Mathematics specialists as catalysts for equity: Examining barriers and opportunities for transformative change in mathematics education

Mathematics education is not immune from systemic inequities (e.g., Berry III et al., 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2006, 2013; Lambert & Tan, 2020; Martin, 2019). Teacher discrimination, tracking, and low expectations result in marginalized students being under-represented in mathematics-related classes and careers (Ross et al., 2012). These and other historic and harmful practices ingrained in our education system illuminate an urgency to catalyze change in mathematics instruction to be a “just, equitable, and inclusive system” (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2020, p. 1). Transformative change is required to not only overcome the barriers of policies, practices, and beliefs, but also facilitate ambitious and equitable mathematics teaching practices (Gutiérrez, 2009) to ensure all students have meaningful opportunities, high expectations, and support as they strive for excellence (NCTM, 2014, 2020). However, despite decades of calls for equitable teaching (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995), methods for supporting teachers in learning equity-oriented pedagogies “remain elusive” (Marshall & Buenrostro, 2021, p. 1). If teachers are to dismantle educational inequities, they need ongoing resources and support (e.g., Louie, 2017) such as that provided by mathematics specialists (MSs). MSs provide professional development (PD) to enhance (Baker et al., 2022) and advance (Marshall & Buenrostro, 2021) mathematics teaching and learning, bring coherence to district reform efforts (e.g., Cobb et al., 2018), and equip teachers to create ambitious and equitable mathematics learning spaces (NCTM, 2020). Moreover, MSs are called to “disrupt problematic practices and structures that marginalize students” (Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators [AMTE], 2024, p. 66). In this manner, MSs can serve as powerful change agents who dismantle oppressive practices and transform pedagogies (AMTE, 2024; NCTM, 2014, 2020). To understand the role MSs play in this dynamic, we apply Gutiérrez's (2009) equity framework to examine barriers and opportunities for MSs to produce transformative change. Equity in mathematics education “must be framed with both dominant and critical definitions” across four dimensions: access, achievement, identity, and power (Gutiérrez, 2009, p. 5). Access and achievement comprise the dominant axis, “preparing students to participate economically in society and privileging a status quo” and are connected to student outcomes (p. 6). Identity and power comprise the critical axis and “ensures that students' frames of reference and resources are acknowledged in ways that help build critical citizens…so that they may change the game” (p. 6). While Gutiérrez's equity dimensions are written from the perspective of students and learning, she challenges readers to reflect on how these dimensions apply to teachers and teaching more broadly. As such, we reflect on the intersection of equity and MSs along Gutiérrez's (2009) dominant and critical axes (see Figure 1). Along the dominant axis, access refers to the available resources that impact students' learning opportunities (Gutiérrez, 2009). For MSs, resources include learning opportunities, such as PD, and can originate from the local, state, or national level. Paralleling the notion of access to learning and resources for students, how MSs are afforded opportunities and support to develop their competencies, knowledge, and skills (AMTE, 2024; NCTM, 2012) relate to issues of access. Achievement refers to tangible student outcomes, such as participation, standardized test scores, and course-taking patterns. For MSs, the tangible outcomes are related to the application of their competencies, knowledge, and skills; the application of which will manifest in tangible teaching (e.g., Gibbons et al., 2017; Polly, 2012) and student outcomes (Gutiérrez, 2009). On the critical axis, identity refers to how students' “personal, cultural, or linguistic” capacities are downplayed by themselves or others (Gutiérrez, 2009, p. 5). This framing acknowledges how gender, race, class, dis/ability, and language directly relate to learning opportunities (e.g., Berry III et al., 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2013; Lambert & Tan, 2020; Martin, 2019; Walkerdine, 2021). As leaders of equity-oriented mathematics instruction, considering how MSs are positioned and perceived by others has a strong influence on MSs' identity and identity development. When applied to students, Gutiérrez (2009) uses power to “take up issues of societal transformation at many levels” (p. 5), such as whose voice is heard in the classroom (e.g., Moschkovich, 2011), who is serving as school leaders (e.g., Gilbert et al., 2022), and how can we rehumanize mathematics education (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2018). We view MSs as agents of change as they can transform the culture of mathematics teaching and learning (NCTM, 2014, 2020). Similar to Hjalmarson and Baker's (2020) researchable questions and methodological considerations for MS research and the call for justice-oriented perspectives in mathematics coaching from Marshall and Buenrostro (2021), we provide a brief overview of the MS literature as aligned with Gutiérrez's (2009) framework and offer questions and considerations for future research about and with MSs. MS preparation requires acquiring specialized competencies, knowledge, and skills as teachers transition to leaders (AMTE, 2013, 2024; NCTM, 2012; NMAP, 2008). However, MS are often “anointed and/or appointed” (Fennell, 2017, p. 9) and it is incorrectly assumed that “these [individuals] will need little support as they transition into their new roles” (Chval et al., 2010, p. 192); hence, the need for additional research on MSs' access to PD. The majority of MS scholarship that has emerged in the past two decades (Baker et al., 2022) has begun to unpack MSs' access to ongoing PD opportunities. One line of research has explored the areas of MSs' expertise, including knowledge of content, discipline-specific pedagogies, student learning trajectories, leadership practices, and relationship-building skills (AMTE, 2013, 2024; Bitto, 2015; Sutton et al., 2011). Other literature has explored preparation programs and the extent to which certain programmatic elements prompted shifts in MSs' beliefs, practices, and/or knowledge (Baker, 2022; Haver et al., 2017; Myers et al., 2020; Swars et al., 2018; Swars Auslander et al., 2024). Additionally, research has examined grant-funded PD opportunities for MSs (Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Ellington et al., 2017; Gningue et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2020), which typically included coursework offerings to deepen MSs understanding of content, pedagogy, and leadership. Last, research has begun to explore how school districts provide ongoing PD to MSs (Jarry-Shore et al., 2023; Kane & Saclarides, 2022a, 2022b; Saclarides & Kane, 2021). There is a growing research base exploring MSs' influence on teaching and learning (e.g., Baker et al., 2022). In this vein, one body of research has explored the influence of MSs on teachers and teaching. Findings suggest that by working with an MS, teachers can: shift their beliefs about effective mathematics instruction (Neuberger, 2012), enhance their content knowledge (Elliott et al., 2009; Lesseig et al., 2017; Livers, 2019), and expand their implementation of high-leverage teaching practices (Munson, 2017; Obara & Sloan, 2009; Polly, 2012). Additionally, research has sought to establish links between MSs and student outcomes. Findings illustrate a positive association between enhanced student mathematics achievement and students' direct and/or indirect interactions with MS (Campbell & Malkus, 2011; Ellington et al., 2017; Harbour et al., 2018; Harbour et al., 2021). We note that there is substantively more literature that explores the influence of MSs on teachers, and less research exploring the connection between MSs and students given methodological challenges associated with studying these complex relationships. Research has begun to unpack students' identities who are situated in schools with MSs (e.g., Black et al., 2010; Gulemetova et al., 2022). However, following Gutiérrez (2009) who noted the importance of personal, cultural, and linguistic influences, there is much work to be done in unveiling the identities of MSs. We might assume that MSs parallel the teaching population and are primarily middle-class, white women, often not representative of the students who they serve (e.g., Carter et al., 2017; Ingersoll et al., 2018); however, we simply do not know MSs' identities at large and how their identities influence their work. This might be explained by the infancy of the field of MS research (Baker et al., 2022) and the lack of specificity about MSs within the research (Harbour et al., 2022; Hjalmarson & Baker, 2020). Scholarship has illuminated that MSs take on many roles and responsibilities within P-12 settings as they work to advance the teaching and learning of mathematics (e.g., Chval et al., 2010; Fennell, 2017; Harbour et al., 2021). The ways in which these roles and responsibilities are manifested lead to the self-perception or others' perceptions of the positioning of the MS (Baker et al., 2022; McGatha & Rigelman, 2017) which can influence their decision-making and actions (e.g., Gee, 2000). Collectively, MSs have become an increasingly used PD structure for supporting teaching and learning in US schools over the past several decades, with subsequent research on MSs following suit (Baker et al., 2022; Fennell, 2017). Research indicates MSs and their work benefit teachers (e.g., Gibbons et al., 2017; Polly, 2012), students (e.g., Campbell & Malkus, 2011; Harbour et al., 2018), and P-12 school communities (e.g., Martin & Morton, 2013). Further MSs “influence curriculum, assessment, and professional development decisions” (NCTM, 2020, p. 125), but also support, inform, and model a culture of equitable mathematics (AMTE, 2024; NCTM, 2014). While much research has focused on the influence of MSs (e.g., Campbell & Malkus, 2011; Gibbons et al., 2017), more limited explorations have considered the accessibility and benefactors of MSs (e.g., Harbour et al., 2018). Given the influential role of MSs (e.g., AMTE, 2024), the specifics of where and with whom are still questions that have only begun to be explored (Saclarides et al., 2024) and require further exploration. As we consider MS as agents of change and a lever to advance ambitious and equitable mathematics teaching and learning, we applied Gutiérrez's four dimensions of equity (2009) to MSs as a way to frame this work. While we have used Gutiérrez's equity framework (2009) as our analytic lens, we recognize the need for additional frameworks to be used as we consider the intersection of equity and MSs. Future research might consider Gutiérrez's eight dimensions of rehumanizing mathematics (2018), Harro's Cycle of Liberation (2018), or Moore's four active antiracism practices (2021), to name only a few of the many critical frameworks that can be used as we collectively move this work forward. Together, these frameworks empower the field to envision MSs as leaders of ambitious and equitable mathematics teaching and learning, deepening our collective commitment to a more just and humanizing mathematics education. In acknowledging both the systemic inequities within mathematics education and the pivotal role of MSs, we underscore a call to action for continued research and reform on the critical role MSs play in transformative change within mathematics education.