The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Toward a framework for
preparing leaders for social
justice
Colleen A. Capper
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
209
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
George Theoharis
Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA, and
James Sebastian
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to propose one possible framework for conceptualizing the
preparation of leaders for social justice. To this end, three central questions guided this
conceptualization: “What are the common themes in the literature and research on preparing leaders
for social justice?”; “How can this framework serve as a guide for developing a course, set of courses, or
an entire program toward preparing leaders to lead socially just schools?”; and “How can this literature
and conceptualization inform future scholarship in administrator preparation?”.
Design/methodology/approach – This work included a review of 72 pieces of literature. To
address the research questions, the growing body of leadership for social justice literature was
reviewed. Each of these articles was analyzed and explicit recommendations for preparing school
leaders noted. These recommendations were then catagorized into the proposed framework.
Findings – Three domains: critical consciousness; knowledge; and practical skills focused on social
justice are positioned on the horizontal dimension of the framework. To achieve these ends, requires
curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment oriented toward social justice – the vertical dimension of the
framework.
Originality/value – It is suggested using this framework to guide the review and development of
administration preparation programs whose aim is to prepare socially just leaders. Additionally, this
article calls for increased attention to assessing preparation programs and how they prepare leaders
for social justice.
Keywords Social justice, Leadership, School leavers, Curricula
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Scholars in the field of education prepare thousands of future school leaders every year,
yet “there is not an overabundance of scholarship in the area of administrator
preparation” (Murphy and Vriesenga, 2004, p. 28). Murphy and Vriesenga completed a
review of the literature on preparation programs and concluded that while the research
and scholarship is expanding in this area (see Cibulka, 2004; Council of Chief State
School Officers, 1996; Culberstson, 1988; Donmoyer et al., 1995; English, 2000, 2002,
2004; Glasman et al., 2002; Grogan and Andrews, 2002; Hafner, 2004; Jackson and
Kelley, 2002; Levine, 2005; Murphy, 1999, 2001, 2002; Peterson, 2002), empirical and
theoretical work is needed in the area of administrator preparation programs.
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 44 No. 3, 2006
pp. 209-224
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230610664814
JEA
44,3
210
In previous years, scholars in the field have debated what makes up the knowledge
base that school administrators need, how to define and re-define that base, and who
has a voice in this discussion (Bredeson, 1995; Capper, 1995; Cibulka, 2004; Council of
Chief State School Officers, 1996; Donmoyer, 1995; English, 2000, 2002, 2004; Ikpa,
1995; Levine, 2005; Littrell and Foster, 1995; Murphy, 2001, 2002; Shakeshaft, 1995).
More recently, a growing interest and body of scholarship on leadership for social
justice has emerged with a few implicit and explicit suggestions for administrator
preparation (Dantley, 2002; Gewirtz, 1998; Grogan, 2002a, b; Larson and Murtadha,
2002; MacKinnon, 2000; Marshall, 2004; Maynes and Sarbit, 2000; Scheurich, 1998;
Scheurich and Skrla, 2003; Theoharis, 2004a, b, c; Touchton and Acker-Hocevar, 2001;
Vibert and Portelli, 2000). To date, however, the literature does not offer a complete
review of this literature and how it can inform administrator preparation for social
justice. This article promises to address this gap.
As such, the purpose of this article is to propose one possible framework for
conceptualizing the preparation of leaders for social justice. To this end, three central
questions guided this conceptualization:
RQ1. What are the common themes in the literature and research on preparing
leaders for social justice?
RQ2. How can this framework serve as a guide for developing a course, set of
courses, or an entire program toward preparing leaders to lead socially just
schools?
RQ3. How can this literature and conceptualization inform future scholarship in
administrator preparation?
Methods
To address the research questions, we reviewed the growing body of leadership for
social justice literature. This review included all articles from the special issue devoted
to social justice from Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, 2004, two
special issues devoted to social justice from the Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 12
No. 2 and Vol. 12 No. 3, 2002, and articles related to social justice and equity and
leadership from keyword searches conducted on Education Full Text and ERIC. In all,
we reviewed 72 related articles and book chapters. Of these, 11 offered explicit
suggestions for the preparing school leaders for social justice. We analyzed each of
these articles and noted explicit recommendations for preparing school leaders. We
then categorized these recommendations into our proposed framework.
In the articles, recommendations related to race and ethnicity received the greatest
attention, with some recommendations related to social class. Other suggestions for
preparation were generic across areas of difference (i.e. understanding oppression and
stereotyping). We noted that none of the recommendations for preparation specifically
addressed anything related to educating students with disabilities. Hence, we
conducted an entirely separate search on leadership and special education and
leadership and disabilities to extract recommendations for leadership preparation.
Though these articles made suggestions for preparing school leaders to be successful
with student learning differences (Barnett and Monda-Amaya, 1998; Crockett, 2002;
Hirth and Valesky, 1990; Poetter et al., 2001; Sirotnik and Kimball, 1994), they did not
offer ideas for examining the intersection of disability with other areas of difference.
This held true as well for sexual orientation. Though several articles included
sexual orientation in their list of –isms, none of the social justice articles offered
recommendations for preparation related to sexual orientation. Hence, we also
conducted an entirely separate search on sexual orientation and leadership. We located
six articles that addressed this directly and none of them specifically offered
recommendations for administrator preparation (Blount, 2003; Capper, 1999; Fraynd
and Capper, 2003; Koshoreck, 2003; Lugg, 2003a, b).
We entered the suggestions for administrator preparation from all the articles in the
appropriate place on the framework we developed, moving back and forth between the
literature and making changes in the framework as informed by this literature. To be
sure, not all recommendations fit neatly into the dimensions depicted in the framework.
We discuss this further in the framework section. We then used the constant
comparative method of data analysis (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998; Glaser and Strauss,
1967) to compare and contrast the suggestions within each domain of the framework to
identify common themes across the articles.
Categorizing leadership preparation
Some traditional ways of categorizing the preparation of school leaders includes the
dispositions, knowledge, and skills that school leaders need to know (Council of Chief
State School Officers, 1996), or awareness, understanding, and capability (NPBEA
Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership, 2002, cited in Hafner
(2004)). The literature that includes suggestions for preparing social justice leaders, at
times, addresses different dimensions. For example, Young and Laible (2000) identified
three possible approaches that individuals who teach anti-racist education can take:
(1) the personal approach;
(2) the institutional approach; and
(3) the multiple fonts approach.
They suggest that with the personal approach, “. . . individuals seek to develop an
antiracist consciousness through discussion and personal contact with diverse groups”
(Young and Laible, 2000, p. 391). With the institutional approach, “. . . individuals
understand the institutionalization of White racism . . . and once understanding is
developed, to work against it” (Young and Laible, 2000, p. 392). They explain that a
multiple fonts approach “. . . encourages individuals to both see White racism as
systemic and to explore the personal dimensions of White racism” (Young and Laible,
2000, p. 392).
Importantly, Young and Laible (2000) illustrate how addressing one categorical area
(e.g. knowledge) may inform another categorical area (e.g. consciousness). For
example, using their approach, students learn about racial identity development, then
write critical papers on their own identity development. In so doing, students gain
knowledge about an area (white or racial identity development) and then, engage in
critical reflection that raises their consciousness (writing a paper about their own
identity development).
Mirroring some of the traditional ways of categorizing leadership preparation,
Brown (2004, p. 88) agrees that developing leaders for social justice requires a
“fundamental rethinking of content, delivery, and assessment”. Though Brown (2004)
proposed a transformative framework for preparing leaders for social justice, her work
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
211
JEA
44,3
212
centered primarily on delivery methods in leadership programs that could inform
leader preparation (e.g. life histories, controversial readings, diversity panels,
educational plunges, etc.). Brown further distinguishes between delivery methods
that promote “knowledge acquisition at the formal cognitive level” such as “clinical
experiences, internships, cohort groups, case studies, and problem-based learning”
(Brown, 2004, p. 81) and methods that promote “skill and attitude development” such
as “cultural autobiographies, life histories, prejudice reduction workshops, and
cross-cultural interviews” (Brown, 2004, p. 81) to name a few. These traditional and
contemporary categorizations of leadership preparation informed our framework.
One possible framework
To prepare leaders for social justice, educational leadership programs must attend to
critical consciousness, knowledge, and practical skills focused on social justice with
their students. These three domains are positioned on the horizontal dimension of our
framework (see Table I). To achieve these ends, requires curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessment oriented toward social justice – the vertical dimension of the framework.
These six domains of the framework yield nine different aspects critical to the
preparation of social justice leaders. However, for prospective leaders to fully engage
with the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, professors must intentionally create a
classroom and program environment and conditions where students experience a
sense of emotional safety that will help them take risks toward social justice ends. That
is, students can fully engage in a social justice oriented program only when conditions
are such that they are able to take intellectual and emotional risks toward social justice
(Young and Laible, 2000). Hence, that concept is placed in the left hand corner of the
framework. Table I shows a linear view of the framework and the remainder of this
article describes the framework.
Horizontal dimension
The horizontal dimension of the framework depicts what school leaders must believe,
know, and do to lead socially just schools that we refer to as critical consciousness,
knowledge, and skills. We define these in the context of preparing social justice leaders
next.
Critical consciousness. The first component on the horizontal dimension addresses
what we call critical consciousness or what the literature at times refers to as
dispositions (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996; English, 2004; Hafner, 2004;
Jackson and Kelley, 2002). While the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) standards defines dispositions as what “the administrator believes in, values,
and is committed to” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996, p. 10) Hafner (2004,
p. 7) articulates that dispositions are “nebulously defined throughout the literature.
Some refer to dispositions as belief systems while others substitute the term values for
disposition”. Rather than dispositions, we prefer the terms critical consciousness
Emotional safety for risk taking
Table I.
A framework for
preparing educational
leaders for social justice
Curriculum
Pedagogy
Assessment
Critical consciousness
Knowledge
Skills
(McKenzie et al., 2004). We argue that school leaders need to embody a social justice
consciousness within their belief systems or values. This includes needing to possess a
deep understanding of power relations and social construction including white
privilege, heterosexism, poverty, misogyny, and ethnocentrism.
Knowledge. The second aspect we refer to as the knowledge of leadership
preparation. The ISLLC standards define knowledge to mean what “the administrator
has knowledge and understanding of” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996,
p. 10). At its core knowledge refers to what a leader “knows” (Donmoyer et al., 1995;
English, 2004; Glasman et al., 2002; Hafner, 2004; Jackson and Kelley, 2002; Murphy
and Vriesenga, 2004). School leaders for social justice need to know about
evidence-based practices that can create an equitable school. For example, this
knowledge would include understanding the positive and equitable effects of
de-tracking and eliminating pull-out programs. It would include developing specific
knowledge base around language acquisition, disability, and current research on
reading and mathematics curriculum and instruction.
Skills. Specific skills that school leaders need to do comprise the third aspect of the
horizontal dimension. The ISLLC standards use the term “performances” instead of
skills to mean the “processes” and “activities” that the administrator can “facilitate”
and “engage” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996, p. 11). Literature on
preparation proposes that skills refer to what the leader actually can do (Hafner, 2004;
Jackson and Kelley, 2002; Murphy, 2002). For the purpose of this article and
framework, we will use the term skills. This framework spans across and combines
epistemologies, and we recognize that skills has behaviorist and
structural-functionalist connotations, which does not seem to naturally fit with the
rest of the framework. In saying that, we believe that there are specific skills that
leaders require to enact justice. These skills allow them to put their knowledge and
consciousness into practice. For example, they need to be able to establish a service
delivery team to work toward eliminating pull out programs, use data to lead
conversations about equity and school improvement, and hire and supervise staff to
carry out these socially just ideas.
Vertical dimension
Along the vertical dimension we identified three components of a preparation program
that are necessary to intentionally consider if students are to learn about critical
consciousness, knowledge, and skills related to social justice. These three components
include curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. We discuss these next.
Curriculum. The first aspect on the vertical dimension we refer to as the curriculum
of preparation programs. When we say curriculum, we mean the specific content areas
of a leader preparation program that can influence the consciousness, deepen the
knowledge, and build skills of future leaders to carry out their work. For example, this
would include content on professional development, restructuring service delivery
models, the negative outcomes of special education, and stages of language acquisition.
Pedagogy. The second aspect of the vertical dimension refers to how content is
delivered in a preparation program or pedagogy. In preK-12 education, this is referred
to as pedagogy, while the adult education literature refers to this dimension as
andragogy or the delivery of instruction to adults. For the purpose of this framework
we will use the term pedagogy. Culley and Portuges (1985, p. 2 cited in Young and
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
213
JEA
44,3
214
Laible, 2000, p. 394, emphasis in the original) argue that “. . . changing what we teach,
means changing how we teach”. Examples of pedagogy include books, articles, web
sites, videos, debates, case studies, reflective journals, community action projects, and
other instructional strategies used in the preparation of educational leaders. Based on
our framework, we discuss pedagogy associated with raising leader consciousness,
pedagogy that deepens leader knowledge, and pedagogy that builds leadership skills.
Assessment. The third aspect refers to assessment practices, or how the
consciousness, knowledge, and skills of future leaders are assessed. These
assessments can be at the course level, program level, or can take place in the field
with practicing leaders.
Framework intersections
The following sections describe the intersecting horizontal and vertical dimensions of
the framework. We discuss the intersections of curriculum first.
Curriculum
Curriculum on critical consciousness. We define this dimension as curriculum or
content that raises student consciousness about power, privilege, and associated
issues, for example, white racism, heterosexism, and the ways that schools are
typically structured perpetuate power inequities. Parker and Shapiro (1992) made it
clear that it is important to address a “broad perspective” on issues of difference
beyond race, class, and gender. They also regarded foundational studies in history,
philosophy, and sociology of education as they relate to areas of difference as
important. Brown (2004, p. 93) believes that the curriculum needs to include an
accurate history of schooling in the USA, including the “systematic nature of inequities
reproduced daily”. Rapp (2002, p. 233) argues that preparation programs have an
obligation to instill in leaders a need to resist injustice and must “provide opportunities
for administration students to leave the comforts and confines of professional codes
and state mandates for the riskier waters of high moral callings”. All these examples
from the literature point to ways that curriculum can be used to develop a critical
consciousness within future leaders for social justice.
Curriculum about knowledge. We define this domain to include curriculum focused
on specific knowledge about related theories, subject areas such as special education
law, and knowledge about evidenced-based practices such as reallocating resources,
second language acquisition, reading and math curriculums. Admittedly, learning
about particular knowledge may also result in consciousness raising about power and
privilege though that is not the particular focus of this domain, per se. The curriculum
related to knowledge was the most developed aspect of all the studies examined.
Some scholars advocate infusing issues and equity and difference within existing
courses. For example, Brown (2004, p. 88) suggests that “. . . an integration of social
justice and equity issues throughout a range of courses is recommended”. Parker and
Shapiro (1992) offer examples of typical educational leadership courses and how social
justice might be infused within them, such as law and foundations with a focus on
difference, school finance as it relates to equity, law and law policy related to
difference, and related issues with curriculum, instruction, and evaluation. Young and
Laible (2000, p. 403) offer additional courses where anti-racism could be addressed, but
caution it “will require more than tacking on activities”. Young and Laible (2000, p. 401)
also argue that more than one professor needs to address social justice issues, and at
least one course in a program should totally focus on racism and antiracism. At the
same time, they also believe that “anti-racist and/or anti-oppression teaching
approaches and content be integrated into all coursework in educational
administration programs”. According to Young and Laible (2000, p. 402), “. . . this
process [needs to] be nurtured during the entire time students are in the program”
through advising, student participation in department activities, and developing
community between faculty and students and among students. This comprehensive
approach models to students the fact that unlearning racism is “a life long learning
process” (Young and Laible, 2000, p. 403).
Some scholars whose empirical research focus on a particular area of difference, not
surprisingly, then make suggestions for leadership preparation focused on that
particular area of difference. For example, Lyman and Villani (2002), who study poverty
and leadership, argue that future leaders need to understand the complexity of poverty,
its causes, effects, and how it intersects with other social justice issues. Similarly, some of
Parker and Shapiro’s (1992) suggested content areas focus specifically on race, and argue
for knowledge directly related to difference, such as the history and sociology of various
racial/language groups and their interactions with the school system, aspects of diversity
for urban educators, and new research on minority school achievement. Solomon’s (2002)
empirical work on anti-racism in leadership preparation, also argues that school leaders
need to understand how racism works as a system of oppression, that anti-racism moves
beyond multiculturalism. He also believes school leaders need to learn how their own
racial identity development impacts their leadership practice.
At the same time, some scholars, though their research centers on a particular area of
difference, make broader generalizations and connections to other areas of difference. For
example, Parker and Shapiro (1992) suggest that leaders should learn about Stage
Theory and how students and faculty may resist new knowledge. They also suggest new
leaders should be prepared to learn how to be change agents for difference.
Other scholars, whose research did not focus on a particular area of difference, made
suggestions about specific knowledge they felt necessary for administrators based
upon their research on leaders successful at transforming school to benefit
marginalized students. Riester et al. (2002) found that principals needed a base of
knowledge in literacy and how to teach literacy. Theoharis (2004) argued that
principals required detailed knowledge of special education and language acquisition
in order to lead schools to become inclusive environments where students receiving
special education and ELL services reach high levels of achievement. More specifically,
Sirotnik and Kimball (1994, p. 622) propose the administrators understand federal and
state special education law and regulations; definitions and characteristics of
disabilities; “service delivery models; appropriate teaching strategies; financial, legal,
and ethical implications of special education programs; and enough history (success
and failure) of special education programming in schools.”
Curriculum about skills. We define this domain as content that pertains to how to
actually implement evidenced-based practices or putting particular knowledge into
practice to work toward erasing inequities in schools. For example, prospective
principals could learn about the particular knowledge of problems with pull-out
programs, but in this domain, they would actually learn how to engage their school
staff in a process to dismantle such programs.
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
215
JEA
44,3
216
Many authors offered specific skills that school principals must be taught though
nearly all were couched in what school leaders should be able to do, and not in what
university faculty should prepare principals to be able to do. Solomon (2002) believes
that school leaders should know how to do the following, all related to anti-racist work:
.
how to create an anti-racist environment for students, teachers, parents, and
communities;
.
how to implement a whole-school anti-racism program that includes teachers
who are resistant; how to hire a diverse teaching staff; how not to be afraid of
controversy and encourage a range of voices to be heard; and
.
how to build alliances with other equity-conscious groups and agencies.
Parker and Shapiro (1992) argue that principals should be taught how to be advocates
for those less powerful, and how to articulate problems with standardized measures of
traditional achievement and discipline measures which work against students of color,
while Skrla et al. (2004) suggest that future leaders need skills in conducting equity
audits. In agreeing with Parker and Shapiro, Rapp (2002) proposes that principals
require the skills to rebel, resist, and challenge injustice. Rapp likens the skills
administrators need to social activists such as Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Jones,
Chief Seattle, Father James Guadalupe Carney, and Helen Keller.
McKenzie and Scheurich (2004, p. 609) propose that principals need the skills to
facilitate their staffs “to get to know their students and their students’ families and
community on a personal level” and to “dignify the culture of their students”. They also
argue that principals need to be able to hire new teachers who are committed and take
responsibility for to all students learning. In building upon McKenzie and Scheurich
idea of facilitation, Shields et al. (2002) believe that leaders need the skills to lead
dialogue that engages staffs about issues of race and ethnicity, forces people to
reexamine their own perceptions/beliefs, and creates action.
Riester et al. (2002) and Theoharis (2004) argue that principals need the skills to
empower staff through setting up collaborative and shared decision making structures
that allow staff time and space to team and craft their practice. They also believe that
principals require skills in using, working with, and facilitating the use of school data.
Pedagogy
Pedagogy related to critical consciousness. This domain describes information about
teaching methods for raising student consciousness about power inequities. McKenzie
and Scheurich (2004) identified several ways to raise student consciousness about
power inequities, such as having students take neighborhood walks to conduct
survey/interviews for a local school principal in a low income neighborhood, book
study groups using books principals could use for teacher study groups in their own
schools, equity audits in their own schools (McKenzie and Scheurich, 2004), or
conducting equity audits using a sample school or analyze equity audit data in class
(Skrla et al., 2004). Brown (2004) offers eight teaching strategies to raise student
consciousness including:
(1) cultural autobiographies;
(2) life histories by interviewing someone older than 65 and who attended school in
the USA;
(3) prejudice reduction workshops;
(4) reflective analysis journals that professors respond to and ask critical questions
and students analyze;
(5) rational discourse using critical incidents, controversial readings, structured
group activities;
(6) cross cultural interviews;
(7) educational plunges; and
(8) diversity panels.
Pedagogy related to knowledge. This domain describes teaching strategies to help
students learn about evidenced-based practices or related subjects and theories.
Examples include multi-media web sites that describe particular practices, or
particular readings and activities designed to engage students with these readings.
Parker and Shapiro (1992) suggested policy action research studies, or use of informal
or peer learning.
Pedagogy related to skills. This domain describes teaching strategies to help
students learn the skills that are necessary to lead socially just schools. These
strategies might include internships, or role playing verbal responses to critical
questions from parents or community members, about, for example, reducing pull out
programs. McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) identified five different kinds of teaching
strategies that would help prospective school principals learn the skills needed for
leading equitable schools. These strategies include:
(1) role playing the interview process using an equity interview protocol;
(2) model honoring divergent views in class and making this an explicit aspect of
the class, encouraging equal participation, and regularly collecting student
feedback to honor student perspectives;
(3) pair students with another teacher in the same school and observe each other’s
teaching;
(4) have students visit classrooms and schools where teachers are being successful;
and
(5) students shadow a master teacher in their own school and keep a reflective
journal.
Brown (2004) suggests students write activist plans for their school or community that
include obstacles, a time line, and supports for their efforts.
Assessment
Hafner (2004) empirically measured how the dispositions of students in a leadership
program about social justice changed as a result of taking a course on leadership and
social justice. Hafner defined dispositions to encompass three aspects: awareness,
attitudes, and action. The nine students preparing for school leadership positions
reported that the course “opened my eyes”, that they were made aware of issues such
as deficit thinking, and that they learned new ideas for action. Brown (2004, 2005) also
examined the assessment of leadership dispositions. We could not locate any literature
that assessed leadership knowledge and skills related to social justice.
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
217
JEA
44,3
218
Implications and conclusion
Based on our proposed framework, we offer several implications for leadership
preparation and future research. First, faculty in leadership preparation programs can
use this framework as one way to conduct an assessment of their programs. Current
preparation programs aimed toward social justice tend to focus on critical
consciousness with primary emphasis on white racism and white privilege, with
significantly less attention paid to consciousness about the social construction of
disability, homophobia and heterosexism, and language diversity in children.
Relatedly, these programs find it difficult to prepare leaders to acquire the actual skills
needed to make equity-based changes in schools. As such, across the first level of
intersections in the framework (curriculum related to critical consciousness,
knowledge, and skills) possible questions for assessing programs include: In our
program, to what extent are we addressing critical consciousness? To what extent are
we addressing knowledge related to social justice? Do we have a stand alone course?
To what extent is this knowledge integrated throughout all the courses? To what
extent do our courses and field experiences teach prospective school leaders actually
how to take action and engage in skills to make equity oriented changes?
Along this first level of intersections, faculty can ask similar questions of
themselves about their own courses. For example, to what extent is my course
addressing critical consciousness, knowledge about equity issues, and skill
development? Where are my strengths and areas for improvement in each of these
areas? What areas of difference do I address and which areas of difference do I need to
further develop in my teaching capacity?
Along the second level of intersections (pedagogy related to critical consciousness,
knowledge acquisition, and skills), we found that though many articles make
suggestions for leadership preparation at the end of the piece, a few contemporary
scholars are addressing teaching strategies for preparing leaders for social justice as
the primary focus of their scholarship (Brown, 2004; Hafner, 2004). Our analyses
suggests that the pedagogical strategies outlined in these articles and the other articles
that offer suggestions for preparation tend to focus on consciousness raising with little
attention given to innovative teaching strategies that address knowledge and skills
that prospective leaders for social justice need. Again, educators in preparation
programs can use the framework to guide an assessment of the teaching strategies
being used in their programs. Are the instructional methods that faculty are using
aimed more toward consciousness, knowledge, or skill development? Where are our
strengths and weaknesses in this regard? To what extent are the program’s pedagogy
“in-house” that is, activities that take place in the classroom (e.g. case studies, debates,
videos, diversity panels), as compared to teaching strategies where students are
required to engage in their communities and schools (e.g. equity audits, spending time
in low income or diverse communities visiting neighborhood homes, working in a food
pantry). As to the latter, faculty must skillfully implement these teaching strategies in
ways that do not reinforce stereotypes. What pedagogy seem to be most effective and
efficient for achieving student learning goals and what data do we have to show this?
In terms of assessment, questions to evaluate preparation programs toward social
justice can include: How are we measuring the critical consciousness, knowledge, and
skills of prospective leaders in our program prior to entering the program, at the end of
the program, and while serving as school leaders? What data do we have to show that
graduates of our program are raising student achievement in their schools and leading
their schools in other socially just ways? What data do we have to show that a
particular course in the program or set of courses has increased the consciousness,
knowledge, and skills of students toward socially just ends?
Questions related to the extent that a course, learning experience, or program
provide a sense of emotional safety to enable students to take emotional and
intellectual risks toward social justice ends must also be asked. For example, to what
extent do I try to create a classroom environment that allows the full expression of
multiple perspectives? What course activities best facilitate students’ critical self
reflection to examine their own biases, stereotypes, and deficit thinking? To what
extent do all students, regardless of individual differences, feel fully affirmed and
engaged in the program? To what extent am I using teaching strategies that help
students feel comfortable asking questions about their own biases or
misunderstandings about difference? To what extent are students able to critically
examine their own practices and to critically examine their own schools for ways that
undermine social justice?
From our proposed framework and analysis, we also offer several suggestions for
future research on preparing leaders for social justice. First, journal editors should
require, to the maximum extent possible, all published articles to offer implications for
leadership preparation. We were surprised in our review that many of the articles
offered high quality empirical studies or cogent analyses of the literature, with no
suggestions for leadership preparation.
Second, scholars working in the area of preparing leaders for social justice must
model expectations we have of practitioners, in our research, publishing, and teaching.
We should thoughtfully consider and include all aspects of difference, with particular
attention to sexual orientation/gender identity, disability, and language differences, in
our writing, research, and teaching, and if we leave out an aspect of difference, we need
to explicitly outline the reasons for doing so. The critical consciousness, knowledge,
and skills required to lead around issues of sexual orientation/gender identity,
disability, and language differences overlaps with the more typically included areas of
difference (e.g. race, ethnicity, and poverty) in how we wrestle with, understand, and
lead around concepts of privilege, social construction, and a general valuing versus a
deficit thinking about diversity. However, across all these areas of difference there are
specific aspects of critical consciousness, knowledge, and skills that need to be
addressed. For example the skills in creating systems that do not inhibit participation
in academic, social, or extra curricular activities regardless of income are distinct from
the skills necessary to create, implement, and support an inclusive service delivery for
students receiving special education or ELL services. We expect school practitioners to
engage all learners of difference and we should expect no less of ourselves.
Finally, the research on assessing leadership preparation programs, their content,
delivery, and outcomes, is virtually non-existent. Preparation programs aimed toward
social justice are languishing in hypocrisy when faculty expect equity-oriented leaders
to maintain high standards of accountability, supported by federal legislation, when
these programs themselves engage in no systematic, empirical studies or equity audits
of their own. Assessing leadership preparation should be the first priority in future
research on preparing leaders for social justice. We know that effective K-12 teaching
aimed at meeting the needs of all learners uses authentic assessment as an integral part
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
219
JEA
44,3
220
Figure 1.
A framework for
preparing educational
leaders for social justice
of the teaching and learning cycle, with the understanding that it is impossible to know
if we are reaching all children without the understanding of how we are going to
measure our work. Likewise, preparation programs need to be redesigned with the
holistic sense of the end in mind – what assessments will help us to know if our
students are social justice leaders?
As professors in leadership preparation programs across the country wrestle
with ways to integrate social justice into their programs, our proposed framework
offers one way to think about this process. While Table I offers a template for
examining each aspect of the framework in the program, Figure 1 offers another
visual representation of the framework that shows the relationship between the
framework dimensions. We believe all seven aspects of the framework must be
attended to if preparation programs are to realize the full potential of leadership for
social justice in their graduates. The two primary dimensions of the framework, that
is the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment that preparation programs engage
with in order to develop the critical consciousness, knowledge, and skills of future
leaders for social justice syngeristically inform each other. For example, the
consciousness, knowledge, and skills that school leaders need to lead socially just
schools must align with the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in preparation
programs and vice versa. At the same time, this leadership development for social
justice can only take place if professors intentionally create an atmosphere of
emotional safety for social justice risk taking in their programs and in the courses
and other learning experiences in those programs.
Given the increasing scholarship on social justice in educational leadership, it will
be tempting for scholars in leadership preparation to quickly claim their program is
grounded in social justice. Considering all aspects of this framework can provide a
deeper grounding of what it means to prepare social justice leaders. To be thorough
about implementing all aspects of the framework in a preparation program will require
a hypersensitive assessment of our preparation practices and to do so will appear
daunting at best. However, students who are struggling in our schools deserve no less.
References
Barnett, C. and Monda-Amaya, L.E. (1998), “Principals’ knowledge of and attitudes toward
inclusion”, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 181-92.
Blount, J. (2003), “Homosexuality and school superintendents: a brief history”, Journal of School
Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S. (1998), Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory
and Methods, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Bredeson, P.V. (1995), “Building a professional knowledge base in education administration:
opportunities and obstacles”, in Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. and Scheurich, J.J. (Eds), The
Knowledge Base of Educational Administration; Multiple Perspectives, State University of
New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 47-61.
Brown, K.M. (2004), “Leadership for social justice and equity: weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy”, Educational Administrative Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 79-110.
Capper, C.A. (1995), “An otherist poststructural perspective of the knowledge base in educational
administration”, in Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. and Scheurich, J.J. (Eds), The Knowledge Base
of Educational Administration; Multiple Perspectives, State University of New York Press,
Albany, NY, pp. 285-99.
Capper, C.A. (1999), “(Homo)sexualities, organizations, and administration: possibilities for
in(queer)y”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 4-11.
Cibulka, J.G. (2004), “The case for academic program standards in educational administration:
toward a mature profession”, UCEA Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 1-5.
Council of Chief State School Officers (1996), Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium:
Standards for School Leaders, State Education Assessment Center, Washington, DC.
Crockett, J.B. (2002), “Special education’s role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive
schools”, Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 157-68.
Culberstson, J.A. (1988), “A century’s quest for a knowledge based”, in Boyan, N. (Ed.), Handbook
of Research on Educational Administration, Longman, New York, NY.
Culley, M. and Portuges, C. (1985), Gendered Subjects: The Dynamics of Feminist Teaching,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston, MA.
Dantley, M. (2002), “Uprooting and replacing positivism, the melting pot, multiculturalism, and
other impotent notions in education leadership through an African American perspective”,
Education and Urban Society, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 334-52.
Donmoyer, R. (1995), “A knowledge base for educational administration:notes from the field”, in
Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. and Scheurich, J.J. (Eds), The Knowledge Base of Educational
Administration; Multiple Perspectives, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY,
pp. 74-95.
Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. and Scheurich, J.J. (1995), The Knowledge Base of Educational
Administration: Multiple Perspectives, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
English, F. (2000), “Pssst! What does one call a set of non-empirical beliefs required to be
accepted on faith and enforced by authority? (Answer: a religion, aka the ISLLC
Standards)”, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 159-68.
English, F.W. (2002), “Cutting the Gordian knot of educational administration: the
theory-practice gap”, UCEA Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, p. 3.
English, F.W. (2004), “Undoing the done deal: reductionism, ahistoricity, and pseudo-science in
the knowledge base and standards for educational administration”, UCEA Review, Vol. 46
No. 2, pp. 5-7.
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
221
JEA
44,3
222
Fraynd, D.J. and Capper, C.A. (2003), “Do you have any idea who you just hired?!? A study of
open and closeted sexual minority K-12 administrators”, Journal of School Leadership,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 86-125.
Gewirtz, S. (1998), “Conceptualizing social justice in education: mapping the territory”, Journal of
Education Policy, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 469-84.
Glaser, G.B. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, IL.
Glasman, N., Cibulka, J. and Ashby, D. (2002), “Program self-evaluation for continuous
improvement”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 257-88.
Grogan, M. (Ed.) (2002a), “Leadership for social justice, Part I (Special Issue)”, Journal of School
Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 2.
Grogan, M. (2002b), “Leadership for social justice”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 3,
part II, special issue.
Grogan, M. and Andrews, R. (2002), “Defining preparation and professional development for the
future”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 233-56.
Hafner, M.M. (2004), “Preparing leaders for social justice: a preliminary investigation of
leadership dispositions”, paper presented at the University Council of Educational
Administration annual convention, Kansas City, MO, November 12-15.
Hirth, M.A. and Valesky, T.C. (1990), “Survey of universities: special education knowledge
requirements in school administrator preparation programs”, Planning and Changing,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 165-72.
Ikpa, V. (1995), “Gender, race, ethnicity, and the quest for a knowledge base in educational
administration”, in Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. and Scheurich, J.J. (Eds), The Knowledge Base
of Educational Administration; Multiple Perspectives, State University of New York Press,
Albany, NY, pp. 174-81.
Jackson, B.L. and Kelley, C. (2002), “Exceptional and innovative programs in educational
leadership”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 192-212.
Koshoreck, J.W. (2003), “Easing the violence: transgressing heteronormativity in educational
administration”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 27-50.
Larson, C. and Murtadha, K. (2002), “Leadership for social justice”, in Murphy, J. (Ed.), The
Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 134-61.
Levine, A. (2005), Educating School Leaders, 15, The Education Schools Project, Washington, DC,
available at: www.edschools.org/reports_leaders.htm (accessed March 15, 2005).
Littrell, J. and Foster, W. (1995), “The myth of a knowledge base in educational administration”,
in Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. and Scheurich, J.J. (Eds), The Knowledge Base of Educational
Administration: Multiple Perspectives, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY,
pp. 32-46.
Lugg, C.A. (2003a), “Our straitlaced (sic.) administrators: the law, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered educational administrators, and the assimilationist imperative”, Journal of
School Leadership, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-85.
Lugg, C.A. (2003b), “Sissies, faggots, lezzies, and dykes: gender, sexual orientation, and a new
politics of education?”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 95-134.
Lyman, L.L. and Villani, C.J. (2002), “The complexity of poverty: a missing component of
educational leadership programs”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 246-80.
MacKinnon, D. (2000), “Equity, leadership, and schooling”, Exceptionality Education Canada,
Vol. 10 Nos 1-2, pp. 5-21.
McKenzie, K.B., Christman, D., Capper, C., Dantley, M., Gonzalez, M.L., Cambron-McCabe, N.,
Scheurich, J. and Suttmiller, E. (2004), “Educating leaders for social justice: what every
leader should know and be able to do”, paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, CA, April.
McKenzie, K.B. and Scheurich, J.J. (2004), “Equity traps: useful construct for preparing principals
to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students”, Education
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 606-32.
Marshall, C. (2004), “Social justice challenges to educational administration”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, special issue.
Maynes, B. and Sarbit, B. (2000), “Schooling children living in poverty: perspectives on social
justice”, Exceptionality Education Canada, Vol. 10 Nos 1-2, pp. 37-61.
Murphy, J. (1999), “Reconnecting teaching and school administration: a call for a unified
profession”, UCEA Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 1-3.
Murphy, J. (2001), “The changing face of leadership preparation”, The School Administrator,
Vol. 58 No. 10, pp. 14-17.
Murphy, J. (2002), “Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: new blueprints”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 176-91.
Murphy, J. and Vriesenga, M. (2004), Research on Preparation Program in Educational
Administration: An Analysis, UCEA Monograph Series, University Council for
Educational Administration, Columbia, MO.
Parker, L. and Shapiro, J.P. (1992), “Where is the discussion of diversity in educational
administration programs? Graduate students’ voices addressing an omission in their
preparation”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 7-33.
Peterson, K. (2002), “The professional development of principals: innovations and opportunities”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 213-32.
Poetter, T.S., Everington, C. and Jetty, R. (2001), “Curriculum deliberation in action: preparing
school leaders for inclusion”, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 162-82.
Rapp, D. (2002), “Social justice and the importance of rebellious imaginations”, Journal of School
Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 226-45.
Riester, A.F., Pursch, V. and Skrla, L. (2002), “Principals for social justice: leaders of school
success for children from low-income homes”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 281-304.
Scheurich, J.J. (1998), “Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated mainly
by low-SES children of color: core beliefs and cultural characteristics”, Urban Education,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 451-91.
Scheurich, J. and Skrla, L. (2003), Leadership for Equity and Excellence: Creating High
Achievement Classrooms, Schools, and Districts, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shakeshaft, C. (1995), “A cup half-full: a gender critique of the knowledge base of educational
administration”, in Donmoyer, R., Imber, M. and Scheurich, J.J. (Eds), The Knowledge Base
of Educational Administration; Multiple Perspectives, State University of New York Press,
Albany, NY, pp. 139-57.
Shields, C.M., Larocque, L.J. and Oberg, S.L. (2002), “A dialogue about race and ethnicity in
education: struggling to understand issues in cross-cultural leadership”, Journal of School
Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 116-37.
Sirotnik, K.A. and Kimball, K. (1994), “The unspecial place of special education in programs that
prepare school administrators”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 598-630.
Preparing
leaders for social
justice
223
JEA
44,3
224
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J.J., Garcia, J. and Nolly, G. (2004), “Equity audits: a practical leadership tool
for developing equitable and excellent schools”, Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 135-63.
Solomon, R.P. (2002), “School leaders and antiracism: overcoming pedagogical and political
obstacles”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 174-97.
Theoharis, G.T. (2004a), “At no small cost: social justice leaders and their response to resistance”,
unpublished dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Theoharis, G.T. (2004b), “Toward a theory of social justice educational leadership”, paper
presented at the University Council for Educational Administration, Annual Conference,
Kansas City, MO, November 12-15.
Theoharis, G.T. (2004c), “The rough road to justice: a meta-analysis of the barriers to teaching
and leading for social justice”, paper presented at the University Council for Educational
Administration, Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO.
Touchton, D. and Acker-Hocevar, M. (2001), “Using a lens of social justice to reframe principals’
interviews from high poverty, low performing schools”, paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Cincinnati, OH.
Vibert, A. and Portelli, J. (2000), “School leadership and critical practice in an elementary school”,
Exceptionality Education Canada, Vol. 10 Nos 1-2, pp. 23-36.
Young, M.D. and Laible, J. (2000), “White racism, antiracism, and school leadership preparation”,
Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 374-415.
Further reading
Cambron-McCabe, N. and McCarthy, M.M. (2005), “Educating school leaders for social justice”,
Educational Policy, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 201-22.
Carspecken, P.F. (1996), Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and
Practical Guide, Routledge, London.
Derman-Sparks, L. and Phillips, C.B. (1997), Teaching/learning Anti-Racism: A Developmental
Approach, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Fine, M. (1994), “Dis-stance and other stances: negotiations of power inside feminist research”, in
Gitlin, A. (Ed.), Power and Method: Political Activism and Educational Research, Routledge,
London, pp. 13-35.
Pounder, D., Reitzug, R. and Young, M. (2002), “Preparing school leaders for school improvement,
social justice, and community”, in Murphy, J. (Ed.), The Educational Leadership Challenge:
Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,
pp. 261-88.
Roman, L. and Apple, M. (1990), “Is naturalism a move away from positivism? Materialist and
feminist approaches to subjectivity in ethnographic research”, in Eisner, E. and Peshkins, A.
(Eds), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate, Teacher College Press, New
York, NY, pp. 38-73.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.