Editorial: Situating equity at the center of continuous improvement in education

Editorial on the Research Topic
Situating equity at the center of continuous improvement in education

Within the Situating Equity at the Center of Continuous Improvement in Education Research Topic, we sought answers to substantial questions that define and situate equity within continuous improvement work. Although the articles in this issue provide valuable insights into equity-centered continuous improvement, we do not yet know all the mechanisms of equity-centered continuous improvement. What we do know is that not focusing on equity perpetuates existing inequities. We are reminded in this Research Topic that systems create and uphold inequity, and that equity (and justice) is possible when we improve systems in meaningful, and sometimes radical, ways.

These articles offer an on-the-ground understanding of what it looks like to integrate equity into the work of improving outcomes through processes that prioritize equity. The “stuff” of equity-centered improvement is the practices and routines that center equity within and pursue equity with the work. The authors emphasize the importance of being intentional in these practices and routines. The aim of this intentionality is the institutionalization of these practices and routines that, when entrenched within the system's way of working, become enacted as ingrained behaviors.

The authors in this topic knew equity-centered improvement work had to challenge beliefs (Sandoval and Neri; Stosich; Zumpe et al.; Hinnant-Crawford et al.). Intentionality includes foregrounding epistemic heterogeneity and developing axiological rigor to rethink how dominant ideologies of achievement define our focus as opposed to the goals of comfort, dignity, and agency (Sandoval and Neri). It involves ensuring the ability to recognize oppression and the underpinnings of a white supremacist culture (Iriti et al.; Welsh and McGraw). The authors also knew that a sustained focus on exploring the unjust nature of the taken-for-grated beliefs created the supportive conditions for equity-centered continuous improvement (Stosich; Welsh and McGraw).

How are we currently situating equity in improvement work?

The studies in this Research Topic demonstrate the intentionality necessary for institutionalization in many ways: the questions asked, the mindsets employed, the habits practiced, and the structures developed. This Research Topic offers both a structured way to think about equity-centered improvement and concrete practices that stakeholders can use in their own work.

First, questioning the current system and approaches to improvement, including what we do and do not focus on in the pursuit of equity, must be done intentionally. As Sandoval and Neri argue, these interrogatives grapple with design tensions to ensure the work does not reproduce long-standing patterns that not only hinder equity but also bolster injustice. Improvers need to reconcile how to work together in meaningful ways with the urgency and demands on time that we fall back on as an excuse for not learning and ultimately for not changing. We need to make sense of the tension between the complexity of the system and the search for a clear, impactful solution (Resnick et al.). We also need to determine how politics will or will not allow for the system disruption necessary for improvement that centers equity Penuel et al.; Resnick et al.).

Second, there needs to be intentional work to shift mindsets. The authors in this Research Topic found that mindsets not only needed to shift but also that they could shift (Zumpe et al.). Equity-centered improvement must go beyond the inquiry process to ensuring that the mindsets held when approaching inquiry foster equity. These mindsets must be humanizing (Sandoval and Neri) and must be asset-based (Hinnant-Crawford et al.). Deficit mindsets are a danger to the work of equity-centered improvement and must be actively resisted by forming and facilitating teams and by focusing on who is at the table, employing criticality as a team (Hinnant-Crawford et al.).

Third, there are habits of improvement that allow for centering equity. Continuous improvement relies heavily on the tools, protocols, and routines to establish improvement habits that center equity (Eubanks et al.; Iriti et al.; Penuel et al.). The tools and protocols must be adapted to center the experiences of marginalized communities, such as Black, Latine, and/or Indigenous students. Measurement routines, which are central to improvement, need to be rethought to resist the status quo (Takahashi et al.).

Other habits that need to be addressed are the social conditions that hold space for continuous improvement (Molle et al.). The establishment of a culture of learning, the inclusion of partners, and the team and group expectations around situating equity must be central to the social conditions. These social conditions must develop the habit of collective understanding. It is not easy work to reach a shared definition of equity, and it can be difficult to get improvers to see themselves as and to be equity warriors (Eubanks et al.). Through the social conditions and shared understanding, equity can become a reality.

Lastly, the structures must support equity-centered improvement (Sandoval and Neri; Stosich). To establish the habits and routines, there are structures around organizing time for improvement work, determining the responsibility for improvement work, and establishing the infrastructure for data use, that must not be agnostic to the pursuit of equity. For example, foregrounding empathy data, seeing systems as structures that must be changed, and collecting a range of data can all advance equity (cite; Takahashi et al.).

Why does situating equity in improvement work matter?

Situating equity in improvement matters because public schools are a cornerstone of our society and mandatory spaces for all students, so they must meet the needs of all students. Equity means every child, regardless of background, immutable characteristics, and location, gets what the opportunity to actualize their full potential in their academic and social life (National Equity Project). All schools should want all students, who are required by law to spend a third of their weekdays at school, to thrive.

Situating equity in improvement matters because achieving better results is directly linked to ensuring equity and justice for those marginalized by the school system. Without that focus, we will continue to reproduce the less-than-ideal outcomes many students currently experience and continue to define outcomes in narrow, status-perpetuating ways. If not careful, we can inadvertently deepen or create inequity while seeking improvement. This risk is particularly concerning when the broader context stigmatizes or prohibits discussions of equity. We cannot mitigate a risk if we are not even allowed to name it.

Situating equity in improvement matters because continuous improvement work in education differs from continuous improvement work in other fields. Our goal is not to improve systems for the sake of efficiency or profit. The work we are doing is fundamentally human, and we should place humans at the center of it. At the core of continuous improvement is disciplined inquiry. What we want to be disciplined about is not just upholding scientific rigor but also being disciplined about why and how we carry out inquiry to elevate and advance the human experience.

Situating equity in improvement matters because school is about more than academic outcomes; it is about futures we cannot yet see or imagine. When we improve academic conditions, we prepare the next generation to design the futures we all get to inhabit. As society faces new, wicked problems such as climate change, wealth inequality, and public health crises, we need an educated generation prepared to tackle the problems previous generations could not address and to build the world we have not yet imagined.

How do we sustain and advance equity work even when faced with explicit opposition or systemic barriers?

Equity-centered continuous improvement work does not stop; it is continuous. It is not a challenge that can be resolved simply by building frameworks or developing tools or even creating disruptive organizational routines. It is ongoing and requires relentless grappling with the tensions and discomfort that arise in the process; tensions that, when mishandled, create inequity in the first place. This work requires the improver to constantly learn and apply that learning to their specific context.

We need to organize change across levels. Continuous improvement is inherently system-transformation work. Because educational systems are nested, we cannot carry out equity-centered improvement in one part of the system and expect it to succeed (or spill over) without aligning the interconnected parts. Equity-centered continuous improvement work is partnership work. We must determine how to collaborate across boundaries while accounting for factors such as culture and power dynamics, whether we are working within a formal network or not.

We need to ensure that improvement and equity are tightly coupled. Equity and justice, if truly core values of our education system, should be hard to dismantle because they are institutionalized. We must continue the work of intentionally infusing equity into improvement efforts to design a school system that holds strong for all our children who deserve the opportunity to thrive.

Author contributions

EA: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. BH-C: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.