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

The authors in this topic knew equity-centered improvement work had to challenge beliefs (Sandoval 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 Welsh Welsh 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 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 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.).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.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 systemtransformation work. Because educational systems are nested, we cannot carry out equitycentered 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.