Gender and sexually minoritized system educational leaders and the team-based development of equity policies: A framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/ijll59Keywords:
Equity, system educational leadership, team dynamics, gender and sexually minoritized educational leaders, equity-oriented leadership, policymakingAbstract
Inequities experienced by minoritized groups are one of the greatest challenges facing education systems today. Accordingly, system educational leaders are responsible for developing equity-related policies that have far-reaching impact on school systems, which situates these leaders at the forefront of delivering solutions that improve outcomes for minoritized students. Yet, because of extant oppressive structures that reinforce hegemonic power norms and exacerbate social inequities, educational leaders are often complicit in perpetuating inequities. This is complicated further by the fact that most of them are dominantly located (i.e., White, cisgender, male, heterosexual), which results in a limited frame of reference when making decisions that impact minoritized groups. It is salient, then, to seek more understanding about how equity-related policymaking takes place in the context of system educational leadership teams comprised of both dominantly located and minoritized leaders. More specifically, because contending with inequities experienced by gender and sexually minoritized (GSM) individuals is often viewed as a lower priority relative to other equity-deserving groups, focusing on policymaking through the frame of this specific minoritized group is particularly relevant. This article presents a conceptual framework that establishes coherence between the various facets of team-based, equity-related policymaking, which include team dynamics, the degree to which leaders adopt equity-oriented leadership practices, and the unique contexts in which the policy is crafted. Moreover, the framework highlights how these policymaking factors are influenced by a coalescence of the identities; lived experiences; and dispositions, beliefs, and assumptions of the dominantly located and GSM leaders involved in the policymaking process.