This study examines public schools districts in Los Angeles County to understand the extent to which diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is present. This study leverages racialized organization theory to elucidate the outward portrayal of DEI within these 80 schools districts.
This study utilized a qualitative methodology. Data was pulled from the websites of the 80 public school districts in Los Angeles County in Fall of 2024. The data was analyzed using an inductive coding approach.
Three major categories emerged during the analysis of the data. We found that school districts could be categorized as having an absence of DEI, a peripheral or values based conceptualization of DEI, or an action-oriented and in-depth approach to DEI.
We theorized that the outward portrayal of districts in the absence and peripheral mentions of DEI findings were exhibiting the race neutrality common in racialized organizations. This race neutrality ultimately supports the status quo and reifies white supremacy.
In the past year there has been an increasing scrutiny of the ideology of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Oppositional narratives about DEI have made the argument that DEI is eroding patriotic ideals and meritocracy. While these narratives have been pervasive in critiquing many aspects of American public life a heavy focus of this has been on education, both PK-12 and postsecondary. There is a perception that in more liberal states, states where the population tends to vote for the Democratic party and its policies, DEI is more present in educational settings. Recently California has been portrayed as a progressive stronghold, despite its fairly recent history of homophobic policies (
Despite this policy context, conservative pop-culture talking heads ultimately reify this idea of California as a left leaning and progressive state. While popular discourse has painted a particular picture of California, this study seeks to understand the level to which the ideals of DEI are present, or absent, within schools in California. To undertake this task we focus specifically on Los Angeles (LA) county schools. LA county provides a large site for examining school districts’ external messaging about DEI. LA county contains a wide range of household incomes being home to the ultra wealthy and lower-income families. Research from the UCLA Civil Rights Project names California the most segregated state in the nation for Latino students, finding that 58% of Latino students in California attend intensely segregated schools (
Schools, among other public entities, have been conceptualized as racialized organizations (
In the current political context DEI has taken on multiple meanings. In this current moment bans on DEI and previously Critical Race Theory have been ways to undercut racial justice and to cement systemic white supremacy within U.S. educational spaces (
We argue that DEI initiatives support those who hold identities that are often pushed to the margins within U.S. systems and structures. While in our findings we consider district policy we did not set out to exclusively focus on policy but consider policy as a means for increasing an outward presence of DEI within the district.
As mentioned above we understand school districts through a lens of racialized organizations (
Racialized organizations legitimize inequality in resource distribution (
Racialized organizations as a framework is particularly helpful within the context of our study as it helps to elucidate the various ways in which school districts avoid or grapple with systems and structures of racial oppression.
We situate our understanding of equity within the current federal educational policy context. Federal educational policy, especially following the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) increasingly placed an emphasis on accountability and standardized test scores (
Despite this increased focus on test scores and data for historically marginalized groups, we argue that there still exists what
Taking a neutral approach to race when considering schooling policy and practice ultimately reifies the status quo and perpetuates white supremacy.
Equity has long been a consideration for schooling. Historians have connected schools with liberatory struggle and as a site for emancipation for Black and Brown communities (
As schools continue to serve increasingly racially diverse student bodies the teaching force in the country continues to be overwhelmingly white (
While issues surrounding DEI in education have been a focus of educational scholarship since the passing of
Even as there has been a glimmer of hope with an increased attention toward DEI as a way to increase racial justice, the United States once again finds itself in a period of retrenchment where at both the state and federal level attacks on equity have come in the form of critical race theory (CRT) and DEI bans. Yet as this occurs, the scholarship on various aspects of DEI has argued that despite outward commitments toward DEI have ultimately been overly reliant on liberal logics that help to reinforce the status quo and white supremacy (
We frame our overall study through the lens of Critical Policy Analysis (CPA). CPA provides an important tool to interrogate the ways in which policy reifies power stratification and increases disparity (
Critical policy analysis is grounded in the belief that it is absolutely crucial to understand the complex connections between education and the relations of dominance and subordination in the larger society—and the movements that are trying to interrupt these relations. (p. 276).
The last 5 years have been marked by significant changes in our society. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated differences in educational learning and progress caused by systemic and socio-political inequalities. Students were required to engage in learning at home, which further exposed inequalities. There was a reliance on technology and familial support to access education, which widened pre-existing gaps even further for our most marginalized students. The disruption of education exposed and exacerbated existing systemic inequalities within education that created a call to action. This call to action was the implementation of DEI work within schools. Instead of going back to normal there was a demand for a hard reset- one that would center the academic, cultural, and social success of students who were regularly marginalized and set up for failure. This context and the current social political environment described in the introduction is what led us to examine how school districts in Los Angeles County conceptualized DEI in their public facing websites.
Our data collection process sought to examine publicly accessible data for all 80 public school districts as a diverse sample size. Los Angeles County has nearly 10 million residents, represents 27% of California’s population, and has the 20th largest economy globally (
At the macro level, the California Department of Education defines equity as “fair outcomes, treatment, and opportunities for all students” (
Our data collection began September 2024 before the start of the current administration and reflects accurate publicly accessible data for all 80 public school districts in Los Angeles County. This is important for us to note because the current socio-political environment has politicized and misrepresented DEI efforts in such a way that it has created pressure for institutions to scrub from publicly accessible websites any mention of DEI. We focus on traditional public schools as these continue to serve the majority of students in the county and we recognize that while charter schools may disproportionately serve students of color, they often have a mismatch between their espoused missions of equity and their draconian behavioral standards (
We collected and organized the information from districts’ websites and excerpts of what was present on their web pages that were tied to equity or DEI work. We also obtained district demographic data from DataQuest, which is the California Department of Education’s web-based data reporting system for publicly reporting information. Socioeconomic disadvantage data was obtained by California school Dashboard. Socioeconomically disadvantaged data is determined by the number of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma. The searches on school district websites were also done by using keywords within the search engines to pull any DEI or equity work from any portions of official district communication including Board meeting notes which are public information. We were informed by
The first author collected all of the data from all 80 public school districts within Los Angeles County. Reflexive memoing was utilized during the data gathering process, which captured thoughts and reflections on the research process. Both authors met on a biweekly basis to discuss the data and memo notes, which allowed them to further engage in data analysis and theoretical development that informed further methodological choices within our research. This aligns with what
As authors of this study we position ourselves as former educators and leaders in K-12 schooling systems as well as researchers. We also represent intersecting identities of race, class, language, religion, and gender. Our identities are representative of the marginalized identity groups within PK-12 schooling systems that we are analyzing.
The first author identifies as a bilingual, first- generation Mexican American woman. Her career as an educator includes roles as a non-profit advocate of incarcerated youth, immigrant families, and foster youth; an elementary bilingual teacher; and a principal of K-8 schools. Her work as a teacher and principal took place in urban communities in Philadelphia, New York City, and Los Angeles. As a principal she created equitable systems and structures that centered the voices of marginalized voices within educational systems. She comes to this work with an interest in seeking to reimagine how institutions respond to and engage diverse educators and multilingual learners within the educational field to ensure their humanization and success.
The second author identifies as a white, queer man. His scholarship focuses on equity and its intersection with educational leadership and policy. His career as an educator has spanned K-12 and higher education. He was a teacher in an urban middle school— as a classroom teacher he began to notice the ways policy created racial disparity in the classroom especially when comparing to his schooling that occurred in a suburb in a different part of the state. He comes to this work particularly interested in how schools vary across race and class. He is motivated by these experiences to critically examine the ways in which public schools in the United States perpetuate the status quo and champion white supremacy.
We believe that teaching should be responsive and culturally relevant for students. Our experiences informed the focus of our data collection and research question. From our experience and knowledge we believe that schools create inequities and exacerbate education disadvantages. Schools create socially relevant categories and sort students into these categories through the day to day decisions and interactions that occur within a school. To address potential bias in our research we proactively created an inclusive research design and implemented strategies that facilitated awareness and mitigation.
We focused on all 80 school districts within Los Angeles County to ensure a diverse sample size. LA County school districts cover a wide geographical area that spans coastal areas, the Antelope Valley, and the San Gabriel Valley. These 80 public school districts represent urban, suburban, and rural areas. We also recognize that Los Angeles County is a demographically diverse area, which is why we collected demographic data throughout our data gathering process. There are 48 unified districts spanning grades PK-12, 27 elementary districts, and 5 high school districts. Data collection methods included the meticulous search of public facing websites. Public facing websites are pivotal for communication, resource sharing, and the dissemination of important information. This outwardly facing material is increasingly important as school choice continues to grow in the United States as it positions parents and families as educational consumers. California school districts are required to have and maintain public websites with the goal of increasing transparency and providing the public with accessibility to key information. We focused on searching these websites to attain data regarding the DEI and equity work districts were engaged in.
As researchers we engaged in reflectivity to recognize and address our biases, experiences, and assumptions during the research process. We engaged in memoing in order to provide a space for documenting our thoughts, reflections, and changing interpretations of the data. This practice helped us critically examine our own biases, assumptions, and perspectives during the data gathering process. We also engaged in iterative reflection by meeting biweekly to regularly reflect on the data gathering process and inform adjustments in the data gathering process.
We utilized a qualitative thematic approach to answer our question:
The first author conducted the first cycle of analysis. We used what
LA County is a demographically diverse area. We have included the demographic data of school districts alongside our categorization findings in
Overview of distribution of districts across themes.
| Category | Number of school districts | Percentage | Total # of students served |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absence of DEI | 38 | 47.50% | 340,554 |
| Values and peripheral mention of DEI | 21 | 26.25% | 182,329 |
| In-depth and action oriented approaches to DEI | 21 | 26.25% | 768,360 |
| Action oriented approach to DEI | 16 | 20.00% | 664,156 |
| In-depth approach to DEI | 5 | 6.25% | 104,204 |
Our study moves away from demographics toward understanding the systems and structures that perpetuate racial inequity (
At the end of the data collection and coding cycles for all 80 school districts, we were able to categorize districts into three groups: absence of DEI, values and peripheral mention of DEI, and in-depth and/or action oriented approaches to DEI. The results show that a majority of school districts within Los Angeles County, 47.5% or an equivalent of 38 school districts, are absent from any DEI work within their public facing websites. Of the school districts whose data we coded and categorized, 21 school districts or an equivalent of 26.25% mentioned DEI as a value or referred to it peripherally. Lastly 21 school districts or an equivalent of 26.25% had in depth and/or action oriented approach to DEI. Visuals of this overall data and the distribution of school districts within each category can be found below in the form of a data table, color coded map of LA County schools. The nuances that exist within these findings will be elaborated further with an examination of each identified group.
It is important to note that school districts who had an absence of DEI were thoroughly examined within the various sections of their webpage as well as search engines contained within their websites to pull any DEI or equity work from any portions of official district communication. Among 38 school districts, 33 had absolutely no mention of any DEI or equity statements, plan, or resources. These school districts had the following pattern codes: absent public facing statement and absent DEI statement or vision. All of these pattern codes correlate to the theme of absence of DEI. Five school districts had no DEI or equity statements and had very minimal resources that briefly mentioned DEI or equity. These school districts had the following pattern codes: absent statement or vision, product focused resource, compliance focused resource, response to injustice, and add on policy in response to hate. These resources were not grounded in any vision or value statement, plan, or scope of work. For this reason these school districts were grouped under the theme absence of the DEI category. For example, Whittier Union High School District and Beverly Unified School District only had publicly available a singular letter of communication to families written in response to national events of racially motivated violence. Both letters share condemnation of events and state that “racism is not welcome in our schools” or assert that they are “an organization that promotes equality through education.” Similarly, the other three school districts (Glendale Unified School District, Gorman Joint School District, and William S. Hart Union High School District) respectively had approved culturally relevant social science education, references to Title IX, and a district policy regarding hate motivated behavior. This was not sufficient evidence that would indicate how these school districts conceptualized DEI work within their organization, which is why it was categorized under the theme absence of DEI.
Meso-level organizations like school districts can perpetuate or “alter macro-level patterns of institutionalization” (
There were 21 school districts or an equivalent of 26.25% who mentioned DEI as a value or referred to it peripherally. All of these school districts had no DEI or equity statement. They either mention DEI within their values or have peripheral resources or plans that mention DEI. When we use the word peripheral we refer to something that is at the edge and not a central focus. It also means that DEI is being used as an indirect reference or a brief mention that exists within the margins of an organization. This theme reflects an approach to DEI and equity work that is not deeply emphasized or integrated. The four pattern codes present in this data were as follows: labeled references to DEI; building knowledge before taking action; product-focused curriculum or culture; and accountability equated with compliance. We will discuss these pattern codes as we present a breakdown of this data.
Few school districts mention DEI as a value or have a stated definition for what DEI means. Azusa Unified School District, Bonita Unified School District, and Rosemead School District were school districts that have DEI language as a value. Azusa Unified has “diversity, equity, and inclusion” as a core value whereas Bonita Unified has “equity is ensured through individualized support” as a core value. Rosemead School District had DEI present in its mission statement under the acronym of LEAD, in which D stands for diversity is valued and respected. For all three of these school districts no other resources, working plans, or policies can be found that further elaborate on how this work is conceptualized within their respective organization. This inclusion of DEI and equity language as a value act as a label reference to DEI. DEI is acknowledged but not deeply integrated or central to the organization.
The remaining pattern codes of building knowledge before taking action, product-focused curriculum or culture, and accountability equated with compliance all fall into a peripheral mention of DEI. These pattern codes will be explored below using the data that was gathered.
Six school districts’ web pages mention a focus on professional development or staff development as a focus on their DEI efforts. These six school districts include San Marino, Redondo Beach, Rowland, South Whittier, Torrance, and Walnut Valley. References to professional development for staff were present in memo communication, agenda notes, within Local Control and Accountability Plan, and Local Control Funding Formula budget overviews. The district’s web page search engine was used to locate these resources and they were not easily found within the main sections of the web pages. These references to professional learning mention the goal of “advanc[ing] understanding of diversity, equity and inclusion” and “developing core DEI values.” The language used to describe professional learning centers building knowledge before taking action. There is no organizational conceptualization of DEI in each of these respective school districts and thus the mention of professional learning is a peripheral mention to DEI.
Six school districts mentioned DEI within the context of curriculum or school culture. These six school districts include Garvey, Lowell Joint, Montebello, Santa Monica- Malibu, Whittier City, and Wiseburn. The mentioning of DEI within the context of curriculum focuses on the diverse needs of students and ethnic studies curriculum. Garvey School District mentions “effectively utilizing state- and district-adopted curricular materials to provide universal access for students with diverse needs” within its Learning Support Services Department. Montebello Unified School District states that its focus on ethnic studies “recognizes the contributions of underrepresented minorities throughout history and empowers students to achieve academic excellence.” Lowell Joint, Santa Monica- Malibu, Whittier City, and Wiseburn all mention DEI within the context of school culture. Whether its social- emotional learning, counseling, enrichment, or the school environment these school districts situate DEI within the context of school culture. For example, at Lowell Joint School District the counseling team states that its purpose is to “cultivate strong relationships...while embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion ensuring that every student feels seen, heard, and valued.” In Santa Monica-Malibu School District they have a three pronged approach to social emotional learning, in which one focus area is “building intrapersonal and interpersonal skills...so that all may participate in critical systems change work like racial justice, social justice, and diversity, equity, & inclusion.” The context of school culture or curriculum situates DEI as a product and not as a process. DEI becomes relegated to a sector within the organization. This is why the pattern code of curriculum and school culture is a peripheral mention of DEI.
Lastly, seven school districts mention DEI in the form of accountability. This context states DEI as more of a compliance measure. Using the search bar within their respective web pages resulted in artifacts that reflected a form of accountability and compliance. Lawndale, Westside Union, and South Pasadena mention DEI within the context of the California Dashboard that indicates the performance gaps among student groups, School Site Councils’ monitoring goals, or a stated district goal that focuses on ensuring access and equity. The accountability and compliance measures are not situated within a context that indicates conceptualization of DEI within the organization. It is for this reason that these findings were organized within the category of values and peripheral mention of DEI.
These peripheral references to DEI are not connected to resources throughout the organization. When schemas are not empowered or regenerated by resources at the organizational level then they are inevitably abandoned and forgotten (
Out of all 80 Los Angeles County school districts only 21 were categorized as having in-depth and/or action oriented approaches to DEI. There is of course nuance in how school districts within this category conceptualize DEI. However, one commonality between these school districts is that their organization is clearly addressing DEI through the articulation of a belief, definition, purpose, statement, or vision that reflects an organizational understanding of DEI work. Additionally, this articulation is accompanied by a plan, initiative, and/or policy. This theme reflects an approach to DEI and equity work that is emphasized and/or deeply integrated within the organization. The four pattern codes present in this theme were as follows: DEI frameworks and policies; representation and resource allocation; culturally responsive and inclusive learning environments; and student and family engagement and support. We will further discuss these pattern codes as we present a breakdown of this data.
Action oriented approaches to DEI apply to school districts that have a statement or articulated purpose or goal of DEI as well as a plan and/or method of implementation. The action oriented approach could be focused on one specific aspect of the organization or with many, but it is applied to the entire organizational system. The action oriented approach is largely focused on taking immediate steps and practical actions that impact the organization and that is guided by the way the organization conceptualizes DEI. There are 16 school districts that have an action oriented approach. Within these 16 school districts there are seven school districts who have an equity statement and plan (San Gabriel, Lynwood, Inglewood, Hermosa Beach, Alhambra, ABC, and Hacienda La Puente), one school district that has a stated goal and plan (La Canada), and eight school districts that have a statement and method of implementation (LAUSD, Culver City, Claremont, Centinela, Pasadena, Temple City, El Segundo, and Paramount). Despite the varying action-oriented approaches, two common pattern codes that are more prevalent in these school districts are culturally responsive and inclusive learning environments and student and family engagement and support.
The action oriented approaches to DEI focus on creating learning environments where all feel valued and supported. The plan or method of implementation is focused on facilitating the presence of strategies that address gaps in achievement, cultural competency, social emotional wellness, and access to resources. These strategies are implemented either through a plan or a mechanism of implementation like an equity committee. The conceptualization of DEI becomes one focused on the varying needs of students and how schools can provide “personalized opportunities and equitable resources for consistent academic and social–emotional growth”; this was shared by school districts like Inglewood and Hermosa Beach City who had an equity principle/statement and plan. Action oriented approaches within school districts, like Hacienda La Puente Unified, acknowledge that students face obstacles to educational access and their focus on creating accessible and equitable learning environments function as a way to support students with “overcom[ing] obstacles that hinder their success.” There are school districts within this theme, like Alhambra School District, that recognize that overcoming obstacles and the success of each student is attained “by eliminating bias through education and abandoning attitudes of prejudice against any group.” Culturally responsive and inclusive learning environments are consistently centered when analyzing the conceptualization of school districts who have an action oriented approach.
Another common pattern code across action oriented approaches to DEI is student and family engagement and support. There is variation with how this pattern code shows up across all 16 school districts within this theme. Though a majority of them name families as a critical stakeholder, the nature of engagement of families within their conceptualization of DEI work varies. School districts, such as Alhambra Unified, view family engagement and support as a critical element in ensuring that they are able to “create systems that provide opportunities for diverse perspectives to be shared and included.” Other school districts position themselves as the source for educating families when it comes to DEI. Claremont Unified states in its equity statement that they have the “responsibility to provide training and education to all CUSD staff, students, and families to recognize, acknowledge, and address individual and institutional oppression and injustice.” While other school districts view family engagement as more transactional and informational. Pasadena Unified created a “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Collaborative” composed of “multiple stakeholders including union representatives, site administrators and district leadership” and they in turn “share with all parent groups” their work and findings. Very few school districts, like Lynwood Unified, developed an “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Plan” by “using a key stakeholder group made up of parents, teachers, counselors, coordinators, administration, and district personnel.” There were also few school districts, like ABC Unified, where there was an absence of any mention of family engagement within their DEI or equity plan which was more centered around students. This variation in how families are engaged as stakeholders within school districts DEI work should be further investigated in other studies.
Racialized organizations can either inhibit or enhance agency. Action oriented approaches to DEI delineate where and how individuals within the organization are spending their time (
While the action oriented approach to DEI work reflects an approach that is emphasized within the organization, the in depth approach to DEI shifts this work to be more deeply integrated within the organization. This integration is largely attributed to two consistent pattern codes present within these five school districts (Monrovia, Lancaster, Burbank, Long Beach, and Manhattan Beach): DEI frameworks and policies, and representation and resource allocation. Like the action oriented approaches, there is variation within these pattern codes within the in depth approaches. These variations are situated upon the level of policy work conceptualized by the organization. As described earlier, policies can have a significant impact on educational attainment within schools, because of their role as racialized organizations. The school districts within this in depth group recognize that they act as racialized organizations and that their policies can enact inequity unknowingly.
Within the first pattern code of DEI frameworks and policies, equity and DEI are clearly addressed, and marginalized subgroups are identified within the school district. For example, Manhattan Beach Unified School District connects their DEI policies with their “Board’s commitment to addressing the needs of the most marginalized learners and the inherent value of diversity.” This organizational recognition serves as an acknowledgement of the vulnerable and oppressed identity groups that face the most systemic inequality. It also clearly identifies systemic barriers that exist within the organization which serves as a form of recognition that they are a racialized organization capable of creating inequality and oppression. As Long Beach Unified shares in their own equity policy, policy is a way to “hold responsibility for the ways in which K-12 educational institutions have participated or collaborated in the systemic oppression of BIPOC students and those with disabilities.”
Another pattern code of this theme is the clear use of policy as a blueprint for intentional and systemic action. The policies that these school districts have, act as a framework from which they drive mechanisms of implementation like action plans and initiatives. For Manhattan Beach the “policies focus on barriers faced by students of color and diverse cultural, linguistic, or socio-economic backgrounds within the District” allows for their organization to “set the foundation for which stakeholder feedback for development of action plans for continuous improvement across departments.” The policies also serve as a framework that allow for what Long Beach Unified calls “the depth and breadth of our work.” In Long Beach Unified their equity policy provides a framework for their Excellence and Equity Initiatives and “bring focus to the goals…as well as…create data drive practices that frame the work of LBUSD’s strategic plan.” The policies also provide a mechanism for which to review the policies, procedures, and practices of the organization for possible barriers to equity. For example, Monrovia Unified created a policy review committee as a way to “recognize the need for transparency in the fight to eradicate systemic racism” and “review the policies and practice” in order to make recommendations for changes.
The final pattern code of the DEI framework and policy theme is accountability and a form of oversight. The policies create a framework that drives in depth action, but also creates mechanisms for accountability within the organizational structure. For example in Lancaster School District their Board “regularly monitor[s] the intent and impact of district policies and decisions” as a way to “safeguard against disproportionate or unintentional impact on access to district programs and achievement goals for specific student populations.” There are also mechanisms for accountability that relate to data. In Burbank School District their policy states that they “routinely assess student needs based on data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and socio-economic and cultural backgrounds in order to enable equity-focused policy, planning, and resource development decisions.” Manhattan Beach Unified partnered with an outside organization to “review the lived experiences of students, staff, and families who attend school, have students in school, or work in the district” and evaluate the effectiveness of their DEI policy work. Long Beach Unified was one of the school districts with the most comprehensive form of accountability and oversight. They created regulations and procedures of accountability that support the implementation and progress monitoring measures for their equity policy. Long Beach’s procedures and regulations “include data driven outcomes, results of surveys from all stakeholders, focus groups with students, families and staff, annual updates to the Board of Education, and a commitment to modify and adjust as the needs of specific groups grow and change.”
The final pattern code present across in depth organizational approaches involves representation and resource allocation. What sustains the impact of the policies is not only the framework it creates within the organization, but also the way the policy creates comprehensive representation and resource allocation. The two districts with the most comprehensive policies have clearly defined measures of representation and resource allocation. These school districts are Long Beach and Burbank. Long Beach has equity policy implementation measures which include the “integration of student voice and community input in the decision making at the school site and district level” as well as “analyzing expenditures and allocating financial resources in a manner that provides all students with equitable access to district programs, support services, and opportunities for success.” Burbank Unified has a “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee” which is a “collective of parents, administrators, and community members” and also analyzes the equitable access of expenditures and allocation of financial resources through their district technology plan, facilities master plan, and budget. This analysis of expenditure and financial resources as well as the intentional representation of different voices ensure there is a comprehensive and in depth approach to DEI within the organization.
Ultimately, the in depth approach to DEI is one that is more effective than the action oriented or values based approach because it seeks to directly address the inequality entrenched within school districts with policy and enforcement mechanisms. There is an absence of decoupling in these school districts, which is a mechanism that allows organizations to maintain legitimacy and appear progressive while doing little to intervene in pervasive patterns of racial inequality (
As we consider the presence— or lack thereof— of DEI in LA county schools we come back to our conceptual underpinning of racialized organization theory. We understand that most organizations while seemingly race-neutral are ultimately steeped in policy and practice that perpetuate whiteness (
We also found an alignment with racialized organization theory in our finding of districts that utilized a values driven approach. This approach ultimately states that DEI is important to the district and their commitment to the success of all kids. Some districts even tied it to current events surrounding the BLM movement during the summer of 2020. This was not unsurprising as this was a phenomenon that occurred across the country and resulted in performative support of the movement without creating any structural change (
We find that the action-oriented approach worked to break away from the race neutrality of racialized organizations by not only acknowledging race as a salient factor in educational inequity but working to ameliorate these conditions. We however present a critique of schools in this theme based on racialized organization theory.
The creation of policies that are explicitly tied to DEI and racial justice may help to alleviate the manner in which most educational policy is situated as race neutral and thus tacitly supports racial inequity (
The failure and performative manner that DEI has been focused ultimately impacts children. These race-neutral approaches to taking on DEI ultimately absolves the system of its responsibility in perpetuating white supremacy and places the onus on individual actors within school systems (e.g., students, families, and communities). Transformative change has to occur at the systemic level in order for us to disrupt and uproot entrenched systems of inequality. If we fail to make these changes we in turn will continue to see the unjust inequality in our students’ retention, academic growth and achievement, social emotional experiences, disciplinary actions, and graduation rates. It is important that organizations evaluate their DEI efforts and strive to make shifts grounded in policy that in turn will invite progress and not regression.
This research analyzed the public websites of school districts across Los Angeles County and serves as a foundation for further research and investigation. The data collected is a one dimensional view of an organization’s conceptualization of DEI work. There is a limitation when focusing on the outside portrayal of DEI using public facing websites. We recognize that further research is necessary in analyzing the outside portrayal of DEI coupled with the on the ground reality that school districts experience on a day to day basis. What is the connection between an organization’s conceptualization of DEI work and the day to day experience of individuals who inhabit the organizational structure? The influence of these DEI and equity work approaches on stakeholders, the outcomes of marginalized student groups, and retention of diverse staff members could be further analyzed in future research to illuminate multiple levels of impact from these various approaches. An examination of how schools, whose districts have an in-depth DEI policy, interpret these policies on the ground can also be an area of future research that reveals how policy is being enacted on a daily basis with stakeholders. We noted that there was not a compelling connection between school district demographics and their portrayal of DEI (see
School districts should develop and implement in-depth DEI policies that go beyond surface level actions. Recognizing their role as a racialized organization, can create significant change in the way they center and support the needs of marginalized groups within their community. Adopting policy and enforcement mechanisms can create internal changes that can alter patterns of organizational racialization (
Furthermore, a closer examination of these school districts by the California Department of Education can further support state and county level policy and resource support. Shifts in state policy can also alter the racialization of organizations (
Educators and educational leaders should draw on comprehensive DEI frameworks and policy to guide their work at the school level. One’s position in racialized organizations shapes agency, which is our ability to act, create, learn, and express (
In a seemingly progressive area like Los Angeles County there are significant challenges to how school districts are conceptualizing DEI work. An analysis of public facing websites indicates that a majority of school districts within LA County, 47.5%, have no evidence of any conceptualization of DEI work. This approach highlights how the perception of race neutral stances in education are deeply ingrained in the educational field.
Our hope is that our analysis of the 26.25% of school districts with values and peripheral mentions of DEI, along with 26.25% of school districts employing action oriented and/or in depth approaches, contributes to further discussions and research to support the needed work of creating transformation change within education.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
DS-G: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. DO: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at:
Demographic data for LA county school districts (2024).
Edited by:
Reviewed by: