Both/And: The Relatedness of Educators’ Diversity Ideologies and Perceptions of Educational

Infrastructure on Equity-Focused Practice Implementation

by

Katelyn M. Morman

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Education and Psychology)
in the University of Michigan
2024

Doctoral Committee:

Professor Stephanie A. Fryberg, Co-Chair

Senior Research Scientist Laura M. Brady, Co-Chair
Professor Deborah Rivas-Drake
Professor Donald J. Peurach
 Katelyn M. Morman

kmorman@umich.edu

ORCID iD: 0009-0001-5011-5282

© Katelyn M. Morman 2024

 Dedications

I must thank and dedicate this dissertation to the following people:

To the students I have been privileged to teach: I meant it when I said your ideas were powerful. It was your faces
that I saw when I doubted my own words.

To my advisors, Steph and Laura, who reminded me that students thrive in supportive environments at a time when I
needed it the most.

To my mother, who taught me that teaching is an act of shared dreaming, one where we dismantle the worlds we
cannot bear to live in and create the worlds we cannot bear to live without.

To my father, who taught me that your uniform should bear the names of your team and your family because both
have raised you and are who you come from. I have endeavored to do them both justice.

To my grandmothers Jane, Elaine, and Helen, who taught me what it means to be a memory keeper, to sonder, and
to plant gardens for future generations. Thank you for your patience while I learned that asking about the weather is
actually about knocking for entry to the deeper rooms we carry within us.

To my cousins, aunts, and uncles, whose boisterous teasing, game playing, singing, cooking, and dancing are the
reason I’m quick to drive home at the end of the semester.

To Nia and Brittani, who listen while I order my thoughts, insist on dancing it out, and pick me up off the floor
when I can’t pick myself up.

To Claudine, Foster, and Davinia, for the gleeful joy in our romance novel book club, writing dates, and auntie times
that made landing the plane possible.

To Grace, Ryan, and Christine, who have known me in every season of emerging and full adulthood. It is one of my
deepest joys to love you on purpose.

To the members of the Culture Collaboratory, who modeled community-serving research and grew me into someone
who was able to talk about my own research without blushing or stammering.

To my fellow graduate students, who have created my home away from home for the last six years, for the loud and
quiet moments where it was safe to feel pain and joy in messy ways.

To my Agua Fria colleagues, who remind me that I have frequently found the least interesting way to navigate a
school’s educational infrastructure.

To my committee members, for being in my corner and offering generative feedback about possible ways to tell this
story.

To Cong Wang, who was the first person to see any of these words. I feel so lucky to have you as a mentor.

I dedicate this dissertation to you and offer the most heartfelt thank you.

ii
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................v

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Definition of Key Terms ..................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................7

2.1 Diversity Ideologies as Malleable Frames .......................................................................... 7

2.2 Educators’ Sensemaking Regarding Educational Infrastructure ...................................... 11

2.3 Theoretical Proposition ..................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3 Mixed Methods Research Design .................................................................................16

3.1 Study Context ................................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Research Design................................................................................................................ 17

3.3 Data Sources and Preparation ........................................................................................... 19

Chapter 4 Phase One Research Methods .......................................................................................24

4.1 Quantitative Analysis: Rank-Order Investigation ............................................................. 24

4.2 Qualitative Analysis: Framework Investigation ............................................................... 25

4.3 Bidirectional Integration ................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 5 Phase One Quantitative Results ....................................................................................29

Chapter 6 Phase One Qualitative Results ......................................................................................39

iii
Chapter 7 Phase One Integration ...................................................................................................46

Chapter 8 Phase Two Research Methods.......................................................................................50

8.1 Quantitative Analysis: Path Model ................................................................................... 53

8.2 Qualitative Analysis: Framework Thematic Analysis ...................................................... 54

8.3 Bidirectional Integration ................................................................................................... 55

Chapter 9 Phase Two Quantitative Analysis .................................................................................56

Chapter 10 Phase Two Qualitative Results ....................................................................................61

Chapter 11 Phase Two Integration and Discussion .......................................................................72

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................86

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1. Educator participants’ demographic information within data sources. .......................... 23

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for ranks of educational infrastructure support and broader
support from vested parties among Pine Orchard educators. ....................................................... 30

Table 3. Item worth value coefficients from PLM with time & resources and administrator
support as reference. ..................................................................................................................... 31

Table 4 Strength of support type among educators by PLMT groups .......................................... 34

Table 5. Post-hoc comparison between groups resulting from the PLMT (Bonferroni
adjustment p < 0.007. .................................................................................................................... 35

Table 6. Descriptive statistics within and between groups resulting from the PLMT .................. 37

Table 7. Thematic results by categorical code and educator group .............................................. 40

Table 8. Schools with Pine Orchard by educational infrastructure ratings, range of

multiculturalism beliefs, student racial demographic details, and reason for inclusion or
exclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 9. Correlations among variables in Pine Orchard data ....................................................... 56

Table 10. Summary of path model results. ................................................................................... 58

Table 11. Thematic results by category of educational infrastructure and educator group .......... 63

Table 12. Thematic results by school and educator. ..................................................................... 67

Appendix Table 1. National data demographics. .......................................................................... 82

Appendix Table 2. Correlations for national data set ................................................................... 82

Appendix Table 3. Results of path model from national sample .................................................. 83

v
 List of Figures

Figure 1. The relationship between the phases of data collection, the instruments used, and the
study’s aims. Note: Arrow figures indicate timing, moving from left to right, where circles
indicate occurrences of data integration in the study. ................................................................... 18

Figure 2. The bidirectional integration within each phase is demonstrated, where the u-turn
arrow indicates how the analytical findings from the first analysis informs the second analysis,
and the re-interpretation of the first analytical findings during integration. Figure adapted from
Mosehelm & Fetters, 2017............................................................................................................ 19

Figure 3 Item worth value coefficients from PLM with time & resources as reference. T&R =
time & resources; AdS = administrator support; SC = supportive colleagues; PL = professional
learning; FC = support from families and caregivers, S = positive response from students, C =
supportive sociopolitical climate .................................................................................................. 32

Figure 4. PLMT with two nodes returned by educators’ multiculturalism responses. T&R =
time & resources; AdS = administrator support; SC = supportive colleagues; PL = professional
learning; FC = support from families and caregivers, S = positive response from students, C =
supportive sociopolitical climate .................................................................................................. 33

Figure 5. Hypothesized path model to be tested ........................................................................... 57

Figure 6. Tested path model betas with latent construct item loadings. ....................................... 59

Appendix Figure 1. Tested path model betas with latent construct item loadings for national
data sample.................................................................................................................................... 85

vi
 Abstract

Why do some educators implement equity-focused practices while others do not? Educators use

their experiences and their diversity ideologies (e.g., beliefs about social difference and

hierarchy; Plaut, 2002) to make sense of educational infrastructure. Educational infrastructure

(i.e., formal and social organizational routines, processes, and roles related to teaching and

learning; Peurach et al., 2019) are intended to support educators during teaching and can predict

their practice implementation (Leithwood, 2021). Using a multi-phase mixed methods approach,

this study tested the relatedness of diversity ideologies to practice implementation, the

relatedness of educators’ diversity ideologies to their perception of educational infrastructure,

and the relatedness of diversity ideologies and educational infrastructure to practice

implementation. Results of this study indicate that, in support of prior literature, diversity

ideologies predict practice implementation, and educators' perceptions of educational

infrastructure. Novelly, results indicate diversity ideologies and educational infrastructure each

predict equity-focused practice implementation. These findings suggest that to sustain educators’

equity-focused practices, educational infrastructure can strategically plan to meet differences

within educators’ diversity ideologies.

vii
 Chapter 1 Introduction

Educators’ practices significantly contribute to students’ experiences and outcomes. In

fact, decades of research suggest that when educators utilize practices that are inconsistent with

the students’ cultural background, they may inadvertently contribute to differences in academic

motivation and performance (Covarriabus et al., 2007; Markus et al., 2000; Markus & Taylor,

2015; Steele & Cohn-Vargas, 2013). In mainstream U.S. educational contexts, for example,

white and middle-class students consistently receive messages that affirm their belonging and

potential for success, while racially minoritized and low-income students consistently receive

messages that undermine their belonging and success (Stephens et al., 2012; Stephens et al.,

2014). These experiences create cultural mismatch, or experiences of exclusion among

underrepresented student groups, (Stephens & Townsend, 2015) that adversely affect these

students’ engagement and academic performance (Celeste et al., 2019; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Implementing equity-focused practices is one way that educators can meaningfully

improve the educational experiences and academic performance of students who have

historically been excluded and continue to experience marginalization within the US education

system (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Lopez, 2024). Yet, educators vary widely in the

adoption of such practices (Romijn et al., 2021; Parkhouse et al., 2020). This variability raises an

essential question: why do some educators choose to implement equity-focused practices while

others do not?

One reason may be that educators’ beliefs about social difference and hierarchy (i.e., their

diversity ideologies; Plaut, 2002) may not be well aligned with equity-focused practices. Another

1
reason may be that current educational infrastructure (i.e., social and formal processes intended

to support instruction and learning; Peurach et al., 2019) are not supportive of equity-focused

practice implementation. And yet another may be that these two factors–educator ideologies and

educational infrastructure–each work to influence equity-focused practice implementation.

Two decades of research have shaped our understanding of how diversity ideologies

shape individuals’ perceptions of equity, diversity, and inclusion (Markus, Steele & Steele, 2000;

Plaut, 2002). Like other beliefs, diversity ideologies are an interpretative framework that

educators use as they notice, interpret, and make decisions in their classrooms and complex

environments of schools (Knowles et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2019; Todd & Galinsky, 2012).

Helping educators to embrace diversity ideologies that are more supportive and inclusive of

student diversity leads them to implement more equity-focused practices (Aragón et al., 2017;

De Leersnyder et al., 2022). However, no studies have examined the relatedness of educators’

diversity ideologies on their perceptions of educational infrastructure intended to encourage

equity-focused practice implementation.

Generally speaking, educational infrastructure assists schools in their enactment of

instructional goals (i.e., organizational goals focused on teaching and learning; Nadler &

Tushman, 1997; Feldman, 2003) through formal aspects, such as professional learning, curricula

aligned with practice implementation, as well as social aspects in the form of everyday

processes, like administrator and colleague support (Peurach, et al., 2019). Social and formal

aspects of educational infrastructure interact to enact instructional goals. The presence of

educational infrastructure is positively related to educators’ implementation of practices

introduced during professional learning opportunities (Bellibas et al., 2022) and evidence

suggests this process is also consistent with respect to equity-focused initiatives (Leithwood et

2
al., 2021). The positive impact of educational infrastructure on educators’ practices and students’

outcomes highlights the importance of these systems.

The effectiveness of educational infrastructure is contextually dependent on how

educators perceive and interact with them. As educators’ make sense of their environments,

including infrastructure, they engage in a series of actions of noticing, interpreting, and decision-

making (Vaughan, 1996). This sensemaking in turn affects how they respond to and utilize the

educational infrastructure available to them (Corbin, 2005; Everitt, 2012). For example,

educators' beliefs about the purpose of education have been shown to shape their perceptions

regarding the effectiveness of educational infrastructure intended to support new initiatives

(Corbin, 2005). This sensemaking process, where educators integrate new information with their

beliefs, influences educators’ decisions to combine, implement, and even resist educational

infrastructure meant to encourage their equity-focused practice implementation (Peurach et al.,

2019).

I contend that educators’ diversity ideologies are among those beliefs that inform the way

educators perceive educational infrastructure intended to support equity-focused initiatives

within their schools. By examining how educators’ diversity ideologies inform their perceptions

about available educational infrastructure, we can better design educational infrastructure that

support a broader spectrum of educators in implementing equity-focused practices.

1.1 Research Questions

The overall question that this study seeks to answer is: How do educators’ diversity

ideologies associated with their perceptions of educational infrastructure and equity-focused

practice implementation? Educators’ diversity ideologies have a well-established direct

association on their practice implementation (and therefore not the main focus of this study), but

3
no study has examined the relatedness of educators’ diversity ideologies on their perceptions of

educational infrastructure, nor how each of these factors matter for practice implementation. The

study uses a multi-phase approach in order to explore the relatedness of diversity ideologies on

perceptions of educational infrastructure, and test the additive effect of diversity ideologies and

educational infrastructure on practice implementation. The overarching question is addressed via

four research questions:

Phase One: Diversity Ideologies to Educational Infrastructure

• How are educators’ diversity ideologies associated with their rankings of educational

infrastructure?

• How are educators’ diversity ideologies associated with their characterization of

educational infrastructure?

Phase Two: Diversity Ideologies to Practices Through Educational Infrastructure

• What is the association of educator diversity ideologies with their perceptions of current

educational infrastructure and educator equity practices?

• How are educator diversity ideologies and available educational infrastructure associated

with their practice implementation?

1.2 Definition of Key Terms

This section clarifies the meaning of key terms as used within this study that will be

expanded upon in the literature review.

Diversity Ideologies. Implicit and explicit patterns regarding acknowledging and

engaging differences in culture, race, ethnicity, and language visible within patterns of behavior

and organizational structures (Plaut, 2002). Two terms that encompass different strategies for

4
incorporating and advocating for diversity within society include multiculturalism and

colorblindness, which will be more explicitly discussed during Chapter Two.

Equity. This study’s understanding of equity in education draws upon Poekert and

colleagues’ (2020) conceptualization, which contends that equity should account for the impact

of social hierarchy within students’ experiences and academic outcomes. Within this

conceptualization, the extent to which social boundaries and social hierarchy are acknowledged

is variable. An explicit operationalization will be described in more detail during Chapter Two.

Educational Infrastructure. Within this study, I draw upon Peruach and colleagues’

(2019) conceptualization of educational infrastructure as those everyday routines, processes and

resources focused on instruction and learning within school systems that take on formal (i.e.,

curricula, assessments) and social (i.e., relationships, norms) structures. This conceptualization is

in line with Nadler and Tushman’s often cited model of organizational change, where formal and

social processes within an organization interact with one another, people, and work to produce

outcomes (1997). A more explicit operationalization will be described in more detail during

Chapter Two.

Equity-Focused Practices. Equity-focused practices can include (but are not limited to)

strategies for teaching social emotional learning, practices that account for differences within

language, culture, religion, class, and gender (Tualaulelei & Halse, 2021; Romijn et al., 2021).

What binds equity-focused practices together is a common goal to improve the educational

experiences and academic performance of students who have historically been excluded and

continue to experience marginalization within the US education system (Darling-Hammond et

al., 2017; Lopez, 2024). Within this study, equity-focused practices are defined in terms of

practices that incorporate and validate student’s cultural backgrounds in the learning context.

5
Summary of Chapter One

Chapter One introduced equity-focused practice implementation and established the need

to examine the influence of structural (i.e., educational infrastructure) and psychological (i.e.,

diversity ideologies) factors on educators’ equity-focused practice implementation. This chapter

introduced research questions and key terms to set the groundwork for the study investigation.

6
 Chapter 2 Literature Review

Educators’ diversity ideologies and perceptions of educational infrastructure shape their equity-

focused practice implementation. I begin by explicating educators’ diversity ideologies as

malleable frames that are employed during sensemaking. Put simply, educators’ diversity

ideologies and lived experiences shape their sensemaking about equity. Within their work,

educators use their diversity ideologies to make sense of educational infrastructure intended to

support their work within classrooms. I theorize that these two factors--educators’ diversity

ideologies and their perceptions of educational infrastructure--influence educator equity-focused

practice implementation. Specifically, I anticipate that educators’ perceptions of educational

infrastructure will be associated with their diversity ideologies and that these ideologies shape

what educators find beneficial regarding social and formal aspects of educational infrastructure.

Thus, educators who receive social and formal aspects of equity-focused infrastructure in their

work contexts will, in turn, report more equity-focused practice implementation. In the following

sections, I will delve into two main areas 1) the nature of diversity ideologies as malleable

frames and 2) educational infrastructure, examining both general understandings and, more

specifically, social and formal aspects, in order to build on the rationale provided here.

2.1 Diversity Ideologies as Malleable Frames

While the use of the term “ideology” may suggest a strict adherence to a bounded

conceptualization of diversity, evidence suggests that diversity ideologies are more akin to

malleable frames (Knowles et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2019; Todd & Galinsky, 2012).

7
Malleable frames are employed during sensemaking processes, a cyclical series of actions that

occurs as individuals notice, interpret, and make decisions in response to their environment and

experiences (Vaughan, 1996).

Diversity ideologies have experience-based and domain-based aspects that permit fluidity

regarding where and how these ideologies inform sensemaking. The experience-based aspects of

diversity ideologies are acquired through social interactions (Markus & Hamedani, 2007) In

other words, diversity ideologies are a product of our understanding of how to be and interact

with others in the world, including how individuals contend with social differences between

individuals and across groups. These experiences are employed during further sensemaking

allowing sensemaking to shift “even as its core meaning remains the same” (Knowles et al.,

2009, p. 858).

The domain-based aspect of diversity ideologies emerges when traced over multiple

generations and across individuals. When the concept of diversity became popular in the US

through legal proceedings, it was originally particularized to race (Edelman, 2001) and prior

research suggests that the diversity ideologies an individual endorses are related to how broadly

or narrowly they conceptualize the domains of diversity (Bell & Hartmann, 2007, Unzuetta et al.,

2012). For example, differences in how people conceptualize diversity and related experiences or

identities can be more narrowly ascribed to race, gender, and social class, or be more broadly

ascribed to include domains like occupational status, age, and parenting style, depending on an

individuals’ beliefs about whether diversity should focally work to attenuate or maintain social

hierarchies (Unzuetta et al., 2012). The experience-based aspects of diversity ideologies share

theoretical kinship with elements of contact theory, meaning that as individuals’ experiences

with social marginalization and contact with individuals who experience social marginalization

8
increase, they incorporate these experiences into their understandings of social difference and

social hierarchy (Wright et al., 2017). Collectively, the domain- and experience-based aspects

flexibly influence how diversity ideologies influence sensemaking.

Though flexible, the experience- and domain-based aspects of diversity ideologies

organized into patterned and reliable responses, particularly as understandings of social

differences intertwine with social hierarchy (Chaney, 2022; Pauker et al., 2015). Two commonly

examined diversity ideologies–colorblindness and multiculturalism–reliably predict educators’

normative practices regarding differences of race, class, gender, ability, and language (Goren &

Plaut, 2012; Rattan & Ambady, 2013).

To embrace colorblindness within a classroom often means to have a sense that drawing

attention to students’ differences in social identities should be avoided. Rationales associated

with colorblind ideologies can vary: some hold interpretations that ignoring differences in

students’ social identities can prevent them from perpetuating social inequalities within their

classroom; some are drawing upon beliefs that social differences are irrelevant to social

hierarchy and that a students’ learning is solely the product of their effort and ability (Levin et

al., 2012). For the former, treating all students “as humans” is often an attempt to attenuate social

hierarchy (Apfelbaum et al., 2012). For the latter, sameness in treatment is often an effort to

maintain social hierarchies, which they believe to be the result of merit (Knowles et al., 2009).

Correspondingly, when employing colorblindness beliefs during sensemaking, educators avoid

acknowledgement of social differences, implementing practices that emphasize the sameness

within their classroom (Aragón et al., 2016; Celeste et al., 2019, De Leersynder et al., 2022).

On the other hand, to employ multiculturalism beliefs within a classroom means to have a

sense that social differences are an inescapable part of what makes students who they are

9
(Birnbaum, et al., 2022). For these educators, students’ social differences are a source of

collective and individual strength, like a quilt with fabric of different shapes and sizes, and

acknowledging differences facilitates the recognition of instances where social hierarchies are

being perpetuated (Stephens et al., 2008). Beneath this ideology is a sense that individuals from

different social groups and positionality have different experiences and perspectives (Rattan &

Ambady, 2013). Correspondingly, these educators tend to embrace practices that explicitly

acknowledge diversity in social boundaries as a strength in their classrooms (Aragón et al., 2016;

Purdie-Vaughns et al, 2008; Wang et al., 2023). Educators high in multiculturalism are more

likely to have experiences with social marginalization, particularly in relation to their race, class,

and gender (Gündemir et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2007, Wolsko et al., 2000). These experiences,

which may have overlapping dimensions but should never be mistaken as interchangeable,

influence how educators notice and interpret which social interactions and what aspects of their

environments are connected to differences in social boundaries and social hierarchy.

Given these distinctive beliefs regarding social differences and hierarchy, educators

employing diversity ideologies during sensemaking predict more and less aligned support for

equity-focused initiatives. Equity-focused initiatives account for the impact of differences in

social hierarchy on students’ experiences and outcome, though there is variation in how

explicitly focused on social difference these initiatives are (Hagenaars et al., 2023). For

educators higher in multiculturalism, embracing these initiatives and practices are these are

thought to be easier as the promoted understandings are more closely aligned with their diversity

ideologies than those higher in colorblindness (Aragón et al., 2016; De Leersynder et al., 2022).

Thus, educators’ diversity beliefs, particularly their multiculturalism beliefs, tend to

correspond with their implementation of equity-focused practices. While equity-focused

10
practices are more likely to be implemented by educators strongly endorse multiculturalism

beliefs (Aragón et al., 2016; Celeste et al., 2019, De Leersynder et al., 2022; Hagenaars et al.,

2023), there is also evidence to suggest that educators who are normative in their

multiculturalism beliefs can change their beliefs and practices as a result of professional learning

opportunities (Gündemir & Agirdag, 2022; Morman et al., 2023; Purdie-Vaughns et al, 2010;

Wang et al., 2023). Educators who implement equity-focused practices are frequently able to

pinpoint the horizons of their experiences, meaning they understand how their experiences and

sensemaking have shaped their perspectives and they actively seek out and continually engage

the horizons of students’ lived experiences during learning (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; López,

2024). Understandably, some professional learning efforts have focused on scaffolding

educators’ perspective-taking and knowledge of cultural differences alongside their development

of equity-focused practices.

2.2 Educators’ Sensemaking Regarding Educational Infrastructure

Educators’ diversity ideologies can extend into their perception of educational

infrastructure and their decisions to implement equity-focused practices. While a comprehensive

review of schools as organizations is beyond the scope of this literature review (for examples see

Peurach et al., 2019), understanding how schools enact policies like equity-focused initiatives

requires examining educational infrastructure within school organizations. Research suggests

that educational infrastructure focused on equity may be a pathway to increase equity-focused

practice implementation (Blauchild, 2023). As educators’ perceive the social and formal aspects

of educational infrastructure, these perceptions influence their decisions to engage with practices

advocated by educational infrastructure (Civilito et al., 2017; Meetoo, 2018; Rissanen, 2021).

11
 The specifics of how formal and social aspects of educational infrastructure influence

educators’ practice implementation are often referred to as being loosely coupled and struggling

for coherence (Peurach & Glazer, 2015; Spillane et al., 2022). In a long-view-of-education way,

the loose coupling between educational infrastructure and what educators do in their classrooms

often succumb to the christmas tree effect, meaning that the shiny baubles of new initiatives

change the decoration, while the educational infrastructure remains the same (Bryk et al., 1993).

For example, many elements of educational infrastructure currently within public schools were

intended for rote memorization learning desired within mass schooling initiatives in the early

nineteenth century, rather than the knowledge depth and malleability desired within the

instructionally focused initiatives that shaped much of the late twentieth century (Cohen et al.,

2017). Thus, even as efforts to reform educational systems are introduced, these efforts are

forced to contend with the long-armed legacies of prior instructional goals.

When examining educational infrastructure, there are two understandings that helpfully

guide the way researchers examine educational infrastructure for change within formal and social

structures: 1) no formal or social structure can be considered universally beneficial (Byrk et al.,

2010) 2) formal and social support structures frequently operate in tandem to successfully

support educator practice implementation (Shirrel et al., 2019). For the purposes of this study,

these understandings elucidate that within educators’ experiences, the supportive aspects of

educational infrastructure will be beneficial in context, and that there can be both formal and

social aspects of educational infrastructure described within a supportive experience. For

example, an educator might discuss how their school administrator created a professional

learning on distinguishing between cultural appropriation and appreciation, and also how they

encouraged educators’ discussion and collaboration during the professional learning. Within this

12
experience, formal structures take shape in the process of calling the meeting and the

organization of the contents, and social aspects take shape in the administrators’ handling of the

content and work to build discussion between educators.

Educational Infrastructure Influences by Administrators. District and school

administrators shape formal aspects of educational infrastructure as they interpret and enact

policy. Formal aspects that district administrators shape can include the available professional

development, curricular materials, curriculum guides, and other forms of practice

implementation guidance (Little, 1993; Spillane, 2000). Resource availability shapes

expectations for teaching and learning, influencing educators' practices. In a recent systematic

review by collaborators Aldrige and McLure, lack of aligned resources and unrealistic pacing

guides were listed as reasons for instructional failures in 46 out of 62 studies (Aldridge &

McLure, 2023; McLure & Aldridge, 2022; 2023). Formally, school administrators provide

instructional supervision and assistance, often ensuring that professional development organized

by district administrators occurs, monitoring and evaluating educators’ practice implementation

(Datnow & Castellano, 2000; March & Kennedy, 2020; Yurkofsky, 2022). Thus, the formal

aspects of educational infrastructure largely influence educators through the presence of

standardly available resources.

The social aspects of educational infrastructure that administrators shape are based in

norms and relationships. Socially, district administrators who spend time on educator buy-in

during curriculum policy adoption have greater success with practice implementation

(Hernandez & Kose, 2012). School administrators agentively ensure colleague collaboration and

bound permissible conversations within professional learning activities within which educator

sensemaking unfolds (Coburn, 2005). Social aspects bear the markers of administrators’ policy

13
interpretations, influencing policy enactment (Spillane 2000). In this way, school administrators

shape the social aspects of educational infrastructure that educators’ encounter and respond to.

Collectively, the formal and social aspects of educational infrastructure within educators’

experiences with colleagues and administrators shape the environment educators encounter. As

educators make sense of their environments, they “find ways to make decisions that fit their

beliefs” (Blaushild, 2023, p. 237). These worldviews have the ability to influence their decision-

making about promoted and permissible practices (Hagenaars, 2023). Thus, educators’ beliefs

should influence their perceptions of educational infrastructure and these perceptions should

influence their practices implementation.

2.3 Theoretical Proposition

• Educators’ diversity ideologies are interpretative frames that malleably influence

their interpretations of equity-focused educational infrastructures and practices.

• Educational infrastructures support equity-focused practice implementation

through intersecting formal and social manifestations.

• Educators’ diversity ideologies orient them differently to the benefits of

educational infrastructure. For educators with strong multiculturalism beliefs,

which tend to be supportive of equity-focused practice implementation, their

commitment to equity-focused initiatives is likely to be higher than for educators

with weaker multiculturalism beliefs. Receiving formal support would facilitate

practice implementation beyond their individual efforts, while not receiving

formal support would force them to rely on their individual commitments

These four tenets within the theoretical proposition guided the study design and analysis, detailed

within chapters three, four, and seven.

14
Summary of Chapter Two

Chapter two details the interpretative frame of diversity ideologies, which shape how

educators understand equity, particularly their views on social hierarchy and boundaries. These

Diversity ideologies, in turn, inform how educators interpret educational infrastructure intended

to carry out equity initiatives, orienting them differently to social and formal aspects of

educational infrastructures. While we have evidence that diversity ideologies and educational

infrastructure each influence equity-focused practice implementation, there is less clarity on how

these two concepts interact to additively influence equity practice implementation. To address

this gap, a theoretical proposition linking diversity ideologies, educational infrastructure, and

equity-focused practice implementation was detailed. This framework guides the design of the

study described in Chapter Three.

15
 Chapter 3 Mixed Methods Research Design

This chapter explains the research design to support this multiphase mixed method

investigation. First, I provide an overview of the research context, followed by the research

design and a rationale for the employment of mixed methods. Second, I detail the data sources

employed within the methods.

3.1 Study Context

This study takes place within a K-12 public school district within the Pacific Northwest

region of the United States. The overall student population is majority Latino/Hispanic with a

substantial population of white students. This district has been part of a research-practitioner

partnership focused on increasing equity-focused practices among educators for the last seven

years, which have included train-the-trainer style professional learning opportunities focused on

practices that validate students’ cultural background. Prior research within the district has

indicated significant changes in educators’ diversity ideologies, increases in educators’ equity-

focused practice implementation, and positive increases with students' school experiences and

academic outcomes (Wang et al., 2023; Brady, Wang, et al., 2024). However, informal

partnership meetings also indicated that there were considerable differences among educators’

beliefs and between school-wide enactment of educational infrastructure. Thus, the findings of

this study may be limited to contexts that share one or more of these common elements.

16
3.2 Research Design

There are two phases within this multiphase mixed method design, each with a qualitative

and quantitative data analysis. The integration of the analyses within each phase sequentially

builds upon one another to answer the overarching research question: How do educators’

diversity ideologies associated with their perceptions of educational infrastructure and equity-

focused practice implementation? (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2018). Mixed-methods study

designs are particularly useful for “developing in-depth, practical understandings and

conclusions that are particularized and transferable” (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2018, p. 118). A

benefit of mixing methods is the ability to sequentially build interpretations from multiple data

sources focused on isolated aspects of a complex phenomenon (Mosehelm & Fetters, 2017).

Using a two-phase sequential approach enables two distinct but linked research

investigations to inform a final interpretation on educators’ equity-focused practice

implementation. The initial phase aimed to characterize how educators value educational

infrastructure through an analysis of focus groups and rank-order data in a confirmatory manner.

The results of the integration informed the second phase of the analysis, which aimed to

investigate the influence of educator diversity ideologies and educational infrastructure on

equity-focused practice implementation. The integrative analysis brought together these findings

into one set of results focused on notable aspects of educators’ desired supports, whether they

received these desired supports, and how (if at all) these changed educators’ equity-focused

practice implementation.

17
Figure 1. The relationship between the phases of data collection, the instruments used, and the study’s aims. Note:
Arrow figures indicate timing, moving from left to right, where circles indicate occurrences of data integration in the
study.

Figure 1 details the overarching sequential nature of the study, as well as the instruments

and research questions related to each of the research design phases. Within each phase, a

qualitative and quantitative strand that was analyzed sequentially with a bidirectional

interpretation to ensure equivalent weighting. As an example of this process, Foote (2019)

employed a sequential mixed-methods design to conduct a cluster analysis of variables related to

mathematics achievement and educational infrastructure in order to select cases for further

investigation into the particulars of how these educational infrastructure support mathematics

18
achievement. During the final integration, the findings from the case study were employed for a

re-interpretation of the educational infrastructure’ relatedness to mathematics achievement.

Figure 2 demonstrates the planned bidirectional integration for phase one and phase two, in that

the quantitative analysis shaped the qualitative analysis, and the qualitative analysis shaped the

interpretation of quantitative findings.

Figure 2. The bidirectional integration within each phase is demonstrated, where the u-turn arrow indicates how the
analytical findings from the first analysis informs the second analysis, and the re-interpretation of the first analytical
findings during integration. Figure adapted from Mosehelm & Fetters, 2017.

3.3 Data Sources and Preparation

This section gives an overview of the data sources used during the two phases of mixed-

methods analysis described within the following sections. Participants consented to participate in

the study using an IRB-approved consent form associated with this study during each form of

data collection (HUM00218728). There were three main sources of data collected for this study:

a survey issued to all educators within Pine Orchard School district, focus group interviews

conducted at nine of nine schools, and individual interviews conducted at four of nine schools.

19
The selection criteria for limiting the follow up interviews to four schools is more explicitly

detailed within the qualitative data analysis for phase two within chapter eight.

Data Collection.

Surveys. In February 2023, all educators within Pine Orchard School District were

eligible to participate in the survey and were recruited via emails sent by researchers. Responses

were collected via electronic survey and educators received $5 in exchange for participation.

1. Educator Multiculturalism ideologies. Six items assessed educators’ endorsement

of multiculturalism (𝜶 = .80; e.g. “Classrooms should teach from multiple

perspectives”). Teachers responded using a 6-point scale (1 - Strongly Disagree to

6 - Strongly Agree) that was adapted from the work of Plaut & Markus (2005)

and used in previous equity-focused educational interventions (Brady et al., in

press; Morman et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023).

2. Equity-Focused Infrastructure. Seven rank-order items indicated the importance

of social aspects (i.e., “Support from colleagues”, “Support from administrators”)

and formal aspects of educational infrastructure (i.e.. “Time and resources”,

“professional development”) that support equity-focused practices within their

classrooms, and supportive individuals external to educational infrastructure (i.e.,

“positive sociopolitical climate”, “supportive families / caregivers”, “positive

response from students”). These items were drawn from reviews on essential

promotive factors to creating educational change (McLure & Aldridge, 2023).

3. Perceptions of Educational Infrastructure. Educators’ perceptions of equity work

within their schools (i.e., “My school implements the values it has for equity.”)

20
 were assessed on a 6-point likert scale (1- Extremely Uncomfortable to 6 -

Strongly Comfortable) that was developed for use during this study.

4. Equity-focused Practices. Educators’ implementation of equity-focused practices

were assessed using 12 items split into two subscales of cultural background (𝜶 =

.83; “Helping students see how course material can help them fulfill their roles in

their families/communities”) and cultural validation practices (𝜶 = .83; “Use the

cultural background of my students to make learning meaningful.”). Educators

responded using a 6-point scale (1- Never to 6 - Daily) (Brady et al., in press).

5. Educator Race. Educators self-reported their racial/ethnic identity using a single

item (Asian, Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, Native/Indigenous,

Multiple Races/Ethnicities, White) that included a write-in option. The write-in

responses were examined and re-coded when responses indicated multiple racial

identities or aligned with a larger umbrella racial identity answer (i.e.,

“Australian” was re-coded to white). Due to the nature of the sample size, race

was re-coded into a binary BIPOC or white, and the remaining write-in options

(i.e., “Human”) were excluded from the analysis.

6. Educator Gender. Educators self-reported their gender identity using a single item

(“male”, “female”, “nonbinary/transgender”, or “prefer not to say”). A sensitivity

analysis revealed the unequal sample sizes would not permit reliable analysis, and

these categories were re-coded into a binary “male” and “non-dominant gender”

categories.

7. Educator Years of Experience. Educators self-reported the number of years that

they had been working as an educator.

21
 8. School Racial Demographics. Student racial demographics by school were

provided by district personnel and were compared with publicly available state

reports. Due to the nature of the school demographics, which are largely white

and Latino/Hispanic, these were re-coded into a binary white and BIPOC.

Focus Group Interviews. Focus group interviews designed to elicit available aspects of

educational infrastructure and probe what educators found supportive about these aspects.

Educators recruited via email and participated in focus groups led by the research team before or

after school. Recordings were transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai (2023). And quality-checked

by the research team. All data were uploaded into the qualitative software package Dedoose

(2023). Educators received the equivalent of an hour of extra pay for participation in the study,

which was provided by the school district.

Individual Interviews. Follow up individual interviews designed to elicit and probe

educators’ perceptions regarding their school administrator support for equity were conducted

with educators who had participated in focus group interviews during phase one. Educators four

schools were purposively selected based on overall mean perception of educational infrastructure

(see Chapter 8 for a more detailed case selection rationale). Interviews were conducted via Zoom

at a time and a location convenient for participants. The goal was to speak to a minimum of four

educators within each of the four schools. Table 1 shows that 19 participants agreed to

participate in the study, with a minimum of four participants for each school met.

Survey Demographics (n = Focus Group Demographics Interview Demographics

288) (n =79) (n = 19)

Years of 13.7 Years of 13.2 Years of 12.9

Teaching (M) Teaching (M) Teaching (M)

Position (%) Position (%) Position (%)

Administration 2.8 Administration 11.4 Certified Instructor 79

22
 Certified 57.2 Certified Instructor 67.1 Specialist 21
Instructor 15.5 Instructional 03.7
Instructional 14.7 Assistant 11.4
Assistant 6.7 Specialist 3.7
Specialist Support Staff
Support Staff

School Level (%) School Level (%) School Level (%)

Primary (PK - 6) 58.1 Primary (PK - 6) 72.1 Primary (PK - 6) 100
Secondary (7-12) 41.9 Secondary (7-12) 27.9

Gender (%) Gender (%) Gender (%)

Female 78 Female 79.7 Female 84.2
Male 13 Male 16.4 Male 15.8
Nonbinary 1 Nonbinary 02.5 Nonbinary 0
Prefer Not to Say 4 Prefer not to say 02.5 Prefer not to say 0

Race/Ethnicity (%) Race/Ethnicity (%) Race/Ethnicity (%)

Asian 1 Asian 1.2 Asian 0
Latino/Hispanic 26 Black/African- 1.2 Black/African- 0
Multiple 4 American 25 American 25.1
Ethnicities 66 Latino/Hispanic 2.5 Latino/Hispanic 0
White 7 Native/Indigenous 5 Native/Indigenous 5
Write-in Multiple Ethnicities 65.8 Multiple Ethnicities 68.4
White 2.5 White 7.4
Write-in Write-in
Table 1. Educator participants’ demographic information within data sources.

Summary of Chapter Three. Chapter three detailed the study context, research design,

data sources and preparation. These were matched with the research questions detailed in

Chapter One as well as the previous literature, hypotheses, and theoretical propositions detailed

within Chapter Two. The elements discussed within this chapter are utilized within chapters four

and eight which detail the research methods for each phase of the study design.

23
 Chapter 4 Phase One Research Methods

The aim of the first phase of the study is to establish that educator diversity ideologies are

associated with their perception of educational infrastructure. The first quantitative analysis

examined differences in educators’ rank-order responses regarding the importance of various

aspects of educational infrastructure by their multiculturalism beliefs. These results quantitative

analysis shaped which aspects of educational infrastructure were comparatively analyzed within

the qualitative analysis, separated by educators’ multiculturalism ideologies. During integration,

themes regarding educators’ characterization of educational infrastructure were combined with

the findings of the rank order analysis. This integration focused on cross-case differences

between educators’ characterization of educational infrastructure (i.e., made sense of how

significant differences in the statistical analysis aligned or did not align with the qualitative

analysis). While not causal, this integration provides direction for the secondary phase of the

investigation, meaning that it establishes differences in educators’ perceptions of educational

infrastructure. This allows a further narrowing within the second phase to school cases for

empirical observation regarding the association of structural and psychological factors on

educators’ practice implementation.

4.1 Quantitative Analysis: Rank-Order Investigation

The aims of the first analysis within phase one were to determine how diversity

ideologies are associated with educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure through the

research question posed in Chapter One: How are educators’ diversity ideologies associated with

24
their rankings of educational infrastructure? To do this, a Plackett-Luce model tree (PLMT) was

used to determine how educators’ diversity ideologies, gender, years of experience, and race

statistically change educators’ ranking of the available aspects of educational infrastructure

(Placket, 1975). This analysis provided relative ranking for aspects of educational infrastructure

among participants (i.e., which aspects they were likely to rank first, second, and so on), as well

as how educators’ rankings of educational infrastructure are related to their diversity ideologies

(i.e., whether having high multiculturalism was associated with ranking certain aspects of

educational infrastructure differently).

Data Analysis. PLMT model was fitted to the data including educators’ multiculturalism

and colorblindness ideologies, gender, race, years of teaching, and student racial diversity as

covariates. The time and resources item was used as the constant for the model and item-worth

coefficients, standard errors, and p-values were returned. The resulting coefficients, standard

errors, and p-value comparison between these groups are driven by the recursive partitioning

algorithm.

4.2 Qualitative Analysis: Framework Investigation

The second part of phase one was to investigate how educators characterize the benefits

of educational infrastructure they receive using framework thematic analysis (FTA; Ritchie &

Lewis, 2003). This phase of the study answers the research question posed in Chapter One: How

are educators’ diversity ideologies associated with perceived beneficial aspects of educational

infrastructure? To address this qualitative research question, focus group interviews were

conducted and analyzed using framework thematic analysis (FTA), Because the integration

within this phase is sequentially focused, the goal of this analysis is to categorize what educators

describe as supportive or desirable about available educational infrastructure. In other words, this

25
qualitative analysis takes the form of a descriptive approach (Richie & Lewis, 2003) and seeks to

provide a summary of the notable aspects of formal and social educational infrastructure

discussed by educators within each group. These qualitative findings can then be integrated with

the statistical analysis to provide an interpretation based on participants’ words.

Data analysis. FTA contains three stages of analysis: data management, descriptive

accounting, and explanatory accounting (Goldsmith, 2021). These stages emphasize transparent

movement throughout the analytic process, which is helpful for novice researchers to explain

their thinking and for ensuring rigor throughout qualitative analysis, though this process is

iterative rather than linear (Braun & Clarke, 2021). During the data management phase, the

typology was utilized to group responses by educational infrastructure. From there, in-vivo codes

within the typologies are developed as a way to distill and maintain accuracy in educators’

experiences. These are indexed into a coding matrix and consolidated into a more broad, but

illustrative, category. These are checked with a critical thought partner, to ensure rigor and

guidance throughout the process. Similar categories within a typology are then brought together

to form initial dimensions. For example, responses that are sorted as being about professional

development experiences can be coded around beneficial rationales (i.e., focused on content

knowledge, allow for multiple points of entry, and delivery by experts) can be initially brought

together as a theme about enhancing features of professional development. This initial theme is

then carried into the descriptive phases of the analysis.

The goal of the cross-group analysis is to create and interpret an explanatory framework

matrix regarding educators’ experiences with educational infrastructure. During the cross-group

examination, coded excerpts corresponding to the support of social and formal aspects of

colleagues and administrators were charted by educators’ multiculturalism belief scores. This

26
allowed an examination of dimensions present among educators by their multiculturalism beliefs.

In-vivo codes and memoing guided this secondary descriptive process, and the resulting

comparative features were written up in a narrative format with a data set distribution matrix.

4.3 Bidirectional Integration

Procedures for linking mixed-method data are meant to be intentionally matched to the

goals of the study and the research questions (Fetters, 2022). The goal of this data integration is

to make a grounded interpretation of what makes some aspects of educational infrastructures

more beneficial. These investigations are guided by the hypothetical premises that (a) there will

be differences in values by educators’ multiculturalism beliefs and (b) that there would be some

common characterizations of educational infrastructure types by educator multiculturalism

beliefs.

The first aspect of integration occurred at the end of the quantitative analysis with two

decisions to shape the direction of the qualitative analysis: 1) to include a cross-group

comparison based on educators’ multiculturalism ideologies and 2) to limit cross-group

comparison to those forms of support with significantly different rankings. This cross-group

analysis resulted in a matrix that primarily focused on how educators’ perceptions of educational

infrastructure shift between groups. This matrix was then jointly combined with the educational

infrastructure coefficients from the PLMT. This joint-display allowed a comparison of beneficial

aspects within educational infrastructure and represents the second step within integration.

Summary of Chapter Four. The analysis for phase one aimed to provide evidence that

educators’ diversity ideologies are associated with their perceptions of educational infrastructure.

These findings, which will be detailed in chapters five through seven, indicate that educators’

diversity ideologies do shape how they value social aspects of educational infrastructure and that

27
the noted salient aspects between educators by their diversity ideologies have distinct dimensions

of difference. These findings enable the second phase investigation into the association of

diversity ideologies and educational infrastructure onto educators’ implementation of equity-

focused practices.

28
 Chapter 5 Phase One Quantitative Results

This chapter details the results of the phase one quantitative analysis, which investigates

the question: How are educators’ diversity ideologies associated with their rankings of

educational infrastructure? through a reporting of Plackett-Luce Tree with Covariates

(PLMT). Including covariates to examine differences in ranking patterns suggested that

educators’ multiculturalism beliefs significantly predicted the value educators place on

administrator and colleague support. Educators higher in multiculturalism place more value on

administrator support and less value on colleague support when compared to educators with

normative multiculturalism beliefs. This difference was integrated during qualitative analysis to

focus on differences between educators’ characterization of support from school administrators.

Sample Description

The mean ranks, pairwise comparisons, and marginal frequencies appear in Table 2.

Formal aspects of time and resources was the highest ranked form of educational infrastructure

support among Pine Orchard educators, followed by the social aspect of administrator support,

the formal aspect of professional learning, and the social aspect of supportive colleagues. All of

these means were higher than the more broad support from vested parties (i.e., students,

caregivers, supportive sociopolitical climate). Among educators in Pine Orchard, 68 participants

ranked time and resources as being most important, and only two participants ranked time and

resources as least important. These descriptive statistics demonstrate a general pattern that

educational infrastructure in any form (i.e., time & resources, administrator support, supportive

29
colleagues, and professional learning) received higher value from educators than the more broad

support of other vested parties (i.e., families & caregivers, positive student response, supportive

sociopolitical climate).

Supportive Support from Positive

Time & Admin. Professional Supportive
Sociopolitical Families & Student
Resources Support Learning Colleagues
Climate Caregivers Response
Mean (SD) 2.06 (1.38) 2.98 (1.54) 3.9 (2.05) 4.3 (1.68) 4.65 (1.97) 4.9 (1.67) 5.08 (1.66)
Pairwise Rank Comparisons
Time &
Resources
0 100 122 107 128 127 121

Administrator
Support
43 0 109 89 113 116 104

Professional
Learning
36 54 0 80 83 90 94
Supportive
Colleagues
21 34 63 0 74 90 99

Supportive
Sociopolitical 22 39 60 69 0 70 75
Climate
Support from
Families & 15 30 53 53 73 0 72
Caregivers
Positive
Student 16 27 49 44 68 71 0
Response
Marginal Frequencies
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7
Time &
Resources
68 34 21 11 3 4 2

Administrator
Support
25 36 36 24 11 6 5

Professional
Learning
22 23 20 18 15 26 19

Supportive
Colleagues
3 21 27 24 29 20 19
Supportive
Sociopolitical 12 13 15 27 21 15 40
Climate
Support from
Families & 5 10 15 22 26 38 27
Caregivers
Positive
Student 8 6 9 17 38 34 31
Response
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for ranks of educational infrastructure support and broader support from
vested parties among Pine Orchard educators.

30
 Plackett-Luce Model. To explore how diversity ideologies are associated with

educators’ valuation of educational infrastructure, an initial examination for significant

differences between rankings was conducted. A PLM model was fit to the data with time and

resources was treated as the reference and quasi standard errors (QSE) were calculated (see

Table 3). Results indicate that worth values for time & resources were significantly higher than

all other forms of educational infrastructure support (Figure 3). The approximation error for the

QSE is between -1.8% and 3.7%, and the model fit was excellent (Agresti, 2013).

PLM with Time & Resources as reference

Item Worth QSE
Time & Resources 0.00 0.07
Administrator Support -0.44*** 0.07
Supportive Colleagues -1.07*** 0.07
Professional Learning -0.95*** 0.07
Support from Families & Caregivers -1.32*** 0.07
Positive Student Response -1.50*** 0.07
Supportive Sociopolitical Climate -1.38*** 0.07
AIC 4618.8 Residual Deviance (df) 4606.8 (6042)
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Table 3. Item worth value coefficients from PLM with time & resources and administrator support as reference.

Model fit of the PLM was evaluated using a chi-square distribution of the residual

deviance with degrees of freedom, and suggested an excellent fit of the model estimating the

difference between the rankings predicted by the PLM and those actually observed in the data

(Agresti, 2013). Given the small approximation error of QSE and the excellent model fit, these

results indicate that the predicted values and differences regarding rankings of equity-focused

educational infrastructure are reliable interpretations.

31
Figure 3 Item worth value coefficients from PLM with time & resources as reference. T&R = time & resources; AdS
= administrator support; SC = supportive colleagues; PL = professional learning; FC = support from families and
caregivers, S = positive response from students, C = supportive sociopolitical climate

Plackett-Luce Tree with Covariates

The covariates for educators’ responses regarding multiculturalism, colorblindness,

race/ethnicity, gender, and years of experience were included within the model. The PLMT

returned a tree with two nodes from a single branch reflecting differences in educators’

multiculturalism responses (Figure 4). One node includes educators with multiculturalism scores

less than or equal to 5.4 (also referred to as educators with normative multiculturalism

endorsement), while the second node includes educators with multiculturalism scores greater

than 5.4 (also referred to as educators with high multiculturalism endorsement). Results indicate

that educators with multiculturalism endorsement higher than 5.4 provided significantly different

rankings of support for equity practices than those with lower scores.

32
Figure 4. PLMT with two nodes returned by educators’ multiculturalism responses. T&R = time & resources; AdS =
administrator support; SC = supportive colleagues; PL = professional learning; FC = support from families and
caregivers, S = positive response from students, C = supportive sociopolitical climate

Strength of Support Type among Educators with Strength of Support Type among Educators
Multiculturalism Scores 5.4 with Multiculturalism Scores > 5.4

Est. St. Z P value Est. St. Error Z Value P value

Error Value

Time & Resources 00000 00000

Administrator -0.59 0.13 -4.47 < .0001 -0.25 0.15 -1.68 p = .09
Support

Supportive -0.90 0.13 -6.67 < .0001 -1.27 0.15 -8.34 < .0001
Colleagues

Professional -1.09 0.14 -7.83 < .0001 -0.80 0.15 -5.30 < .0001
Learning

Support from -1.18 0.14 -8.51 < .0001 -1.48 0.15 -9.64 < .0001
Families &
Caregivers

Student Response -1.40 0.14 -10.04 < .0001 -1.63 0.16 -10.32 < .0001

33
 Supportive -1.54 0.15 -10.64 < .0001 -1.16 0.15 -7.52 < .0001
Sociopolitical
Climate

Signif. codes: ‘**’ 0.0007 ‘*’ 0.007 ‘ ’ 0.05 ‘ns’ 1

+
2053.4 on 2745 degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 2522.7 on 3291 degrees of freedom AIC: 2065.4
AIC: 2534.7 Number of iterations: 9
Number of iterations: 8
Table 4 Strength of support type among educators by PLMT groups

In addition to returning a graphical depiction of differences between nodes, the model

returned statistical values indicating the strength of each form of educational infrastructure

among grouped educators. The statistical significance reported within each group is a measure of

comparison between their valuation of time & resources to all other types of support. Among

educators with normative multiculturalism endorsement (Table 4), the strength of their time &

resources ranking is significantly higher than all other forms of support. Post-hoc comparisons

were conducted to test the statistical difference between the strength of the PLMT item rankings

between groups (Table 5), and a Bonferroni adjustment was used to account for the multiple

comparisons.

When comparing the strength of item rankings between groups returned by the PLMT,

there were several significant differences returned from post-hoc comparisons with a Bonferroni

adjustment to account for multiple comparisons. Educators with high multiculturalism

endorsement placed more value on support from administrators (M HM-Admin = 2.81, t(258.77) = 2.70,

p < .007) and supportive sociopolitical climate (M HM-Climate = 4.20, t(253.79) = 2.63 p < .001)

compared to educators with multiculturalism scores less than 5.4 (M NM-Admin = 3.39; M NM-Climate = 4.8).

Educators with multiculturalism scores greater than 5.4 placed significantly lower value on

colleagues (M HM-C = 4.70, t(256.75) = -3.31, p < .001) and positive responses from families and

caregivers (M HM-FCG = 5.11, t(250.87) = -3.56 p < .001) compared to educators with

multiculturalism scores less than 5.4 (M NM-C = 4.01; M NM-FCG = 4.36).

34
 Post-hoc Comparison of PLMT groups (NM as reference)

t df CI p-value

Time & Resources 0.38 257.94 (-0.32, 0.47) ns

Administrator Support 2.70 258.77 (0.15, 0.97) 0.006*

Supportive Colleagues -3.31 253.79 (-1.10, -0.28) 0.001*

Professional Learning 1.66 249.85 (-0.08, 0.91) ns

Support from Families & Caregivers -3.56 256.75 (-1.17, -0.33) 0.0004**

Positive Student Response -1.23 246.76 (-0.70, 0.16) ns

Supportive Sociopolitical Climate 2.63 250.87 (0.16, 1.14) 0.006*

Signif. codes: ‘**’ 0.0007 ‘*’ 0.007 ‘ ’ 0.05 ‘ns’ 1

+

Table 5. Post-hoc comparison between groups resulting from the PLMT (Bonferroni adjustment p < 0.007.

Unlike multiple regression models, where summary tables permit an interpretation of all

included variables (even those that are insignificant), PLMT does not return values for covariates

that are stable during partitioning. Demographic statistics were calculated to better understand

and describe differences among educators by group membership before the conclusion of the

quantitative analysis for phase one (Table 6). Where categorical variables were calculated, chi-

square tests of independence were included and where continuous numeric variables were

calculated, a difference of means two-sample t-test was included. These results are described in

the following paragraphs, organized by demographics, ideological beliefs, equity-focused

perceptions, and equity-focused practices. A Bonferroni adjustment was used to account for the

multiple statistical comparisons, placing the p-value significance level at 0.007.

Educators with high and normative multiculturalism did not have underlying

demographic compositions. There were similar percentages of educators by racial identity (X (1, 2

35
N =325) = 1.64, ns), as well as by gender identity (X (1, N =325) = 1.67, ns). Educators within
2

each group have similar average years of experience (M = 13.06, M = 13.62), teach within a
HM NM

Title I school (X (1, N =325) = 0.57, ns), spend the majority of their day with students (X (1, N
2 2

=325) = 0.01, ns), and have similar percentages of white colleagues, t(277.89) = 0.42, ns.

Collectively, these statistics suggest that the compositional differences between the groups are

not due to differences in lived experiences that tend to coalesce by gender, race, or teaching

experience.

In terms of ideological beliefs, perceptions of educational infrastructure, and practice

implementation, there were several significant mean differences between educator groups. As

expected, educators with higher multiculturalism beliefs endorsed colorblindness (M = 1.5) less

than educators with normative multiculturalism beliefs (M = 2.5), t(274.76) = 10.80, p < .001.

Educators with higher multiculturalism beliefs had more negative perceptions of educational

infrastructure (M = 3.7) compared to educators with normative multiculturalism (M = 4.5),

t(279.84) = -3.89, p < .007. Educators with higher multiculturalism beliefs (M = 3.7) reported

implementing more cultural background practices than educators with normative

multiculturalism (M = 3.1), t(168.08) = 4.17, p < .001, as well as implementing more practices

that validate students’ cultural backgrounds than their colleagues with normative

multiculturalism beliefs (M = 3.2), t(178.35) = -4.34, p < .001.

Educators with Educators with

multiculturalism scores 5.4 multiculturalism scores > 5.4
p-
Variable (NM) (HM)
value
N (%) N (%)

Gender
Female/nonbinary 139 (78.5) 118 (84.9) ns
Male 35 (19.8) 19 (13.7)
Race
ns
BIPOC 53 (29.9) 52 (37.4)

36
 White 120 (67.8) 84 (60.4)
Teaches in a Title I school
Yes 84 (47.5) 72 (51.8) ns
No 83 (46.9) 58 (41.7)
Spends majority of the
day with students
ns
Yes 113 (63.8) 87 (62.6)
No 64 (36.2) 52 (37.4)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Years of Experience 13.06 (10.1) 13.62 (9.04) ns
% of White colleagues 70.2 (.2) 70.2 (.2) ns
Perception that Equity Work
4.5 (0.9) 3.7 (1.2) < .007
is Valued (1-6)
<
Multiculturalism Ideologies 4.7 (0.6) 5.8 (0.2)
.001
<
Colorblindness Ideologies 2.5 (1.0) 1.5 (0.5)
.001
Cultural Background <
3.1 (1.0 3.7 (1.1)
Practices .001
Culturally Validation <
3.2 (1.0) 3.9 (1.0)
Practices .001
Table 6. Descriptive statistics within and between groups resulting from the PLMT

Summary of PLMT and Forward Integration. When examining educators’ rankings of

educational infrastructure and broader support from vested parties, PLM results indicate that

educators tend to rank any aspect of educational infrastructure (in the form of time & resources,

administrator support, supportive colleagues, and professional learning) higher than broader

support from vested parties like students, families & caregivers, and the supportive sociopolitical

climate. This analysis partially supported the initial hypothesis, that educators with higher

multiculturalism would place more value on social aspects (i.e., administrator support,

supportive colleagues) of educational infrastructure.

The returned educator groups from the PLMT suggest that educators’ diversity

ideologies, specifically their multiculturalism beliefs, are associated with different values for

social aspects (i.e., colleagues and administrators) of educational infrastructure. The PLMT

37
results indicate that placing educators in groups by their multiculturalism beliefs improved model

fit beyond the overall ranking patterns and beyond other included covariates, creating two groups

of educators with multiculturalism beliefs above 5.4 (high multiculturalism) and educators with

multiculturalism beliefs at or below 5.4 (normative multiculturalism). The significant differences

between educators’ rankings by multiculturalism occurred in their values for social aspects of

educational infrastructure, specifically their values for administrator support and supportive

colleagues. Educators with higher multiculturalism beliefs placed more emphasis on the value of

support from administrators, while colleague support was more important for educators with

normative multiculturalism beliefs. Further analysis is needed to determine what salient aspects

educators are considering during these rankings.

However, educators with high and normative multiculturalism do not differ in their

importance of formal aspects of educational infrastructure. Time & resources had the highest

ranked value within both groups. These findings suggest that while multiculturalism may

produce an overall difference in the importance of aspects of educational infrastructure, this

association may be most visible when considering the social aspects of educational

infrastructure. Notable differences regarding educators’ perceptions of beneficial social aspects

within educational infrastructure are discussed in the next chapter.

38
 Chapter 6 Phase One Qualitative Results

The focus of this chapter is to detail the dimensions of difference regarding supportive

formal and social aspects of educational infrastructure. Educators with differential endorsement

of multiculturalism (i.e., high vs. normative) identified distinct aspects of administrator support

needed within equity-focused initiatives. Each dimension was connected to at least four

contributing responses (i.e. answers where at least one educator provided a substantive response

that was more than concurrence). All participants, regardless of their level of endorsement of

multiculturalism, discussed the available equity-focused infrastructure in their schools. Educators

also described the extent to which they desired these forms of support, and what supports they

would like to see. In this way, educators revealed their perceptions of benefits and constraints

regarding current equity-focused educational infrastructures. These are discussed below and

within Table 7 and have been organized into formal and social aspects of school administrator

actions.

Normative Multiculturalism High Multiculturalism

Educators Educators

Formal Aspects of District Resources

Challenges Resources regarding equity- Isolated approach to equity-

to educational focused professional learning focused initiatives
infrastructure

Social Aspects of School Administrator Actions

39
 Supportive ideological Provides protection from external Can create beneficial social
alignment pressures cohesion
Table 7. Thematic results by categorical code and educator group

Perceptions of formal aspects within educational infrastructure across groups. Both

educator groups discussed the need for formal aspects of educational infrastructure. There were

also noted differences in how educators discussed their desired formal aspects of support.

Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs expressed the challenge of having equity-focused

initiatives isolated to professional learning and expressed a desire to integrate equity more

broadly across the instructional process, including explicit integration of equity into the

curricula.

Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs tended to juxtapose the equity educational

infrastructure with the other content-specific instructional infrastructure, like the literacy

curricula or the sequencing of social studies curricula. One educator discussed noticing this

segmented approach by saying, “It feels like, ‘Oh, this is the thing that we're going to focus on.’

But we don't. It's not everywhere. It's not what we live and breathe and see and do. It's not. It's a

thing we go to, and then it goes.” Another educator from a different school discussed it in similar

ways, saying, “That's how equity is here. If we have a meeting, it's not woven in when we're

looking at data, we're not having conversations about ‘Okay, what are some other things we

could be looking at?’ It's a thing that comes off the shelf. When it's time, and it hasn't been time

yet this year.” After noting the shape of this segmented approach, other educators discussed an

integrated approach to formal aspects of educational infrastructure as something they desired,

pondering aloud, “How can we infuse equity into all of the work we do? Not just equity in equity

meetings, but like, how do we bring it up in every conversation even with, like, in literacy, like it

plays a part.” In this way, Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs discussed formal aspects

40
of educational infrastructure by noting either 1) the lack of connection between professional

learning and other instructional infrastructure and 2) a desire to see greater infusion between

professional learning and other instructional infrastructure.

When discussing the ways in which their current equity-focused infrastructure were

constrained from achieving this integration, Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs pointed

to time and resources. One educator noted that implementing an integrated approach was

currently time-constrained, and expressed a desire for time that could be utilized for this more

integrated equity approach saying, “I would say like, just the time for the team to get together

like protected time like to get together and develop, like look at our system as a whole and come

up with, you know, like, ‘here's a huge thing we're seeing in our system. What can we do to dive

deep into this?’" Another educator phrased this desire for integration as constrained by district

resources, saying, “The resources are not put into that. Through personnel, through leadership, at

a very deep equity level, not surface. You know, it’s not through an equity lens and equity

department. Like when we get that, we're going to start to see some rollout like we do with our

literacy adoption.” Across educators, regardless of constraint-type, the challenge was phrased as

something that required coordination between school and district infrastructure to achieve.

Among normative multiculturalism educators, challenges to equity were described as

constrained by educator training and a need for structured guidelines in professional learning

resources. Educators with normative multiculturalism beliefs tended to talk about this need in

terms of frequency or content. When talking about frequency, one educator discussed the need

for structure by saying, “So I guess some kind of structure from the district level, like a

framework, but also like these are like the guiding things that we can then go alongside. So kind

of similar to what we said before, like, more, hearing more from the district level as to this is the

41
guide that we can then come with, I think would be really helpful.” Another educator succinctly

described frequency in professional learning as a way to reinforce equity-focused knowledge,

“We need consistent PD, to be constantly reminded of it.” When normative multiculturalism

educators described a need for professional learning content, it tended to focus on concretizing

equity-focused professional learning into specific topics. One educator demonstrated a desire for

concrete professional learning saying, “[We need guidance on] how to connect like, these great

ideas and information. What does that look like on a personal level or like implemented in the

classrooms and between our staff? So taking the ideas and that information, and really making

them applicable right here.” Another educator echoed this sentiment for specific knowledge by

saying, “I would need some training on that. You know, you're gonna give that to me. You've got

to help me know how to handle it. You know what I mean?” One administrator even discussed

their desire for concrete resources as “canned PDs, that the experts come and give us, that we can

then deliver to our staff.”

To summarize, challenges to the current educational infrastructure were noted differently

across educators by their multiculturalism. Among Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs,

the challenge was considered the lack of integration between educational infrastructure and other

instructional processes. Among Educators with normative multiculturalism beliefs, challenges

were discussed as the need for additional clarity in equity-focused professional learning, which

often took the form of concern for frequency and resources.

Differences in school administrator social support across groups. Educators with high

multiculturalism beliefs, across multiple school sites, desired school administrators to set

cohesive expectations for educators to engage equity-focused initiatives at their school. While

educators varied in their views on whether administrators at their school were currently setting

42
these expectations, one administrator explicitly acknowledged their choice to set this expectation

at their school, saying, “Part of that is, at [school], I have an expectation that we do these things.

And maybe this isn't the right place for you, [if not]. And I hate to sound like that. But again, I

have to reflect on this, if we wait for certain staff to catch on, we're never gonna get anywhere.”

In another school, an educator explained that these strong expectations emboldened them,

saying, “That accountability piece is huge, right? Because in this room, we're accountable to [our

principal]. Well, that's easy. We're on the same page. But there's so many other buildings with

administrators that are not on that page. It becomes really hard to be comfortable in this work.

There's many of the schools that I have taught in, I would not ever--I mean, I close my door and

do it--but I’m not about to do it where my administrator would see. I know I can go to [principal]

and be like, ‘Okay, this is what's going on, just giving you a heads up.’ And I know, it's gonna be

okay, she's talking about it, too. That's rare.”

While strong school-level administrator support was described as extant and desirable at

these two schools, this was not always the case among educators with high multiculturalism,

including one who remarked, “I just want to feel like I did when I first came here, like equity is

part of our identity here. This is an expectation here. This is something we invest our time into.”

Another educator at a different school noted the necessity for social aspects within educational

infrastructure by saying, “I think probably also, the buy-in or the support from admin staff is part

of it. Because I can only imagine being like an admin of color in a school with all white teachers.

And you're trying to do the work and just be there by yourself.” In this way, educators noted

differences in social support within equity-focused infrastructure.

This sense that there were differences between schools regarding the social support

aspects in educational infrastructure was noted by educators with high multiculturalism in

43
multiple schools. One educator described their sense that they were at a school with strong social

support by saying, “You know, it's it's I think we're just at a different level in this school. And I

don't say just because I think that. I hear that from other people saying that.” Educators with high

multiculturalism at a different school also referenced feeling a lack of social support aspects.

One educator noted, “This is a challenging building, like I said, compared with the other

buildings I've been in in the district. You don't feel it, like as supported. And so that's what we've

been trying to kind of change.” These perspectives suggested that educators were aware of

differences of social aspects of school-level administrator support between schools within their

educational infrastructure.

Among normative multiculturalism educators, desires in school-level administrator

support were more concerned with protecting educators from negative parent interactions. One

educator summarized succinctly by saying, “A big one for me, is that admin has my back, like

admin’s gonna protect me around parents to do this work. Because that's been huge for me.”

Another educator at a different school described an incident where an administrator intervened

on their behalf by saying, “[They’re] the person I called when a parent told me I could not teach

Black History. I emailed [them] and [they] instantly called me and got on a zoom call with me

and set up a meeting the following week. So I feel we’re supported now. Last year if you would

have asked me that would have been a different answer, but we have a different administrator.”

In these instances, the protective aspect of an administrator was salient in how supported

educators felt.

To summarize, educators discussed salient aspects of school-level administrator support

within educational infrastructure differently by multiculturalism. Among educators high in

multiculturalism beliefs, school-level administrators who would either create or set social

44
expectations of adhering to equity-focused initiatives were desirable. Among educators with

normative multiculturalism beliefs, school-level administrators who would protect educators

from negative parent interactions was desirable.

Summary of Chapter Six

This chapter detailed analysis regarding educators’ descriptions of educational

infrastructure by their multiculturalism beliefs. Educators, regardless of their multiculturalism,

noted a lack of supportive formal aspects within educational infrastructure connected to district

resources. As educators discussed their desired supports, differences by their multiculturalism

beliefs emerged. Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs desired current equity-focused

professional learning to be more integrated with other instructional infrastructure, like the

curricula and pacing guides. Educators with normative multiculturalism beliefs desired more

concrete guidance within their professional learning.

When discussing supportive social aspects of educational infrastructure regarding their

administrative and colleagues, educators, regardless of their multiculturalism beliefs, overall

noted variation between school administrator support and a lack of certainty about their

colleagues' support for equity. In regards to school administrators' social support, educators with

high multiculturalism desired that their administrators set and maintain cohesive expectations for

social support and practice implementation. Educators with normative multiculturalism discussed

their desires for administrator support in terms of protection from external pressures of parents.

Among educators with high multiculturalism, colleague support was characterized as a desire,

but something that they did not experience. Among educators normative multiculturalism,

colleague support was described as something that could be gained by building trust, but

evidence was not strong that this was something they currently experienced.

45
 Chapter 7 Phase One Integration

The aim of this chapter is to integrate the quantitative and qualitative results from phase

one of this study. Examining educators’ rankings and characterizations of educational

infrastructure by their multiculturalism beliefs demonstrated: 1) that educators’ multiculturalism

beliefs significantly change their rankings regarding educational infrastructure important to their

practice implementation and 2) ranking differences align with notable aspects of educators’

characterizations regarding the benefits of educational infrastructure. Integrating these two

analyses permitted a more robust interpretation of the meaning educators attribute to educational

infrastructure above and beyond statistical significance between groups. Thus, this chapter is

organized as follows: integrated interpretation of educational infrastructure connected to

administrators and section noting the limitations within this interpretation.

Educators' diversity ideologies, specifically their multiculturalism beliefs, were

associated with both educators' value for and perceptions of administrator support. Educators

with higher multiculturalism beliefs ranked administrator support more highly when compared to

their colleagues with normative multiculturalism, suggesting a stronger value for administrator

support. Dimensional differences in educators’ characterization of administrator support,

particularly in regards to discussion of integrating equity into infrastructure among district

administrators and support from school administrators, were notable during this analysis.

Within characterizations of district administrators, the salient desire among educators

with high multiculturalism was to move away from a segmented approach of equity as a topic of

46
professional learning, and toward a model where equity was infused into every instructional

conversation. Among educators with normative multiculturalism, the salient dimensions of

difference were their desire for district administrators to concretize policies for equity

professional learning into more explicit direction regarding frequency (i.e., how often meetings

should occur) and implementation (i.e., what do equity-focused practices look like).

These findings suggest that educators’ endorsement of multiculturalism predicted how

they characterize their desires for district administrator support, as well their perceptions of how

mis/aligned current forms of equity-focused infrastructure are with their diversity ideologies. The

desire for more integration among educators with higher multiculturalism aligns with prior

research indicating that individuals with higher multiculturalism are supportive of significant

restructuring to infrastructure in order to support equity initiatives, while educators with more

normative multiculturalism may be looking for more regimented supports as a way to ensure

meeting the standard set forth by the district administration.

These findings confirm the initial hypothesis that the value for social aspects of

educational infrastructure would be different by educators’ diversity ideologies. The explanatory

qualitative analysis further nuanced these findings: educators with high multiculturalism are

more likely to attribute integration across infrastructure to their district administrators, while

attributing the benefits of ideological alignment to their school administrators. With the lack of a

true colorblind comparison group, I was unable to confirm any hypothesis regarding the way that

colorblindness shapes educators’ perceptions of supportive educational infrastructure. However,

there was evidence that normative multiculturalism educators values for and perceptions of

educational infrastructure.

47
 These findings suggest that educators’ perceptions of school and district administrator

support through consideration of social and formal aspects of educational infrastructure do vary

by their multiculturalism beliefs, even if their colorblindness beliefs were less visible during

interviews. Further examination regarding the association of school administrator support with

educators’ equity-focused practice implementation, which is the focus of the next results chapter,

can further elucidate the additive influence of ideologies and infrastructure on practice

implementation.

Limitations. One notable limitation of this analysis is its associative design. More

plainly, this analysis cannot conclusively prove that discussing different desired supports within

educational infrastructure is the result of educators’ multiculturalism beliefs. Replication with

different educators and a more causal analysis is needed to conclusively prove these. However,

what this analysis does suggest is that it is possible to more closely attend to educators' desired

support within educational infrastructure alongside their diversity ideologies, and focus on

intentionally designing infrastructure to provide these.

Summary of Chapter Seven. While the initial quantitative analysis indicated that

educators’ diversity ideologies, specifically their multiculturalism beliefs, change their rankings

of social aspects (i.e., administrative support and supportive colleagues) within educational

infrastructure, the qualitative analysis noted different salient aspects of support regarding school

and district administrators. The final, bidirectional turn in integration utilized the framework

matrix from the qualitative analysis to re-interpret the PLMT coefficients to gain a more

meaningful understanding about the differences in ranking. While educators with high

multiculturalism were more likely to characterize administrators’ who set strong expectations for

educators to engage with equity-focused initiatives as valuable, educators with normative

48
multiculturalism were more likely to prize administrators who protected them from negative

parent interactions.

49
 Chapter 8 Phase Two Research Methods

The aim of the second phase of the study is to investigate the association of educators’

diversity ideologies and educational infrastructure on equity-focused practices. The theorized

model investigation took place using two separate strands of data analysis that were combined

for a bidirectional convergent interpretation. Within this section, I detail the site selection

process, the path model analysis, the FTA analysis, and the integration process.

Site Selection: perceptions of educational infrastructure. In phase one, the integration

of results suggested that educators’ perceptions of administrator support differed by their

multiculturalism ideologies. As the goal of the second phase was to continue to test the

association between diversity ideologies and perceptions of educational infrastructure, the

second phase qualitative analysis necessitated the selection of schools with differing perceptions

of available educational infrastructure (Small, 2009). From the nine possible schools from phase

one, four schools were selected based on similarities in their grade levels, school demographics,

and sizes, while also providing the opportunity to investigate contextual differences in

perceptions of available educational infrastructure by schools (see Table 8).

The goal of this selection process was to select schools with differences in perceptions of

educational infrastructure. Two schools were selected to explore educators’ lower than average

perception of educational infrastructure (M Three = 3.4, M Four = 3.7), while two schools were

selected to explore educators’ higher than average educational infrastructure perceptions (M One =

4.95, M Four = 4.57). These schools had similar grade levels and racial compositions to one

50
another. Other schools within the district were excluded from selection due to differences in

grade level (Schools Eight and Nine), noted differences in the range of educators’

multiculturalism (Schools Five and Six). Thus, these educators from these four schools were

theorized to teach in contexts able to investigate the two primary variables of interest (i.e.,

perceptions of educational infrastructure and educator multiculturalism) while ensuring that

differing student contexts were not an underlying confounding factor.

School Perceptions of Range of Grade Student Racial Assignment

Educational Educators’ Levels Demographics OR Reason for
Infrastructure Multiculturalism exclusion
(Mean) Scores

One 4.95 3.8 - 6.0 K-6 1 % Asian Group Two

1 % Black/
African American
87 % Hispanic /
Latino
1 % Multiracial
<1 % Native /
Indigenous
12 % White

Two 4.57 3.8 - 6.0 K-4 2 % Asian Group Two

2 % Black/
African American
62 % Hispanic /
Latino
2 % Multiracial
0 % Native /
Indigenous
31 % White

Three 3.4 3.8 - 6.0 5-6 1 % Asian Group One

1 % Black/
African American
54 % Hispanic /
Latino
4 % Multiracial
1 % Native /
Indigenous
38 % White

Four 3.7 3.4 - 6.0 K-4 2 % Asian Group One

51
 2 % Black/
African American
29 % Hispanic /
Latino
7 % Multiracial
1 % Native /
Indigenous
60 % White

Five 3.45 4.2 - 5.4 K-4 2 % Asian Range of MC

< 1% Black/ scores
African American
8 % Hispanic /
Latino
9 % Multiracial
1 % Native /
Indigenous
78 % White

Six 4.6 2.8-6.0 K-4 1 % Asian Range of MC

1 % Black/ scores
African American
59 % Hispanic /
Latino
2 % Multiracial
1 % Native /
Indigenous
37 % White

Seven 4.21 2.8 - 6.0 K-4 0 % Asian Perception

0 % Black/ mean right at
African American District mean
95 % Hispanic /
Latino
1 % Multiracial
1 % Native /
Indigenous
2 % White

Eight 3.9 2.0-6.0 7-8 1 % Asian No grade level

1% Black/ overlap
African American
63 % Hispanic /
Latino
3 % Multiracial
<1 % Native /
Indigenous
31 % White

52
 Nine 3.83 2.6-6.0 9-12 1 % Asian No grade level
1% Black/ overlap
African American
59 % Hispanic /
Latino
3 % Multiracial
<1 % Native /
Indigenous
35 % White
Table 8. Schools with Pine Orchard by educational infrastructure ratings, range of multiculturalism beliefs, student
racial demographic details, and reason for inclusion or exclusion

8.1 Quantitative Analysis: Path Model

The aim of the second part within phase two was to determine the impact of perceptions

of educational infrastructure on educator equity-focused practices using a path model analysis.

This phase of the study answers the research question posed in Chapter One: What is the

association of educator diversity ideologies with their perceptions of current educational

infrastructure and educator equity practices? To address this quantitative research question, a

path model was used to examine 1) the direct influence of educators’ diversity ideologies on

practice implementation on their equity-focused practice implementation, and 2) the path

influence of educators’ diversity ideologies and their perception of equity-focused infrastructure

on their equity-focused practice implementation.

Data Analysis.. Composite variables for multiculturalism and practices were entered and

estimated. A path model was fitted to the data using educators’ multiculturalism and perceptions

of educational infrastructure as predictors of educators’ implementation of equity-focused

practices. Covariates for educator race, gender, years of experience, and student racial diversity

were included to account the association between educators’ lived experience and everyday

contexts on their practice implementation. Coefficients, standard errors, and p-values were

53
returned. The resulting coefficients, standard errors, and p-values were inspected for report,

which comprises the contents of chapter nine.

8.2 Qualitative Analysis: Framework Thematic Analysis

The qualitative analysis during phase two took a comparative form with within- and

cross-group analysis based on two groupings, which were developed during quantitative analysis

for phase one and the case selection described above (Yin, 2009). This phase of the study

answers the research question posed in Chapter One: How are educator diversity ideologies and

available educational infrastructure associated with their practice implementation? To address

this qualitative research question, individual interviews were conducted with 19 educators from

the four schools selected (see Table 1). This section provides a description of the procedures

used to gather and analyze data for educator interviews within-groups (which largely follow the

qualitative analysis described in phase one); the following section details the procedure for cross-

case analysis.

The analytic goals of this phase of the study are to establish salient aspects of educators’

perceptions of available educational infrastructure. While the quantitative analysis collected

educators’ rating of educational infrastructure, this analysis was needed to concretely establish

which salient elements of educational infrastructure were being considered. These features

allowed the integration of the qualitative analysis with the quantitative analysis to take on a

simultaneous role able to expand on the findings from phase one analysis.

Qualitative data analysis. FTA was used during the second phase of the analysis and

took a similar structure to the analytical plan previously described during the phase one

qualitative analysis (see section 3.2.2). Because the purpose of this analysis is to characterize the

salient aspects of educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure, the analysis works to

54
confirm and expand on prior results from phase one and the quantitative analysis. The

descriptive step within this analysis focused on establishing the range within salient aspects of

educators’ perceptions, while the explanatory step within the analysis focused on establishing the

presence of salient perceptions within groupings within a framework matrix. These findings

comprise the bulk of chapter ten.

8.3 Bidirectional Integration

To examine the additive influence of educators’ diversity ideologies and educational

infrastructure on their implementation of equity focused practices, we conducted a cross-case

thematic analysis. Specifically, we examined the relationship between educators’ endorsement of

multiculturalism (i.e., comparing those with high versus normative levels of endorsement) and

their likelihood of implementing equity-focused practices. We examined this relationship in the

context of schools with more robust equity infrastructure and schools with less robust equity

infrastructure, focusing on administrator and educator actions.

Summary of Chapter Eight

Chapter eight detailed the multiphase analysis and integration performed during the

second phase of this study. The results from these analyses are contained within chapters nine

through eleven, respectively, and conclude with a final discussion regarding the findings,

limitations, and future directions for this research.

55
 Chapter 9 Phase Two Quantitative Analysis

This section details the results of the phase two quantitative analysis, which investigates

the association between diversity ideologies and perceptions of educational infrastructure on

educator practices using a path model reported below. These results conclude with a forward

integration and are followed by the qualitative results in the next chapter.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Educator Race 1

2. Educator Gender 0.03 1

3. Educator Years of Experience
-0.11 -0.03 1

4. Student Racial Diversity

0.34**** 0.01 -0.12 1

5. Multiculturalism 0.10* 0.10 0.05 0.12* 1

6. Perception of Equity Work
0.17** -0.07 0.09 0.26**** -0.09 1

7. Cultural Background Practices 0.18* 0.14 0.04 -0.02 0.28*** 0.11 1

8. Cultural Validation Practices 0.21** 0.18* 0.02 0.15 0.32**** 0.09 0.82**** 1
Table 9. Correlations among variables in Pine Orchard data

Path Model Investigation

The hypothesized structural equation model (SEM) is indicated graphically in Figure 5. I

performed a SEM analysis based on data from 171 educators within Pine Orchard School

District. Results are presented in Table 11 and below. The hypothesized model demonstrated a

good fit to the data: CFI = .94; TLI =.93; RMSEA = .037; SRMR = .047.

56
Figure 5. Hypothesized path model to be tested

Summary of path model results

Path t p
Path (𝛽) Comment

Educator Race → Multiculturalism Beliefs 0.20 2.4 .01 Aligns with prior
research

Educator Gender → Multiculturalism Beliefs 0.13 1.5 ns Aligns with prior

research

Educator Experience → Multiculturalism Beliefs -0.01 - ns

0.06

Multiculturalism Beliefs → Perception of -0.06 1.85 ns H1 not supported

Educational Infrastructure

Student Racial Diversity → Perception of Equity- 0.24 3.43 .000 Aligns with prior
Focused Educational Infrastructure research

Perception of Educational Infrastructure → Cultural 0.12 1.62 ns H2 not supported

Background Practices

Perception of Educational Infrastructure → 0.12 1.72 ns H2 not supported

Culturally Responsive Practices

Multiculturalism → Cultural Background Practices 0.37 4.00 .000 Aligns with prior
research

Multiculturalism → Culturally Responsive 0.38 3.85 .000 Aligns with prior

Practices research

57
Table 10. Summary of path model results.

The Influences of Covariates. Educators of color (r = 0.10) had a more positive

R

relatedness to multiculturalism, while gender and years of experience were unrelated to

multiculturalism. Being an educator of color was predictive of higher multiculturalism (𝛽 Local =

0.20). Student racial diversity (i.e., having more students of color) was positively related to

educators' perceptions of educational infrastructure practices (r Local = 0.26) and positively

predicted educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure (𝛽 Local = 0.22).

Effect of Multiculturalism Beliefs on Practices. Educator multiculturalism beliefs were

positively related to cultural background (i.e., practices that help students see how school will

help their communities) and cultural validation practices (i.e., practices that integrate students’

cultural backgrounds into learning) (r = 0.28; r = 0.32), and were predictive of higher cultural
CB CR

background (𝛽 Local = 0.38) and cultural validation (𝛽 Local = 0.39) practice implementation.

Effects on Perceptions of Educational Infrastructure. Educators’ multiculturalism

beliefs were unrelated to their perception of educational infrastructure within the local data and

did not predict their perception of educational infrastructure.

58
Figure 6. Tested path model betas with latent construct item loadings.

Effect of Perceptions of Equity Work on Practices. Educator perception of educational

infrastructure was unrelated to their cultural background and cultural validation practices and

was not predictive of more practices.

Summary of Path Model and Forward Integration. The results from the path model

analyses did not support the hypotheses regarding either the relatedness of multiculturalism on

perceptions of educational infrastructure or the path model from educators’ multiculturalism and

their practice implementation through their perceptions of equity-focused infrastructure. While

the path model re-confirmed the relationship between educators’ multiculturalism and their

practice implementation, there was no support for the hypothesis that educators’ perceptions of

educational infrastructure predicted their implementation of equity-focused practices.

59
 One possible explanation for these results is that there is limited variation within the

available educational infrastructure, partially stemming from the focus on a single school district.

For example, the average mean for all educators’ perception of educational infrastructure (M =

4.1) and multiculturalism is higher than the midpoint (M = 4.3). There may not be enough

variation within a single district to demonstrate that low multiculturalism and low perceptions

produce lower implementation of equity-focused practices. The expected findings from the

qualitative was revised explanatory depth to these null findings within quantitative data.

To integrate these results with the qualitative analysis, two analytical decisions were

made to re-shape the analysis. While the quantitative results do not support the theorized

relationship between educator diversity ideologies and perceptions of educational infrastructure

on educator practice implementation, they create an opportunity for the qualitative analysis to

take on an explanatory function. In particular, the qualitative analysis can serve to answer the

research question proposed in Chapter Two, namely why the current educational infrastructure is

not influencing equity-focused practice implementation. Given the contextual nature of the

relatedness between educators’ multiculturalism and perceptions of the educational

infrastructure, the qualitative analysis illuminates the variation in experiences between educators

at different schools, while holding differences in their multiculturalism beliefs constant.

Moreover, if limited range does explain the null findings, this explanation could be

supported with the addition of quantitative analysis containing educators from more than one

school district. In order to test this explanation, the same path model was examined using a

national sample. The findings of this examination are described in Appendix A and suggest that

the path model supports the model with more variation in the sample.

60
 Chapter 10 Phase Two Qualitative Results

This chapter details the results of the phase two qualitative investigation of how

educators’ discussion of supportive school administrators relate to educators’ equity-focused

practice implementation. As school sites were purposefully selected for differences between

educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure, the narrative description of these results are

organized by school site (i.e., schools with lower equity-focused support ratings, schools with

higher equity-focused support ratings).

These comparisons respond to the following question: How are educator diversity

ideologies and available educational infrastructure associated with their practice

implementation? The qualitative results below detail three areas where there are noticeable

differences in educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure between educators at schools

with high and low ratings of educational infrastructure (Table 15).

As currently enacted, available social and formal aspects of educational infrastructure at

schools with higher ratings of educational infrastructure were described by educators. Notably,

social aspects from school administrators included receiving protection from parents among

educators with normative multiculturalism beliefs, and receiving cohesive expectations among

educators with high multiculturalism beliefs. Educators, regardless of multiculturalism, had

different perceptions of how beneficial formal aspects of educational infrastructure were.

Educators with normative multiculturalism described being able to adapt available resources for

61
equity-focused practice implementation, while educators with high multiculturalism described

these as being transactional rather than meaningful.

Among educators at schools with lower educational infrastructure ratings, social aspects

from school administrators were described as being constrained by competing instructional

initiatives among educators with high multiculturalism or by site-specific challenges among

educators normative multiculturalism. Educators, regardless of their multiculturalism beliefs,

described being able to adapt formal aspects of educational infrastructure for their practice

implementation.

The notable elements that emerged in a comparative analysis of supportive educational

infrastructure between school sites with different ratings were contained within the social aspects

from school administrators. Between educators with high multiculturalism by school site,

receiving their desired form of school administrator support was associated with differing

perceptions of social and formal aspects of district-level educational infrastructure. Between

educators with normative multiculturalism by school site, receiving their desired form of school

administrator support was associated with differing perceptions of social aspects of district

administrators. Overall, receiving desired social aspects of school administrator support within

educational infrastructure by educators’ multiculturalism beliefs were associated with differences

in educators’ perceptions of their district-level social and formal aspects of educational

infrastructure.

High multiculturalism Educators at schools with lower Educators at schools with higher
educators equity-focused infrastructure equity-focused infrastructure
ratings ratings

School Administrator Social Supports

Social Social aspects constrained by Social aspects offers cohesive

Aspects competing initiatives expectations

62
 Normative School Administrator Supports
multiculturalism
educators
Social Responsive to site challenges Protection from parents
Aspects
Table 11. Thematic results by category of educational infrastructure and educator group

Differences between educator groups and sites regarding school administrator

support. Across school sites and groups, educators discussed their perceptions of their school

administrators’ equity-focused support. Among the four groups, there were four different

perceptions. Educators with normative multiculturalism at schools with low educational

infrastructure discussed their school administrator’s support as reactive rather than anticipatory

of equity needs, while their high multiculturalism colleagues described their school

administrators’ actions as constrained attempts to adapt existing processes. At schools with

higher rated infrastructure, educators with normative multiculturalism discussed how their

administrators protected them from internal and external pressures, while educators with high

multiculturalism discussed their administrators’ support as setting cohesive expectations among

colleagues.

Social aspects of school administrator support among educators with normative

multiculturalism by school site. The main difference between educators with normative

multiculturalism beliefs across schools by different ratings of educational infrastructure was their

perceptions of school administrators actions. Among educators at schools with lower ratings of

equity-focused infrastructure, school administrators' supportive actions were described as mostly

reacting to challenges in equity at their schools. One educator noted, “They did a week of

interventions on racist language and I think that they consistently give consequences pretty

consistently to kids who continue to struggle with their words.” Another educator noted how

school administrators’ reactions to equity challenges among students could feel prescriptive,

63
saying, “We're being told what to do rather than being asked to work with it, if that makes sense.

Like, ‘You will do this,’ and ‘You will do that,’ and, ‘This is what we're doing.’ As opposed to,

you know, ‘Let's meet and discuss this. Let's talk about this.’ It's more of a direction where we're

being told what to do, rather than us working together as a staff.” In this way, educators with

normative multiculturalism at schools with low educational infrastructure ratings expressed a

perception that their school administrators’ supportive actions were centered on reacting to

challenges in equity at their schools.

Among educators with normative multiculturalism at schools with high equity-focused

infrastructure ratings, school administrators auctions were discussed as protecting educators from

internal and external pressures. One educator described the influence by saying, “I've never

gotten any pressure about test scores. Even though that's, you know, something that he gets

pressure about, and maybe classroom teachers get, feel more of that. As far as influencing my

work, I mean, I have the freedom to diverge from something in the curriculum because it's in the

name of equity and he's gonna back me.” This sense that school administrators’ actions were

protective extended to parents. Another educator noted, “Well, I mean they, they were ready to

speak with the parent and they were protective of me and the way I teach. It's important that our

students see themselves reflected in our curriculum. Our students and families deserve authentic

representation.” In this way, educators with normative multiculturalism expressed a sense that

school administrators’ actions were protective of educators.

Differences among educators with high multiculturalism by school site. The sense that

school administrators support for equity to the form of tangible actions was also present among

educators with high multiculturalism beliefs. Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs at

schools with low ratings of educational infrastructure noted that their school administrators’

64
actions were constrained by competing initiatives, while their high multiculturalism colleagues at

schools with high educational infrastructure discussed school administrator support as forming

cohesive expectations for colleagues. As these educators work in the same district and do not

differ in their beliefs, only in their school sites, these differences notably demonstrate how school

administrators support for equity change differ between schools within the same district.

Among educators with high multiculturalism beliefs at schools with low educational

infrastructure ratings, educators felt that consistent administrator support was constrained by

competing initiatives. One educator noted, “I do think they are concerned about it. I don't know.

Like, it's hard to make changes. So I think little things are changing and conversations are

happening but no big moves have been made.” Among these perceptions, educators explained

that, “I do think that they place a lot of importance on equity. They, you know, they talk the talk

really well. But I think that with so many things that happen during the day, during the week,

during the year, it's not centered because other things get in the way.” In this way, educators with

high multiculturalism at schools with low educational infrastructure expressed a sense that their

school administrators' supportive actions were constrained by competing initiatives within their

school.

Among educators with high multiculturalism beliefs at schools with high educational

infrastructure ratings, district administrators who communicated support for equity were

described as providing cohesive expectations to colleagues. One educator explained the impact

on their school, saying, “the school is a lot better, because they’re a lot more coherent. And

they’re always trying to find ways to to be equitable, in spite of whatever is happening outside.

We all have, like, a same vision and go for it. There's not that much struggle to like, create buy-

in get some people interested. It's like, we're all in the same boat, and we're going to the same

65
place. So I think that is something that helps at the school. I think it extends beyond what the

district expects.” These educators described a sense that setting common expectations was a

supportive school administrator action. Another educator expanded by noting, “There's not any,

like explicit policies or like meetings that have happened this year, but it's just so ingrained in the

school that I can feel it like. And that's just like, who our administrator is, and they’re known for

equity work. It makes me feel like I said, what the other one makes me feel safe to bring equity

into the classroom and have the conversations.” In other words, rather than a sense that equity

was competing with other initiatives for their school administrator’s support, educators had a

sense that their administrator was able to make equity into a coherent understanding shared

among school colleagues.

In summary, educator groups examined across school sites described their school

administrators’ support for equity as extant and observable actions, but varied on how cohesive

and effective these actions felt. While educators with high multiculturalism at schools with high

educational infrastructure ratings thought their school administrators set cohesive expectations

that could be implemented by their colleagues, neither educators with high multiculturalism at

schools with low educational infrastructure ratings thought competing initiatives constrained

their school administrator’s supportive actions. Among educators with normative

multiculturalism, those at schools with high educational infrastructure ratings discussed

educators’ supportive actions to protect them from internal and external pressures, while those at

schools with low educational infrastructure ratings felt like their administrators’ support was

reactive rather than protective.

Educators at schools Educators at schools

with lower equity- with higher equity-
focused infrastructure focused infrastructure
ratings ratings

66
 Association with Practices

Educator Expend time and labor Expend time and labor

High Multiculturalism Actions to implement practices to implement practices
educators beyond those supported beyond those supported
formal resources formal resources

Association with Practices

Educator Implement equity- Adapt formal resources

Normative Multiculturalism Actions focused practices to be meaningful
educators available from formal
resources
Table 12. Thematic results by school and educator.

Differences between educator groups and sites regarding practice implementation.

Across school sites and groups, educators discussed their practice implementation three distinct

views of practice implementation by educator beliefs and school site emerged. Educators with

normative multiculturalism at schools with low educational infrastructure discussed

implementing those equity-focused practices supported by formal resources from educational

infrastructure, while colleagues at schools with high educational infrastructure ratings noted

having to adapt formal resources to implement meaningful practices. Among educators with high

multiculturalism beliefs, educators at schools with high and low ratings described expending

time and labor to implement equity-focused practices that were beyond those supported by

formal resources.

Difference among educators with normative multiculturalism by school site. The main

difference between educators with normative multiculturalism beliefs across schools with

different ratings of educational infrastructure was the perception of whether district-provided

resources needed to be adapted by educators in order to meaningfully support their equity-

focused practice implementation. Among educators with normative multiculturalism beliefs at

67
schools with lower ratings of equity-focused infrastructure, practice implementation discussions

were limited to those with extant district support, and these did not always take the form of

curriculum. One educator described confidence navigating extant systems by saying, “Any

support that we need with regards to contacting parents who don't speak English, we have people

that can help us. They've set that up, as a system, that I can go to a specific person in the dual

language program and they will help translate for me. So there are avenues that have been put in

place. And even when writing, we know who to go to so that documents can be translated.”

Another educator expanded on the limitations of these systems, but noting, “Equity is not

something that I feel is, is followed up and, and reinforced throughout the year. And so then the

further you get from [a training], the more you forget, and then you're like, oh, right, I really

need to be, you know, revisiting that whole idea.” Another educator explained their equity-

focused practice implementation by saying, “I do exit tickets, and I try to incorporate, you know,

their thoughts about their families as much as I can, as much as I’ve been taught.” In this way,

educators with normative multiculturalism expressed a perception that while some non-curricular

supports existed for practice implementation, these were not systematically available and

required educator effort in order to be integrated for implementation.

Among educators with normative multiculturalism at schools with high equity-focused

infrastructure ratings, they discussed the opportunity to adapt formal resources to make equity-

focused practice implementation meaningful. One educator noted, “This year, specifically, it has

felt, and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with having a really great curriculum, that we can talk about

in a way that isn't as trying to build a lesson. And so it has been really good this year, having

really productive conversations and being able to focus on equity things rather than just like,

‘Are we meeting the standard or not?’” This sense that district resources could provide a

68
foundational structure upon which to build was echoed among educators, including an educator

at a different school who explained, “that’s the biggest thing that pops into my mind, it's like

choosing a curriculum that allows that to happen. Because if it's not already included, a lot of

people will bring it in, like supplemental material. So bring it in, choose materials that allow that

conversation to happen in the first place.” In this way, educators with normative multiculturalism

at high educational infrastructure schools expressed a sense that their district resources presented

an opportunity to increase equity-focused practice by providing a foundation of curricula that

could be built upon.

Lack of differences among educators with high multiculturalism by school site.

Educators with high multiculturalism beliefs at schools with low and high ratings of educational

infrastructure noted spending time and labor to implement equity-focused practices beyond

district-supplied systems and resources. As these educators work in the same district and do not

differ in their beliefs, only in their school sites, these differences demonstrate how a difference in

school administrator support may not change educators’ practice implementation, merely their

perceptions of support.

Among educators with high multiculturalism beliefs at schools with low educational

infrastructure ratings, educators described needing to be self-reliant to implement equity-focused

practices. When discussing support systems and implementation, one educator noted, “So you

really have to, in your own practice, just be constantly reminding yourself to do these things. But

they do try; they present it at the beginning of the year.” Educators also noted that a lack of time

within their day could also limit the amount that they could meaningfully implement practices,

saying, “This is part of math and reading, like, you have to be intentional with what you read to

the kids, you have to be intentional with, like the classroom management strategies that you have

69
and how you deal with certain behaviors and like, how you talk about your kids, how you might

unconsciously label your students and stuff. Like, all of that matters, but I don't think we get time

to plan for how that all interconnects” In this way, educators with high multiculturalism

expressed a sense that communicating support for equity was an insufficient district

administrator action.

Like their colleagues at schools with high multiculturalism beliefs at schools with high

educational infrastructure ratings, educators with high multiculturalism beliefs at schools with

low educational infrastructure ratings discussed the additional work they put in to implement

equity-focused practices. One educator summarized this view saying, “I have a student who

speaks Tagalog and is from the Philippines. So like, when we're talking about like, ‘What's your

favorite food?’ I bring in food from that culture. So it's more I feel like it's more like I'm the one

who's bringing in the practices into the classroom versus my leader or my district.” There was

also a notable frustration that their efforts were frequently unrecognized among leadership.

Another educator expanded by noting, “I think they are the people who work the hardest to bring

equity into the classroom. And I don't feel like they get recognized. We already have some really

amazing people in this district that work really hard on bringing equity into the classroom. So

like, let's work with them. Let's get their ideas, let's pay them for their time.”

In summary, educator groups examined across school sites described different ways of

engaging with equity-focused resources for practice implementation. Educators with normative

multiculturalism at schools with low educational infrastructure discussed implementing those

equity-focused practices supported by formal non-curricular resources but did not discuss

curricular resources. Colleagues at high resource schools did not note non-curricular resource but

did describe adapting curricular resources in order to implement meaningful practices. Among

70
educators with high multiculturalism beliefs, educators at high and low resources schools

described expending time and labor to implement equity-focused practices that were beyond

those supported formal resources.

Summary of Chapter Ten

This chapter detailed analysis regarding educators’ perceptions of educational

infrastructure by their multiculturalism beliefs and associated equity-focused practice

implementation. Between school sites, educators by multiculturalism beliefs noted receiving

social aspects of school administration support that were aligned with desired supports described

within phase one qualitative analysis. Receiving desired support within social aspects of

educational infrastructure was associated with differences in educators’ perception of district-

level social aspects of support among educators regardless of multiculturalism, while differences

in practice implementation were notable only among normative multiculturalism educators

between schools. The integrative interpretation of these findings with the quantitative analysis,

and overall interpretation of the study, limitations, and future directions are contained within the

next chapter.

71
 Chapter 11 Phase Two Integration and Discussion

This study employed a multi-phase mixed methods approach to investigate two key

questions: 1) how educators’ diversity ideologies are associated with their perceptions of

educational infrastructure and 2) how these ideologies, in conjunction with educators’

perceptions of educational infrastructure, are associated with educators’ equity-focused practice

implementation. This chapter presents an integrated interpretation of the findings from phase two

of the study, an overall discussion, outlines the limitations, and suggests future directions for

research.

Phase Two Integration

The findings within this section elucidate the contextual dynamics on the association of

educators’ multiculturalism beliefs regarding their perception of educational infrastructure.

Analysis from two sets of quantitative data revealed differing relationships between educators’

multiculturalism beliefs and their ratings of educational infrastructure. Specifically, the

hypothesized relationship between educators’ diversity ideologies and perceptions of educational

infrastructure was not supported in the Pine Orchard data. However, a replication of the model

with national data confirmed the hypothesized association. These results indicate that the current

forms of educational infrastructure may not provide adequate support to educators, regardless of

their multiculturalism beliefs. Furthermore, they highlight a contextually specific relationship

between educators’ diversity ideologies and enacted implementation of educational

infrastructure.

72
 The qualitative results both support and deepen the understanding of the null findings

from the local sample by comparing educators’ experiences with district and school

administrators between schools that vary in their ratings of educational infrastructure.

Integratively, these results build upon the quantitative results, revealing that while educators at

schools with higher ratings of educational infrastructure receive the social support they desire

from school administrators, they find the formal aspects of equity-focused infrastructure lacking.

This discrepancy highlights the interplay between social and formal elements within educational

infrastructure, aligning with previous research that emphasizes their interconnected nature.

Even in schools where educators felt supported by the social aspects of educational

infrastructure provided by their school administrators, this support was insufficient to offset the

lack of formal educational infrastructure support. In schools with higher educational

infrastructure ratings, the path model indicated no association between educators’

multiculturalism beliefs and their perceptions of educational infrastructure. Despite this,

educators perceive the social actions of their school administrators--such as setting cohesive

expectations or shielding them from external pressures--as supportive. They also felt that

available formal support could be adapted to facilitate equity-focused practices. At schools with

lower educational infrastructure ranking, educators--regardless of their multiculturalism beliefs--

tended to feel that neither the formal nor the social aspects of educational infrastructure were

supportive of their equity-focused practice implementation.

Collectively, the null findings from the local sample, alongside the confirmatory results

from the national dataset, underscore a common finding: in schools with higher educational

infrastructure ratings, educators implement more equity-focused practices, even though these

vary by educators’ multiculturalism beliefs. When considering this alongside the qualitative

73
results, the formal aspects of educational infrastructure were more commonly lacking. This

pattern highlights a disparity in available aspects of educational infrastructure support types,

reflecting a need for a more balanced approach to fostering both social and formal elements of

educational infrastructure.

The synthesis of these findings reveals a pattern: higher educational infrastructure

perceptions do facilitate the implementation of equity-focused practices, but this is largely

dependent on the interplay of available supports--social and formal--and how these supports

align with educators’ multiculturalism beliefs. This nuanced understanding underscores the need

for a more intentional approach to educational infrastructure design, one that strategically

strengthens both social and formal aspects of educational infrastructure to truly suppose and

enhance equity-focused practices across all schools, educators, and students.

Overall Discussion

This study examined the relatedness of educators’ diversity ideologies and their

perception of educational infrastructure on educators’ equity-focused practice implementation.

The central question guiding this dissertation investigation was How do educators’ diversity

ideologies influence their perceptions of educational infrastructure and equity-focused practice

implementation? The theoretical proposition posited examining the association of educators’

diversity ideologies with their perceptions of educational infrastructure could elucidate an

understanding of supports helpful for sustaining educators’ equity-focused practice

implementation. This premise rests on the notion that while there are a suite of supportive actions

that educators can receive through educational infrastructure, educators may require and prefer

depending on their diversity ideologies.

74
 Broadly, the results supported this theoretical proposition and have methodological and

practical implications for research investigating the intersecting association of educational

infrastructure and psychological factors on educators’ equity-focused practice implementation.

The results from the first phase indicated significant variation in how educators, based on their

multiculturalism beliefs, value administrator support and supportive colleagues. Additionally,

there were notably distinct perceptions among educators regarding the support from school and

district administrators, associated with their differing diversity ideologies. The second phase

further confirmed that path influence of multiculturalism beliefs and perceptions of educational

infrastructure exist and that educators' views on formal and social support vary depending on

their multiculturalism.

Statistical analysis across both phases revealed that educators’ diversity ideologies,

specifically their multiculturalism beliefs, significantly associated with their ratings of

educational infrastructure. These findings align with the theoretical proposition that diversity

ideologies serve as sensemaking frameworks, helping educators define what they consider

desirable within formal and social aspects of educational infrastructure.

In terms of how educators’ diversity beliefs are associated with their perceptions of

educational infrastructure, findings from phase one and phase two suggest desired social aspects

of educational infrastructure are associated with diversity ideologies. Ranking and qualitative

investigations indicated that the social aspects of educational infrastructure, particularly school

administrators, were highly valued among educators with higher multiculturalism beliefs. In

separate data collection and analysis, educators receiving support aligned with their desires for

social aspects of school administrator support gave their educational infrastructure higher ratings.

These findings suggest that, while contextually dependent, there is a degree of stability in the

75
desired social aspects of school administrator support across time, and receiving these supports is

positively associated with educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure.

When considering educational infrastructure, these findings also provide support for the

understanding that social and formal aspects are interrelated in creating enacted supportive

infrastructure. While educators noted dimensions of difference in their desired formal

educational infrastructure by their multiculturalism beliefs, they were united in their perception

that these desired formal supports were unavailable to them. Receiving desired school

administrators social support did not buffer the experience of lack of formal supportive aspects.

Thus, researchers and practitioners can note that receiving social aspects of educational

infrastructure are not related to increased educators’ equity-focused practice implementation.

When discussing the desired formal aspects of educational infrastructure, educators noted

dimensionally distinct desires. In some ways, each dimension of desired formal educational

infrastructure by educators’ multiculturalism are different ways to discuss cohesion and

consistency, which are hallmarks of success within educational change initiatives (McLure &

Aldridge, 2023). Educators with higher multiculturalism’s desire for equity to be infused across

formal instructional supports is aligned with this prior research and is indicative of their desire to

see equity-focused initiatives succeed within their district. Moreover, educators with normative

multiculturalism’ desire to see more concrete guidelines for frequency in professional learning

and practices align with prior theorizing that equity is a particularized content knowledge

(Dyches & Boyd, 2017) wherein educators adjust or rely on curricula to compensate for their

own strengths and weaknesses (Beyer & Davis, 2011). Educators with more normative

multiculturalism may recognize their understanding of equity as less intuitive and compensate by

looking for external indicators.

76
 In a broad way, these findings suggest that strategic efforts to support educators with

educational infrastructure would benefit from multiple scaffolds that can benefit a wider range of

diversity ideologies than simply those with normative multiculturalism. Educators will continue

to bring their diversity ideologies to their interpretations of equity, and some of those educators

will primarily engage in colorblindness, believing it to create an even playing field, while some

will use interpretations more aligned with multiculturalism. Knowing these core differences in

diversity ideologies, researcher-practitioner partnerships have an opportunity to align educational

infrastructure supports in ways that anticipate these differences. If a goal is to see educators’

practices shift toward equity-focused practice, educational infrastructure could be aided by

planning to meet differences within diversity ideologies, particularly as these are associated with

shaping educators’ perceptions of support. While those with normative multiculturalism may feel

supported by isolated formal supports and communication of equity as a value, educators with

high multiculturalism were dissatisfied with these formal supports, desiring more interconnection

between professional learning, performance evaluation, assessment, and curricula. When coupled

with the understanding that normative multiculturalism educators implement fewer equity-

focused practices than their high multiculturalism colleagues, these perceptions suggest that

educational infrastructure is more supportive to educators with normative multiculturalism, but

not in ways that are statistically observable within their practice implementation. In a practical

way, these findings suggest that when equity-focused infrastructure exist, but these are not

aligned with educators’ diversity ideologies, it is educators’ multiculturalism beliefs that are

responsible for their practice implementation.

Limitations and Future Directions

77
 Overall, the future directions of this research are contained within a central understanding

that refining an examination of educational infrastructure will yield more precise and

illuminative understandings. One future direction is tied to survey development and validation,

the other is tied to more explicit examinations of the interplay between formal and social aspects

of educational infrastructure.

Within this study, survey items regarding educators’ perceptions of educational

infrastructure had low reliability and needed to be split into individual item analysis for use.

After completing the qualitative analysis, one possible explanation is that educators’ perceptions

regarding social and formal aspects of district and school administrators were not explicitly

operationalized within the survey. Likert-scale survey items regarding educators’ perceptions of

their district and school administrators’ social and formal actions supporting equity initiatives

(i.e., “During conversations with my district administrators, it is clear that they value equity-

focused practices”) would permit a multi-level model where the association of these perceptions

are examined across schools and educators. Methodologically and conceptually, these scales

could work to support the frameworks set forth by Peurach and colleagues regarding the

interrelated nature of social and formal aspects within educational infrastructure (2019).

Second, the qualitative analysis within this study was chosen for its’ usefulness in

categorizing and describing educational infrastructure, which leaves open the opportunity for

more fine-grained analysis of communication as a culturally distinct phenomenon. An analysis

capable of tracing how this communication occurs regarding educational infrastructure, such as

sociocultural discourse analysis, could yield a more comprehensive understanding of the

discursive nature of communicating perceptions, particularly infrastructure that constrain and

enable practice implementation.

78
Methodological and substantive contributions

The significance of this investigation has methodological and substantive implications

within research, but these also sit within our current context. Educators’ diversity ideologies and

educational infrastructure relatedness with educator practice implementation. Equity-focused

practices have alternatively been encouraged or considered dangerous, as evidenced by the 65

different legislative bills introduced in the last four years (Watson, 2024). Substantively, this

study contributes knowledge on meaningfully examining the relatedness of educational

infrastructure and educator diversity ideologies on practice implementation. Results of this study

indicate that diversity ideologies shape educators' perceptions of educational infrastructure and

enhance equity-focused practice implementation. Educator’s diversity ideologies may be an

important, though less examined, feature that may further unpack differences in equity-focused

practice implementation during equity-focused initiatives. Researchers interested in examining

potential sources of variation within practice implementation may find this association

meaningful to carry forward.

Methodologically, mixed methods research has existed within educational research for a

number of years, but has been under-utilized within both practice implementation and

educational systems research (Mosehelm & Fetters, 2017; Plano-Clark, Foote & Walton, 2018,

Walton et al., 2020). This investigation generates new insights regarding the benefits of

methodologically combining analysis, particularly as related to methods of integration and

sequential investigation into an emergent phenomenon, which may be of interest to the mixed

methods community. Educational researchers may be interested in this investigation that utilized

research regarding educational infrastructure, while using different methods to examine

educators’ perceptions regarding the benefits of these educational infrastructure.

79
Conclusion

As schools work to create educational infrastructure capable of supporting educators’

equity-focused practice implementation, it is essential to understand these processes as enacted,

by which I mean interpretative, rather than an objective, by which I mean universal, processes.

There are dimensions of difference in what infrastructure educators experience as supportive and

beneficial. Taking into consideration the beliefs that influence these dimensions of difference can

allow a more intentional design of educational infrastructure. While this study investigated the

benefits of receiving educational infrastructure on educators’ practice implementation that align

with their multiculturalism beliefs, there are still unexplored ways that experiencing beneficial

educational infrastructure that may come to bear on educators persistence in their professions,

the classroom culture that they create, and thus, how students experience schools. In order for

educators to continue to implement equity-focused practices, we must understand how to support

them. One way to do this is to attend to educators’ beliefs and thus shape available educational

infrastructure to these beliefs.

80
 Appendix A: Preliminary Path Model Analysis and Replication

Preliminary Analysis

As a preliminary step, the data was examined for linearity, normality, homoscedasticity,

multicollinearity, outliers and missingness. Assumptions were met for linearity,

homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity. No outliers were detected. Models examining

relatedness of diversity ideologies and perceptions of educational infrastructure failed the

normality examinations. Q-Q plots of the model revealed a right skewed distribution of the data.

To correct for the non-normal distribution of data, a general linear model was used. There was

34% missingness among the Pine Orchard educators regarding practice implementation. To

account for the large degree of missingness, educators practeice were estimated using multiple

imputation via the mice R package (van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011).

National Sample Replication

Educators within this data sample came from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The composition of the participant sample, including average years of experience (M = 13.6),

gender, grades taught, and position were similar to the sample from Pine Orchard. The racial

composition of the national sample included more Black / African American educators and fewer

Latino/Hispanic educators, which is closer to national racial composition estimates.

National Survey Demographics

(N = 1088)

Years of Teaching (M) 13.6

81
 Position (%)
Administration 7.2
Certified Instructor 60.3
Instructional Assistant 10.5
Specialist 10.4
Support Staff 11.5

School Grade (%)

Primary (PK - 6) 54.4
Secondary (7-12) 45.6

School Type (%)

Public 77.8
Private 10.2
Charter 12.0

Gender (%)
Female 79.7
Male 19.5
Nonbinary 0.6
Transgender 0.2

Race/Ethnicity (%)
Asian 3.7
Black / African American 11
Indigenous/ Native 0.5
Latino/Hispanic 7
Multiple Ethnicities 3.8
White 70
Appendix Table 1. National data demographics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Race 1
Gender 0.05 1
Years of Experience -0.04 -0.21**** 1
Student Racial Diversity 0.06* 0.11**** -0.04 1
Multiculturalism 0.12**** 0.09** -0.03 0.05 1
Perception of Equity Work 0.02 -0.02 -0.05 0.07* 0.26**** 1
Cultural Background Practices 0.10** 0.09** -0.11*** 0.13**** 0.35**** 0.26**** 1
Cultural Validation Practices 0.10*** 0.11*** -0.06* 0.12**** 0.39**** 0.27**** 0.80****
Appendix Table 2. Correlations for national data set

Path Model Investigation

82
 The hypothesized SEM is indicated graphically in Figure 5. I replicated the SEM analysis

with the 1088 educators within the national sample. Results are presented below and in Table 14.

The hypothesized models demonstrated good fit: CFI =.95; TLI =.94; and =RMSEA is .046.

Results of path model from national sample.

National Data

Path t p
(𝛽)
Path Comment

Educator Race → Multiculturalism Beliefs 0.08 2.4 .01 Aligns with prior
research

Educator Gender → Multiculturalism Beliefs 0.15 4.05 .000 Aligns with prior
research

Educator Experience → Multiculturalism Beliefs -0.02 - ns

0.77

Multiculturalism Beliefs → Perception of 0.30 7.13 .000 H1 supported

Educational Infrastructure

Student Racial Diversity → Perception of 0.05 2.07 .000 Aligns with prior
Educational Infrastructure research

Perception of Educational Infrastructure → 0.19 5.52 .000 H2 supported

Cultural Background Practices

Perception of Educational Infrastructure → 0.16 4.86 .000 H2 supported

Cultural Validation Practices

Multiculturalism → Cultural Background 0.35 8.04 .000 Aligns with prior

Practices research

Multiculturalism → Cultural Validation Practices 0.44 9.41 .000 Aligns with prior
research
Appendix Table 3. Results of path model from national sample

The Relatedness of Covariates on Multiculturalism Beliefs. Educators’ race and

gender (r = 0.12; r = 0.09) were related to their multiculturalism. Educator race was predictive
R G

83
of higher multiculturalism (𝛽 National = 0.08), while student racial diversity positively predicted

educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure (𝛽 National = 0.06).

Effect of Multiculturalism Beliefs on Practices. Educators’ multiculturalism beliefs

were positively related to their cultural background and cultural validation practices (r = 0.35; CB

r = 0.39) and predictive of higher cultural background (𝛽

CRl National = 0.34) and cultural validation

(𝛽 National = 0.44) practice implementation.

Effects on Perceptions of Educational Infrastructure. Student racial diversity was

positively related to (r National = 0.06) and predictive of educators' perceptions of educational

infrastructure (𝛽 National = 0.06). Educator multiculturalism beliefs were positively related to (r National =

0.26) and predicted educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure (𝛽 National = 0.30).

Effect of Perceptions of Equity Work on Practices. Educators’ perception of

educational infrastructure was positively related to their cultural background and cultural

validation practices (r = 0.26; r = 0.27) and was predictive of higher cultural background
CB CRl

(𝛽 National = 0.20) and cultural validation practice (𝛽 National = 0.17) implementation.

84
Appendix Figure 1. Tested path model betas with latent construct item loadings for national data sample

Summary of Path Model. Analyses of data from a national sample of educators

supported the hypothesis that 1) educators’ diversity ideologies predict their perceptions of

educational infrastructure and 2) educators’ perceptions of educational infrastructure predict their

equity-focused practice implementation. Moreover, these results indicate that educators’ social

identities are significant predictors of their diversity ideologies and the student population in the

schools in which educators teach are significant predictors of their perceptions of educational

infrastructure.

85
 Bibliography

Aragón, O. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Graham, M. J. (2017). Colorblind and multicultural ideologies

are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices. Journal of Diversity

in Higher Education, 10(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000026

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The Theory and Practice of Culturally Relevant Education:

A Synthesis of Research Across Content Areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1),

163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Ball, S.J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in

Secondary Schools (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.4324/9780203153185

Bell, J. M., & Hartmann, D. (2007). Diversity in everyday discourse: The cultural ambiguities

and consequences of “happy talk”. American Sociological Review, 72(6), 895-914.

Bellibaş, M. Ş., Polatcan, M., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2022). Linking instructional leadership to teacher

practices: The mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness.

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(5), 812–831.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945706

Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials:

Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers' pedagogical content

knowledge. Science Education, 96(1), 130-157.

86
Birnbaum, H. J., Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M., & Hamedani, M. G. (2021). A Diversity

Ideology Intervention: Multiculturalism Reduces the Racial Achievement Gap. Social

Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 751–759.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620938227

Blaushild, N. L. (2023). “It’s Just Something That You Have to Do as a Teacher”: Investigating

the Intersection of Educational Infrastructure Redesign, Teacher Discretion, and

Educational Equity in the Elementary ELA Classroom. The Elementary School Journal,

124(2), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1086/727432

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive)

thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing

schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Bryk, A. S. (1993). A View from the Elementary Schools: The State of Reform in Chicago. A

Report of the Steering Committee, Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Celeste, L., Baysu, G., Phalet, K., Meeussen, L., & Kende, J. (2019). Can School Diversity

Policies Reduce Belonging and Achievement Gaps Between Minority and Majority

Youth? Multiculturalism, Colorblindness, and Assimilationism Assessed. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(11), 1603–1618.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219838577

Chaney, K. E. (2022). An examination of diversity rationales: How instrumental and moral

diversity rationales create minority spotlight. European Journal of Social Psychology,

52(5–6), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2852

87
Cherkowski, S., & Ragoonaden, K. (2016). Leadership for diversity: Intercultural

communication competence as professional delveopment. Teacher Learning and

Professional Development, 1(1).

Civitillo, S., Juang, L. P., Badra, M., & Schachner, M. K. (2019). The interplay between

culturally responsive teaching, cultural diversity beliefs, and self-reflection: A multiple

case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 341–351.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.002

Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping Teacher Sensemaking: School Leaders and the Enactment of

Reading Policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143

Cohen, D. K., Spillane, J. P., & Peurach, D. J. (2018). The Dilemmas of Educational Reform.

Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17743488

Covarrubias, R., Herrmann, S. D., & Fryberg, S. A. (2016). Affirming the Interdependent Self:

Implications for Latino Student Performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,

38(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1129609

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. P. (2018). Mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ Responses to Success for All: How Beliefs,

Experiences, and Adaptations Shape Implementation. American Educational Research

Journal, 37(3), 775–799. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037003775

Dovidio, J. F., Saguy, T., and Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Appreciating the role of the “individual

mind” in diversity science: commonality, harmony, and social change. Psychol. Inquiry

21, 108–114. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.4 86071

88
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional

Development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311

Darling-Hammond, L., & Oakes, J. (2021). Preparing teachers for deeper learning. Harvard

Education Press.

De Leersnyder, J., Gündemir, S., & Ağirdağ, O. (2022). Diversity approaches matter in

international classrooms: How a multicultural approach buffers against cultural

misunderstandings and encourages inclusion and psychological safety. Studies in Higher

Education, 47(9), 1903–1920. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1983534

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Didion, L., Toste, J. R., & Filderman, M. J. (2020). Teacher Professional Development and

Student Reading Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects. Journal of

Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(1), 29–66.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1670884

Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and

prejudice. The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice, 188-221.

Dyches, J., & Boyd, A. (2017). Foregrounding Equity in Teacher Education: Toward a Model of

Social Justice Pedagogical and Content Knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education,

68(5), 476–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117705097

Earl Rinehart, K. (2021). Abductive Analysis in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(2),

303–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420935912

Edelman, M. (2001). Social movements: changing paradigms and forms of politics. Annual

review of anthropology, 30(1), 285-317.

89
Everitt, J. G. (2012). Teacher careers and inhabited institutions: Sense-making and arsenals of

teaching practice in educational institutions. Symbolic Interaction, 35(2), 203–220.

Faas, D., Smith, A., & Darmody, M. (2018). The role of principals in creating inclusive school

environments: insights from community national schools in Ireland. School Leadership &

Management, 38(4), 457-473.

Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a

Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620

Finch, H. (2022). An introduction to the analysis of ranked response data. Practical Assessment,

Research, and Evaluation, 27(7).https://doi.org/10.7275/TGKH-QK47

Fischer, C., Fishman, B., Dede, C., Eisenkraft, A., Frumin, K., Foster, B., Lawrenz, F., Levy, A.

J., & McCoy, A. (2018). Investigating relationships between school context, teacher

professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a

nationwide science reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 107–121.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.011

Foote, L. A. (2019). Planning for Success: A Mixed Methods Comparative Case Study

Investigating Elementary Mathematics Supports across School-Dependency Profiles

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati).

Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third edition. Sage,

Thousand Oaks CA. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/.

Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2007). Cultural models of education in American Indian, Asian

American and European American contexts. Social Psychology of Education, 10(2), 213–

246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-007-9017-z

90
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. teachers college

press.

Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2015). Occupational control in education: The logic and leverage

of epistemic communities. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 172-202.

Goldsmith, L. J. (2021). Using Framework Analysis in Applied Qualitative Research. Qualitative

Report, 26(6).

Gore, J. M., Miller, A., Fray, L., Harris, J., & Prieto, E. (2021). Improving student achievement

through professional development: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality

Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, 103297.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103297

Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Southerland, S. A., Saka, Y., & Ke, F. (2019). Examining features

of how professional development and enactment of educative curricula influences

elementary science teacher learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(3),

348–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21480

Gündemir, S., Martin, A. E., & Homan, A. C. (2019). Understanding Diversity Ideologies From

the Target’s Perspective: A Review and Future Directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00282

Hagenaars, M., Maene, C., Stevens, P. A. J., Willems, S., Vantieghem, W., & D’Hondt, F.

(2023). Diversity ideologies in Flemish education: Explaining variation in teachers’

implementation of multiculturalism, assimilation and colourblindness. Journal of

Education Policy, 0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2167236

Haug, B. S., & Mork, S. M. (2021). Taking 21st century skills from vision to classroom: What

teachers highlight as supportive professional development in the light of new demands

91
 from educational reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100, 103286.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103286

Hernandez, F., & Kose, B. W. (2012). The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity: A

tool for understanding principals’ cultural competence. Education and Urban Society,

44(4), 512-530.

Ho, A. K., Kteily, N. S., & Chen, J. M. (2020). Introducing the sociopolitical motive× intergroup

threat model to understand how monoracial perceivers’ sociopolitical motives influence

their categorization of multiracial people. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

24(3), 260-286.

Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the

relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1),

171-186.

Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Hogan, C. M., & Chow, R. M. (2009). On the malleability of

ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 96(4), 857.

Ladson-Billings, G. J. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 47, 465–491.

Leithwood, K. (2021). A Review of Evidence about Equitable School Leadership. Education

Sciences, 11(8), 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080377

Lewis, K. R. (2023). Schools spend billions on training so every student can succeed. They don’t

know if it works. USA TODAY. Retrieved October 27, 2023, from

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/09/14/flawed-equity-efforts-us-

schools-teachers/70679911007/

92
Levin, S., Matthews, M., Guimond, S., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Kteily, N., Pitpitan, E. V., &

Dover, T. (2012). Assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated and

moderated relationships between social dominance orientation and prejudice. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 207–212.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.019

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational

reform. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 15(2), 129-151.

López, F. (2023). Asset-Based Pedagogy. In Handbook of Educational Psychology (4th ed.).

Routledge.

Marsh, J. A., & Kennedy, K. (2020). Possibilities and Challenges: Conditions Shaping

Educators’ Use of Social–Emotional Learning Indicators. Teachers College Record,

122(14), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012201409

Markus, H. R., Steele, C. M., & Steele, D. M. (2000). Colorblindness as a barrier to inclusion:

Assimilation and nonimmigrant minorities. Daedalus, 129(4), 233-259.

Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). Sociocultural psychology. Handbook of cultural

psychology, 3-39.

McLure, F. I., & Aldridge, J. M. (2022). A systematic literature review of barriers and supports:

Initiating educational change at the system level. School Leadership & Management,

42(4), 402–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2113050

McLure, F. I., & Aldridge, J. M. (2023). Sustaining reform implementation: A systematic

literature review. School Leadership & Management, 43(1), 70–98.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2023.2171012

93
Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2014). Who's asking?: Native science, western science, and science

education. MIT Press.

Meetoo, V. (2020). Negotiating the diversity of ‘everyday’ multiculturalism: Teachers’

enactments in an inner city secondary school. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), 261–

279. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1497962

Melville, S. (2020). Are diversity strategies all or nothing? Moving away from a winner takes all

approach toward a fit for purpose approach. https://hdl.handle.net/10092/101088

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

SAGE.

Morman, K., Brady, L., Wang, C., Murphy, M. C., Bang, M., & Fryberg, S. (Apr, 2023).

Creating Identity Safe Classrooms: A Cultural Educational Psychology Approach to

Teacher Interventions. Paper presentation accepted at the American Educational Research

Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

Moseholm, E., & Fetters, M. D. (2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis

in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations, 10(2). https://doi-

org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1177/2059799117703118

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically

responsive literacy. Scholastic.

Murphy, M., Fryberg, S., Brady, L., Canning, E., & Hecht, C. (2021). Global mindset initiative

paper 1: Growth mindset cultures and teacher practices. Available at SSRN 3911594

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Organizational Frame Bending: Principles for

Managing Reorientation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 3(3), 194–204.

https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1989.4274738

94
Otter.ai (2023). Otter.ai, Inc: Speech to Text Transcription Services, Mountain View, CA, United

States. http://otter.ai.

Parkhouse, H., Lu, C. Y., & Massaro, V. R. (2019). Multicultural Education Professional

Development: A Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 416–

458. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319840359

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and

practice. Educational researcher, 41(3), 93-97.

Pauker, K., Apfelbaum, E. P., & Spitzer, B. (2015). When Societal Norms and Social Identity

Collide: The Race Talk Dilemma for Racial Minority Children. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 6(8), 887–895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615598379

Peurach, D. J., Yurkofsky, M. M., & Sutherland, D. H. (2019). Organizing and Managing for

Excellence and Equity: The Work and Dilemmas of Instructionally Focused Education

Systems. Educational Policy, 33(6), 812–845.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819867267

Plackett, R.L. (1975). The analysis of permutations. Applied Statistics, 24(2), 193-202.

Plano Clark, V. L., Foote, L. A., & Walton, J. B. (2018). Intersecting mixed methods and case

study research: Design possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Multiple

Research Approaches, 10(1), 14-29.

Plaut, V. C. (2002). Cultural models of diversity in American: The psychology of difference and

inclusion.

Plaut, V. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). The" Inside" Story: A Cultural-Historical Analysis of

Being Smart and Motivated, American Style.

95
Poekert, P. E., Swaffield, S., Demir, E. K., & A. Wright, S. (2020). Leadership for professional

learning towards educational equity: A systematic literature review. Professional

Development in Education, 46(4), 541–562.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1787209

Prahlad, A., Burton, M., Keller, C., Minning, B., Nuland, L., Satkowski, C., & Wells, J. (2017).

Closing the gap: Creating equity in the classroom.

Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., and Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social

identity contingencies: how diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans

in mainstream institutions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 615–630. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.94.4.615

Purdie-Vaughns, V., and Walton, G. M. (2011). “Is multiculturalism bad for African Americans?

Redefining inclusion through the lens of identity safety,” in Moving Beyond Prejudice

Reduction: Pathways to Positive Intergroup Relations, eds, L. R. Tropp and R. K. Mallett.

(Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 159–177.

R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.

Rattan, A., and Ambady, N. (2013). Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: an

examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43, 12–21. doi:

10.1002/ejsp.1892

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students

and researchers (Vol. 41). SAGE Publications.

http://choicereviews.org/review/10.5860/CHOICE.41-1319

96
Rissanen, I. (2021). School principals’ diversity ideologies in fostering the inclusion of Muslims

in Finnish and Swedish schools. Race Ethnicity and Education, 24(3), 431–450.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1599340

Romijn, B. R., Slot, P. L., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2021). Increasing teachers’ intercultural

competences in teacher preparation programs and through professional development: A

review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103236.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103236

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of

Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., Kulich, C., & Atkins, C. (2007). Opting out or

pushed off the edge? The glass cliff and the precariousness of women's leadership

positions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 266-279.

Simonsen, B., Freeman, J., Myers, D., Dooley, K., Maddock, E., Kern, L., & Byun, S. (2020).

The Effects of Targeted Professional Development on Teachers’ Use of Empirically

Supported Classroom Management Practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,

22(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300719859615

Smith, T. M., Cannata, M., & Haynes, K. T. (2016). Reconciling Data from Different Sources:

Practical Realities of Using Mixed Methods to Identify Effective High School Practices.

Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611800705

Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and Policy Implementation: District Policymakers and the

Reform of Mathematics Education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1802_01

97
Spillane, J. P., Blaushild, N. L., Neumerski, C. M., Seelig, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2022).

Striving for Coherence, Struggling With Incoherence: A Comparative Study of Six

Educational Systems Organizing for Instruction. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 44(4), 567–592. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737221093382

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).

Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines

the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0027143

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the Social-Class Achievement

Gap: A Difference-Education Intervention Improves First-Generation Students’

Academic Performance and All Students’ College Transition. Psychological Science,

25(4), 943–953. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613518349

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2019). Difference Matters: Teaching

Students a Contextual Theory of Difference Can Help Them Succeed. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 14(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618797957

Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). The reciprocal link between multiculturalism and

perspective-taking: How ideological and self-regulatory approaches to managing

diversity reinforce each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1394–

1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.007

Tualaulelei, E., & Halse, C. (2021). A scoping study of in-service teacher professional

development for inter/multicultural education and teaching culturally and linguistically

diverse students. Professional Development in Education, 0(0), 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1973074

98
Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Ho, G. C. (2012). Diversity Is What You Want It to Be:

How Social-Dominance Motives Affect Construals of Diversity. Psychological Science,

23(3), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611426727

Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at

NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained

Equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1-67. doi:10.18637/jss.v045.i03.

Walton, J. B., Plano Clark, V. L., Foote, L. A., & Johnson, C. C. (2020). Navigating Intersecting

Roads in a Mixed Methods Case Study: A Dissertation Journey. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 14(4), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819872422

Wang, C., Brady, L., Fryberg, S., Yang, Y., Griffiths, C. M., Markus, H., Rodriguez, P., &

Parker, D. (Apr, 2023). District-Wide Cultures of Inclusion Enhance Teachers’ Beliefs

and Practices and Students’ Psychosocial and Academic Outcomes. Paper presentation

accepted at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago,

IL.

Wilcox, K. C., & Lawson, H. A. (2022). Advancing Educational Equity Research, Policy, and

Practice. Education Sciences, 12(12), Article 12.

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120894

Wilton, L. S., Good, J. J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., and Sanchez, D. T. (2015). Communicating

more than diversity: The effect of institutional diversity statements on expectations and

performance as a function of race and gender. Cult. Div. Ethnic Min. Psychol. 21, 315–

325. doi: 10.1037/a00 37883

99
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., and Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology:

Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and

individuals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 635–654. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.635

Wynn, D., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for Conducting Critical Realist Case Study

Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 787–810.

https://doi.org/10.2307/41703481

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.

Yogeeswaran, K., Verkuyten, M., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2018). “I Have a Dream” of a

Colorblind Nation? Examining the Relationship between Racial Colorblindness, System

Justification, and Support for Policies that Redress Inequalities. Journal of Social Issues,

74(2), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12269

Yurkofsky, M. (2022). Environmental, technical, and representational uncertainty: A framework

for making sense of the hidden complexity of educational change. Educational

Researcher, 51(6), 399-410.

Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T. (2002). “Diagnostic Checking in Regression Relationships.” R News,

2(3), 7–10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/.

100