In this study, I examine partnerships between districts and school improvement organizations (SIOs) focused on instructional reform, investigating how these partnerships conceptualize and negotiate equity in practice. Using a qualitative comparative case study design of nine district–SIO partnerships across the country, I find that partnerships’ equity approaches in practice were related to how critically reflective they were as a partnership. Partnerships represented a spectrum of criticality that ranged from an emphasis on equality and standardization with limited interrogation of equity to an emphasis on oppression-combating approaches to equity and prioritization of critical reflection. The findings signal that in district–SIO partnerships, both ideas and individuals are powerful in shaping equity sensemaking and often impede more expansive ways of conceptualizing equity.
AllbrightT. N.MarshJ. A.HallM.TobbenL.PicusL. O.LavadenzM. (2019). Conceptualizing equity in the implementation of California Education Finance Reform. American Journal of Education, 125, 173–200.
2.
AverillJ. B. (2002). Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 12(6), 855–866.
3.
BertrandM.MarshJ. A. (2015). Teachers’ sensemaking of data and implications for equity. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 861–893. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215599251
4.
BurchP. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. Routledge.
5.
Bush-MecenasS.MarshJ. A. (2018). The DIVE approach: Using case-ordered meta-matrices and theory-based data displays to analyze multiple case study data. In LochmillerC. R. (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 33–56). Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
CampbellJ. L.QuincyC.OssermanJ.PedersenO. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.
7.
ChingC. D. (2023). Developing “equity sense”: Meaning-making at a community college. American Educational Research Journal, 60(4), 810–844.
8.
ChuY. (2019). What are they talking about when they talk about equity? A content analysis of equity principles and provisions in state Every Student Succeeds Act plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 158–158.
9.
ChubbuckS. M. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 197–210.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145
12.
CoburnC. E. (2005a). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737027001023
13.
CoburnC. E. (2005b). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.
14.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003343
15.
CoburnC. E.BaeS.TurnerE. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364–399.
16.
CollinsP. H. (2009). Another kind of public education: Race, schools, the media, and democratic possibilities. Beacon Press.
17.
ComstockM.LitkeE.HillK. L.DesimoneL. M. (2023). A culturally responsive disposition: How professional learning and teachers’ beliefs about and self-efficacy for culturally responsive teaching relate to instruction. AERA Open, 9(1), 1–18.
18.
ComstockM.MargolisJ. (2021). “Tearing down the wall”: Making sense of teacher leaders as instructional coaches and evaluators. Journal of School Leadership, 31(4), 297–317.
19.
ComstockM.ShoresK.LitkeE.PolancoC.DesimoneL.M.HillK.L. (2025). Toward more equitable instruction: How teachers integrate ambitious, traditional, and culturally responsive mathematics practices. AERA Open, 11(1), 1–28.
20.
DatnowA.ParkV. (2012). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). Routledge.
21.
DennerJ.BeanS.CampeS.MartinezJ.TorresD. (2019). Negotiating trust, power, and culture in a research–practice partnership. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–11.
22.
DiemS.YoungM. D.WeltonA. D.MansfieldK. C.LeeP. L. (2014). The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(9), 1068–1090.
23.
FarrellC. C.PenuelW. R.CoburnC.DanielJ.SteupL. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation.
24.
FarrellC. C.SingletonC.StamatisK.RiedyR.Arce-TrigattiP.PenuelW. R. (2023). Conceptions and practices of equity in research-practice partnerships. Educational Policy, 37(1), 200–224.
25.
FoucaultM. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
26.
Foundation. (2017). Request for proposal: Professional learning partnerships.
27.
FreidusA.TurnerE. O. (2023). Contested justice: Rethinking educational equity through New York City’s COVID-19 school reopening debates. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 45(3), 437–463.
28.
GarrisonD. R.Cleveland-InnesM.KooleM.KappelmanJ. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1–8.
GreenT. L. (2017). Community-based equity audits: A practical approach for educational leaders to support equitable community-school improvements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(1), 3–39.
GuitonG.OakesJ. (1995). Opportunity to learn and conceptions of educational equality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 323–336.
34.
GutiérrezR. (2011). Context matters: How should we conceptualize equity in mathematics education?. In Herbel-EisenmannB.ChoppinJ.PimmD. (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices, and policies (pp. 17-33). Springer Netherlands.
35.
HalversonR.KelleyC.KimballS. (2004). Implementing teacher evaluation systems: How principals make sense of complex artifacts to shape local instructional practice. In HoyW. K.MiskelC. (Eds.), Research and theory in educational administration, policy, and reform: Research and measurement (pp. 153–188). Information Age Publishing.
36.
Helms MillsJ.ThurlowA.MillsA. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking: The critical sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(2), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465641011068857
37.
Herbel-EisenmannB.KeazerL.TraynorA. (2018). District decision-makers’ considerations of equity and equality related to students’ opportunities to learn algebra. Teachers College Record, 120(9), 1–38.
HodgeE. M.SalloumS. J.BenkoS. L. (2019). The changing ecology of the curriculum marketplace in the era of the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Educational Change, 20(4), 425–446.
40.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001065
41.
HorsfordS. D.ScottJ. T.AndersonG. L. (2018). The politics of education policy in an era of inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. Routledge.
42.
IrbyD. J. (2021). Stuck improving: Racial equity and school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
43.
JencksC. (1988). Whom must we treat equally for educational opportunity to be equal?Ethics, 98(3), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1086/292969
44.
KornhaberM. L.GriffithK.TylerA. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore—But what is it? conceptions of equity under the common core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(4), 4. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014
45.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.
46.
LaddH.LoebS. (2012). The challenges of measuring school quality: Implications for educational equity. In AllenD.ReichR. (Eds.), Education, justice, and democracy (pp. 19-42). University of Chicago Press.
47.
LevinsonM.GeronT.BrighouseH. (2022). Conceptions of Educational Equity. AERA Open, 8, 23328584221121344.
48.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
49.
MilesM.B.HubermanA.M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
50.
MillerE. T.TannerS. J.McCloskeyA. V.KisselB. T. (2024). We’ve been had: Neoliberal initiatives in urban education. Urban Education, 59(6), 1935–1963.
51.
MilnerH. R. (2013). Rethinking achievement gap talk in urban education. Urban Education, 48, 3–8.
52.
NygreenK. (2016). Competing paradigms of educational justice: Parent organizing for educational equity in a neoliberal reform context. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(2), 202–214.
53.
PakK.McLaughlinJ.GarcíaE. S.DesimoneL. (2021). “Boots on the ground”: The authority-power dynamic of regional service centers in the standards era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(1), 25.
54.
RavitchS. M.CarlN. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage Publications.
55.
ReckhowS.Tompkins-StangeM. (2018). Financing the education policy discourse: Philanthropic funders as entrepreneurs in policy networks. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7(3), 258-288.
56.
RigbyJ. C. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-04-2014-0051
57.
RoegmanR.Perkins-WilliamsR.BudzynM.Killian-TarrO.AllenD. (2022). How conceptions of equity inform principal data use: A purposeful examination of principals from four school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(2), 183–222.
58.
RowanB. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283–314.
59.
SchildtH.MantereS.CornelissenJ. (2020). Power in sensemaking processes. Organization Studies, 41(2), 241–265.
60.
ScottJ. (2013). School choice and the empowerment imperative. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 60–73.
61.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327
62.
ScottJ. T. (2013). A Rosa Parks moment? School choice and the marketization of civil rights. Critical Studies in Education, 54(1), 5–18.
63.
ShahV. (2018). Different numbers, different stories: Problematizing “Gaps” in Ontario and the TDSB. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 187, 31–47.
64.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
65.
StoneD. A. (2011). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
TrinidadJ. E. (2023). Rethinking school improvement organizations: Understanding their variety, benefits, risks, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 52(6), 377–384.
68.
TrinidadJ. E. (2024). From boardrooms to classrooms: How interorganizational networks influence education policy adoption. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1–26.
69.
TrujilloT. M. (2013). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising equity and rigor. Educational Policy, 27(3), 531–559.
70.
TrujilloT. M.MøllerJ.JensenR.KissellR. E.LarsenE. (2021). Images of educational leadership: How principals make sense of democracy and social justice in two distinct policy contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(4), 536–569.
71.
TrujilloT. M.WoulfinS. L. (2014). Equity-oriented reform amid standards-based accountability: A qualitative comparative analysis of an intermediary’s instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 253–293.
72.
TurnerE. O.SpainA. K. (2020). The multiple meanings of (in) equity: Remaking school district tracking policy in an era of budget cuts and accountability. Urban Education, 55(5), 783–812.
73.
VanGronigenB. A.MeyersC. V.ScottC.FantzT.DunnL. D. (2020). Soliciting, vetting, monitoring, and evaluating: A study of state education agencies’ use of external providers for school improvement efforts. Journal of Educational Change, 23(3), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09403-1
74.
VetterA.FairclothB. S.HewittK. K.GonzalezL. M.HeY.RockM. L. (2022). Equity and social justice in research practice partnerships in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 829–866.
75.
VillegasA. M.LucasT. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.
76.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
77.
WeickK. E.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
78.
YamashiroK.WentworthL.KimM. (2023). Politics at the boundary: Exploring politics in education research-practice partnerships. Educational Policy, 37(1), 3–30.
79.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
80.
YoungI. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
81.
YoungI. M. (2005). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
