The Problem of Pragmatism: Local Politics and Leading for Equity From the Superintendency

Lawson Unified School District

LUSD is a racially and ethnically diverse urban district of about 54,000 students and 100 schools in a large metropolitan area in the southeastern United States. The city of Lawson had once been the home of industries that employed large numbers of people, like manufacturing, but these local businesses had long been in decline. However, over the past 20 years, other sectors of the regional economy had seen great progress, with the city becoming a hotbed of technology, communications, health care, and higher education. Because of the strong economy, the city and the surrounding area had seen double-digit population growth. This growth was accompanied by a shift in the demographics of the region, with the proportion of White residents in the Lawson area decreasing by approximately 10%. Concurrently, the proportion of Black residents grew by more than 5% and the proportion of Latinx residents grew from nearly nonexistent to almost 10% of the population.

Despite the region’s economic progress, LUSD has endured a long history of struggles with racism, segregation, and court battles over school funding and district boundaries. During the Civil Rights Era, the district took steps to integrate their schools, but White families reacted to these changes by moving out of the district and into neighboring suburban areas. Although some of these more affluent families recently had begun returning to the district, the demographics of LUSD’s enrollment did not come close to matching the demographics of the surrounding county. More than half of school-age children living in the district’s catchment area are White, but the percentage of White students enrolled at LUSD is less than a third. The students of LUSD spoke over one hundred languages and nearly two-thirds were eligible for free or reduced priced lunch.

Local media had widely reported on the improving academic performance of LUSD on state-wide tests, with headlines like “LUSD is Beating the Odds.” Although overall student growth was positive, when disaggregated scores were recently released, differences in proficiency among student groups were glaring. For example, the difference in scores between Black and White students in district-defined “college or career-ready” math standards was approximately 40 percentage points. Local journalists wrote stories praising the district’s academic progress while also decrying its failure to meet the needs of all students. Several active community groups pressed the district and the school board to create better opportunities for historically marginalized students. These groups often complained of the comparatively swift and substantial responses board members provided to the concerns of more affluent—and politically influential—parents, many of whom were relative newcomers to the district.

Leadership and Local Politics

After a national search, LUSD’s seven-member board hired Dr. Brenda Howard 2 years ago to serve as superintendent. Dr. Howard is a Black woman with more than 20 years of experience in education. Although she was a newcomer to the state and district, she had a long interest in equity and social justice. She worked her way up, starting as a classroom teacher and a successful principal in a school with a racially and ethnically diverse student population. She served for several years as an assistant superintendent and was subsequently hired as superintendent leading a mid-sized district in a northeastern state. There, Dr. Howard became well-known for her work to improve the academic performance of the district, raising the graduation rate from 64% to 78%, and successfully implementing a plan to change the attendance areas of schools to help alleviate long-standing racial and ethnic imbalances. She noted that pursuing the superintendency was a long-term professional and personal goal, saying, “I think I always wanted to have a broader impact, and certainly my drive was to create a more just society and a society where more students had access to a high-quality education.” She carried herself with an air of confidence and the professional demeanor of someone who deeply cares for the lives of students and, despite the ups and downs of the day-to-day, loves their job. LUSD district staff often described her as a “happy warrior”: focused on pushing for change while also remaining upbeat and positive when interacting with stakeholders.

Dr. Howard sought out the position at LUSD because of her drive to have a positive effect on as many students as she could. Rather than dissuade her, the district’s overall size and deep-seated endemic challenges drew her to apply. She felt that it would be possible for her to replicate some of the success she had in her previous district. She also felt that, given her track record, if the board chose her as superintendent, it would be an indicator that they were open to addressing some of the long-standing issues that they were facing. Although far from her home and her extended family and friends, she welcomed the move to a new state and a new community with a fresh set of challenges. Despite being a relative outsider, her first two years as superintendent validated her choice, and she was pleased that the school system was making steady progress.

The Recent Election

Although she was hired as a known advocate for equity, the most recent election changed the composition of the school board and represented a possible shift in her level of support. Two members who had hired Dr. Howard and had often voted in favor of equity-related policies—like the recent hiring of a district-level Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—were replaced, with one board member retiring and another narrowly losing a contested election. Compared to previous board elections that were relatively sleepy affairs, this election was covered extensively by local media, with a parent group called Children First staging small rallies near the local highway with signs encouraging passers-by to honk if they supported “parents’ rights.” Although school board elections in the district are nonpartisan, the chosen color of the text on campaign lawn signs reflected the partisan leaning of the candidate, an element of campaigning that was well-known to locals.

Newly elected to the seat left vacant by the retiring board member, Lauren Bennett was previously active in the leadership of the Parent–Teacher Association County Council and, in mailers sent to voters’ homes, highlighted her support for strengthening STEM programs in the district. Sara Wilkinson, who had defeated the incumbent, ran a successful business and came from a family active in local municipal politics, though she faced criticism in the media for sending her own children to private school (see Table 1). During the campaign, she stressed her hard-nosed business background and pointed to her ability to keep district spending in check and limit property tax increases. Given the fact that Dr. Howard was hired on a 3-year contract that was coming up for renewal, the results of this election were a genuine concern. Previous superintendents in the district faced a similar situation, a circumstance of the regular 2-year school board election cycle and the district’s practice of extending 3-year contracts to superintendents. However, neither Ms. Bennett nor Ms. Wilkerson had publicly criticized Dr. Howard’s leadership during the campaign, which left her initially hopeful she would be able to continue with her work.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Relevant School Board Members.

Member name	Board position	Years on the board
Lauren Bennett	Member (newly elected)	<1
Sara Wilkinson	Member (newly elected)	<1
Chris Ford	Chair	5

After some initial, cordial communication with the new members, Dr. Howard tried to take stock of the political atmosphere of the district. She thought, “I think maybe half of the board members believe in change and half don’t. What I have to capitalize upon is that—in this district at least—they’re going to be hard-pressed to say publicly they don’t believe in equity.” This assumption was soon challenged.

Closing a Low-Enrollment School

Several months before the election, as part of LUSD’s annual budget and planning process, Dr. Howard had been made aware that the district was spending about twice as much per student at Terosky Middle School (TMS), located in the more affluent (and predominantly White) west side of the district. Discussions with long-tenured district staff revealed that TMS was originally opened as a feeder program for International Baccalaureate (IB) elementary schools in that area. But over time, TMS ended up serving only a small number of students and incurred very high costs needed to staff it with teachers with the appropriate teaching licensure and authorizations to provide the credits required by the IB program. Dr. Howard explained:

I am baffled that the previous board had ever approved the creation of this school in the first place. The parents of these students basically wanted a boutique school for their kids where there aren’t poor kids, there aren’t special education kids, there aren’t English Learner kids, there aren’t Black kids, there aren’t Brown kids.

Dr. Howard immediately decided to begin proceedings to close TMS and reassign teachers and students to nearby schools with a similar program. At a sparsely attended board meeting, she announced a task force, which she would lead, created to study the feasibility of making this change and examine how the district might address any issues that would arise during the process. She presented data showing the per-pupil spending disparities evident at TMS, highlighted the overall cost savings that would result from its closing, and expressed confidence that few students and their families would be inconvenienced. Dr. Howard also offered several options for reallocating some of the funds for other district priorities, like long deferred maintenance needs in other areas of the district and the creation of a new social-emotional learning curriculum.

Postelection Consequences

Several months had passed, and the potential fallout from the recent election was on Dr. Howard’s mind as she entered the district offices for the first meeting with the newly constituted board. Among many other pressing items, on the agenda was an update regarding the planning process for closing TMS. As Dr. Howard entered the room, she immediately noticed an unusually large contingent of parents in attendance, with many holding signs and wearing t-shirts saying, “Say no to Howard! Save TMS!” Their presence was a surprise since these changes were announced months ago and up until that point had received little pushback beyond a few emails from some disgruntled parents.

When it was time, Dr. Howard began her presentation, recapping the reasons for closing TMS, explaining the ongoing process for mitigating any disruptions for students, and explaining how these resources could be used for other purposes. After Dr. Howard was finished, one of the new board members, Ms. Bennett, immediately raised an objection, saying,

Mr. Chair, I move to table this discussion until we have a more thorough and proper study of its effects on the academic development of our students. TMS obviously holds a special place in the heart of this community. Why are we even considering closing a successful program?

Loud cheering and applause exploded in the room. Ms. Wilkinson, the other new board member, also spoke: “I support my colleague’s view. Will this reorganization actually save us money? I’d like to take a closer look at the data. Will we have to pay for busing? What will happen with these kids?” A third board member chimed in and agreed, questioning the effects that this closing would have on teachers.

After more applause, the meeting was brought back to order. When Dr. Howard was finally given a chance to respond, she explained calmly: “We are putting extra resources into this school for students who least need them. And because we’re doing that, we’re not providing some opportunities for the students who are most in need. This is about fairness.” Ms. Bennett replied, “Look, I’m in it for the kids. I care very much about each and every student in this district. But we should be able to find a way to meet everyone’s needs without ending a program that’s working.” More shouting and words of support emerged from the group of parents assembled. Despite the antagonistic atmosphere, Dr. Howard remained confident that she still had enough support from the other four board members to push the measure forward.

However, Chris Ford—who represented the area of the district where TMS was located and was the Board Chair—spoke up:

After consideration, I have to agree with my colleagues here. I think we’re being bit hasty in even considering this measure. We should assign this to a board subcommittee for further review—make sure we cross the t’s and dot the i’s.

Dr. Howard fought to hide her disappointment and frustration. In her time at LUSD, Mr. Ford was a reliable and vocal supporter of equity issues and strongly backed Dr. Howard’s initial hiring. But his change of position meant she did not have a majority of board support for continuing with the closure of TMS. After some additional discussion, the board adopted a resolution committing the board to study the issue further. Dr. Howard knew what this actually meant: assigning it to a sub-committee meant the measure would languish. TMS would remain open for the foreseeable future.

After the meeting, Dr. Howard pulled Mr. Ford aside and asked him, “Chris, what happened? We discussed this many times. This school is a drain on the resources of the district and should have been closed years ago. I thought you supported this?” He replied,

Brenda, I have a lot of parents, neighbors of mine, who are all on board for equity issues, but they love this school. There’s a strong academic program there, a real family atmosphere. For some, it’s the reason they moved here and tolerate the high taxes. And between you and me, my seat is up for election soon. I saw what just happened. I need to keep these parents’ support. Plus, Wilkerson’s family can really stir up trouble if they want.

Dr. Howard left the meeting feeling dejected and returned home to weigh her options.

Next Steps

As Dr. Howard sat in her kitchen, her mind soon wandered back to her time as a teacher. She imagined the faces of those kids that she had taught. She knew that the decisions she makes have real impact on the students in her district and began to reflect on the reasons why she wanted to become a superintendent in the first place. She was proud of the progress that LUSD had made under her leadership and knew the resources gained from closing TMS could be reallocated to areas of the district that had long been ignored. Yet she also began to think that—with the election of two new members—her board support was now tenuous, an especially risky proposition, given she was coming up on a contract-renewal year. “If I push back hard on this and don’t get re-hired,” she thought, “who might replace me? If the direction of the new board is any indication, someone less interested in equity.” She continued,

I’m not naïve. I know I won’t have this job forever. But if I go along with this, there probably will be other opportunities in the future where I can make some real change. Maybe something even more impactful, something long-lasting. Is this really the hill I want to die on?

Dr. Howard opened her computer, stared at the blinking cursor, and began to type.

Equity and the Role(s) of the Superintendent

Dr. Howard’s critical consciousness around equity issues and her experience as a teacher and principal helped her recognize the inequity in her district and motivated her to push for change. She sought to close a “boutique school” to better meet the academic needs of all of her students (“teacher-scholar”) and more equitably utilize the resources available in her district (“manager”). She had data that helped support her decision (“applied social scientist”) and a board that she felt was open to her equity agenda. However, the political demands of powerful stakeholders conflicted with her desire to effect change (“democratic leader”) and she was unable to build a coalition and muster the support necessary to close TMS (“communicator”). This experience aligns with research that has examined the complex and often dilemma-laden nature of this work in practice (DeMatthews, 2018).

An important professional practice for district leaders is therefore to understand how to make sense of equity and their level of stakeholder support within their district-community context. Some scholars have observed situations when leaders need to be discreet in their support for equity and decide on the proverbial “hill to die on,” (Ryan & Tuters, 2017) an approach they feel will get them the most practical result in their context. Others have studied leaders as “tempered radicals” who attempt to effect change while still operating within constraints imposed upon them by their organizations (Alston, 2005). Still others have called for broad-based community or advocacy leadership that builds coalitions and capacity for long-term change (Anderson, 2009; Khalifa, 2012). Dr. Howard was left with a choice in how to proceed, knowing it was likely she would face pushback from powerful stakeholders and the possibility that the board would not renew her contract. She also led a district facing deeply-rooted historical inequities that would likely not be resolved in the short-term. Superintendents need to be prepared for complex situations that allow for a range of possible responses to the powerful forces that sustain inequitable programs and policies in districts.

Superintendents who pursue an equity agenda also “need to influence, engage, organize, and compel a variety of stakeholders who may already be satisfied with the status-quo or be risk-averse given the political nature of public education” (DeMatthews et al., 2017, p. 23). This case presents a leadership context that is fluid and uncertain, a situation that left the superintendent to attempt to enact change without having (or creating) the opportunity to effectively communicate and build a coalition of support. In this case, stakeholder resistance might have been lessened or left ineffective with strong backing from other members and groups active in the community.

Communication and Framing

Research on policy change and implementation has utilized framing theory as a lens through which to analyze leaders’ attempts to influence how others make sense of their decisions and help legitimize them (Park et al., 2013; Woulfin et al., 2016). There are three kinds of framing “tasks” that a leader might undertake: identifying and defining the problem to be addressed (“diagnostic framing”), outlining a response to resolve this issue or issues (“prognostic framing”), and promoting the need for timely action (“motivational framing”; Benford & Snow, 2000). In the politicized leadership environment in which superintendents operate, theories of framing are useful in understanding how leaders utilize strategic communication to legitimize and gain support for policies—especially equity-based policies—in their districts.

This contested framing process took place in the case narrative presented earlier, wherein Dr. Howard attempted to define the proposed change as about “fairness” while others defined it in terms of academic or financial cost. The effectiveness of a framing effort to change minds or spur others to act depends on the level of framing “resonance,” or the “degree to which they are compelling to individuals” (Park et al., 2013, p. 648). This means, for example, that a leader would need to have a firm grasp of the knowledge and values within their community and leverage this understanding to craft a message that makes sense within their stakeholders’ experience and context. The lack of time to establish a relationship with the two new board members meant Dr. Howard did not have enough information to craft a message that would resonate with them and possibly gain their support. She was also not prepared to respond to the backlash that issues of equity can engender. In this case, some community members viewed this issue as “zero-sum,” a situation in which the district was taking away resources from one part of the community and giving them to another. It is part of the responsibility of the superintendent—acting in the role of “democratic leader” and “communicator”—to find a way to counter this framing and communicate an effective message that would bring about change.