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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content

Leading for Educational Equity:
How Superintendents Champion the Importance of Equity-Based Change
by
Andrew Allen Biros

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, 2021

© Copyright by Andrew Allen Biros 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Andrew Allen Biros certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Rudy Castruita
John Roach
David Cash, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

Abstract
The American public education system is often thought to be the catalyst for individual
opportunity, preparing all students with the skills and knowledge necessary to reach limitless
heights. This paper examines the degree to which that proposition is true and concentrates on the
role of the modern school superintendent as the agent most capable of leading a school system to
adopt changes that would increase educational equity. Drawing from the fields of leadership,
communication, and change theory, this paper focuses on the ways in which superintendents
construct meaning and then communicate the importance of equity-based change, whilst
championing action across various school district stakeholders. Findings indicate specific
leadership habits and communicative language frames superintendents can employ so that they
may build coalitions in support of policies aimed at expanding educational equity. This paper’s
objective is to serve as a trailhead for school boards and superintendents intent on leading for
equity. Moreover, the findings should spur further research on the ways in which the unique role
of the modern superintendent can foster a school system where all students are afforded ample
opportunity to learn, grow, and gain access to a prosperous future.
Keywords: education, equity, leadership, superintendent, change, identity,
Transformational Leadership, communication, framing.

Dedication
To Allen, and the truth that the most valuable thing anyone can give to another, is an education.
Because once they have it, it is theirs forever.

vi

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mother Jill, and my father Greg.
Together, they encouraged any pursuit or curiosity I could ever imagine. Along with my brother
Ben, they made our home one that was inclusive of ideas and filled with love.
To the many educators who cleared the path that I have followed. The number of
teachers, coaches, and mentors who nurtured my inquiry and built my learning confidence is
myriad and stretches back decades. My happy memories are filled with these individuals. The
way I walk through the world, both personally and professionally, is forever shaped by the
dedication and care I was offered by countless great educators.
Lastly, this pursuit would not have been possible without Sarah. The devotion she has
demonstrated to her own learning is inspiring. So too, is her grace, humor, and humility. These
facets, and more, contributes to my sincere admiration and love.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 6
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 8
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ................................................................................ 9
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Education Equity and Opportunity ........................................................................................... 13
A Case Study: California .......................................................................................................... 16
Superintendent Leadership ....................................................................................................... 18
Leadership and Communication ............................................................................................... 24
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 28
Dependent Variable .................................................................................................................. 29

viii

Independent Variables .............................................................................................................. 29
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 31
Sample and Population ............................................................................................................. 31
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 33
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 34
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 35
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 35
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 37
Overview and Organization ...................................................................................................... 37
Demographics of Participants ................................................................................................... 40
Coding of Data .......................................................................................................................... 43
Presentation of Findings ........................................................................................................... 43
Research Question One Findings .............................................................................................. 43
Research Question Two Findings ............................................................................................. 49
Research Question Three Findings ........................................................................................... 65
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 77
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 79
Discussion of Findings: Research Question One ...................................................................... 79
Discussion of Findings: Research Question Two ..................................................................... 80
Discussion of Findings: Research Question Three ................................................................... 83
Potential for Future Research ................................................................................................... 86
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................................... 86

ix

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 87
References ..................................................................................................................................... 89

List of Tables
Table 1: Interview Selection Criteria of Superintendents Page 32
Table 2: Interview Participants Page 41
Table 3: Unduplicated Pupil Count of Free/Reduced-Price Meals,
English Learners and Foster Youth, 2019-20 Page 42
Table 4: Identity and Upbringing Page 44
Table 5: Transformational Leadership Page 53
Table 6: Fostering an Equity Focused Agenda Page 58
Table 7: Framing Equity-Based Change Page 65
Table 8: Community Socioeconomic Status Page 67
Table 9: County Gini Coefficient of District 4 and County 6 Page 67
Table 10: Hispanic or Latino Origin of Communities, 2019 Page 74

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Page 33

xii

List of Abbreviations
SES Socioeconomic Status

FRSL Free and Reduced School Lunch

LCFF Local Control Funding Formula

NCLB No Child Left Behind

ELL English Language Learning

CMT Conceptual Metaphor Theory

TMR Theory of Moral Reasoning

NEP National Equity Project

UC University of California

CSU California State University

PTA Parent Teacher Advisory

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

LCAP Local Control Action Plan

CMT Conceptual Metaphor Theory

TMR Theory of Moral Reasoning

NEP National Equity Project

UC University of California

CSU California State University

PTA Parent Teacher Advisory

DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The American Dream is fading. That ephemeral notion, that through hard work and
determination anyone from any background can soar to limitless heights in the United States, is
not the reality for most students in America. The reality facing young people is shaped by the
fact that children born into families in the bottom quartile of socioeconomic status (SES) have a
40% likelihood of remaining there as adults. It is impacted by the dichotomy that 24% of African
Americans and 22% of Latino Americans live in poverty, compared to only 13% of White
Americans (Gorski, 2018). And notions of ample opportunity must reckon with the fact that the
median net worth of U.S. households for White Americans is roughly $140,000, compared to
$10,000 for African American families and $13,000 for Latino families (Gorski, 2018).
Conventional wisdom can keep dreaming, because a child’s access to opportunity and the
‘American Dream’ is increasingly correlated with her race and family’s level of wealth. The
American Dream might exist, but it is an inequitable proposition.
In the face of increasingly unbalanced access to opportunity, the American public still
expects a bright future. Sixty-one percent of Americans believe that today’s youth are
Very/Somewhat likely to live a more prosperous life than their parents (Kohut & Dimock, 2013).
The American public-school system is considered the tool by which to accomplish that aim, even
though evidence strongly identifies a growing schism in the schooling experiences of young
people across the country (Gorski, 2018). Some groups of students are afforded countless
opportunities for prosperity. Other groups of students are routinely told to sit down and shut-up –
figuratively, but most assuredly at times, literally.
Routinely correlated by race and social class, closing this “opportunity gap” has become
a primary focus for a handful of school district leaders in California. Leading through this lens,
2

and energizing school system stakeholders to adopt change that expands equitable learning
opportunities for historically disenfranchised students, is a paramount and arduous responsibility.
And increasingly, it has become the responsibility of the school district Superintendent.
Background of the Problem
In 1966, researcher James S. Coleman and colleagues released Equality of Educational
Opportunity, a 737-page report to Congress that detailed the educational disparities between
White and Black students (Coleman, 1966). The report’s main finding was that a student’s race,
community, and socioeconomic status greatly correlated with the level of opportunity accessible
to her. Moreover, Coleman and his colleagues were prescient in their identifying non-cognitive
habits of mind students develop, thus perpetuating established inequities:
It appears that children from advantaged groups assume that the environment will
respond if they are able enough to affect it; children from disadvantaged groups do not
make this assumption, but in many cases assume that nothing they will do can affect the
environment—it will give benefits or withhold them but not as a consequence of their
own action. (Coleman, 1966, p.321)
One federal response to the Coleman Report was to racially desegregate schools through
mandated bussing (Robin & Bosco, 1976). Despite progress through the early 1980s, the
percentage of racially and economically isolated schools has continued to rise since 2001. Today,
61% of all high poverty schools are populated by at least 75% students of color, while Black and
Hispanic students have poverty rates that are 2-3 times higher than the rates of White students
(Ujifusa, 2016).
The disparities identified in 1966 continue to foster the inequitable learning outcomes of
today. Drawing from 70 years’ worth of U.S. Census Bureau data, Baily and Dynarksi (2011)
3

show that rates of college completion increased by only 4% among low-income cohorts born
around 1980, but by 18% for high income children. Despite this trend, most Americans believe
that the purpose of the public-school system is to help all individuals develop the skills and
mindsets necessary to succeed (Chart & Kendall-Taylor, 2008). Public opinion identifies
teachers and parents as those responsible for this aim. When individual students don’t achieve, it
is commonplace for the public to diagnose the culprit as a lack of discipline, poor parental
engagement, or other internal characteristics (Chart & Kendall-Taylor, 2008). This perspective
concerning the purpose of education obscures the impact historic and systemic inequities have on
student learning outcomes.
The emphasis on ‘student as individual consumer of education’ not only hinders
collective policy action aimed at increasing equitable opportunity for students, it has also
uniquely punished students from historically marginalized communities. Since 2001, American
public schools have become increasingly isolated based on race and social class, wherein schools
serving 75%-100% of Black and Latino students have seen an increase of 143% of students
eligible for free-and reduced school lunch (FRSL) (Ujifusa, 2016). Moreover, students from
those schools have significantly fewer academic options compared to Whiter and wealthier
schools (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016). A sad reality, considering the litany of
research that demonstrates that when students labeled ‘at-risk’ attend schools that combine
rigorous curriculum with learner centered strategies, those students are significantly more likely
to complete school compared to students of a similar cohort who stayed in schools that did not
employ those pedagogies (Gorski, 2018).
Faced with a school system that replicates and perpetuates American inequality, one
might believe that elected officials could offer solutions. The past thirty years of federal
4

education policy has seen waves of reforms, including the command-and-control tactics of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the inducement approach of Race to the Top with the Common
Core State Standards (Jahng, 2011). Both policies, while perhaps enacted in good faith, have
failed to close opportunity gaps for students. Simultaneously, federal elected officials have
passed tax cuts that have significantly increased inequality (Nallareddy et al., 2018).
Additionally, the country faced its greatest economic crisis since The Great Depression in 2008,
a recession that disproportionality impacted communities of color and further increased
economic inequality (White, 2015)
In the midst of federal ineptitude, California lawmakers have sought to provide additional
funding for its school districts serving English Language Learning (ELL) students and students
from low-SES communities with its 2013 school finance reform AB-97 (California Department
of Education, 2019). Unfortunately, evidence suggests that the additional funding is still too
inadequate, as school districts often use the funding for general purposes instead of to close
opportunity gaps for specific groups of students (Vasquez Heilig et al., 2017). Both nationally
and in California, elected officials have largely proven incapable or unwilling to champion the
tangible, school-based measures that can spur opportunity for traditionally disenfranchised
students. That aim has fallen to those leaders closer to the realities of our increasingly inequitable
system of schools, school district superintendents.
A role that used to entail broad administrative functions, the modern superintendent
faces a “conflict in theories of their leadership,” (Kirst & Wirt, 1997, p.186), due to a “hollowing
out” of previous responsibilities. Personnel control sits mostly in the hands of unions, while state
and federal governments dictate curriculum and testing requirements, and largely decide a school
5

district’s finances. Education scholars Kirst and Writ (1997, p. 186) sum up the function and role
of a superintendent as needing to do the following:
“…spend their time in large amounts of verbal interactions with so many people for short
period of time. Little time exists for reflection, while much time is spent on the
persuasion and discussion that are the essence of building internal and state-level
coalitions - that is, a political role.”
Buttressing the point that the role of superintendent has become increasingly political, are
superintendents themselves. On a national survey of superintendents, “in an open-ended question
about what aspect had most changed since starting their career, the answer was overwhelmingly
‘politics,’ often written with exclamation points,” writes Kirst and Writ (1997, p.188). This
sentiment is in response to the matter that superintendents must understand the interests of
various stakeholders and be able to frame appeals and offer workable bargains in order to keep
their school system efficiently operating (Hill & Jochim, 2018).
Efficiency, however, is no longer a tenable lodestar in the face of growing inequity.
Superintendents are uniquely positioned to fight against that inequity, and lead change within
their systems. No superintendent will hold the position long though, without understanding what
prospective change in policy might draw out opposition. Concerning elected school board
members, superintendents “must be alert to the possibilities for innovation at such times and look
for ways to structure the thinking of receptive board members (Hill & Jochim, 2018, p.15). In
response to changes aimed at increasing equitable opportunity, superintendents must also be
mindful that “families whose schools are considered the best in the district will be suspicious of
any changes in programs, funding, and staffing. It takes more skill and effort, however, to know
6

where key groups’ internal divisions are, distinguish between bluffs and earnest threats of action,
and understand what trades they will consider (Hill & Jochim, 2018, p.15).
Communication has emerged as a central tool a superintendent need to use, in order to
implement change. A review of 23 studies on districts that have improved equity for students
showed that a districtwide focus on a widely shared set of beliefs about student achievement was
a key indicator towards success (Burns, et al. 2019). Additionally, in a study of 30 successful
rural districts across 18 states, superintendents underscored the importance of framing initiatives
in order to attract buy-in from teachers and creating an environment of fostering mutual respect
(Burns, et al. 2019). These outcomes align with the assertion from education researcher Paul Hill
that “language is the chief medium that policymakers have for representing their ideas about
revising local practice and a key tool that teachers use in thinking about and constituting the
realities of their practice (Vasquez Heilig et al., 2017, p.407).
Statement of the Problem
Superintendents have found themselves in the position of having abundant research about
how to increase equitable opportunity, whilst lacking the unilateral capability to enact that
change. Instead, communicating and persuading stakeholders to adopt and enact policies aimed
at fostering a more equitable school system is the only way superintendents can build a more
equitable school system. Implementing such change requires ample amount of sense-making on
behalf of community members including teachers, parents, and school board members (Spillane,
et al., 2002). As members of the community interact, they negotiate shared meaning about
challenges, including what might be necessary to overcome them. Research on school change
tends to overemphasize specific practices, such as how teachers might be using data to inform
practices, and often neglects the process of collective sense making around the reform (Ingram,
7

et al., 2004). Without appropriate sensemaking that affords a clear understanding of the
underlying idea, practitioners often adopt ‘lethal mutations’ of the intended change, which can
produce either ineffective or detrimental outcomes (Ingram et al., 2004, p.416).
The challenge superintendents face is the need to convey and communicate deep
underlying principles situated within the context of their community, buttressed with specific
policy initiatives. Leading that collective sense-making effort is the core leadership task of the
modern superintendent who seeks to foster a more equitable school system. This study will
examine how superintendents who have successfully championed equity-based change have
framed that change within their community and seek to understand the role of communication in
their leadership practice. Superintendents who are not mindful of this leadership facet, are
doomed to have good intentioned initiatives fail.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insight into how superintendents intent on leading
equitable change within their school systems communicate and frame that change with various
school system stakeholders. Drawing from multiple fields of research that includes
Communication and Education Leadership, this study will focus on Southern California unified
school district superintendents who have put equity at the core of their learning organizations.
Interviews will inform how specific district leaders understand the function that communication
has within their communities, as well as how they frame equity both for themselves and others.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do superintendents of unified school districts in Southern California use their
background and identity to construct meaning about equity in their districts?
8

2. How do superintendents of unified school districts in Southern California communicate
the value and importance of equity-based initiatives to stakeholders?
3. How does the school district community's demographics of unified school districts in
Southern California, impact how superintendents lead equity-based initiatives?
This study will analyze how a superintendents’ background might influence how they
perceive equitable change and examine those leaders’ perceptions of how different stakeholders
within their community make sense of that change. Considering South California’s racial and
economic diversity, an aim of this study is to uncover the unique ways superintendents accept
and discern their role within a pluralistic society, in order to spur action aimed at collective
prosperity.
Significance of the Study
This study seeks to serve as a lodestar for any school system leader intent on leading
equitable change within their communities. Ample research exists about what works (Gorski,
2018; Hammond & Jackson, 2015; Marzano, 2007), however history is rife with policy
initiatives that failed to take form because of a lack of political will and public backing.
Moreover, opponents of equitable action who may preference individual and corporate liberty at
all costs, have successfully championed policies of their choosing with tactile communication. In
some cases, those actors have won support from persons who in many cases are negatively
impacted by the policy (Frank, 2004).
The goal of this study is to initiate reflection and forethought about how current and
aspiring superintendents make the case for equity-based change within their schools and districts.
When hiring a superintendent, School Board members can use this research to help evaluate
candidates, including their understanding and acumen about how certain language and the stories
9

they tell might connect with and induce support from the broader school system community. And
assuredly, the implications from this research should catalyze how all persons – parents,
teachers, and community members alike – build broader coalitions of support for action that will
make the ‘American Dream’ justly accessible for all.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study is limited to superintendents of unified school districts in Southern California,
a narrow subset of American communities. Frequency and length of interviews was dependent
on participant availability and willingness. Lastly, self-reported assertions about the effectiveness
of communication can at times be a subjective endeavor.
The delimitation of the study is the broad lens it takes on communicative framing and
leadership, which includes an inductive approach to data analysis. This stands in contrast to a
deeper consideration of the many subfields in the study of Linguistics, for which this study
broadly does not consider. Areas for potential research based on this study’s findings, are
discussed in chapter five.
Definition of Terms
• Chosen Identity: An individual’s hobbies, political affiliation, place of residence or status
within a community.
• Collective-Categorical Frame: Employing the Category frame (Fairhurst, 2011) by
assigning membership in a class or group and championing an effort that would be
positive for that collective group.
• Contrast Frame: Describing a subject in terms of juxtaposing or comparison (Fairhurst,
2011).
• Core Identity: The traits, believes, and values an individual walks through life with.
10

• Economic-Argument Frame: Employing the Argument Frame (Fairhurst, 2011) in the
context of economic self-interest.
• Educational Equity: Educational equity means that each child receives what he or she
needs to develop to his or her full academic and social potential.
Working towards equity involves:
o Ensuring equally high outcomes for all participants in our educational system;
removing the predictability of success or failures that currently correlates with
any social or cultural factors.
o Interrupting inequitable practices, examining biases, and creating inclusive
multicultural school environments for adults and children
o Discovering and cultivating the unique gifts, talents and interests that every
human possesses (National Equity Project, 2019).
• Equity: Equity is the goal for all sides in a distributive conflict; the conflict comes over
how the sides envision the distribution of whatever is at issue. (Stone, 2002, pg. 39).
• Equity-Based Change: Any policy, practice, or program seeks to endeavor further
educational equity.
• Framing: Framing is the act of communicating a concept or structured way of thinking
(Fairhurst, 2011). When leaders frame complex issues for followers, it affords the latter
group the chance to actively construct knowledge within a given context, and engage in
sensemaking (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).
• Gini Coefficient: A measure of the wealth distribution in that given region. A measure of
0 represents perfect equality of incomes, while a measure of 100 would equate to
maximal inequality, expressed as one person holding all the income within that region.
11

• Given Identity: The attributes an individual is born with, which might include birthplace,
age, gender, and physical characteristics.
• Hispanic or Latino: Terminology from United States Census Bureau that refers to a
person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish
culture or origin regardless of race.
• Label Frame: Assigning an attribution or characteristic to a group of things or people.
• Latinx: This term is used by the author as a gender neutral or non-binary alternative to
Latino or Latina. The term is not used when directly referencing data that used the term
Latino.
• LCFF: The Local Control Funding Formula included in California’s 2013 school finance
bill AB3 provided an additional 20% in funding for students classified as English
Language learning (EL) and for low-SES students (California Department of Education,
2019).
• Moral Positioning Frame: Framing tasks by questioning who or what an individual
claims to be, as a way to justify specific ends or means. (Fairhurst, 2011).
• Potential Frame: Framing tasks through emphasizing the promise of what could be the
case, allowing followers to fill in their own idealized solutions. (Pink, 2012)
• Transformational Leadership: The ability of leaders to tap into the motives of followers,
in order to better reach the goals of leaders and followers (Burns, 1978, p.18).
Organization of the Study
Chapter two of this study includes a detailed analysis of the literature from fields of
research that include educational leadership, identity, equity, and communication theory. Chapter
three offers this study’s design, including the conceptual framework and research methods.
12

Chapter four focuses on the presentation and analysis of the findings, in line with the conceptual
framework. Lastly, Chapter five offers a discussion on this study’s findings, and recommends
future research on the topic.

13

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The challenges and considerations facing the modern superintendent intent on leading
equitable change are multi-faceted. In order to champion such a cause, it is paramount to
understand the impact of historical inequities, leadership habits of mind, and the role that
succinct communication has on desired organizational outcomes. The following section will
provide a review of the literature as it relates to those crucial domains. Research on the
stratification of inequality in the United States and K-12 school system will first be examined.
From there, literature concerning superintendent leadership will be put forth, paying close
attention to research on how school system leaders might apply an equity lens to the evolving
scope of the work. Lastly, the role that communication has on organizational and school system
change will be discussed.
Education Equity and Opportunity
U.S. Historical Overview
Americans understood the value of education centuries before an America even existed.
In 1647, Massachusetts Bay Colonists recognized the importance of a literate populous to
collective, and thus created a prodigious new law: that towns of more than 50 families hire a
teacher. The law also required that the salary of that teacher be paid for by the parents of those
children, or inhabitants in general (Hazlett, 2011). This local focus on education carried through
to eventual federation of colonies in 1776, wherein the newly penned United States Constitution
left out any mention of education within those laws binding together the union (Hazlett, 2011).
Thusly, the function of both providing, and in large part funding the education of children, has
and remains within the domain of states and localities.
14

While pluralism is one of the United States’ great strengths, it is also true that opportunity
amongst the country’s numerous ethnic and cultural groups is not realized equitably. This reality
was punctuated by James Coleman’s (1966), 1966 report to Congress entitled Equality of
Educational Opportunity. Coleman and his team of social scientists made clear that at that time
in America, a student’s race, community and socioeconomic status were greatly correlated with
the levels of opportunity and prosperity available to that student. While Coleman’s conclusions
regarding the role of family and community on students has been corroborated by scholars over
time (Hammond & Jackson, 2015; Putnam, 2015), his other assertion that the role of the school
matter little to student prosperity has proven to be inaccurate. Scholars employing more
advanced statistical methods using Coleman’s data (Greenwald et al., 1996) demonstrate that
family context and school setting impact a student’s future prosperity. This understanding is how
the fact that nearly twice as many Black and Latinx Americans currently live in poverty,
compared to White Americans, comes to fruition (Gorski, 2018).
The Schooling System
Whereas individual school districts operate independent of each other, significant
disparities based on race and socioeconomic status show up across systems serving similar
communities. Since 2001, schools serving 75%-100% Black and Latino students have seen an
increase of 143% of students eligible for free and reduced lunch (Ujifusa, 2016). Demarcating
three types of high poverty schools – schools disproportionally located in central cities attended
by Latino and Black students, schools in mixed locations attended heavily by Black students, and
schools in a mixed location with nearly 75% of Native American students - researchers Logan et
al., (2012) revealed that only 27% of the nation’s White elementary students attended one of
those three types of schools. Moreover, the team demonstrated that Black, Hispanic, and Native
15

American children attend elementary schools that are on average at the 35
th
to 40
th
percentile in
performance on reading and math scores, compared with other schools in the same state. In those
same states, White and Asian students attend schools in the 60
th
percentile for reading and math
(Logan et al., 2012).
The effects of this geography of inequity within the K-12 school system has borne out
significant negative externalities. For children born around 1980 who grew up in low
socioeconomic neighborhoods, the rates of college completion rose only four percentage points
relative to similar cohorts born in the 1960s. But for children who grew up in high income
households, the rate of college completion rose by 18% (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011). Stark
longitudinal trends based on socioeconomic status of the home were similarly exhibited by
Belley and Lochner (2007), who used student AFQT scores—a composite from tests of
numerical operations, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, and arithmetic reasoning—to
identify trends of educational achievement. The findings indicate that the expansion of
postsecondary education has largely left behind the most able students who group up in low-SES
households. Students with AFQT scores near the mean showed to be six times more likely to
attend college if they came from high-SES households compared to low-SES homes. And high
scoring students from low-SES homes were less likely to get a college degree compared to their
low-scoring, high-SES counterparts (Belley & Lochner, 2007).
The Classroom
When communities face systemic inequities that impact their school systems, students
regularly experience similar inequities in their classrooms. American students of color routinely
have fewer options for advanced placement classes and experience fewer innovative pedagogies,
compared to their White peers (Government Accountability Office, 2016). This truth is
16

antithetical to the myriad of research that indicates how specific pedagogies can begin to close
opportunity gaps. Lee and Burkam (2007) demonstrated that rigorous curriculum and learner
centered strategies correlate with fewer students who have been previously identified as at-risk
from dropping out of school.
Kennedy (2010) has shown that an integrated and cognitively challenging curriculum is
especially important for low-SES students. When a focus is put on metacognitive strategies
pertaining to literacy, self-regulation, persistence, and reflection, students who face inequities
within their communities have more successful schooling experiences. Meanwhile, Georges
(2009) demonstrates that while the variance on test scores attributable to actions happening
inside the classroom ranges from 15%-25%, collaborative sense making, and analytical
reasoning activities, are significantly related to higher test scores of low-SES classrooms. These
findings suggest that more innovative pedagogies would benefits low-SES students.
A Case Study: California
California’s natural resources and industry splendors often mask the levels of inequity
that exist amongst the state’s citizens. Nearly four in ten Californians lived below or nearly
below the federal poverty line in 2007 (Bohn et al., 2019). Disaggregating that data further
unveils stark racial inequality: 23.6% of the Latino community lives in poverty, followed next by
16.4% of the Black community, 16.4% of the Asian American/Pacific Islander community, and
12.5% of the White populous (Bohn et al., 2019). While Latino citizens are 39.4% of the total
California population, they disproportionately represent 52.2% of low-SES Californians (Bohn et
al., 2019). Education attainment is a harbinger of these poverty rates, evident in that 7.8% of
adults 25-64 with a college degree live in poverty, compared to 31.8% of those living in poverty
who did not possess a high school diploma (Bohn et al., 2019). Most pressing for our future, is
17

that 19.3% of California children live in poverty, the highest rate among age groups (Bohn et al.,
2019).
The impact of California’s poverty on its school systems is uniquely compounded by
Proposition 13, an Amendment to the State’s Constitution passed by voter referendum in 1978.
Prior to its passage, the California judiciary sought to fix an education funding system that
produced instances such as the Baldwin Park Unified School District spending $577 per pupil,
while the Beverly Hills District spent $1,231 whilst taxing itself at half the rate (Rancaño, 2018).
In a set of three concurrent landmark cases referred to as Serrano v. Priest (1971; 1976; 1977) the
California Supreme Court ruled that because the reliance on community wealth and property
taxes resulted in such stark funding disparities, it was a violation of students’ protections within
the equal protections clause under the Fourteenth Amendment (Serrano v. Priest, 1976). The
court ultimately instructed the legislative body to reform the state’s school financing system so
that per pupil funding disparities needed to be less than $100 by 1980 (Serrano v. Priest, 1976).
The response to these judicial measures was the championing and ultimate adoption of
California Proposition 13, Tax Limitation Initiative. The measure curbed the amount property
taxes could be raised to 1% of the value of the property, and restricted reassessment of the
properties only to change of ownership or new construction. Moreover, the measure restricted
any further state tax increases to a two-thirds majority legislative vote, including requiring a two-
thirds vote in local elections for local governments wishing to raise taxes aimed at targeted
services. (Haberman, 2016). Proposition 13 effectively hamstrung the legislative body’s ability
to comply with the court’s orders in Serrano. The result included a 15% drop in per pupil funding
relative to other states from 1970 – 1997 (Rancaño, 2018). Today, the vast majority of Southern
18

California school districts spend 10%-33% less per pupil than the nation’s average (Turner et al.
2016).
The most recent legislative attempt to rectify the funding inequities perpetuated by
Proposition 13 is AB-97, a school finance reform bill signed by then Governor Jerry Brown on
July 1
st
, 2013. The bill sought to provide school districts with more flexibility over how they use
funds and included a new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) that provided an additional
20% in funding for ELL students and for low-SES students (California Department of Education,
2019). Research on how schools and districts are using this additional funding indicates that the
amount is simply not enough to make up for serious overall gaps in district budgets. Too often,
districts are using the funding to fill gaps in instructional spending, seeking to impact the most
students opposed to using the funds for the intended targeted student groups (Vasquez et al.,
2017).
The results of historical funding inequities expectedly have produced inequitable learning
outcomes for California students. In 2019, Black students produced an average score 37 points
lower and Latino students 27 points lower, than White students on 2019 reading tests.
Concerning Math, those figures show similar trends, 38 points fewer and 25 points fewer
respectively. And students who were eligible for FRSL had an average of 31 points fewer on
reading tests and 28 points fewer on math tests, than students not eligible for the federal program
(U.S. Department of Education, 2019).
Superintendent Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Considering California’s record of systemic inequities both within the school system and
writ large, Transformational Leadership is a theory that lends itself to the circumstances
19

superintendents’ intent on eliminating inequities now face. Popularized by James McGregor
Burns (1978), the theory posits that successful leaders are “people who tap the motives of
followers in order to better reach the goals of leaders and followers (Burns, 1978, p.18). Burns
believed leaders chose whether to be transformational or transactional. The latter is when leaders
approach their role as attempting to get something out of involving parties. Transformational
leaders on the other hand, understand leadership as a two-way street, wherein the leader seeks to
engage stakeholders in order to create connection and raise the level of motivation amongst both
leader and followers (Burns 1978). Transformational leaders engender followers to go above and
beyond, raising the level of consciousness and urgency concerning specific goals, and persuading
followers to take up collective action ahead of their own self-interest (Bass, 1985; Northouse,
2016).
Bass (1985, Northouse, 2016) built upon the theory with the advent of a conceptual
spectrum with Transformational leadership on one side, Laissez -Fair leadership on the other,
and Transactional leadership squarely in the middle. Conceptualizing of seven Leadership
Factors across this spectrum, Bass understood Transformational leaders to inhabit four specific
leadership habits of mind. The first was the need to engender idealized influence, wherein the
individual must serve as a strong role model for followers. Two components are necessary for
understanding idealized influence: attributional components or qualities that followers ascribe to
the leader, and behavioral components that refer to the behavior’s followers observe of their
leader (Northouse, 2016). The second factor is inspirational motivation. Simply put, this factor is
the ability to inspire followers to feel a part of the organization. Herein symbols and metaphor
are an oft used technique, in order to lift up the needs of the collective over the individual
(Northouse, 2016). Intellectual stimulation is the third factor, whereas the leader is able to
20

stimulate followers to question their own believes and values in pursuit of new methods that
foster innovative solutions (Northouse, 2016). Lastly, Transformational leaders must be adept at
individualized consideration. This factor is representative of leaders who are able to coach and
listen to followers; listening so that they may followers to take agency over specific needs or
ideas. Embracing individualized consideration means knowing that some followers require
instrumental instruction, while others respond better to constructivist prompts.
Within organizational practice, Transformational leaders understand the importance of
developing clear values, goals and objectives. Aligning the functions and hierarchy of an
organization so that it efficiently meets the agreed-upon collective values and visions of the
organization’s future is paramount for Transformational leaders (Morse, 2007). A common
strategy Transformational leaders employ is the development of a clear vision for an
organization, one that reflects the shared values amongst those a part of the organization. Bennis
(1985) refer to this as acting as a ‘social architect;’ communicating a direction that is able to
transform organizational values and norms. Developing trust is a crucial aspect of this work, and
Transformational leaders must have a high level of emotional awareness in order to creatively
deploy themselves as agents of change and coalition building (Bennis, 1985).
Superintendent Role Evolution
Throughout the history of the American school system, the role and function of a public-
school superintendent has and continues to evolve. In the mid-1960s, researcher and historian
Raymond E. Callahan (1966; Hurst, 2007) conceptualized the role’s history as responding to the
most pressing demands of the time. Callahan’s (1966) conceptualizations included: Teacher
scholar (1850-1900), Organizational Manager (1900-1930), educational statesman (1930-mid
1950s), and applied social scientist (mid 1950s – mid 1960s) (Hurst, 2007).
21

As American society transformed from a manufacturing-based society to an information
and service-based society, Kowalski (2005; Hurst 2007) notes that communication skills became
even more important for superintendents. Kowalski and Bjork (2005; Hurst 2007) conceptualize
superintendent communication as needing to restructure school culture, whilst accessing and
using information in a timely manner in order to solve challenges and improve practice.
Considering this evolution of the role and emphasis on skillful communication, it is unsurprising
that Wirt and Kirst (1997) observed that the main reason superintendents leave their post is
because of frustration with the increasingly political aspects of the role. Responding to an open-
ended question on a national survey of superintendents that asked what aspect had changed the
most since starting their career, an overwhelming number of respondents cited “politics,” often
written with exclamation points (Wirst & Kirst, 1997).
Bredeson et al., (2011) define the modern superintendent by interactions and relations to
others. Moreover, the type of leadership needed is completely dependent on the situation that
superintendent finds themselves within. Building on that point, Hill and Jochim (2018) contend
that the modern superintendent cannot accomplish much entirely on their own authority.
Bargaining and coalition building are hallmarks of successful superintendents, using their clear
authority by offering or threatening to take particular action in exchange for actions to be taken
by others. In order to make those bargains, the superintendent’s reputation is of utmost concern,
buttressed by clear goals, resiliency, and serving as a trustworthy and reliable ally for
stakeholders across the school system (Hill & Jochim, 2018).
Acknowledging the emphasis on communication and coalition building, three leadership
themes have emerged for the modern superintendent. Firstly, they must understand that children
are the focus of their work, and that the school system must be student centered. The second is
22

that given the abundance and rapidity of information, having a collective vision and mission that
guides systems is paramount. To that end, successful superintendents made sure that such a
vision was dedicated to the care, nurturing, and development of all the children that they serve.
Lastly, the successful modern superintendent pays careful attention to establishing trust and
meaningful relationships. This extends both within the school system, as well as the broader
community (Bredeson, et al., 2011).
Superintendent as Equity and Social Justice Leader
Education equity includes the policies, practices and programs necessary to accomplish
two aims (Skrla, et al., 2009). The first is the elimination of educational barriers based on gender,
race/ethnicity, national origin, color, disability, age or other protected status. The second is to
provide equal educational opportunities and ensure that historically underserved or
underrepresented populations meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance
expected of all students. Equity doesn’t just happen, but is the deliberate focus and planning
concerning the systemic strategies core to teaching and learning (Skrla, et al., 2009). The modern
superintendent intent on fostering a more equitable school system functions as an ‘equity-
oriented change agent.’ This is an individual who conducts their work by avoiding demonization,
initiating courageous conversations, demonstrating persistence, and maintaining and coherent
focus (Skrla, et al., 2009).
Understanding one’s own identity is critical for the modern superintendent, if they are to
lead with equity at their core. Clandinin and Connelly (2000; 2012) emphasize the need for
equity focused leaders to understand their own narrative, before engaging with the narrative of
others. Since meaning making of events and people is based on our own experiences, it is
important that educators access and reflect on how those experiences have led to judgements,
23

conclusions and predictions about how the world operates. In service of this type of reflection is
the importance of recognizing what Hannum (2007) conceptualizes as the three types of identity
leaders must consider when leading organizations. The first is given identity, which are the
attributes an individual is born with. This includes birthplace, age, gender, and physical
characteristics. The second is one’s chosen identity, conceptualized as hobbies, political
affiliation, place of residence or status within a community. The third is a core identity, which
are the traits, believes, and values an individual walks through life with. School system leaders
must engage in this degree of self-examination, including the development of different networks,
while reconnecting with the passion and responsibility of serving all students, if they are to
successfully foster an equitable school system (Kose, 2009; 2012).
There is considerable overlap in the literature concerning Transformational leadership
and leading for equitable change. In his analysis of peer-nominated principals who have led
transformational change with equity and social justice at their core, Kose (2011) describes the
importance of providing a vision rationale for followers. The involvement of representative
stakeholders, including traditionally marginalized voices, is another key pillar of leading for
equity. Continuously keeping and affirming equity, diversity, and social justice as key
components of the vision and execution were duly important. Theoharris (2007) underscores
these identities with his framework for how education leaders can lead through a social justice
lens. Purposeful and authentic communication, developing supportive networks to solve
problems, and fostering trusting relationships, were all strategies identified in successful
education leaders in pursuit of equity (Theoharris, 2007). Maxwell, et al., (2013) affirm these
strategies in his case study of three rural Texas superintendents who functioned as equity-
24

oriented change agents. All three participants also noted the importance of decisive judgement,
and a penchant for collaboration and communication (Maxwell, et al., 2013).
Leadership and Communication
Change Through Communication
As discussed, tactful communication has evolved to become a predominant part of the
role of a superintendent, particularly those intent on leading equitable change. Leaders fail to
actualize change when they fail to establish urgency towards the problem, go alone instead of
building a coalition, and under-communicate a vision for the future (Kotter, 2007). Successful
leaders who transform organizations remove obstacles for their followers, afford those same
followers quick successes towards their goal, and continuously anchor the change in the broader
organizational culture (Kotter, 2007). Leadership communication is understood by Barrett (2006)
as the controlled, purposeful transfer of meaning by which leaders influence a single person or
group and involves all of those strategies. It is a layered and expanding set of communication
skills for an individual, starting with a leader enabling and fostering the trust necessary to
encourage others to follower (Barrett, 2006).
Goleman (2013) observes that leaders who successfully change organizations do so by
framing collective tasks in terms of a grander vision for the organization’s future. Those leaders
help individuals see how their work fits into the big picture, constructing a reality wherein
followers understand not just what they have to accomplish, but why it matters so much to the
organization. Through effective communication, leaders manage meaning for followers, thus
offering a way for those followers to interrupt and reaction emotionally to a given situation
(Goleman, 2013).
25

Principles of Superintendent Communication
Research and practice on public policy identifies hortatory policy as the process in which
politicians use speech to change people’s perceptions of a given topic or proposal (Stone, 2002).
In education policy specifically, McDonnell (1994) names persuasion as a main way policy
makers can align information with community believes and values about schooling, in an effort
to influence public opinion. Ascough (2010) identifies a myriad of ways a superintendent can
accomplish such an endeavor, including using the written word to keep messages focuses and
consistent, holding community events for engagement, and establishing routines to recognize
others who live organizational values. Also important is the use of diverse communication
channels to distribute a message, such as videos and podcasts. Conversely, setting up routine
structures to listen and absorb the beliefs of students, families, and teachers is a critical part of
any strategic superintendent communication plan (Aschough, 2010).
Coburn (2006) contends that education leaders must afford followers active participation
in interpreting change efforts, a practice that grounds others in a set of beliefs that will influence
action. Effective communication is a two-way proposition then, and school system leaders must
be mindful of how the brain processes information (Safir, 2017). With nearly an unlimited
capacity to form neuroplastic connections in response to environmental behavioral changes,
education leaders must “water for deep roots,” and make sure there’s a focus for their leadership
(Safir, 2007, p.49). This is especially important as it pertains to disrupting bias and expanding
equity. In curating and communicating hopeful stories, education leaders can help shape the
narrative around difficult change. Those leaders should be mindful though, that the brain has a
negativity bias, meaning followers give more weight to bad experiences over good ones.
26

“Storientation,” Safir (2007, p.49) writes, “helps close this gap,” between positive and negative
bias, wherein leaders employ stories of successes to further equitable school transformation.
Leadership and Framing
Leading for equity in education can be understood through the lens of social movement
theory, where leaders seek to mobilize and countermobilize ideas and meaning for followers.
This thinking posits that social movements do not just happen but are cultivated by leaders who
construct and maintain meaning for stakeholders, antagonists, and bystanders (Benford & Snow,
2000). This is the core act of framing: leaders use language and communication to shape how
individuals think about themselves and make sense of issues at hand (Benford & Snow, 2000).
Within communication theory, framing is the act of communicating a concept or structured way
of thinking (Fairhurst, 2011). When leaders frame complex issues for followers, it affords the
latter group the chance to actively construct knowledge within a given context, and engage in
sensemaking (Weick et al., 2005). While leaders cannot control events, they can control how
followers interpret events and define a situation in a way that engenders the capacity to act.
Framing thusly, is a way to construct reality for followers, a proposition that carries ethical
choices for the leader (Fairhurst, 2011).
Communication frames are derived from cultural discourses and mental models, which
are tacit ways of understanding complex issues shared across a society or organization (Chart &
Kendall-Taylor, 2008). Benford and Snow (2000) posit three core framing tasks for leaders
seeking buy-in from followers. Firstly, leaders employ diagnostic framing, where they identify
the problem, assign blame, and point out attribution. Once defined, leaders use the prognostic
frame, positing solutions, strategies, and next steps to resolve the problem. Lastly is the
motivation frame, meant to explain the reasoning behind the action.
27

The main function of any framing task for a leader, is to craft a vision for the future and
use language that grounds it in a set of values and collective identity. A core framing challenge
in education is that nearly everyone has experience with the American school system, and thus
have developed cultural models about how it does and should function. Uniquely challenging for
superintendents intent on leading equitable change, is that research is clear that most Americans
possess the dominant cultural model that education should serve individuals (Chart & Kendall-
Taylor, 2008). Bales (2010) contends that education reformers should seek to frame change
efforts within broadly shared values, so as to avoid people’s default cultural model.
Fairhurst (2011) identifies a myriad of common leadership frames, including metaphor,
story, contrast, analogy, argument, feeling statement, three-part list, and repetition. Research
from Pink (2012) outlines five dominant frames specific to persuading others. The Less Frame
seeks to restrict choices for followers, in order to avoid overwhelming them and helping make
clearer the tenable choices at hand. The Experience Frame grounds a given situation or choice in
an experience familiar to the user. The Label Frame assigns demarcations to people or things,
impacting how followers might think of themselves or others. The Blemished Frame seeks to
inoculate negative bias by pointing out a small dose of negativity about a situation, and then
activating stronger feelings of the positive effects or outcomes in followers. Lastly, the Potential
Frame emphasizes an idealized future, capitalizing on people’s inclination to preference what
might be, over what has already been accomplished.
Metaphors are oft-used figurative language in framing, first discussed within Lakoff and
Johnson’s (1980) Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), which posits two major claims about
how humans process metaphors. The first is that metaphors often cluster in larger conceptual
structures, an example being that football often draws on metaphors of war with terms such as
28

Hail Mary and blitz. These clusters imply a story or series of events, and act as a reasoning
device for sensemaking. Another example is the term ‘tax relief,’ which implies that taxes are a
physical burden necessitating alleviation. The second claim that grounds CMT is that conceptual
metaphors are present across a wide range of societal issues, enabling the creation of subframes
to emerge. An example of this phenomenon is how ‘politics’ is conceptualized as a game,
leading to the subframe that politicians within an election might be ‘jockeying’ in a ‘horserace’
(Burgers et al., 2016).
Understanding that no single conceptual metaphor has a monopoly over an issue led to
Lakoff’s (1996) Theory of Moral Reasoning (TMR). Particularly inciteful for superintendents
leading equitable change, the theory posits that Americans unconsciously use separate
conceptual metaphors about the role of the state as a family, to assemble their worldview.
Conservative Americans hold a ‘strict father morality,’ a view that sees the state as a strict father
where morality is derived from strength and security. Liberal Americans possess a ‘nurturant
morality,’ seeing the state’s role as one to be grounded in empathy and compassion. Seen in
traditional liberal versus conservative policy discourse, these morality worldviews impact how
different metaphors and cognitive frames might engender action or concern for equitable school
change (Lakoff, 1996).
Conceptual Framework
The literature across the fields of leadership, equity, and communication is vast, and
applicable to many contexts in the field of education. This study’s research questions concern
themselves with how superintendents achieve equity-based change in the unified school districts
that they serve. The following dependent variable of equity-based change, and three independent
variables, reflect this conceptualization in line with the study’s research questions.
29

Dependent Variable
This study’s dependent variable will operationally define the term ‘equity-based change’
as any policy, practice, or program a superintendent has championed or enacted that seeks to
accomplish one or both of the preceding aims, as defined by Skrla, et al., 2009). Equity-based
change entails the elimination of educational barriers based on gender, race/ethnicity, national
origin, color, disability, age or other protected status. Additionally, it may provide equal
educational opportunities to ensure that historically underserved or underrepresented populations
meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all students.
Independent Variables
Transformational Leadership
The four habits of mind (inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration) from Bass (1986, Northouse, 2016) will
operationally define Transformational Leadership. Additionally, the three leadership themes as
described by Bredeson et al., (2011) will help focus methodological instruments related to this
independent variable on the functions understood from those four habits of mind. Those themes
include keeping the emphasis of the school system on the student, having a collective vision and
mission, and carefully cultivated trust and relationships across various networks.
Equity and Identity
The degree to which Superintendents draw upon their identity to self-conceptualize the
term ‘equity’ and the practice of ‘impact equity-based change, is the second independent
variable. Hannum’s (2007) three conceptualizations of identity that leaders must consider when
leading organizations (given, chosen, and core) will ground this independent variable. It will be
buttressed by Kose’s (2009; 2012) work on the importance of school system leaders engaging in
30

self-examination, including the development of networks different from their own, in order to
lead equitable organizations.
Change Communication
Benford and Snow’s (2000) theory on leadership framing as the act of using language to
shape how individuals think about themselves and make sense of issues at hand, will serve as the
grounding theory for the final independent variable. This includes the use of the diagnostic,
prognostic and motivation frames, as well as the ability to use employ leadership frames that
include metaphor, story, contrast, and others. Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning (1996) will
also support this independent variable, in an attempt to understand how different communication
is needed for different stakeholders.

31

Chapter Three: Methodology
The American school system is often thought to be the great opportunity equalizer,
affording children the chance to attain the “American Dream,” no matter their circumstance. This
mental model is simply not true, evidenced by decades of research that shows not only a
stratification of inequality amongst all Americans, but in particular a schism that affords
countless opportunity to some students, and nearly none for others (Gorski, 2018). Routinely
realized by race, language ability, and/or economic status, closing this opportunity gap has
become a primary focus for school superintendents who are intent on making good on the
promise that all children should have the chance at prosperity. As discussed in the previous
chapter, the modern superintendent lacks the authority for unilateral policy decisions (Hill &
Jochim, 2018), whereas the role has evolved to put an emphasis on coalition building and skillful
communication (Kowalski, 2005; Hurst 2007). For those superintendents intent on enacting
equitable change, an enormous amount of buy-in and support is required of the many
stakeholders across a school system and community.
The purpose of this study is to understand how superintendents intent on enacting equity-
based change construct personal meaning for that charge, while leading and communicating
those goals across the various stakeholders within their community. Through the use of
qualitative research methods, this study seeks to understand the reflective, communicative, and
relational strategies specific superintendents have considered in pursuit of equity-based change
across the school systems that they lead.
Sample and Population
The researcher employed a purposeful sampling approach towards the selection of the
study’s population (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). All but one of the participants sought for and used
32

in this study were superintendents of Southern California unified school districts during the
summer of 2020. One participant was the superintendent of a Southern California county during
that time and had previously served as a superintendent of a Southern California unified school
district. Moreover, in order for superintendents to be considered for this study, their districts
must cite equity as a focus for their collective mission or vision, either on the district’s website or
materials. Additionally, prospective participants were sought for this study, because of their
being profiled in the 2019 Learning Policy Institute report entitled California’s positive outliers:
Districts beating the odds (Podolsky et al., 2019).
Convenience sampling was also employed, in part because of the time demands put on
superintendents, and the time requested and required to participate in this study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). It should be noted that the data was collected during the summer of 2020, when
superintendents across the country were planning for and considering the fallout of the COVID-
19 pandemic, and how schools might open in fall 2020. Ultimately, 10 potential participants
were contacted to participate in the study, and 6 agreed to the study.

Table 1
Interview Selection Criteria of Superintendents
Characteristic Criteria
Position
State and Region
District Type
Equity Factor

Superintendent
Southern California
Unified Public School District
Cited in California’s positive outliers: Districts beating the odds.
and references equity focus on website.

33

Instrumentation
This study’s research questions required a qualitative approach, in an attempt to
understand how superintendents constructed meaning for themselves regarding equity, their role
within the communities they serve, and actions they have taken to champion change (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). The act of leadership requires a substantial amount of reflection, and this study’s
methodology affords the researcher access to the perspectives and goals of participants (Greene,
2007). The purpose of the study and research questions discussed in chapter one, and the
literature review from chapter two, led to the creation of the below conceptual framework.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Equity-Based
Change
Transformational
Leadership
Equity and
Identity
Change
Communication
Dependent Variable
Independent Variables
34

The conceptual framework was used in the creation of a standardized open-ended
interview instrument (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This structure strengthens the reliability of the
instrument, ensuring that each participant gets asked the same questions and are stimulated the
same way. The open-ended nature of the instrument allows participants to answer questions
authentically, keeping in line with the study’s goal of seeking to understand (Patton, 2002). The
question types employed had to do with participants’ background, values, and experience. These
types of questions and interview format allowed the researcher to probe with follow up
questions, when necessary (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Each question on the survey instrument is
aligned to one or more research questions and independent variables.
Data Collection
Potential subjects were contacted via email, and a time was established for at least a one
hour zoom video interview. Permission was sought by the researcher to record the interview, so
as to afford audio transcription for analysis. (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Maxwell’s (2013)
contention that research methods are the means to answering one’s research questions and not a
logical transformation of the latter, guided the researcher’s approach towards the interview.
Every participant was asked each question from the instrument, followed by probing questions
depending on how participants answered specific questions. In cases where participants
referenced documents or recorded materials, the researcher took steps to obtain those artifacts
wherein appropriate. The interview format and openness to analyze data referenced by subjects,
helps strengthen the study’s validity and reliability, assuring adequate engagement in data
collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
35

Data Analysis
During the interview, the researcher marked times between questions, those of which
were in line with specific independent variables, in order to analyze findings more in accordance
with the study’s conceptual framework. All interviews were transcribed using the transcription
service www.rev.com, with the researcher matching the audio to the transcription when
analyzing the data for reliability purposes. The analysis followed Lincoln and Guba’s (as cited in
Maxwell, 2015) guidelines for inductive coding, wherein specific units had to be able to stand on
their own and be interpretable in the absence of any additional context aside from the context of
the inquiry itself. Axial coding was then performed by the researcher, grouping together open
codes to form more analytical codes in line with the study’s conceptual framework (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015).
Validity and Reliability
Aside from the references to validity and reliability above, this study’s validity keeps in
line with Maxwell’s (2013) assertion that validity must be assessed in relationship to the
purposes and circumstances of the research, rather than being a context-independent property of
methods or conclusions (p. 121). This study’s research questions seek to understand how
participants construct meaning and function within their role as superintendent and move through
the world in an attempt to accomplish purposeful aims.
The reliability of qualitative research differs from quantitative research by the fact that
the laws of human behavior cannot be isolated and replicated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This
study’s strong reliability follows Lincoln and Guba’s (1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015)
conceptualization for reliable qualitative research findings as being dependent and consistent.
The fact that 6 participants with differing backgrounds and experiences were included in this
36

study, and that consistent axial codes emerged, speaks to the reliability and transferability of
results.
Summary
This study used a qualitative, semi-structured interview approach. The data collected
from superintendents from Southern California unified school districts was used to analyze this
study’s three research question: how background and identity form the basis of superintendents
equity stance and aims, the function of communication in championing those aims, and how the
consideration of community stakeholder demographics in pursuit of those aims. The findings to
this study are presented in chapter four, followed by discussion in chapter five.

37

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected to understand how superintendents
of Southern California unified school districts construct personal meaning, communicate, and
lead equity-based change within their learning organizations and across the communities they
serve. The intent of this study is to uncover aspects of identity, communicative frames, and
leadership practices that have buttressed the success of policies aimed at expanding educational
equity. Moreover, this study sought to understand how school superintendents tailor their
communication and leadership practices with regards to specific demographics of their
community, or stakeholders therein, when attempting to shepherd policies aimed at expanding
educational equity.
The following results and findings from this study provide valuable insight and
considerations for current school system leaders seeking to increase educational equity.
Moreover, the findings point to specific aspects of identity and leadership characteristics a school
board and community should hold as necessary qualifications, when that community’s goal is to
hire a superintendent who can successfully lead the learning organization towards a future
grounded in educational equity for all students.
Overview and Organization
The purpose of this study is to understand how superintendents intent on leading
equitable change within their school systems construct meaning concerning the idea of
educational equity, communicate the importance of specific policies aimed at expanding
educational equity, and then lead that charge within their communities. The understanding that
an educated populous is necessary for a society to thrive, is rooted in the nascent beginnings of
American culture. From the Massachusetts Bay Colonists in 1647, to the federation of colonies
38

in 1776 (Hazlett, 2011), through the reckoning of centuries of human enslavement and the Jim
Crowe era that proceeded James Coleman’s (1966) report to congress entitled Equality of
Educational Opportunity, the understanding that education is inextricably tied to both individual
and communal prosperity is a keystone in America’s foundation. It is indisputable moreover, that
the inequality specific communities have faced through systemic racial and economic
discrimination has in turn impacted the function of, and outcomes therein, of that community’s
school system (Gorski, 2018). Our society finds itself perplexed by a self-fulfilling ouroboros:
Inequity impacts a school system, the students of that system have their opportunity hindered,
thusly perpetuating more inequity - and the cycle repeats itself.
This facet is uniquely compounded in California, where Latino citizens are 39.4% of the
total California population, but represent 52.2% of low-SES Californians and nearly 20% of
California children live in poverty (Bohn, et al., 2019). Laws such as Proposition 13 make
impossible the ability to directly raise revenue for school systems to offset inequities, resulting in
the vast majority of Southern California school districts spending 10%-33% less per pupil than
the nation’s average spending (Turner, et al., 2016). Strikingly nonetheless, the majority of
Americans believe that it is the responsibility of the public school system to equip students with
the skills and mindsets necessary for individual prosperity (Chart & Kendall-Taylor, 2008).
Even though our past has shaped a present marred by inequity, the truth is that solutions
to foster a more equitable school system are myriad. Education and sociological researchers such
as Robert Putnam (2012) continue to demonstrate the links between resources and opportunity.
And researchers that include Gorski (2018), Hammond and Jackson (2015), and Marzano (2007)
are among a cadre of education scholars who have identified a litany of pedological practices
that have shown to bare educational outcomes not otherwise realized from traditionally
39

disenfranchised students. If the past half century has been marked by a collective reckoning with
the interconnectedness between inequity, education, and opportunity, we are at the beginning of
a paradigm shift catalyzed by this new understanding.
At the forefront of all of this, are school superintendents. Charged with leading large
learning organizations with detailed systems and competing stakeholders, the position requires a
keen understanding of how to engender action from followers, because the role largely lacks the
formal ability to unilaterally force change (Kotter, 2007). Leading for educational equity requires
ample self-reflection and situational awareness, along with the capacity to listen to various
stakeholders and craft a shared vision and understanding for the future (Hannum, 2007; Kose
2009). This study seeks to uncover specific mindsets and aspects of identity persistent across
school superintends who have successfully led equitable change.
The modern superintendent moreover must possess a keen ability to build consensus,
because the position cannot accomplish much unilaterally (Hill & Jochim, 2018). Thusly, this
study intends to uncover best practices of communicating, and specific leadership practices, that
have afforded those superintendents the ability to enact equitable change across the school
systems that they lead. Faced with the core challenge that American’s mental models concerning
the purpose of the America school system are deep rooted, this study additionally seeks to
understand how community and stakeholder demographics impacts how superintendents lead
and communicate the importance of equity-based change.
This study and its findings are intended to serve as a trailhead for school system leaders
who are intent on successfully enacting policies that will expand educational equity.
Additionally, it should provide tangible markers of identity and leadership habits any school
40

board should be mindful towards, in their search for a superintendent whom that board envisions
leading their learning community from a stance of educational equity for all students.
This chapter begins with an overview of participant demographics, including the data
collection process employed. Secondly, a descriptive analysis of the findings and themes therein
are presented, organized by the three research questions that guide this study. Where appropriate,
specific and consistent sub-themes and correlating data is presented, relative to specific research
questions and findings.
Demographics of Participants
This study required a qualitative approach, given the reflective qualities of the research
questions regarding equity, and a superintendent’s role relative to the communities they serve in
leading equity-based change (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Five current superintendents of
Southern California unified public-school districts and one current superintendent of a Southern
California County District who previously led school district that falls within the participant pre-
requisite parameters, participated in semi-structured interviews over the Zoom video platform.
After interviewees gave consent to be recorded, the researcher captured interview data through
audio recordings while taking notes throughout the conversation for later analysis. Given
research question one’s focus on identity and background, the researcher chose not to explicitly
ask participants to identify specific characteristics about themselves such as their race or gender.
This was in an effort to afford participants the opportunity to raise those aspects of themselves, if
indeed those characteristics were important to their identity in terms of equity.
Lastly, given the candid nature of responses regarding their leadership practice within
their current professional role, participants’ identities are masked within this chapter, and are
referred to as Superintendent 1, Superintendent 2, etc. The corresponding school districts share
41

the numerical marker with that superintendent. Moreover, the non-gender pronouns they, them
and their, are used throughout this chapter. Wherein participants refer directly to their
communities by name within direct quotes, the researcher has substituted that identifiable
information in line with the masked numerical figure. Therefore, any direct quote from
participants that reads “district X,” should be understood as that participant referring to their
community, specifically. Lastly, when demographic data is put forth regarding specific districts,
that data is presented in ranges, so as not to identity the district or leader.

Table 2
Interview Participants
Name Southern California Unified School District Year Hired
Superintendent 1
Superintendent 2
Superintendent 3
Superintendent 4
Superintendent 5
Superintendent 6

School District 1
School District 2
School District 3
School District 4
School District 5
County 6
(Former superintendent of a Southern
California Unified School District)
2013
2011
2016
2020
2016
2017

42

The participants for this study were sought out because of their public commitment to
equity stated on their respective district websites and having their districts (or in the case of the
Superintendent 6, districts within that county) profiled in the 2019 Learning Policy Institute
report entitled Closing the Opportunity Gap: How Positive Outlier Districts in California Are
Pursuing Equitable Access to Deeper Learning (Podolsky, et al., 2019). Given this, and the focus
of the research questions on stakeholder and community demographics, Table 3 highlights the
unduplicated pupil count of students within each school district who are either English Learners,
foster youth, or eligible for free/reduced price meals. This data is used to calculate the
supplemental and concentration grants under California’s LCFF.

Table 3
Unduplicated Pupil Count of Free/Reduced-Price Meals, English Learners and Foster Youth,
2019-20. Figures presented in ranges to mask participant identities.
School District % of total enrollment Total Students
School District 1
School District 2
School District 3
School District 4
School District 5
County 6
65%-75%
40%-50%
30%-40%
60%-70%
90%-100%
50%-60%
14,000 – 16,000
9,000 – 12,000
2,000-4,000
48,000-50,000
12,000-14,000
3,000-5,000
Note. Data from California Department of Education. Figures from County 6 reflects students
enrolled in the County school system, and not all students enrolled in the County’s public
schools.

43

Coding of Data
Each question on the survey instrument used to collect data was aligned to one or more of
this study’s research questions. After transcription of each interview, the researcher listened back
to the interview while reading the transcription. Maxwell’s (2013) strategies for qualitative data
analysis were employed, in identifying specific passages relevant to the three research questions
and to this study’s conceptual framework. Using an analytical coding method (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), the data aligned to each research question was analyzed further for themes and
sub-themes, supported by the literature that emerged across participants.
Presentation of Findings
The presentation of findings is organized by each research question, with corresponding
themes aligned to the literature in this section. Specific salient passages from participants are
offered, along with tables that summarize the findings more broadly. A summary of the findings
concludes this chapter.
Research Question One Findings
This study’s first research question focused on how superintendents have developed an
educational equity identity. A theme of participant’s backgrounds and upbringings was evident,
with three sub-themes emerging with regards to how the participant group reflected on the
cultivation of their equity focused identity. These sub-themes include the impact of parents,
experiencing or witnessing inequity, and the ability to recognize their own opportunity.

44

Table 4
Identity and Upbringing
Theme Participants Alignment
Impact of Parents
Experiencing or Witnessing Inequity
Recognizing Own Opportunity
5/6
6/6
4/6

I would have to say coupled with my own background as an English language learner
myself, that did not come from obviously, you know, a well-off family that had their
challenges as well. Being able to understand and appreciate everything that our kids are
going through, which, a majority of our kids live in poverty and have barriers to their
education. (Superintendent 5)
Impact of Parents
Clandinin and Connelly (2000; 2012) contend that equity focused leaders must
understand who they are and where they come from, before engaging in the work of leading
others. The three identities that Hannum (2007) submits are paramount for organizational leaders
to be mindful of, were grounded in the ways all participants reflected on their up bringing and
how those experiences shaped the ways they approach their work as equity focused leaders.
Intertwining aspects of Core and Chosen identity, five out of the six participants
explicitly reflected on the impact that their parents had on shaping how they came to understand
leading for educational equity. “I didn’t know, not going to college was an option,” shared
Superintendent 6, “I just didn’t. And all of my friends that I grew up with, all of my neighbors,
did not have the same expectation. So when I started teaching, what became just ingrained and
45

natural for me is to treat my students like my mom (treated me), just to pass on an expectation of
values that I grew up with.”
Similarly, Superintendent 4 shared how witnessing their father pull himself and the
family out of poverty because of the dedication he showed towards his own educational pursuits
as a medical professional, elucidated specific beliefs and values for Superintendent 4. “The first
thing I remember, is just the power of education and how it was talked about in our home. Both
my folks were first generation college goers.” Superintendent 4 further reflected that even though
their parents were White and lived in a predominantly White community, they nonetheless
instilled a belief in service and creating opportunities for those who were less privileged than
Superintendent 4 and their family. In noting their status within their communities, and the
specific values imparted by their parents, both Superintendent 6 and Superintendent 4’s
reflections draw from their Core and Chosen identities respectively, shaping how they lead for
equity.
Participants’ parents were similarly evident in the construction of their Chosen identity
regarding aspects of service towards others, and leadership. “I had parents that were all about
serving and helping others,” shared Superintendent 5. “That seed was just planted in me, and
kind of guided me along the way.” Similarly, Superintendent 1 described that “I really feel like I
learned a lot of skills growing up from my dad about leadership. A lot of the nuts and bolts about
what I learned, and my leadership style really just comes from watching my dad over the years
and the way he conducted himself.” These two examples offer strong evidence that the parents of
equity-focused leaders have an explicit impact on how those leaders construct meaning around
equity and their work.

46

Experiencing or Witnessing Inequity
Kose (2009; 2012) makes clear that school system leaders seeking to foster equity across
their organizations must engage in a certain degree of self-reflection, particularly before leading
others through similar personal sensemaking. All six of the participants drew on experiences
where they were impacted or directly witnessed societal inequities, that shaped their Chosen
identity regarding how and why they lead for education equity (Hannum, 2007). These
experiences spanned from participants’ childhood, up into the beginnings of their careers in
education.
“My mom raised the four of us herself. We were poor,” explained Superintendent 6, who
grew up in a neighborhood and went to schools where, as a White child, there were no other
children that looked like Superintendent 6. This led Superintendent 6 to quickly notice that their
teachers in elementary and middle school was treating them differently from how they treated
their peers. “I was able to talk to my mom about that. And she introduced me to White privilege
a long time ago and what that meant.” Later in the interview, Superintendent 6 noted how they
are always conscious of where the Black and Brown students are sitting when the leader walks
into a classroom, wanting to make sure the teacher is not perpetuating the racial inequities.
Similar to Superintendent 6’s recounting, Superintendent 5 explained how their own
experience as a student now informs how they lead their school system, where the vast majority
of students qualify for the unduplicated LCFF funds (Table 3). “You know, I just didn’t grow up
with those supports,” the leader shared. “My life would have been enriched so much more, and I
wouldn’t have struggled when I was a student. I’d like to eliminate that struggle for kids.” In
both examples, Superintendent 6 and Superintendent 5 draw from their respective upbringings to
inform how they construct meaning around education equity in their work.
47

If not drawing from their upbringing during childhood, participants detailed encounters
early in their education backgrounds where they were confronted by inequities. Propelled by the
fact that they were the first in their family to graduate from college, Superintendent 1 chose to
begin their teaching career at the elementary level and serve Latinx students who were growing
up in low-SES homes. “I really felt like that I had something to offer, to give back to students, to
work with them, to create possibilities and help them look at things differently.” In the same
manner, during their first principalship at a large school serving a high percentage of students
from low-SES homes, Superintendent 2 quickly noticed that the school only offered five sections
of AP honors courses in the entire school. When Superintendent 2 inquired why this was the
case, the answer they received was that only one teacher taught AP honors classes, and that
teacher could only teach five section. “We’re limited who can take honors English, because
nobody but Mr. Henry is pre-ordained to teach it?” Superintendent 2 questioned with
exasperation.
Superintendent 2’s realization and the subsequent experience leading the expansion of
access to AP and honors courses across the school, demonstrated to them early in their career the
complex intricacies of systemic inequity. Superintendent 2 was shocked that stakeholders among
the school community were offended that the leader sought to afford more students access to
high level classes. “Even though it didn’t deny the families who were already in the curriculum,
it lessened their specialness somehow,” Superintendent 2 reflected. “It really stood out to me as a
lesson in how hard it is to make things equitable, because the group that is used to having power
and status fights to protect that. And it’s not always very subtle, it’s pretty overt.” These
examples, and more shared by participants, point to the impact that witnessing or experiencing
inequity has on shaping how participants construct meaning around educational equity.
48

Recognizing Their Own Opportunity
Reflecting on one’s own upbringing and understanding their own narrative in the
construction of how they think about educational equity, is an important skill for equity-minded
leaders (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; 2012). In this context, four out of the six participants
directly spoke to experiences from their backgrounds where they were explicitly afforded
educational opportunity. This explicit narrative of experiencing opportunity duly shapes how
those leaders construct meaning concerning educational equity.
Emigrating to the United States as a teenager as a refugee, Superintendent 3 reflected on
the confusion they felt initially in a new society, finding it difficult to fit in with African
American classmates, while experiencing racism from White peers. Ultimately finding
community through athletics, Superintendent 3 earned a college scholarship, whereas many of
their Black peers struggled in school. “They were smart enough, because I was in conversation
with all those guys. But they didn’t want to buy into the system for fear of selling out somehow.”
Having self-proclaimed “dark skin,” Superintendent 3 chuckled in recounting their confusion
when their high school love interest broke up with them because they didn’t think Superintendent
3 was “Black enough.” These early experiences were revelatory for Superintendent 3. “It dawned
on me; this isn’t about somebody’s ability to access academia. It’s about people making choices,
about choosing between their perceived identity versus what they’re receiving.” Superintendent
3’s narrative about recognizing the opportunity in front of them through sports and school, whilst
confronting societal perceptions about race and identity, is uniquely reflected in the leader’s
expansion of social justice focused curricular standards across their current district.
Superintendent 3’s leadership concerning this equity-based initiative is discussed further in this
chapter.
49

The recognition of opportunity was similarly apparent in Superintendent 5’s reflection on
their upbringing. Superintendent 5 attributed their path towards college not to their school
experience, but to a young woman from church who regularly took Superintendent 5 to a public
library in New York City. The opportunity to read and be exposed to books, changed
Superintendent 5’s life. “I kind of see myself as a miracle,” Superintendent 5 explained, noting
that they never even had school counselors that encouraged them to go to college. At the library
though and because of this young woman who took Superintendent 5 there, “I was reading
Louisa May Alcott and Jane Austin books, and started reading books written by British authors,
and fell in love with British literature.” Superintendent 5’s early exposure to reading helped
instill in them the notion that they could go to college, where they successfully pursued a degree
in literature.
Research Question Two Findings
The second research question for this study focused on how the participant group
communicated the value and importance of equity-based initiatives with stakeholders. Three
themes emerged given this research question, all in line with this study’s conceptual framework.
Those themes include the practice of Transformational leadership, fostering an equity focused
agenda, and framing equity-based change. Sub-themes were also evident within each of the
corresponding themes.
Transformational Leadership
The challenge is everybody's for it until it means something to them or their kid, then
they're not so for it. So, part of the challenge of a superintendent or school leader is how
do you help prepare the board with facts, with stories, with courage, to be able to stay that
course. (Superintendent 2)
50

Intellectual Stimulation
Transformational leadership is a two-way street (Burns, 1978). Leaders must afford
followers opportunities to create personal connection and meaning to the work they are being
asked to take on. Providing followers with intellectual stimulation (Bass 1985; Northouse 2016)
in the form of study groups, hiring outside consultants, or participating in studies, was a core
way that five out of the six participants communicated the value and importance of equity-based
initiatives.
Pointing out that only a couple years ago, District 4 did not even have a working
definition of equity, Superintendent 4 led a team of 10 educators who were already providing
support to the districts’ principals. Superintendent 4 and their team chose a working definition
from the National Equity Project (NEP). Moreover, they “adopted the New York Leadership
Academies equity dispositions, that were research based, and began to infuse both conversations
and active practice around equity into our work. Primarily with administrators, while also
starting the work with teachers.” This initial intellectual stimulation led by Superintendent 4
caught the attention of the national non-profit Wallace Foundation, who supported the aims of
Superintendent 4 and their team to study the impact of principal supervisors on principals. That
partnership has evolved further. Superintendent 4 and their district has received an additional
$150,000 grant to further study their teacher pipeline, in the context of equity.
The Transformational Leadership practice of intellectual stimulation (Bass 1985;
Northouse 2016) towards the aim of communicating the importance of equity-based change was
found impactful not just for educators, but for parents as well. Guided by the conviction that all
students should be learning about different cultures and ways of being, Superintendent 3 sought
to align the district’s curriculum with the Social Justice Standards created by the organization
51

Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Superintendent 3 saw the
path of adoption across the entire curriculum as the only feasible solution. Superintendent 3
reasoned that they alone could not mandate all students take specific classes such as African
American studies or Latino Studies, because it would not work within any master schedule.
What the adoption of these new standards also meant however, was that the Ethnic
Studies elective that was mostly popular amongst Black and Latinx students, would need to be
eliminated, because the tenets of that one class would now become standard across all classes.
This first step met the ire of those students’ parents, whom Superintendent 3 assembled for a
community meeting. “I was in a room of 200 families, it was my first year here (as
superintendent of District 3) and the board members were in the crowd. And I was pretty honest
with them (the crowd) and said ‘look, if you were thinking that (because) I’m the first Black
person (as superintendent) that the achievement gap will be solved tomorrow, you’re mistaken.’”
In thinking back to this moment, Superintendent 3 chuckled when recounting the looks of
anguish on school board members’ faces with such an honest admissive.
Superintendent 3’s community meeting unfolded first, with the acknowledgement that
racism permeates across society; that racism exists within law enforcement, housing, healthcare,
and even schools. While the assembled parents valued the Ethnic Studies elective, the leader
asked the parents what they hoped it would accomplish in their children’s school experience. The
response Superintendent 3 received, was that they believed it would help close the achievement
gap – an answer the leader expected. Next, Superintendent 3 showed the group some questions
from a recent state assessment, asking if what the parents wanted was to drill down on those
questions so their students could just do better on those tests. The parents objected to this idea;
they did not simply want their students to pass a test. “And where does Ethnic Studies play into
52

this?” Superintendent 3 then asked the crowd, who were now slightly flummoxed.
Superintendent 3’s inclination was what they really sought for their students was to be more
engaged with school and their learning. “And that’s when I pulled up the Social Justice
standards,” the leader explained.
Superintendent 3 then walked the parent community through those standards, showing
them the learning their students would get to women’s studies, LGBTQ studies, and to study
varying cultural and racial identities. The leader afforded the parents the chance to delve into the
standards, and to see that from kindergarten through 12
th
grade, their children would be learning
about those themes not just in one elective class, but in English, Math, Social Studies, and
Science. Having been afforded intellectual stimulation regarding the proposed policy, the parent
community was ready to support Superintendent 3 and the adoption of the Social Justice
Standards at the conclusion of the community meeting.
Individualized Consideration
The Transformational Leadership habit of offering followers individualized consideration
was also a core tenet of how participants communicate the value and importance of equity-based
change. Five out of the six superintendents gave specific examples aligned to this habit of mind,
offering followers agency over specific needs and ideas. Participants shared numerous examples
of the importance of meeting and listening with various stakeholder groups, including parents,
classified unions, elected officials, and local business leaders. “We have a good relationship with
our unions, our associations. Partly the reason we have a good relationship is we attend to them
and treat them like partners,” shared Superintendent 2. “In District 2, the other group we try and
pay attention to is our elected folks,” Superintendent 2 explained, noting that it is crucial to keep
elected officials involved and abreast of the work of the school district.
53

Superintendent 4 credited their district’s Teacher’s Council, a group with representatives
from every school that functioned as a strategy and learning cohort, to why equity-based
initiatives have been so well supported from the teacher ranks. “It’s a culture of two-way
feedback on different topics. We have a number of networks that involved teachers in providing
feedback to our professional development department on things that they want to learn,”
Superintendent 4 explained. This form of individualized consideration allows teachers to develop
ownership over their practice. Moreover, Superintendent 4 shared that whenever they or the
district is considering a new policy or practice, particularly one that is equity focused, the leader
takes it to the Teacher Council first. Those individuals then are asked to experiment and give
feedback on the topic, even before the district moves towards an implementing phase.

Table 5
Transformational Leadership
Theme Participants Alignment
Intellectual Stimulation
Individualized Consideration
5/6
5/6

54

Fostering an Equity Focused Agenda
“See, it's not about one metric. It's not about, ‘Oh, what’s your college going rate, your
A-G completion rate? What's your graduation rate?’ And again, not that metrics don't
have a place. You got to measure yourself against something. But we have a larger
purpose, which is to make sure that every one of our kids graduates with a certain set of
skills and competencies that they can go out into the world and compete with anyone
from anywhere. That's kind of our overriding philosophy.” (Superintendent 1)
Vision Setting
Hill and Jochim (2018) make clear that a hallmark of the modern superintendent is their
ability to set clear, resilient goals for followers. Kose (2011) similarly notes the importance of
providing a vision rationale for followers, while Theoharris (2007) underscores the importance
of continuously affirming equity and social justice within an organization’s vision if those aims
are to ever be realized in practice. Thusly, all six superintendents spoke extensively to the
importance of vision setting, in their effort to communicate the value and importance of equity-
based change across their organizations.
One of the first things Superintendent 1 did in their role, was to encourage the school
board to adopt a clear and specific vision. In so much, District 1’s vision seeks to prepare
students for college or career, global competitiveness, and to foster strong character. Just setting
a vision is one thing however, leading with it is an entirely different task in Superintendent 1’s
estimation. “I do think our vision has been such a powerful tool, we’ve gotten it to be more than
cliché’, even though sometimes people will say it ad nauseum. I do it purposefully to make sure
and keep it in front of people.” Superintendent 1 points to a focus on vision setting as the reason
the leader has been successful leading the district to adopt and change the curriculum, so that all
55

students would graduate eligible for the University of California (UC) and California State
University (CSU) college systems. “We understood at the time that if we’re truly serious about
living our vision, we can’t afford to say, ‘well, these students are going to get there (meet
requirements to be eligible to attend UC colleges). But these students, it’s ok if they get just the
minimum to graduate.’ From an equity perspective, our lens was we need to raise the minimum
to ‘here,’ so that every kid gets a certain level (where they are able to apply to UC colleges).”
Superintendent 1 initially experienced pushback to this initiative, mostly from families
who were okay with the less rigorous graduation requirements. Those families were comfortable
with their students just earning a high school diploma. Superintendent 1 would point back to the
district’s vision when parents expressed their dismay with the new graduation requirements,
making the claim that, “from an equity standpoint, to make sure that you’re competitive when
you get out in the world, we want to raise the bar.”
In their first year as Superintendent after years serving within the District 4 system,
Superintendent 4 has focused on their district’s new vision of “equity and excellence,” phrasing
they repeated eight times in the span of the interview for this study. “They are not separate,”
Superintendent 4 asserts, sharing that they see their role as building a narrative around equity and
excellence, and how they are interconnected. This clear and focused vision spurred the creation
of a district equity leadership team, who is working to revise the organizational definition of
equity. For Superintendent 4, this will make sure that the school board can firmly lead with a
clear definition of equity, that will permeate all levels of decision making across their school
system. “Because we know that policy is the answer” Superintendent 4 explained. “But if your
(school) board can stand strong on policy, then staff can budget according to that policy, they can
speak according to that policy, they can implement according to that policy.”
56

Coalition Building and Sensemaking
The modern superintendent is best defined by their interactions and relations with others
(Bredeson et al.,, 2001). Collation building as an essential ally is an important skill for
superintendents, including a penchant for collaboration aimed at affording stakeholders ample
sensemaking opportunities in pursuit of equity-based change initiatives (Hill & Jochim, 2018;
Maxwell et al., 2013; Ingram et al., 2004; Coburn, 2006). All six participants highlighted their
role in fostering strong coalitions across and between stakeholder groups. Moreover, all six
spoke to the need to duly afford stakeholders sensemaking opportunities, in the superintendents’
efforts to communicate the value and importance of equity-based change.
Serving a community with numerous pockets of cultural diversity, Superintendent 3
swiftly attuned towards collation building and sensemaking when they started as superintendent
at District 3. What quickly became apparent was that as the district’s first Black superintendent,
“there will be African Americans and Latinos who are going to question whether I am authentic
or not? How did you get this job, what are you going to say, and are you just going to sell out?”
This realization spurred the newly appointed leader to build relationships with stakeholder
groups across his district, including leaders of African American and Latino community groups.
Superintendent 3 propagated the practice of coalition building and sensemaking with the
intention of fostering more equity across the school system, through the management of the
district’s principals. Superintendent 3 encouraged them to look beyond traditional means of
stakeholder involvement like a Parent Teacher Advisory (PTA), which often lacks an explicit
focus on equity. “Engage your families about these issues,” Superintendent 3 implored his
principals. “Meaning bringing in allies, you have to invite your African American, Latino, and
White allies into a place where you actually, as superintendent or even as a principal, set up an
57

advisory group or support group for these issues.” Once those collations are assembled,
Superintendent 3 sees the value of explicitly acknowledging systemic racism, and then offering
the coalition space to make sense of the issue and propose solutions. “You need their input, their
understanding, their stories in order to make the change. If you do that, you got them already,”
Superintendent 3 explained. “That’s how you get your allies to help you move forward,” towards
enacting equity-based change.
Through the experience of leading a school district, Superintendent 5 has come to
understand and appreciate, “the value of ensuring that you are feeding all the different groups
that are necessary in order for an initiative to be able to move forward.” The leader pointed to an
example where they explicitly failed to do this early in their career, when they attempted to
increase graduation requirements at the school district that the leader was at prior to leading
District 5. The initiative faced intense community backlash and failed to take hold. “I think it’s
just the value of communication,” Superintendent 5 reflected. Expounding on the point, the
leader shared that they now understand there are “seen and unseen” stakeholders across a school
system that one must consider when leading equity-based change.
Noting that their current district serves largely a Latinx student population,
Superintendent 5 described their current focus on the African American students in their district,
who were disproportionately being suspended from school. “A majority of my kids are Latino,”
Superintendent 5 explained “They’re not African American, and there are biases. How do I lead
something like this to get the extra supports that our African American students need in order to
succeed?” Superintendent 5 questioned allowed. The path they have taken is in line with the
literature on coalition building and sensemaking, bringing together parents, community
stakeholders, and school-based educators to make sense of the unique challenges facing African
58

American students in their district. This has included a book study on courageous conversations
about race and creating opportunities for stakeholders to build cohesion around the topic.

Table 6
Fostering an Equity Focused Agenda
Theme Participants Alignment
Vision Setting
Coalition Building and Sense Making
6/6
6/6

59

Framing Equity-Based Change
I think there’s situational leadership, where you shift your delivery based on the
audience. But the value system, the purpose, what we do doesn’t change. Like it or hate
it, I am who I am, I’m not going to hide behind a veil. I do think that in some cases, when
you’re talking about equity, you do have to go in and massage it. I think people are not
apt to listen when you hit them, smash them in the face with it. You know, it’s just the
basic form of communication. (Superintendent 6)
Diagnose, Prognose, Motivate
Communication frames are drawn from the larger societal discourse and mental models
across a society (Chart & Kendall-Taylor, 2008). In leading for change, leaders must
communicate to followers first by diagnosing the problem, prognosing solutions, and motivating
followers to act (Benford & Snow, 2000). All six participants employed this communicative
technique in their efforts to convey the importance and value of equity-based change.
This specific framing technique is evident in examples already discussed in this chapter.
Superintendent 3 effectively diagnosed that in order to increase learning across the district
focused on culture and identity, there could not be an exponential increase in elective courses on
the topics, because they would not fit within any master schedule. That leader’s prognosis thusly,
was to adopt Social Justice standards across all grade levels and content areas. And they
successfully motivated an already engaged community stakeholder group – those who wanted
more, singular Ethnic Studies electives - who most valued this type of teaching and learning and
believed it would help their children succeed broadly in school. Those parents served as
Superintendent 3’s allies in this change effort, because they effectively framed the adoption of
60

the Social Justice standards as the best way to achieve what they were after, to engage their
children in learning in order to close the achievement gap.
Superintendent 1 similarly employed this framing technique, in leading the adoption of
course curriculum that would qualify all graduating students for the UC and CSU college
systems. Superintendent 1 diagnosed the dilemma that because students were able to graduate
without being qualified to apply into the California public college system, the district was not
living up to its vision statement. The prognosis was to restructure curricular offerings so that no
student would be able to graduate without also being eligible for the UC and CSU systems. In a
matter-of-fact tone, Superintendent 1 motivated action by employing the Potential Frame
technique (Pink, 2012). “We’re good, and even if we say we’re great, we’re not perfect, and until
we’re perfect then it doesn’t count.” Superintendent 1 would tell followers. “It can’t only be
doing right by 90% of kids or 92% of our kids, or 97% of our kids. It has to be doing what we
need to do academically, social emotionally, for 100% of our kids 100% of the time.”
Frame Tasks in Broader Context
Goleman (2013) asserts that leaders who successfully lead change efforts in their
organizations do so by framing tasks in the larger context of that organization’s future.
Moreover, Kotter (2007) observes that change efforts fail when leaders fail to establish a sense of
urgency and under-communicate a vision for the future. At its most basic conceptualization, the
purpose of public education is to prepare society’s future, and with regard to this study’s
subjects, that includes a more equitable future. In so much, all six superintendents communicated
tasks that sought to expand educational equity, within a broader societal context and vision for
the future.
61

In his role leading a county school system, one of Superintendent 6’s main
responsibilities are to assist and oversee the school districts in the county. When federal policy
shifted regarding children protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
immigration policy, many of Superintendent 6’s students’ lives were thrown into chaos. The
leader organized county resources to support impacted students, including affording students
access to food and pro bono legal counsel if they or their families were impacted by the shift in
federal policy. “Quite frankly, some of our kids are carrying in their backpack, phone numbers if
mom or dad isn’t there, call this number, this number. That’s an incredible amount of stress on
our young people,” Superintendent 6 recounted.
The leader prepared a letter outlining all the newly available resources and encouraged
the superintendents in the county to simply put their name and letterhead on it, and to get it in the
hands of every student and family across the county. Then Superintendent 6 started getting calls
from concerned district superintendents, sharing that they were nervous about sending the letter
out for fear of being perceived by their school boards or communities as too political.
Superintendent 6 assured them that the letter and resources aren’t about taking a political
position, but instead about providing the necessary supports students and families need in this
moment. Superintendent 6 would then effectively use the Moral Positioning framing technique to
incur action from those still apprehensive (Fairhurst, 2011). “What do you believe in?”
Superintendent 6 would ask those followers still apprehensive to sending out the letter with
resources for families and students now at risk of having their lives uprooted. “All that stuff
doesn’t matter. That’s adult noise. We have a responsibility of taking care of our children. It’s
not our job to decide whether or not it’s politically convenient for us. There are our kids.”
Establishing urgency, framing it in the broader context of needing to support students at risk of
62

disenfranchisement, while also framing the task in the context on morality, Superintendent 6
successfully communicated the importance of this equity action to those he leads.
In their leadership practice, Superintendent 2 routinely finds themself framing the value
of equity-based tasks in the context of a broader vision not just for his school system, but for his
community. “Our work is to take a look at our systems and practices, and find where we build
barriers to student success,” Superintendent 2 shared, pointing to their Race, Equity, and
Injustice taskforce as the organizing mechanism to identify inequities wherever they may persist.
The leader explained that they engender action in followers by pointing out that public education
is compulsory in the state of California. That means it is everyone’s responsibility in his district
to make sure that school is not holding students back from realizing their potential, in any shape
or form.
When communicating the importance of equity-based change, particularly with
stakeholders within the broader community, Superintendent 2 is quick to employ the Label
Frame in the broader context of communal economic prosperity (Pink, 2012). Recounting the
passage of a successful bond measure, Superintendent 2 explained that, “What we had to do is
talk about the fact that all kids matter to our economy and community. We don’t have any kids to
waste, the population is declining.” In labeling students as necessary drivers to a prosperous
future local economy, while also establishing urgency because of declining population,
Superintendent 2 adeptly framed a bond measure aimed at expanding equitable access to
technology in a broader societal context.
Keep the Focus on Students
Successfully leading equitable school systems requires an acknowledgment of the
responsibility and inherent passion to serve all students (Kose, 2009; 2012). In line with this, is
63

the finding that all six superintendents routinely reconnected equity-based change efforts back to
students. “When we talk about equity,” explained Superintendent 1, “It’s about having high
expectations for every kid. And then we drill down typically, not so much by ethnicity, but more
of by what some of the factors and challenges are that they have in their lives, that we need to
support them and help them overcome.” Superintendent 1 shared that this includes actively
listening to students, which has recently resulted in providing more “mental health services and
places for them to go to feel supported.”
In the District 5, Superintendent 5 explained that they seek all decisions to be guided by
what’s right for kids. “That has to be our true north star. When we go through budget reductions,
we protect the classroom. It’s something that you really have to believe in, and you really have to
have a level of honesty and integrity about.” Superintendent 5 described that they seek to hire
individuals whose passion derives from serving students, and build a culture across the district
that, “speaks or screams that it’s about kids.”
For Superintendent 5, any district policy aimed at expanding equity always begins with
the executive team, wherein the leader guides their team through a process of exploration and
reflection. This process is grounded by the question that, “if this is what we really want to do or
put in place (a policy aimed at expanding equity), at what costs, and are we willing to sacrifice
ourselves, in order to provide what’s best for kids?” Herein Superintendent 5 employs the Moral
Positioning frame to focus district policy on students (Fairhurst, 2011). Similarly, Superintendent
5 often uses a metaphor to communicate the importance of how equity-based policy builds upon
itself, to support students adequately (Fairhurst, 2011). “I always say, ‘we have all these supports
in place for our kids. And if you move one block out of this building of blocks you have, it’s so
easy for it to fall apart.”
64

Superintendent 6’s way of communicating the importance of equity-based change is to
focus on the belief system of individuals and be reflective about how they are impacting student
outcomes. “Skilled leadership is the ability to communicate the what and the why before you
even start,” Superintendent 6 explained. The way the leader has accomplished this, is to ask
those that they lead, what those individuals want for every student whom they serve. What has
routinely emerged when they engage followers in this process, is the recognition that the school
system should not be dragging students to the finish line of graduation. “That should not be their
(students) experience. Their experience should be one of engagement, excitement, (and where)
they feel valued.”
What happens next in Superintendent 6’s experience as a former district leader, now
leading superintendents as a county superintendent, is pushback from unions, parents, and the
community about specific change efforts. Superintendent 6 explained that it is crucial to afford
school board members enough information and data that ties any equity-based initiative back to
student outcomes. “I don’t think that happens enough,” the county leader lamented. “I don’t
think there’s a strategic district initiative and backbone as to the purpose of the why we do what
we do. It falls apart sometimes when that information and that communication is not there.”
Using the Potential Frame while keeping actions focused on what’s best for all students,
Superintendent 6 adeptly communicates the value and importance of equity-based change (Pink,
2012).

65

Table 7
Framing Equity-Based Change
Theme Participants Alignment
Diagnose, Prognose, Motivate
Frame Tasks in Broader Context
Keep the Focus on Students
6/6
6/6
6/6

Research Question Three Findings
The third and final research question in this study focused on how a Southern California
unified school district’s demographics impacted how superintendents lead equity-based
initiatives within those communities. Socioeconomic status and Hispanic or Latino origin
persisted as the two most salient demographic categories. Sub-themes, and the nuance that any
analysis regarding wealth, race, and culture requires, are discussed below.
Socioeconomic Status Matters
Especially when you’re trying to pass a bond, and 83% of the voters don’t have kids in
the district. The most persistent voters definitely don’t have kids in the district. If you
look at who votes in every election, it’s always older, more conservative voters. And so
as you’re going for a bond election, that’s part of the conversation I would always have.
Because they would naturally ask, ‘well why do I want to raise my taxes’ for sometimes
‘those kids’ which had a lot of different meanings for them. (Superintendent 2)
Section Data
Census data from a school district’s municipality and student data regarding the relative
percentage of students who qualify for federally funded free or reduced priced meals, was used
in consideration of this study’s third research question. It is important to note that these figures
66

provide an incomplete socioeconomic picture of the communities that this study’s participants
serve. School district boundaries and municipal boundaries are not congruent. Moreover, while
the free and reduced-price meal data provides socioeconomic insight into families within a
school system, it is important to also recognize that a school system’s governance is chosen by
the electorate who live within the boundaries of that system. Thusly, a superintendent focused on
equity-based change must also be aware of stakeholders who otherwise do not interface with that
school system regularly.
Additionally, two of the six superintendents in this study serve a much larger population
relative to the four other leaders profiled. In consideration that per capita income is a mean value,
and therefore a less reliable metric to measure inequality for larger populations, the Gini
Coefficient was used to determine the socioeconomic make-up for both District 4 and County 6.
A region’s Gini Coefficient is a measure of the wealth distribution in that given region. A
measure of 0 represents perfect equality of incomes, while a measure of 100 would equate to
maximal inequality, expressed as one person holding all the income within that region.
Employing these data sets, three dominant frames persisted across the participant group with
regards to the socioeconomic status of their communities, and how those superintendents lead
equity-based change.

67

Table 8
Community Socioeconomic Status
School District Municipal Per
Capita Income
% students who qualify for
Free/Reduced Priced Meals
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
County 6
$26,000 – $30,000
$36,000 – 40,000
$97,000 - $102,000
$30,000 - $34,000
$16,000 – $20,000
$38,073
66% - 70%
38% - 42%
25% - 29%
63% - 67%
92% - 96%
49%
Note. Municipal Per Capita Income from United States Census Bureau. Free/Reduced Priced
Meals from California Department of Education. Ranges given for purposes of anonymity.

Table 9
County Gini Coefficient of District 4 and County 6
Region Gini Coefficient
District 4
County 6
0.44 – 0.48
0.44 – 0.48

Note. Gini Coefficient data from United States Census Bureau. Ranges given for purposes of
anonymity.

68

The Economic-Argument Frame in High SES Communities
A main function of framing is to use language in order to craft a vision for the future
(Chart & Kendall-Taylor, 2008). For the two superintendents serving communities with a higher
concentration of socioeconomic wealth relative to this study’s other participants, that meant
framing equity-based change within the context of the impact such change would have on future
individual economic interests. Employing an Argument Frame, Superintendent 3 and
Superintendent 2 each lead equity-based initiatives through careful articulation, including the
Diagnose, Prognose, Motivate technique discussed in earlier findings of how the proposed
initiative would afford greater individual economic prosperity (Fairhurst, 2011; Benford &
Snow, 2002).
Student access to technology used to be sporadic in District 2, with some schools having
an abundance of devices and others still using pencil and paper. Understanding the imperative of
affording all students equitable access to technology, Superintendent 2 led a bond campaign
aimed at creating a decades long revenue stream to provide one-to-one computer technology for
all District 2 students. What Superintendent 2 also understood, was that in order for the ballot
measure to pass, it need support from the older, wealthier, and more conservative members
within the community. When engaging those stakeholders about supporting the bond measure,
Superintendent 2 explained that the leader likes to think all District 2 voters believe all students
deserve a great education no matter a student’s race, language, or how much money their parents
make. “But even if you don’t,” Superintendent 2 would begin the Argument Frame, “you have an
economic self-interest in the success of every one of our kids. You need them to get a good job
so they can buy this $1.5 million house you live in when you want to retire to San Juan
Capistrano or somewhere.”
69

Superintendent 2’s employment of the Argument Frame did not just end with the
language. Commissioning a demographer from the University of Southern California,
Superintendent 2 met with various stakeholder groups and sought to use economic data to argue
that individual economic prosperity depended on the success of District 2 students. Armed with a
range of data, Superintendent 2 would outline how the economic value of an individual District 2
student is higher today than 30 years ago, because of a persistent decline of students in the area.
“And they’re going to carry a heavier burden for supporting all of us oldies as they grow up
through the economic system,” Superintendent 2 would argue. One particular salient point the
leader would use, is that when Social Security was created, there was one retiree for every thirty-
three workers. Today, there is just three workers for one retiree. In framing the proposed bond
measure on the individual economic interests of stakeholders, Superintendent 2 successfully won
the support of 60.1% of voters, securing $135 million for equitable student access to technology
in District 2.
Superintendent 3 similarly used an Argument Frame from an individual economic
perspective, in the pursuit of adopting the Social Justice standards across the district curriculum.
Superintendent 3 successfully argued that learning focused on social justice and understanding
diverse identities was, “not necessarily only for our kids of color, but for White families, to
understand in order to exist in this global world.” Superintendent 3 brought in CEOs of major
corporations who explained to parents the difficulty those business leaders had in hiring
employees who could not communicate with persons from different countries or cultures.
Superintendent 3 successfully argued that in order to be economically prosperous on a global
scale, “you have to be a culturally proficient person, to be able to communicate with these other
70

people without (facing) judgment.” Superintendent 3 attributed this framing to winning support
from economically affluent community members.
The Collective-Categorical Frame in Lower-SES Communities
Bales (2010) asserts that successful education reformers frame efforts in broadly shared
values, in order to avoid an individual’s default mental models about education. Each serving
lower-SES communities relative to the other participants in this study, both Superintendent 1 and
Superintendent 5 have done just that when leading equity-based change initiatives, using the
Category Frame (Fairhurst, 2011). This framing technique seeks to position a subject within the
context of membership or group. Each leader employed this technique from a collective
standpoint, arguing that the community, students, and leaders themselves, are a part of the same
categorical group, relative to the rest of society. Thusly, they needed to act collectively in order
to realize collective prosperity
Superintendent 5 attributes their speaking fluent Spanish and Latinx cultural background
as an important skill to connect with members of their community. “I try to make things very
relatable,” the leader explained, connecting further with families by sharing their own experience
in the New York City public school system, and how because of the leader’s family
circumstances, help from siblings was not an option. “And I think that’s something that has
helped a lot, to have a leader in District 5 who can relate to the community. It would be very
difficult to not relate to them, if they could not feel safe to open up to you.”
Superintendent 5 similarly pointed to the collective relationship they have established
with District 5 municipal officials. Through these endeavors, the leader has led partnerships to
share facilitates and programs across the city, noting, “that collaboration was very, very
transformational for the city and the school system.” Additionally, in categorizing District 5’s
71

constituents and themselves as part of a shared collective, Superintendent 5 successfully led a
bond measure that passed with over 80% approval to upgrade facilitates and technology across
the district.
Growing up in District 1, Superintendent 1 is fast to employ the Collective Categorical
Frame when leading equity-based change. “I was one of our kids in our schools,” Superintendent
1 points out with pride. “I know what that feels like. And I also know what I would have wanted
people to do and to want for me, and to help me with, at that time.” Superintendent 1 routinely
spoke of “ours kids” or “our parents,” a kinship that spurred them into action when alumni
shared that they nonetheless experienced systemic racism in the school system. “If there are
issues in our schools,” the leader proclaimed, “we’re listening.” This has led to the creation of a
District Human Relations Council with students, staff, community, and alumni members.
Routinely employing a Collective Categorical Frame, Superintendent 1 asserts that, “we’re
assuring accountability, inclusivity, and addressing any systemic or implicit bias that’s
happening in our schools that does not translate to students feeling supported, loved and valued
in our classrooms.”
The Contrast Frame in Communities with Concentrated Privilege
Serving the largest populations within this study, both District 4 and County 6 are
communities that have high-SES communities and lower-SES communities, each expressed
through a Gini Coefficients of 0.46. That facet, and the contention of needing to frame equity-
base change across a diverse community, was asserted by both leaders profiled from those
communities. In doing so, each employed a Contrast Frame, describing a situation or policy in
terms of comparison to what some students might be afforded in their community, while others
are left with decreasing resources or opportunity.
72

Leading their district during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Superintendent 4
needed to navigate and rapidly lead equity-based change to respond to the health crisis.
Employing the Contrast Frame, the leader explained that parents of economic means wanted a
quick return to in-person schooling in the middle of the crisis, falsely believing that children
could not get or spread COVID-19. Superintendent 4 attributed that belief to the fact that those
families were not facing the impacts of the virus on a daily basis. “You can have everything
delivered to you, all the niceties, the privileges in a high economic family, and not considering
the other 70% of our district who don’t have that experience.” Throughout the COVID-19
pandemic, the leader routinely has pointed back to their equity and excellence agenda and
advocated that “we need to shift our resources where they’re most needed. We need to consider
opportunities where they often are not considered.”
This Contrast Frame served Superintendent 4 in their passing and keeping firm the
District’s ‘do no harm’ grading policy during the COVID-19 pandemic, which effectively
eliminated letter grades for course completion. Many stakeholders from wealthier and Whiter
communities petitioned Superintendent 4 and the school board to revert back to a standard A-F
grading policy. Those parents feared that their children would not get into selective colleges
because transcripts would not carry letter grades for classes taken during the pandemic.
Superintendent 4 again pointed back to their equity and excellence agenda in keeping firm on the
policy shift given the crisis. The leader routinely made the contrasting point that a return to a
normal grading policy would “privilege our White, high economic students because of the access
they had outside of what the school could provide them. It (the normal grading policy that was in
effect during the start of the pandemic) was privileging them.” In drawing this contrast,
73

Superintendent 4 successfully defended and upheld the more equitable ‘do no harm’ grading
policy change.
In their role as County Superintendent, Superintendent 6 explains that their office is, “a
support agency. We don’t really have the authority to tell districts what to do, other than their
money.” Explaining that they have witnessed very incremental improvement in the lives of Black
and Brown students for some of the districts he supports across County 6, Superintendent 6 has
and intends to further use the Contrast Frame to incur specific districts they support to do more
for those students. “I can’t watch another year of kids getting cheated out of something that’s so
easy to fix,” Superintendent 6 declared. Herein Superintendent 6 employs the Contrast Frame,
between districts that are using resources to serve traditionally disenfranchised students, and
those that are ‘cheating’ those students from an equitable education.
Superintendent 6 draws a further contrast between the districts who have seen gains in
the graduation rates for students of color in their adoption of equity minded resources his office
has organized, and districts who fail to incorporate those resources and continue to underserve
students of color. “I’m putting a bigger footprint in front of the superintendents,” Superintendent
6 explained. The leader intends to show these contrasting results to the superintendents they
support, who have been slow to act. The county leader’s first step will be to use the Contract
Frame to demonstrate the success of these resources to his county board. Next, Superintendent 6
intends to mandate that all districts that have been slow to incorporate these equity minded
resources, incorporate those resources in their California State Local Control Action Plan
(LCAP).
74

Framing and Culture
I look at my job as a responsibility to not only make sure students are educated, but make
sure parents are educated as well. It’s my desire to empower our parents with as much
knowledge and skill so that they can grow themselves and in turn be able to help their
kids. (Superintendent 5)

Table 10
Hispanic or Latino Origin of Communities, 2019
Community Percentage of Population of
Hispanic or Latino Origin
District 1
District 2
District 3
District $4
District 5
County 6
72% - 76%
38% - 4 2%
10% - 14%
40% - 44%
79% - 83%
32% - 36%
Note. Hispanic or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central
American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. Data from United States Census
Bureau. Ranges given for purposes of anonymity.

75

Hispanic and Latino Categorical Frames
While Southern California is rich in cultural and racial diversity, two of the six
superintendents a part of this study serve a community with an outsized percentage of Hispanic
or Latino community members. It is important to stipulate that race and Hispanic or Latino origin
are two separate and distinct concepts; a person can be of Hispanic or Latino origin and also be
of any or multiple races. Moreover, the term ‘Hispanic or Latino’ is the most up to date language
used by the United States Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2019). The ways in which individuals and a society categorize ethnicities is an evolving
proposition, and important to stipulate in the context of this study. With this in mind, what
emerged from the findings of the participant group is a consistent use of the Categorial Frame
when leading equity-based change for the two communities serving a majority Hispanic or
Latino population.
Earlier findings discussed in this chapter point towards the use of the Categorical Frame
by leaders from District 1 and District 5 respectively, each leader serving a lower-SES
community relative to the study’s participant group. That there is a correlation between Hispanic
or Latino origin and low-SES, while dismaying, is not surprising. Stark racial economic
inequality persists in California, where 23.6% of Latino Californians live below the poverty line,
and account for 52.2% of low-SES Californians (Bohn, Danielson & Thorman, 2019). This
study’s findings indicate that employing a Collective Categorical Frame, wherein the
superintendents frame equity-based initiatives as positively impacting the collective community,
has proven successful.
Explaining that the student population in District 1 is vastly Latino, Superintendent 1 is
clear eyed that, “when people talk about equity in our system, it’s almost every one of our kids.”
76

Again, drawing from their own experience within the district and their shared Hispanic/Latino
ethnic heritage, the leader employs categorical membership language regarding the collective
mission of their equity work. “We’re not equitable until every one of our kids feels loved,
valued, and supported,” Superintendent 1 contended. Moreover, this leader pointed to a yearly
State of the Schools address, a large community event for the hundreds of staff and community
members, as a key driver for persisting with equity-based initiatives. Superintendent 1 explained
that celebrating collective successes, lifting up student voices, and setting communal goals helps
frame the work as a shared effort. “It’s about our District 1 kids, our District 1 unified kids, and
people know these are the kids in our community. And they’re (the community) is very, very,
supportive of that.”
Ethnic Diversity, Systemic Change, and the Argument Frame
Findings indicate that the four leaders serving communities with a lower percentage of
Hispanic or Latino population, found success leading equity-based change employing an
Argument Frame while making the case and leading systems level, equity-based initiatives.
Again, it is important not to conflate Hispanic or Latino origin with race, and thus conclusions
cannot be drawn based on the perceived racial diversity or lack thereof, of these four
communities. What is evident in the findings though, is a reliance on using an Argument Frame
regarding systemic changes that would lead to more equitable opportunities for students.
Examples of employing the Argument Frame in favor of systemic, equity-based changes
have been discussed in earlier examples of this chapter. Superintendent 3’s advocation for the
adoption of Social Justice standards across the district curriculum is a clear illustration of arguing
for systemic change to spur more equitable learning. Superintendent 4’s principal evaluation
77

reform efforts to include equity mindsets in line with their equity and excellence agenda, is an
evident example of employing the Argument Frame in support of systemic, equity-based reform.
A not yet discussed example is Superintendent 6’s deployment of ‘equity audits,’ of the
schools and districts the county leader oversee. A systemic practice such as this, offers empirical
data of the school experience for students. This then affords Superintendent 6 the opportunity to
understand where inequity persists in schools or districts across the county, sharpening the
leader’s argument for where change most needs to happen.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings of this qualitative study, aimed at understanding how
Southern California superintendents construct meaning regarding educational equity,
communicate the importance and value of equity-based change initiatives, and lead those efforts
given the demographics of their communities. Employing a semi-structured interview, the
researcher interviewed five current Southern California Superintendents of unified school
districts, and one current Southern California county superintendent who has also served as a
superintendent of a unified Southern California school district. The interview data was
transcribed, and then coded using an analytical coding method to uncover themes that persisted
across the participant group, relative to this study’s three research questions.
Findings for the first research question point to three elements that fostered a strong
educational equity identity in the participant group. Five out of six participants referenced the
impact their parents had on instilling specific values in them relative to notions of equity, social
justice, and service. All six participants recalled childhood or early professional experiences
where they were impacted by or directly witnessed inequities. Participants cited these
experiences in the context of how they have come to understand and champion the need for a
78

more equitable education system. Lastly, four of the six participants spoke to recognizing
educational opportunity in their own lives, as a driving force behind their understanding of
leading equitable change.
Results for the second research question regarding how superintendents communicate the
importance and value of equity-based change initiatives indicate three techniques employed by
all six participants. The Diagnose, Prognose, Motivate technique was aptly used across multiple
contexts and with varying stakeholders. All participants sought to frame the task of equitable
change in a broader context and oftentimes vision for the future. And all participants always
brought the endeavors they were leading back to how it was going to impact students.
The third research question’s findings indicate a correlation between socioeconomic
status of a given community, and how superintendents used specific framing techniques to lead
equity-based change. An Economic-Argument Frame was used in high-SES communities, a
Collective-Categorical Frame in lower-SES communities, and a Contrast Frame in the participant
communities with pockets of privilege. Concerning ethnic demographics, the Collective
Categorical frame was used by the superintendents serving communities with a high percentage
of persons with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. For the communities with a lower percentage of
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, an Argument Frame in the context of systemic reform was most
referenced by this study’s participants.
Chapter five will present a further summation of the research findings. Implications for
practice will be considered, as well as recommendations for future research given this study’s
findings.

79

Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter is a discussion of the presented findings, organized by this study’s research
questions. Included in the discussion are potential limitations of the findings based on the
research methods and design. Implications for practice are then considered, followed by a
discussion on the potential for future research based on the findings.
Extending across the fields of leadership, education, change management, and
communication, this study’s research questions sought to understand how school system leaders
champion and enact equity-based change. Considering the complexity of such an endeavor, the
three research questions that informed this study shared similar elements, while each also was
constituted from unique fields of study. The following is a discussion of the findings for each
research question, including potential limitations based on the study’s design.
Discussion of Findings: Research Question One
This study’s findings strongly confirm the assertation made by Clandinin and Connelly
(2000; 2012) that equity focused leaders must understand their own background, before leading
others through equity focused work. While no person can control their parental upbringing, that
five out of the six participants drew a connection to their equity focused work and their parents is
of important note. This finding underscores the impact of upbringing and experience at an
impressionable age, in the crafting of beliefs, values, and habits of mind that propel one through
life. This type of personal and reflective understanding was also evident in four of the six
participants with regards to opportunities they have accessed throughout their life. There is a
growing field of research concerning the recognition of opportunity and privilege, and how that
impacts one’s worldview and potential biases. These findings align with this field of inquiry, and
80

points to the reflective skill a leader must possess in understanding the facets of their own
privilege and opportunity if indeed that leader seek to expand opportunity for others.
All participants constructed meaning concerning their own work because of first or
secondhand experiences with inequity. This finding conveys the significance of leaders holding
educational equity as a part of their Core and Chosen identity (Hannum, 2007), wherein their
lived experiences with inequity informed their work and leadership. This is not to say that one is
precluded from leading equity-based work if they themselves have not experienced
discrimination or inequity. Rather, this finding demonstrates the merit that those who seek to
lead equity-based change should first seek experiences that afford them a rich understanding of
the layered context in which educational inequities have embedded themselves within America
society and the K12 school system.
There are few limitations to the findings for research question one, given the research
question’s focus on the personal identity of participants. While the only research method used in
this study was semi-structured interviews, the internal validity and reliability is nonetheless
strong considering the findings relate directly to the participant’s own experiences and
upbringing. The external validity is strongest for the finding concerning experiencing or
witnessing inequity given all participants spoke to this independent variable. This is in line with
Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) understanding that strong external validity in qualitative research
includes detailed quotes that paint a rich description of the finding.
Discussion of Findings: Research Question Two
That the modern superintendent lacks the authority to enact unilateral change is well
discussed in this study’s preceding chapters (Hill & Jochim, 2018; Kowalski, 2005; Hurst 2007).
81

Hence, the findings from research question two suggests that communities seeking to foster a
more equitable school system would be wise to consider leaders who possess the
Transformational Leadership habits of intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
While those two particular traits may be fleeting in leaders from other professional fields, it is
unsurprising that they were so dominant in this study’s participants. Given that all of the
participants had backgrounds first as classroom teachers, the aforementioned Transformational
Leadership traits have considerable congruence with the tenets of effective, learner-centered
pedagogy. Great teachers understand that in order to lead pupils towards learning outcomes, it is
paramount to have engaging and relevant content, whilst understanding the existing schema
learners bring to the learning task. It is unsurprising that five out of six of the participants did just
that in their current role as superintendent, when communicating the importance and value of the
proposed equity-based change. While the pedagogical background of the participants was not a
focus of inquiry, these findings suggest that school boards and communities should nonetheless
seek leaders who understand the importance of culturally relevant and learner-centered
pedagogy. These learning principles pay dividends both in the classroom and with regards to
leading systemic change.
The findings specific to Transformational Leadership are in line with those concerning
the importance of vision setting and coalition building. That these actions proved so critical for
enacting equity-based change could also be interpreted as further evidence that the role of the
modern superintendent shares more qualities with an elected official, than an executive officer
within private enterprise. For all of the participants, vision setting, and coalition building acted as
a reciprocal process with stakeholders across their respective school systems and communities.
Participants spoke to the point that an equity focused vision did not resonate solely from
82

themselves but was crafted as a part of their efforts to build coalitions and afford stakeholders
sensemaking opportunities about educational inequities. Similarly, the consistent linking of
actions back to an equity focused vision proved important to reminding stakeholders that the
endeavored change or action was in accordance with the larger aims of the equity focused vision.
The findings relevant to framing equity-based change demonstrate how much the position
of the modern superintendent has evolved and lends credence to the sentiment from Wirst and
Kirst (1997) that the role has indeed become more political. All six participants found success
leading equity-based change by framing tasks in a larger societal context, while also bringing the
intended change back to the impact on students. At first glance, these two findings might appear
diametrically opposed: how can one simultaneously frame tasks in larger contexts, whilst also
keeping a focus on students? The answer is vested in Benford and Snow’s (2000) diagnose,
prognose, and motivate technique for enacting change. All six superintendents aptly diagnosed
challenges in broad societal contexts ranging from a decreased workforce, racial injustices, and
health disparities due to economic inequality. The prognoses that followed and motivation
towards implementation, routinely kept a focus on how those broader challenges could be
ameliorated with solutions that would impact students.
While it may be true that the modern superintendency includes far more politicking and
awareness of broader societal challenges than in previous decades, these particular findings
underscore an important facet of that reality. Those who intend to lead equity-based change
should seek to frame that change in a broader context, but it is important to resist stretching the
prognoses outside the boundaries of the school system. Keeping a focus on students makes the
intended change not only tangible for stakeholders, but easily elucidates that students are the
primary benefactors of that change. Students will have greater access to technology. Students
83

will benefit from social justice curriculum. Students will have the resources they need to cope
with experienced trauma. This focus perhaps avoids being perceived as seeking to champion a
political ideology. These findings thusly suggest that in order to successfully lead equity-based
change, the modern superintendent must understand the politics of their community, while also
not being perceived as overtly political.
The limitations of the findings for research question two is the internal validity, due to the
fact that only one research method was used in this study’s design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Further research could include greater triangulation of data, which might include qualitative
interviews with stakeholders, organizational document analysis, and/or quantitative survey
analysis. In support of internal validity is the fact that while the identities were masked for
publication, the researcher employed maximum variation, seeking a participant group that
included gender and cultural diversity of participants, and economic diversity of the profiled
communities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Strong reliability of the findings is supported in
consideration that all six participants aligned with much of this section’s findings.
Discussion of Findings: Research Question Three
The findings from research question three can be interpreted as confirming the notion that
it is important to understand one’s audience. That conclusion is apt, although the findings also
underscore the linkage between mental models concerning American public education and how
demographics might inform that schema. That the superintendents serving high-SES
communities found success framing equity-based change by appealing to the individual
economic interests of stakeholders whilst championing equity-based change, underscores the
power of wealth and individual interests in American culture. Given increasing economic
disparity in the United States, these findings highlight the significance in persuading wealthy
84

persons that their long-term economic interests are indeed impacted by the educational
opportunities of all young people.
That a Collective-Categorical frame was most successful with low-SES communities
underscores the aspirational aspects within American culture. These leaders understood the
power of identity with regards to seeing oneself in others of similar economic circumstances,
therein harnessing that power towards aims intended to increase opportunity. The challenge
facing the leaders serving communities of concentrated privilege is to somehow expand the
aperture for those focused on individualism, to understand the needs of their neighbors who do
not possess equivalent economic privilege. That undertaking quite possibly could be the hardest,
yet most necessary to accomplish. This particular leadership task mirrors the challenge facing
American society after decades of expanded wealth for a few, and wealth accumulation for the
many (Pew Research Center, 2020).
The findings regarding framing and culture should be understood as the most preliminary
of this study yet point to understood aspects of cultural identity. That the Categorical frame
resonated with Hispanic/Latino communities in Southern California could be interpreted as
drawing from the rich history of the Chicano movement. Starting in the 1960s, this movement
championed Mexican American identity and sought for change regarding labor rights, land
reclamation, and indeed education reform (Carrillo, 2020). That the two superintendents profiled
in this section each personally hold Hispanic/Latino heritage, it can be deduced that the ideas
concerning collectivism and shared cultural identity ignited in the 1960s, still lend themselves to
championing support for equity-based change within the Hispanic/Latino community. This
conclusion should not be interpreted as a sweeping and absolute generalization about all persons
85

who claim Hispanic/Latino cultural heritage, and further research is surely warranted regarding
cultural mental models.
That arguing for systemic change in communities with ethnic diversity was more
successful than employing a Categorical frame, speaks to a larger challenge that has faced
American society from its onset. While it could be argued that the cultural diversity of America
is the country’s greatest asset, history has numerous grotesque examples of Americans failing to
see each other most resolutely as Americans. These examples include violent and coercive racial
and ethnic discrimination. That historical reality makes a collectivist frame more difficult in
ethnically diverse communities. Those superintendents found more success arguing for systemic
change that would lead to equitable outcomes, opposed to a direct appeal for equitable change
grounded in a shared American experience across racial or ethnic differences. This challenge will
continue to confound future generations, until American society finds a way to prize the rich
diversity of its people, while also holding forth shared values and aspirations for all Americans.
The limitations regarding the findings of research question three are similar to those in
research question two. Internal validity would be strengthened with triangulation, including a
more comprehensive analysis of stakeholder communities and their own perceptions regarding
equity-based change (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Conversely, the reliability of the findings is
supported through the researcher’s careful explanation of the data used to interpret these
findings, whilst also acknowledging the preliminary conclusions. In following Merriam and
Tisdell’s (2015, p.251) understanding of qualitative reliability, the researcher has sought for
readers to conclude that the data collected and used for interpretation is consistent with the
conclusions and findings.
86

Potential for Future Research
Given that this study drew from multiple fields of research, there are a myriad of
opportunities for continued inquiry. Firstly, future potential research concerning the most
effective communicative frames for leading equity-based change might employ varying forms of
data collection. While this study focused on those doing the communicating, there is a rich
opportunity to understand how stakeholders make sense of specific communicative frames
through surveys or focus group interviews.
In a similar manner, future research might focus on document analysis – including school
district websites, memos, and marketing materials – to more fully understand the language most
effective at conveying the importance of equity-based change. Ethnographic analysis of
superintendents talking with community stakeholders is yet another option for prospective
researchers. This path could help elucidate detailed practices regarding Transformational
Leadership, offering concrete examples for aspiring leaders seeking to enact equity-based
change.
Implications for Practice
The findings from this study hold several implications for educators, leaders, and
communities seeking to champion equity-based change across their school system. School
boards and communities would be wise to consider the findings regarding identity and
understanding of inequity, when seeking a superintendent to lead for equity. The findings
suggest that those who can draw from experiences about how inequity persists in the American
education system, while also recognizing how they have benefited from opportunity unique to
their upbringings, are well positioned to put equity-based change at the core of their leadership
87

practice. Moreover, an understanding and appreciation for the role of parents in the education of
their children, will aid in those leaders understanding the importance of educational equity.
Current or aspiring school system leaders should use the findings from this study as a
lodestar in their equity-focused leadership practice. While it may be tempting to seek unilateral
change, the practice of coalition building, intellectual stimulation for stakeholders and
individualized consideration are all leadership habits that point towards expanded ownership of a
school system’s vision. All of this takes particular patience, a difficult virtue to hold in the face
of glaring inequities currently impacting students. Even so, the findings suggest that fortifying an
equity-focused foundation across various school system stakeholders, is what will lead to
transformational change.
The findings from this study also suggest the importance of communicative frames when
seeking to express the value and importance of equity-based change. Current leaders and school
boards should be purposeful and specific regarding the language frames and forms of
communication they employ with stakeholders. Understanding the specific desires of distinct
stakeholders within a community also showed to be of critical importance. Appreciating how the
economic or cultural demographics of various persons approach the notion of public education
will help superintendents discern the communicative frames that will best elucidate the value of a
more equitable school system.
Conclusions
While there are many competing facets to operating a successful and equitable school
system, those in leadership should put communication and promoting an equity focused vision at
the core of their practice. The best intentions regarding equity-based change for a school system
has no direction forward, unless the community understands the importance and long-term value
88

of beginning that journey. For the modern superintendent seeking to enact equity-based change,
these facets are not just part of the job. They are the job.
89

References
Ascough, L. (2010). The school superintendent as lead communicator—Part II: Creating a
communication infrastructure. Communication Matters for Leading Superintendents.
https://www.nspra.org/files/newsletter/communication_matters/Dec2010 CM-
The_Suprintendent_as_Lead_Communicator_Part_II.pdf
Ascough, L. (2010). The school superintendent as lead communicator—Part III: Current
Effective Communication Practices Used by Leading Superintendents.
https://www.nspra.org/files/newsletter/communication_matters/Mar2011CM-
The_Suprintendent_as_Lead_Communicator_Part_III.pdf
Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Gains and gaps: changing inequality in US college entry
and completion. National Bureau of Economic Research. (Working Paper 17633), 1–30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Bales, S. N. (2010). Framing Education Reform : A FrameWorks Message Memo Prepared for
the FrameWorks Institute By Susan Nall Bales January 2010.
Barrett, D. J. (2006). Strong communication skills a must for today’s leaders. Handbook of
Business Strategy, 7(1), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/10775730610619124
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press. As cited in:
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership : theory and practice. Leadership: theory and practice /
seventh edition. https://doi.org/2016
Belley, P., & Lochner, L. (2007). The Changing Role of Family Income and Ability in
Determining Educational Achievement. Journal of Human Capital, 1(1), 37–89.
https://doi.org/10.1086/524674
90

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements : An Overview
and Assessment Robert D . Benford ; David A . Snow. Annual Review of Sociology,
26(2000), 611–639. https://www.jstor.org/stable/223459
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Harper & Row.
Bredeson, P. V., Klar, H. W., Johansson, O. (2011) Context-Responsive Leadership: Examining
Superintendent Leadership in Context. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19 (18).
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/739
Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2016). Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse
Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410–430.
https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.
Bohn, S., Danielson, C., & Thorman, T. (2019). Just the Facts: Poverty in California.
https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/JTF_PovertyJTF.pdf
Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: An historical analysis. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410). As cited in: Hurst, T. M. (2017). The
Discursive Construction of Superintendent Statesmanship on Twitter. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 25(29), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2300
California Department of Education. (2019). Local Control Funding Formula Overview.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
Chart, H., & Kendall-Taylor, N. (2008). Reform What? Individualist Thinking in Education:
American Cultural Models on Schooling. Frameworks Institute.
91

Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative inquiry : experience and story in qualitative
research (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. As cited in (2012). Leading Student Achievement
Series: The principal as leader of the equitable school. Corwin Press doi:
10.4135/9781506335704
Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to
uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research
Journal, 43, 343-379.
Coleman, James S. Equality of Educational Opportunity (COLEMAN) Study (EEOS), 1966.
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-04-27.
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06389.v3
Fairhurst, G. T., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing: Creating the language of
leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Frank, T. (2004). What's the matter with Kansas?: How conservatives won the heart of America.
Goleman, D. (2013). Primal Leadership. Harvard Business Review Press. (p.57)
Gorski, P. (2018). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the
opportunity gap (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Greene, J. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Sage.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The Effect of School Resources on Student
Achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170528
Georges, A. (2009). Relation of Instruction and Poverty to Mathematics Achievement Gains
During Kindergarten. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2148–2178.
Haberman, C. (2016, October 16). The California Ballot Measure That Inspired a Tax Revolt.
92

The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/us/the-california-ballot-
measure-that-inspired-a-tax-revolt.html
Hammond, Z., & Jackson, Y. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting
authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Hannum, Kelly M. Social Identity: Knowing Yourself, Leading Others,
Center for Creative Leadership, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=3007621.
Hazlett, L. A. (2011). American education’s beginnings. Forum on Public Policy
Online, 2011(1), 1–15.
Hill, P., & Jochim, A. (2018). Unlocking potential: How political skill can maximize
superintendent effectiveness. Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Carrillo, K. J. (2020, September 18). How the Chicano Movement Championed Mexican-
American Identity and Fought for Change. History.
https://www.history.com/news/chicano-movement
Hurst, T. M. (2017). The Discursive Construction of Superintendent Statesmanship on
Twitter. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(29), 1–34.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2300
Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher
decision-making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record,
106, 1258-1287.
Jahng, K. (2011). Thinking inside the box: Interrogating No Child Left Behind and Race To The
Top. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 8(1), 99–121.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1013971164/
93

Kennedy, E. (2010). Improving Literacy Achievement in a High-Poverty School: Empowering
Classroom Teachers Through Professional Development. Reading Research Quarterly,
45(4), 384–387. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.45.4.1
Kirst, M. W & Wirt, F. M. (1997). The political dynamics of American education. McCutchan
Pub. Corp.
Kohut, Andrew, and Michael Dimock. 2013. “Resilient American Values: Optimism in an Era of
Growing Inequality and Economic Difficulty.” Report for Council on Foreign Relations
Press. www.cfr.org/unitedstates/resilient-american-values/p30203.
Kose, B. (2011). Developing a Transformative School Vision: Lessons From
Peer-Nominated Principals. Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 119–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380231
Kose, Brad. (2009). The Principal's Role in Professional Development for
Social Justice: An Empirically-Based Transformative Framework. Urban Education -
URBAN EDUC. 44. 628-663. 10.1177/0042085908322707.
Kotter, J. P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
85(1), 96-103.
Kowalski, Theodore J. (2005) Evolution of the School Superintendent as
Communicator, Communication Education, 54:2, 101-117, DOI:
10.1080/03634520500213322
Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2007). Dropping Out of High School: The
94

Role of School Organization and Structure. American Educational Research Journal,
40(2), 353–393. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002353
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Logan, J. R., Minca, E., & Adar, S. (2012). The Geography of Inequality.
Sociology of Education, 85(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711431588
Marzano, Robert J. 2007. The art and science of teaching: a comprehensive framework for
effective instruction.
Maxwell, G. M., Locke, L. A., & Scheurich, J. J. (2013). Case study of three rural Texas
superintendents as equity-oriented change agents. The Qualitative Report, 18(Art. 22), 1-
23. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/maxwell22.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Mcdonnell, L. M. (1994). Assessment Policy as Persuasion and Regulation. American Journal of
Education, 102(4), 394–420.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research : A guide to design and
implementation. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Morse, Ricardo S., et al. Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century, Routledge, 2007.
ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/socal/detail.action?docID=1899942. Created from
socal on 2020-02-04 14:09:59.
Nallareddy, S., Rouen, E., & Suárez Serrato, J. (2018). Do Corporate Tax Cuts Increase Income
Inequality? IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2059292307/
Pew Research Center, January 2020, “Most Americans Say There Is Too Much Economic
95

Inequality in the U.S., but Fewer Than Half Call It a Top Priority.”
Pink, D. H. (2012). To sell is human: The surprising truth about moving others.
Riverhead Books.
Patton, M. Q., (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
Podolsky, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Doss, C., & Reardon, S. (2019). California’s
positive outliers: Districts beating the odds. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: The American dream in crisis. Simon & Schuster.
Rancaño, V. (2018). How Proposition 13 Transformed Neighborhood Public Schools
Throughout California.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11701044/how-proposition-13-transformed-neighborhood-
public-schools-throughout-california
Robin, S., & Bosco, J. (1976). Coleman’s Desegregation Research and Policy
Recommendations. School Review, 84(3), 352–363.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1290974080/
Safir, S. (2017). The Listening Leader. Somerset: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971)
Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976)
Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977)
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K., & Scheurich, J. (2009). Using equity audits to create equitable and
excellent schools. Corwin Press.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3),
387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
96

Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. Norton.
Theoharris, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance:
Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2)
228-251.
Turner, C., Khrais, R., LLOYD, T., OLGIN, A., ISENSEE, L., VEVEA, B., & Carsen, D. (2016,
April). Why America’s Schools Have A Money Problem. National Public Radio.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/18/468156511/why-americas-schools-have-a-
money-problem%5C?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news
Ujifusa, A. (2016). Share of High-Poverty, Racially Isolated Schools Rising, GAO Report Says.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/share-of-high-poverty-racially-isolated-schools-
rising-gao-report-says/2016/05
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019) American Community Survey.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases.html
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1998-
2019 Reading Assessment.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1998-
2019 Reading Assessments
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016). K–12 education: Better use of information
could help agencies identify disparities and address racial discrimination. Author.
https://www.gao.gov/ products/GAO-16-345.
Vasquez Heilig, J., Romero, L. S., & Hopkins, M. (2017). Coign of vantage and action:
97

Considering California’ local accountability and school finance plans for English
learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(15), 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2818
Weick, Karl & Sutcliffe, Kathleen & Obstfeld, David. (2005). Organizing
and the Process of Sensemaking. ORGANIZATION SCIENCE. 16. 409-421.
10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.
White, G. B. (2015). The Recession’s Racial Slant. The Atlantic, 1–6.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/black-recession-housing-
race/396725/

Asset Metadata

Creator Biros, Andrew Allen (author)

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

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/16/2021

Defense Date 02/11/2021

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

Tag Change,Communication,Education,equity,framing,identity,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,superintendent,transformational leadership

Language English

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email Andrew.Biros@gmail.com,biros@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-427626

Unique identifier UC11666580

Identifier etd-BirosAndre-9324.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-427626 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BirosAndre-9324.pdf

Dmrecord 427626

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Biros, Andrew Allen

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The American public education system is often thought to be the catalyst for individual opportunity, preparing all students with the skills and knowledge necessary to reach limitless heights. This paper examines the degree to which that proposition is true and concentrates on the role of the modern school superintendent as the agent most capable of leading a school system to adopt changes that would increase educational equity. Drawing from the fields of leadership, communication, and change theory, this paper focuses on the ways in which superintendents construct meaning and then communicate the importance of equity-based change, whilst championing action across various school district stakeholders. Findings indicate specific leadership habits and communicative language frames superintendents can employ so that they may build coalitions in support of policies aimed at expanding educational equity. This paper’s objective is to serve as a trailhead for school boards and superintendents intent on leading for equity. Moreover, the findings should spur further research on the ways in which the unique role of the modern superintendent can foster a school system where all students are afforded ample opportunity to learn, grow, and gain access to a prosperous future.