This distinction holds greater significance than many leaders recognize. Pedro Noguera (2003) argued that equity-focused structural change requires leaders to consider whom the system serves and whom it excludes. Linda Darling-Hammond (2010) further emphasized that educational structures shape access to opportunity, noting that course tracking, discipline policies, and funding formulas can either mitigate or exacerbate disparities. In Thought Leadership in Education: A Comprehensive Exploration of Transformative Educational Ideas, I synthesized these frameworks to argue that leaders who prioritize equity must assess who truly benefits from system improvements, not merely whether improvements occur (Valentino, 2025). While none of us explicitly articulated this as a procurement principle, my 35 years in education demonstrate that this reasoning applies to every vendor contract a district executes.

I experienced this firsthand. Early in my tenure as chief academic officer, we implemented a highly regarded literacy intervention program. The data and references were strong, but within six months, it became clear the program assumed a level of parental engagement and home-based practice that our highest-need families could not provide. Students with strong support systems benefited most, while those who needed the intervention the most gained the least. Although the service appeared equitable on paper, in practice, it widened the achievement gap.

This experience fundamentally changed my approach to procurement decisions.

Equal Access Is Not Equitable Design

The term “access” appears in nearly every vendor presentation: We serve all students. Our platform is accessible to every learner. However, access without intentional design is merely availability, and availability without responsiveness is an empty promise.

Justin Reich (2020) documented this pattern in his research on educational technology, showing how digital tools often reproduce existing inequities even when they promise to close them. Students already positioned for success used the tools more effectively, while students with fewer resources and less support fell further behind. The technology was available to everyone. The outcomes were not.

This pattern also occurs with contracted services. A professional development provider that delivers identical training to every school, regardless of staffing stability, student demographics, or prior capacity, is not offering an equitable program. They are offering a convenient one. The distinction between equity and convenience is where effective leadership resides.

Three questions that guided my thinking include,

If the answer to any of these questions is no, the partnership is unlikely to succeed.

Measuring What Actually Matters

Another common failure point is measurement. Most service contracts include outcome reporting, but the metrics are typically averages, such as average improvement in reading scores, average teacher satisfaction, or average completion rates.

Averages are where equity goes to hide.

If a tutoring program raises the district’s average reading score by four points, this figure provides little insight into whether students who were two grade levels behind made any progress. Only disaggregated data, broken down by student demographics, school site, and starting performance level, reveals whether a service is reaching its intended students.

Fullan and Quinn (2016) addressed this issue of coherence, noting that schools often adopt new initiatives without aligning them to existing structures, goals, or accountability systems. The same applies to external partnerships. A vendor contract that is not aligned with the district’s equity goals, measured against equity-specific outcomes, and reviewed through an equity lens becomes just another budget item.

Leaders who prioritize equity include equity metrics in contracts as a condition of partnership, not as an afterthought. They require providers to report disaggregated outcomes, schedule mid-year reviews that go beyond satisfaction surveys, and ask providers challenging questions while expecting honest answers.

The Opportunity in Front of You

This work is not easy. Educational procurement processes are designed for compliance rather than equity. RFPs typically address pricing, timelines, and qualifications, but rarely ask how providers will serve the most underserved students. Addressing this requires leadership and a willingness to slow the procurement process to ask more meaningful questions.

From experience, I know that contracted services are not peripheral to a district’s equity strategy. They are central, or at least a significant component. Every dollar spent on an external provider reflects a decision about whose needs are prioritized and whose are deferred. Leaders who recognize this and structure partnerships accordingly drive meaningful progress.

The question is not whether your district uses educational services; every district does. The real question is whether those services are designed to reach the students who need them most, measured transparently, and held accountable to the equity commitments made to your community.

That is the work, and it starts with your next contract.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.

Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. Teachers College Press.

Reich, J. (2020). Failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can’t transform education. Harvard University Press.

Valentino, L. R. (2025). Thought leadership in education: A comprehensive exploration of transformative educational ideas. Valgar LLC.

The Power of Edupreneurship: Why the Gaps Districts Can't Fill Are the Opportunities Edupreneurs Should Be Building. This week's newsletter argues that most contracted services aren't designed to reach the students who need them most. That's not just a procurement problem. It's a market signal. From Khan Academy to the Harlem Children's Zone, the most impactful edupreneurial ventures started by identifying exactly where traditional systems were falling short and building something better. If you're looking at education's equity gaps and seeing a calling, this is your blueprint.

/

Thought Leadership in Education: A Comprehensive Exploration of Transformative Educational Ideas

Chapter 8 makes an argument every superintendent navigating a tight budget needs to hear: you cannot separate policy thinking from fiscal thinking. Drawing on Henry Levin's cost-effectiveness framework and Allan Odden's work on school finance reform, the chapter urges leaders to treat resource allocation as a strategic act rather than an administrative one. Every program cut, every staffing decision, every deferred expenditure is a policy choice. The most credible leaders know that.

This week: Read the "Addressing Resource Realities" section in Chapter 8. Ask yourself whether your current budget decisions reflect your values or simply record your compromises.