. I do think it’s important that the board
have that role, but we can only act through the administration. And I think we’ve done a
good job of selecting an administrator that has this goal in mind, that has equity as a main
point of focus.
The procedural knowledge of how to monitor performance was brought up by members
of all three boards. In particular, the knowledge of how to effectively ask questions of the
superintendent and cabinet at the open board meetings and one-on-one with the goal of
monitoring policy implementation progress. As participant 14/DS explained,
72

I think it’s really important to first set those policies and then hold the staff
accountable to those policies and watching that work then kind of filter
through the system. Holding our superintendent accountable to that. Also, I think a lot of
that is the people that we have in place. They kind of work in tandem, to what our board
policy states. So, they’re the ones that are on the line for making sure that, when things
get to the board level, that they have that equity piece to it.
The evidence demonstrates different perspectives and sometimes urgency to advance racial
equity, especially for Board Members of Color. In addition, it also demonstrates that board
members must have the procedural knowledge of how to direct district purpose, employ an
equity-minded superintendent, delegate authority, and ensure accountability and monitor
progress.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge involves knowledge about cognition in general and awareness
of and knowledge about one’s cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). The metacognitive understanding
investigated through this study focused on individual strategic knowledge in relation to adopting
and implementing racial equity-focused policies. Equity-minded board members demonstrated
self-knowledge about how their positionality and knowledge from lived experiences influenced
their ability to adopt and implement racial-equity-focused policies. These influencing factors
were more prevalent in the lives of Board Members of Color; however, the evidence also showed
that White board members’ intentional interactions with diversity, living, and working in
inclusive communities also manifested in enhanced self-knowledge in relation to racial literacy.
Metacognitive knowledge assets and needs came up with the conceptual understanding of
colorblind ideology across the boards. Whereas on some boards, like District Emory, every
73

participant demonstrated color-conscious language, other boards, like District Sabal, were more
race-neutral (5), and on District Durio, a majority of their members (5) highlighted a knowledge
need either in themselves or with fellow board members for not acknowledging race as a factor
in educational equity. As an example, Participant 8’s reflections on Emory’s board members
being color brave also demonstrate her self-awareness:
If I’m having to share an experience, I say, as a Black [person], so I put myself there. I’m
not afraid of saying I statements and who I am and speaking from race all the time.
And so, we bring [race] up all the time. We speak race. We talk race all the time. We say
Black students. We say White students. We say Latin X student.
On the other hand, District Sabal participants did not bring up the word “racism,” and it was not
mentioned in the district strategic plan. Participant 15/DS reflected on how they had a colorblind
upbringing and has developed their knowledge since then:
I grew up a very ordinary White kid, surrounded by a whole lot of White kids, and very
early on my parents very much got caught up in the color blindedness of the ’80s and
’90s. So, that’s how I grew up. And then, as I got older, I began to understand that color
blindness isn’t necessarily the right thing.
Four Board Members of Color shared the harm they witnessed when board members did not
acknowledge color. Participant 4/DD shared what they perceived as knowledge needs as far as
colorblind mindsets that they witnessed in former board members:
The data that gets presented through the district’s research, and even having evidence that
previous board members don’t see issues, having affirmative statements that they don’t
see Color. When you hear that language, it’s like, okay, so why would that person try to
74

close these gaps if they use statements like they “don’t see color,” and they “don’t see
equity as a racial issue?”
Colorblind ideology was demonstrated as a metacognitive knowledge need, as compared to a
color-conscious mindset that is more conducive to advancing racial equity work on a district
board.
The intersectionality of participants’ life experiences also manifested in giving 13 of
them the metacognitive knowledge to understand different perspectives to advance racial equity
in their district. Participant 17/DS is a Board Member of Color and parent to a child with special
needs. She shared that this parenting experience, along with her immigrant family background,
helped her empathize with other Students of Color different from her own racial background,
Having a child with special needs really opened my eyes. I didn’t know much about it. I
didn’t even know what the law was before I had to live it with my child. Learning what
his rights were, was really eye-opening to me to think about every student’s rights. That
part of my background really helped me know that there’s experiences that I’m not aware
of and that I have to learn about them. And then also being a child of immigrants, my
parents were all about assimilation. It really was later that I started to embrace, hey, being
both can be celebrated. That was not normal for me growing up.
Participant 18/DS discussed their positionality as an African American teacher who grew
up in the South and how that informs their perspectives on racial equity:
As an African American teacher, and I hate to keep going back to what some people say,
"Oh, the race card." I am who I am. I’m African American. I cannot change who I am,
and I’m proud to be who I am. I’m looking from a different lens. So, as an African
American teacher, I’ve noticed that the African American principals that we have in
75

administration seem to have a challenging time. And so then, as an African American
teacher, I see this, and [in my former role in a neighboring district] I saw all five of those
principals leave. They didn’t stay very long.
Participant 18/DS also stated that they understood the struggles of these Principals of Color, as
they had witnessed discrimination as a teacher in the suburbs. As a board member, they pushed
back when there are complaints about African American principals, defending and empathizing
with their situations. “I’ve been discriminated against. I’m a [person] from the South. I tell you,
it’s easy sometimes to relate to a situation when you see it. And you have to think, ‘Well, I
wonder if this is what’s happening.’” Finally, Participant 14/DS also stated her experiences as a
White parent who adopted a child from a marginalized racial background which enhanced her
racial self-awareness: “It’s interesting because my family is biracial. So, I’ve had to do a lot of
work just individually to help [my child] through that process.” These participants’ self-
reflections show how positionality influences metacognitive awareness to drive racial equity
work.
Additionally, equity-minded White interviewees acknowledged that the lived experiences
of their board Colleagues of Color was an asset and also made it a point to gain knowledge from
diverse perspectives in their communities. Metacognitive awareness was highlighted when four
interviewees indicated that they did not know as much about racial equity; however, they learned
from the insights shared by their colleagues and Community Members of Color. For instance,
Participant 16/DS reflected,
I’m not certainly as knowledgeable [as his former and current board Colleagues of Color]
about everything, and certainly don’t have first-hand experience of [racial inequity], but I
76

share the values and so incoming on the board, it was something that I wanted to see
continue and advance.
Participant 9/DE provides another good example of this when they stated, “I would say the
strengths on the board are people’s lived experiences. So, our board has never been a bunch of
White people trying to figure this out, which would be much more, I think, of an uphill battle.”
Participant 9/DE also talked about taking advantage of the “racial equity ecosystem” in their
town and participated in many community conversations at the library and other spaces. Having
lived in this town for over 30 years, Participant 9/DE appreciated that “a lot of racial equity stuff
is swirling around us in this community.” As a White person, their lengthy experiences in a
diverse community had given them the metacognitive insight to adopt and implement policies
focused on racial equity. This was further supported when Participant 9/DE shared that they
collaborated with a BIPOC board colleague to draft the district’s first equity statement a couple
of years after they were elected over 10 years ago. These narratives show how knowledge can
drive motivation, another major lever in creating racial equity change.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the motivational assets and obstacles
school board members face to adopt and implement policies focused on racial equity in the
district?” The study focused on the three core facets of motivational performance: The active
choice, persistence, and mental effort of school board members to implement policies focused on
racial equity. The findings also illuminated how self-efficacy and collective efficacy motivate
efforts toward racial equity, along with the expectancy-value theory of intrinsic motivation. The
findings showed that motivation was an important lever in influencing school board members to
address racial disparities.
77

Active Choice
Active choice is when action replaces the intention to pursue (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
evidence in this study demonstrated that 17 equity-minded interviewees actively worked to
advance opportunities for students from marginalized racial groups: They voluntarily grew their
understanding by taking classes, reading books, advocating, partnering with allies, and speaking
up at board meetings. To begin elaborating this point, the majority of the members (17) of these
equity-focused participating boards, especially the seven Officials of Color who participated in
this study, were tenacious in their pursuits of active choice. An example of this is Participant
7/DE, who showed consistent active choice to advance racial equity in their district. They took
on the responsibility to serve as board president and were continuously intentional about guiding
the board to be equity champions,
I often say to the board, you got to be thinking about [racial equity]. This is not
something that we just think about at board meetings or coming up to a board meeting. It
has to be on our mind. So, I’m sending them articles; I’m encouraging them to go to
events. Just kind of keeping them thinking about it, and I believe that it’s important for us
to learn together. By learning together, I’m a part of that learning. I’m a part of thinking
about this myself and doing my own personal reflection and growing as well.
Active choice was also demonstrated in Participant 16/DS, a White male, when he stated, “I’ve
made a point to focus some of my own extracurricular reading on relevant racial equity subject
matters. I take it upon myself to try to pay attention, follow along, listen, and learn.” Participant
16/DS also actively sought out equity champions in their community to learn from them.
Observations of meetings and document analysis showed 13 participants speaking up to
advance racial equity in their districts. This further demonstrates that active choice also manifests
78

in vocal advocacy on the board table. Participant 14/DS, a White person, brought up concerns
about district staff, insisting that they be better trained in cultural competency. They were
apprehensive as in-school behavior consequences were disproportionally directed to Students of
Color. Participants 17/DS and 18/DS the only board Members of Color on District Sabal, took
further action around this matter, voting “no” during votes to pass certain behavior interventions,
citing that they wanted evidence that staff had diversity training first.
Persistence
Persistence is continuing to work on a goal in the face of distractions and resistance
(Trujillo, 2013), especially when pursuing a goal in relation to balancing and prioritizing
multiple goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Equity-focused school board members persist in the face of
obstacles and resistance. Many emotional hurdles were overcome during some of their fights for
racial equity. Qualitative interview analysis, observations, and meeting agendas showed that 15
participants interviewed demonstrated emotional reactions when they discussed challenges they
faced in their efforts to advance racial equity. This was especially noticeable in the seven
Members of Color who were tenacious and consistent in their pursuit of equity and excellence
for students from racially marginalized groups. A good example of this is when Participant 2/DD
showed persistence in their efforts despite the frustrations they experienced,
I had a rough go in my first couple of months. I was the first Person of Color to be on our
board. It was not a very inclusive place. There were microaggressions that I experienced.
I experienced talking about community members in a way that wasn’t as asset-based as
I’d like us to be. I said, "I’d like to talk about starting an equity committee in our district
and on our board that we can explore what decision-making through an equity lens can
79

really look like at every layer of our district.” And it was sort of crickets, radio silence.
And I was pretty crushed, and I was new at this.
Participant 2 did not give up. She continued to push for change and attended equity-focused
board training with the goal of continuing advocacy for this work in their district:
In the meantime, I attended seven or eight things on my own, either at the conferences or
in between. I don’t need them. I get those at work. I get those in my personal life. I’ve
been doing this work for 20 years. I don’t need that. I do that in order to find these
nuggets of how do I push this work through faster. Or I do them because I’m saying,
"Hey, other school board members come and do this with me," which sometimes they do
and sometimes they don’t. It took a year and a half, and a president change before it was
even something that was approved to get on the agenda for us to form an equity
committee and for the district to begin equity work.
Observations of school board meetings and meeting agendas confirmed that the seven
Interviewees of Color consistently brought up racial equity-based topics. Participant 3/DD, a
White individual, had some comments in line with over one-third of the participants, explaining
why only some members of a voluntary elected board with full-time professional and personal
responsibilities can persist in the face of competing demands on their time:
I would say that there are those who are focused, who absolutely always make sure they
focus on equity and making sure that this process is moving. So, when those questions
are asked, it may not be … I’ll be honest…I’ve been focused on this big hullabaloo about
busing service. And we’ve got a contract with our teachers that’s up for negotiation. So,
we had to focus on that, and there was a focus on some other things. So, I wasn’t
necessarily focused solely on racial equity.
80

For 94% of participants, the lack of persistence was not due to resistance but justified as
matching their efforts to their expertise. In a sense, they were dividing and conquering their
many responsibilities. As a whole, the participants persisted through challenges and put in the
mental effort required to push racial equity initiatives forward. Their resolve paid off, especially
the persistence of the Officials of Color, who motivated more colleagues to put in the mental
effort required to start and sustain racial equity policies.
Mental Effort
Mental effort is applying the required amount of mental energy to accomplish a goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The three participating boards and the majority of officials who were
successful in advancing racial equity policies were able to do so through constant effort. It was a
lens through which they operate, and they influence racial equity by consistently doing the
“work” as referenced by Participant 7/DS,
I think it’s important for individual school board members to recognize that it’s
individual and collective work. So, individuals have to do their own work. So, whatever
that means [for them]. They’re different entry points for people. So, for some people, it is
reading a book. For others, it might be going to an event or a lecture or a workshop or
participating in [training]. Then there’s group work.
Observations and document analysis, including examining District Emory and District Sabal’s
websites, showed all the outcomes of the school boards’ racial-equity efforts: many outreach
programs, board committees, equity committees, community partnerships, and instances of
members presenting at community events and conferences. The mental efforts exuded by equity-
minded school board members also show their intrinsic motivation to remove obstacles and
advance opportunities for all students, especially those impacted by historical oppression.
81

Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Attainment Value
Intrinsic value represents fulfillment in doing a task (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is
noteworthy that the 12 participants, which includes all the Participants of Color, cited advancing
equity as one of the reasons they ran for election or sought their appointment. They feel
internally compelled to ensure racial equity in their respective communities.
In District Emory, intrinsic value was demonstrated towards advancing racial equity.
When asked why she ran for school board, Participant 10/DE, a White woman in higher
education, noted,
I had been involved in equity work, racial, organizational diversity work as an
administrator for the past 20 years, so I had seen and been privy to a lot of discussions
around racism and racial equity. And through that work, I became very interested. So, I
had started doing a lot of self-study. And through my child’s interactions at school and
what she was learning, and friends and peers, I was aware of the racial equity work that
the board and the school district had been engaged in for some time and was feeling like
I’d like to have more of an impact.
Participant 10/DE ran on an equity-based platform in a contested election and won.
Participant 4/DD, a Person of Color, also demonstrated intrinsic motivation in their
intention to run to advance racial equity:
Seeing the oldest kid going through the district, it was an attempt at balancing their
experience through policy versus what we were actually experiencing as parents in the
district. So, I saw some things that could use some improvement, could use a different
voice than one that was already being provided, one that I have not seen as far as
diversity is concerned, and one that would speak to issues differently than our district, in
82

my experience, has not seen before. So, I thought that I would take a step to provide a
more diverse experience to the school board.
This participant, 4/DD, interviewed three times for an opening and was rejected twice on a board
that had never had a Person of Color serve on it. Finally, they were selected the third time a seat
became open. At that point, the board had appointed its first Person of Color, Participant 2/DD,
who encouraged Participant 4/DD to apply again, which resulted in Participant 4/DD’s
appointment. Participant 2/DD noted, “I believe that [Participant 4/DD] potentially was not
selected because there were biases on the board at the time.” After the appointed term was over,
Participant 4/DD ran based on the encouragement of all members, as the board had gone through
recent turnover with former members stepping down.
Elections also came up as an extrinsic motivator mentioned by nine of the participants in
either indicating that members won because of their support of racial equity or lost for not
supporting it. In District Emory, the equity-based culture of their town made racial equity
knowledge and experience an expectation for candidacy. As Participant 7/DE explained,
Whenever there’s an election, those are the kind of questions that candidates are going to
be asked at [campaign] coffees, and as they go through the whole election process, those
are the questions that the press will want the candidates to write about. Because [racial
equity] is a community conversation.
In District Sabal, Participant 13/DS said that they witnessed people not get elected because of
their opposing views on racial equity: “A few years ago, we had board members who did not
support [racial equity] and who felt more that no one should be given any special
accommodations, as they put it. The people who had those views were not reelected.” These
narratives demonstrated that participants’ journeys to becoming board members required active
83

choice and persistence; intrinsic, attainment, and extrinsic value; and a belief in their goal to
serve on the board to make racial equity change.
Self-Efficacy
School board equity champions believe in their ability to effect change. When asked what
role a school board should play in advancing racial equity in a school district, all 18 participants
affirmed the board’s role, but their level of self-efficacy varied. Thirteen of them demonstrated a
high level of self-efficacy, and five indicated a need in this area. Participant 18/DS showed her
belief in herself when she noted, “I decided to throw my hat in the [election] race and go through
the campaign process. And I felt very confident that I was qualified, so I ran, and I did win.” It is
noteworthy that both Board Members of Color in District Sabal mentioned having strong
connections to other experienced elected members in their community.
As a different example, Participant 1/DD, a White board member who served as board
president, demonstrated strong self-efficacy when they outlined the steps they individually took
to implement racial-equity-focused policies: “In terms of my work to create or to bring this into
our board agenda, in addition to that, I think formalizing our work was important.” Throughout
the interview, Participant 1/DD, an educator with professional training in education equity,
highlighted clear confidence in creating opportunities for a plan forward for their board. They
began to outline steps taken by listing their related equity-focused preparation first. The findings
showed that the knowledge assets of individual board members pertaining to racial literacy
contribute favorably to their self-efficacy.
On the contrary, two participants also brought up the issue of overconfidence. As
Participant 12/DE said,
84

This is where we’ve seen this happen with a few examples. You can’t either kind of get
your hackles up and say, “Okay, that’s not me. I’m not that.” Because you’ve shut down
your ability to move forward. Simultaneously, you can’t be like, “Oh, I know everything.
I’m so advanced. I’m good. I’m done.” So, it’s neither of those.
Secondly, the idea of under-confidence in racial literacy also hinders motivation to act,
and this is reflected as an example in Participant 6/DD’s response: “I don’t feel very
knowledgeable on the subject on how to address racial equity, so I don’t have a whole lot to say
at this point, but I’m all ears. I’m ready to learn. I’m ready to dig in.” As a member who has been
on the board for less than a year, Participant 6/DD may still have been building their confidence.
However, beyond not having the individual knowledge or experience in racial-equity policy
implementation, varying levels of collective efficacy showed up as another motivational asset or
obstacle that influenced or hindered the advancement of racial-equity policies.
Collective Efficacy
Equity-focused school boards are confident in their effectiveness as a collaborative and
cohesive group. For the most part, the boards that had advanced racial equity policies had a
strong sense of collective efficacy. All three boards mentioned that the current make-up of their
boards was more cohesive than they have had before. They were consequently mostly aligned in
their equity-focused direction for their school districts, which was an asset to advance racial
equity policies. From District Durio, Participant 3/DD shared a similar confidence in their
equity-focused board:
I think having a group that (a) has that background, those differences, but (b) also having
a group that listens to each other and takes each other’s point of view, there are no
agendas, hidden agendas, I should say. I think everybody on our board is open to just
85

discussion of ideas that, again, weren’t thought of 5, 10, 15 years ago and evolving with
our community and just society in and of itself.
The evidence showed that these interviewees believed in their current board dynamics.
Members of all three boards mentioned that with past board compositions, there was
significant resistance to racial equity efforts. They recalled how, in previous years, having a
combative board hindered motivation to work cohesively towards equity goals. Participant
15/DS shared this historical perspective of initially joining the board:
The seven of us really were cohesive, and we worked well together, and we played off
each other’s strengths and weaknesses, but some years before I came, there was this
board member who was an appalling individual. And, so, that board was incredibly
dysfunctional.
Document analysis demonstrated that the board member she referenced publicly spoke
about personal resistance regarding some district equity measures. District Sabal’s board has
experienced race-based pushback. Half of these members also mentioned a former Member of
Color who resigned partly because of racist confrontations from some constituents, which was a
finding triangulated via public documents. District Sabal members spoke about this former
colleague with admiration, and Participant 16/DS credited that person:
[They] drove the conversation and insisted that it be, I think, part of the dialogue. I give
her a lot of credit for making sure that [racial equity] was more front and center. Since
that time, I think we’re all very sensitive to it. So, I came to the board with that as a sort
of a core value.
This qualitative evidence demonstrated that, in some ways, this incident built District Sabal’s
board’s collective efficacy in their equity efforts.
86

Sixteen board members recalled much resistance in former board make-ups that then
required them to persist through the pushback. For instance, Participant 8/DE declared, “We are
not as contentious on the board, like when things were brand new changes and experiences.” She
then recalled when a couple of former board colleagues resisted the idea of a racial affinity-based
program, and the board persisted through it:
There were [former] board members who were against [affinity-based programs] who did
research to gather information to show administrators that they would be sued if we went
forward and planned anything like that.”
When asked how the board responded to the resistance, Participant 8/DE stated,
The board allowed the program to take place. So, there were a couple on the board that
did not like that. And the [affinity-based program] has been happening ever since. So, in
the beginning, when things were changing, there were some board members that were
against that. The White board members who were not comfortable with, they were
comfortable saying, “We’re for everybody,” but not comfortable really allowing that to
take place, to share their resources. That’s when the high school saw contention and saw
resistance.
This example shows that a lack of collective efficacy causes friction and hinders the ability to
advance racial equity policies in a cohesive and effective manner.
For the most part, the boards that had advanced racial equity policies had a strong sense
of collective efficacy. As Participant 17 said, “Before it was within the board, and the
discussions [about racial equity] were long, and the fights were brutal and awful. We don’t have
that, which is really nice right now. I knock on wood all the time.” Board members had increased
collective efficacy when they worked collaboratively and believed in each other’s strengths. The
87

findings showed that collective efficacy or lack of it also led to organizational assets and barriers
to advancing racial equity.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “What are the organizational assets and barriers school
boards face related to adopting and implementing policies focused on racial equity in the
district?” The findings illuminated investigations around the cultural models and settings of the
three boards to highlight the organizational assets and obstacles. The organizational models
concentrate on the values, beliefs, and attitudes embedded in the board’s invisible culture,
including shared ways of perceiving, and thinking (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Interviews, documents, and observations highlighted the common themes of
the alignment of shared values, conveying an equity stance with one voice as a board, creating
strong community collaborations, and having an open color-conscious culture. The results of the
examination around cultural settings called attention to the absence or presence of a racial-
equity-focused strategic plan with corresponding mission, vision, and values; the level of
integration of a related equity-minded superintendent hiring and evaluation process; and
monitoring systems to ensure accountability towards district goals and policies. The findings
showed that the three participating boards were at different levels in their journey to establish a
culture steeped in racial equity.
Cultural Models
Cultural models can be described as tools for the mind (Cole, 2005). They are present in a
given community or ecological niche, historically evolved and shared ways of perceiving,
thinking, and storing possible responses to adaptive challenges and changing conditions (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The following cultural models were highlighted in the data.
88

Alignment of Shared Racial Equity Values. The findings showed that boards that were
intentional about addressing racial disparities have worked towards establishing a common set of
equity values. The culture was based on a strongly held and widely shared set of racial equity
beliefs that are then supported by strategy and structure established through the cultural settings.
Fourteen participants demonstrated the value of having an alignment of shared racial equity
values. In the absence of complete alignment between board members on the value of racial
equity, as indicated by four of the six Durio members, a board may experience obstacles such as
the slow adoption and implementation of racial equity-focused policies. District Emory had the
most established cultural models since they have been doing the work longer than the other
participants and were all aligned in their values regarding racial equity. As an example,
Participant 10/DE remarked,
A strength that we have had is having a board that is 100% aligned around racial equity
so that you’re not individually debating among yourselves about whether or not this work
is worthwhile or valuable. It can instead act as a more unified support of the
administration and promoting that racial equity work and the district goals.
Participant 7/DE, along with four members of their board and most of the study’s participants,
also cautioned that elections could be times of uncertainty, jeopardizing the alignment of
thinking:
If there were members who were elected to the board, and that could very well happen in
the next election cycle, where you got somebody on the board who was a wolf in sheep’s
clothing or was somebody who really had different ideas about exactly how to implement
racial equity. Somebody who talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk, maybe. So, I’m
89

thinking about that being potentially an obstacle where you revert back to having to
persuade one another that this work was important.
All six participants from District Sabal also indicated that they had shared values that
they did not have before. As an example, Participant 16/DS, a White male, shared how the equity
work is advancing further now that they have an equity-aligned board:
The current makeup of the board reflects people with a very common set of values, all
with different experiences and different perspectives and skillsets. But certainly, each of
us with understanding and believing in the value of equity in what we do. So, it hasn’t
always been this way. I would say, by and large, our current board all have that same
sense of value.
Participant 16/DS, along with four of their board colleagues, also indicated that elections were a
way to maintain alignment. However, they were also cautious of the potential and possibility of
elections disrupting equity efforts. Participant 16/DS elaborated:
So, we had two board members for my first year on the board, who would sort of
challenge any mention of [racial equity]. They would vote against any effort that had
equity as an underlying motivation and initiative. So, [now] when I say it’s not a
roadblock, well, if you have five people that don’t have a problem with that or believe in
these things, then it gets done. [Before we were aligned], we would have the
conversations. They largely weren’t productive because they were sort of dead stop
conversations. Now, we welcome a conversation, a real discussion about it and things get
done [because] in the election, there was four seats, eight people running. And the
election put four [slate] of us on with a similar mindset, again, so in a way, the
90

community sort of saw [the resistors] as a distraction and a disruption, and that [person]
didn’t get reelected.
For District Sabal, the elections resulted in enhanced alignment of values with board members
that valued racial equity. Participant 17/DS corroborated with similar rationale when sharing
how boards can maintain racial equity alignment:
Change the makeup of your board. If you want your board to be open to equity and
inclusion, then you make sure you get those folks elected. We had some really volatile
people, especially one particular person. It was a nightmare, and there’s no changing that
person’s mind. You meet with them, you talk with them, [and] your ideals are just night
and day. Then, you have to work at getting someone else elected. That’s your only
choice.
On the other hand, for District Durio, the majority of the interviewees (four out of six),
indicated that there was not complete board alignment on the value of racial equity. Participant
6/DD, a White person, indicated that before joining the board, they had observed meetings where
some members resisted the topic of racial equity. She is now elected and believes that “It’s not
the majority of the board that cares. I don’t think the other ones care at all. Truly.” The evidence
shows that there has to be a complete alignment of racial equity as a value for effective policy
adoption and implementation. This strong belief has to be reflected through vocal support to
show uniform advocacy for racial equity.
Vocally Communicating Board’s Racial Equity Value with a United Voice. Equity-
focused boards vocally and publicly support racial equity throughout their district, boldly
communicating their work to advance racial equity. All of District Emory and Sabal’s
participants uniformly recommended that board members should vocally communicate their
91

stand for racial equity. Four of District Durio’s participants highlighted their concerns regarding
the district’s communication efforts about their racial equity path forward. All six of District
Emory’s participants shared their board’s vocal support for racial equity. As Participant 11/DE
stated,
Really, it’s very explicit for us. There’s no code. Racial equity probably is the thing
that ties our work all together, or we would say is our pride of the board. So, it’s very
explicit. It’s very much a part of our mantra or our belief system.
Participant 12/DE indicated,
This is one of the things I think the district has done a phenomenal job, is that the culture,
the sort of vibe of the district is around equity. As a school board member and as a school
board overall, and as a leader, you have to be courageous. You have to be able to stand
up and say, “This is important, and we’re going to do it, even though there’s people who
disagree with us.” You have to meet your community where they are and bring them
along, make sure that you’re bringing those middle people in who are generally people of
goodwill. Don’t let the narrative get usurped by people who are anti-equity at best, and
worse, have really negative goals.
Participant 8/DE further elaborated,
You have a board that’s predominantly equity-minded folks, anti-racist people. So, they
say that, and they do that work, and they’re very clear in that, and they vocalize that. So,
we’ve been very intentional in saying that this is our work. So, when you come, and you
run for our school board, you know that you’re going to be in the midst of anti-racist
individuals, no matter what they look like.
92

District Sabal’s participants uniformly echoed that the board should provide vocal support.
Participant 17/DS enthusiastically brought this forward as an organizational cultural asset:
It is critical that we communicate that support of racial equity policies to the community
at large because administration is always going to get some pushback in some areas. We
have that diverse community here where we’re a little microcosm of Illinois. There are
pockets of our district that don’t believe that we should have equity policies, and they’re
going to fight tooth and nail. If we don’t vocally support these policies, then our
administration struggles to do their job. The best thing we can do is support them doing
their job by vocalizing our support of it to the community. That’s what an effective board
can do to support equity and inclusion - is to vocalize it and reinforce it.
Collective and individual vocal and public board support is evidently important to advance racial
equity.
In contrast, public backlash may be an organizational barrier, as interview participants
reported. Whereas the findings showed that District Durio had recently launched their equity
work with some training sessions, equity committee convenings, and the completion of an equity
audit, four of their district’s participants mentioned that the district had not widely
communicated its stance on racial equity vocally or in writing. Participant 5/DD explained,
We did engage a consultant who did that equity audit, and that was now, I don’t know,
maybe a year ago, and then the report came out, and we reviewed it individually, but the
superintendent has been keeping it kind of close. I don’t know if [the superintendent is]
trying to avoid some of the controversy that seems to pop up with the topic. We haven’t
done a good job really distributing the information.
93

The findings showed that the racial equity-focused boards communicated proactively and responded
effectively to public resistance to racial equity work. They also did this by connecting with
community agencies to create a collective front to fight racial inequity.
Community Collective Impact and Outreach. Interview data and document analysis
indicated that the districts that established racial equity plans also have strong community
partnerships. Effective equity-minded school boards did not do the work in a silo; instead, they
were proponents that this work has to be done as a community to advance racial equity in and out
of the schools. District Emory’s participants mentioned that racial equity had become their
town’s work and ethos. Whereas District Sabal’s interviewees mentioned their community
outreach efforts, half of them indicated the obstacles that they ran into. All of District Durio’s
participants mentioned that whereas the board had begun to include community stakeholders
through an equity committee, that effort had been discontinued. The evidence below highlights
the evidence to corroborate these assertions:
In the case of District Emory, all the board members interviewed indicated that
cultivating racial equity was built into the fabric of their district-wide community, and half of
them also noted that the school district was the one that initiated this work in their town.
Participant 9/DE, a White member who is the longest-tenured on the Emory board, indicated that
one of the assets that benefited their school board was that there was more than 50 organizations
in their town doing the work of racial equity:
All of those organizations are deeply committed to equity in all sorts of different ways.
They all have equity statements. They’re all doing things to promote and embrace equity.
It is about bringing organizations together to align the work to get better results faster.
So, that’s a plus that we have this ecosystem. The district was the leader. We were doing
equity work before the city confronted it. So, the board has opportunities to take
94

advantage of equity work, racial equity work in particular, in our community in lots of
different ways. There have been amazing speakers who’ve come to [our town] and
who’ve addressed [racial equity] in ways that are helpful, I think, to keep that
conversation going in the community.
All District Sabal interviewees also mentioned community outreach efforts initiated by
the district. However, along with the assets, half of these participants mentioned obstacles. For
instance, Participant 16/DS explained,
We do have organizations intended to encourage parental involvement. Those
organizations try to outreach. It’s giving parents an opportunity to participate in a multi-
week program to be more involved in not just their own students’ progress, activities, and
success, but then as a representative of their community in the broader scheme of school
oversight, etc. So, there’s a couple of programs in terms of community outreach.
Participant 14/DS elaborated further on the board’s efforts to connect with the community:
It’s interesting that the [community leadership group] has long been a vehicle from which
we’ve pulled board members, myself included, and the president of our board same
thing.”
Both Participant 14/DS and the board president are White, though a board Member of Color was
recruited through the affinity-based parent leadership program as well. Participant 14/DS
continued,
We’ve had some success in working with the African American community, but we’ve
had a lot of difficulty working with the Latino and the Hispanic community. I think we
are doing a little bit better job right now of getting members into the [committee], and so,
hopefully, we can build upon that.
95

Participant 18/DS, a Person of Color, clarified a barrier already listed by Participant
14/DS, in that in a large district, it is difficult to effectively outreach to different stakeholders:
There’s another piece of the district that we have, which is this [parent outreach
committee]. And I see that there’s not a lot of African American parents that take part in
that, and the ones that we really need to reach, for some reason, it seems like we’re not
communicating with those parents. And so, we need to be able to reach the parents, to
educate them to get them in so they can kind of push the envelope along.
Participant 17/DS also shared an additional organizational obstacle related to community
outreach:
They actually had a stipend for parents, and basically, the idea was to cover costs of
babysitting or not working so that you could commit to Saturdays. There was extreme
pushback from the community and people who just thought it was appalling that we
would pay parents to participate and trying to explain how it might be easy for you to
participate and normal for you. For me, I actually didn’t take that stipend, and in other
activities, I would pay for babysitters so that I could participate or volunteer in things.
Not everyone can do that. It was trying to fight that, and in the end, we didn’t. We had to
give up the stipend. They took it away. It was too much pushback.
Even though District Sabal had a beneficial community outreach program, the efforts
faced many barriers due to the size of the multi-town district and socio-economic obstacles
encountered by some BIPOC parents who may not have been able to get involved. Document
analysis revealed that some of the towns that encompassed District Sabal had organizations
doing racial equity work; however, none of the board members specifically mentioned any of the
collaboration efforts as much as District Emory did. Emory is confined to one town, and the
96

board members mentioned racial equity had become the community’s mantra. It should be noted
that District Sabal is a very large district, spanning many towns.
District Durio participants also mentioned organizational barriers in relation to
community collaboration. Whereas the board initiated district-wide equity committees to launch
their work, Participant 1/DD mentioned that this did not continue:
One of the challenges that evolved was that the district leadership team, as well as the
equity committee really moved towards district administration and staff only. And so, we
haven’t had board participation and community participation in those two district-wide
teams in the last two years. And so that to me is unfortunate, because it’s caused not only
the board, but I think the community to be a little less engaged or knowledgeable about
these efforts in sort of big picture vision, mission planning, as well as specific to equity.
So that structure was really important in getting the work started, but not maintaining that
structure, I think, has been unfortunate, it’s just been negative. It’s a challenge for sure.
Based on the evidence, effective community collaboration and working collectively was an asset
leading to impactful racial equity change. This led to highlighting the evidence around the theme
that when the participating boards advanced racial equity in collaboration with their
communities, it also cultivated an open color-conscious community-wide culture.
Open Color-Conscious Culture based on Trust. On equity-minded boards, members
find it safe to bring up racial equity topics and are encouraged to do so. Fifteen participants who
had advanced racial equity in their districts demonstrated that their boards had a level of trust and
could openly engage in courageous conversations about race and equity.
97

As an example, every member of District Emory interviewed shared that their board
culture advances discussions regarding the adoption and implementation of racial equity policies.
Participant 8/DE explained,
We are a board that continues to have conversations about equity, either in the decisions
we make because they come up all the time. We’re in a district that gives us plenty of
opportunities. So, we’re always having conversations about equity, but we’re also
intentional about having those conversations. That only happens when you’ve done the
work. See, that’s my issue with the word equity. If you haven’t done the work behind
“equity,” it’s just a word. But if you’ve done the work, then you’re able to look at things
differently that impact and affect the student, the culture of a system, and eventually the
policies and procedures.
District Sabal has a similar theme. The six participating members of their board indicated
that their culture, for the most part, promotes conversations about racial equity. One of these
members, Participant 17/DS, indicated contradictory viewpoints: “It feels like nobody wants to
dig into it except for me and Participant 18/DS, [a person of color]. Everyone else wants to make
nice. They don’t want to make too many waves.”
Interestingly, whereas District Durio’s participants said that the culture is definitely better
now than it used to be, the White members described a more open culture, but the two Members
of Color had a very different perspective. To show the contrast, Participant 3/DD, a White board
member shared,
There’s the thought of the greater culture of the board itself, how we work together, how
we communicate. And in the years that I’ve been on this board, I’ve found that there are
no sacred subjects. We are all open to a discussion about any topic. We respect each
98

other’s points of view and are willing to engage in intellectual discussion about how we
feel on certain issues and how we best would advance potential change. So, I think from
just an overall organizational culture perspective, we’ve got a pretty good group of folks
that are equipped to make the important decisions and changes that are necessary to
promote things like equity.
In contrast, Participant 6/DD who is also White started sharing the same sentiments as
Participant 3/DD but pivoted:
We’ll discuss anything. It’s very easy for us to talk amongst ourselves and we just
haven’t. It doesn’t last very long when [Participant 2/DD], the one who has started all this
rolling, when [they] have talked about it in the past, it doesn’t go very far. There’s not a
lot of back and forth. She will talk, and nobody will say much back. They’re not arguing,
but they’re not agreeing either.
To triangulate this anecdote, Participant 2/DD shared, “Honestly, I’m not sure that the culture on
our school board does advance discussions regarding the adoption and implementation of
policies on racial equity.” They explained that after an allied Member of Color joined, things did
get better:
I couldn’t even talk about this stuff four years ago. So, there’s been a shift. I can have
these conversations. I feel like they’re tolerated because it’s me and then one other person
who are having these conversations. It feels like just a dialogue between us and the
superintendent or the director of teaching and learning, it’s not a dialogue across the
whole board.
The other Person of Color corroborated this experience when they almost chuckled at the
question evaluating the culture on their board. Participant 4/DD’s hesitant response was,
99

The culture goes back to the majority doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. It’s open
to addressing equity initiatives or equity opportunities as it learns about them. It still semi
has one foot in and one foot out because of individuals’ own personal experiences of not
experiencing race or not seeing color. But it’s willing to give it a shot. Willing to allow
administration to figure out whatever it wants to figure out without stirring the pot. And
that’s speaking of the majority. The minority of the board, currently, is willing to stir the
pot a little bit because it knows that at least a couple voices are necessary for some of the
bigger items to come to the top, to actually be addressed, and that’s something that you
got to have stakeholders willing to speak out for those things to be addressed. Otherwise,
everybody falls in a line, and those things would likely be missed if nobody’s beating a
drum.
The evidence showed that the cultural models have to be conducive for racial equity to advance
in K–12 schools, and this then drove the cultural settings.
Cultural Settings
Cultural settings are where people come together to carry out a joint activity that
accomplishes something they value in a visible way supported by a social context (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). The qualitative data, document analysis, and observations highlighted four
cultural settings that may advance or hinder the adoption and implementation of racial equity
policies: An equity-focused strategic plan, aligned superintendent hiring and evaluation,
continuous board racial literacy development, board involvement through a policy committee,
and an organizational barrier of time constraints came up as well.
Equity Focused Strategic Plan with Performance Monitoring Accountability
Measures. Equity-focused school boards have an overall district strategic plan that serves as a
100

road map to their racial equity work. They also have an aligned corresponding mission, values,
and goals that support the overarching racial-equity lens guiding their district’s work. For this
study, the document analysis via the districts’ webpages, publicly available documents, and
interviews examined whether the three districts had an equity-focused strategic plan, as
determined by the use of racial equity related terms or similar words, such as race, diversity,
color, barriers, and equity. Table 3 summarizes these findings. The findings indicated that
effective equity-focused boards had a comprehensive strategic plan, with a high level of
engagement in the board’s responsibility to adopt policy and follow through by monitoring
performance using a racial equity lens. This was demonstrated by District Emory’s board. The
results also indicate that Districts Sabal and Durio may not have had a clear, comprehensive, and
effective strategic plan. The districts did not have a clear racial equity direction forward, which
impacted their ability to adopt and implement racial equity-focused policies.

Table 3
Presence of Racial Equity Focused Visible and Written Cultural Settings
District
name
District
mission
District
vision
District
values
Equity
audit
Separate equity
plan with
vision,
mission, values
Racial
equity
statement/r
esolution
Time-wise
current racial-
equity focused
strategic plan
Aligned
superintendent
evaluation
process
Board policy
committee
Durio No No No Yes No No Current but not
racial-equity-
focused
No Yes
Emory Yes Yes Yes Yes Same as
overall
district’s
Pre-George
Floyd
murder
Yes Yes Yes
Sabal No No No Yes Yes Post-
George
Floyd
murder
Expired Somewhat Started 2
months prior
to this study

101
102

The findings shown on Table 3 indicated that the most advanced equity-focused board,
District Emory, had a current strategic plan, a racial equity-focused mission, an aligned district
vision, values, equity statement, and corresponding superintendent hiring and evaluation
processes. They also have a board policy committee that incorporates their racial-equity lens to
ensure alignment and implementation compliance. Five of the board members were clear on the
goals. As Participant 12/DE explained, their strategic plan supports the implementation of racial
equity-focused policies: “I think our strategic plan is very focused on equity. We have a set of
strategic goals that really are directly and indirectly tied to equity.” The only board member who
was not completely clear on the strategic goals was the newest board member, who had been
there for a few months. Participant 11/DE indicated, “This is where I’m not a good board
member. Because I couldn’t tell you what our strategic plan was. I know that I looked it over for
our work for the retreat, but right now, I couldn’t tell you if there are four points to it, or five
points, or how many goals. I don’t even see it in my head.” She mentioned her memory had been
affected by her recovery from COVID. However, other than onboarding, which seems to have
been more difficult due to the pandemic for the other boards as well, the members of District
Emory cited the strategic goals as an asset to advancing the district’s racial equity direction.
District Sabal, on the other hand, adopted an equity-focused resolution in reaction to the
murder of George Floyd in May 2020, after which they also launched a separate equity plan.
However, these are not tied to their district strategic plan, which was outdated at the time of this
study. As Participant 15/DS noted,
We have found that our strategic plan has gotten a little clunky. So, that’s actually been
one of our goals over the next couple of months is to try to pull all the pieces together and
make sure that it makes sense.
103

Six of District Sabal’s board members, like Participant 17/DS, mentioned that the direction of
their district was not cohesively communicated via their strategic plan:
We were just discussing this at our last board self-evaluation. The fact that our strategic
plan and our equity plan [are not aligned]. We have these different plans that the district
is working [on], but we’re not really communicating it very well because it’s in different
places and in different formats. While we all feel like we’re on the same page, we’re not
showing that. We are about to start. We just decided. The superintendent is forming a
small committee so that we can bring those all together into one. One plan. But I think
our plan supports equity, but it doesn’t show up that way on paper. It’s in too many
places.
District Sabal’s participants also mentioned that the strategic plan was outdated. In fact, as
Participant 16/DS echoed, “If I’m not mistaken, we have a strategic plan that’s probably five or
six or seven years old, that does not include the word equity. That probably doesn’t include the
word race.” Document analysis confirmed this concern.
Similarly, for District Durio, the findings showed five of the participating members
indicated that their strategic plan did not address racial equity. As an example, Participant 2/DD
indicated that this was one of the reasons that the board has not been able to address racial
disparities, explaining,
It’s because we lack a cohesive statement or a cohesive set of values that we’ve agreed
upon. In my opinion, this is what is causing a problem. I had hoped from the beginning
that we would come up with some sort of statement or commitment that would then drive
every decision across our entire district. And that fundamental work has not happened.
104

The evidence showed that when a board did not have a clear strategic plan, the district did not
have a clear racial equity direction forward.
In addition, effective boards continuously monitored progress towards district goals and
compliance with written board policies (IASB, 2017a). An asset and need that the qualitative
data and document analysis revealed is the level of engagement that participating boards had
towards their policy adoption process. An asset discussed in different degrees of detail was that
the three participating boards had a policy committee. District Durio and Emory’s policy
committee had been established for some time, and District Sabal recently convened one.
In District Emory, the policy committee was highlighted as an organizational strength by
half of the participants. As Participant 9/DE noted,
I would argue that really everything, when the policy committee meets, we looked at
everything through an equity lens. It’s a committee of the board and so it has two or three
board members, and then typically, at a meeting, we’ll have the superintendent and his
cabinet members, depending on what kind of policies are at play.
Participant 12/DE, who also serves on the policy committee and the curriculum committee,
shared,
[The] policy committee is a nice touch point and a very specific time to think about
equity. There’s a process that’s used that includes forms that they go through when they
review curriculum. So, one of the questions is very specifically around how does this
advance racial equity on the form for the curriculum review or a textbook review or
whatever it is.
District Emory ensured that they closely monitored that policies were being effectively adopted
with a racial equity lens.
105

When asked about their racial equity policy adoption process, District Durio participants
spoke at length about their policy committee process. However, they didn’t mention viewing the
policies through an equity lens. Participant 3/DD explained,
I couldn’t necessarily, as I sit here today, tell you what policy number it is, but I know
that there is a change in the way that the State group PRESS [Policy Reference Education
Subscription Service] has kind of crafted the policy changes and then the
recommendations. And we have, as the policy committee, we have adopted those and
recommended them for passage to the greater board.
District Sabal, on the other hand, as a response to a need to organize their policies, recently
convened a policy committee according to four members of that board, which was also
confirmed through the document analysis. Participant 15/DS explained, “And we’re also
working with IASB to refine our policies because our policies have gotten quite unwieldy as
well. So, all of that is evolving.”
It is noteworthy that District Emory shared that viewing the policies during their
committee discussions on policy adoption was done through a racial equity lens, which was why
it was helpful in addressing inequities in their district. Thus, the evidence showed that though
having a policy committee is an asset for governance purposes in general, to advance racial
equity, that added step of having a racial equity lens and compliance checklist was important.
This work was important; however, advancement of racial equity was only possible with the
collaboration and leadership of the district superintendent.
Equity-Minded Superintendent Employment and Evaluation. The findings showed
that effective equity-focused school boards showed strong confidence in their superintendents’
ability to implement the boards’ vision. They also set their superintendents up for success by
106

communicating clear expectations. They emphasized their districts’ racial equity and diversity
values in who they placed at the helm of their district. This was demonstrated in their
superintendent equity-minded hiring descriptions and processes. Additionally, they had a
rigorous superintendent evaluation process aligned to a strategic plan designed to guide the
district towards goals to promote racial equity. The findings showed that the most advanced
equity-focused board, District Emory, prioritized both hiring and evaluating an equity-minded
superintendent. The majority of their board members described in detail their processes.
Participant 12/DE stressed the recommendation, “Hire an equity leader because you don’t do the
work. You just set the policy to support it. And work together and do that personal [equity-
focused] work.” In addition, Participant 8/DE shared,
You got to make sure you hire a superintendent that is more passionate about [equity]
than the board. And then it starts from there because that’s who we’re responsible for,
and we make sure that the superintendent is supported in that work and that he has the
resources to make it drop all the way through the organization. The superintendent [the
board hires] has to be dedicated to deal with the [equity] challenges that our district has.
The process for hiring the superintendent is a very unique one. We bring in a consultant
that will help us engage with our community, our staff, our students, our community
leaders, our parents, all stakeholders of our district to get their input on what they think
we need in a superintendent. So, we’re spending an awful lot of time getting all the
voices, including students. And then the other thing is that our board [goes] through a
bias training session before we even start talking about competencies or the job
description.
107

The findings showed that racial equity was a priority for District Emory. In fact, the
board president candidly said, “[Job candidates] are asked questions around equity. If they don’t
do well, no matter how many PhDs they have or how impressive they were, they will not be
hired in District [Emory]. Participant 11/DE shared a similar sentiment, “We have an equity
statement that is very much a part of our work in helping us find [a] new superintendent. So, it’s
in the forefront of all of these public facing searches.” Participant 9/DE elaborated, “[When] we
talk about hiring a new superintendent, [we talk about] how equity factors into that and the
importance of it.” Document analysis of District Emory’s superintendent hiring processes
indicated that diversity, equity, and inclusion were thoroughly included throughout the job
description and stakeholder search engagement processes.
On the other hand, the other two boards had not been part of a superintendent search as
they were serving under the same district leader as when they were elected or appointed.
However, nearly half of the participating school board members (eight) indicated that they were
concerned that their school board did not effectively evaluate their superintendent’s efforts to
operationalize racial-equity-focused policies. Whereas one newer board member was unsure of
the evaluation process in general, two indicated that they were not certain if their superintendent
got evaluated based on any racial equity goals. On the other hand, seven participants (mostly
from District Emory) felt strongly about their boards’ emphasis on evaluating their
superintendent’s efforts to operationalize racial equity-focused policies. In District Emory, all the
participating board members shared the thoroughness of their superintendent’s evaluation
reports. Participant 7/DE discussed the superintendent’s comprehensive evaluation with great
pride in some depth. Here is a segment of their comments on how their school board evaluates
the superintendent’s efforts to operationalize racial-equity-focused policies:
108

It’s one of the superintendent’s goals. So, we are intentional about looking at that and
making sure that not only do [they] have that vision, but they have to communicate it to
all the leaders because then they communicate it to all the teachers and faculty. So, it
starts with the superintendent.
Participant 8/DE corroborated this narrative by saying, “The superintendent is held accountable.
He presents a binder like this (gestures thickness with two hands) of information to support each
goal. And we use a template that we fill out to rate [the superintendent] against [the goals].
Whereas in District Sabal, all the members interviewed demonstrated
confidence in their Superintendent and a 360-evaluation process that the board was provided,
there were varying perspectives on how their board evaluates the superintendent’s efforts to
operationalize racial-equity-focused policies. Half of the board members were unsure if the
evaluation had a racial equity focus. Participant 13/DS, who is the president of the board, shared
some gaps and assets regarding the superintendent’s evaluation. “No, I don’t recall any specific
racial equity goals that the superintendent gets evaluated by. We do have that discussion of the
achievement gap.” Participant 14/DS, the vice president of the board, shared their concerns as
well:
So, equity is directly in one of his goals. I think that we lack a little bit in understanding
what meaningful metrics would be to evaluate that. I think that we have some work to do
again to look at a more formal way of evaluating that, but it is part of the goals that we’re
looking at.
Participant 18/DS shared that one of the areas that their board evaluated the superintendent on
was the implementation of the equity plan:
109

We took a day, and we went over the board policy, and we went over the evaluation. One
area of work that I would say is the equity plan [for the superintendent to] finalize the
equity plan, align to the board policy, and present to the board, and that’s tied to [the
superintendent’s] evaluation.
When Participant 18/DS was asked how the board measured the superintendent’s progress
towards racial equity goals, the response provided was uncertain:
I’m sure there is. Maybe I’m not knowledgeable about it. But as I mentioned before, my
concern was if we say we’re going to implement more education towards equity and
diversity and inclusion, make sure we are doing that. To my knowledge, that’s an area we
need to do better at measuring and saying how successful was it?
Document analysis indicated the superintendent’s evaluation goals were somewhat
aligned with the district’s equity plan, which was launched as an addendum to the outdated
strategic plan and corresponding goals. Whereas the superintendent’s goals mentioned the term
“equity,” the words “race” or “racial equity” were not mentioned. In District Sabal, Participant
14 was among the majority (five) of the participants who gave their executive staff credit for
making “equity front and center” under the collaborative leadership of their superintendent and
their administrator in charge of equity:
Our executive staff has done a really good job of rising to those expectations of putting
equity front and center. It helps that there’s the equity policy from the board and that the
board is holding our superintendent accountable to that, but I think a lot of that is the
people that we have in place. There is also a group that works on equity issues.
District Sabal was referring to a department and director of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It
was the only participating district that had a specific equity department. District Emory
110

referenced an assistant superintendent who spearheaded their diversity work, along with their
superintendent. Participant 12/DE also shared this recommendation: “Hire well. Hire an equity
leader because you don’t do the work. You just set the policy to support it. And work together
and do that personal equity work.” Even though District Emory did not have a director of equity,
the superintendent was largely credited for spearheading the work, along with their assistant
superintendent. A majority of District Emory’s board noted racial equity as the superintendent’s
leadership legacy and strength.
On the other hand, four members of the District Durio’s board, felt that their
superintendent’s evaluation tool did not address racial equity at all, and the two members who
were newer to the board were not sure about the evaluation process in general. Participant 2/DD
had a succinct reaction to how their school board evaluates the superintendent to operationalize
racial equity-focused policies, “We do not.” When probed, she responded, “That’s a short story.
We do not. We do not evaluate [the superintendent]...there are no goals set for racial equity.
There’s no expectations. There’s no goal posts or milestones.”
The qualitative findings showed that the lack of equity-focused strategic goals resulted in
a void of related benchmarks in the superintendent’s evaluation process as well. The data showed
that to start racial equity work, it is first important for the board to have a racial equity-focused
strategic plan with corresponding goals. Without a goal-oriented strategic plan, the evidence
showed that the board could not fulfill their fundamental role of holding their superintendent
accountable to ensure that all students have access and opportunities to thrive. This leads to the
evidence that indicates that for school boards to direct the district’s racial equity purpose, it is
also essential to provide members with continuous racial literacy development and governance
skills to fulfill their responsibilities.
111

Racial Literacy Experience, and Continuous Board Governance Development.
Opportunities for board members to continuously develop their skills to execute their governance
responsibilities and advance their racial literacy competence are themes that came up as an asset
or need for all three boards. These boards were purposefully selected for their efforts to promote,
and like District Durio, initiate racial equity work, and they showed that part of the reason they
were able to do so is that they placed emphasis on board development activities as a group and
individually to advance their governance and racial literacy skills.
Table 4 summarizes the types of continuous board governance development and racial
literacy experiences and trainings each of the boards and individual board members engaged in.
Each of the boards participated in the annual IASB conference as a group, where a majority of
their members participated in equity-focused training as well. They all engaged in an annual
board self-evaluation with a governance training component. A majority of their board members
mentioned engaging in independent studies related to racial equity, and half or more of their
members engaged in racial equity work or training in their day jobs. In-district board equity
training opportunities were provided two or three times in District Emory. District Durio, in the
last couple of years, started to offer trainings to their board; however, it has not been consistent.
In District Sabal, no board-specific racial equity training has been provided. However, District
Sabal and Emory also had several opportunities to participate in all-staff racial-equity-focused
professional development in their districts.

112

Table 4
Racial Literacy Experience, Training and Continuous Board Governance Development
Board development activity District Durio
(# board members)
District
Emory
(# board
members)
District
Sabal
(# board
members)
IASB Conference All 6 All 6 All 6
IASB conference, equity-
focused training
4 All 6 All 6
NSBA conference No Yes No
National equity focused
conference
No Yes No
Board self-evaluation Yes, quarterly on own,
every 2 years with IASB
Yes,
annually
with IASB
Yes,
annually
with IASB
Board equity training Yes inconsistent Yes 2–3/yr No
All-district equity training No Yes Yes
Independent racial equity
study
Yes (4) Yes (6) Yes (4)
Board book discussions No Yes No
Equity-based professional
experience
Yes (4) Yes (5) Yes (3)

Additionally, District Emory conducted an annual summer book club on a racial equity
topic, followed by a facilitated discussion. Table 4 shows that these boards, for the most part,
invested significantly in racial-equity-focused training and board governance competence.
Learning together as a group came up as an asset for each of the boards. Participant 7/DE,
president of District Emory’s board, whose board had the most advanced racial literacy based on
113

their knowledge assets discussed in earlier findings, stated, “I believe that it’s important for us to
learn together.” Participant 2/DD from District Durio shared similar thoughts: “I really wanted to
do something together as a whole board because I felt like it was important for us all to be on this
[racial equity] journey together and to have some shared language.” When Participant 1/DE was
asked how often professional development opportunities related to racial equity were offered to
their school board, she started her response by sharing that learning as a group was an
organizational strength:
I would say at every annual convention that we attend, and all of our board members
attend, which I’ve learned is not the case in other places. So, that is a strength that all of
our board members seem engaged in professional development as a board member. So,
what we’ve done for all the years that I’ve been on the board is talk about the workshop
offerings ahead of the conference in a board meeting and create a document where we
sign up for what workshops we intend to go to and make sure that we are covering all the
goal areas for our board within our professional development workshops. And so, when
equity was part of the conversation, [we] talked about the importance of leaders at all
levels being knowledgeable about what equity means. And so, at the next opportunity for
those professional development offerings, we talked about if you haven’t gone to one of
the equity workshops yet, then let’s make sure we do that. So, I think for one of the
conferences, we made sure that every single board member was going to at least one
workshop related to equity.
In District Sabal, they also had an opportunity to grow together in their equity journey.
As an example, Participant 16/DS shared that as far as racial equity-focused board professional
development opportunities, “We all, when we go to IASB meetings. Everyone’s participating in
114

one of those [racial equity trainings]. District Emory, with its established practice of utilizing a
racial equity lens, took participation at conferences to another level. They attended the IASB
conference together, and they presented on racial-equity topics there and did the same at national
conferences directly related to racial literacy. Participant 7/DE shared their board’s emphasis on
sharing and learning:
I presented with four of my colleagues on the school board at the national summit on how
school boards can support the race work and just how to do that. [The summit] is an
incredible experience because there’s so much to learn.
The three participating boards also learned together at board self-evaluations, where some
of the boards also engaged in racial literacy development in addition to board governance
training. A majority of the participating board members also engaged in independent studies
related to racial equity as well. As Participant 16/DS explained,
We have conversations about [racial equity] in our own annual self-evaluation with the
IASB facilitator. We all, when we go to IASB meetings, everyone’s participating in one
of those, we are all constantly listening and dialing into the webinars that are sponsored
by whether it’s IASB or our law firm puts on a lot of good webinars. So, I would say,
myself and many others, my method to keep my hand on the pulse of some of the current
issues and again be very cognizant of [racial equity]. And again, I’ve made a point to
focus some of my own extracurricular reading on relevant subject matters.
Even though District Sabal did have more general self-evaluations with an IASB facilitator, they
have not had an equity training specific to their board. Participant 17/DS said, “For the board,
it’s mostly from the [IASB] Conference.” Participant 14/DS reiterated her board member’s
115

comments, “I and a couple of us have been kind of pushing to get a separate [racial equity]
workshop opportunity in the district specifically for board members.”
District Durio’s board president, Participant 1/DD, also noted board self-evaluations as
an organizational learning opportunity and asset. However, a need was evident in that, even
though they facilitated self-evaluations at first monthly, then quarterly on their own via sharing
reflections via a google form at an open meeting, which benefited their governance skills, they
only went in-depth every 2 years or so with an IASB facilitator. However, it was an asset that
their self-evaluation process led to adding professional development to the agenda, which led to
board members sharing that they wanted equity training. This began the initiation process for the
racial equity work to begin in their district. Participant 1/DD, the board president, elaborated on
their self-evaluation process:
We do [a] board self-evaluation. And, so, we used to do it every month. We would at the
end of the meeting, fill out a survey about how we felt the meeting went, how the agenda
flowed. And then when we talk about professional development topics, a few people
asked about putting [equity] on the agenda. And then, during that discussion time, we
talked about what are some things other districts are doing around equity. We looked at
equity policies from other districts. [Additionally], during some of our board self-
evaluation sessions we’ve had, that are facilitated by our IASB representative [every two
years], we’ve talked about [racial equity] openly and agreed that this is something that’s
important to our district and to our board work.
However, it was a clear asset that even though it has been more recent and not consistent mainly
due to the onset of the COVID pandemic, District Durio did have an in-district board equity
116

training as part of their self-evaluation workshop. Participant 3/DD elaborated on this positive
experience:
I want to say it was about a year ago that we actually had an in-person racial equity kind
of training and meeting, where we kind of all discussed our viewpoints, our biases, where
we come from. I thought the one that we did a year ago was extremely beneficial. I have
found some of the equity discussions or equity presentations that I’ve been to at the joint
conference they’re hit or miss, but I really thought when the school board association
came in to do the equity training, I thought that was really good.
The inconsistency of offerings showed that newer board members may not have benefited from
board equity training, as Participant 4/DD indicated, “I know ISBE offers some [equity training]
throughout the year, but not specifically to our district, and that’s probably one of the down
points here because you’re not calling a specific set of members in to engage in a topic together.”
In District Emory, board self-evaluation was a day-long event, which encompassed
discussing board governance skills from an equity lens, followed by racial literacy development.
Participant #11/DE elaborated on this group learning activity:
The whole [board retreat] was really about [racial equity]. We had somebody from the
school board commission [who] did some facilitation, and it was very much directed on
our goals, how we see ourselves along the lines of racial equity, what we hope for as we
move forward, starting to kind of gear up thinking about I think the superintendent
search, but it wasn’t focused on that at all. But yeah, all of that was about racial equity.
District Emory went one step beyond where they had an IASB representative facilitate board
self-evaluation the morning of their board retreat, and then annually, in the afternoon, they
discussed their summer book club. Participant 8/DE, the vice president of District Emory’s board
117

discussed how they used board book discussions and other readings to develop their
understanding of racial issues:
So [the board president] does a good job in sharing information, a lot of information
[about racial equity]. She picks a book of the year that we read. She makes sure we have
our board retreat on a regular basis, every year, annually. And she builds the agenda to
make sure we’re having courageous conversations. I would say all of us on the board
have gone through some formal equity training.
Some of the books mentioned by members of District Emory were “Whistling Vivaldi and Robin
DiAngelo’s White Fragility. Per Participant 7/DE, “We always read something.” Participant
11/DE said, “We had read The Sum of Us, which was a great read and a very powerful book by
Heather McGee.” Participant 16/DS mentioned independently reading for racial perspective:
“I’ve made a point to focus some of my own extracurricular reading on relevant subject matters,
so, for example, The Exceptional Negro, that’s one I’ve read.”
In Districts Emory and Sabal, participants also took advantage of learning from district-
wide racial equity training. Participant 7/DE affirmatively indicated, “The school board can do
just about anything anybody can do in the district. Our school board can always participate in
Beyond Diversity.” Participant 12/DE also reiterated, “Everyone in our district, every staff
member attends Beyond Diversity training. Beyond Diversity is offered every year to catch the
new staff, and board members.” This point, referencing board turnover, also illuminated an
organizational need as far as onboarding goes. Members of all three boards mentioned the need
to close knowledge gaps when new members may join every 2 years or more due to elections or
other reasons where someone steps down.
118

The evidence showed that board governance training, and additionally racial literacy
development has to be continuous or organizational needs arise. As Participant 9/DE explained
about racial equity professional development, “You have to keep doing it. It’s like exercise, and
that it’s ongoing. It’s like cross country skiing or swimming. You got to do it every day, or it’s
not going to stick.” Participant 15/DS, who pursued a DEI certificate from Cornell, shared a
similar thought,
Everybody’s in a different place when it comes to becoming anti-racist. If you could
think of it like a train that goes forever, there’s all sorts of different stops. And you’ve got
to get on at stop one, but the goal is to be anti-racist. And some of us have progressed,
and we’re on stop 40 or stop 50. Some of us are still at stop 10, stop 12. So, I think that’s
one of the things that can slow us down.
The evidence shows that these three boards have progressed to different parts of the journey but
are clear about the fact that they are committed to the racial-equity path forward. In addition to
developing their racial literacy skills as board members, 13 of the board members had been
engaged in advancing education equity prior to them joining the board in their personal or
professional capacities.
Professional Board Member Expertise in Racial Equity. District Emory had five
members engaged in racial equity work professionally, District Durio and Sabal had three such
members, and they each acknowledged that their career experience in advancing equity informed
their board service. Participant 1/DD, who works as a specialist in the education sector, said,
My background in teaching was [part of an equity program]. And so, for me, this [racial
equity] understanding and awareness started many years ago in seeing the impact of
achievement gaps on kids in low-income communities. And living and working in
119

suburban communities, seeing those gaps translated into that environment is troubling.
So, I’ve really tried to live that out in my work in the field of education as well as in my
work on the board.
Participant 11/DE, a diversity, equity, and inclusion administrator and consultant who is new to
the board, noted, “Everything that I kind of pull from or everything that I’m animated by, in my
work as a board member is from my professional life.”
When board members were asked to describe their strengths related to the advancement
of racial equity policies, many acknowledged their colleagues’ related expertise. For instance,
Participant 6/DD responded that the racial-equity strengths on their board were “some of the
professions of our board members. At least a few of them.” Participant 11/DE also mentioned
that the strength on their board was that
We have some really powerful thinkers on the board. So, [Participant 8/DD], that’s their
work. Racial equity policies are their strength. And then I know the work and the history
of [Participant 7/DD] in making sure things have continued to move forward. She is a
consultant with racial equity training groups. And then [Participant 12/DD], she does
strategic planning consulting work, and she works with schools, and equity is at the
center of their work as well, so that’s really important, and that comes into our board, so I
think we have a strength there.
Board members’ professional expertise in equity work evidently drives their ability to advance
their school boards to adopt and implement race-related policies.
Time Constraints and Slow Pace of Racial Equity Implementation. Time constraints
and the slow pace of implementation of racial equity policies were brought up by 11 of the
120

participants. It is noteworthy that the issue of time and slow pace of implementation came up
only in District Durio and Sabal.
In District Sabal, a large school district covering many towns, a majority of the board
members (six), including Participant 18/DS noted that time constraints slowed the pace of racial
equity change: “I think we don’t have the opportunity to have [discussions about racial equity] as
much as we should. I think that’s been the concern, that our agenda is always so jam-packed.” In
other cases, Participant 15/DS referred to competing issues that she had to prioritize: “In terms of
facing challenges, you can’t fight every battle every minute, right?” She also brought up a lack of
time in not being able to engage in racial-equity training, “I haven’t really attended very many of
those. I’m really not able to attend because of my work schedule.” Participant 13/DS elaborated,
I think we’ve talked about having IASB come in and do a workshop, and that’s really on
us, not on the district. I think one of the issues is we end up having so many meetings that
people have trouble finding time. We meet generally at least two or three times a month
for regular meetings, and then you throw in extra meetings for different issues or
subcommittee meetings and so forth. A lot of our members are like a lot of parents. They
have other things going on, other days and nights of the week. So, it’s sometimes difficult
to find time for everyone.
For District Durio, five of the participating board members mentioned that even though the board
began to direct the district to address racial disparities three years before this study, the district
had “gotten off to a slower start” (Participant 4/DD). An observation of a board meeting showed
an emotional response from Participant 4/DD, a Board Member of Color regarding the slow pace
of racial equity implementation. During the qualitative interview, this board member shared that
time was a clear organizational barrier:
121

How much time do you need or want for our progress? So, everybody wants to give
everything all this time, and it takes time to fix these types of issues, these types of equity
issues. We’re 40, 50 years removed from the Civil Rights era, Ruby Bridges. And we’re
the first two minority board members. We’re not making significant headway very
rapidly in areas of equity. So, I think one of the things here is we get everything takes
time, but when the problem is significant enough, and you’ve got enough people in your
district that need the support and need the attention, i.e., the kids that fall into these
groups, you shouldn’t need multiple years to address issues, because us being a K-8
district, you wait three years, you’ve already lost a third of that child’s educational career
in our district. So, the more time we take to study issues and to over-evaluate, to
potentially delay being the adults in the room, addressing some of the issues that we owe
it to our community, and we owe to our stakeholders. So, time, I think that’s our biggest
hindrance.
The evidence shows that organizational barriers like time and resources to increase the pace of
implementation have to be addressed to advance racial equity effectively.
Summary
The findings demonstrated that the assets or needs related to a school board’s knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors influenced the adoption and implementation of racial
equity-focused policies. The data showed that it was a clear knowledge asset when school board
members had a solid declarative understanding of what racial equity is and had an awareness of
color-based disparities in their district; with a conceptual understanding of why it is important to
lead with an equity lens in order to address racial disparities. The findings also showed that for
school board members to advance racial equity, they need the procedural knowledge of how to
122

govern with a racial equity mindset. School board members also had to know how to advocate,
delegate authority to administrators while monitoring their performance. A collaborative
relationship with the superintendent, with clear expectations and accountability measures was
also vital. Motivation was an important lever in moving school board members to address racial
disparities. Board members effectively created racial equity change if they demonstrated active
choice, persistence, mental effort, and intrinsic value with high doses of collective and self-
efficacy. Finally, organizational factors that were helpful in the adoption and implementation of
racial-equity focused policies are cultural models like the alignment of shared values, vocally
communicating the value boards place on racial equity, collaborating with the community-at-
large in this change effort, which also created a culture of trust to have open color-conscious
courageous conversations. The cultural models were supported by the cultural settings of first
and foremost maintaining a current strategic plan with equity-focused mission, values, and goals.
Followed by hiring an equity-minded superintendent and communicating clear expectations to
address disparities through an effective evaluation process. The fundamental work of racial
equity could only be carried out by the effective boards when they invested in racial literacy
professional development and were engaged in the policy adoption and monitoring systems.
Finally, school boards need the resource of time to ensure opportunities for all students,
including those from historically marginalized backgrounds.

123

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Racial inequity has deep political and societal roots in the United States and continues to
manifest as ongoing disparities in K–12 public schools. Minority students in historically majority
White suburban districts face racial obstacles jeopardizing their sense of belonging and academic
achievement (Diem et al., 2016). This dissertation addressed the problem of systemic racial
inequity in K–12 school districts. School board members, as policymakers, influence racial
equity in districts (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; Frankenberg & Kotok, 2013). This research
focused on the suburban Chicagoland area to examine how school boards support equity,
especially in the light of the growing diversification in the area’s K–12 systems. The purpose of
this study was to examine the assets and gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences to adopt and implement policies focused on racial equity. Clark and Estes’s (2008)
modified gap analysis model was the conceptual framework utilized for this study.
This problem is important to address because racial inequity is a persistent issue that
affects students (Ladson-Billings, 2006), and school boards have the power to advance equity
(Turner, 2015). They are at the forefront of larger societal movements and have a responsibility
to be proactive change agents in influencing an equity-focused organizational culture
(Frankenberg, 2012). This study used qualitative methods to explore school board members’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets and needs regarding implementing policies
focused on racial equity. Themes were identified around this conceptual framework. Chapter
Four presented the data analysis from eighteen qualitative interviews, analysis of publicly
available documents, and open meeting observations from three school boards located in the
suburban Chicagoland area. This chapter will outline the recommended knowledge, motivation,
124

and organizational solutions for school boards to advance racial equity in K–12 public school
districts.
This section begins with a discussion of the findings that provide the foundation for the
subsequent recommendations. Next, the chapter will introduce the recommendations for school
boards to adopt and implement policies focused on racial equity effectively. The chapter
continues by elaborating on the recommendations rooted in evidence-based practices based on
the literature and supported by the findings of this research. Finally, the chapter presents the
study’s limitations and delimitations, recommendations for future research, and the dissertation’s
conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
A set of 20 findings emerged from the research, with six findings identified from
Research Question 1, six for Research Question 2, and eight for Research Question 3. Whereas
all three questions focused on needs and assets regarding adopting and implementing policies
focused on racial equity, the first one investigated the knowledge, the second motivation, and the
third organizational influences. Thematic findings were positioned in these areas modeled after a
modified gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge
The findings of this study were mixed regarding school board members’ declarative and
procedural knowledge needs and assets regarding an understanding of the definition of racial
equity, awareness that there is a racial equity issue in their district, and acknowledgment of an
equity lens and how to use it. A majority of the members, including all the Individuals of Color,
had a strong sense of metacognitive knowledge.
125

Fewer than half (eight) of the 18 participating board members did not have a
comprehensive color-conscious understanding of racial equity. This finding highlights a
declarative knowledge need and is in line with the research that indicates that some district
leaders may lack vital knowledge, skills, and capacities for effectively addressing equity issues
in their systems (Galloway et al., 2015; Omi & Wubabt, 2015). To move towards the outcome of
ensuring a healthy ecosystem to embrace inclusion, school boards must first outline the
knowledge gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008), such as racial equity awareness and color-blind
leadership (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Diem et al., 2016; Turner, 2020; Welton et al., 2015).
The findings also demonstrated that the boards that made efforts to advance racial equity
mostly have members (14) who demonstrated an awareness of the inequities in their district. The
research found that providing diverse data types reflecting racial perspectives offered cues that
enabled organizational members to notice and begin to disrupt the personal and organizational
racism and race-evasive tendencies to address organizational discipline, culture, and climate
problems (Irby, 2018). The awareness finding also aligned with the literature by Galloway et al.
(2015) and Rorerr and colleagues (2008), noting that it is necessary for individuals operating in
an organization to have knowledge and specific organizational awareness to support equity-
focused solutions.
As part of their awareness, the participants also talked about the intersectionality of
socioeconomic insecurity among some of their Communities of Color. This matches the
literature regarding the importance of this understanding, as a compounding impact of
intersectional awareness also affects the social well-being of a district community (Crenshaw,
1989; Hill & Bilge, 2020). The participants also spoke about the goal of removing racial
126

predictability in achievement, which speaks to addressing stereotype threat in the field of K–12,
where students of color and district stakeholders are burdened with negative generalizations
impacting their social and academic success (Steele, 2011). Additionally, Samuels and Samuels
(2019) found that it is important to examine K–12 leaders’ perspectives on how increased
awareness of existing inequities is important. Coupling this with ongoing professional
development can better equip board members to understand their identity, engage in meaningful
dialogue, and lead in culturally responsive ways (Samuels et al., 2019).
Through the interviews, a majority of the equity-focused board members (15) mentioned
having a racial equity lens as a knowledge asset. This is significant as it supports the literature
that operating with an equity lens empowers school board members to allocate resources,
instruction, and opportunities intentionally according to need, requiring that discriminatory
practices, prejudices, and beliefs be identified and eradicated (NSBA, 2021). Secondly, the
literature points to developing equity-focused school board leadership with training to cultivate a
culturally responsive system-wide lens (Ezzani et al., 2021; Ishimaru & Galloway, 2021;
Roegman, 2020).
All the participants had some procedural knowledge of their governance role. This
supports the literature in that of all governance responsibilities, the most important is formally
setting the strategic direction for the school district through a well-developed, transparent, and
highly focused set of policies and strategic goals (Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015; Campbell & Fullan,
2019; Lipton, 1996; McGowan, 2011; L. Saunders, 2015). The research on the role of school
boards in addressing racial inequity showed they have the power to implement key levers to
127

create more equitable policies and outcomes (Diem et al., 2015; Turner, 2020), such as defining
the district direction (Burgett, 2014; Campbell & Fullan, 2019; NSBA, 2021)
A minority of the participants, six, also mentioned their boards incorporated an
understanding of individual bias in their role as decision-makers. This may highlight a need as
the literature indicates that race is an observable trait and is linked to stereotypes and
unconscious biases, which will take a conscious color-brave effort to address (Omi & Wubabt,
2015; Steele, 2010; Sue, 2005). Districts are hindered in their ability to close racial gaps because
of deficit thinking, a pseudoscience founded on racial and class bias (Yosso, 2005). Additionally,
through participant anecdotes, it was evident that there was procedural knowledge needed in that
some board members did not know how to use a racial equity lens through policies.
The evidence also highlights procedural knowledge assets and needs in relation to not
understanding how and when it is appropriate for board members in their governance roles to
advance racial equity in a school district. This mixed set of findings regarding board members’
different levels of board governance understanding points to knowledge needs for some of the
boards and participants. Delagardelle (2008) distinguished a difference between effective and
ineffective school boards based on five main conditions that can also drive racial equity: Setting
clear expectations for measurable outcomes, ensuring conditions for success, building the
collective will of staff and community, learning together as a board, and accountability for
themselves and the staff to reach instructional goals. Progress can only be made if accountability
measures are put into place (Frederickson & Dubnick, 2014).
Equity-minded board members also demonstrated metacognitive knowledge about how
their positionality and lived experiences influenced their ability to adopt and implement racial-
equity-focused policies. This metacognitive understanding supports the literature that to advance
128

racial equity, individuals must reflect on their positionality (Hoffman & Mitchell, 2016) and
assess their racial literacy, cultural humility (Green, 2017), and awareness (Ishimaru &
Galloway, 2021). While this process can be challenging, it is essential on the journey of equity
advocacy as individuals cannot unlearn misconceptions if they do not first explore how they
came to know them (Samuels & Samuels, 2019).
Motivation
The majority of the participants demonstrated different levels of motivation to address
racial equity. The majority of them were tenacious in their active pursuits to advance racial
equity in their districts. Participants of Color across the boards showed the highest levels of
active choice, persistence, mental effort, and intrinsic, attainment, and extrinsic value. On all
three boards, it was a Person of Color who initiated and pushed the need for their board to
address racial inequity.
These Board Members of Color who followed up on the intention to pursue a goal with
action by putting racial equity front and center demonstrated the motivational aspect of active
choice (Clark & Estes, 2008). This finding is supported by Kogan’s (2021) research explaining
why even small gains in minority representation can move the needle on outcomes for Students
of Color and others. Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that majority-minority boards do
have a more pronounced positive impact on the implementation of equity policies (Frankenberg
& Diem, 2013; Kogan et al., 2019; Samuels, 2020). Most of the Board Members of Color
referenced their diverse allies on the board as a strength as they persisted in advancing racial
equity in their respective districts.
129

Qualitative interview analysis, observations, and meeting agendas showed that the
interviewees demonstrated persistence. The seven Members of Color demonstrated a
determination in their pursuit of equity and excellence for all students. Persistence is continuing
to work on a goal in the face of distractions and resistance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Trujillo, 2013).
Racial equity change requires passion, persistence, and practice to unsilence the taboo that
revolves around race and launch courageous conversations to create systemic sustainable change
(Samuels & Samuels et al., 2019; Singleton & Linton, 2006). The evidence showed that these
board members persisted even in subtle, intentional, and sometimes unintentional interactions,
also known as microaggressions, which communicated bias towards historically marginalized
groups, causing racial fatigue and mental-health consequences for district leaders and
stakeholders (Smith et al., 2011; Sue, 2017).
In some cases, like District Sabal’s board members, they witnessed more extreme
situations where a former board member who was a Person of Color persisted through racist and
sometimes politically based attacks and eventually resigned partly due to the resistance. The
literature found that even though school boards as nonpartisan bodies are intended to be
apolitical, politics and policy are inherently connected when serving diverse public interests
(Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; Holme et al., 2014; Turner, 2015). The literature also reflected the
political pushback that a couple of the participating boards experienced. This demonstrated that
resistance became more prevalent when some constituent groups pressured school boards to
negate attempts to incorporate racial-equity-focused policies (Hochschild, 2005; Trujillo, 2013).
The participating boards and their officials who were successful in advancing racial
equity policies were able to do so because of constant effort on their part. Mental effort is
130

applying the required amount of mental energy to accomplish a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
literature highlighted this as well, as adequate mental effort had to be invested to achieve a goal
like equity-based professional development, monitoring performance, and the other
responsibilities required of school board members (Ezzani et al., 2021).
Additionally, the participants demonstrated intrinsic, extrinsic, and attainment value. It is
noteworthy that a majority (12) of the school board members cited advancing equity as one of
the reasons they ran for election or sought appointment; over half of these members were
Individuals of Color. This intrinsic motivation is reflected in the work of Sampson (2019), who
found that experience with inequities among Individuals of Color often informed their efforts to
address equity and that they are often among the most committed to supporting policies for
underserved populations. The majority of the participants also demonstrated attainment value,
exemplifying their perceived importance of performance on a particular task to their sense of
self-identity (Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield et al., 2016). The literature also
pointed to board members’ identities influencing what they perceive to be important problems or
viable solutions; as such, the findings tended to support the notion that board diversity of
identities may translate to efficacy and creative problem solving, which is needed to address
racial disparities (Blissett & Alsbury, 2018). Additionally, Blissett and Alsbury (2018) found that
a school board member’s identity can be attached to the policies they support, with a direct link
between minority board members and the adoption of racial equity policies. According to
Kingdon’s (1995) multiple-streams theory, people’s perspectives on pressing issues, viable
solutions, and political opportunities are also influenced by their individual identities. This
literature explains why these boards, for the most part, had members with high self and collective
efficacy. The findings showed that they were confident in their effectiveness as individuals and
131

as collaborative, cohesive groups, which leads to the cultural models and setting aspects of the
organizational findings.
Organization
There were mixed organizational findings between members of the different participating
boards. However, across the boards, the majority of board members indicated the organizational
emphasis they placed on cultural models, such as alignment of shared racial equity values,
communicating the board’s stance with a united voice, the power of diverse outreach and
collective community impact, and having an open color-conscious culture based on trust.
Additionally, the results were mixed, and the findings showed different levels of alignment in the
presence of cultural settings across the three boards, such as an equity-focused strategic plan
with established accountability; a corresponding superintendent hiring and evaluation process;
continuous board governance development, and professional racial literacy and lived
experiences. Finally, a majority of the members across two of the boards also mentioned time
constraints and the slow pace of racial equity implementation by their districts’ administrators.
Organizational Cultural Models
Alignment of shared racial equity values was among the organizational cultural models
attributed by a majority of the participants, which related to the literature (Bolman & Deal, 2008;
Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The findings show that school boards that
are intentional about addressing racial disparities have worked towards establishing a common
set of equity values. The culture is based on a strongly held and widely shared set of racial equity
beliefs that are then supported by strategy and structure established through the cultural settings.
A majority (14) of the participants demonstrated the value in having shared racial equity beliefs.
132

In the absence of complete alignment between board members on the value of racial equity, a
board may experience obstacles such as the slow adoption and implementation of racial equity-
focused policies. The literature discussed school boards having a unified vision to drive an equity
mission with the execution of institutional-level strategic planning and organizational change
(Turner, 2020; Welton et al., 2018). This section discusses Senge’s (1990) reference to shared
vision and meaning and will continue to elaborate on the other components throughout this
study’s discussion.
The findings showed that a majority of the participants referred to elections as a way to
maintain alignment of shared racial equity values. Their concerns are related to the work of
Kogan et al. (2021), which provided analysis showing that White voters, who may look out for
their own racial advantage, are over-represented in school board elections. Additionally, Hess
and Leal (2005) discovered that interest groups played a part in campaigning and funding school
board elections, and the strongest participation included White mostly affluent parents, and the
least active interest groups were racial and ethnic communities (Hess & Leal, 2005). Therefore,
it was not surprising that the participating boards put much effort into establishing alignment and
vocalizing the board’s racial equity values on and off the school board table.
The findings showed that equity-focused boards vocally and publicly support racial
equity throughout their district, boldly communicating their work to advance racial equity.
District Emory and Sabal’s participants uniformly indicated that their boards should vocally
communicate their stand for racial equity. A majority of District Durio’s participants (four)
highlighted their concern regarding the district’s communication efforts about their racial equity
path forward. This is reflected in the literature that as public officials representing PreK–12
133

district communities, boards of education have the responsibility to bring racial disparities and
systemic injustices to light; if not, they are being complicit in perpetuating a climate where issues
of racism and injustice go unchallenged (Samuels et al., 2019).
Additionally, effective school boards also communicate and clearly define the value of
equity and the vision of how to achieve it in addition to specifying the strategic and tactical
details (Austin, 2016) of how to provide opportunity to all students. Diem and colleagues (2015)
found that superintendents and school boards will have difficulty surviving the politics of
diversity without communicating and building strong community support. The school board’s
role of engaging in ongoing two-way communication with the district community can ensure that
a culture of equity is established and conveyed (Burgett, 2014; Campbell & Fullan, 2019; NSBA,
2021). The findings also pointed to diverse outreach and community collaboration.
Interview data and document analysis indicated that the districts that have established
racial equity plans also have strong community partnerships and outreach. District Emory’s
board mentioned that racial equity had become their town’s work and ethos. Whereas District
Sabal’s board also mentioned their community outreach efforts through affinity-based
community groups, half of them indicated the obstacles and resistance that these initiatives
faced. Every District Durio participant mentioned with concern that whereas the board had begun
to include community stakeholders through an equity committee, that effort had been
discontinued.
The mixed findings demonstrated the organizational assets when community engagement
was established. Alternatively, gaps were highlighted when districts worked in silos removed
from their community. District-wide involvement, including outreach to marginalized
populations, creates ownership of the board’s strategic mission and vision, which is key to real
134

change by creating empowered communities who can contribute their input to district direction
(Gill, 2002; Kezar, 2001; Kotter, 1995). Additionally, Samuels and Samuels’ research also
outlines the point that champions of equity recognize and examine issues of race, racism, and
racial disparities; promote proactive strategies for sustainable change; and facilitate advocacy
steps to turn equitable visions into equitable realities.
School board members are also encouraged to ensure that the strategic planning process
involves community input and is conveyed to all stakeholders (IASB, 2017a). By connecting
with the community, school boards have the advantage of getting to know the demographic
make-up of their community and, in many cases, learn about the growing racial shift in their
school districts (Turner, 2015, 2020). This enables them to follow through with their
responsibility to listen to all voices in the community and make informed decisions to advocate
for and ensure the education of all children (IASB, 2017a). The findings that supported
developing strong partnerships with stakeholders outside of their school community are also
supported by the literature contributions from Green (2017), advocating for community equity
audits as an additional remedy that school boards can employ. Racial equity requires community-
based individual and agency allies (Skrla et al., 2009). The findings, especially from District
Emory, point to building this supportive color-conscious culture as paramount to creating racial
equity change.
As far as a culture of trust, on equity-minded boards, a majority (15) of the participants
who had advanced racial equity in their districts demonstrated that their boards had a level of
trust where courageous conversations about race and equity could be discussed openly. The
board members who faced silence when they brought up racial equity-based topics indicated this
as a major frustration and concern. The literature supports this apprehension, as the power of
135

racial injustice and oppression renders it unlikely that a cautious voice, no matter how well-
intentioned, will truly result in change (Sugrue & Daftary, 2021). Silence around race maintains
and legitimizes racism, thus constructing difficult racial climates for stakeholders, especially
Stakeholders of Color (Kohli et al., 2017). Therefore, addressing inequity does necessitate
challenging conversations that many school boards are reluctant to have due to political
resistance (Patterson et al., 2002; Pollack & Zirkel, 2013) and the defensiveness that may come
with privilege from school board members that are majority White in the United States
(DiAngelo, 2011; NCES, 2021). Established cultural settings, like an equity-focused strategic
plan, support a culture of trust (Horsager, 2012).
Organizational Cultural Settings
The findings indicated that effective equity-focused boards had a comprehensive strategic
plan. They had a high level of engagement in the board’s responsibility to adopt color-conscious
policies and followed-through by monitoring performance using a racial equity lens. This
emphasis on an effective strategic plan is supported by the literature that school boards can drive
equity in defining the district’s mission, vision, and core values (Burgett, 2014; Campbell &
Fullan, 2019; NSBA, 2021). Through an equity-centered strategic planning process (Rorerr,
2006; L. Saunders, 2015), school boards can create an opportunity road map for all students
(Lipton, 1996; Welner & Carter, 2013). It is the responsibility of school boards to ensure that the
strategic plan is equity-focused, to ensure policies address racial disparities and proactively
promote opportunities for all students (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013; Rorrer et al., 2008; Turner,
2015, 2020).
On the other hand, the findings demonstrated that districts’ race-neutral and color-mute
strategic plans could not drive their intention regardless of how equity-focused they envisioned
136

these to be. When there was a confirmed absence of a color-conscious, comprehensive, and
effective strategic plan, the district did not have a clear racial equity direction forward. This is
supported by the work of Roegman and colleagues (2020) on how school board members should
clearly communicate and attach meaning to the district’s mission to meet all students’ needs by
inspiring color-bravery. Welton et al. (2015) found that colorblind board policies caused district
administrators to overlook Communities of Color. Scholars refer to colorblind policies and
practices as having resulted in a new racism, erasing the lived and systemic oppression of
Communities of Color (Bonilla-Silva, 2015). Racial equity may be harder to achieve when
racism is not acknowledged; therefore, colorblind ideology is an obstacle that will continue to
perpetuate injustice in K–12 schools (Ladson-Billings, 2015; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). The
research points to the pervasive issue of districts exhibiting colorblind leadership as an obstacle
to creating and maintaining equity (Diem et al., 2016; Irby & Clark, 2018; Turner, 2020; Welton
et al., 2015). This literature also points to the idea that school boards must employ and evaluate
superintendents with a racial equity mindset.
The findings showed that effective equity-focused schools boards emphasized employing
equity-minded superintendents and had a rigorous evaluation process for them. Only one of the
three participating boards, District Emory, had gone through a superintendent hiring process, and
most of the board members spoke highly of their superintendent’s equity-focused recruitment
process. This was supported by document analysis, which included examining the job description
and community engagement process. The interviews and document analysis demonstrated a
rigorous process emphasizing the hiring of an equity-minded superintendent. This priority is
supported by the work of Clayton et al. (2020), which highlights that school boards have to
137

ensure they hire equity-minded superintendents, who play a vital role in incorporating equity
work throughout a school district.
Equity-focused boards also have superintendent evaluation tools aligned with their
strategic plans. All three districts mentioned holding the superintendent accountable for
addressing the gaps revealed from district equity audits. Superintendent performance monitoring
measures are supported by the literature indicating that school boards should address racial
inequity in their most visible and most important monitoring work as the employer and evaluator
of the district superintendent (Campbell & Fullan, 2019; DiPaola, 2010; IASB, 2017b; NSBA,
2020). Effectively evaluating school superintendents annually is a primary responsibility and
legally required in most states (DiPaolo, 2010). Additionally, state and national school board
associations indicate that school boards should incorporate national guidelines like the
Professional Standards for Education Leaders (IASB, 2017; NPBEA, 2015; NSBA, 2021), with
the most recent revisions addressing equity and cultural responsiveness as a core responsibility
for district leaders (Farley et al., 2019; Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020; Mayger & Provinzano,
2020; NPBEA, 2015).
Eight of the members from the other two boards, Durio and Sabal, were concerned that
their school boards did not effectively evaluate their superintendents’ efforts to operationalize
racial equity-focused policies. This is a legitimate issue as warranted by the literature stating that
race-evasive strategic plans and policies do not inform the direction that district educators should
take. The research found that the void was consequently filled by attempting to improve
instruction in race-neutral ways; rather than altering instructional and school practices to be more
culturally responsive (Welton et al., 2015). Both formative and summative superintendent
evaluation measures hold the district accountable for operationalizing its equity policies (Levin
138

et al., 2018). These incentives and positive culture are key; without them, organizational change
is hindered (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Another important purpose of school boards to
evaluate superintendents is to provide constructive input to support superintendents in their
continual professional growth, which will then prompt organizational learning for the whole
system, including school board members (Corbett, 2016; DiPaola, 2010; Dubnick, 2014;
Henrikson, 2018; IASB, 2017b).
The evidence demonstrated that the boards, for the most part, invested in racial-equity-
focused training and board governance competence development. However, the varying amounts
of learning occasions, especially as a group on the different boards, impacted their effectiveness
in advancing racial equity. The most advanced boards provided the most opportunities for board
racial literacy and board development. The literature supported board development, as Leverett
(2011) found that members and their superintendents have to prepare to be equity warriors
committed to achieving high performance for all students.
Additionally, the findings on the boards’ emphasis on group learning are also supported
by the work of Roegman and colleagues, which noted the discovery that equity-focused leaders
strive to eliminate disparities by creating a shared vision of an equitable district (2020). The
literature also stresses the development of equity-focused school board leadership with training
to cultivate a culturally responsive system-wide lens (Ezzani et al., 2021; Ishimaru & Galloway,
2021; Roegman, 2020). Another solution to address disparities is that equity-focused leaders
need a learning organizational culture to advance systemic change (Ezzani et al., 2021; Jones,
2001; Rice, 2019; Senge, 1990). Finally, Delagardelle (2008) listed learning together as a board
as one of the five main conditions distinguishing an effective board from an ineffective one.
139

However, providing learning opportunities and addressing racial equity, in general, requires the
planning of time and resources.
Finally, the evidence demonstrated that resource and time management resulted in a slow
pace of racial equity implementation. The research indicated that, many times, organizational
issues, such as a fragmentation of approaches, a misalignment of approaches and goals, and a
failure to match solutions to problems, are at the root of performance problems and can lead to
additional knowledge and motivational gaps (Rueda, 2011). The literature also showed that
school board members, who serve on a voluntary basis, spend more than half of their time on
administrative tasks and responding to the concerns of parents and interest groups, which is a
challenge that leaves little time to develop or oversee policy (Hochschild, 2005). Operating with
an equity lens empowers school board members to intentionally allocate resources and
opportunities required to eliminate discriminatory practices, prejudices, and beliefs (NSBA,
2021). To that end, this dissertation will outline recommendations to implement effective racial
equity-focused policies.
Recommendations for Practice
The findings from this study lead to five thematic recommendations related to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of school board members to adopt and
implement policies focused on racial equity. The recommendations guide school boards to define
a clear path forward with an equity-focused strategic plan outlined with measurable benchmarks.
They convey a proactive emphasis for boards to develop equity-minded superintendent hiring
and evaluation processes and provide guidance for board professional development with an
equity lens. A suggestion is to cultivate a color-conscious trust culture encouraging internal and
external community-building through courageous conversations. Finally, the recommendations
140

advocate for creating a pipeline of BIPOC leaders to strengthen diverse board perspectives to
advance racial equity. Each of these recommendations encourages school board members to
continue developing their knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Recommendation 1: Create an Equity-Focused Strategic Plan with Accountability
First and foremost, the research findings illuminate the need for school boards to create
an equity-focused strategic plan with continuous performance monitoring and accountability
measures. The boards that provided a clear road map to ensure racial equity were able to address
opportunity gaps most effectively. This recommendation encourages members to enhance
procedural knowledge of developing an effective strategic plan with a racial equity lens. They
will have to capture their motivation in actively choosing to prioritize the creation and continual
assessment of a strategic plan with persistence, mental effort, and efficacy.
School boards must utilize expert resources to support them through an inclusive strategic
planning process. Turner (2015, 2020) noted that the strategic planning process should include
diverse stakeholders and under-represented voices to ensure that school districts manage race and
inequity effectively. Gap analysis data from equity audits should be utilized to develop the
strategic plan mission, vision, values, and measurable goals (Skrla et al., 2011). Holvino’s (2008)
research also incorporates assessment and a gap analysis to inform research on culturally
inclusive organizational development, examining systems-wide missions, structures, policies,
leadership, and other factors in an evaluative equity-focused rubric. With 70% of all
organizational change efforts failing, agile feedback will be necessary to drive sustained
behavior change (Beer et al., 1990; Church & Dawson, 2018). By using accountability as a
solution measure, school boards ensure equity-focused strategic plans and policies are effectively
141

operationalized by superintendents and their cabinet administrators (Kezar, 2001; Stecher &
Kirby, 2004).
Progress can only be made if accountability measures are put into place (Frederickson &
Dubnick, 2014). A comprehensive, race-conscious, aligned strategic plan will ensure that the
mission, vision, and values, with quantifiable goal statements, are targeted to achieve racial
equity (Balch & Adamson, 2018). School boards are responsible for adopting strategic plans
with clearly crafted and implemented equity-centered vision and mission statements that
influence the organization in their day-to-day activities and assist in attaining district goals
(Odden & Picus, 2011; Taiwo et al., 2016). Once the board sets up an equity-focused strategic
plan, the district’s goals should be incorporated into the superintendent’s evaluation to ensure
that the district mission and vision are realized and that there is accountability for addressing
inequities (Henrikson, 2018; Turner, 2020, 2015).
Recommendation 2: Employ an Equity-Minded Superintendent and Communicate Clear
Evaluation Measures
The second recommendation is for school boards to employ and effectively evaluate an
equity-minded superintendent. Ultimately, the superintendent defines the path towards
inclusivity, supporting the board in their vision to create and implement a district equity-focused
strategic plan (Ezzani et al., 2021). The foundational statement concepts (values and beliefs,
mission, and vision commitments) contribute much to strategic planning; however, a critical
focus should be on the results generated from quantifiable goal statements that boards need to
evaluate their superintendents on (Balch & Adamson, 2018). SMART goals must be used as a
goal-setting framework to ensure the management of measurable goals that are not vague
(Doran, 1981, as cited in Haughey, 2014). Boards must communicate clear expectations through
142

a quantifiable goal-oriented evaluation process focused on providing academic access and an
opportunity road map for all, with a special emphasis on racially marginalized students (NPBEA,
2015).
Boards of education will have to reflect on the why behind their evaluation processes,
ensuring they register their metacognitive knowledge in examining their positionality and
empathic leadership to take advantage of a racial equity lens to pursue a collaborative assessment
exercise with their superintendents (Ezzani et al., 2021; Ishimaru & Galloway, 2021; Roegman,
2020). Additionally, school board members in charge of evaluating superintendents should
model cultural proficiency, especially in light of the standards for education leaders to
demonstrate equity and cultural relevancy (NPBEA, 2015).
This recommendation to create a comprehensive evaluation process also meets essential
organizational cultural settings and models to create alignment of values and a culture of
collaboration and trust. It is the role of school board to create a clear and robust superintendent
evaluation process, creating opportunities for open communication and a strong relationship with
the superintendent, which leads to a high functioning district (IASB, 2017b; NSBA, 2018; Wang
et al., 2019) able to address inequity among other issues. Findings from Alsbury (2008, 2015)
point to positive board/superintendent interaction as the single most important factor in
successfully governing a district (Burgett, 2014; Campbell & Fullan, 2019; DiPaolo, 2010).
Additionally, the findings show that school boards and superintendents must have
increased awareness of existing inequities to better equip them to understand the gravity of the
issues to ensure racially conscious solutions are put in place (Samuels et al., 2019). Therefore,
boards of education should convey clear expectations for superintendents to understand and
present the racial equity data acquired through testing and district and community-wide equity
143

audits (Green, 2017; Skrla et al., 2011). Equity audits are a systematic way for district leaders
like school board members and their partnering educators and consultants to assess the degree of
equity or inequity present (Skrla et al., 2009). By approving funding to carry out district-wide
equity audits, school boards will enable the implementation of much needed streamlined,
practical strategies in the hands of leadership practitioners (Skrla et al., 2011). The purpose of the
equity audit is to ensure that school board members have a systematic way to examine
opportunity gaps and can then plan to eliminate the disparities (Skrla et al., 2004). Equity audit
results indicate that they are a practical, easy-to-apply tool that districts can use to identify
inequities objectively (Brown, 2010). Closing the gaps discovered by equity audits can then be
incorporated as part of the superintendents’ evaluation process.
Recommendation 3: Foster Continuous Learning to Develop Effective Board Governance
Enhanced with an Equity Lens
This recommendation urges school boards to foster continuous learning to develop
effective board governance. The findings of this study were clear and compelling, supporting the
literature that if the rate of learning is not as great as the rate of change, the organization will
suffer. Continuous improvement requires a commitment to learning (Garvin, 2000). Based on
board members’ ongoing development, this recommendation calls for increasing the why, what,
how, and when of knowledge as these apply to racial literacy and effective board governance
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Enhancing knowledge capabilities also enhances efficacy and
motivation (Bandura, 2000) to persist with the challenges of adopting and implementing policies
focused on racial equity. Providing resources and opportunities for board development ties into a
key organizational cultural setting. As Garvin (1993) noted, high-performing organizations
require learning and the capacity to change. School board members collaborate with district
144

leaders to implement systemic change, and Honig and Hansa (2020) recommend professional
learning with high-quality support and communities of practice.
The equity-focused participating boards noted the importance of board development,
which manifested in effective governance for their team. Additionally, Ezzani et al., (2021)
found that professional learning opportunities coupled with small incremental changes in policies
could foster equity. To institute systemic policies, school boards must participate in professional
development that addresses the inclusion of historically marginalized students (Ezzani et al.,
2021; Valencia & Solorzano, 1997). Effective school boards lead with an equity lens to create
substantial change for the entire community by incorporating strategic goals and opportunities to
benefit all students, with an emphasis on historically marginalized students (NSBA, 2021).
Recommendation 4: Build a Color-Conscious Culture of Trust Encouraging Internal and
External Alliance-Building Through Courageous Communication
This recommendation calls for intentional steps for school board members to build a
color-conscious culture of trust, encouraging internal and external alliances through courageous
and effective communication. This guidance advocates for school board members to establish a
culture that embraces constructive conflict and discourse management to address difficult issues
because remaining silent about race and having a lack of courageous conversations may inhibit
effective board governance (Ford & Ihrke, 2016; Grissom, 2014; Lencioni, 2002; Patterson et al.,
2002), ultimately hindering racial equity change. This strong advice pushes boards of education
to develop the procedural knowledge of how to have courageous conversations (Singleton,
2014).
Conversations about race are admittedly difficult based on the qualitative findings of this
study and the literature. However, persistence has to be engaged to push through the mental
145

effort and emotion it takes for this necessary step to create racial equity change (Trujillo, 2013).
This organizational culture shift is the climate necessary to grow the seeds of equity-focused
change. Boards of education, including the school administrators they partner with, may struggle
to have open, deep, and crucial conversations about race and oppression (DiAngelo, 2011;
Patterson et al., 2002). They are afraid to admit the presence of racism in their settings (Ryan,
2006). The literature shows that school leaders report needing more specific training or tools to
address racial conflict, build community among diverse groups, or lead for social justice
(Theoharis, 2007). School board members have to work as equity-oriented change agents
requiring persistence, patience, coherent focus, and treating everyone with respect, appreciation,
and care even if others are resistant to racial equity change (Abramovitz & Blitz, 2015; Singleton
& Linton, 2006; Skrla et al., 2011).
Additionally, the findings were that school boards that have advanced racial equity work
in their district were only able to do so because they built organizational alliances through
courageous conversations in and out of their schools. They brought their communities along to
do the racial equity work with them. Galloway and colleagues (2015) and Ishimaru and
Galloway’s (2021) research also found that individualistic changes do not equate to sustained
organizational change; therefore, a system-wide, top-down approach to equity training must
include school boards gaining political buy-in and outcomes-based policy implementation
throughout the district. Equity-focused leaders strive to eliminate disparities by creating a shared
vision of an equitable district, welcoming changing demographics as a benefit to their schools’
diversity, and engaging communities in long-term, systemic reform with continuous professional
development supporting participants’ examination of their racial perspectives (Roegman et al.,
2020).
146

Community engagement and advocacy evident in the equity-focused boards, addressed
the root problems of social equity (Green, 2017). These problems outside of school have to be
addressed as they directly impact district inequities (Turner, 2020). The community equity audit
approach will also support school boards in reconsidering underserved communities through
insight into their perspectives. At the same time, building strong external alliances fulfills one of
the roles of school boards in fostering community partnerships (IASB, 2020; NSBA, 2021).
Skrla and colleagues (2011) also stressed that even though equity audits effectively demonstrated
disparities, merely carrying out the equity audit at the district and community level will not
automatically lead to a plan for change. However, courageous conversations and advocacy would
be required to implement changes highlighted by the equity audit (Skrla et al., 2011). One of the
main action steps that will be required of board members is to empower voices of color by
incorporating their perspectives into every decision made at the school board table.
Recommendation 5: Engage Racially Diverse Perspectives to Strengthen Leadership
The final recommendation is for school boards to empower BIPOC stakeholders in order
to engage diverse perspectives to strengthen district leadership. This last recommendation is in
some ways, equally as important as the others, and in many ways, the most important guidance
stressed to boards of education. School districts have to accept the responsibility to outreach and
engage diverse perspectives to actively participate as community leaders in the district. They
should be intentional about encouraging BIPOC leadership. Doing so will create a pipeline of
Board Members of Color. As districts anticipate vacancies and ensure leadership succession,
outreach regarding appointment applications or election opportunities should target diverse
communities. The literature shows that marginalized communities may not have political
awareness regarding elections and the political process (Hess & Leal, 2005).
147

The findings showed that Participants of Color were tenacious in their active choice and
persistence to advance their intrinsically motivated goals to address racial inequities. In addition,
the Board Members of Color in this study had the lived experience to demonstrate empathy-
based leadership, which is a valuable organizational cultural model (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The
findings also showed that in all three boards, racial equity work was only launched when a
Member of Color initiated and persistently made it a focus. However, in this study, even though
the three districts had majority-minority student demographics, the boards were all majority
White. This is also in line with the national statistics, which show a lack of diverse representation
on boards and their partnering superintendents (NCES, 2021). The recommendation to engage
diverse perspectives is critical in light of the findings and the literature presented in this
dissertation.
Ladson-Billings (2006) highlighted that minoritized groups historically have not been
given opportunities for access points to prepare them to successfully run for school board, like
involvement in parent-teacher organizations, district committees, and other possibilities for
democratic participation. In this study, the findings showed that a majority of BIPOC board
members (6) were encouraged to run by a Person of Color, and most of the White participants
were encouraged to run by White individuals. Hess and Leal’s research is also significant in that
the least active voter interest groups were from racial and ethnic communities (Hess & Leal,
2005). Moreover, Turner’s (2020) research found that in suburban areas, the White parent
populations are significantly more affluent with established political capital that organically
supports their networks made up of mostly White people. Subsequently, they get involved in the
district, and eventually, these individuals gain experience, confidence, and support to run for
school board. Therefore, school boards and communities have a responsibility to carry out voter
148

education to increase the number of People of Color at the polls and to add diversity to the
dominant White voter base (Turner, 2020). Interest groups can play a large role in the school
board’s policy decisions and in who sits on the board (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). The
literature that indicates that the least active interest groups were racial and ethnic communities
(Hess & Leal, 2005) also turns to the findings that participants valued their district racial affinity-
based groups as a support system to build social capital. On the other hand, it was clear that low
voter turnout allows special interest groups to sway school board elections to serve their interests
(Diem et al., 2015; Hess & Leal, 2005).
As trustees of public education for their local community (Alsbury, 2015), school board
members have to fulfill their responsibility to connect with all members of their constituencies,
thereby encouraging much-needed civic engagement from Community Members of Color
(Turner, 2015, 2020). The findings demonstrated that affinity-based district groups and parent
leadership institutes resulted in some success in cultivating School Board Members of Color.
However, these examples, which faced some new initiative-based challenges and resistance,
need to be further refined and explored for maximum impact involving district Constituents of
Color. This finding is supported by the literature that low civic engagement and political
awareness of Communities of Color impact the progression of racial equity policies
(Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). The evidence demonstrates that the lack of minority representation
on school boards hinders racial-equity advancement in school districts (Ishimaru & Galloway,
2021; Rorrer et al., 2008; Trujillo, 2013). Overall, an increase in BIPOC school board members
and involvement is also associated with higher levels of political trust, efficacy, and knowledge.
Subsequently, this increases the board connection to and civic engagement of marginalized
families (NSBA, 2021), supporting racial equity-based policies (Marschall, 2005).
149

Limitations and Delimitations
The purpose of this study was to examine the participants’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences to adopt and implement racial equity-focused educational policy.
Though this research used multiple data sources to provide greater research depth, the study still
has limitations that are important to outline (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). First, my invested and
power-based positionality as a fellow elected school board member may be a possible limitation.
This may have impacted participant truthfulness and willingness to participate in the interviews
(Buckholder, 2019; Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). However, my positionality as a school board
member actually may have encouraged involvement in the study, as this study only had three
members who did not participate, with 18 who agreed to be interviewed. Validity, reliability, and
ethical mitigation steps were taken to address limitations.
Berger (2016) suggested one key to addressing limitations of qualitative research is being
aware of the researcher’s positionality or reflexivity, which can impact the research. My
positionality as an Educator of Color, first school Board Member of Color in my area, and
mother of minoritized students presents connections to the premise of this study on investigating
racial equity-focused policies. Reflexivity is how I was able to affect and be affected by the
research process, and journaling for awareness of bias was utilized (Berger, 2016; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Delimitations define the research parameters (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). First, the
choice to use school board members as participants, though an important perspective because of
their governance, policy-making, and implementation role; posed a political dilemma and
provided only one perspective (Diem et al., 2014; Fletcher, 2014; Harper, 2012; Marschall,
2004). However, this choice of participants also resulted in a loss of perspective from important
150

stakeholders like superintendents, district administrators, parents, tax-paying residents, teachers,
principals, and most importantly, students. Due to the narrow data collection window, three
district boards, with 18 interviewees, were included here. The methodology also included three
data sources: interviews, document analysis, and observations of open board meetings. In the
future, observations of more board meetings, which will require extensive time to search for
racial equity-related recorded clips and viewing of live board meetings, should be incorporated.
The study was also limited to the immediate suburban counties surrounding Chicago,
which may not be representative or generalizable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to the state of
Illinois or the K–12 national field. Finally, the interview questions were designed to solicit a
narrative focused only on Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework. This conceptual lens was
strategically chosen to solicit narrative responses to the research purpose focusing on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of school board members to adopt and
implement racial equity-focused policies.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study resulted in findings and recommendations to support systemic change among
school boards. Although this dissertation provides important contributions, it leaves room for
further research. Future research will add literature to support boards of education and their
members in advancing racial equity. The following three future research topics are offered for
consideration.
Equity-Focused Superintendent Leadership: Supporting K–12 Suburban Schools
Superintendents are the chief leaders and implementers of policy in K–12 school systems.
Their leadership sets the tone for districts. In the United States, 94% of superintendents are
White (Kowalski, 2013). The literature presented in this study found that even though the
151

national standards for superintendents have recently incorporated equity and cultural
responsiveness, the expectations to address race, class, and intersecting disparities faced by
marginalized People of Color is beyond the current knowledge of K–12 public school leaders.
Therefore, superintendents and their boards will have to engage in professional development to
meet all students’ needs (Cochran-Smith, 2021; Farley et al., 2019; Galloway & Ishimaru, 2020).
When the new NPBEA equity standards are tied into the superintendent evaluation, the
accountability measure will foster professional development growth opportunities to develop
skills needed to tackle what Farley et al. (2019) described as “wicked problems of equity and
social justice” (p. 1). Additionally, Diem and colleagues (2015) found that, without strong
community support, it can be difficult for superintendents and school boards to survive the
politics of diversity. This future research can be a promising practice by investigating exemplary
equity-focused superintendents and how they advance racial equity in their K–12 district
community.
Effective K–12 School Board Racial Literacy Development
Future research on effective K–12 school board racial literacy and development programs
will provide helpful findings to ensure impactful training. This study highlighted the role of
school board engagement in continuous learning; however, in-depth knowledge of how best to
do this will add literature to the field. Models of best practice in school board racial equity
training will fill knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps in the field of K–12. Honig and
Hansa (2020) highlighted professional learning with high-quality support and communities of
practice. Future mixed-methods research can study school board members, state and national
school board associations, and racial equity learning organizations, to determine what
professional development models are most effective in increasing the knowledge, motivation,
152

and organizational influences to advance racial equity. This research can also investigate online
racial equity training modules, like the one used by college campuses such as the University of
Southern California, to determine whether mandatory racial equity training would effectively
build common understanding for school board members. This research provides additional
support for literature stating that school boards must participate in professional development that
addresses the inclusion of historically marginalized students to institute systemic policies
(Ezzani, 2021; Valencia & Solórzano, 1997).
Pipeline for BIPOC Representation on Local K–12 School Boards
A recommendation for future research is an in-depth investigation into how to increase
BIPOC representation on local K–12 school boards. This dissertation demonstrated how
impactful School Board Members of Color are to advancing racial equity; however, the statistics
indicate that school board members are in the minority with 20% representation in a K–12
system, with majority-minority student demographics of more than 50% Students of Color
(NCES, 2021). Once home to mostly White students, currently, more than half of all minority
students in metropolitan areas attend suburban schools (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2008). One of
this dissertation’s participating boards elected its first Board Member of Color only a few years
before this study. All three participating boards were also majority White. This is reflective of
the literature, indicating that in suburban school boards, the number of Board Members of Color
is lower than the national average (Blissett & Alsbury, 2018).
Furthermore, the literature showed many roadblocks to electing school board Members of
Color. Future research on communities creating a pipeline of BIPOC board members will be
helpful in strengthening districts with diverse school board leadership. This research can
examine the role of external community and sociocultural influences on who is elected, which
153

then affects the board’s ability to implement equity-focused policies. Ladson-Billings (2006)
highlights that minoritized groups historically have not been given opportunities for access
points to prepare them to successfully run for school board (Ladson billing, 2006). Low civic
engagement and political awareness among Communities of Color impact the progression of
racial equity policies (Frankenberg & Diem, 2013). Future research on solutions to these
obstacles will support the advancement of racial equity policies if successful remedies are
presented to increase BIPOC representation on school boards.
For part of this future study, it will be insightful to conduct an empirical analysis
providing evidence-based data on the effectiveness of racial affinity-based groups at the local
district and state board association level. This will provide data on the effectiveness of support
and networking to provide mentorship to existing and future potential Board Members of Color.
The mentorship aspect of this research would also provide data on whether affinity-based groups
provide support for board Members of Color, who, from the findings, experienced more
emotional toll and demonstrated a higher need to persist. Overall, an increase in BIPOC school
board members is also associated with higher levels of political trust, efficacy, and knowledge
(NSBA, 2021), which supports racial equity-based policies (Marschall, 2005).
Conclusion
School boards are key levers in racial equity change in K–12 public schools and society
in general. Suburban schools have experienced significant demographic shifts, a phenomenon
that school boards have historically not been prepared to address. There is relatively little
research on the suburban school districts’ policies to advance racial equity (Welton, 2013). In
particular, there is little research on how school boards address inequities, specifically in
154

suburban school districts undergoing this sudden diversity increase (Turner, 2020). This study
adds salient findings and recommendations to K–12 school boards about advancing racial equity.
This research contributes paramount literature. The investigation was a comparative
examination of 18 officials at three suburban school boards purposefully selected because they
have advanced, and in some cases, initiated racial equity efforts in their districts. The findings
and an extensive literature review of over 230 sources helped guide the recommendations. In
addition, the findings were supported by an analysis of publicly available school board agendas,
strategic plans, and policies, as well as superintendent job descriptions, blog posts, social media
posts, and websites. Finally, observation analysis of recordings of school board meetings
triangulated the results as well. This study’s findings may be helpful in supporting boards of
education with key insights.
School boards can be gatekeepers to promoting an opportunity roadmap or can
intentionally or unintentionally lay down obstacles to hinder historically marginalized students’
academic and social growth. They can decide to be color-conscious or not address racial inequity
and be race-evasive or color-neutral. They can choose to engage in continuous learning to
examine their bias, or they can decide to bypass this sometimes difficult self-reflection and focus
on other school board matters. School board members can engage in courageous conversations;
or forgo the vulnerability to remain silent about race-based issues. Persistence can be taken as a
challenge or rejected for issues that may not face as much resistance. School boards can stand
against racism, speaking with a united voice, or the seemingly controversial nature of the topic
can cause board conflict and deter members from progress.
Furthermore, boards of education can take advantage of the power of diverse outreach
and community collaboration or stay under the radar and check off a box to meet audit
155

requirements. They can set a clear road map with an equity-focused direction overlaid with
accountability measures, or they can have a vague or general strategic plan that ignores
historically marginalized students’ needs. School boards can empower diverse communities to be
part of the democratic system of governing public schools, or they can avoid investing their
energy in disrupting the status quo. Board of education members have the power to advance
racial equity in their schools and communities, and this research provides findings and
recommendations on how to do this. The choice to make a positive impact with a racial equity-
focused lens lies in the hands and mindsets of school board members and the voters who elect
them.

156

References
Abramovitz, M., & Blitz, L. V. (2015). Moving toward racial equity: The undoing racism
workshop and organizational change. Race and Social Problems, 7(2), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-015-9147-4
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H. A. R. U. N. A., & Abubakar, M. M. (2015).Ontology,
epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the
research philosophical misconception. In Proceedings of the Academic Conference:
Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and Uncommon
(Vol. 2, No. 1). Abekuta, Ogun State, Nigeria.
Alsbury, T. (2008). School board politics and student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed.),
Relevancy and revelation: The future of school board governance (pp. 247–272).
Rowman & Littlefield.
Alsbury, t. (2015). Hitting a moving target: how politics determines the changing roles of
superintendents and school boards. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli,
Handbook of Education Politics and Policy (pp 37–61). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074107
Alsbury, T. L., & Miller-Jones, B. 2015. Elements of school board success: A comprehensive
board assessment tool for systemic improvement. In T. L. Alsbury and P. Gore (Eds.),
Improving School Board Effectiveness (pp. 77–88). Harvard Education Press.
157

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2020). AACTE president and CEO
speaks on the killing of George Floyd and systemic racism.
https://aacte.org/2020/06/aacte-president-and-ceo-speaks-on-the-killing-of-george-floyd-
and-systemic-racism/
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman,.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Ambady, N., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Learning
(not) to talk about race: When older children underperform in social categorization.
Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1513–1518. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012835
Armstrong, M. (2017). Reinventing performance management: Building a culture of continuous
improvement. Kogan Page.
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A
synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–
206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066
Austin, W. M. (2016). Making space: Strategic leadership for a complex world. The Aerospace
Press.
Balch, B. V., & Adamson, M. T. (2018). Building great school board-superintendent teams: A
systematic approach to balancing roles and responsibilities. Solution Tree Press.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Beer, M., Eisenstat, A. E., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1990/11/why-change-programs-dont-produce-
change
158

Bell, D. A. (1980). Comment: Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-
Convergence Dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518.
Bell, M. P. (2020). Anti-Blackness, surface-level diversity continues to matter: What must we
do? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 39(7), 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-06-
2020-0160
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative
research. Qualitative research, 15(2), 219-234.
Bishop, J. P., & Noguera, P. A. (2019). The ecology of educational equity: Implications for
policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(2), 122–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1598108
Blissett, R. S. L., & Alsbury, T. L. (2018). Disentangling the personal agenda: Identity and
school board members’ perceptions of problems and solutions. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 17(4), 454–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326142
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bolger, M. (n.d.) 2020. What’s the difference between diversity, inclusion, and equity? [Blog
post] General Assembly. https://generalassemb.ly/blog/diversity-inclusion-equity-
differences-in-meaning/
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
159

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2015). The structure of racism in color-blind, “post-racial” America. The
American Behavioral Scientist, 59(11), 1358–1376.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215586826
Bovens, M., & Schillemans, T. (2014). Meaningful accountability. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin,
& T. Schillemans, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 673–682).
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0038
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bowman, K. L. (2014). The pursuit of racial and ethnic equality in American public schools:
Mendez, Brown, and beyond. Michigan State University Press.
Brau, B. (2020). Constructivism. In R. Kimmons & Scaskurlu (Eds.), The students’ guide to
learning design and research (pp. 33–43). EdTech Books
https://edtechbooks.org/studentguide
Brenner, C. T., Sullivan, G. L., & Dalton, E. (2002). Effective best practices for school boards:
Linking local governance with student academic success (IPED Technical Reports No.
15). University of Texas at El Paso.
Brown, K. M. (2010). Schools of excellence AND equity? Using equity audits as a tool to expose
a flawed system of recognition. International Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership, 5(5). Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2010v5n5a206
Brownstein, R. (2014). How we’re still failing, 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education.
Atlantic Media.
160

Burgett, J. (2014). The art of school boarding: What every school board member needs to know.
Education Communication Unlimited.
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Research
design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Sage Publications.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2016) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis.
Routledge.
Campbell, D. W., & Fullan, M. (2019). The governance core: School boards, superintendents,
and schools working together. Corwin.
Campbell, D. W., Fullan, M., Kavanaugh, B., & Adam, E. (2021). The taking action guide for
the governance core : school boards, superintendents, and schools working together.
Corwin Press.
Carter, P., & Welner, K. (Eds.). (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to
give every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.001.0001
Cherng, H.-Y. S., & Halpin, P. F. (2016). The importance of minority teachers: Student
perceptions of minority versus White teachers. Educational Researcher, 45, 407–420.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16671718
Church, A., & Dawson, L. (2018). Agile feedback drives accountability and sustained behavior
change. Strategic HR Review, 17(6), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-2018-
0063
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996). Cognitive task analysis. International Journal of Educational
Research, 25(5), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)81235-9
161

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Clayton, J., Porter, M. K., Oliver, M. A., & Wiggins, L. R. (2020). Equity-minded leadership:
How school leaders make meaning of building mindsets and practices. Educational
Leadership, 21(1), 142–162.
Clinton, H. R. (2005). Brown at fifty: Fulfilling the promise. Yale Law & Policy Review, 23(1),
213–224.
Coates, T. N. (2014). The case for reparations. Atlantic, 313(5), 54–71.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2021). Rethinking teacher education: The trouble with accountability.
Oxford Review of Education, 47(1), 8–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1842181
Cole, M. (2005). Putting culture in the middle. An introduction to Vygotsky, 199-226.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2020). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons.
Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2005). The power of SMART goals: Using goals to improve
student learning. Solution Tree Press.
Corbett, P. (2016). The role of feedback within the superintendent evaluation process
(Publication No. 10250271) [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Basics of qualitative
research (3rd ed.): Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (pp. 65-
86). SAGE Publications, Inc.
162

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 64, 139–167.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crosnoe R, Turley R. N. L. (2011). K-12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. The Future
of Children, 21(1), 129–152.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources, and
student achievement. Du Bois Review, 1(2), 213–246.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X0404202X
De Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A.,
Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019-038). U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury (Ed). Relevancy
and revelation: The future of school board governance (pp. 191–224). Rowman &
Littlefield.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3).
Diem, S., Frankenberg, E., & Cleary, C. (2015). Factors that influence school board policy
making: The political context of student diversity in urban-suburban districts. educational
administration quarterly, 51(5), 712–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15589367
163

Diem, S., Frankenberg, E., Cleary, C., & Ali, N. (2014). The politics of maintaining diversity
policies in demographically changing urban-suburban school districts. American Journal
of Education, 120(3), 351–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/675532
Diem, S., Welton, A. D., Frankenberg, E., & Jellison Holme, J. (2016). Racial diversity in the
suburbs: How race-neutral responses to demographic change perpetuate inequity in
suburban school districts. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19, 731–762.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.946485
DiPaolo, M. (2010). Evaluating the superintendent. American Association of School
Administrators.
Dixon, P. J., & Dundes, L. (2020). Exceptional injustice: Facebook as a reflection of race-and
gender-based narratives following the death of George Floyd. Social Sciences, 9(12),
Article 2311. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9120231
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.
Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the “race question:” Accountability and
Equity in U.S. Higher Education. Teachers College.
Dowd, A., & Liera, R. (2018). Sustaining change towards racial equity through cycles of inquiry.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(65), 65. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3274
Dubnick, M. (2014). Accountability as cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–28). Oxford
University Press.
164

Dubnick, M. J. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International
Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 6(3), 405–441.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-06-03-2003-B002
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). 10 things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9–22.
Dupper DR. (2013) School Bullying. Oxford University Press.
Eadens, D. W., Davidson, F. D., & Eadens, D. M. (2020). Growing evidence of the value of
school board training. Educational Leadership, 21(1), 1–13.
Egalite, A. J., & Kisida, B. (2018). The effects of teacher match on students’ academic
perceptions and attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 59–81.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717714056
Ezzani, M. D., Mun, R. U., & Lee, L. E. (2021). District leaders focused on systemic equity in
identification and services for gifted education: From policy to practice. Roeper Review,
43(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1881853
Farley, A. N., Childs, J., & Johnson, O. A. (2019). Preparing leaders for wicked problems? How
the revised PSEL and NELP standards address equity and justice. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 27(115), 115. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4229
Fernandez, S., & Rainey, G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00570.x
Flinders, M. (2014). The future and relevance of accountability studies. In M. Bovens, R. E.
Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp.
661–672). Oxford University Press.
165

Ford, M., & Ihrke, D. (2016). Board conflict and public performance on urban and non-urban
boards: Evidence from a national sample of school board members. Journal of Urban
Affairs, 39(1), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12315
Frankenberg, E., & Diem, S. (2013). School board leadership and policymaking in changing
political environments. The Urban Review, 45(2), 117–142.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-012-0211-8
Frankenberg, E., & Kotok, S. (2013). Demography and Educational Politics in the Suburban
Marketplace. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 112–126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.752628
Frederickson & Dubnick (2014) Accountable governance: Problems and promises. Taylor and
Francis.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership across the system. Insight, 61, 14–17.
Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of
Educational Change, 7(3), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-9003-9
Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through
preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11427394
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Galloway, M. K., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2020). Leading equity teams: The role of formal leaders in
building organizational capacity for equity. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 25(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1699413
166

Galloway, M. K., Ishimaru, A., & Larson, R. (2015). When aspirations exceed actions:
Educational leaders’ descriptions of educational equity. Journal of School Leadership,
25(5), 838–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461502500503
Garvin D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/1993/07/building-a-learning-organization
Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work.
Harvard Business School Press.
Gill, R. (2002). Change management—Or change leadership. Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/714023845
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Green, T. (2017). Community-based equity audits: A practical approach for school and
Community leaders in supporting equitable school-community improvements.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(1), 3–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16672513
Grissom, J. (2014). Is discord detrimental? Using institutional variation to identify the impact of
public governing board conflict on outcomes. Journal of Public Administration:
Research and Theory, 24, 289–315. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus042
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and
synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. Review of Higher Education, 36(1S), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
167

Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American
students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The
Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 389–414.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11779022
Haughey, D. (2014). A brief history of SMART goals. https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/brief-
history-of-smart-goals.php
Heinrich, Jill. (2015). The devil is in the details: In America, can you really say “God” in
school? Educational Review, 67(1), 64–78,
https://doir.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.826179
Henrikson, R. (2018) Superintendent evaluation frameworks for continuous improvement: Using
Evidence-based processes to promote the stance of improvement. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice. 15 (1), 22.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, (Spring/Summer), 17–19.
Hess, F. M., & Leal, D. (2005). School house politics: Expenditures, interests, and competition
in school board elections. In W. G. Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future
of education politics (pp. 228–253). Brookings Institution Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Response to decline in firms, organizations,
and states. Harvard University Press.
Hochschild, J. (2005). What school boards can and cannot (or will not) accomplish. In W.
Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 324-338).
Brookings Institution Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt127xjr.17
168

Hoffman, G. D., & Mitchell, T. D. (2016). Making diversity “everyone’s business:” A discourse
analysis of institutional responses to student activism for equity and inclusion. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000037
Holme, J., Diem, S., & Welton, A. (2014). Suburban school districts and demographic change:
The technical, normative, and political dimension of response. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 34–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13484038
Holvino, E. (2008). Developing multicultural organizations: A change model.
https://naaee.org/sites/default/files/mcodmodel.pdf
Honig, M. I., & Honsa, A. (2020). Systems-focused equity leadership learning: Shifting practice
through practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 15(3), 192–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775120936303
Horsager, D. (2012). The trust edge: How top leaders gain faster results, deeper relationships,
and a stronger bottom line. Free Press.
Howell, W. G., West, M. R., & Peterson, P. E. (2011). The public weighs in on school reform:
Intense controversies do not alter public thinking, but teachers differ more sharply than
ever. Education Next, 11(4), 10-23.
Illinois Association of School Boards (2017a). The basics of governance.
Illinois Association of School Boards. (2017b). The superintendent evaluation process:
Strengthening the board/superintendent relationship.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2020). Resolution affirming the state board’s commitment to
eliminate racial injustice.https://www.isbe.net/Documents_Board_Meetings/Resolution-
Affirming-Boards-Commitment-Eliminate-Racial-Injustice-20200617.pdf
169

Irby, D. J. (2018). Mo’Data, Mo’Problems: Making sense of racial discipline disparities in a
large diversifying suburban high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(5),
693–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769051
Irby, D. J., & Clark, S. P. (2018). Talk it (Racism) out: Race talk and organizational learning.
Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-
2018-0015
Irby, D. J., Drame, E., Clough, C., & Croom, M. (2019). “Sometimes things get worse before
they get better”: A counter-narrative of White suburban school leadership for racial
equity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(2), 195–209.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1611869
Irby, D. J., Meyers, C. V., & Salisbury, J. D. (2020). Improving schools by strategically
connecting equity leadership and organizational improvement perspectives: Introduction
to special issue. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 25(2), 101–106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1704628
Ishimaru, A. M., & Galloway, M. K. (2021). Hearts and minds first: Institutional logics in
pursuit of educational equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(3), 470–502.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20947459
Johnson, L. B. (1965). Commencement address at Howard University.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/commencement-address-howard-university-
fulfill-these-rights
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
170

Jones, M. L. (2001). Sustainable organizational capacity building: Is organizational learning a
key? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 91–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713769590
Kang, M., Lessard, D., & Nordmarken, S. (2017). Introduction to women, gender, sexuality
studies. https://press.rebus.community/introwgss/chapter/social-constructionism/
Kezar, A. (2001). Research-based principles of change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 113–123.
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little Brown.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2020). The democratic deficit in U.S. education
governance (EdWorkingPaper: 20-196). Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
https://doi.org/10.26300/2dqg-w009
Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2021). How does minority political representation
affect school district administration and student outcomes? American Journal of Political
Science, 65(3), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12587
Kohatsu, E. L., Victoria, R., Lau, A., Flores, M., & Salazar, A. (2011). Analyzing anti‐Asian
prejudice from a racial identity and color‐blind perspective. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 89(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00061.x
Kohli, R., Pizarro, M., & Nevárez, A. (2017). The ‘new racism’ of K–12 schools: Centering
critical research on racism. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 182–202.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16686949
171

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-whytransformation-efforts-fail-2
Kowalski, T. J. (2013). District diversity and superintendents of color. Educational Leadership
Faculty Publications, 19. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/19
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American
children. Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013a). Critical race theory - What it is not! In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson
(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 34–47). Routledge.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013b). Lack of achievement or loss of opportunity? In P. L. Carter & K.
G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child
an even chance (pp. 11–22). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.003.0002
Land, D. (2002). CRESPAR Report# 56: Local school boards under review: Their role and
effectiveness in relation to students' academic achievement. Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed At Risk.
172

https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/62916/Report56.pdf?sequenc
e=1&isAllowed=y
Laurence, J. (2011). The effect of ethnic diversity and community disadvantage on social
cohesion: A multi-level analysis of social capital and interethnic relations in UK
communities. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 70–89.
https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp057
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British
neighborhoods. Political Studies, 56(1), 99-126.
Leverett, L. (2011). The urban superintendents program leadership framework. In R. S. Peterkin,
D. Jewell-Sherman, L. Kelley, & L. Boozer (Eds.), Every child, every classroom, every
day: School leaders who are making equity a reality (pp. 1–15). Jossey-Bass.
Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., & Shand, R. (2018). Economic
Evaluation in Education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483396514
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340372
Lipton, M. (1996). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan
Management Review, 34(4), 83.
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research
(3rd ed.). SAGE.
173

Love, D. A. (2021, July 28). Before the anti-CRT activists, there were White Citizens’ Councils.
The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/28/before-anti-
crt-activists-there-were-white-citizens-councils/
Mansfield, K. C., & Jean-Marie, G. (2015). Courageous conversations about race, class, and
gender: Voices and lessons from the field. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education: QSE, 28(7), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1036950
Marschall, M. J. (2005). Minority incorporation and local school boards. Besieged: School
boards and the future of education politics, 173-198.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making
in education (RAND Education occasional paper). RAND Corporation.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html
Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (2005). Constructivist theories. In B. Hopkins, R. G. Barr, G.
Michel, & P. Rochat (Eds.), Cambridge encyclopedia of child development (pp. 49–63).
Cambridge University Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Sage.
Maxwell, L. A. (2014). U.S. school enrollment hits majority-minority milestone. Education
Digest, 80(4), 27.
Mayger, L. K., & Provinzano, K. (2020). Community school leadership: Identifying qualities
necessary for developing and supporting equity-centered principals. Leadership and
Policy in Schools, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1759652
174

McGee, E. O., & Stovall, D. (2015). Reimagining critical race theory in education: Mental
health, healing, and the pathway to liberatory praxis. Educational Theory, 65(5), 491–
511. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12129
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21472
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs leadership: Placing leadership development
and renewal at the forefront of school change. School Administrator, 58(10), 32–34.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M.,
González, M. L., Cambron-McCabe, N., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). From the field: A
proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(1), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07309470
McKinley, J. (2015). Critical argument and writer identity: Social constructivism as a theoretical
framework for EFL academic writing. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12(3), 184–
207. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1060558
McNamee, S. J., & Miller, R. K. (2018). The meritocracy myth (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design an
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D. L. (2017). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach.
SAGE.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–
741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04268843
175

Murphy, M., & Skillen, P. (2015). The politics of time on the frontline: Street level bureaucracy,
professional judgment, and public accountability. International Journal of Public
Administration, 38(9), 632-641.
Museus, S. D., Ledesma, M. C., & Parker, T. L. (2015). Systemic racism in higher
education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(1), 49-71.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and
Teacher Follow up Survey (TFS) [Data File]. U.S. Department of Education. Available
from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SASS
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools
[Data File]. U.S. Department of Education.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders 2015.
National School Boards Association. (2018). Today’s school boards & their priorities for
tomorrow.
National School Boards Association. (2021). Reimagining school board leadership. NSBA’s
DIRE (Dismantling Institutional Racism in Education) Initiative and the Center for Safe
Schools.
Noguera, P. A., Pierce, J. C., & Ahram, R. (2015). Race, equity, and education: Sixty years from
Brown. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23772-5
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2011). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are tight. Phi
Delta Kappan, 93(1), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109300107
Omi, M., & Wubabt, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States. Routledge.
Oder, E. (2005). The social cohesion role of educational organizations: Primary and
176

secondary schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(1), 78-88.
Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2008). The last have become first: Rural and small town
America lead the way on desegregation. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your
“house”. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and
Research, 4(2), 7.
Page, S. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy.
Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77c0h
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial conversations. McGraw-
Hill Contemporary.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation Sage.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pollack, T. M., & Zirkel, S. (2013). Negotiating the contested terrain of equity-focused change
efforts in schools: Critical race theory as a leadership framework for creating more
equitable schools. The Urban Review, 45(3), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-
012-0231-4
Ray, R., & Gibbons, A. (2021). Why are states banning CRT? Brooking Institute.
Reimers, F. (2006). Citizenship, identity and education: Examining the public purposes of
schools in an age of globalization. PROSPECTS, 36(3), 275–294.
177

Reimers, F., Chopra, V., Chung, C. K., Higdon, J., & O'Donnell, E. B. (2016). Empowering
global citizens: A world course. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Rice, P. (2019). Equity, from the boardroom to the classroom: Transforming districts into
professional learning organizations. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Roegman, R., Allen, D., Leverett, L., Thompson, S., Hatch, T., & Fergus, E. (2020). Equity
visits : a new approach to supporting equity-focused school and district leadership.
Corwin.
Rorrer, A. K. (2006). Eroding inequity: Straddling the margin of tolerance. Educational Policy,
20(1), 225–248.
Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational
reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318962
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated
America (1st ed.). Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 5(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500483995
Sampson, C. (2019). From a lighthouse to a foghorn: A school board’s navigation toward Equity
for English learners. American Journal of Education, 125(4), 521–546.
https://doi.org/10.1086/704098
178

Samuels, A. J., Samuels, G. L., & Self, C. (2019). Champions of equity: Fostering civic
education to challenge silence, racial inequity, and injustice. Multicultural Perspectives,
21(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2019.1605805
Saunders, L. (2015). Academic libraries’ strategic plans: Top trends and under-recognized areas.
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41, 285–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.011
Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students
(5th ed.). Pearson Education India.
Savage-Williams, P. (2020). Ten ways school boards can champion racial equity. Illinois School
Board Journal, 86(2), 8–13.
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education. The University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226147864.001.0001
Siegel-Hawley, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2018). NEPC review: Balancing act: Schools,
neighborhoods, and racial imbalance. Brookings Institution.
Simms, A. (2019). The “veil” of racial segregation in the 21st century: The suburban Black
middle class, public schools, and pursuit of racial equity. Phylon, 56(1), 81–110.
179

Singleton, G. E. (2014). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving
equity in schools. Corwin Press.
Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about race. Corwin Press.
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2009). Using equity audits to create equitable
and excellent schools. Corwin.
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2011). Becoming an equity-oriented change
agent. In A. M. Blankstein & P. D. Houston (Eds.), Leadership for social justice and
democracy in our schools (pp. 45–58). Corwin.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335278.n3
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool
for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40(1), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03259148
Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is
real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. The
American Psychologist, 60(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16
Smith, W., Hung, M., & Franklin, J. (2011). Racial battle fatigue and the miseducation of Black
men: Racial microaggressions, societal problems, and environmental stress. The Journal
of Negro Education, 80(1), 63–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41341106
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652368
180

Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby (Eds.),
Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other
sectors (pp. 1–7). Rand Corporation., http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Steele, C. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: And other clues to how stereotypes affect us. W.W. Norton
& Company.
Stone, D. & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback
well. Viking
Sue, D. W. (2005). Racism and the conspiracy of silence: Presidential address. The Counseling
Psychologist, 33(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004270686
Sue, D. W. (2017). Microaggressions and “evidence:” Empirical or experiential reality?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 170–172.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616664437
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2009). Racial microaggressions
and the Asian American experience. Asian American Journal of Psychology, S(1), 88–
101. https://doi.org/10.1037/1948-1985.S.1.88
Sugrue E., & Daftary, A-M. H. (2021). “I had to call them out on a very tight rope:” Exercising
voice with k–12 education colleagues to confront racial injustice. Educational studies.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1922876
Taiwo, A. A., Lawal, F. A., & Agwu, M. E. (2016). Vision and mission in organization: Myth or
heuristic device? The International Journal of Business & Management, 4(3), 127–134.
Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012). An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at
work: A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2), 180–
200.
181

Tatum, B. D. (2001). Defining racism: Can we talk. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and
gender in the United States: An integrated study (pp. 100–107). Worth Publishers
Tatum, B. D. (2017). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?: And other
conversations about race. Basic Books.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social
justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06293717
Trujillo, T. M. (2013). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising
equity and rigor. Education Policy, 27(3), 531–559.
Turner, E. O. (2015). Districts’ responses to demographic change: Making sense of race, class,
and immigration in political and organizational context. American Educational Research
Journal, 52(1), 4–39. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214561469
Turner, E. O. (2020). Suddenly diverse: How school districts manage race and inequality.
University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226675534.001.0001
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). 2020 U.S. population more racially and ethnically diverse than
measured in 2010. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-
population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html
Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2012). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203046586
Valencia, R. R., & Solórzano, D. (1997). Contemporary deficit thinking. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.),
The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 160–210).
Falmer Press.
182

Vibert, F. (2014). The need for a systemic approach. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T.
Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 655–660). Oxford
University Press.
Wallis, J., & Gregory, R. (2009). Leadership, accountability and public value: Resolving a
problem in “new governance”? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4),
250–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732608
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (2019). Building relationships through
accountability: An expanded idea of accountability. Organizational Psychology Review,
9(2-3), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619878876
Welner, K. G., & Carter, P. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give
every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.
Welton, A. D., Diem, S., & Holme, J. J. (2015). Color conscious, cultural blindness: Suburban
school districts and demographic change. Education and Urban Society, 47(6), 695–722.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513510734
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel &
D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 55–74). Routledge.
Williams, S. (2012). The politics of maintaining balanced schools: An examination
of three districts. In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.), The future of school integration:
Socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy (pp. 257–279). The Century
Foundation Press.
Wilson, J. P. (2008). Reflecting on the future: A chronological consideration of reflective
practice, Reflective Practice. International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(2), 177–
184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802005525
183

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2017). The role of self-efficacy and
related beliefs in self-regulation of learning and performance. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and
application (pp. 313–333). The Guilford Press.

184

Appendix A: Illinois State Board of Education’s Resolution Affirming A Commitment to
Eliminate Racial Injustice

185

Appendix B: Interview Protocol Worksheet, Semi-Structured Interview Protocol
Research Questions
1. What are the knowledge assets and needs within the school board to adopt and implement
policies focused on racial equity?
2. What are the motivational assets and obstacles school board members face to adopt and
implement policies focused on racial equity in the district?
3. What are the organizational assets and barriers school boards face related to adopting and
implementing policies focused on racial equity in the district?
Respondent Type
The stakeholders of focus are school board members of K–12 public school districts.
Introductory Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study. You have been selected to
share your input because you have been identified as someone who supports K–12 schools as a
school board member. Your school board and district have been identified as exemplary in their
efforts to advance racial equity. I am currently conducting this research for my dissertation as a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. I’m going
to be interviewing you about your district’s racial equity policies, and how their adoption and
implementation have promoted or hindered racial equity in your district.
To facilitate my note taking, as a reminder, I will be video recording our conversation
today. The video is solely for my research purposes, and all recordings will be eventually
destroyed after they are transcribed. Essentially, (1) all information will be held confidential, (2)
your participation is voluntary, and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3)
this research is not intended to inflict any harm. I have planned this interview to last no longer
186

than one hour. During this time, I have several questions that I would like to cover. If time
begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt you in order to push ahead and complete this
line of questioning. If you would like to share further information, I will extend the interview for
another half hour. Do you have any questions before I begin? At the conclusion of the interview,
I will again afford you the opportunity to ask any questions. I will begin recording now, is that
ok? Thank you for sharing your perspectives with me during this interview.
Interview Questions
Demographic questions
How long have you served on the school board?
Probing: Have you held an officer position on the board? If so, in what capacity -
president, vice president, secretary?
How do you self-identify racially?
Probing Qs: Are you Black, White, Native American, Asian, LatinX, other?
How would you describe the racial representation on your school board?
RQ 1: What are the knowledge assets and needs among the school board to adopt and implement
policies focused on racial equity?
In your own words, how do you define racial equity?
Probing question: Has your district adopted a definition of racial equity? If so, could
you tell me what it is?
Can you tell me about the racial-equity-focused policies your district has adopted?
Probing question: Do you believe school board policies should be color-conscious,
colorblind, or race-neutral? Why?
187

What knowledge or awareness did your school board need in order to take action on
proposing, adopting, and implementing racial-equity-focused policies?
Probing: What knowledge or awareness did you need as a school board member
to take action to advocate for racial equity? What data informed your board’s
decision to adopt and implement policy solutions to support racial equity? Was an
equity audit a data tool used?
How would you describe the strengths that exist on your board related to the
advancement of racial equity policies?
What would you say the weaknesses were or are on your board that may have hindered
the pace of adoption and implementation of racial equity-focused policies?
How do you believe your advocacy and behavior impacts the success of all students,
including those from racially marginalized backgrounds?
Probing: Can you tell me more or give me an example?
What has significantly contributed to your understanding of implementing policies
focused on racial equity?
Probing: Have you attended any racial-equity-focused board member development? If
so, what was your motivation to attend? How has the training enhanced your
knowledge to enable you to take action to support racial-equity policies?
RQ 2: What are the motivational assets and obstacles school board members face in adopting and
implementing policies focused on racial equity in the district?
In your view, what role should a school board play in advocating for racial equity in a
school district?
188

To what degree do you feel confident in your ability and your school board’s ability to
adopt and implement policies focused on racial equity in the district?
Can you describe your commitment level as a school board member to adopting and
implementing policies addressing racial inequity?
Probing: How have you demonstrated your level of motivation to support equity for
students in marginalized racial groups?
As a school board member, what do you believe the value is in supporting racial equity-
focused policies?
Probing: Where did these beliefs originate from or how were they developed in you?
Can you talk about instances where you and your school board faced resistance to
race-related issues and how you responded to any pushback? What factors
contributed to your persistence to advocate for racial equity policies in the light of
resistance? Or did the resistance make you question your school board’s racial-equity
policies?
RQ 3: What are the organizational assets and barriers school boards face related to implementing
policies focused on racial equity in the district?
What is it about your school board that made it possible to adopt and implement racial
equity policies?
What have been the challenges or barriers to advancing racial equity in your district?
Could you describe how your strategic plan influences the implementation of racial
equity-focused policies?
Probing: What strategic goals are currently in place related to racial equity?
189

Could you describe how your strategic plan hinders the implementation of racial equity-
focused policies?
Tell me about the culture of the school board and how it influenced racial equity in your
district and why?
Probing: Can you give me specific examples of what about the culture was helpful to
advance racial equity?
How do you think the district’s focus on racial equity impacts the allocation of resources?
Probing: Can you give me an example?
Describe how your school board evaluates the superintendent’s efforts to operationalize
racial equity-focused policies?
Probing: How does the school board measure the superintendent’s progress towards
racial equity-focused goals? Does your school board incorporate equity and cultural
responsiveness standards that are part of the national professional standards for
education leaders as an assessment benchmark or other equity benchmark that your
superintendent is evaluated by? Describe how your school board emphasizes your
district’s values of racial equity and diversity in the superintendent hiring description
and process?
What other recommendations would you give to school boards to support racial equity in
districts?
Probing: What other solutions would you suggest would be important steps for
districts to take to address racial inequity?
Research support question:
190

Can you point me to or send me any of your district documents that pertain to your
policies and any district’s efforts to advance racial equity, such as board policies,
superintendent evaluation tools, equity audit reports, culturally relevant curriculum
adoption, and other documents?
Conclusion to the Interview
______, thank you for taking the time to meet with me today to discuss my strong interest
in closing the racial equity gap in public schools. I enjoyed learning about your organization’s
approach to addressing racial equity. As an educator with experience serving on a school board, I
am keenly aware of the challenging circumstances public schools face in trying to cultivate racial
equity and I admire your leadership and your district’s work to create an inclusive climate to
promote equity. Our conversation today further strengthened my interest in working towards
closing the racial equity gaps. Thank you again for our conversation and I look forward to
sharing the culminating results with you from this study when completed.

191

Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol
Type of document:
Policies, resolutions, strategic plans, hiring notices, superintendent evaluation tools, newspaper
articles, district communication sources including newsletters, social media, community
messages.

Date of Document:

Guiding Questions:

1. What information in the documents is related to the district’s implementation of racial equity-
focused practices and policies?

2. How do the documents demonstrate that the board and district are implementing equity-
focused policies?

3. How does the district’s print and online material illustrate its efforts to support racial equity?

192

Appendix D: Observation Analysis Protocol
The principal investigator will observe interview participants’ public school board meetings
where racial equity-focused policies or resolutions were presented for adoption.

Date:

Time:

Duration of the equity discussion in relation to whole board meeting duration:

Participants:

Documents Passed:

Observation Guiding Questions and Notes Matrix In Relation to Knowledge, Motivation and
Organizational Influences (K-M-O)
Descriptive: Description of participants, activities, interactions, reactions, and overall event
Reflective: Questions to self, observations of nonverbal behavior, interpretations/inferences

Observation guiding questions Researcher’s notes Reflexive comments
Physical behavior (what, by
whom in regards to K-M-O?)

Nonverbal behavior (what, by
whom in regards to K-M-O?)

Conversation (what, by whom
in regards to K-M-O?)

General tone in the
boardroom? (what, how
conveyed, by whom as related
to K-M-O?)

193

Overall reflective notes: (Based on the observation of the meeting where a racial equity focused
agenda item was discussed, what interpretations can be drawn).

Guiding questions:
1. Observe how the school board members demonstrate their knowledge regarding racial
equity.
2. Observe how the school board members demonstrate their level of motivation for
advocating for racial-equity, how engaged are they?
3. As a district and school board organization, observe the openness, level of
enthusiasm, any resistance to the topic of racial equity and the discussion of adopting
and implementing related policies.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Somebody ought to say something: the role of the church in facilitating dialogue about race, racism, and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

Cultivating a culture of equity: lessons learned from librarians of color

PDF

The role of race and racism in Black male medical students’ specialty selection process

PDF

Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race

PDF

Increasing the effectiveness of African-American male mentorship

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

Developing aspiring school leaders to address the diverse racial equity needs in school communities: an evaluation study

PDF

Building productive relationships between superintendents and board members

PDF

Creating support infrastructure for women of color advancing toward clinical department administrator role

PDF

Response to the growth of charter schools in California school districts: an evaluation study

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

The impact of governance training for school board members and their respective districts

PDF

Managing for racial equity: how mid-level managers can transform organizations

PDF

Improving graduation equity in community colleges: a study on California Assembly Bill 705 policy implementation

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Jogee, Anisha Ismail (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 05/09/2022

Defense Date 04/19/2022

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

Tag education equity,effective governance,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,racial equity,school board

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kim (committee chair), Canny , Eric (committee member), Ott , Maria (committee member)

Creator Email anisha.jogee@usc.edu,anishaijogee@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111307097

Unique identifier UC111307097

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jogee, Anisha Ismail

Type texts

Source 20220510-usctheses-batch-941 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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