Urban District Reform for Equity: The Case of the Model Schools for Inner Cities Program in the Toronto District School Board

Urban districts have failed to change the schooling and life outcomes of marginalized and racialized students, resulting in persistent achievement and opportunity gaps. This study explores urban district reform for equity through the lens of critical pedagogy, by exploring the case of the Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC) Program in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) from 2004-2014. TDSB is Canada's largest school district and is situated in a highly centralized and Neoliberal, provincial education system. The MSIC Program serves 150 elementary schools (over 1/4 of the schools in the TDSB), whose students face the greatest external barriers to success. Using the conceptual argument, Districts as Institutional Actors (Rorrer, Skrla Scheurich, 2008), this study explores how the MSIC Program implemented practices and pedagogies aimed at increasing student success, access and opportunities, with considerations for how the reform was initiated and sustained over time, and how participants understood and measured district reforms for equity. This study aims to explain, rather than evaluate the MSIC Program, and describes the tensions in implementing this reform in an era of accountability. Data was triangulated using two sets of interviews with 15 participants and 12 key documents using discourse analysis. Participants have been actively connected to the Program for a minimum of 2 years and include 3 from each of the following stakeholder groups: district leaders, MSIC Program staff, key principals, community partners and elected officials. Documents are publicly available in print and/or online, and include: program documents, district-level policy documents, professional articles, and program data. Findings suggest two main ideological approaches to closing opportunity gaps (charitable and transformative) that significantly influenced the direction of reform efforts. Reforms were further influenced by politics within and outside of the reform, and mediated by the leadership of key decision-makers. Ideological, political and leadership influences impacted three major tensions: accountability and responsibility; centralization and decentralization; and when and how to scale up reforms for equity. Key findings from this study highlight the need for a focus on transformative, social justice approaches to education, critical democracy in engagement and training in social justice leadership. This study informs future research and/or implementation for similar district reforms for equity.