CLOSING THE EQUITY GAP: SOCIAL JUSTICE LEADERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Diane Elisabeth Carlson
B.A., University of Arizona, 1992
J.D., University of Arizona, 1995
M.A., University of California, Davis, 1998
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2014
Copyright © 2014
Diane Elisabeth Carlson
All rights reserved
ii
CLOSING THE EQUITY GAP: SOCIAL JUSTICE LEADERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
A Dissertation
by
Diane Elisabeth Carlson
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
_________________________________
Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner, Ph.D., Chair
_________________________________
Francisco Rodriguez, Ph.D.
_________________________________
Frank Lilly, Ph.D.
SPRING 2014
iii
CLOSING THE EQUITY GAP: SOCIAL JUSTICE LEADERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Student: Diane Elisabeth Carlson
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this dissertation is suitable for shelving in the library and credit is
to be awarded for the dissertation.
______________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Caroline Sotello Viernes Turner, Ph.D.
iv
_________________
Date
DEDICATION
To Keith Bryan Thompson, Zoë Rhiannon Carlson-Meyers, and Sojourner Kalani
Carlson Thompson, nothing would have been possible without all of you. You are the
reason I get to do this work. I thank you so enormously deeply for your love and
patience. I love you and you are always in my heart.
To Tim Wise, Gloria Ladson-Billings, and Beverly Cross, you do not know me at
all, but your work has put me on this path and kept me there. I will keep working to
make myself a better ally and to stand up even when I feel afraid.
To my students, who are also my teachers. I hope you grow more fearless than
me. The world needs you to be.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am blessed that so many have made both this dissertation work possible and the
process of going through this program bearable. While I have already dedicated this to
Keith, Zoë, and Sojourner who have given so much to see me through this program, I
want to thank them in as many places as possible. They gave me space, time, food,
coffee, tea, notes of encouragement, rides, massages, desks, flowers, breaks, hammocks,
drawings, hugs, kisses, shoulders, ears, eyes, and lots of love.
Other folks have not only given love, but also stepped in to give my family extra
love and care during this time of going to school and working full-time. Erin and Jason,
my sister and brother-in-law, have been there with jujitsu, bread, plants, wine, fishing,
and extra kidlet love. Jessica, Ron, and Aurelia have kept the jujitsu fires burning, saved
the dojo, and kept the kindness coming. Blithe and Bridget and their three awesome kids
Rose, Grace, and Ella have selflessly shown what deep friendship and a loving
community can be like. They have cared for my family as their own. I cannot ever thank
you all enough for that.
Part of my work life and friendship life overlap and my social justice allies at
Folsom Lake College, Dr. Yvonne Price and Professor Philip Angove, share the weight
of the effort. We have worked hard and I am better because of them and their support and
their willingness to speak up fearlessly. I am fortunate that these two and their families
are also friends and have also shown my family love and support. Yvonne, as well, gave
her time and energy to edit the longest chapters of this work. I am grateful for all of that.
vi
We lost one of our social justice allies at FLC this year, Dr. Thomas Caramagno,
and I must acknowledge the work that Tom did for so many years on our campus. His
death profoundly shook me and pushed me to keep connecting to allies and kindred
spirits, to speak out more fearlessly or at least not to let fear get in the way even if it is
lurking nearby. It is his life, however, that I keep with me: his wondrous sense of humor
even in the midst of seriousness. His talent for using both so appropriately has opened up
new ways of being for me as a teacher and new directions I might go from here with this
work on social justice issues and community colleges.
While my work life has been tough to balance with my doctoral program life and
home life, my FLC dean, Monica Pactol, has been supportive and understanding and has
helped me maintain my sanity even as I completed the teaching tenure process while
going through this program. Thank you for being patient with me.
Cohort 5, the big V, well, their awesomeness cannot be emphasized enough. Scott
Kirchner has saved my troublemaking arse many times in this program just by being his
raw, honest, laughter-filled self and by being a troublemaker right along with me. I see
who you are and I expect to know you a long time, my friend. Chris Kim is one of my
social justice comrades in this cohort and he, too, has made this process so much more
interesting partly because he is fun to tease and sings a good karaoke, but also because
he’s incredibly caring and smart. Melissa and Miguel are the heart and soul of our cohort.
We are more compassionate and creative because of you two. You have held us together
and shown what we can be. I hope I never forget what you said, Melissa, right before my
vii
defense. You made me laugh in a way I have not done so in such a long time. Your
timing is perfect and elegantly mischievous and you bring that with you everywhere.
Erik, I admire you for many things, but seeing you paddle up in the canoe with your
whole family and brand new baby when we all went camping cemented that for me.
Yousef, Tierra, Sarah, Fermin, Deisy, Daren, Constance, Carrie, Brandon, and Alina all
have my affection and admiration. Thank you for putting up with my potty mouth.
A bittersweet aspect of the guarantee of confidentiality to interviewees is that I do
not get to thank you by name. I have to tell you, as you are hidden out there among the
presidents, president/superintendents, and chancellors of California community colleges,
that I cannot thank you enough for your willingness to sit down with me at length and
share your ideas about social justice and the work you do. I know your time is precious
and that there are many things you could have been doing instead of being interviewed by
me, but you gave me your time and your openness and I hope I have represented your
ideas reasonably and crafted something useful from them.
And finally, but by no means least, my committee has been so amazing I cannot
begin to say how much. While I picked you all carefully and purposefully, I am grateful
you picked me back and supported not only the processes and the work, but the ideas,
too. Social justice isn’t always a popular road, but you all show in the work you do
everyday that popularity is meaningless next to equity and justice. Dr. Caroline Turner,
you are a great chair in all facets of the job: practical, academic, and emotional. Thank
you for your wisdom, guidance, understanding, friendship, and fun breakfast meetings. I
viii
could not have asked for better or more. Thank you, too, for your social justice work and
your continued quest for it. I am grateful that you saw our interests as parallel and
overlapping and that you were willing to work with a sometimes ornery student. You
have given me so much. Dr. Francisco Rodriguez, my admiration cannot be contained.
Of my committee, I met you first - my very first class - and I knew you were the One.
You are a true social justice leader and I have so much to learn from you. Your district
and colleges, the faculty, staff, and students who get to experience your touch are blessed
by it. I hope to live up to your expectations. Dr. Frank Lilly, your energy and passion for
this subject is contagious and you make me want to find all the creative ways I can to
share the many different dimensions of social justice that we both care about so much.
One of your questions at the defense was the one I was most unhappy with my answer:
what’s my educational philosophy? I said something silly about truth, but really I am a
troublemaker. I want to challenge comfort boundaries and push others to do the same, to
embrace the discomfort and widen others’ circles even as I widen mine. I wish I could
have been in my right mind to say it then, but one thing I love about you is that you
probably already knew what I meant. You have been right there with me the whole time
- all of you have - the greatest gift from a committee. So, as my social justice soul mates,
I thank you all from the reaches of my heart for your enthusiastic support for this work. It
would never have happened this way without you.
ix
CURRICULUM VITAE
Education
B.A. Sociology, University of Arizona, 1992
J.D. Law, University of Arizona, 1995
M.A. Sociology, University of California, Davis, 1998
Professional Employment
Professor of Sociology, Folsom Lake College.
Publications
Chapter contribution to Borunda, R. (2013). What Color is Your Heart: A Humanist
Approach to Diversity. Kendall Hunt: Dubuque, IA.
Fields of Study
Community college, social justice, education, critical theory, racism, wealth inequality
x
Abstract
of
CLOSING THE EQUITY GAP: SOCIAL JUSTICE LEADERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
by
Diane Elisabeth Carlson
This mixed-methods study examines the knowledge that California community
college presidents, president/superintendents, and chancellors (CEOs) have about the
social justice issues of wealth inequality and segregation impacting the communities they
serve, how this knowledge relates to social justice leadership practices, and how other
background factors influence those practices. A quantitative survey sampled the CEO
population to explore correlations between these variables. Ten in-depth interviews
investigated these issues to understand more deeply the social justice leadership practices
themselves. Critical Race Theory and Critical Systems Theory both provide overlapping
frameworks for influencing the development of critical, self-reflective social justice
leadership practices and for challenging the concept of the achievement gap.
Findings add to the understanding of social justice issues in relation to community
colleges and include medium-high to high positive correlations between accuracy of
knowledge of social justice issues impacting students and communities and the valuing of
social justice practices. Some CEOs also significantly underestimate the wealth
inequality and segregation their students experience. Findings further suggest a deeper
xi
understanding of what social justice strategies look like through visibility, earning
“citizenship” in communities, and intentionality (including critical consciousness, action,
responsibility, empowerment, and the naming of structures of inequality). These
strategies culminate in a new model of leadership: Critical Social Justice Leadership.
Recommendations include stronger social justice training for leaders in educational
leadership programs and Boards of Trustees, the incorporation of social justice
understandings into accreditation standards, as well as the collection of broader and
deeper data to more fully understand and address student outcomes.
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... vi
Curriculum Vitae .......................................................................................................... x
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xvi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................... xviii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
Background ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................ 11
Nature of the Study ......................................................................................... 13
Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................................. 14
Operational Definitions ................................................................................... 16
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 22
Significance..................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 25
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................ 27
Structural Inequality History: Wealth Inequality and Segregation. ............... 28
The Social Contexts of “Achievement” .......................................................... 36
Social Justice and Education ........................................................................... 39
xiii
Social Justice Leadership .................................................................................44
Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................................. 49
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 56
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 58
Research Design.............................................................................................. 58
Role of the Researcher .................................................................................... 60
Research Questions ......................................................................................... 60
Setting, Population and Sample ...................................................................... 61
Data Collection and Instrumentation .............................................................. 62
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 66
Protection of Participants ................................................................................ 69
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 70
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................................................................................ 71
Quantitative Data ............................................................................................ 72
Results for Research Questions 1-2 ................................................................ 86
Summary of Quantitative Data ....................................................................... 96
Qualitative Data .............................................................................................. 97
Results for Research Questions 1-3 .............................................................. 101
Summary of Qualitative Data ....................................................................... 153
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 155
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................157
xiv
Overview of the Study ...................................................................................157
Interpretation of Findings ..............................................................................160
Program Objectives and Recommendations for Action................................ 173
Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................ 186
Limitations .................................................................................................... 188
Reflections on Research Process .................................................................. 190
Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................. 192
6. APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 196
Appendix A Survey Instrument .................................................................... 197
Appendix B Interview Protocol .................................................................... 205
Appendix C Interview Consent Form ........................................................... 208
7. REFERENCES .....................................................................................................211
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Year Awarded Highest Degree .....................................................................................79
2. Years in Current Position ..............................................................................................79
3. Gender Identity ............................................................................................................ 79
4. Age ................................................................................................................................79
5. Racial Identity with Over/Under Accurate Perception of Total Inequality ..................82
6. Racial Identity with Underestimation of Income Inequality.........................................83
7. Racial Identity with Underestimation of Residential Segregation ................................84
8. Racial Identity with Underestimation of Educational Segregation...............................85
9. Significant Correlations with Accurate Perception of Wealth/Income Inequality .......88
10. Significant Correlations with Accurate Perception of Residential Segregation .........89
11. Significant Correlations with Accurate Perception of Educational Segregation ........89
12. Significant Correlations with Total Valuing of Social Justice Leadership
Practices ......................................................................................................................90
13. Significant Correlations with Advocating at State Policy Level for Social Justice
Issues that Affect Community, Involvement with Student Groups Addressing
Social Justice Related Issues, and Total Social Justice Practices ...............................91
14. Social Justice Leadership Practice Selection ..............................................................93
15. Significant Correlations with Total Social Justice Practices ......................................95
16. Significant Correlations - Total Valuing of Social Justice Leadership Practices .......95
xvi
17. Qualitative Data Themes Across All Research Questions ........................................100
18. Research Question 1: Themes and Subthemes .........................................................102
19. Role Characterization from Survey Open-ended Response......................................122
20. Research Question 2: Themes and Subthemes .........................................................127
21. Social Justice Related Organizations Mentioned by CEOs ......................................132
22. Research Question 3: Themes and Subthemes, Leadership Practices ......................135
23. Campus/District Practices .........................................................................................136
24. Community/Local Practices ......................................................................................139
25. States or Other Level Practices .................................................................................141
26. Research Question 3: Themes and Subthemes, Strategies.......................................143
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. Residential Segregation Examples: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles ............... 4
2. Critical Debt Model ..................................................................................................... 48
3. Research ....................................................................................................................... 49
4. Critical Race Theory and Critical Systems Theory ......................................................55
5. Critical Debt Model (II) ................................................................................................57
6. Racial Identity ...............................................................................................................78
7. Geographical Distribution of CEO Respondents ..........................................................80
8. Systemic Relationship Among Themes ..............................................................101, 151
9. Conceptual Relationship Among Themes ..................................................................152
10. Representative Distribution of Population by “Race” ..............................................163
11. Transformative Critical Leadership (Santamaría, 2012) ..........................................170
12. Critical Social Justice Leadership Model .................................................................171
xviii
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“An apartheid system of education is a social reality that is too infrequently addressed;
instead policies, resources, and human energy are redirected toward closing the
achievement gap…The dominant construction of the achievement gap and the
mainstream images that circulate from that dominant construction have been drawn to
ignore our quiet return to apartheid education” (Cross, 2007, pp.251-252)
Background
Educational leaders acknowledge racial gaps in relation to “achievement” (Moore
& Shulock, 2010; Wagner, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 2006) but discussions of the larger
equity issues impacting education such as wealth disparity and segregation are startlingly
absent from both public and leadership discourse. Furthermore, the emphasis on the
“achievement gap” as the problem in education masks the larger inequities of separate
and unequal schools associated with segregation and economic inequality (Cross, 2007).
If the achievement gap is a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself (LadsonBillings, 2006), why do educational leaders leave these important structural issues out of
the discussion and ignore the larger equity gaps that impact achievement? This
dissertation addresses practices by community college leaders in relation to these social
justice issues. What do community college presidents and chancellors know about these
issues and what in a leader’s background or experience might influence their
understanding of them? How do they incorporate their understanding of these issues into
their policies and practices on their campuses? If community college leaders do not know
or understand the impacts of these issues on students, they are less likely to be effective
2
advocates for students and are also unlikely to develop and promote the best policies and
practices that will support them (Ellis, 2004).
This study explores the concept of social justice educational leadership in relation
to wealth inequality and segregation, as these issues continue to not only persist but
expand (Orfield & Lee, 2005). While increasing diversity and diverse learning
environments generally support student success (Orfield, Frankenburg, & Garces, 2008;
Cooley, 2008), we must address the structural issues that divide students by wealth and
racial status which impact and impede students so that each student can have equitable
opportunities to reach their full potential and have the best chance at success. The focus
of educational leadership on the achievement gap hides the structural inequalities that
must also be addressed in the pursuit of social justice. These structural inequalities call
into question gaps in resources, expectations, quality of service, and opportunities that
come with racial and economic isolation (Cross, 2007) associated with the geographic
gaps of segregation. Social justice as a concept is large enough to incorporate an
interrogation of these structural issues through its goal of “full and equal participation of
all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs” (Bell, 2007, p.1). It
also “includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and
all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure…[and] able to develop to
their full capacities” (Bell, 2007, p.1). I focus on the wealth inequality and segregation
issues that are inherently part of this definition of social justice. While these are not
exactly the same issue, they overlap and reinforce each other significantly (Oliver &
Shapiro, 2006; Anyon, 2006).
3
Segregation is a reality not just of our past but also of our present. Although the
desegregation success of the 1970s and 80s integrated many schools particularly in the
South, segregation rates began to rise again in the late 1980s as Federal support for
integration declined (Orfield, 2009). Data from the 2006-2007 school year shows that for
African American and Latina/o students, rates of segregation resemble the rates in the
late 1960s (Orfield, 2009). This data also shows that students of color now make up 44%
of the student population but that African Americans and Latina/os attend schools where
nearly 70% of the school population shares their same identity. Educational segregation
is impacted by residential segregation that in turn also impacts wealth inequality.
Residential segregation also continues to be a part of our present and impacts
education access and opportunity as well as wealth disparities. This history is tied up in
institutionally racist policies of the past relating to both Federal Housing Authority
(FHA) and Veterans Administration (VA) mortgage financing (Lipsitz, 1998; Oliver &
Shapiro, 2006), the drawing of official and unofficial exclusionary boundaries
(“redlining”) around neighborhoods by real estate agents and landlords (Tatum, 2007),
“white flight” (Shapiro & Oliver, 2006), and the inability of the Justice Department to
address the enormous amount of housing discrimination complaints (Lipsitz, 1998). This
history and persistent informal redlining leads to our communities and neighborhoods
remaining largely segregated in the present.
Current segregation is represented in the three maps in Figure 1, taken from U.S.
Census Bureau data (Bloch, Carter, & McLean, 2010). Each dot in these maps represents
200 people, green representing the white population, orange representing the Latina/o
4
Figure 1. Residential Segregation examples: New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles
population, blue for the African American population, and red for the Asian American
population. These maps show that while we may indeed have a variety of populations in
5
three of our cities that we tend to think of as being most ethnically diverse, these groups
are generally not living together in integrated communities. This pattern holds for almost
all our major cities. The 2010 Census shows that 39 cities across the U.S. with a
population of 500,000 or more have Black White segregation indices of 60 or more,
indicating a high level of segregation (Population Studies Center, 2010). This measure of
segregation, the index of dissimilarity, measures “the degree to which blacks and whites
are evenly spread among neighborhoods in a city” (Massey and Denton, 1993, p.20)
amounting to the percent of residents that would have to move to even out the
distribution of the compared populations. Another 61 similarly sized cities have
segregation indices of 30-60, indicating moderate segregation. For Latino/as in
comparison to whites, 95 cities have measurements of 30 or above.
Segregation and “white flight,” as well as regional and federal policies, lead to the
economic abandonment of urban and urbanized communities and included less access to
jobs, lower demand for home ownership in communities of color, lower property taxes,
and ultimately the decline in schools and community resources (Lipsitz, 1998; Oliver &
Shapiro, 2006: Massey & Denton, 1993; Anyon, 2006). Most wealth accumulation is
acquired through property ownership and therefore barriers to home ownership, in place
even for upper income African Americans for example, have led to a massive wealth gap,
exacerbated by the Great Recession of 2007-2009 (Shapiro, Meschede, Osoro, 2013). By
2009, Whites had 20 times the wealth of African Americans and 18 times the wealth of
Latina/os (Taylor, Kochhar, Fry, Velasco, & Motel, 2011). These differences were 11
6
times and 7 times respectively in 2004, up from a low of 7 times each in 1994 (Taylor,
Kochhar, Fry, Velasco, & Motel, 2011).
Community colleges sit directly in these realities of segregation and wealth
disparities and students therefore will continue to be impacted by them. Many students
of color enter higher education through community colleges (Beach, 2011) and “more
than three quarters of the variation in racial composition among community colleges is
directly attributable to the racial composition of their surrounding geographic locales”
(Goldrick-Rab & Kinsley, 2013, p.111). The role of community college leadership and
the power inherent in that role becomes vital in allying with the communities and
students being served to understand their needs and to advocate both in the college setting
and in the larger region for socially just transformations that make the promise and
opportunities of higher education real.
Research on wealth inequality and segregation primarily focuses on the impact
that both residential and educational segregation have on educational outcomes. Lee
(2004) shows that although educational achievement improved during the integration
successes of the 70s and 80s, the shift towards resegregation was accompanied by a
stalling or even decline in the progress of educational outcomes, particularly for African
American students. Other researchers note that segregated schools are not only
physically separate, but are unequal in almost every way especially in terms of resources,
experienced teachers, curricular depth and rigor, and facilities (Orfield, Frankenberg, &
Garces, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2004). This research is substantiated by 553 social
scientists in a statement submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Parents Involved
7
v. Seattle School District (2007) that summarizes a comprehensive body of research on
integration and racial isolation (Orfield, Frankenberg, Garces, 2008). This detailed
summary concludes that “racially isolated schools have harmful educational implications
for students” (p.102). These harmful implications include lower scores on standardized
tests, lower high school graduation rates, less college attendance, less access to AP and
“gifted” classes (Ladson-Billings, 2006), as well as lower teacher quality (DarlingHammond, 2004). Jonathan Kozol shares Harlem resident and 15 year-old Isabel’s
understanding of segregation’s impact on education, “It’s like we’re being hidden…It’s
as if you have been put in a garage where, if they don’t have room for something but
aren’t sure if they should throw it out, they put it there where they don’t need to think of
it again” (Kozol, 2005, p.28).
Previous research on the achievement gap includes focus on the internal processes
within schools, such as teachers’ perceptions of the achievement gap and the connection
to their own assumptions about students (Uhlenberg & Brown, 2002). This research also
includes other micro-level causes for the “gap” such as youth culture and student
behaviors, schooling conditions or practices, and individual family conditions Lee
(2002). Research also shows that diversity within an institution (Nieto, 2000) and
multicultural curriculum and pedagogy (Banks, 2001; Okoye-Johnson, 2011) positively
impact “achievement.”
Another set of literature on the achievement gap argues that it is essential to
consider social inequalities as part of any educational policies (Rumberger & Willms,
1992; Bower, 2011; English, 2002; Rothestein, 2004) and that factors outside of school
8
must be considered since the achievement gap begins and widens outside of school
(Bower, 2011). Gandara, Alvarado, Driscoll & Orfield (2012); Martinez-Wenzl &
Marquez (2012); and Moore & Shulock (2010) bring questions about the achievement
gap into the community college context, and largely focus on access, transfer, and
affordability. Santamaría (2012) offers one of the few looks at the achievement gap in
community colleges in relation to leadership practices by calling for critical leadership
that centers conversations about equity as a way to push for larger scale change.
Ladson-Billings (2006) and Cross (2007) offer essential critiques of the
achievement gap literature and challenge us to reconsider where to place our funding and
energies if we actually wish to transform our educational system into one that is socially
just. Both of these authors argue that by focusing on the achievement gap as the problem
in education we conveniently ignore the massive structural inequalities such segregation
and wealth inequality that got us to this point in the first place. Cross (2007) argues that
the “gap” is actually one in opportunity and quality of service combined with
assumptions about the innate capabilities of poor, urban students of color. LadsonBillings (2006) relates these structural inequalities and gaps in service to what she calls
the “educational debt” which include an oppressive history, economic abandonment, and
social and political exclusion - all societal debts with huge educational consequences
which we have barely begun to consider how to pay down. Meanwhile, wealth gaps and
achievement gaps grow. She recognizes that the attention placed on the symptoms directs
us to short-term solutions that cannot address the larger, underlying societal problems. It
is, in fact, these two articles that first raised the question for me of why these structural
9
issues are not part of our policy considerations or public discussions. This question
subsequently inspired this dissertation topic and expanded to consider the role that
educational leaders play or could play more generally in relation to social justice in
education.
The literature on social justice issues in education considers the previous sets of
issues relating to achievement as well as structural inequality issues such as wealth
differences and racial isolation. The concept of “social justice” in education, while
broad, has its origins in both discussions on justice in general (Gewirtz, 2006) as well as
diversity, multicultural, and culturally responsive education (Banks, 1973; Sleeter, 1988;
Ladson-Billings, 1992). The justice material considers not only how rights and resources
are apportioned but also cultural domination and decision-making. The diversity
literatures tends to note who is present and absent, and multiculturalism challenges the
culture and schools contexts in which learning takes place. These literature origins also
expand to incorporate the underlying structures of inequality into the broader definition
of social justice presented earlier by Bell (2007) that recognizes the need for equitable
distribution of resources, as well as physical and psychological safety in pursuit of “full
and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their
needs” (p.1).
Leadership theory is also fundamental in pursuing a social justice understanding
of how community college presidents and chancellors address wealth inequality and
segregation issues in relation to the communities they serve. Examining how the
“powerful” think and make decisions is an essential part of critical inquiry (Anyon,
10
2006). Transformational (Burns, 1978; Nevarez & Wood, 2010), transformative
(Shields, 2004), servant-leadership (Greenleaf, 1991), and transformative critical
leadership (Santamaría, 2012) all offer elements that provide an understanding of what
considerations leaders must make and what kinds of competencies are required to pursue
social justice and equity in the colleges and communities they serve. Transformational
leadership builds a foundation based on collaboration and vision, transformative adds the
need to see beyond “institutional and organizational arrangements” (Shields, 2004,
p.113), and servant-leadership recognizes the essential need to work with and not for.
Transformative Critical Leadership brings all of this together to recognize that leadership
must support service and justice (Santamaría, 2012).
Finally in the theoretical literature, both Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical
Systems Theory (CST) provide a framework for not only positioning myself as a
researcher (Taylor, 2009; Watson & Watson, 2011), and recognizing that a neutral
perspective does not exist (Bell, 2009), but also for understanding that racism is woven
into the fabric of our society and is part of the norm (Ladson-Billings, 2009). CRT not
only offers a foundation for exploring power and privilege in community college
leadership, but it can also challenge the deficit thinking of achievement gap focused work
and transfer the attention to the structural causes of different outcomes. CST can critique
those structural inputs and systemic parts to consider how leadership attention and effort
can be redirected to those systemic features and hidden assumptions that deny just
opportunities and just outcomes (Watson & Watson, 2011).
11
The gaps in the literature, then, generally point to the limited amount of
discussion on social justice issues in relation to community colleges. Most of the
research in the broader area of social justice and education has focused on either K-12 or
4 year higher education contexts and has largely looked at pedagogy and curriculum
(Banks, 1973; Sleeter, 1988; Stovall, 2008). K-12 has also been the focus of the small
amount of research on segregation and wealth inequality as has the work on the
achievement gap. The achievement gap literature also begs for someone to examine the
other “gaps” that underlie the data being used to promote achievement as our sole focus
of policy and concern. How might gaps in wealth, residence, service, expectations,
opportunities, and leadership impact student outcomes? While there is a growing body of
work on leadership in community colleges (Santamaría & Santamaría, 2011; Santamaría,
2012), very little of this has thus far incorporated social justice issues, especially in
relation to the communities being served.
Statement of the Problem
Community colleges sit in specific social and economic contexts that impact the
students who attend them. Like our K-12 schools, community colleges are negatively
impacted by social policies and practices that segregate and perpetuate wealth inequality
(Beach, 2011; Martinez-Wenzl & Marquez, 2012). While much effort is directed toward
the achievement gap and improving student outcomes - symptoms of decades of
inequitable policies and practices (Ladson-Billings, 2006) - little attention has been paid
to the underlying structural causes of these inequalities (Cross, 2007) or what LadsonBillings (2006) calls our “educational debt.” This debt includes our long, impactful
12
history of segregation, economic abandonment, and social and political exclusion. It will
take far more than a few decades to pay down this debt and even longer if we are only
looking at the end result – achievement and outcomes – and not the sources. Even less
attention has been paid to community colleges and community college leaders’
understanding of all of these social justice issues and how they impact their students, so
we have not even begun this discussion in the community college context.
What we do know about the community college context is that community
colleges provide access to almost half of the undergraduates of color, enroll 41% of
students living in poverty (Mullins, 2012) and that “low-income and racial and ethnic
minorities first enrolling at a community college has been increasing over time”
(Melguizo & Kosiewicz, 2013). In California, between 65 and 75% of Latina/o and
African American students enter higher education through community colleges (Gandara,
Alvarado, Driscoll & Orfield, 2012) and most of them are entering increasingly
segregated community colleges which have significantly unequal resources (GoldrickRab & Kinsley, 2013).
The purpose of this research is to explore community college leaders’
understanding of these social justice issues and how their understanding relates to their
leadership practices both on their campuses and in the communities they serve.
A social
justice and critical perspective provides the most thorough understanding of the role that
power and privilege play in understanding the impact of wealth and segregation and how
colleges, communities, and students can best be served by their community college
leaders. Finally, both social justice and critical perspectives can offer practical
13
competencies and necessary steps for leaders to engage in to work with communities,
policymakers, and other education leaders in relation to these issues.
Nature of the Study
This study explores the following three research questions:
1. To what extent are community college leaders knowledgeable of wealth
inequality and segregation issues in their feeder communities?
1a. How does this knowledge relate to or predict social justice leadership
practices in their colleges?
2. How do community college leaders’ backgrounds in social justice education,
activism, and experience with discrimination relate to or predict their social
justice leadership practices?
3. What strategies do community college leaders have for infusing social justice
into their practice and advocating for their students?
This study uses a transformative sequential mixed-methods approach (Creswell,
2009) involving both quantitative and qualitative stages. The quantitative stage includes
a survey to the presidents and chancellors in the California community college system. A
smaller sample of 10 interviews was drawn from the population for an in-depth look at
social justice experience and background and particularly what kinds of social justice
practice and advocacy that community college presidents and chancellors engage in.
These research questions ask about understanding the relationships between different
variables by operationalizing social justice education, social justice activism, personal
experiences with discrimination, and accurate awareness of wealth inequality and
14
segregation issues in their feeder communities. These variables are compared with the
variables social justice leadership practices, measured through questions relating to
attitudes and practices regarding diversity hiring, committees, beliefs about social justice,
participation in community organizations that relate to social justice. Establishing a
relationship between these variables is best understood through a quantitative
methodology. Exploring strategies and social justice practices of leaders requires more
in-depth discussion and this has been best explored through qualitative interviews.
The research literatures suggest a need to not only understand the impact of social
justice issues on community college students –looking in this case at wealth inequality
and segregation – but to also understand how these issues connect to current and possible
leadership practices such that community college leaders can best advocate for their
students and develop and support policies that empower them. These ideas suggest the
need for a thorough theoretical grounding in Critical Theory, especially in terms of race
and its intersections with other identities. This research also suggests a strong
foundation in understanding leadership roles, particularly those theoretical orientations
which can provide a framework that sees leadership as not only a source of
transformation, but as connected to the environment in which it exists.
Theoretical Frameworks
The framework for understanding this problem is built around a hybrid of Critical
Race Theory (CRT), as articulated in relation to education by Solorzano (1997) and
Yosso (2005), and Critical Systems Theories as articulated by Watson and Watson
(2011), Flood (1990), and Jackson (1994). CRT identifies a number of tenets that are
15
essential to incorporate into educational equity issues and leadership that includes
recognizing the essential significance of racial status and racism, but also acknowledging
the overlapping layers of gender, class, immigration status, sexuality, and other identities.
CRT provides a strong basis for exploring the power connected with community college
leadership and also challenges the “deficit” oriented research that is infused in much of
the achievement gap discussion. CRT also looks to name invisible privilege that may
have some impact on equity issues (Solorzano, 1997). A third tenet that is informative
for this study is the commitment to social justice. CRT hopes to critique structures of
inequality in order to transform them by empowering marginalized groups. While this
particular study may at least initially appear to privilege the voices of the powerful, it
instead looks to make visible that unquestioned privilege and the inequities that exist in
the system and with its leaders (Anyon, 2006), and adds to this work in the future by
bringing in the lived and essential experiences of communities targeted by educational
policies.
While power and structural inequity are examined through a CRT lens, Critical
Systems Theory (CST) is be incorporated as well. Systems Theory is leveraged to
recognize how the parts relate to the larger systemic equity picture that is impacting what
happens within each college community. In the realm of organizational leadership,
Wheatley (2006) offers some theoretical concepts, largely stemming from the work of
systems theorist Fritjof Capra (1996), to help leaders uncover the relationship between
systems and smaller scale behavior. Their view of systems theory encourages expanding
our vision to see the larger systemic picture and its interplay with the details under
16
observation. In fact, Wheatley suggests a consistent movement of observation between
these levels to “expand our vision to see the whole, then narrow our gaze to peer intently
into individual moments” (p.143) to see how the big picture and detail can inform each
other. But it is Wheatley’s recognition that “[i]f we want to change individual or local
behaviors, we have to tune into these system-wide influences” (p.142) that speaks to the
need in looking at inequity in education to see what larger structures are impacting school
performance and ultimately, then, the achievement gap. As Wheatley says, “studying
problems in detailed isolation doesn’t yield the promised improvements and changes”
(p.142). Indeed, our educational leaders have been so stuck in observing the achievement
gap that there has been little change in it.
Critical Systems Theory (Flood, 1990; Jackson, 1994; Watson & Watson, 2012)
challenges some of the underlying positivist assumptions of Systems Theory and pushes
the theory to consider the structural inequality contexts in which particular behaviors and
practices sit. CST, therefore, may offer the most practical framework for directing
leaders to the unexamined structural inequalities and hidden judgments that deny so many
communities of color socially just access and opportunity in a system not designed to
meet their educational needs.
Operational Definitions
“Achievement Gap”
I sometimes place this concept in quotes in the dissertation to problematize its use
by policy makers and educational leaders to distract the public from the
underlying structural inequality issues that impact “achievement.” Furthermore,
17
this concept is often used to point at the deficiency of those at the bottom of the
gap, rather than as a symptom of the wealth and segregation gaps that impact
achievement and success. I hope to continually challenge its use as the only real
focus for educational policies and practices
De jure and de facto discrimination
“In law” and “in fact” describe discriminatory policies that are either written into
law (de jure), thereby having the full force of the institution behind it - but at the
same time contain more obvious targets for resistance – or that continue or come
into existence through policies and practices that maintain the unequal
relationships and statuses in fact (de facto) and may be more difficult to address
because a specific policy or law is not the source. De facto discrimination is often
linked to institutional discrimination – where institutional policies and practices of
discrimination continue even after laws change. Just because a law changes does
not mean that beliefs or practices necessarily change, or that enforcement of new
laws actually happens.
Diversity
“Diversity includes all the ways in which people differ, and it encompasses all
the different characteristics that make one individual or group different from
another. It is all-inclusive and recognizes everyone and every group as part of the
diversity that should be valued. A broad definition includes not only race,
ethnicity, and gender — the groups that most often come to mind when the term
diversity is used — but also age, national origin, religion, disability, sexual
18
orientation, socioeconomic status, education, marital status, language, and
physical appearance. It also involves different ideas, perspectives, and values.”
(UC Berkeley Initiative for Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity:
http://diversity.berkeley.edu/sp_glossary_of_terms )
Equity
“Equity is the guarantee of fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement
for all students, faculty, and staff, while at the same time striving to identify and
eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. The
principle of equity acknowledges that there are historically underserved and
underrepresented populations and that fairness regarding these unbalanced
conditions is needed to assist equality in the provision of effective opportunities to
all groups.” (UC Berkeley Initiative for Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity)
Privilege
Peggy McIntosh defines privilege as, “an invisible package of unearned assets,
which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to
remain oblivious” (2007, p.102). As she worked to list ways her whiteness
benefited her she included “I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the ‘person
in charge,’ I will be facing a person of my race” on her list. This discussion in
relation to privilege will likely be relevant in examining community college
leadership.
19
Racial Status or Racial Identity
“Race” is a social construction. It is not biologically real but has been constructed
in different ways throughout U.S. history to mean whatever is most convenient for
those in power at the time (Omi & Winant, 1986). I will use the term “racial
status” or “racial identity” to bring out some of this complexity and recognize that
any categories based on it are socially created and forced on others, and that these
categories do, at the same time convey real consequences in relation to power,
privilege, depending on how they are constructed. I will generally use the
categories of African American, Latina/o (to include both genders), Asian
American, First Nations (or specific Nation when possible), and European
American but I may also, depending on the statistical data, use Black, White,
Native American or other census categories so as not to confuse the discussion
with the official data presented. Additionally, I will present the language used by
the interviewees verbatim so they may use different terminology than I do.
Redlining
Geographical discrimination in mortgage lending, real estate practices, and
renting that contributed to residential segregation.
Segregation: both residential and educational
While educational segregation is largely related to residential segregation, we are
becoming slightly less residentially integrated each Census, while we are
becoming increasingly more educationally segregated. Residential segregation
can be measured in a number of ways including the index of dissimilarity and
20
evenness. Evenness is defined with respect to the racial composition of the city as
a whole where residential neighborhoods should reflect this. The index shows
what percent of a given population would have to move to achieve evenness.
Educational segregation increasingly means looking at how isolated whites are
from everyone else.
Servant Leadership
The concept of servant leadership is based on the work of Robert K. Greenleaf.
In this dissertation, servant leadership is defined as a process – the dynamic,
supple ability of a leader to listen with awareness and adjust as the greater good of
a situation or context requires. This, combined with passionate pursuit of a vision
and empathy designed to serve others even at the expense of personal ego, makes
true transformation of systems and institutions much more attainable.
Social Justice
"…social justice is both a process and a goal. The goal of social justice education
is full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to
meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society that is equitable and
all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure. [Social justice
includes] a society in which individuals are both self-determining (able to develop
to their full capacities) and interdependent (capable of interacting democratically
with others). Social justice involves social actors who have a sense of their own
agency as well as a sense of social responsibility toward and with others, their
society, and the broader world in which we live" (Adams, Bell & Griffin, 2007,
21
p.1-2). I will operationalize social justice in the quantitative part of the research
to look at wealth inequality and segregation data in specific community college
locations.
Social Justice Leadership
Quantitatively, these practices will be operationalized to include (e.g.) support for
campus diversity planning, equity committees, diverse hiring, advocacy at the
regional and state levels for community equity needs, membership in community
organizations that address social justice, overt policies relating to social justice
issues and support, etc. Qualitatively these practices may be revealed to be more
subtle in the ways that leaders may be less explicit in their social justice work and
could include things like working behind the scenes on campus, in the
community, in the district, with Board members, etc. to encourage particular
socially just policies that impact students and communities.
Transformational and Transformative Leadership
Transformational and transformative leaders use their vision to empower and
metamorphose the personal values of those around them in support of the mission
of an organization, although some (Shields, 2004) argue that transformative
leaders see the need to go beyond “institutional and organizational arrangements”
(p.113) to transform educational contexts.
Transformative/Applied Critical Leadership
“[A] strengths-based model of leadership practice where educational leaders
consider the social context of their educational communities and empower
22
individual members of these communities based on the educational leaders’
identities (i.e., subjectivity, biases, assumptions, race, class, gender, and
traditions) as perceived through a [Critical Race Theory] lens” (Santamaría &
Santamaría, 2012, p.5). This includes “recognizing and fully understand[ing]
critical issues … convinc[ing] others that issues are in fact issues, and creat[ing]
and sustain[ing] a safe space for conversation, reflections, and actions to occur”
(Santamaría, 2012).
Wealth Inequality/Wealth Gap
Mostly used to discuss differences in wealth between social groups. Wealth is
what we own minus what we owe (Shaprio, Meschede, Osoro, 2013) and is often
discussed as net worth. Wealth, typically in the form of home ownership, allows
for a cushion in rough times, such as the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Being
able to draw against equity in a home provides a cushion in emergencies, such as
unemployment, and also provides a basis for accessing higher education. In this
research, there may not always be wealth data available in each context, so
income may be the stand in on occasion, but income overall does not provide as
much information about how an economy is doing, or how vulnerable a person or
family may be in tough economic times.
Limitations
This study is limited in several ways including by population and geography.
Although the quantitative sampling produces a large enough sample to represent the
population of community college presidents and chancellors in California, the qualitative
23
sample is small enough that it does not represent the population, particularly in relation to
gender representation. Asian-Americans are also not represented in either sample. Study
participants self-selected whether they would participate in the survey or interviews.
Nevertheless, this work will still be highly relevant to any academic or policy work in the
area of community colleges and social justice issues because California’s impact
economically, socially, and educationally is significant (Grunwald, 2009).
Even though a research format that includes both qualitative and quantitative
aspects can triangulate and offset some of the weaknesses of each methodology, there are
still additional limitations on what this study can show. First, it is already contradicting
aspects of Critical Race Theory (and Critical Pedagogy) to “privilege” the voice of the
privileged. But as will be discussed in the Theoretical Framework section, Critical Race
Theory also looks to name invisible privilege that may have some impact on equity
issues. While the CEOs represented in this study do have power connected to their
position, the interviews in particular reveal barriers that some of these CEOs have had to
overcome to reach their positions so that their voices that did not originate in privileged
contexts could be heard. A limitation of the quantitative aspect includes how the
accuracy and knowledge variables were collected. The variables use Gini Index data and
Indexes of Dissimilarity to measure income distribution and both residential and
educational segregation. None of these indexes can fully represent the extent and
complexity of wealth inequality or the facets of segregation. This particular limitation is
further discussed in Chapter 4.
24
In terms of bias, one of my strengths and weaknesses is that I am a full-time
faculty member teaching sociology at a community college. I teach mostly courses on
social problems and racial and ethnic inequality. This offers me an opportunity every
semester to immerse myself in the data on segregation and wealth inequality and while
this gives me a strong knowledge base and opportunity to see the reality of it in my
students’ lives, it also may limit my vision and ability to connect other variables and
structural issues to the social justice concerns I have in education. While I do not believe
researchers can (Bell, 2009) or should remain separate from their work (Ellis, 2004;
Taylor, 2009; Watson & Watson, 2012), I acknowledge that a closeness to this data and
an intent to use education and leadership in service of addressing and changing these
social justice issues is part of my own lens and may very well impact what I see and how
I interpret this data.
Significance
As California becomes increasingly diverse, social justice issues are
fundamentally important for community college leaders to understand and bring into their
practice if they truly expect to effectively serve and advocate for their students. This
particular study:
•
extends understanding of the relationship of structural inequalities to community
colleges and redirect attention from “achievement gap” symptoms to causes,
•
elaborates on knowledge of community college leadership practices regarding
social justice, and
25
•
suggests policies and necessary additional competencies for community college
leaders to most effectively advocate for their students and the needs of their
college communities.
Marginalized students are impacted by structural inequalities and can make access
and success much more difficult in community colleges. If educational leaders are
ignoring these issues, how can they best create and encourage policies and practices that
support them? An underlying assumption of this study is that community colleges exist
to serve students to the best of their abilities and when leaders gain competencies and
understanding of the issues impacting those students, they will better be able to serve
them. So while the research will direct its recommendations to community college
leaders, the benefits in the long run will be for the students they serve. Additionally,
although the study focuses on presidents and chancellors, many of the recommendations
and competencies will be applicable to faculty, who are themselves often leaders in
community college settings, and policymakers at the state level. Policymakers also
greatly impact students through their decisions and their recommendations, and should as
well be hugely informed by the structural inequalities that exist.
Conclusion
This study challenges the current status quo of focusing on the achievement gap
as the marker of trouble in our education system. Much of the research literature on
equity and education has focused on this and has minimized or ignored the continuing
legacy of our separate and unequal schools, and even more so how this extends to
community colleges. Using a Critical Race and Critical Systems Theory framework
26
centers the historical and contemporary realities of growing wealth inequality and
segregation as some of the sources for disparate student outcomes and challenges leaders
to gain awareness of the issues and use this knowledge to best advocate for change both
in their communities and on their campuses.
The following chapter includes a thorough discussion of peer-reviewed and
relevant literature that relate to social justice and education, economic inequality and
segregation, the achievement gap, leadership, and theoretical frameworks. Chapter 3
discusses the mixed-methods methodology, both how qualitative and quantitative
methods are needed to answer the research questions and how the mixed-methods process
has been carried out. Chapter 4 presents the data collected through the methodology and
lays out the themes that appear from the analysis. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and
provides not only implications of the research, particularly in terms of leadership
competencies and needed educational policies, but also suggestions for future research.
27
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Chapter 1 presented questions relating to what community college leaders know
about economic inequality and segregation issues in their communities and how they
address them in their leadership practices. Additionally, Chapter 1 questioned the
overwhelming emphasis on the achievement gap as the problem when it is a symptom of
these largely unexamined social justice issues. Chapter 1 also introduced the Critical
Race and Critical Systems theories that are necessary to address these issues and frame
this dissertation research. This chapter lays out the argument for this research in relation
to these themes and the relevant literature. In order to more deeply understand the social
justice issues present and the leadership policies and practices required to address them,
this chapter first covers literature that looks more specifically at economic inequality and
segregation in education and then considers these issues in relation to community
colleges. This literature section shows that my dissertation research extends the current
understanding of social justice in relation to education by connecting this concept,
especially in relation to wealth inequality and segregation, more specifically to
community colleges. The literature review turns to consider the achievement gap
literature and then its relation to community colleges. Following that, the review looks
at social justice and education literature in general as well as literature on leadership.
This section shows that the literature is missing detailed research on the relationship of
wealth and segregation to community college achievement and the necessary leadership
28
competencies and policies needed to addresses these issues. Finally, this chapter
explores literature relating to Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Systems Theory with a
particular emphasis on Critical Systems Theory (CST). The literature shows that the
social justice theoretical framework presented through the use of Critical Race and
Critical Systems theories can best examine both the details and larger picture of these
issues and reveal essential next steps for both leaders and communities to address the
substantial inequalities impacting community college students.
Structural Inequality History: Wealth Inequality and Segregation
This section examines the background to the wealth inequality and segregation
issues that impact today’s educational system. Most of the research has focused on the
K-12 setting and that is evident in this literature section. I explore the complex
background of racial isolation both educationally and residentially and then move to its
relationship to wealth accumulation generally to get a broad understanding of how both
of these practices became firmly entrenched in the geographic and educational world. I
eventually refocus the discussion on the small amount of literature that is exploring the
relationship of these issues to community colleges.
Segregation and wealth inequality background
Segregation produces separate and unequal schools and is situated in a historical
and contemporary context of de jure (in law) and de facto (in fact) institutional racism.
Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) marked a pronounced shift in educational policy
up to that point and ruled that “separate but equal” had “no place” and that educational
segregation was inherently unequal and unconstitutional (Daniel & Gooden, 2010). The
29
pattern of educational segregation, however, did not begin to change much until the
passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which opened up the opportunity for the U.S.
attorney general to file lawsuits against districts that were resisting the mandate of Brown
(Tatum, 2007). Lee (2004) and others (Kozol, 2005; Frankenberg, Lee, & Orfield, 2003)
show that educational achievement improved during the integration successes of the 70s
and 80s but that desegregation efforts reached their peak in the 1980s because of eroding
Supreme Court support for affirmation action and the nibbling away of Brown. The slide
back into deepening resegregation (Orfield & Lee, 2005) was accompanied by a stalling
or even decline in the progress of educational outcomes, particularly for African
American students (Lee, 2004). Data from the National Center on Education Statistics
shows that this process remains in place today and that segregation is highest and
increasing for Latino/as and African Americans (Orfield, Kucsera & Siegel-Hawley,
2012).
Much of the literature on educational segregation recognizes the significant
relationship of these issues to underlying residential segregation (Kozol, 2005; Tatum,
2007; Orfield and Lee, 2005; Lipsitz, 1998; Anyon, 2006; Massey & Denton, 1993). At
the same time that educational desegregation enforcement efforts were ramping up in the
1960s, concerns about residential segregation were also underway. Federal policies of
the 1930s, including the Federal Housing Act, opened up home loan access for white
communities, and overtly “redlined” communities of color for exclusion from home
ownership. These de jure and explicit exclusionary policies based on “race” cemented
the notion of separateness (Lipsitz, 1998; Oliver & Shapiro, 2006). After World War II,
30
whites began to move out of cities and into suburbs to take advantage of the lending
policies that at the same time excluded people and families of color through restrictive
covenants, lending, building, and real estate practices (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006; Grant,
2006). This “white flight” intensified after the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968
when whites began moving even further out after they could no longer overtly prevent
families of color from moving in. White flight cemented the notion of separateness and
left economically abandoned communities in its wake (Massey & Denton, 1993).
Although de jure residential segregation was no longer legal after the Fair
Housing Act, de facto segregation has continued through white flight and, as well,
through informal redlining by real estate agents and lack of enforcement of the Fair
Housing Act (Massey & Denton, 1993). For example, Kozol (2005) points out that
although Section Eight housing subsidies were meant to support low-income families,
“minority families who receive section eight certificates are almost always induced by
housing agencies to look for housing in the segregated neighborhood in which they live”
(p.223). Massey and Denton (1993) explore the consequences of passing a Fair Housing
Act that had had its enforcement mechanisms gutted before its passage: the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had little power to “identify and
root out discrimination” (p.196) and had no actual way to prohibit or penalize or force
compliance with the law. The attorney general could not act unless a “pattern or practice
of discrimination” could be established or if a vague “issue of general public importance”
(p.196) was raised.
31
“Racial isolation and concentrated poverty go hand in hand” (Kozol, 2005, p.20)
and the exclusion of access to home ownership has had a lasting impact on African
Americans and Latina/os in particular in terms of wealth accumulation (Oliver &
Shapiro, 2006; Massey & Denton, 1993). While justifications for FHA loans included
the concern that property values would decline if segregation was not maintained, what
caused properties to decline in value was the flight of whites to the suburbs, not the influx
of families of color to the possibilities of homeownership in integrated neighborhoods
(Oliver & Shapiro, 2006). As whites left neighborhoods, they took their businesses, jobs,
capital, and property values with them (Lipsitz, 1998; Oliver & Shapiro, 2006). While
property values rose in the suburbs due to the demand for suburban housing, values
declined in the inner cities. This process is also not one of our recent past. Current
mortgage lending practices still discriminate against people of color. A Federal Reserve
study in 1991 showed that the poorest white applicant was still more likely to get a
mortgage loan approved than an African American person at the highest income level.
This process played out in the rise of subprime mortgages that targeted families of color
of all wealth backgrounds (Fleishman, 2005; Rugh & Massey, 2010). The decline in a
strong tax base, economic abandonment through white flight, and discriminatory lending
practices have all restricted the accumulation of wealth and, therefore, the opportunities
that the accumulation would bring. As the pattern of residential isolation persists today
with over 100 cities exhibiting moderate to high levels of segregation (Census, 2010), so
does the connection to wealth inequality persist, as well.
32
Wealth includes the net value of everything you own (your assets) minus what
you owe (your debt) (Collins & Yeskel, 2009; Oliver & Shapiro, 2010). Oliver and
Shapiro (2010) elaborate on this and describe wealth as “anything of economic value
bought, sold, stocked for future disposition, or invested to bring an economic return”
(p.168). The ability to access wealth, then, can offset the instability of income because it
can not only be passed on from one generation to the next, it can also provide a safety net
in times of economic hardship and/or job loss (Oliver & Shapiro, 2010; Johnson, 2006).
While the income gap has decreased (Collins & Yeskel, 2009), the wealth gap has
increased. In 2009, whites had 20 times the wealth of African Americans and 18 times
the wealth of Latino/as (Taylor, Kochhar, Fry, Velasco, & Motel, 2011). These
differences were 11 times and 7 times respectively in 2004, up from a low of 7 times each
in 1994 (Taylor, Kochhar, Fry, Velasco, & Motel, 2011). Federal and regional policies
and practices contribute to the economic abandonment of urban and urbanized
communities and “low levels of taxable resources in these urbanized segregated suburbs
leave services like education lacking in funds” (Anyon, 2006, p.19). While wealth
accumulation and segregation may not be the same, they are intimately intertwined and
jointly impact educational access and outcomes (Anyon, 2006).
Orfield and Lee (2005) and Anyon (2006) argue that ignoring the inequitable
foundation upon which educational policies sit will not only not produce the outcomes
typically desired (improving school performance), but may aggravate those differences.
A multitude of literature reports that African American and Latina/o students are
negatively affected by segregated schools (Goldsmith, 2009; La Free & Arum, 2006;
33
Diamond, 2006; Blanchett, 2005; Guryan, 2004). Much of this research suggests that
integration is beneficial and that the drive to facilitate “separate but equal” schools cannot
be successful overall (Orfield and Lee, 2005). There is limited academic recognition that
some academically successful schools with high concentrations of impoverished students
of color exist (Johnson & Asera, 1999), these schools are uncommon (Harris, 2006).
There is also a small amount of discussion on the possibility of socioeconomic status
having a greater effect on outcomes than that of “race” (Rumberger & Palardy, 2005).
However, the vast majority of segregated schools are not only physically separate, but are
profoundly unequal in almost every way especially in terms of resources, experienced
teachers, expectations, curricular depth and rigor, and facilities (Orfield, Frankenberg, &
Garces, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Johnson, 2006). This research is substantiated
by 553 social scientists in a statement submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District (2007) that summarizes a comprehensive body
of research on integration and racial isolation (Orfield, Frankenberg, Garces, 2008). This
detailed summary concludes that “racially isolated schools have harmful educational
implications for students” (p.102). These harmful implications include lower scores on
standardized tests, lower high school graduation rates, less college attendance, less access
to AP and “gifted” classes (Ladson-Billings, 2006), as well as lower teacher quality
(Darling-Hammond, 2004). These harmful implications can also be extended to the
community college context.
34
Segregation, wealth, and the community college context
Almost all of the literature on the impacts of segregation and wealth inequality on
education have concentrated on the K-12 system. Only recently are there considerations
for the impact that these structural inequality issues have on community colleges which
sit in the very same contexts has K-12 schools. Beach (2011) connects the fact that in the
1980s “…80% of all underrepresented students who entered postsecondary education in
the state did so through community colleges” (p.99) to California’s history of segregation
and racial exclusion. Goldrick-Rab & Kinsley (2013) report that there is “far less
attention…paid to whether school level integration by social class or race is achieved;
rather the common focus is on opportunity for participation” (p.110). Their research uses
2010 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data and the U.S. Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey to determine that “more than three-quarters of
the variation in racial composition among community colleges is directly attributable to
the racial composition of their surrounding geographic locales” (p.111). Goldrick-Rab &
Kinsley force us to consider the reality of their data, especially in light of research that
shows the benefits of integration in the K-12 context. If integration is preferable to
segregation, they challenge us “to confront the fact that most of the nations colleges and
universities are highly segregated” (p.110). The implied question here is why are we not
conducting assessments of integration in relation to community colleges or other higher
education opportunities?
While racial segregation is strongly linked to economic segregation (Massey &
Denton, 1993; Johnson, 2006), there are financial opportunities available to community
35
college students that can mitigate some of the economic issues. For example, in
California about 52% of full-time community college students can access Board of
Governor’s (BOG) fee waivers (Zumeta & Frankle, 2007) but fees make up only about
5% of attendance costs (Zumeta & Frankle, 2007). Goldrick-Rab & Kinsley (2013) find
that “about half of the nation’s community colleges are economically integrated” (p.114),
a better percent than the twenty-five percent mentioned above that they find are racially
integrated. But as Zumeta & Frankle (2007) suggest, fee-waivers and financial-aid do
not keep up with the continually rising costs of attendance, nor do they address the lost
opportunities and access to resources and cultural capital that impact many students
coming from racially and economically segregated K-12 schools.
What this body of literature suggests is that both leadership and the public should
be paying greater attention to these underlying structural issues if they truly expect to
address and transform educational outcomes. Leaders and policymakers in particular
cannot ignore these issues if they are sincere in advancing policies they expect to serve
their students. This dissertation extends the research/literature in this area by bringing
this discussion to community colleges that sit in the same structural contexts of
segregation and wealth inequality that our K-12 schools do. We do not yet know much
about the relationship between segregation and wealth inequality issues in relation to
community colleges, but because the funding and attendance patterns are connected to
the K-12 context, we can expect that there to be similar consequences.
36
The Social Contexts of “Achievement”
This section first provides a background and then explores the relationship
between the segregation literature and achievement gap research. The literature in
relation to the achievement gap tends to focus on either the internal environments and
process within schools or their external contexts. This section investigates those areas
but also examines fundamental issues that arise in focusing on the achievement gap
instead of the larger societal problems that create it. Following that discussion, this
section considers these issues in relation to community colleges.
“Achievement gap” background
There is some amount of overlap between the segregation literature and the
achievement gap research, so it remains surprising how much this connection is left out
of most educational policy discussions. Some of this literature focuses on the internal
processes within schools. Research on teachers’ perceptions of the achievement gap and
the connection to their own assumptions about students (Uhlenberg & Brown, 2002)
suggests the impact of internal factors on the achievement gap. Lee (2002) also argues
that much of the research has examined more local and micro level causes such as youth
culture and student behaviors, schooling conditions and practices, and individual family
conditions. Okoye-Johnson (2011) examined the flip side of that by advancing that
multicultural education improved students’ racial attitudes and suggested this as an
important factor in closing the achievement gap. Research also shows that diversity
within an institution (Nieto, 2000) – who is present – and both multicultural curriculum
and pedagogy (Banks, 2006; Okoye-Johnson, 2011) positively impact “achievement.”
37
The achievement gap literature that examines the external contexts of schools
argues that it is essential to consider social inequalities as part of any educational
policies. Rumberger and Willms (1992) investigating the impact of racial and ethnic
segregation on achievement in California schools, support the simultaneous policy of
desegregation and redistribution of resources to target the achievement gap. Bower
(2011) argues against focusing on what happens inside schools when issues relating to
the achievement gap begin and widen outside of school. This work suggests that altering
neighborhood environments (again, a consequence of residential segregation and de facto
institutional racism) is more effective, but it also suggests that social reform and school
reform are not exclusive of each other. English (2002) makes a similar argument about
the socioeconomic status (SES) of students impacting the achievement gap, and Rothstein
(2004) takes this even further to suggest that addressing the achievement gap requires not
only fundamental school reform but extensive transformation of social and labor policies.
Anyon (2006) agrees with this and urges fundamental deliberation and action on “the
external social structures and public policy decisions that plague urban schools and
systems and render them impotent to fundamentally improve the education – and life
chances – of the vast majority of their students” (p.21).
Challenging the “achievement gap”
The achievement gap discussion comes to an important point in the works of
Ladson-Billings (2006) and Cross (2007). These authors argue that the focus on the
achievement gap as the problem in education masks the realities of inequitable education.
Cross maintains that our apartheid education is not a deficiency in performance as much
38
as a gap in opportunity and quality of service combined with assumptions about the
innate capabilities of poor, urban students of color. My initial ideas about this
dissertation proposal came from contemplating Cross’ article and how it related to my
interest in the impact of residential segregation on educational inequities. The title of
this dissertation references the need to rethink this idea, to consider the larger equity gaps
that have such a strong bearing on “achievement.” Ladson-Billings (2006) has a parallel
argument to Cross’ when she discusses our “educational debt” as more significant to be
paying attention to that the achievement gap. She claims that this misplaced attention
directs us to short-term solutions that cannot address the larger, underlying societal
problems. Her discussion of a horrific history, economic abandonment, and social and
political exclusion reveals overwhelming equity gaps that are little part of current
educational policy discussion.
The “achievement gap” and the community college context
Little academic discussion about achievement has been directed toward
community colleges. Two sets of researchers from the UCLA Civil Rights Project
(Gandara, Alvarado, Driscoll & Orfield, 2012 and Martinez-Wenzl & Marquez, 2012)
lead the effort to bring questions about the achievement gap into the community college
context, and largely focus on access, transfer, and affordability, while still recognizing
the structural inequalities impacting many students attending community colleges.
Moore and Shulock (2010) also look at achievement in terms of completion and transfer
but tend to couch arguments for exploring these issues in terms of economic need (as
opposed to economic marginalization causes) and follow the “deficiency” emphasis on
39
students failing rather than educational structures failing students. Beach (2011) adds
that because attending community college in California has been so affordable, it has
been “easy to blame students for their lack of ability or motivation rather than targeting
the social environment for structuring the failure of nonwhite students” (p.94) and that
the “achievement gaps” that exist do so in this historical context of racial and economic
discrimination. None of these sets of research on the achievement gap and community
colleges come from peer-reviewed work, but they are nearly the only research looking at
these issues. Santamaría (2012) offers one of the earliest looks at the achievement gap in
community colleges in relation to leadership practices. While Moore and Shulock take a
“deficiency” perspective, Santamaría directly connects equity issues with what she calls
“critical leadership practice” – choosing to work for change on a societal level - and
suggests that in order to address the achievement gap that leaders must do so in concert
with the educators, stakeholders, and especially the community members they serve.
My dissertation challenges the notion of the “achievement gap” and takes
seriously the charge by Ladson-Billings (2006) in particular, to examine other gaps and
debts that must be addressed and paid down in order to impact educational outcomes. It
also extends the work that is bringing these questions into the community college setting
by looking at how wealth inequality and segregation issues may also be impacting those
students and what other gaps may exist that must be addressed by educational leaders.
Social Justice and Education
The literature on social justice in education incorporates both the structural
inequalities discussion as well as the achievement gap literature, but also looks broadly at
40
the ways social justice can be defined and how it is incorporated into educational policy
and practices. Much of this literature necessarily incorporates practical applications for
social change. This literature demonstrates that the concept of social justice, while broad,
is essential to envelope the complex nature of relationships, communities, and institutions
that make up our education system. Most importantly, this set of literature points to the
essential need for both vision and practical steps in accomplishing educational change.
While the literature does not always connect structural inequalities to the practical steps
for change, my dissertation will begin to fill in that gap and further strengthen the
application of social justice to education, especially in relation to community colleges.
The last part of this section will consider how the literature has connected social justice
issues to community colleges.
Social justice in education background
The concept of “social justice” in education has its roots in both discussions of
justice and in diversity and multicultural education work. Some researchers focus on the
justice aspect and look at three dimensions of justice: distributive, recognitional, and
associational. Distributive is the conventional conception of justice which includes
concerns about how social institutions “distribute fundamental rights and duties” (Rawls,
1972, p.7) and is present when economic exploitation and marginalization are not (Fraser,
1997; Young, 1990). Distributive justice can also include cultural and social capital – the
benefits gained through access to things like education, information, and networks of
support and influence (Bourdieu, 1986). Recognitional justice is the “absence of cultural
domination, non-recognition and disrespect” (Gewirtz, 2006, p.74; Fraser, 1997; Young,
41
1990). The associational form of justice is present when people and groups ensure that
all people are able to participate “fully in decisions which affect the conditions within
which they live” (Power and Gewirtz, 2001, p.41). Some researchers that focus more on
the justice aspect have concerns that the over emphasis on the distributive aspect leads
policymakers to conclude that justice has been reached when there is equal access (e.g.,
to the curriculum) without any critical questioning of the curriculum itself (Boyles,
Carusi, & Attick, 2009). All of these dimensions of justice are essential to understanding
the overall picture of social justice in education because they underlie almost all of the
educational issues that the social justice in education researchers expose.
The social justice and education literature also has its origins in diversity and
multicultural education research and these works have also in turn significantly
influenced the definitions of social justice. The diversity and multicultural research
initially explored linguistic diversity in the classroom (Abrahams, 1972) or looked at
diversity in terms of who was present or absent (Birnbaum, 1983). Much of the work
after has been directed at challenging the contexts in which learning takes place and has
been primarily directed toward pedagogy and curriculum including developing culturally
responsive teaching strategies and curricular materials (Banks, 1973, 1975, 1988; Sleeter,
1988; Ladson-Billings, 1992). While these researchers have primarily looked at the K-12
arena, St.Clair and Groccia (2009), McArthur (2010), and Skubikowski (2009) have
looked at social justice in relation to pedagogy and curricular issues in higher education
with an emphasis on 4-year institutions. Anti-oppressive literature connects to this as
well by examining “harmful structures and ideologies” by desiring change and
42
challenging the repetition of marginalizing history and discourse (Kumashiro, 2000,
p.42). Gurin, Hurtado, Gurin (2002) explored diversity programs in postsecondary
education and Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen (1999) extended the higher education
multicultural and diversity work to include examining campus climate. Pharr (2010)
adds to all of this the need to recognize the relationship of power dynamics and
difference in diversity work. She warns against “creating [an] illusion of participation”
(p.596) when there are still differences in power at play.
Connecting social justice to power shows how the definition of social justice in
education has grown over time to incorporate the underlying structures of inequality.
Bourdieu and Passeron (2000) direct our attention to the ways that “institutional
educational systems” (p.54) can reproduce systems that maintain power relationships as
they are. Bell (2007) expresses this definition of social justice as recognizing the need
for equitable distribution of resources, as well as physical and psychological safety in
pursuit of “full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to
meet their needs” (p. 1). Expanding this to the physical institutions that serve students, a
social justice oriented institution is one, then, that is inclusive and focuses on
“community, participation, [and] comprehension” (Alvarez, 2009) – necessarily requiring
a broad and systemic look at the contexts in which these educational structures sit. Anyon
(2006) pulls all of that together and suggests the need for social justice researchers and
educational leaders to look at “opportunity structures and policies existing outside of
schools” (p.21) to understanding the full range of social justice issues impacting students
and their communities.
43
Social Justice education and the community college context
There is very little literature that directly connects community colleges to the
discussion on social justice and education (Prentice, 2007). There is some literature that
explores a more general critical equity agenda to address achievement gap issues in
community colleges (Santamaría, 2012), but the remaining direct literature looks at social
justice and community colleges in terms of service learning (Prentice, 2007) and
institutional decision-making (Aragon & Brantmeier, 2009). Prentice (2007) reveals that
service-learning opportunities in community colleges pay a role in developing “justiceoriented” (p.266) students who are more likely to confront inequity in their own
communities. Aragon and Brantmeier (2009) suggest that community colleges have great
potential in advancing social justice by providing “access, opportunity, and inclusion”
(p.39) but recognize the difficulties that community colleges face in terms of constraints
such as funding cuts and unequal K-12 educational experiences.
This dissertation significantly adds to the social justice and education literature by
expanding our understanding of these issues in relation to community colleges. My
research questions and the answers I discover provide a better grasp of what kind of
social justice issues are impacting community colleges and how. Although I
predominately explore segregation and wealth inequality issues in relation to community
colleges, this opens up a wider door to take a broader look at the many underlying
structural, policy, and opportunity issues that community college students and their
communities are facing. This work also lays an important foundation for community
44
college leaders in all levels and constituent groups in a college to gain new competencies
and direct their teaching and policies toward socially just outcomes.
Social Justice Leadership
This literature area adds to the practical application and social change aspects of
social justice in education as it explores leadership practices and strategies. While
Critical Race Theory (CRT) generally supports privileging the voices of the marginalized
(Taylor, 2009; Yosso, 2005), Anyon (2006) suggests a continued need to study the
powerful “to understand how those with power to make the decisions think, act, and
organize themselves” (p.22) as a way to challenge policies and practices that do not
support socially just outcomes. This section surveys the literature on leadership
particularly in relation to social justice transformation by exploring the concepts of
transformational, transformative, and servant-leadership. The section then turns to
examine the concept of critical leadership and the need for the support of social justice
oriented practices in community colleges.
Social justice leadership background
The possibility of using leadership to transform institutions and challenge the
status quo is introduced in the concept of transformational leadership (Burns, 1978).
Transformational leadership includes the notion of encouraging more than just the
compliance of followers, pushing them beyond themselves, raising their awareness, and
going beyond the call of duty (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Santamaría & Nevarez, 2010).
Bass (1985) brought this idea into management and recognized the need for leaders to
have a strong, confident vision. Nevarez and Wood (2010) connect transformational
45
leadership practices to the education system and indicate that leaders can greatly impact
community colleges by identifying barriers and underlying problems, understanding
issues through dialogue and contextual analysis, designing institutional policies and
practices to address the issues, implementing the appropriate programs, assessing
effectiveness, and revising practices and policies based on assessments (p.92). Shields
(2004) pushes the idea of transformational leadership toward “transformative” leadership
to acknowledge that “needed changes go well beyond institutional and organizational
arrangements” (p.113). An underlying assumption of all of this literature is that change
must be participatory and collaborative (St. Clair & Groccia, 2009).
While transformational and transformative leaders use their vision to empower
and metamorphose the personal values of those around them in support of the mission of
an organization, Greenleaf (1991), Spears (1996), and Ferch (2003) argue that “servantleadership” is required to actually transform inequitable systems and to engender socially
just outcomes by becoming allies with the least powerful and making sure that their
voices are heard and their needs are served. The servant-leadership literature assumes that
the interests and needs of communities being served come before the needs of leaders
(Santamaría & Santamaría, 2012). This is similar to the way that Freire (1974) describes
change that “must be forged with, not for, the oppressed” (p.33). Wheatley (2006), as
well, explains the need for “co-creating an environment” (p.46). The servant-leadership
literature is strong in suggesting its application to both private and public organizations
by encouraging us to rethink and invert the hierarchical pyramid of leadership. However,
it is not as explicit in discussing its relationship to social justice related issues,
46
particularly those connected to structural inequalities. Nevertheless, there most certainly
are social justice issues implicated in servant-leadership literature because the concepts of
justice, empathy, vision, and community are all fundamental parts of the discussion
initiated by Greenleaf (1991) and continued by many others.
Social Justice leadership requires vision and action and an understanding that
leadership must be participatory and collaborative (Kezar, 2008; St. Clair & Groccia,
2009). All must be present to further the processes of service and justice. Santamaría
(2012) calls this kind of social justice leadership “transformative critical leadership”
(p.5). They argue that applied critical leadership is an intersection of transformational
leadership, critical pedagogy, and critical race theory which all merge in this kind of
leadership practice to “deliberately [attempt] to see situations through the eyes of others
with alternative points of view” (p.10). This allows for leaders to be flexible and actively
choose to work for change in relation to the particular contexts in which they exist as
opposed to having to change only in response to pressure, unable to offer their own vision
to be followed.
While social justice leadership requires vision, collaboration, and critical
assessment of structural inequality, researchers also argue that social justice leadership
requires self-reflection (Skubikowski, 2009). For example, self-reflection includes
leaders’ examination of their own racial identity (Ellis, 2004; Hays, Chang & Havice,
2008; Han, West-Olatuni, & Thomas, 2010) to understand their relationship to cultural
competence, privilege and power. The concept of applied critical leadership as discussed
by Santamaría & Santamaría (2011) connects nicely here, suggesting that a serious
47
examination of power and privilege not only in the structures that intersect with
educational institutions but also in relation to leaders’ own positions and identities can
transform leaders of any background into leaders who choose to most effectively serve
their communities and work for change.
Social justice leadership and the community college context
Similar to the dearth of research connecting social justice issues to community
colleges, there is a lack of literature on community college leadership and social justice
practices. Santamaría (2012) calls for critical leadership practices in community colleges
to address issues of achievement and suggests that institution-wide “courageous
conversations” (p.17) on equity issues are necessary to begin to understand the
relationship between them and success in community colleges. Santamaría (2012) also
invites leaders to recognize that equity and success are strongly tied to institutional
inequalities, thus requiring them to actively confront these inequalities. Aragon and
Brantmeier (2009) suggest a similar encouragement of community college leaders to
support equity agendas and to be guided by “diversity-affirming ethics” (p.49). My
dissertation, then, begins to fill some of this gap by looking more specifically at socialjustice, servant-leadership, and applied critical leadership in relation to structural
inequalities in community college communities. This is particularly informative in the
servant-leadership arenas of foresight, stewardship, and community building as social
justice leaders who truly wish to serve must be able to think long-term, grasp both history
and the now to realize where we are going, while nurturing the many aspects of
community to the benefit of all. This research also builds on and expand on the applied
48
critical leadership concept by looking directly at social justice knowledge of community
college leaders and drawing out what necessary competencies are required to address the
structural inequalities that are impacting the students and communities they serve. Figure
2 visually represents the areas of emphasis exhibited by the previous strands of research
and considers these in relation to “Educational Debt” as presented by Ladson-Billings
(2006). I revisit this model again at the end of this chapter to consider what the Critical
Race and Critical Systems theories suggest would be the most meaningful places of
intervention for community college leaders to consider in developing policies and
practices and advocating for their students. Figure 3 shows how the research in
49
Figure 3
the debt model lines up in relation to the K-12, Four-year Higher Education, and
Community College arenas. This figure shows that the bulk of the research addressing
any aspect of the Critical Debt Model has almost entirely been in terms of K-12 schools.
Theoretical Frameworks
The next section explores the theoretical underpinnings of this dissertation. I
utilize both Critical Race and Critical Systems Theories to provide a framework that can
fully interrogate the systemic inequality issues of segregation and wealth inequality in
relation to community colleges, challenge the emphasis on the achievement gap and
connect necessary leadership policies and practices to forging socially just contexts and
outcomes for community college students. This section looks first at Critical Race
Theory and then present a brief, general exploration of Systems Theory before focusing
more specifically on Critical Systems Theory.
50
Critical Race Theory
The framework for understanding the issue of social justice in relation to
community colleges is built around Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT in education, as
suggested by Solorzano (1997), is committed to social justice and provides a framework
for understanding that racism is a fundamental part of the fabric of our society, woven
into its processes and culture, making it part of the norm (Ladson-Billings, 2009). CRT
identifies a number of tenets that are essential to incorporate into educational equity
issues and leadership including recognizing the essential significance of race and racism
but also acknowledging the overlapping layers of gender, class, immigration status,
sexuality, etc. (Solorzano, 1997; Yosso, 2005). CRT provides a strong basis for
exploring white privilege and power connected with community college leadership and
also challenges the “deficit” oriented research that is infused in much of the achievement
gap discussion. CRT also helps make racial identity development theory and privilege
awareness relevant to practice by connecting the micro journey of identity development
back to the institutional context. As a social justice tool, CRT is important for
“deconstruction of oppressive structures and discourses, reconstruction of human agency,
and construction of equitable and socially just relations of power” (Ladson-Billings,
2009, p.19). All of this works toward the “liberatory” potential for education to
“emancipate and empower” (Yosso, 2005, p.75) and against its traditional use to oppress
(Freire, 1974).
While CRT typically centralizes historically silenced or marginalized voices,
particularly from people of color, and uses narrative and storytelling to bring those out,
51
Anyon (2006) also acknowledges that CRT can be used to examine those in power and to
challenge the dominant ideology (Yosso, 2005). There are certainly community college
presidents and chancellors of color and those who come from a variety of wealth
backgrounds and it is important in this dissertation research to see how these
backgrounds and the experiences connected with those identities inform their
understanding of social justice and the policies and practices they support. While
studying those in power in order to understand how and where to intervene is one
possible result, another result is that it may provide social justice oriented community
college leaders additional possibilities for connecting and collaborating (Anyon, 2006)
with the communities they serve.
The concept of privilege runs through much of the CRT work. In her classic,
anti-racist work on White Privilege, Peggy McIntosh defines privilege as, “an invisible
package of unearned assets, which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I
was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (2007, p.102). As she worked to list ways her
whiteness benefited her she included “I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the
‘person in charge,’ I will be facing a person of my race” on her list. It will be important
to explore how this point plays out in this dissertation research. Leonardo (2004) argues
that in the midst of the “hidden curriculum of whiteness” (p.144) saturating everyday
school life, “whites enjoy privileges largely because they have created a system of
domination under which they can thrive as a group” (p.148). He suggests, however, that
the examination must extend further to grapple with the reality of white supremacy. It is
white supremacy, he argues, that makes white privilege possible. This connects to
52
Freire’s (1974) idea of the oppressor, or the privileged, as the makers of the narrative, the
subject and controller of the story. In terms of education, Freire maintains that “[w]ell
intentioned professionals…eventually discover that certain of their educational failures
must be ascribed not to the intrinsic inferiority of the ‘simple men of the people,’ but to
the violence of their own act of invasion” (p.154). How privilege and representation
unfold in this dissertation research and how leaders perceive their own power and
privilege is another important contribution to the literature.
This discussion of privilege also suggests that as a white person with racial and to
some extent economic privilege, CRT is also essential for positioning myself as a
researcher (Taylor, 2009; Watson & Watson, 2011) and recognizing that a neutral
perspective cannot exist (Bell, 2009). Although I am exploring segregation and wealth
inequality issues from a position of relative power, Santamaría (2012) acknowledges that
anyone can align themselves with CRT and work towards liberatory social justice action.
While it is my intention that this research benefits the communities that are served by
community colleges, the reality of my privilege will require me to be mindful of Freire’s
(1974) admonition to work with and not for others. Liberation and social justice come in
collaboration with others and it is vital to see how these issues appear in relation to the
leadership practices I uncover in this research.
Critical Systems Theory
Critical Race Theory provides an essential framework for understanding the
structural inequality issues and how they connect to power and privilege. The addition of
Critical Systems Theory (CST) connects these broad patterns of power and privilege to
53
the specific contexts in which they sit in order to see more clearly, in this case, how
educational outcomes are linked to these structures of inequality. These two theories
together not only provide a significant map of the relationship between social justice
issues and educational outcomes, but also reveal the gaps in leadership policies and
practices which necessitate intervention.
Capra (1996) and Wheatley (2006) consider systems in a more critical way by
recognizing that social change cannot happen by only looking at one part (e.g.,
achievement metrics) without understanding the connection to the whole. While not
expressly part of the critical lineage of CST, Wheatley (2006) suggests the importance of
a flexible vision that can move back and forth between the specific instance and the large
picture as necessary to understand what leadership practices are required to co-create
environments that are inclusive and overtly incorporate the webs of relations that are
parts of systems. This view takes on a postmodern view, that meaning and behavior is
ephemeral and that we must be consistently vigilant in looking at the surrounding
contexts in order to make the most effective and service-oriented decisions. If we are
looking too closely at problematic transfer or persistence rates, we are missing the larger
picture and the opportunity to address the structural inequality issues that are causing
them. As Wheatley says, “studying problems in detailed isolation doesn’t yield the
promised improvements and changes” (p.142) as we must also pay attention to the system
in which these problems exist.
Critical Systems Theory (Flood, 1990; Jackson, 1994; Watson & Watson, 2012)
overtly challenges Systems Theory to consider the structural inequality contexts in which
54
particular behaviors and practices sit. Jackson (2001) stresses that issues of power and
oppression are essential elements to consider in looking at systems. This makes CST a
good fit with CRT in that it also seeks social justice outcomes and empowerment by
“transform[ing] society’s systems and their policies and processes that replicate
oppression and injustice” (Watson & Watson, 2012, p.66). CST looks to examine
underlying assumptions of decision makers (Ulrich, 1983); seek full participation and
emancipation (Flood, 1990; Jackson, 1985), and produce action oriented research to push
for social change (Flood, 1998). CST, therefore, may offer the most practical framework
for directing leaders to the unexamined structural inequalities and hidden judgments that
deny so many communities of color socially just access and opportunity in a system not
designed to meet their educational needs.
In considering these two theoretical models together, they both add structure and
important points to consider in relation to education, as well as complementing each other
and offering practical considerations for educational leaders. Figure 4 synthesizes these
models and the kind of leadership practice they suggest:
55
Figure 4
Both of these theories recognize structure as an essential component of understanding
social justice issues. They also both see examining underlying assumptions to be
critically important. In this case, deconstructing the way achievement and the
“achievement gap” is used (Cross, 2007) is part of that as is uncovering the assumptions
of those in power (Watson & Watson, 2012) to see both how our policies and practices
are directed away from structural causes to ignore the social justice issues but also how
those in power in community colleges construct meanings about themselves, their
practices, and others in the system. Additionally, these theories also offer practical
considerations for recognition of the role of identity and self-reflection as a part of
leadership practice and, as well, pointing to specific locations of injustice that occur
56
within and around the education system to which leaders may direct their policies and
practices to be or become more effective allies for students and communities.
Conclusion
The gaps in the literature generally point to the limited amount of discussion on
social justice issues in relation to community colleges. Most of the research in the
broader area of social justice and education has focused on either K-12 or 4 year higher
education contexts and has largely looked at pedagogy and curriculum. K-12 has also
been the focus of the small amount of research on segregation and wealth inequality as
has the bulk of the work on the “achievement gap.” The achievement “gap” literature
also begs for someone to examine the other “gaps” that underlie the data being used to
promote achievement as our sole focus of policy and concern. How might gaps in
wealth, residence, service, expectations, opportunities, and leadership impact student
outcomes? While there is a growing body of work on leadership in community colleges,
very little of this has thus far incorporated social justice issues, especially in relation to
the communities being served.
My dissertation extends these sets of literatures by bringing in the community
college aspect and expanding on how segregation and wealth inequality impact these
institutions, questioning the emphasis on the achievement gap as the essential gap in
education to explore, and tying together structural inequality issues with social justice
and leadership in community colleges.
These sets of literatures beg for action and
change, but also encourage us to develop alternative leadership policies and practices that
most fully support and empower students. Consider Figure 2, again. How might Critical
57
Race and Critical Systems Theories inform leadership frameworks and where might they
suggest the most effective and significant leadership actions occur? This is updated in
Figure 5 and hypothesizes what kinds of leadership interventions might be suggested by
my dissertation research.
Figure 5
 Community collaborations
 Diversity Advisory Boards
 Curricular and Pedagogical
shifts
 Critical Conversations
 Advocating with local
communities for alternative
housing and economic
policies
 K-12 Collaborations
58
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Chapter 3 lays out the methodological direction for this dissertation research and
explains the research design, research questions, the population and setting, as well as
how data was collected and analyzed. This chapter also explains the process for
protecting participants in this study. As the purpose of this research is to explore
community college leaders’ understanding of social justice issues and how their
understanding relates to their leadership practices both on their campuses and in the
communities they serve, this is a theoretically driven and action oriented dissertation.
Critical Race and Critical Systems theories then play a significant role in this
dissertation’s look at social justice issues in relation to community college leadership
which means that a sequential transformative strategy for data collection and analysis
(Creswell, 2009) best serves this project. Overall, the process of data collection went
smoothly and both the quantitative and qualitative portions accumulated more than
sufficient data for analysis
Research Design
This dissertation uses a sequential transformative (Creswell, 2009) mixedmethods research design. The transformative aspect of this method points to the reality
that this research is driven by intent to challenge the status quo and that each stage is
guided in this through Critical Race and Critical Systems Theoretical lenses. This is the
crucial element which distinguishes a transformative method from an explanatory one.
59
Creswell (2009) states that the theory guiding the research in a sequential transformative
method “is more important in guiding the study than the use of methods alone” (p.212)
and this is true in this dissertation. The method becomes the tool to support the social
justice work that is being explored, while the theory is the primary driving force.
The sequential aspect of this method includes two stages of data collection and in
this case the quantitative data was gathered first in the form of a survey to community
college presidents, superintendents, and chancellors. The interviews slightly overlapped
the end of the survey window time but most of the interviews with individual presidents
and chancellors were recorded after the bulk of the survey data was collected. A
sequential transformative method suggests that either the quantitative or the qualitative
segment of the data collection may be collected and analyzed first (Creswell, 2009) and
this is true in this case. I could have collected the interview data first and then allow that
to shape the survey instrument, however, for timing and convenience I used the
quantitative segment as the starting point for the research. Beginning with the survey
allowed me to discover what general trends exist in the social justice backgrounds and
leadership practices of presidents. As this data came in I was then able to explore aspects
of these trends more deeply through in-depth interviews, both increasing the validity of
the study and gaining a much richer, deeper understanding of the social justice issues
present. Because timing the interviews was not always controllable, some of the
interviews did begin before all of the survey data had been collected. However, most of
the results provided enough guidance for the interviews and suggested directions for
further questions.
60
Role of the Researcher
I am a full-time faculty member in the California Community College system.
Although I work within the system in which I solicited survey responses and interviews, I
have no authority or power in terms of my position over any of the presidents or
chancellor participants. My role in this research has included creating and testing the
survey before administering it electronically. I also conducted each interview myself and
transcribed most of them. A professional, confidential transcriber transcribed four of the
interviews. After draft transcriptions were complete, I sent each participant the
transcription of their interview to ask for feedback and corrections. Participants were
asked to consider if the transcript conveyed their intent and if there was anything they
wanted to adjust to their understanding. This not only allows for the presidents’ intended
voices to be heard in the research, but also increases the reliability of the qualitative
portion of the study by checking in with them to be sure that they said what they meant to
say.
Research Questions
This research includes three main questions:
1. To what extent are community college leaders knowledgeable of wealth
inequality and segregation issues in their feeder communities?
1a. How does this knowledge relate to social justice leadership
practices in their colleges?
61
2. How do community college leaders’ backgrounds in social justice education,
activism, and experience with discrimination relate to their social justice
leadership practices?
3. What strategies do community college leaders have for infusing social justice into
their practice and advocating for their students?
An underlying hypothesis of this research is that community college leaders who
have a better understanding of the wealth inequality and segregation issues impacting
their feeder community will have stronger beliefs in social justice and a greater likelihood
of supporting social justice and equity practices and policies on campus and in the
community. Engaging in these social justice practices also has implications for
addressing achievement as practices that make visible and challenge the different
opportunity structures and systemic interactions that impact communities and students
may be an essential part of advocating for student success. Finally, leaders who have
more knowledge about these issues may also have developed nuanced and practical ways
to participate in action and change in their colleges and communities.
Setting, Population and Sample
There are 112 community colleges and 72 community college districts in
California. I drew my survey sample from the population of the combined presidents and
chancellors. This amounted to approximately 130 Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). The
number does not reflect the full count of CEOs because of some short terms interim
positions and transitions between leaders. Also, not all CEOs had accessible emails
publicly available. I received 40 incomplete responses (with some items missing) and 35
62
complete survey responses. The interviews were selected partly from willingness as
indicated on the survey and partly out of convenience. However, I worked to have an
interview sample that included both urban, rural, and suburban community colleges and
that included a diverse set of participants based on racial status, gender, age, and other
demographically relevant categories. Interviews included CEOs from 5 Urban
community colleges or districts, 2 suburban community colleges or districts, and 3 rural
community colleges or districts.
I interviewed 7 males and 3 females. Of the 15 survey
responses that identified themselves as female (39.5%), none agreed to a further
interview. I called and emailed 5 women to request interviews that resulted in the 3
previous mentioned. This is something that will be considered in the limitations section
of Chapter 5 and, as well, in the discussion of future research.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Because I engaged in a sequential data collection method, I collected data in two
phases which included an initial quantitative survey followed by the qualitative in-depth
interviews. The quantitative data collection also included accessing U.S. Census data at
the zip code, city, county, and metropolitan statistical levels to determine rates of
segregation and wealth and income distribution for the geographic areas served by the
respondents’ community colleges.
Quantitative
The quantitative data in this mixed-methods dissertation was collected through an
online confidential survey (Appendix A). No survey questions that had been previously
tested and validated were found to exist for these questions about social justice.
63
Therefore, the survey instrument was developed and tested to address each variable to
support construct validity. These tests included offering the survey to either lower level
administrators or other CEOs not participating in the survey. Feedback from these tests,
including needed definitions of terms and shifts in language, were incorporated into the
survey instrument. Demographic and geographic descriptive statistic information such as
racial identity, gender, age, year of highest degree, zip code, etc. were also gathered
through the survey instrument to fill out the picture of these relationships. Data that
identified income inequality and segregation in particular geographic regions was
collected from existing data sources, including the U.S. Census 2010 factfinder website
(http://factfinder2.census.gov). Although the intention had been to collect wealth
inequality data, no data was located that could show disparity in wealth within particular
geographic locations in the way that the Gini Index shows income inequality. The Gini
index is a commonly used measurement of income inequality and can represent the
income distribution of a particular geographic space (Luebker, 2010). This index became
the representative of economic inequality for comparison purposes to the CEOs
perceptions of economic inequality in the communities they serve.
The survey primarily asks questions that relate to four independent variables and
one dependent variable. The independent variables include: social justice related
education, social justice activism, personal experiences with discrimination and
inequality, and accurate awareness of wealth inequality and segregation issues impacting
feeder communities. Each of these variables are measured through a series of three or
more Likert scale questions (each containing five levels) that have been averaged to
64
create the variable measurement. The education variable is measured through questions
relating to coursework and research undertaken. The activism variable is measured
through questions relating to participation in social justice organizations and social
movements. The personal experiences variable is measured through questions relating to
experiences with various forms of discrimination. The wealth inequality and segregation
variable are derived from a combination of leaders’ perceptions of these inequalities and
the actual data from the local communities to create a representative score for accuracy of
awareness.
The segregation data is derived from Census data and accessed through two
online databases: The U.S. 2010 American Communities Project data base hosted by
Brown University and the Diversitydata.org database hosted by Harvard University.
Both of these databases use the Index of Dissimilarity which is commonly used to assess
segregation by determining the degree to which various racial and ethnic groups are
evenly spread among neighborhoods or other geographic locations (Massey and Denton,
1993). Residential segregation data was accessed through the U.S. 2010 American
Communities Project database because it had the most current data. The
diversitydata.org database contained the dissimilarities indices for various primary school
districts and metropolitan statistical areas and was used to determine primary school
segregation. While all three of these indexes have limitations and when used by
themselves do not show the complexities of income inequality and segregation, they did
provide a straightforward way to quantify some of the conditions experienced by the
65
communities that some of the California community colleges serve and to provide a
foundation [or jumping off point] for exploring these issues further.
The dependent variable, social justice leadership practices, is similarly measured
through a series of Likert scale questions that were averaged to create the variable
measurement in addition to a total social justice practices variable calculated from
adding up the practices in which leaders engage. These questions address attitudes and
practices relating to diversity hiring, support for diversity committees, and beliefs about
diversity and social justice in general. The averaging of these questions to create the
variable make these variables continuous and, therefore, appropriate for multiple
regression statistical analysis.
Qualitative
The qualitative portion of this research slightly overlapped with the end of the
quantitative survey and explored more deeply some of the issues raised in the broad
overview presented by the quantitative data. The interview questions were formulated
around the same research questions with addition probes to elicit deeper responses
(Appendix B). The survey results also suggested the need for additional questions around
the amount of time that CEOs serve colleges and the effect on social justice leadership as
well as inquiry regarding boards of trustees. The survey also included 4 open-ended
questions similar to some of the interview prompts. These were included to both offer
additional opportunities for the survey respondents to expand on and clarify answers, but
also to triangulate the interview data and check for consistency and reliability.
66
The interview process included an initial protocol of 13 questions. However, after
the length of the first two interviews was taken into consideration, the protocol was pared
down to 10 questions with fewer probes. The question order was also reworked into a
more logical flow as suggested by those first two interviews. Interviews lasted between 1
and 1½ hours.
Reliability and Validity
Efforts taken to improve the reliability of the quantitative part of the research
include pre-testing the survey through other lower-level community college
administrators and a community college president/superintendent not taking the official
survey. While the pre-test was quite small, the experience and expertise of the
respondents did provide some useful feedback in developing a glossary of terms used in
the survey and in rewording some questions for clarity. Chronbach Alpha reliability
analyses were conducted through SPSS on the continuous variables created from
averaging various individual variables. All composite variables but one met reliability
requirements. The survey data is also triangulated with the in-depth interviews which
provide further validation for the study. The interviews themselves include member
checking for accuracy and intent and has been compared to the results of the survey to
see how they relate to one another.
Data Analysis
As data analysis has taken place through a sequential transformative process, the
survey data was gathered and some trends examined before the bulk of the qualitative
interviews were developed. The monitoring of the survey data as it came in allowed me
67
to consider if there were alternative questions or additional ones I might want to include
in the interviews. Based on the early quantitative observations, the only additions to the
interview protocol included questions about the relationship of time in position to social
justice leadership practices and how supportive Boards of Trustees were to social justice
issues.
Quantitative
The quantitative analysis includes Correlation and Multiple Regression in order to
see how the variables relate to one another and how the independent variables predict the
dependent variable. The survey data specific to each variable was averaged from the
Likert scale responses creating continuous, interval variables. This allows for the use of
correlation statistics also help show how strongly each of the variables are related to each
other; if the independent variables are too strongly related to each other this could impact
the accuracy of the regression predictions. The correlation process includes using the
Pearson Correlation coefficient (r) to determine the strength and direction of the
relationship (p ≤ .05).
Census data was collected through various online databases that link to both the
U.S. 2010 Census and the American Community Survey. The difficulty with analyzing
this data is partly that there is little way to replicate my method as revealing the sets of
numbers I used could very well point to specific communities. However, other
researchers could, indeed, also collect inequality data and compare it to perceptions of
inequality and might well find similar correlations. For each of the 3 sets of data, the
Index and two Indices of Dissimilarity, I set up a 5-point scale that would compare
68
appropriately to the Likert scale in which leaders selected their perceived understandings
of inequality issues. The 5-point scales were set up based on common use of the various
indices to indicate the highest levels of segregation or income inequality down to the
lowest levels of segregation and income inequality (Massey & Denton.
Qualitative
The qualitative portion of the data analysis involved an open-coding strategy to
look for emerging themes, although some themes were coded based on the transformative
aspect of the transformative sequential method. The transformative aspect points to the
theoretical underpinnings of the research and suggests the need to pay attention to, in this
case, themes such as power, privilege, oppression/empowerment, action/activism,
embedded structural inequalities, etc. Some of these expected coding themes come from
and connect to the independent variables in the survey and include codes relating to
personal experiences with discrimination, social justice activism, and social justice
education. Using the survey variables to help code the interview transcripts further
triangulates the data and provides more reliability.
After coding the transcripts, I extracted the codes from the transcripts and
consolidated the codes into themes. Analysis of these themes allowed me to begin to
examine the relationships and hierarchies that existed between the themes in order to
further consolidate the themes into a workable group. After this consolidation, I used
visual organizers to work with the themes and further develop the relationships and
connections between themes.
69
Protection of Participants
The online survey server, SurveyMonkey, included a required level of security
such that it ensured a secure transmission of information. Collection of survey data
included collective demographic and geographic information but was coded so as not to
be connected to individual respondents. For example, geographic survey responses (such
as zip codes or metropolitan statistical areas) were assigned anonymous codes to compare
with regional segregation and wealth inequality information, but were not linked to any
specific respondent or college by name. The online consent form was clear in how the
data would be collected and used and participants signed their understanding of this in
order to participate. Participants were allowed to exit the survey at any time and all are
at least 18 years of age. All participants in the interviews accepted participation on
voluntary basis and no coercive tactics were used. Email and phone calls were the
primary method of communication. Interviews were audio recorded, but no identifiable
information was transcribed or attributed to participants by name. Interviewees also
signed a consent form that clearly addressed the use of the data collected. Any references
to colleges from either the quantitative or qualitative portion are used in generally vague
terms such as “Urban Community College A.” All recordings will be destroyed within a
year of the completion of the study.
Because this population is relatively small and public, I take extra precautions
when discussing CEO interview responses. As will be noted in Chapter 4, I do not use
identity descriptors of any CEO in combination with each other that might make that
participant’s identity more easily discernable. For example, I rarely identify a CEO by
70
more than one locus of identity at a time, meaning if I find it helpful to note a CEOs
racial identity, I likely not identify gender or other characteristics that would make it
easier to narrow down who that participant might be. While I may use the gender
identity, for example, in another context to highlight a different issue or theme, I do not
connect it to even an anonymous “CEO #1” type descriptor so as the pieces of identity
cannot be put together across the study.
Conclusion
Chapter 3 discussed the choice of methodology and process for its
implementation. This research used a transformative sequential approach to consider both
quantitatively and qualitatively how understandings of social justice issues relate to
leadership practices and strategies. This mixed-methods approach allowed for both the
exploration of broader concepts relating to community college leadership and social
justice issues and, as well, a deeper understanding of how some CEOs define social
justice and leadership and employ particular strategies to support socially just outcomes
and to advocate on behalf of their students. Chapters 4 presents the findings of this
research and lays out the themes that emerge from the data.
71
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
Chapter 4 reports the findings of the quantitative survey results and the qualitative
interviews as well as the open-ended survey questions. The purpose of this research has
been to explore community college leaders’ understanding of social justice issues,
particularly in relation to wealth inequality and segregation, and how their own
backgrounds connect to their leadership practices relative to the colleges and
communities they serve. Survey questions were designed to capture demographic
information but also to examine knowledge of social justice issues, operationalized in this
case in terms of wealth inequality and segregation. Survey questions also looked at some
background variables such as education, trainings, and experiences with bias and
discrimination. Interview questions focused on similar information but also included
more specific discussions of social justice leadership strategies and practices.
This chapter first presents the quantitative data that relate to questions 1 and 2,
showing the relationships between knowledge of social justice issues and background to
social justice leadership and practices. While research questions 1 and 2 were initially
intended to elicit predictive data, an insufficient number of responses relegated the
analysis to correlational. Following the statistical and descriptive discussion, the chapter
examines the qualitative themes that emerged from the interviews and open-ended survey
questions and how they relate to all three research questions.
72
Quantitative Data
Variable creation
The survey instrument presented 18 questions, 11 with subsections, for a total of
55 variables (Appendix A). Composite variables were created around five main themes
and include Social Justice Education, Social Justice Activism, Personal Experiences with
Discrimination and Bias, Knowledge of Social Justice Issues Impacting Feeder
Communities, and Social Justice Leadership Practices.
To explore the theme of Knowledge of Social Justice Issues Impacting Feeder
Communities, survey questions 2 and 3 were used to examine perceived knowledge of
wealth inequality and segregation issues in feeder communities. The subsections were
averaged to create three continuous variables, total perception of wealth/income
inequality, total perception of residential segregation, and total perception of educational
segregation. These three were also combined to create an overall social-justice-oriented,
continuous variable relating to total perception of wealth inequality and segregation
impact on community and students.
To complete the understanding of the Knowledge of Social Justice Issues theme,
Gini Index data were gathered from the U.S. Census Website,
http://factfinder2.census.gov, based on the zip codes provided by respondents. The Gini
Index indicates the income inequality of a particular area where the coefficients range
from 0-1, 0 indicating that income is distributed evenly across the population and 1
indicating that one person has all the income in a population (Carl, 2012). Census data
uses tracts and other geographic locators, but translates this data when possible to be
73
searchable by zip code. Some of the Gini coefficients used were based on larger service
areas around the particular college or district because there was not data for specific zip
codes. Additionally, this dissertation is premised on the idea that measurements of wealth
are a better indicator of economic inequality in a community than income, in part because
it is distributed more unequally than income and it marks an accumulation of advantages
beyond income (Oliver & Shapiro, 2010; Johnson, 2006). Unfortunately, such an index
for wealth inequality within specific geographical locations is not easily accessible and,
therefore, the Gini Index measurement of income inequality was used as a substitute.
Census data were also collected from two additional academic sites
(http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Data.htm and http://diversitydata.
sph.harvard.edu/) providing residential and educational segregation indexes of
dissimilarity. This index describes the relationships between two racial identity
population groups, although these are averaged by location to create a composite
measurement. None of these data in and of themselves provide a complete picture of
inequality, so variables created from this data provide only a glimpse and entrance into
the understanding of inequality issues in the communities that community colleges serve.
Each actual inequality measurement was scaled based on common usage of the
measurement. For example, in the Index of Dissimilarity, commonly used as one of the
markers of segregation, a value of .60 or higher is considered “high segregation” (Massey
and Denton, 1993). For the Gini Index, the top value that corresponds to “high income
inequality” is .45 based on United Nations International Labour Office usage (Luebker
2010). I took those markers as my top code (5, in this case) and divided the rest of the
74
Indices so that they would correspond to the remaining 4, 3, 2, 1 coding scheme. The
accuracy variables were then calculated by subtracting these actual inequality variables
from the perceived inequality variables and then averaging those sets to create continuous
variables (accurate perception of educational segregation, accurate perception of
residential segregation, accurate perception of wealth/income inequality). Negative
values indicate underestimation and positive values indicate overestimation. Coding for
the accuracy variables worked by determining how closely accurate a perception was,
how far away from “correct,” not if it were over or underestimated. This is unfortunate,
because the overestimates were more likely to be closer to correctness and the
underestimates even further from correct. Because the Gini Index underestimates
inequality (Oliver and Shapiro, 2006), this means that the “accuracy” measurement
variables which are described here subsequently overestimate the actual accuracy of
respondent perceptions, meaning the variables will show that community college leaders’
perceptions are more accurate than they actually are. However, a set of cross-tabulations
were created based on the underestimated values to look for patterns. The subsample was
not statistically significant, possibly because it was a subset of an already small sample,
but it is nevertheless important to discuss because it points to specific examples of
inaccurate understandings of structural issues impacting students. See Table 4.5 in crosstabulation section below.
To explore the theme of Personal Experiences with Discrimination and Bias, the
subsections of questions 4 and 5 on the survey were averaged to create the continuous
variables personal experience with bias growing up and personal experience with bias
75
today. Both of those variables were also averaged to create an overall personal
experience with bias (today and growing up) variable. To address the Social Justice
Activism theme, the subsections to questions 6 and 12 were averaged to create the
variable Activism (undergraduate, graduate, and personal life). The Social Justice
Education theme was expressed through questions 7, 8, and 9, which asked questions
relating to the relationship of thesis or dissertation work on social justice, as well as
number of courses taken or trainings attended related to social justice issues. These
variables were averaged to create the total education variable.
Two sets of variables were created around the theme of Social Justice Leadership
Practices. The first set was derived from question 10 and the 7 subsections that asked
how important particular social justice leadership practices were. This variable became
total valuing of social justice leadership practices. The second part of this variable was
obtained from questions 11 and 14 and the subsections that asked leaders to check all
practices in which they engaged. Question 11 became its own two variables, involvement
with student groups addressing social justice related practices and advocacy at state
policy level for social justice issues and the subsections to question 14 were summed to
create a scaled number of practices, total social justice practices. While more practices
are not necessarily better, it is interesting to note which practices were most and least
selected. Table 14 shows these data.
Question 15 collected demographic information, including year awarded highest
degree, number of years in current position, age, racial identity, gender identity, and zip
codes of communities served and residence. The residential zip codes were not
76
ultimately included in this research. Questions 16-19 were open-ended and will be
discussed in the Qualitative Data section.
Reliability analysis
Reliability analyses were conducted for each of the set of variables used to
construct continuous variables. These constructed variables include: total valuing of
social justice leadership practices, total perception of wealth inequality and segregation
impacting community and students, activism, and the variables total perception of
educational segregation, total perception of residential segregation, and total perception
of wealth/income inequality used to create the accurate perception variables relating to
each of those social justice issues. All variables, except one set, used to construct the
continuous variables met reliability requirements with Chronbach Alpha coefficients of
.70 or larger (Morgan, Leech, Gloekner, and Barrett, 2013). The variables combined to
create total perception of wealth/income inequality measured α=.87. For the combination
for total valuing of social justice leadership practices, α=.76. Alpha measured α=.74 for
personal experience with bias (today and growing up) and α=.80 for the variables
comprising activism. The variables that were part of the construction of the accurate
perception of educational segregation, accurate perception of residential segregation,
and accurate perception of wealth/income inequality variables all measured above .80
(α=.88, α=.85, and α=.87 respectively). The total perception of wealth inequality and
segregation impacting community and students set of variables measured α=.94. This
overabundance of agreement between these last two variables could indicate that some
variables used to create the constructed variable are repetitious and, therefore, possibly
77
unnecessary (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barret, 2013). The variables used to create
the personal experience with bias growing up was the only set with less internal
reliability with a measurement of α=.55.
Sample population description
Population descriptives
This survey went out to approximately 130 current California community college
presidents, president/superintendents, and chancellors. Forty (40) respondents completed
most of the survey for an approximate 30.8% response rate. Thirty-nine and a half
(39.5%) of respondents identified as female and 60.5 as male, closely resembling the
actual distribution of gender across this population. Respondents were also asked to
share, in their own words, how they identified racially. I collated these identities into 5
overarching categories. Of the 38 respondents who offered this information, 4 identified
as African American (10.5%); 12 identified as Chicano, Latina/o, Hispanic, or Mexican
American (31.6%); 1 identified as Native American (2.6%); 19 identified as White or
Caucasian (50%); and 2 identified as American Indian/Caucasian or White/Mixed
(5.3%). No respondents identified as Asian-American or any related identity. These
categories and their percent responses are represented in Figure 6 below.
78
Figure 6.
Additional demographic information collected from the respondents includes Year
awarded highest degree (Table 1), Gender Identity (Table 2), Number of years in current
position (Table 3), and Age (Table 4). The standouts in these tables include that more
than half of the respondents have been in their current positions for 2 years or less,
although no correlations show a significant relationship with any of the other variables as
might be predicted with less time in a position. The other demographic to note is that
more than half of the sample is over the age of 60. This may additionally have no
particular meaning as this variable also does not significantly correlate with any of the
other tested variables.
79
Table 1.
Year awarded highest degree
Frequency
1970-79
9
1980-89
6
1990-99
9
2000-09
6
2010-present 2
no year
5
Total
37
Table 2.
Years in current position
Frequency
0-2 years
20
3-5 years
9
6-8 years
2
9-11 years
4
12 or more
2
Total
37
Percent
24.3
16.2
24.3
16.2
5.4
13.5
100.0
Percent
54.1
24.3
5.4
10.8
5.4
100.0
Table 3.
Gender identity
Female
Male
Total
Frequency
15
23
38
Percent
39.5
60.5
100.0
Table 4.
Age
40-49
50-59
60-69
Total
Frequency
2
11
24
37
Percent
5.4
29.7
64.8
100.0
80
Geographical distribution included 11 respondents from Northern California, 7
from Central California, and 17 from Southern California. See map below, Figure 7.
Figure 7. Geographical Distribution of CEO Respondents
11
7
17
Finally, I also originally requested in my Human Subjects application to include
in the demographic questions of the survey how respondents identified in terms of their
sexuality. The Institutional Review Board found this question too risky to ask and
because of the limited window for collecting data I did not challenge their response.
However, even though the question of how someone identifies in terms of sexuality does
not in this study have a specific bearing on questions of wealth inequality and segregation
issues, it would still have been important to bring other areas of identity in which a
respondent may experience discrimination to see how that may impact their
understanding of and activism around other social justice issues. This exploration should
be included in future research and will be addressed in Chapter 5.
81
Cross-tabulations
While cross-tabulations between the demographic variables and the research
variables did not show significant correlations there are still several relationships that
nevertheless provide a practical opportunity for analysis and some potential areas for
intervention (to discussed in Chapter 5). The opportunity for analysis comes in looking
at the relationship between racial identity and the accuracy set of variables. While,
again, this set cannot be generalized to the whole population and thus cannot describe the
overall trends in accuracy by racial identity, it can, nevertheless, describe that in this
sample there are several respondents who are significantly underestimating the wealth
inequality and segregation issues in the communities that they serve. The implications of
this will be discussed in Chapter 5, but the data will be shown here. Table 5 shows that
more than half of all respondents who identified as white or Caucasian underestimated
inequality issues in their communities. As mentioned previously these underestimations
are even less accurate because the comparison income data already underestimates the
wealth inequality in a community.
82
Table 5
Racial Identity with overestimation, underestimation or accurate perception of total
inequality
overestimation, underestimation or accurate perception
of total inequality (income inequality and segregation) *
Racial Identity (self-selected Highly moderately
moderately
Total
accurate
identity categories)
under
under
over
African American
0
1
(33.3%)
0
2
(66.7%)
3
(100%)
Chicano, Latina/o,
Hispanic, Mexican
American
0
3
(27.3%)
5
(45.5%)
3
(27.3%)
11
(100%)
Native American
0
0
1
(100%)
0
1
(100%)
White, Caucasian
2
(14.3%)
6
(42.9%)
3
(21.4%)
3
(21.4%)
14
(100%)
Mixed Identities: American
Indian/Caucasian,
White/Mixed
0
1
(50%)
1
(50%)
0
2
(50%)
Total
2
11
10
8
31
*no respondent “highly overestimated” total inequality
Because the “overestimation” may be more close to actual inequality, it bears
some weight to focus in more closely on the “underestimation” data. Looking more
specifically at this in terms of each area of inequality reveals similar patterns. Tables 6,
7, and 8 show the relationships between Racial Identity and underestimations of income
inequality, residential segregation, and educational segregation. Those whose
perceptions were most “accurate” are also included in these tables as it is possible, based
on the inability of the Gini Index to accurately represent the extent of wealth inequality,
83
that those perceptions are also an underestimation. Peering into this underestimation data
shows that those CEOs who identified as White or Caucasian in this sample population
had higher numbers of underestimations for each area of inequality as well as for over all
inequality. Table 8, showing Racial Identity and underestimation of Educational
Segregation reveals the largest number of underestimations, as well as the greatest
number of moderate to extreme underestimations.
Table 6
Racial Identity with underestimation of income inequality
underestimation of income inequality
Racial Identity (self-selected extremely strongly moderately mildly
accurate Total
identity categories)
under
under
under
under
African American
0
0
0
1
0
1
(4.2%)
Chicano, Latina/o,
Hispanic, Mexican
American
0
0
1
3
3
7
(29.2%)
0
0
0
0
1
1
(4.2%)
1
2
1
5
4
13
(54.2%)
0
0
0
1
1
2
(8.3%)
1
2
2
9
9
23
(100%)
Native American
White, Caucasian
Mixed Identities: American
Indian/Caucasian,
White/Mixed
Total
84
Table 7
Racial Identity with underestimation of residential segregation
underestimation of residential segregation
Racial Identity (selfselected identity
categories)
Extremely strongly Moderately Mildly
accurate
under
under
under
under
Total
African American
0
0
0
0
1
1
(5.9%)
Chicano, Latina/o,
Hispanic, Mexican
American
0
0
0
3
0
3
(17.6%)
Native American
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0.0%)
White, Caucasian
1
0
2
4
4
11
(64.7%)
0
0
1
0
1
2
(11.8%)
1
0
3
7
6
17
(100%)
Mixed Identities:
American
Indian/Caucasian,
White/Mixed
Total
85
Table 8
Racial Identity with underestimation of educational segregation
underestimation of educational segregation
Racial Identity (self-selected Extremely strongly Moderately Mildly
accurate Total
identity categories)
under
under
under
under
African American
0
0
0
2
0
2
(8.3%)
Chicano, Latina/o, Hispanic,
Mexican American
0
0
0
6
3
9
(37.5%)
Native American
0
0
0
1
0
1
(4.2%)
White, Caucasian
2
0
4
2
3
11
(45.8%)
0
1
0
0
0
1
(4.2%)
2
1
4
11
6
24
(100%)
Mixed Identities: American
Indian/Caucasian,
White/Mixed
Total
These last 3 Tables show that although we cannot determine that another sample
drawn from the CEO population would produce a similar outcome, meaning that an
alternative sample might not show these kinds of underestimations or in these
orientations to Racial Identity, it does show that some CEOs are significantly unaware of
the income, wealth, and segregation issues in their regions. This has practical implications
for what kinds of support and policies CEOs may encourage or engage in throughout their
service to their colleges and communities.
The next section reports the significant correlations produced from the survey
86
data in relation to each research question. The survey was designed to address questions
1 and 2 although some questions may also have implications for research question 3.
Each research question’s corresponding data includes tables which present the
correlations between the variables that are identified as significant. In these tables, r
represents the Pearson correlation coefficient which ranges from -1 to +1. The closer to 1 or +1 the stronger the relationship between the variables (although if too close to -1 or
+1, could mean the variables are essentially measuring the same thing). The strength of
the correlations is described as .10 = low, .30 = medium, and .50 = high (Morgan, Leech,
Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2012). The positive or negative show the direction of the
relationship. For example, if the relationship is positive, as one variable increases the
other variable will also increase. If the relationship is negative, the other variable will
decline. The p value indicates probability that the relationship shown is due to chance.
P-values of .05 or less are considered statistically significant.
Results for research questions 1-2
Research question 1: To what extent are community college leaders
knowledgeable about wealth inequality and segregation issues in their feeder
communities? (1a) How does this knowledge relate to social justice leadership
practices?
The following variables were used to address the question of how knowledgeable
community college leaders are and how this knowledge relates to their practices:
1. Accurate perception of Wealth/Income inequality
2. Accurate perception of residential segregation
87
3. Accurate Perception of K-12 Educational Segregation
4. Valuing Social Justice Leadership Practices
5. Total Social Justice Practices
6. Total Perception of Wealth/Income inequality
7. Total Perception of Residential Segregation*
8. Total Perception of Educational Segregation*
9. Total Perception of Wealth inequality and segregation impacting
community
10. Advocacy at state policy level for social justice issues that affect
community
11. Involvement with student groups addressing social justice related
issues
*No significant relationship found for these variables.
Table 9 indicates the significant correlations with Wealth/Income inequality.
These data show strong positive relationships between accurate perceptions of
educational and residential segregation and accurate perceptions of wealth inequality.
Having a strong perception of wealth/income inequality is also strongly, positively
correlated with having an accurate perception of this. Most practical for social justice
leadership is the relationship shown between the accurate perception of Wealth/income
inequality and the Valuing of social justice leadership practices. Although correlation
does not tell us the causal direction of the relationship, it does tell us that there is a strong
relationship between accuracy and valuing social justice leadership practices.
88
Table 9
Significant Correlations with Accurate Perception
of Wealth/Income Inequality
r
(N)
p
Effect
Size
Accurate perception of Educational Segregation
.689
(31)
p<.001
High
Accurate perception of Residential Segregation
.505
(31)
p<.01
High
Total Perception of Wealth/Income inequality
.699
(31)
p<.001
High
Total Valuing of social justice leadership practices
.556
(30)
p<.01
High
Table 10 indicates the significant correlations with Accurate Perception of
Residential Segregation. These variables also show significance and medium to high
strengths of relationship with accurate perception of residential segregation. The
accurate perception of educational segregation shows the lowest strength and does not
technically meet the p<.05 test of significance, but is close enough to be noted and also to
suggest that a larger sample might help determine the actual probability. The advocacy
at state policy level for social justice issues that impact community variable shows an
unexpected relationship with accurate perception of residential segregation. The
hypothesis would be that the more accurate the perception of residential segregation, the
more likely a CEO would advocate for social justice issues at any level. This relationship
show that there is a negative, medium to high association that suggests that accurate
perception may not translate to advocacy or vice versa. This conundrum requires further
study.
89
Table 10
Significant Correlations with Accurate Perception of
Residential Segregation
Accurate Perception of Wealth/Income Inequality
r
(N)
p
Effect
Size
.505
(31)
p<.01
High
Accurate Perception of Educational Segregation
.354
(31)
p=.05
Med
Advocacy at state policy level for Social Justice Issues
that impact Community
-.470
(30)
p<.01
MedHigh
Table 11 indicates the significant correlations with Accurate Perception of
Educational Segregation.
Table 11
Significant Correlations with Accurate Perception of
Educational Segregation
Accurate Perception of Wealth/Income Inequality
Valuing of Social Justice Leadership Practices
r
(N)
.689
(31)
.419
(30)
p
Effect
Size
p<.001
High
p<.05
MedHigh
These variables show a medium to high strength of relationship with Educational
Segregation. Although fewer variables correlated with accurate perception of
educational segregation the pattern continues to suggest that accuracy of perception in
one area of social justice inequality is strongly related to accuracy of perception in
90
another. As with accurate perception of wealth inequality (Table 9) above, accurate
perception of educational segregation is also positively correlated with valuing social
justice leadership practices.
Table 12 indicates the significant correlations with Valuing of Social Justice
Leadership Practices.
Table 12
Significant Correlations with Total Valuing of Social Justice
Leadership Practices
R
(N)
p
Effect
Size
.459
(37)
p<.01
MedHigh
.357
(37)
p<.05
Med
Accurate Perception of Educational Segregation
.419
(30)
p<.05
MedHigh
Accurate perception of wealth/income inequality
.556
(30)
p<.01
High
.418
(36)
p<.05
MedHigh
Total Perception of Wealth/Income Inequality
Advocacy at state policy level for social justice issues that
affect community
Total Perception of Wealth inequality and Segregation Impact
Community and Students
Table 12 correlations are medium to high positive correlations with statistical
significance. Previous tables have addressed the relationship to accurate perception of
educational segregation and accurate perception of wealth/income inequality. This table
shows that total perception of wealth/income inequality and total perception of wealth
inequality and segregation impact on community and students both are significant
91
(p<.01) and medium to high in their strength with valuing of social justice leadership
practices. This suggests that even perception of inequality relates to valuing social
justice practices. Valuing of social justice leadership practices also produces a
significant (p<.05) relationship with advocacy at state policy level. Here the relationship
is positive, unlike the correlation with accurate perception of residential segregation
suggesting that more valuing of social justice leadership may produce more advocacy or
more advocacy may produce more valuing.
Table 13 indicates the significant correlations among advocacy at state policy
level for social justice issues that affect community, involvement with student groups
addressing social justice related issues, and total social justice practices. These three
variables suggest some potential areas for practical recommendations (see Chapter 5),
including that more involvement with student groups overall may support being a
stronger, more informed advocate at the state policy level on social justice issues.
Table 13
Significant Correlations with Advocating at State Policy Level for Social Justice
Issues that Affect Community, Involvement with Student Groups Addressing Social
Justice Related Issues, and Total Social Justice Practices
Advocacy at Involvement Total social
state policy with student
justice
level
groups
practices
Advocacy at state policy level for
social justice issues affecting
community
-
.358*
(37)
.440**
(37)
Involvement with student groups
addressing social justice related
practices
.358*
(37)
-
.610**
(37)
Total Social Justice Practices
.440**
(37)
.610**
(37)
*p<.05, **p<.01
-
92
Two of these variables, involvement with student groups addressing social justice related
practices and Advocacy at state policy level for social justice issues affecting community
show a medium (.358) positive relationship with each other and are statistically
significant (p<.05). Advocacy at state level also has a medium high relationship (.440)
with p<.01 with Total Social Justice Practices. Total social justice practices has a strong,
positive relationship (.610) to involvement with student groups (p.<.01). The relationship
between advocacy, social justice practices, and involvement with student groups here is
important to understand and will be addressed in the recommendations section of Chapter
5. Similarly, the variable total social justice practices also suggests the need for further
exploration. Although stated previously that more social justice practices are not
necessarily better, it is important to consider what practices are occurring and, if in fact,
more might be better.
Table 14 shows the possible practices that CEOs could choose (although a writein section allowed for any excluded practices to be presented. See qualitative findings
section for discussion of this) and their frequencies. These were then scaled by number
of practices (e.g., 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, etc.) to create the total practices variable.
93
Table 14
Social Justice Leadership Practice Selection
Answer Options
Overt support for hiring diverse faculty, staff, and
managers
Diversity/Equity/Multicultural Task Force
College diversity/equity/multicultural committee
Overt support on campus for underrepresented or
marginalized students
Advocacy at the local level in relation to segregation
issues impacting community college students
Advocacy at the local level in relation to wealth
inequality issues impacting community college students
Partnerships and collaborations with feeder high schools
serving segregated and/or lower income students
Support for diversity/multicultural/social justice issues in
institutional plans and planning
Regular campus dialogues about social justice related
issues
Collaborations with community organizations addressing
social justice issues
Overt support for multicultural/diversity oriented
curriculum and pedagogy
Diversity/multicultural/social justice training for yourself
Diversity/multicultural/social justice training for your
cabinet/senior managers
Direct mentoring of underrepresented faculty, staff,
managers
Indirect mentoring of underrepresented faculty, staff, or
managers (e.g., support for an existing program or
informal process at the college or district)
Percent
Count
97.3%
36
35.1%
43.2%
13
16
86.5%
32
29.7%
11
40.5%
15
91.9%
34
73.0%
27
51.4%
19
62.2%
23
59.5%
22
62.2%
23
54.1%
20
78.4%
29
73.0%
27
Other (please specify)
answered question
skipped question
5
37
6
Practices least identified as those in which CEOs engage are advocacy in relation
to segregation and wealth inequality issues, as well as either Multicultural/Diversity Task
94
Forces or Committees. All four of these are engaged in by less than half of the
respondents. The lack of engagement with diversity committees or task forces begs the
question of how community college leaders are institutionalizing their support for
diversity and multicultural issues on their campuses. One of the practices with the
highest percentage of leader selection is overt support on campus for underrepresented or
marginalized students (86.5% of leaders selected this). There are also surprising lower
percentages connected with supporting diversity related curriculum and pedagogy, and
diversity trainings for the leaders themselves and their cabinet and senior managers.
Research question 2: How do community college leaders’ backgrounds in
social justice education, activism, and experience with discrimination relate to their
social justice leadership practices?
The following variables were created to address how aspects of leaders’ backgrounds
might relate to their practices:
1. Personal Experience with Bias growing up
2. Personal Experience with Bias (today and growing up)
3. Activism (undergrad, grad, personal life)
4. Valuing of Social Justice Leadership Practices
5. Total Social Justice Practices
Table 15 indicates the significant correlation between total social justice practices
and Activism.
95
Table 15
Significant Correlations with Total Social Justice Practices
Activism (undergrad, grad, personal life)
R
(N)
.440
(37)
p
Effect
Size
p<.01
MedHigh
This correlation shows statistical significance at the p<.01 level and medium to high
effect size. As Activism increases, so does Total Social Justice Practices and vice versa.
While correlations cannot determine cause and effect, two of the three variables that were
used to create the Activism variable asked CEOs to report on activism as undergraduates
and graduate students. These would come in time before their current leadership
practices. Still, it is possible that another variable is impacting both of these and this
requires further research.
Table 16 indicates the significant correlations with Valuing of Social Justice
Leadership Practices as it relates to the two variables personal experience with bias
growing up and personal experience with bias (today and growing up). A fourth
variable, personal experience with bias today (combined with the growing up variable to
create the broader personal experience with bias (today and growing up) did not alone
have significant correlations with any variables in the study.
Table 16
Significant Correlations with Total Valuing of Social Justice
Leadership Practices
R
(N)
p
Effect
Size
Personal Experience with Bias growing up
.403
(37)
p<.05
MedHigh
Personal Experience with Bias (today and growing up)
.344
(36)
p<.05
Med
96
Although both of these variables show positive medium to medium high relationships and
both are statistically significant, the adding in of the “personal experience with bias
today” to create a broader variable weakens the relationship. This seems to indicate that
the personal experience with discrimination and bias growing up is a much more
important factor.
Summary of quantitative data
The quantitative analysis shows that more research is necessary with a larger
sample to explore more deeply areas of community college leaders’ knowledge around
wealth inequality and segregation. This data overall shows that there are significant
positive correlations between accurate perceptions of inequality (in general and in terms
of each specific area: income inequality, residential segregation, and K-12 segregation)
and how leaders value social justice leadership practices. It also shows that there are
significant positive correlations between total social justice practices and both
involvement with student groups addressing social justice issues and advocacy at the
state level for social justice issues that affect the community. Personal Experience with
Bias and Activism also show positive, significant correlations with Valuing Social Justice
Practices and Total Social Justice Practices. Finally, although there are not statistically
significant relationships between demographic variables such as racial and gender
identity and the accuracy of perceptions, aspects of the relationship of racial identity and
the accuracy variables do show that some community college leaders do not know what
kinds of inequality and segregation experiences are impacting their students.
97
Qualitative Data
The first part of this section reports on themes uncovered in the 10 interviews and
in the open-ended questions on the survey. Six of the CEOs were contacted after they
indicated in the survey that they were willing to be interviewed further. Four more
interviews were obtained through emails and phone calls in an attempt to fill-out both the
gender representation and the geographical representation. After the interviews were
conducted, audio recordings were transcribed by myself and a confidential, professional
transcriber. Because a transformative methodology is theory-driven, coding each
transcription involved using Critical Race Theory and Critical Systems Theory to guide
the observation of theme patterns. Based on these, I looked for themes relating in
particular to CEOs’ understanding of social justice in general and especially awareness of
wealth and segregation issues, assumptions CEOs may have about “achievement” or
students, what role power and privilege might play, how structural issues impact
outcomes, and in what practices CEOs engage. However, I also paid attention to what
patterns emerged independently of the theoretical frames and incorporated these into my
notes. These appear most often as subthemes.
While some aspects of the qualitative part of this research do triangulate with the
quantitative part and, therefore, add trustworthiness to the qualitative portion, additional
measures were taken to support the accuracy of the data. Most importantly, each
transcript draft was returned to the appropriate interviewee for an opportunity to check
accuracy and to adjust any part of the transcript to match more closely the intention of the
participant. Three of the interviewees replied to this request. Two indicated satisfaction
98
with the transcript and the other noted some small errors and asked for clarification of
some other elements. No other CEO noted any concerns. One way that this qualitative
sample may not completely triangulate the quantitative data is that participants in these
interviews were largely self-selected, and as will be seen in the exploration of themes,
most already recognize in some way the impact of social justice issues on community
colleges and students. Although this sample then may already lean toward supporting the
social justice needs of communities and their colleges, this does provide a more thorough
glimpse into what practices are possible.
As part of the protection of the participants, I will rarely refer to any CEO by
more than one identity marker, if I refer to an identity marker at all. This means that I
will rarely present, for example, both racial and gender identity in the same person at the
same time. The community college president/superintendent/chancellor population is
relatively small and I do not want a triangulation of identity characteristics to unwittingly
identify those who have asked to have their identities hidden. There are some who
presented aspects of their identities that would make them stand out by that one identity
alone and I have done my best to discuss these circumstances in the broadest possible
terms in effort to protect the interviewees while at the same time also represent the
significant points made by the participant. Because of this particular challenge, I will not
be presenting profiles of the participants. When necessary and relevant, I will provide
further information that may illuminate the perspective or intent of the speaker, but by
and large, the quotes will speak for themselves and be used to reveal the study themes
and paint a larger picture of how the themes are connected.
99
Of the 10 California community college CEOs interviewed, 6 were from the
northern part of the state, 1 was from central California, and 3 were from the southern
part of the state. Seven interviewees identified as male and 3 as female. This was
particularly unfortunate as no female in the survey agreed to an interview and the
interviews of female CEOs I did get were based on direct calling and emails. Although I
contacted 5 women, only 3 agreed to an in-depth interview. Two CEOs identified as
African American, 4 as Latina/o or Chicano, and 4 as White. The overall interview
sample also included 2 chancellors, 2 President/Superintendents, and 6 Presidents from 5
urban, 2 suburban, and 3 rural colleges or districts. Eight of those interviewed had been
in their position for about three years or less; two of the participants had been in their
position for over 5 years.
The following section presents each research question and themes that emerged
from the interviews. The qualitative interview protocol (see Appendix B) was designed
to address each of the 3 research questions. The seven overall themes that emerged from
the interviews parallel my research questions: General social justice meanings; specific
knowledge/understanding of wealth inequality and segregation; definitions of leadership;
background characteristics relating to activism, personal experience, and education; and
leadership practices and strategies. The eight themes with subthemes are represented in
Table 17 below. The systemic relationships among these themes are shown in Figure 8
below that. What the relationships of these themes imply about “achievement” and the
“achievement gap” will be discussed in the implications section of Chapter 5.
 Religion
 Civil Rights
 Organizations
Activism background
 Critique of working
definition
 What does social
justice look
like and
require?
 Relationship to
education and
community
colleges
 Relationship to
Democracy
Social Justice
Meanings
Education and
training
Specific
knowledge
of wealth and
segregation issues
 Awareness of
systems and
structures
 Emphasis on
income
Social Justice
Leadership
Strategies
Personal Experience
with
Bias and
Discrimination
 Wealth and
segregation related
 Other experiences
 No personal
experience
 Campus
 Visibility
 Community/Local  Citizenship
 State
 Intentionality
Social Justice
Leadership
Practices
 Characterization
of role
 Responsibility
 Activism
 Paradoxes
Definitions of
leadership
Qualitative Data Themes Across all Research Questions
Table 17
100
101
Figure 8. Systemic Relationship Among Themes
Background:
Activism, Personal
Experience, Education and
Training
General
social
justice
meanings
Specific knowledge/
understanding of wealth
inequality and
segregation
Social Justice
leadership
practices and
strategies
Definitions
of
leadership
= Research Question 1
= Research Question 2
Implications for
the
“achievement
gap”
= Research Question 3
= Implications for all 3
Results for research questions 1-3
Research question 1: To what extent are community college leaders
knowledgeable about wealth inequality and segregation issues in their feeder
communities? (1a) How does this knowledge relate to social justice leadership
practices?
Themes that emerged in relation to question 1:
1. General social justice meanings
2. Specific knowledge/understanding of wealth and segregation
3. Definitions of leadership
102
Table 18
Research Question 1: Themes and Subthemes
Social Justice Meanings
 Critique of working
definition
 What does social justice
look like and require?
 Relationship to education
and community
colleges
 Relationship to Democracy
Specific knowledge
of wealth and
segregation issues
 Awareness of systems
and structures
 Emphasis on income
Definitions of leadership




Characterization of role
Responsibility
Activism
Paradoxes
Theme: Social Justice Meanings.
“We never talk about why do poor people not do as well as wealthy people because then
we have to have a conversation about the capital – the cultural capital - and then we have
to have a conversation about who determines that capital and then we have to have a
conversation about why do we not validate certain capital, then we have to talk about
racism and sexism and Eurocentrism. Those are conversations that are difficult to have.”
– CEO 8
Theme: Social Justice Meanings
Subthemes:
 Critique of working definition
 What does social justice look like and require?
 Relationship to education and community colleges
 Relationship to Democracy
This research sets out to explore social justice issues in relation to community
college leadership practices. Although the research operationalizes the concept of social
justice through the exploration of wealth/income inequality and segregation, how CEOs
103
defined and identified social justice generally stands out as a necessary first theme to
address before exploring the more specific themes related to the question. Four
subthemes become apparent as part of exploring how these CEOs considered social
justice: working definition of social justice critique, what social justice looks like and
requires, the relationship of social justice to education and community colleges, and how
social justice relates to democracy.
Critique of working definition. The first thing that I asked the interviewees to do
was consider was the definition of social justice that underlies this study and to offer a
critique of it.
I presented each CEO with this statement (Bell, 2007):
“’Social Justice’ for this project is generally defined to include: full and equal
participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs
as well as a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable
and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure … [and] able
to develop to their full capacities.”
Responses to this definition covered who it includes and impacts, what engaging in it
looks like, how it relates to education and community colleges in general, where
responsibility lies, and concepts of democracy. Initially, however, some CEOs made
suggested shifts in the definition and wanted clarification of some of the terms:
I think ‘full and equal’ are without context … I would hope you would be
interpreting that on the basis of individual need. Fully meeting the participatory
needs of each individual and provide, well the word ‘equal’ - it isn’t what I would
use. What I would use is, appropriate, equitable. Match what their needs
are…based on their definition of participation, not on my definition of
participation. – CEO 3
The elements of it get more controversial with each one. “Full and equal
participation” – very few would argue against that…“distribution of resources is
equitable” – then what that means is sort of the purpose of government in a lot of
104
ways from a taxing standpoint…the most controversial part I think is the
resources. How do you do that? What is an equitable allocation of our resources
when many different groups of students have different needs? – CEO 10
Some CEOs wanted more from the definition:
I would say that “equal participation” to me still leaves us a little short. Equal
participation in education is probably happening now, but equality of outcomes
and equality of achievement, that’s where we fall short. So, I think from that
definition I would be a little more extreme and say “full participation.”… I would
[also] ask, whose definition of “full capacities?” [A counselor may] impose full
capability and full potential to that student and sometimes it’s very limited. - CEO
9
I think this [definition] is an element of it…After analysis is completed we
collectively as an organization need to identify what we are going to do about this
and identify our strategies…What should be the role of the college and trying to
affect the systems prior to students getting here? Now we are talking about social
justice…Without action [the definition] is meaningless. It’s just mental
masturbation. It sounds good, but it’s not going to get you anywhere.
- CEO 2
These CEOs point to the complexity of defining a broad concept that is used to
account for the many axes of inequalities that exist. The first and third quotes also point
to the important issue of who is doing the defining. Power in this circumstance can
impact both how students might perceive their own participation and, as the third quote
considers, how it can limit a student’s perception of herself. CEO 10 hints that the goal of
distributing resources equitably will be an area of conflict and that the practical
application of the definition may end there. The first two quotes also suggest that the
definition may be either asking too much or require a commitment to these principles that
neither CEO feels comfortable addressing. The last two quotes, however, show that some
of these CEOs do not find the definition sufficient to guarantee action on these issues and
to take necessary steps to see the realization of social justice. What also stands out here
105
is that in the first quote, CEO 3 is suggesting that students should be the ones to define
“equal participation,” while CEO 9 recognizes the impact that those in power can have on
how students perceive their own capabilities and possibilities for participation. While
agency plays a role in the kind of educational experience students will have and is
represented in the “mutually shaped” aspect of the social justice definition (Bell, 2007), if
students come to community colleges bearing the limitations that have been imposed on
them, what role should a community college leader play in dismantling these previous
expectations? What are the implications of this for outcomes and student success?
What does social justice look like and require? How these CEOs define social
justice itself, what it includes, to whom it connects, and what engaging in it looks like is
also a significant part of understanding their perspectives and, ultimately, the practices in
which they engage. Most of the presidents or chancellors interviewed see social justice
not just as the passive existence of a particular condition, but requiring action. This idea
of action being an essential part of social justice is seen throughout the interviews
represented in this quick list:
[Social justice…]
is improving the human condition through educational opportunity.
is building alliances.
creating visibility of the community colleges to those who need it most.
requires unleveling. A level playing field isn’t enough.
shouldn’t be reactive, but a formal commitment.
is about equity. How do we make things equitable for people?
means recognizing those social elements or challenges in the community.
is not an act of God, but a function of political and economic activity.
These quotes show that many of the interviewees see social justice as an active
commitment to creating particular conditions of equity, not just the presence of these
106
conditions themselves. It also begins to show that some of these CEOs connect the social
justice issues and educational needs in their communities to particular structures,
including political and economic systems. This is represented in the next subtheme.
Relationship to education and community colleges. Several of these leaders see a
fundamental connection between social justice and community college education and the
essential need for community colleges not to replicate the oppressive systems that may
surround them. Several of these CEOs directly referenced Freire and the recognition that
education can be either empowering or oppressive:
[The college] can play an essential role [in addressing social justice]. Some
colleges are part and parcel to that system. Some colleges are indistinguishable
from the system around them and that can be positive or that can be a negative.
[Students] can come from an environment where there is positive reinforcement,
but that tends to be in areas where there’s less historical challenge, less racial
experiences, less financial challenges. But the real interesting work is in those
areas where there is a challenge, where there is poverty or there is social
oppression. – CEO 1
But I think this element of social justice to a community college mission is if we
are going to remain a community college, you do need to recognize what those
social elements or challenges are in your community and you can’t ignore them
and just be an educational institution. You still have to have some involvement. –
CEO 4
…access has a very distinct meaning, not just we offer a lot of classes, not just
that we accept anybody who applies, but we keep our profile oriented to the kind
of student who has, not our college as their last chance, but their only chance. –
CEO 1
These quotes show the essential relationship between access and the structure of
community college and the role that colleges play in propagating social justice or
rejecting it. Alternatively, the survey offered an open-ended question that allowed
respondents to “clarify or include any additional information in relation to any question
107
asked in this survey.” One respondent in particular questioned this relationship among
community colleges, social justice, and change and offered:
It would have been interesting to pursue the extent to which a college can resolve
issues of social injustice. In my opinion, their [sic] are just a few such areas, but
those areas of college influence can be significant. Focusing on the areas of
college influence on social justice and recognizing those areas which are
primarily outside our influence is an important distinction.
The limits of college influence on social justice may be an important distinction and this
dissertation opens the door to consider this question and the role that a college or
community college leader can play. While there may be limitations on the role that
community colleges can play, where does the community college role and influence end,
then? Who else can or should take on this role? An interpretation of the statement above
could also be a “passing of the buck” and ignoring the responsibility, or at least the
powerful role a community college could plays in addressing these issues, perhaps in
alliance with the communities themselves.
Democracy. One of the most interesting subthemes to emerge from the interviews
was how social justice and education connect to democracy, especially in relation to
policy making and the need for educated voters. Half of the CEOs made this connection
by suggesting some relationship and several of them made a specific connection to
community colleges:
I don’t want to be a part of screening people out. Our society can’t afford it. …
Social equity and social justice dictate to me and that’s what I love about
community colleges, that we’re called “democracy’s colleges.” Because if you
think about it, we are a social justice entity unto ourselves just by allowing access.
– CEO 2
I think that many of us who choose this know that education is the primary level
to keep society a free and open democracy. Part of the opportunity to advance in
108
your life. So I think that generally education would be in the forefront of
addressing the broader social issues. – CEO 3
While CEO 2 and 3 represent how access to education and community colleges connect
to democracy, CEO 8 and 10 point to the reality of its relationship with social justice and
the power to create policy:
[S]o the policymakers are not us. It’s still…all white guys making policies and
since they got theirs, they’re not worried about the rest of us. And they’re not
changing legislation to help the rest of us “eat a piece of the pie” to quote George
Jefferson. – CEO 8
Elected officials, even the heart of gold elected official is to some extent going to
focus on who votes. So there’s alignment there, that low-income individuals are
not likely to be voters. So I think shifts will happen, and are happening in policy
as the previously disenfranchised become more involved…[s]o a group that used
to have very little political power will have more. – CEO 10
These CEOs point to the need for both representation and participation in order to meet
student needs and promote social justice. CEO 10 indicates that policy will shift, even if
slowly, as our state demographics shift. A remaining question then is why do we accept
the slow shift when we know that students have specific social justice needs now?
Community colleges could actively provide a platform for voter registration, political
discussions, and general community engagement, rather than waiting for shifts to happen,
particularly in light of ideologically based efforts to reduce access to voting opportunities
around the United States (Liptak, 2013; Gabriel, 2013).
Open-ended survey question results related to definitions of social justice
One open-ended survey question asked CEOs to respond to “What does ‘social
justice’ mean to you?” These answers connected most often to ideas of equal
opportunity, equity, and fairness. Write in responses presented social justice as:
109
Equal opportunity and fairness to address vestiges of past discrimination as well
as enduring prejudice and poverty today.
Equal opportunity to succeed or be successful, to participate fully.
Equal opportunity to participate fully.
Equal opportunity to achieve.
Similarly, some responses pointed to “access” as the primary meaning of social justice
indicating “equal access to opportunities,” “equity in access to good schools, adequate
housing, human services, safe neighborhoods, etc.,” and “access to means of selfadvancement.” Access, then, in and of itself is a social justice issue and is particularly
meaningful in an era of reduced community college access, especially in California
(Bohn, Reyes, & Johnson, 2013).
Another method of analyzing these write-in ideas about social justice is to
consider the active or passive constructions of the concept. Active verbs or phrases used
in describing social justice included:
Address, tear down, watch and remove, create, make a conscious effort to ensure,
treat, level, provide, commit to remove.
Passive constructions included:
Having (the same potential), reflecting equality of opportunity, (some status)
making it hard to compete, a fair chance, a level playing field.
This way of considering the concept of social justice relates back to some of the
interviews that suggested that social justice cannot exist without direct effort to address
the inequalities that exist. Passive constructions offer what should exist, but no direction
for getting there. This point was an important component to some of the interviewees
and, as well, several of the write-in responses:
Social justice in education describes the conscious effort to ensure exceptional
educational opportunities – meaningful, culturally appropriate, personally
enriching, empowering, free of racist assumptions – to communities of color,
110
highlighting and respecting cultural wealth.
Social justice to me is a society wide commitment to removing the barriers that
deny opportunities to any U.S. resident to succeed.
Social justice means keeping an eye on indicators of disparity among groups and
working to remove those disparities.
While most of these responses represented social justice as a positive goal, a few
others suggested that it was either unattainable (“an ideal beyond reach”), possibly an
inappropriate goal in the first place, or one that should be redefined:
To me “social justice” means redistribution of wealth or equalization of outcomes.
I think it should mean that everyone deserves an equal opportunity to succeed but
that success is up to the individual.
And while most of the other respondents portrayed social justice in a positive
light, the language of “level playing field” or “equal opportunity” or “equal access” or
being “treated the same” does not address the inherent social, historical, and political
inequalities that impact the possibility for all of those to exist (Ladson-Billings, 2006;
Cross, 2007). Few of these definitions included anything about the need to address
specific structural issues (although there were a couple of references to poverty issues) –
thereby maintaining their invisibility. One response did include that “[r]acial bias,
economic status and where individuals live plays a major role in social injustice in our
community” but also stated in the same response that “[m]inorities, economic factors, and
recent immigration status places individuals in categories that have difficulty competing
with those born of higher means and non-minority backgrounds.” While the first part of
the response suggests an understanding of some of the structural issues impacting local
communities, the second part indicates that it is the minority, economic, and immigration
111
statuses themselves what “place individuals in categories that have difficulty competing”
as opposed to how our system apportions power and privilege to particular statuses. This
bears some consideration and will be taken up in the next theme, specific
knowledge of wealth and segregation issues, connected to research question 1.
Theme: Specific knowledge/understanding of wealth and segregation.
“I have mixed feelings about the topic of social justice. It is as if social justice is the
reason for the unequal results in our culture. Working to create equal opportunity does
not create equal outcomes; that is a reality, sometimes difficult to accept.” - open-ended
survey response
Theme: Specific knowledge of wealth and
segregation issues
Subthemes:
 Awareness of systems and structures
 Emphasis on income
While the previous section lays out some of the general ideas that CEOs have
about social justice, this theme explores their understanding of wealth and segregation
issues more specifically. As these concepts are used as markers of social justice issues
and have powerful effects on our education system and its outcomes (Ladson-Billings,
2006; Cross, 2007). Two particular subthemes stand out in the interview data. One
subtheme explores the CEOs’ specific understandings of the system and structures that
relate to wealth inequality and segregation and how they impact education. The other
subtheme appears as CEOs predominantly emphasize the economic inequality aspect
relative to the segregation issues, and then within that also emphasize income over
wealth.
Awareness of systems and structures. This subtheme explores CEOs’ awareness
112
of how wealth and segregation issues relate to institutional structures and systems. These
are large-scale patterns of societal policies and practices built into our systems that
perpetuate inequality (Tatum, 2007). What kinds of systemic patterns are in place that
perpetuate these inequalities and how they relate to education and community colleges
are particularly important for addressing the “achievement gap” and, as will be discussed
in Chapter 5, for exploring what kinds of practical leadership and policy
recommendations will come out of this research. If community college leaders of any
sort do not understand what their students are experiencing or what kinds of structures
and systems are in place that impact students, policies and practices directed toward
“success” and “achievement” offer only limited possibilities. These CEOs offer a range
of understanding of these issues that include:
[The challenges] are huge and they really do go back to the racism and to the
history of blacks in America, and to the history of Latinos in California. I mean
these are really questions that are ever present every moment of every day on
campus. - CEO 1
When you look at all these dynamics, and then you pattern that out in terms of
society in general, there’s plenty of complexity as to why and that includes some
cultural forces, but I think the culture has been blamed unnecessarily as the culprit
when you don’t look at the systems you’ve built and the structures of obstruction.
– CEO 2
[W]hatever is happening at the [k-12] level will eventually affect us because those
students … become members of our community. – CEO 4
The problem is that education is being defunded and of course that defunding is
taking place when the minority has become the majority. So people of color are
getting – are not getting the opportunity to the American or California dream of
having free public higher education available to them … so we have a structural
problem with the K-12 system…which is allowing students to get through
unprepared … the system has failed them. – CEO 8
[T]here’s more segregation now than it was before Brown v. Board and you look
113
at towns like this and you come here and you have a nice coffee and a nice little
town and you go away thinking that, but yeah, if you drive a half a mile in that
direction and quarter mile in that direction, you’ll see people living worse off than
people who are living a mile from the border.
– CEO 9
Some additional ways that CEOs characterized these issues included one CEOs
suggestion that these issues are about “cycles” - that “the growing disparity between the
haves and have nots” relate to “cycles that are hard to break.” Often these “cycle of
poverty”-type assertions are related to the debunked “culture of poverty” arguments that
ignore the systemic processes that create poverty in the first place and perpetuate
underlying assumptions of “deficit” in the group that is supposedly trapped in the cycle or
“culture” (Osei-Kofi, 2006; Bomer, Dworin, May, & Semingson, 2008). Another CEO
also characterized these issues as less systemic in nature and more about personal bias
and discrimination:
But the kinds of things that exist in our society that caused discrimination, those
things took a long time to build. They took a long time to create and there are
generations and generations of people who still hold on to those as very dear core
values, you know … And it’s hard to battle against that type of … deep-seated
belief system. That, you know, when – how do you say this? When you put a
treatment on your lawn to kill off weeds, you may get all of the weeds but the
wind carries those seedlings from the weeds to another yard and you might also
kill it off this yard. But then it goes somewhere else and, you know, takes root
again. And it continues, so you never completely kill off all the weeds that ever
existed on earth. – CEO 7
Even though this quote seems to indicate that sources of inequality stem from personal
bias and discrimination, the implication here might also be that the personal biases don’t
ever fully disappear because the systemic/structural/institutional policies and practices –
the roots, if you will - that underlie and perpetuate all of this remain. If a system creates
inequality and the members of the system cannot see the system itself, then it is easier to
114
blame groups for their own circumstances, thus perpetuating the beliefs. One CEO in
particular makes this connection:
It’s a huge problem. It’s a complex problem. It’s wealth; it’s segregation; it’s
culture. It’s our culture and to me it’s our acceptance, mediocrity, and everything
we do … the whole individualism, rugged individualism, everybody is going to be
successful if they just work hard. Which then means if you’re not successful it’s
your fault because you’re not working hard … And so when it comes to
segregation, we think it’s natural for basically rich, white people to live in [x area]
and we think it’s natural for poorer, nonwhite people to live in [y area].” – CEO 9
Is there a particular responsibility, then, for community college leaders to make visible
the systems and structures that impact the communities and corresponding students they
serve? This question will be explored further in research question #3, later in this
chapter.
Another way of characterizing the issues includes aspects of individual
responsibility…
[S]ome of it is systemic and structural and institutional and some of it is just
people … you have some entrenched social conditions…and it’s probably going
to sound a little harsh that sometimes it’s easier for people to hold on to that
condition than break out of it. Sometimes you have to break things up in order for
things to get fixed.
Is the answer in the question here? This relates back, perhaps, to the study’s
working definition of social justice, the “mutually shaped” aspect, where individuals and
groups actively participate in shaping their own world. And “mutually” is important. As
the previous CEO suggests, we have normalized wealth and racial segregation to the
extent that many of us no longer see them and therefore dismiss the mutual role we can
play, the alliances we could build with communities to address the systems and
institutions.
115
The response presented at the start of this section from the open-ended survey
bears noting because, although there does not seem to be a large pattern in responses that
suggest that social justice issues do not impact outcomes, this response takes issue with
the connection altogether:
“I have mixed feelings about the topic of social justice. It is as if social justice is
the reason for the unequal results in our culture. Working to create equal
opportunity does not create equal outcomes; that is a reality, sometimes difficult
to accept.” - open-ended survey response
The implication of this statement could be that equality of opportunity already exists and
we are now left to “accept” the unequal outcomes. If causes are not social justice related,
why do we see such differentials among particular racial groups? We know it is not
biology, race has no biological basis (Goodman, Moses & Jones, 2012), and we know
from discussion of a previous quote that the common “cycle of poverty” or “culture of
poverty” arguments are problematic (to say the least). Social justice structures and
patterns are a significant contributor to unequal results (Leonardo, 2004). Ignoring this
reality does not support the needs of community college students because it limits the
practices and strategies in which community college leaders might engage.
Emphasis on income. One of the interview prompts asked about both wealth
inequality and segregation. All of the CEOs acknowledged the presence of economic
inequality issues but only four of them provided any discussion directly or obliquely
relating to segregation issues. Additionally, although the CEOs did recognize the
economic disparities, most connected the issues to income rather than wealth. As this
study introduces in Chapter 1 and examines further in Chapter 2, wealth and income are
not the same and wealth is a more useful predictor of what a community or group have
116
experienced or are experiencing (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006). Interview responses relating
to income do not necessarily show that some CEOs do not know the difference, but they
still present a typical view of economic inequality that masks the extent of wealth
inequality and its relationship to racial inequality. Some CEOs used the term “wealth”
without distinguishing it from income, while others specifically connected their responses
to poverty:
[T]ake a look at the 2010 census at the income by quartiles. You can see that
there is an erosion in income in the lower groups; there’s more of a differential
between the haves and have nots than there ever has been before. And it’s
directly correlated with education…definitely there are wealth differentials. We
serve ___ which doesn’t have as much wealth inequity as we have in some parts
of the state. ____ is almost entirely Hispanic. It’s the lowest income area with the
highest unemployment rate. – CEO 3
[T]his community…has its challenges, major challenges, and it has to do not with
social, but economic. There has always been an issue about economy here and
people trying to bring in more and improve the economy in the area…So when
you have great numbers of individuals living below the poverty line, you know
you start wondering how you can make an impact. – CEO 4
Although the first quote doesn’t necessarily distinguish the use of the word income from
wealth, there is an acknowledgement that segregation could be connected to these issues.
The second quote represents the general trend in the interviews to frame the issues as
primarily economic. Other CEOs purposefully represented the problems as income issues
instead of racial ones:
I think I would say that the economic inequality is probably most pronounced
because remember that we are a very diverse environment and so as far as a race
component or…I really don’t think our students are as much absorbed in that. I
think they are far more aware when something has to do with an economic
situation, economic standing. – CEO 5
And a number of our students are increasingly students who have need, financial
need. And there’s no color line related to that. – CEO 7
117
The last quote hides the reality that although folks of all racial backgrounds experience
economic hardship, folks of color still experience it at higher rates, including higher rates
of unemployment and increasing disparities in wealth (Shapiro, Meschede, Osoro, 2013).
The quote from CEO 5 provides an opportunity to examine the use of the phrase
“diverse environment.” CEO 5’s college is over 80% students of color (predominantly
Asian Pacific Islander, Latino/a, and African American in descending order of percent of
the college population). The community served by the college is distinctly residentially
segregated, impacted by white flight and immigration patterns, as many urban and
suburban communities in California are (Teranishi, Allen, & Solarzano, 2004). If
“diverse environment” means an overwhelming, overrepresentation of students of color,
this too masks the realities of segregation at the college. The underrepresentation of
whites at a college is also a marker of racial isolation and the historical consequences of
white flight are real and evident in this community. Dismissing or ignoring this reality
does not help us understand better what our community college students are experiencing
or the kinds of resources, including quality K-12 education and higher expectations, to
which they may not have the same access.
Finally, two last quotes represent another opportunity to increase understanding of
the relationship between wealth inequality and segregation:
My sense would be, with not a lot of data, that as incomes rise some of the
neighborhood segregation goes away, but not all of it. There is still a tendency
for people to be drawn to being around people they perceive as being like
themselves. – CEO 10
Segregation in our area is primarily by economic status and by choice of
immigrant groups to create a geographic area that represents their culture and
118
heritage. Your questions on segregation are overly simplistic given today’s
reality. – Survey respondent
Here is where it is important to look at the history of residential segregation and
understand how it has impacted “economic status” and the accumulation of wealth.
While income inequality among racial identity groups has somewhat decreased (Oliver &
Shapiro, 2006), wealth inequality and educational segregation have increased, with
residential segregation remaining consistent (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006; Orfield, Kucsera,
& Siegel-Hawley, 2012), especially when we look at urban areas in California. The
perception presented in this first statement suggests that transforming income impacts
integration. However, it is integration that precedes the income and wealth benefits to
communities. This does not mean that higher incomes are irrelevant, merely that
improving income does not guarantee integration. The second part of the statement
suggests that segregation occurs because people want to be around others like
themselves. This is historically true really only for whites As families of color were
happy to integrate white communities beginning in the late 1960s and into the 70s and
80s, whites wanted to live with other whites (Massey and Denton, 1993). Immigration
certainly does play a role in where newcomers locate, needing particular support
mechanisms and social networks to survive, but again the extreme segregation
predominately comes from whites not wanting to stay in the communities to which
immigrants come. While there may also be aspects of community building and cultural
affirmation in relationship to geographic location, this is still often in response to the
structures that exist that help whites remain separate from others. To dismiss segregation
as simplistic and a choice ignores the historical and current realities of continuing white
119
flight and the overwhelming lack of resources that exist in most segregated communities
of color.
Theme: Definitions of leadership
“I didn't get to this position by pissing people off and so – so there's something to be said
… because while many of us are either angry from the exploitation of the past or have a
chip on our shoulder or something – which I think we need sometimes in our lives, you
know… What I made sure is … that I, through education, was able to gain "the
credentials" and that didn't make me a smart person but I know how to work the
system…one of the greatest things we could do when we talk about social justice and
overcoming social injustice is to understand the system, figure out how to work through
that system because you're not going to eliminate the system.
– CEO 8
Theme: Definitions of leadership
Subthemes:
 Characterization of role
 Responsibility
 Activism
 Paradoxes
This theme explores how CEOs see their roles as community college leaders and
how, especially, they see this role in relation to social justice issues. Four major
subthemes come out of the interviews. The first involves the way these leaders
characterized their leadership role overall. The second includes the connection that many
of the CEOs made between their role as leaders and their responsibility to address social
justice issues impacting students and the wider community. The third explores how many
of these CEOs see themselves and their roles as part of social justice activism. The last
subtheme investigates the reality that aspects of a leadership role can be paradoxical,
especially in the pursuit of social justice.
120
Characterization of role. Both the interviews and one of the open-ended survey
questions provided an opportunity for community college leaders to share their vision of
the role they play in relation to the communities and students they serve. These
characterizations range from being advocates and role models, to building alliances and
relationships with students and community members, to symbolic roles of reframing
college vision and identity.
They have big dreams and big aspirations, so my job is to make sure that they get
there, whatever I have to do, that’s what I am here for. – CEO 5
So my formal role as president of the college is to be the Advocate General if you
will for our students … [the] formal functions we perform are valuable and
official and they create an opportunity to do what is necessary on campus, but
they do not actually do it. The real challenge is to get that thinking to two levels:
one, the on-campus collaborations and two, down to the closest level where there
is interaction with the student. - CEO 1
As a senior administrator I represent the college at various things and have done
so for years … I [attend various community organization gatherings] … and it
helps expose me to the local population and how they operate. [W]hen you meet
folks who are part of a local population or work with the local population you find
out a lot about individual lives.
- CEO 6
While these quotes show the aspects of leadership that lean toward advocacy and
student/community relationship building, two of these CEOs offered an additional aspect
of leadership that shows the power of language and visibility:
Being very visible personally…showing up at student events and saying, “Wow,
I’m delighted you are doing this!” Thanking them for their activism. Helping
them see themselves as part of that system that is empowering – not just for
themselves but their peers, as adults, is extremely powerful to those individuals,
but it’s visible for everyone on campus to see. I mean there is a symbolic role for
the president and I am good at Kabuki. It is very important to exaggerate
movements and my visibility with students is that exaggeration. – CEO 1
So I was looking around and I was saying what would be the environment we
121
would want to create? So I started … somehow I was doing some research and I
was reading Martin Luther King and saw he was talking about “beloved
community.” That’s where I got it from. So when I came here and people were
just so nice and I was so welcome, I said this is my Beloved Community. So at
my first [college event], I told them, I said, I am calling you my Beloved
Community. Our Beloved Community has these types of characteristics. Just to
put that out there for people. We support one another and I said, that’s what I’ve
seen here. - CEO 5
These quotes suggest that the ability for a community college president, president/
superintendent, or chancellor to frame or reframe issues is meaningful on a campus in
particular. Visibility plays a strong role as well, on campus and in the community, but
that visibility must be exaggerated for its effects to be felt. Similarly, creating a vision
for a college, framing it as a “beloved community,” encourages a shared idea around
which to create social justice practices that support students.
Survey responses to the open-ended question which asked, “How do you see your
role as a community college leader in relation to the communities your college or district
serves?” fall mostly into 5 categories: advocacy, role model, activism, responsibility to
the whole community, and responsibility to specific college or institution. Some
responses included more than one category. These categories and sample responses are
represented in Table 19.
122
Table 19
Role Characterization from survey open-ended response
Role
Response
#
Representative quotes

Advocate
8


Role Model
9

Activist
3



Responsibility to
Whole Community
14


Responsibility to
college
3

I am the advocate for higher education and all
students, especially the underrepresented.
An advocate for the underserved in our
communities to ensure access to services that
will increase their success
I see many opportunities to model and mentor
others beyond the superficial questions of
culture and collaboration.
It’s important to be visible and in a listening
mode constantly.
A leader of perception and change.
[I am] the vehicle for social justice/equity
initiatives in the region.
Understanding the communities’ needs and
translating them to the college community.
Communicating the need and importance of
education, linking the college to the community
and vice versa
I am trying to increase enrollment and revenue
for the college.
Open the door and serve more underrepresented
students.
Most of the survey respondents, then, do see themselves similar to the CEO
interviewees as active participants in their communities and as responsible for the
communities and students they serve. While some did emphasize their roles on campus,
most connected their role to the needs of the community as a whole. This next subtheme
explores further the idea of responsibility and how it relates to the CEO role.
Responsibility. The majority of the interviewees who seem to be most aware and
connected to social justice issues are also those who connect their own role as CEOs to
123
their responsibility for addressing social justice issues. These CEO statements show that
they take seriously their position and the power connected with it to address the social
justice needs of the communities they serve.
Everyone has 100% of the responsibility. It’s not that I have half of the
responsibility and someone else has the other half and without their collaboration
I can’t get anything done. I have 100% of the responsibility to get their
collaboration. Those other leaderships also have 100% responsibility. Believe
me, it’s going to take a lot of hundred percents to overcome some of the
challenges. - CEO 1
I’m in education because it’s a calling, it’s an obligation, it’s a responsibility to
create a path so that these things can be fulfilled … I think we’ve waited long
enough. People of color have suffered long enough … students have been
impacted negatively by the structure of society so I see it as part of my
responsibility to change that as soon as possible. – CEO 9
I was going to use the word champion, but it’s not champion, but I’m just a
defender of social justice. So whether it’s making sure that we have full and
equal opportunity for all the groups…and so my role as chancellor is to advocate
for colleges to pay attention to [the achievement gap] … for those populations
that have been exploited by this society. – CEO 8
I tend to focus on the things that people gave to the [Civil Rights] struggle and my
responsibility to not just remember the struggle but to do the kinds of things that
make those contributions and sacrifices [meaningful]. - CEO 7
These first 3 quotes, in particular, echo the ideas of Freire (1974) that those in leadership
positions must be aware of the power they [wield] to set the narrative for how, or even if,
social justice issues will be addressed. This includes understanding their own privilege
and how power to set agendas and priorities can exclude taking responsibility for and
understanding the social justice issues impacting their service communities from their
own roles as leaders.
Paradoxes. Three of the CEOs interviewed introduced more complexities relating
to social justice leadership and the sometimes paradoxical and contradictory need to work
124
passionately for social justice without overemphasizing it, making it too obvious, or
unfocused.
It’s very easy to look for compliance. And I don’t mean just the administrators.
It’s very easy for the faculty and staff to just do their job and it can be very
disheartening and it can cause people to park their car facing outwards ready to
leave. Leadership is to say, screw all that, worry about your students, everything
else will take care of itself. And that’s a good start to kill an institution’s
finances. Right? I mean we have to be there next year…So I would say in the
grand scale of things we have to accept that action, social action, political action,
if you will, is local…But…it does not release the administrator leadership, the
faculty leadership from that responsibility. I could hide behind the budget but my
ethos is that it would be just that: hiding behind the budget. It is my responsibility
to worry about the social justice agenda. – CEO 1
I can’t champion multiculturalism - being a person of color it is very difficult …
You’re not out there pushing it really hard. You’ve got to go slowly, get people
on board and so I guess the only obstacle would be that I’ve learned to be really
patient. You can’t impose, you can’t demand, you can’t have an agenda that’s
ahead of the people that you’re leading … So you end up, I mean it’s a sad thing
but you end up almost neutralizing yourself and are … methodical and thoughtful
about where you put resources so you can accomplish these things without
appearing to be overwhelmingly supportive … And I would find a lot of
opposition if I say I’m for social justice and we’re going to make sure that all poor
students are successful. We’d get our staunch Republicans and our Tea Partiers
and Libertarians calling for my resignation or something. – CEO 9
I would just say as a person of color and in a position of responsibility in the
organization especially a chief responsibility like chief executive officer for the
college – as I launch or try to move the college in one direction or another around
issues of social justice, I have to be very careful because the majority folks at the
college – and when I say majority now I’m talking about where the individuals, a
single ethnic group is the majority – there is this tendency for some reason for
people to feel like, oh, you’re giving too much attention to these minority issues,
without them understanding that these issues are all issues for all of us. – CEO 7
All three of these CEOs offer the difficulties of strongly believing in social justice
and working passionately toward it on behalf of students, but at the same time having to
be strategic and careful in how and where they show that activism. While all of the
CEOs interviewed indicated they were clear with the Boards of Trustees that hired them
125
about their own interests in and concerns about social justice related issues, even those
CEOs that identify themselves as most activist oriented are having to pursue these issues
methodically and cannot always, even with the support of their Boards, be as visible and
active as they would like. The following subtheme further explores the ways that many
of the interviewed CEOs see this activist role.
Activist. This subtheme examines the ways that many of the CEOs see
themselves in their leadership roles as activists or at least active in addressing issues
impacting their students. These leaders look beyond compliance issues or checking off
required regulatory or accreditation boxes to see themselves as active participants with
their students and the communities served by the college.
I am running around with the student organizations stirring them up. It is my job.
I am the shit-stirrer-at-large on campus. I have to do it for the students. I have to
do it with the faculty groups. I have to do it with the staff. It is my self-appointed
job to stir everything up so we can deal with it … It is my job to cause trouble.
There is a healthy balance between stirring up questions and creating an
environment where those questions can be answered politely. – CEO 1
It’s not just about being a figurehead. It’s about leadership and action,
transforming lives. – CEO 5
[Y]ou certainly can’t be afraid to articulate the issues. So I guess the first thing is
to be willing to step forward and identify the issues that need attention. And even
though you may have people within your own organization who don’t want to
hear the message or people within the broader society who don’t want to hear the
message, you may have to still bring it but you have to bring it into the context …
to align it in ways that match the needs of students today. - CEO 7
I have to be … an advocate for social justice and by that I mean we have got to be
vigilant about legislation that challenges social justice. – CEO 8
These quotes suggest possible directions for other community college leaders to follow in
becoming not only more active with their students on campus but also in becoming better
126
advocates for their students on the local and state levels. This connects with the
quantitative data on the correlations between participating with student groups and
advocacy at the state level. The implications of both the qualitative and quantitative data
in relation to activism will be further explored in Chapter 5. Research question 2
explores CEOs’ backgrounds in activism a little further.
Research question 2: How do community college leaders’ backgrounds in social
justice education, activism, and experience with discrimination relate to their social
justice leadership practices?
Themes that emerged in relation to Question 2:
1. Personal Experiences with Bias and Discrimination
2. Activism background
3. Education and training
Most of this research focuses on social justice leadership and an understanding of
social justice issues and this is largely reflected in the data relating to research question 1.
Research question 2, however, investigates what kind of role that aspects of community
college leaders’ background may play in either their understanding of social justice issues
or the kinds of leadership practices in which they engage.
127
Table 20
Research Question 2: Themes and Subthemes
Personal Experience with
Bias and Discrimination
Subthemes:
 Wealth and segregation
related
 Other experiences
 No personal experience
Activism background
Education and
training
Subthemes:
 Religion
 Civil Rights
 Organizations
Theme: Personal Experience with Bias and Discrimination.
“I think when you grow up in an environment where you understand, like from a
sociological perspective, you can see your role and you can see society and you see that
you may have grown-up in a marginal environment, you may not have benefited from all
the opportunities, you may not have come with the capital – the cultural capital, the
economic capital – and even the safety and security of knowing that you belong to a
society or an organization … I think that shapes who I am as a person.” – CEO 9
Theme: Personal experience with bias
and discrimination
Subthemes:
 Wealth and segregation experiences
 Other experiences
 No personal experience
This theme considers the experiences that these CEOs have with bias and
discrimination and particularly with those relating to wealth and segregation. Some of
the CEOs did express issues with gender bias, but unfortunately not having a larger pool
of female interviewees means that this research presents a significantly limited view of
how experience with gender inequality may impact understandings of social justice and
leadership practices. In addition to the wealth and segregation related subtheme, this
128
section explores two other subthemes including other ways that the interviewed CEOs
may have experiences with discrimination and, as well, those CEOs who have not had
these experiences.
Wealth and segregation experiences. Six of the CEOs interviewed expressed
experience growing up in marginal circumstances ranging from racially segregated
communities and public housing to experiencing low income, welfare [oriented]
circumstances:
I grew up in public housing and, institutionally, you’re discriminated [against] by
even being placed in those situations. – CEO 8
If you look at me statistically, I should not be here. I either should be dead at a
younger age or working like many people I grew up with – low level, poverty
level wage work. I grew up with a single mother, five kids, welfare. My father
was an alcoholic. I grew up in the projects, up until I went to college. – CEO 2
I went to school during a time when schools were segregated and then
desegregated and some of the first people in our community to go to local
colleges when the colleges actually started opening their doors more to students of
color. – CEO 7
One CEO points to what these experiences have meant for her and how it directs her own
activism:
Well, my background with inequalities – I guess one could assume that maybe
I’ve had some experiences with discrimination by virtue of being a women and by
virtue of being a person of color … And I would have to say all of that would be
true … but I tend to focus on not how ill-treated I or others might have been at the
time … I tend to focus on the things that people gave to the struggle.
Another CEO recognized that as a person of color if she had lived not far away from the
diverse community in which she grew up, that her life might have been quite different:
I went to great schools, I had great teachers, that’s how I was privileged, when 5
miles away, when people were in segregated classes, they had substandard
education … My life would have been dramatically different I think. - CEO 5
129
Other experiences. Some CEOs had experiences with other dimensions of
diversity or with discrimination in different contexts. One CEO discussed the different
forms of discrimination that occurred for him as a Latino in various facets of his
education and work life:
…there’s all kinds of subtleties and discrimination in graduate school. You get
professors who can’t believe you could achieve and they’ll give you a lower grade
or even as a professor. I remember being or saying something that I thought was
of value and it was dismissed until a white counterpart saying … the same thing
and then everybody was yeah, yeah, yeah. – CEO 8
Another CEO shared aspects of his personal life which, although not personally
experiencing racism as a white man, he feels influences his understanding of diverse
communities:
I’m contributing to diversity by having multiracial children. So, it’s been
interesting for me … being involved with the Mexican American community and
the Chinese American community … And I chose to work in colleges that have
very diverse needs … that’s been a passion all my life because of what I
experienced having opportunity and what I’ve seen through very close contact
with a variety of cultures, sometimes intimately. - CEO 3
A final example of the different kinds of social justice related experiences that
these CEOs had growing up is visible in the declaration of this CEO:
I am as I say on campus sometimes to help people understand my perspective,
where I’m coming from I say, “I come from Mars” – certainly from the other side
of the world, quite literally … a [religious] minority [in] a refugee population … I
did not experience poverty, I did not experience lack of resources … [but]
colonial rule, we experienced that, that second classness … two years in a Quaker
school…helped open my eyes to a perspective of people looking at themselves as,
recognizing themselves as the oppressor.
This CEO connects his understanding to two other concepts, that of colonialism and the
experience of being “other” in an already “otherized,” colonized society (Said, 1979) but
130
also to his realization of what these experiences meant through his religious schooling.
This part will be connected with other CEOs in the Education and Training theme later in
this section.
No personal experiences. Three of the CEOs, and three of the four who identify
as white and male, reported no personal experiences with racism or segregation, or none
that impacted them directly. Although one did not specifically offer explanation, these
two were specific in their recognition of that reality:
So what I’ve been working with over the years is to come from a background
where I had no door closed to me even though I had no relatives who had ever
gone to college … And so my generation had an opportunity, particularly a white
male middle-class, at the University. I had no door closed to me. That’s one of
the reasons that I am here today as a college president. – CEO 3
I can’t think of any time in my life where I have any personal experience where I
can say someone was discriminating against me … I’ve had friends who were
from underrepresented groups who could share their experiences and it’s hard to
even imagine sometimes when you haven’t experienced it yourself. And as an
administrator leading staff with people who have that personal experience, trying
to create a safe environment where people can share with those who haven’t is
important. – CEO 10
Recognizing privilege as part of obtaining a leadership role is also part of recognizing
how these societal systems and structures perpetuate white supremacy (Leonardo, 2004).
Critical consciousness is a part of challenging this supremacy and, as mentioned
previously, that even “well intentioned professionals” (Freire, 1974) must begin to see
their part in this. Whether these two CEOs see themselves as part of that system is not
certain, but the connection of the privilege to their own positions may open up more
opportunities.
131
Theme: Activism Background
“Although I generally don’t set out at the course of each with social justice at the top of
my checklist as I make decisions, I have to say embedded within the core of who I am as
a person, I have a sense of right and wrong that guides how I do things and my sense of
right and wrong is based on my being a product of the 60s in the Civil Rights
Movement.” – CEO 7
Theme: Activism Background
Subthemes:
 Religion
 Civil Rights
 Organizations
Religion. Three of the CEOs specifically connected their activism with the role
that religion played in their early life and for some, continues to play. Their
understandings of social justice were not only shaped by the influence of their religious
institutions but for some of them, became the location of action, as well:
I’m a religious person. I’ve been involved in church work, so I did a lot of youth
work … a lot of social justice work through the churches, and the church’s
mission is very much oriented around that. – CEO 3
…it was a Quaker school … that’s where my social justice training comes from.
Not from that entire earlier experience or from my college experience, two years
in a Quaker school between the age of 16 and 18 helped open my eyes to a
perspective of people looking at themselves as, recognizing themselves as the
oppressor…and yet also saying, what can we do to improve the human condition?
And that’s the first time where I learned about this idea that you give of yourself
and of your time to do things for others and not just for people who are like you
and are of your circle. – CEO 1
I was raised in the Catholic Church and at that time the Catholic Church had a
social justice agenda…so my consciousness in social justice was raised by my
participation in the church and influenced by that … and at that time the Catholic
Church had a social justice agenda. – CEO 8
Civil Rights. Two of these CEOs also connect their activism to the Civil Rights
movement and to some of the structural and systemic processes that have impacted
132
particular populations:
So as I already said, I grew up in the 60s, participated in the marches myself, for
Civil Rights. – CEO 7
My background is mostly in the struggles of the Civil Rights movement and the
economic equity issues for African Americans and Latinos in this country back
from the 60s and 70s and the Native American populations. Those populations
that were directly, how should I say, exploited by the American government
actually. – CEO 8
Organizations. The following table represents specific social justice related
groups or organizations in which the CEOs collectively indicated their participation. The
chart also includes some general organizations or groups that CEOs also showed
involvement.
Table 21
Social justice related organizations mentioned by CEOs
Specific Organizations
HACU – Hispanic Association
of Colleges and
Universities
Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce
Latino Rotary Club
Puente
Umoja
General:
Literacy
Credit Unions
Bilingual Ed
Mexican consulate
Deraja
Urban League
100 Black Men
NOW
MechA
La Raza Unida
NAACP
AKA
133
Theme: Education and Training
“[Speaking to a former high school counselor]: you really do not know what a pivotal
role you played in me being here [as president] right now, you don’t know…I can
remember days when you would just grab me and sit me down and you saw something in
me that I didn’t even see in myself and you forced me to fill out the college application so
that I could go to college and to apply for scholarships and all those things…” - CEO 5
Although CEOs reported social justice training and growing understanding of
social justice issues through connection to their activist churches, this has been just been
discussed in the Activism Background theme and will not be repeated here. Even though
there is overlap between these themes, Education and Training by itself would be an
excellent area to pursue further study, looking at what specific kinds of training that
CEOs have experienced. This section, then, shares the work that several of the CEOs did
as part of accessing higher education, through both undergraduate and as graduate student
experiences:
My freshman year … they had a freshman lecture series…there were
presentations about racial and ethnic inequities, economic inequities, there was a
guy that presented, he had been to Cuba…It was kind of to open our eyes and I
think that had some influence on me. You know these kinds of experiences I
think are darned good for college students. – CEO 6
Bilingual education was becoming popular, and I knew from being inside and I’d
worked with Chicano kids most of my life at some level, knowing the
complexities of that – so my doctoral work was on [understanding Chicano
students]. - CEO 2
My dissertation was on welfare reform. And most people who are in community
college leadership they do these things on the role of leadership and decisionmaking and servant leadership and all these things. Well, I wanted to know about
the students that we serve … And I’m thinking if you don’t understand the
connection between leadership in schools and understanding the people that we
serve, then you don’t understand leadership. – CEO 7
My training has always been in that direction – so like my masters was in
education administration with an emphasis on multicultural education,
134
multiculturalism, always advocating for students who are underrepresented,
marginalized, students of color. - CEO 9
Higher education for these CEOs was a door-opener for one white man to be
exposed to issues that might not have occurred to him, and for the other CEOs, an
opportunity to explore more deeply other aspects of their own identity or their own social
justice interests.
Research question 3: What strategies do community college leaders have for
infusing social justice into their practice and advocating for their students?
The data in relation to this research question is divided between the practices that
CEOs reported and the strategies that emerged from the overall discussion of social
justice and their leadership practices:
Leadership Practices
Themes:
 Campus/District
 Community/Local
 State/Other
Social Justice Strategies
Themes:
 Visibility
 Earning citizenship
 Intentionality
1. Campus/District Practices
2. Community/Local Practices
3. State and beyond Practices
4. Visibility
5. Earning “Citizenship”
6. Intentionality
Research question 1 explored the knowledge that CEOs have about social justice
135
issues and, in particular, the wealth and segregation issues impacting the communities
their college serves. Research question 2 examined aspects of CEOs’ backgrounds to
determine how that might impact their understanding of social justice issues. Research
question 3 redirects attention back to what kinds of social justice practices and strategies
CEOs engage. This section is divided into two parts, one the practices themselves and,
two, the strategic themes that come out of all of the research questions. The Practices
section explores the social justice related practices CEOs use on their campus or in their
district, in the local community, and at the State or supra-State level. The Strategies
section looks more at how CEOs connect these practices to social justice issues and what
gives the practices social justice “life.” As CEO 5 says, “you can be good intentioned but
not intentional.” There must be purposeful action behind that to make real headway
against injustice and inequity.
Leadership practices
Table 22
Research Question 3: Themes and Subthemes
Leadership Practices
Campus/District
Subthemes:
 Students
 Faculty, staff
 Campus climate/
environment
Community/Local
Subthemes:
 Families
 K-12
 Business
 Local government
 Boards of Trustees
State/Other
Subthemes:
 State Government
 Accreditors
 Funding
136
Campus/District Practices
Campus/District
Subthemes:
 Students
 Faculty, staff
 Campus climate/
environment
This theme lays out the specific practices that CEOs presented in the interviews
that relate to work they do at the campus or district level. These practices are presented
in a table below (23) to show the range of efforts that connect to students, faculty/staff,
and campus climate/environment.
Table 23
Campus/District Practices directed at:
Students
 “Running around with student organizations,
stirring them up”
 Showing up at student clubs
 Participating in/creating mentoring programs
 Participating in Umoja, Deraja, Puente, etc.
 Working to find affordable textbooks or open
resources
 Empowering students to address their on-campus
issues
 Shifting fee payment plans to help students
 Help student learn how the system works
 Support for previously incarcerated students
137
Faculty, staff
 Building on-campus collaborations, getting
campus groups to work together
 Connecting with academic senate conferences
 Making sure hiring committees are diverse
 Hiring diverse folks
 Making sure hires have experience working with
diverse communities
 Supporting professional development on teaching
and learning and social justice
 Facilitating discussions about social justice issues
 Diversity training for senior leadership
 Finding champions of social justice in the college
and empower them
Campus climate/ environment  Having high expectations
 Holding college to a moral standard
 President’s forums
 Solution Summits
 Rebranding college
 Celebrating Diversity
 Being strategic about where resources go
 Making sure discussions happen, but not so
quickly and extremely it shuts down discussion
 Creating an environment where good ideas come
up
 Training on sexual assault
 Move district to provide a living wage to workers
 Leverage the power of the district for students
The overall message here in these Table 23 practices shows that campus practices can
include making student fee payment plans easier to access, participating in student
organizations and support programs such as Umoja and Puente, and also, running around
“stirring up” student organizations to get the students energized and empowered
themselves to address some of their needs. “Solution Summits” is a practice initiated
through a STEM grant that allows opportunities to not only discuss issues and problems,
but also to “move from that to action” (CEO 2). Another practice that stands out is the
138
move by a particular district to provide a living wage to workers or folks who contract
with the district. The CEO in this case uses the position of power to address something
within the control of the college or district to directly address the economic needs of
workers:
…all our vendors pay the prevailing wage which is union wage so that has an
impact on positive economic return … Not all districts do that and, of course,
some of them are nervous about that, but it is the way to influence the larger
community. – CEO 8
Theme: Community/Local Practices
This next theme examines the kinds of practices in which CEOs may engage that
relate to the larger community or local region. These include practices directed at
families, those that connect to the K-12 system, community organizations and groups, the
business community, local government, and Boards of Trustees. Table 24 provides
representative examples of practices in each of these categories.
139
Table 24
Community/Local Practices
Families
K-12
Community and Community
organizations/groups
Business
Local Government
Boards of Trustees
 Parental workshops on financial aid
 Bilingual workshops for parents
 Summer family activities
 Partnerships with school districts
 Collaboration between college faculty and K-12
faculty
 Start partnership as early as 3rd grade, annual
activity at the college
 Connect at junior high
 High school on campus
 Sit on boards of local organizations
 Donate computers to local org. with college logo on
them
 Sit on STEM non-profit board
 ESL programs out into the community
 Ensure community groups have a free place to meet
 Get community groups to hold college accountable
 Find out from community if there is something the
college is not providing
 Consortium of local higher education institutions
 Go to community organizations to advocate for
higher ed.
 Write to newspaper
 Community townhall on campus
 Transportation initiative – work with local bus
company to get free bus passes and reroute busses
to save students time
 Chambers of Commerce
 Internships for students
 Don’t take $ from businesses that may need
critiquing
 Meet city leaders for breakfast
 Address transportation – reroute transportation.
 Teach Boards how to interpret student success data
 Know the Board well
 Share passion, vision, expectations to Board
 Make the Board champions, educate them
 Go to dinner with them
140
Some of the strands that come out in these practices connected with community
are how to connect with families and connect earlier with school-age children, instead of
waiting until high school. Another strand includes connecting with community groups
and providing places to meet, as well as encouraging the groups themselves to make sure
that the college answers the needs of the community.
Both addressing transportation needs and educating Boards of Trustees connect
the community’s needs to the awareness and knowledge of the Trustees. Trustees are
elected from the community and triangulating specific community requirements for
accessing education, such as transportation, and then making sure that the Trustees have
the tools to evaluate how social justice issues impact success data could help refocus
attention on institutional inequality inputs. Boards of Trustees have a significant
relationship with their only employee: the CEO. How supportive or aware of social
justice issues the boards are can have a profound impact on the CEO’s ability to address
these issues. Chapter 5 includes specific recommendations regarding this relationship.
Theme: State/Other
This theme explores the kinds of practices that CEOs may direct to a state or
broader level, to accreditors, and to possible funders. There are a couple of examples
from the CEOs that discuss tackling or advocating for certain legislation. Overall,
however, the interviews for this research revealed relatively little that CEOs do on a state
or higher-level basis.
141
Table 25
State/Other Level Practices
State or National Level
 Focused collective action
 Achieving the Dream national initiative
 Talking to legislators to support a bill to fund
partnerships – Pathways to Prosperity
Accreditors
Funding
 Advocating against legislation that would charge
tuition at community colleges
 Presentation to accreditors on (e.g.,) changes in
financial aid eligibility
 Gateway Grant, funding a path for high school
student who drop out to get GED or diploma.
It may not be surprising that most of the practices these CEOs report are those
that are connected more closely to the college campus or district or to the community at
large. As CEO1 pointed out earlier in this research, most “action, social action political
action if you will is local.” This assertion appears to be the case from these lists of
practices. One area that is significantly absent, however, is advocacy in relation to social
justice issues, such as wealth inequality and segregation that impact students and the
communities from which they come. Some of the practices highlighted above, such as
the Achieving the Dream initiative that have encouraged community colleges to shift
practices toward learning communities, college success courses, and a “culture of
evidence,” do not as yet see much shift in outcomes (Rutschow, Richburg-Hayes, et al.,
2011). Although the 2011 research only looks at the first 5 years of the program and
changes in outcomes may be slower, it also suggests the possibility that there are other
factors not sufficiently considered as part of the inputs to student success. This
dissertation suggests, of course, that the wealth inequality and segregation issues should
be strongly considered and incorporated into policy changes and community college
142
leadership as they are significant parts of the structural inputs that precede the
overemphasis on outcomes.
Social justice strategies
“You can be good intentioned, but not intentional.” – CEO 5
If practices are the “what” then strategies are the “how” and include the way that
leadership practices can become social justice practices. The three elements here may
not be the only ones that create social justice practices, but they are the ones that
predominately emerge from this research. The discussion of these strategies will pull
together some of the other elements from previous research questions. The first set of
strategies will cover the importance of visibility for the CEO and for the college itself.
The second area will introduce the notion of earning “citizenship” in a community to
build sincere relationships beyond the almost clichéd use of “collaborations.” The final
area will examine the concept of “intentionality” – borrowed from the realm of
philosophy (Searle, 1983) and customized to address what it means to go beyond good
intentions and to infuse practices with purposeful actions.
143
Table 26
Research Question 3: Themes and Subthemes
Strategies
Visibility
 CEO
-on campus
-with students
-in community
 College
-in community
-with families
-with businesses
Earning “Citizenship” in a
community
 Building trust and
relationships with the
communities served
Intentionality
 Active
 Responsibility
 Educating and
Empowering Others
-faculty/staff
-Boards of Trustees
-students
-community and beyond
 *Critical Consciousness
-self-reflection and
education
 *Naming, making
visible structures of
inequality
Theme: Visibility
Visibility
 CEO
-on campus
-with students
-in community
 College
-in community
-with families
-with businesses
One of the overarching themes that fills the practices suggested by these CEOs
with social justice possibilities is the idea of visibility, both on the part of the CEO and on
the part of the college itself. These CEOs consistently show that working for social
144
justice whether it is the “full and equal participation of all groups in a society” (Bell,
2007) or some version of that which is empowering, encouraging, and supportive of
student and equity needs requires an obvious presence as a starting point and as a basis
for building relationships. This brings back some of the ways that CEOs characterized
their leadership roles in relation to visibility:
In another world, I performed on stage with my entry-level ballet students
because that was my role then … In a predominately black institution or a
Hispanic serving institution I don’t put on ballet slippers, I show up at the AB 540
club and say I’m here. I show up at the LGBT club at their first meeting and let
everyone on campus know that I’m going to be there, won’t you join us? We are
in an environment where LGBT has been not very comfortable on campus. But,
you know, the president shows up and who wants to challenge me? In your face.
Who wants to challenge me that these people are welcome on campus here? –
CEO 1
The job of the presidency is really - I find a lot of it has to do with having strong
interpersonal relationship skills. Because you need people. But you can also
educate them and so it’s part of my job to speak up when necessary. Or to
suggest alternative ideas. – CEO 2
Just as the president needs to be visible so also does the college or district itself:
…the college realized that doing little activities, summer programs, workshops –
if you have a community education program and you do activities with children,
that brings the family then. They feel connected. – CEO 4
…we have a great product here; we have people here that are experts that are
working with the population we serve. We know we need to take the little lamp
shade off the lamp to let our little light shine so that people see us as the fine
institution that we are. - CEO 5
These quotes pull together the theme of visibility, exaggerating presence and
action to draw attention to the practices being utilized. Bringing out ideas, making spaces
to discuss them and drawing attention to that are part of necessary social justice
leadership practices.
145
Theme: earning “citizenship”
Earning “Citizenship” in a
community
 Building trust and
relationships with the
communities served
The theme of citizenship is intertwined with the visibility theme because part of
earning a place in a community is by being an obvious and active presence in that
community. This theme, however, is set apart from the general theme of visibility for
two reasons. One is that in this study this concept stands out as unique and should be
drawn out. The second reason is that while visibility may be an important part of earning
citizenship, visibility is not sufficient in and of itself. This idea stems from one interview
in which the CEO shares an experience:
The greatest honor I have been given - a very recent honor – a community sort of
radio personality, a community leader person granted me a “doctorate in
education, from the University of the Hood.” That’s street cred for me. Very
important for a white man from the other side of the world in [this community].
Okay? To have our congress member introduce me on-campus, on my campus, to
her constituents as somebody who is well-positioned in the community, who
knows our issues, gives me citizenship and I call it that to her face. She’s
granting me citizenship in our area … that opens doors for me to say, yes, I am a
community activist and I have the cred, I have the acceptance to be able to be a
community activist to bring people on campus, increasingly to have engagement
between town and gown. – CEO 1
When you’ve got all these different layers of the community, the president can be
out there, but what if they only attend the Chambers and never really get into
some of the social service organization to understand what’s really going on in the
community to get a broader picture? – CEO 2
146
If community college leaders consider that part of their CEO role is to earn the
trust of the community beyond simply being visible, this adds a significant dimension to
the kinds of collaborations that can be developed. Many of the CEOs in this study
mention collaborations and partnerships with community groups and businesses, but it is
not always clear what this means beyond it sounding nice that some sort of link exists
beyond the campus boundaries. Creating partnerships is one thing, but building trusted
relationships in which leaders have earned their “citizenship” in the community, by
actively working to understand and advocate for the communities served, is something
beyond that. Freire (1974) describes leadership and change as being “forged with, not
for, the oppressed” (p.33), which also connects with concepts of servant-leadership
(Greenleaf, 1991). The idea of earning citizenship encourages us to rethink the power
arrangement by placing the needs of the community before the needs of the leader.
Community college leaders may need to do this to establish that trusting relationship with
the community and to learn what issues impact students and what programs and practices
will best serve them.
147
Theme: Intentionality
Intentionality
 Action
 Responsibility
 Educating and Empowering Others
-faculty/staff
-Boards of Trustees
-students
-community and beyond
 *Naming and making visible
structures of inequality
 *Critical Consciousness
The strategy of intentionality is intertwined with the other strategies, but brings
out the point that social justice is not accidental and a mere desire for it to exist does not
create a social justice practice. It must be fought for both on a personal level, through
self-reflection, as well as on a practice level. The word “intentionality” is stolen from the
discipline of philosophy which uses the idea to show how states of mind can be “directed
toward some goal or thing” (Jacob, 2010). Borrowing this word and saturating this state
of mind with action captures the necessary directed behavior and self-interrogation that
must accompany practices. This theme brings back some of the subthemes mentioned in
the Definitions of Leadership theme from Research Question 1: Action and
Responsibility. The theme of intentionality also involves using power to educate others
from the administrative cabinet, out across the campus to staff, faculty, and students, to
Boards of Trustees, and out to the community and beyond about the social justice issues
impacting students. The two, asterisked subthemes listed above, critical consciousness
148
and naming and making visible structures of inequality, appear in this data to a small
extent but are the least emphasized in the interviews. However, because of their
significance and relationship to the theoretical models, Critical Race Theory and Critical
Systems Theory, these two subthemes will also be considered as part of the
recommendations in Chapter 5. The action subtheme involves accepting responsibility
along with direct and persistent interventions:
We have to act to counter the experience that students have had throughout their
entire childhood that says keep your head down, don’t look the policeman in the
eye, don’t cause any trouble in the classroom, don’t distinguish yourself or you
will be picked out, obey … and here I am saying functionally my job is in fact to
enforce the behavior standards on campus; in practice, my job as a social activist
is to undermine those efforts. – CEO 1
I think that too many of our chancellors and presidents, CEOs, lose sight of that
social justice agenda. – CEO 8
I tell people the truth…I said to some African American gentlemen, I have been
working on their board … I said, “you guys should be jamming me up!” And they
were like, “why should we be jamming you up?” I said, “because African
American students are the worst performing students on every metric that we
measure here.” I said, “And you should be asking me why?” I said, “the Latino
community is asking me ‘why?’”… I said, “I want people to hold us accountable
because if the college doesn’t see that we are being held accountable by the
community and if we do a good job, the community is going to reward us by
sending their children here, their family members and what have you.” – CEO 5
CEO 5, here is not only referencing accepting responsibility, but also the idea that
the community should play an essential role in holding the college responsible for
meeting community needs. This is, again, a shift in power, a shift toward communities
determining their needs and becoming partners with community college leaders to meet
those needs.
Educating and empowering faculty, staff, and community are also a part of
149
intentionality. Some of these CEOs recognize the role that the college can play in
bringing information and knowledge about issues impacting students and that sharing
information and actively participating in campus and community education on social
justice issues is essential:
…part of my role is to bring out the issues and educate our own students, and
faculty, and staff. You don’t know what you don’t know. And so sometimes the
role of the college as a learning institution should be to provide that information.
– CEO 2
…let us invite to become familiar with our system … I think that the college
realized that doing activities, summer programs, workshops, if you have a
community education program and you do activities with children, that brings the
family then. They feel connected. – CEO 4
But you find one person, you create a champion. You give them some
professional development and then you let them go because you have to assume
that they’re there to help students and so I help them to help our students.
– CEO 9
Another aspect of intentionality involves naming and making visible the
structures of inequality that impact communities and the students they send to community
colleges. As presented in the quantitative section of this chapter, there are community
college leaders who are significantly underestimating the wealth and segregation issues
that are impacting students and very few of the CEOs interviewed identified racial
segregation as much more than a connection to income. Part of social justice leadership
practice then is coming to understand these issues and speak up and audibly on what
these structures are and how students are impacted:
I think that the wealth issue should be heavily featured in our presentation of data
and our narrative analysis. Take the scorecard that’s out right now. It does have
demographic data but the wealth data is less available. And it really does affect
policy … there’s unintended consequences of some of our policies. – CEO 3
150
Well, you certainly can’t be afraid to articulate the issues. So I guess the first
thing is to be willing to step forward and identify the issues that need attention.
And even though you may have people within your own organization who don’t
want to hear that message or people within the broader society who don’t want to
hear that message, you may have to still bring it, but you have to bring it into the
context.” – CEO 7
The final component suggested by Intentionality is critical consciousness. This
concept underscores all of the strands of intentionality. Freire (1974, 2013) describes the
process of developing this critical consciousness through dialogical action and reflection
as conscientização, an awakening of understanding about the oppressive conditions that
exist, combined with action to transform them. While Freire uses this concept to describe
how the oppressed take control of their circumstances, the concept can also be a part of
the development of community college leaders as they begin to educate themselves,
grapple with their own privilege and power (McIntosh, 2007; Leonardo, 2004), see how
to both transform colleges so that they do not replicate the community conditions, but
also to actively address those conditions and the impact on students. These last two
strands of intentionality will be further discussed in the recommendations section of
Chapter 5.
Relationships among themes
The systemic relationship among the overarching qualitative themes was
originally presented in Figure 8 at the beginning of the qualitative section to show the
process between themes in relation to each research question. This figure is repeated
below to reassert those connections. Research question 1 covered the blue section,
exploring what social justice generally means to the CEOs interviewed, what their
specific knowledge of wealth and segregation include, and then how they define
151
leadership and especially social justice leadership. The social justice definitions and
knowledge of social justice issues are influenced by research question 2’s discussion of
CEOs personal experiences with bias and discrimination, as well as their own activism
and education in relation to social justice. The outcome of social justice meanings,
specific knowledge of wealth inequality and segregation all influence social justice
practices and strategies. Finally, these all come together to suggest implications for how
we consider “achievement” and student success. This will be considered in the
implications section of Chapter 5.
Figure 8. Systemic Relationship Among Themes
152
Figure 9. Conceptual Relationship Among Themes
This research largely focuses on the two bluish ovals in Figure 9 Conceptual
Relationship between Themes, Social Justice and Leadership. The emergent themes and
concepts show the relationships between aspects of leadership practices and strategies
and how they connect to social justice. In this case, power and privilege can impact that
relationship, as well as how visible a leader or college is in its connections and practice.
How or even whether a leader views social justice issues will be impacted by these
connections. In the Social Justice oval, communities that include the college, students,
and community groups at large exist in the context of particular policies structures and
policies. These policies and structures impact what happens with these students and
communities, although most of the emphasis is on these outcomes and not on the
153
structures in which communities sit. Leadership strategies become social justice oriented
through Intentionality – action oriented practice directed at specific issues. Part of a
community college leader’s strategy must also include earning citizenship in the
communities that are served, knowing the issues and demonstrating a commitment to the
community and the issues they face. The greenish oval representing the “community”
aspect of this figure is tinted differently to show what areas need further exploration in
this research.
Summary of qualitative data
The qualitative data for this research shows that CEOs are aware of social justice
issues in general and that many of them engage in activism in relation to social justice
and, in particular, income inequality issues. While most of the CEOs either did not
identify racial segregation as a specific problem or mentioned it tangentially with other
issues, these CEOs by and large recognize that there are significant inequalities and
structural barriers that students face. A couple of CEOs seemed uncomfortable
identifying racism as a component and used words like “demographics,” when seeming
to discuss issues relating to racial identity. The ones who do overtly recognize racism
and racial segregation as an issue also recognize the tremendous barriers to addressing it;
although as is brought up by at least one CEO, there are choices CEOs are making about
their role in addressing these. It is not a given what that role should be.
Although this research attempts to focus on wealth inequality instead of merely
income, it is not clear from the interviews how CEOs differ in their understanding of
wealth relative to income. Most CEOs connected issues specifically to poverty or low-
154
income, but did not distinguish how wealth accumulation (or barriers that) say even more
about what a community may be experiencing.
CEOs’ experiences with discrimination and their own educational backgrounds
appeared to influence their understanding of issues impacting students and the kind of
social justice work they address in their roles as community college leaders. Several of
these CEOs related the relationship of religious education to their developing
understanding of social justice issues.
Finally, the practices and strategies that came out of the interviews shows the
wide range of efforts these CEOs are making to address those issues they identify.
Practices are directed at not only the campus community, but also the communities from
which students come. Far fewer practices are directed toward legislation or other state
entities and even less toward interstate or national levels. Social justice strategies are
identified through the amalgamation of some of the previous data on leadership. Social
justice practices do not happen accidentally and require a visibility of practices, both by
the CEO and the college. Earning “citizenship” in the communities served by building
sincere and trusting relationships is another required facet that comes out of these
interviews. Finally the idea of intentionality connects all of these together by creating
practices in which leaders actively take responsibility for addressing issues, educating
themselves and other impacted groups about the issues, and making those often invisible
structures of inequality visible. Naming those social justice issues and revealing the
institutional barriers makes visible what can so easily be ignored or remain hidden.
Community college CEOs have the power and position to help keep us, as college
155
communities, as communities served, as voters, as educators, as families focused on those
systemic inputs that most need addressing and will most support students’ needs.
Conclusion
The quantitative and qualitative data in this study complement and support each
other. The quantitative findings from the survey of California community college CEOs
show that there are strong relationships between accurate understandings of social justice
issues, experience with bias and activism, and valuing social justice practices. Engaging
in social justice leadership practices is also connected with involvement with student
groups. These findings also show that there are some CEOs that significantly
underestimate the kinds of segregation and wealth inequality issues that exist in the
communities they serve. While this particular finding is not generalizable to the whole
CEO population, its practical meaning is still important in that there are policies and
practices that impact students being developed and considered right now based on a lack
of correct information.
The qualitative data fills out the quantitative picture by detailing more specifically
some of the CEOs’ social justice practices and by examining more closely what
understandings of social justice issues exist and their source. CEOs’ definitions of social
justice leadership also play a significant role in the work they do and the way they direct
their attention to addressing student and community needs. Finally, the practices
themselves, in combination with understandings of social justice and definitions of
leadership, come together in the idea of intentionality, where CEOs connect their
intention to address these issues with action, education, critical consciousness, and the
156
process of making visible and naming the institutional and structural inequalities that are
impacting their students and the communities from which they come.
157
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
“[The achievement gap] exists because if we believe in rugged individualism and we
believe in survival of the fittest and all those things, it’s a natural part of society. It’s not
even considered an issue. Now, we might say, ‘O.k., we have to close the achievement
gap but don’t let it affect this group negatively’…it seems like it’s all conversation. I
don’t think there is a real commitment by anybody to eliminate the achievement gap.” –
CEO 9
“I just think that [the achievement gap] exists because the system has failed them.”
– CEO 8
Overview of the Study
California Community Colleges are, for many students, the only door to higher
education. California is becoming increasingly diverse and our colleges sit in largely
segregated communities in which the vastly unequal distribution of wealth is also
increasing (Goldrick-Rab & Kinsley, 2013). We expect community colleges to do more
with less but our interventions focus much more on symptomatic outcomes and
“achievement” than on the structural and systemic inputs that surround and impact feeder
communities. We worry about these “gaps,” but we ignore the overwhelming and
mounting educational debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006) owed to communities who have
historically, economically, socially, and politically been exploited and denied access and
opportunity. Because our attention is turned toward outcomes, these structures of
inequality and exploitation remain invisible, hiding our “apartheid education” (Cross,
2007, p.247), encouraging short-term interventions rather than addressing the long-term
causes. Although these social justice issues have been barely discussed as part of our
concerns about community colleges and their students, there is an opportunity for
158
community college leaders to bring attention to these issues and to forge relationships
with the communities they serve in order to begin the process of dismantling these
systems and structures.
This mixed-method research explores the knowledge that community college
leaders have about these social justice issues and what kinds of practices and strategies
they use to address them. The study surveyed and interviewed California community
college CEOs (presidents, president/superintendents, chancellors) to learn more about
their relationship to these issues. The quantitative aspect of the study looks at variables
relating to knowledge of wealth inequality and segregation issues impacting feeder
communities, background characteristics such as education and experience with
discrimination, and how CEOs see leadership and social justice. The qualitative part of
this study investigates more deeply how social justice and leadership are defined by these
CEOs and what kinds of practices these leaders use to address the issues facing their
students and communities from which they come.
While there is some amount of research looking at social justice issues in relation
to K-12 education, less attention as been directed toward community colleges, especially
in relation to wealth inequality and segregation and the connection to “achievement.”
Critical Race Theory and Critical Systems Theory provide a framework for centering the
realities of segregation and wealth inequality in our discussions about “success” in higher
education and for exploring the role that community college CEOs can play in this
discussion. Significantly, both of these theories lead to workable ideas for how any
159
community college leader can become a better advocate in relation to these issues for
students.
This chapter discusses the findings of Chapter 4 relating to each of the research
questions: (1) To what extent are community college leaders knowledgeable of wealth
inequality and segregation issues in their feeder communities and how does this
knowledge relate to or predict social justice leadership practices in their colleges? (2)
How do community college leaders’ backgrounds in social justice education, activism,
and experience with discrimination relate to or predict their social justice leadership
practices? (3) What strategies do community college leaders have for infusing social
justice into their practice and advocating for their students? The quantitative survey
findings generally show that there are strong relationships among accurate
understandings of social justice issues, experience with discrimination and activism, and
valuing social justice practices. However, some CEOs in this study notably
underestimated the amount of segregation and wealth inequality that their students and
communities experience. The interviews provide deeper understandings of how CEOs
define social justice and how they particularly emphasize income issues over segregation
and wealth issues. These CEOs provide a wide range of practices to address some of the
issues impacting their communities and suggest practical ways to serve those
communities and their students better. All of this data comes together in the Critical
Social Justice model incorporating what social justice strategies look like and require,
which further suggests the kinds of additional training and education that community
160
college leaders and other leaderships connected to community colleges may need to
advocate more completely for their students.
Chapter 5 explores these findings by each research question and links them to the
relevant literature as part of interpreting and understanding their meanings. Following
this interpretation of the research are some specific recommendations made in relation to
each of the learning objectives of the California State University, Sacramento, Doctorate
in Educational Leadership Program including the areas of transformational leadership,
educational policy and practice, and data-driven decision making. Chapter 5 closes with
recommendations for further study, reflections on the research process, and a concluding
summary.
Interpretation of Findings
This section connects the quantitative variable relationships and qualitative
themes uncovered for each research question to the relevant literature. This provides an
opportunity to evaluate the findings of this research in the context of larger bodies of
work and to ascertain the relevance and impact of the study. Findings overall relate to
California community college CEOs’ knowledge of wealth and segregation issues,
definitions of social justice and leadership, background characteristics such as experience
with discrimination and activism, and social justice leadership practices and strategies.
Critical Race Theory and Critical Systems Theory provide a frame for guiding this
interpretation, as does work on servant and critical leadership. This interpretive section
culminates in an examination of the role that transformative critical leadership
(Santamaría, 2012) plays in addressing the wealth inequality and segregation issues
161
impacting community college students and the communities from which they come and
the way an additional model, the Critical Social Justice Leadership strategy model, can
elaborate on our understanding of social justice leadership, particularly in relation to the
communities that are served.
Research Question 1: What do CEOs know about wealth inequality and segregation
issues impacting students and feeder communities? How does that knowledge relate to
their social justice leadership practices?
Findings related to this question cover CEOs general ideas about social justice
and leadership practices, but more meaningfully, their understanding of the kinds of
wealth inequality and segregation issues that their students face. Wealth inequality and
both residential and educational segregation continue to be persistent issues (Logan &
Stults, 2011;) with enormous impacts on education (Orfield, Kucsera, &Siegel-Hawley,
2012; Anyon, 2006). The impact of segregated schools can be easily seen in the K-12
arena and its particular effect on African American and Latina/o students (Goldsmith,
2009; La Free & Arum, 2006). This extends to the community colleges because more
than 75% of their racial composition is directly related to the racial composition of their
feeder communities (Goldrick-Rab & Kinsley, 2013). Wealth, the net value of
everything you own minus what you owe, is directly related to access to property
ownership and its value (Oliver & Shapiro, 2010). Wealth provides a stronger marker
than income of how a community is doing economically which will also affect
educational issues (Oliver & Shapiro, 2010; Johnson, 2006). Both segregation and wealth
differentials, then, greatly impact the experiences and access that community college
students have and are essential to understand in meeting their needs and serving them
162
most effectively (Anyon, 2006).
The findings of this study demonstrate that many CEOs do have some knowledge
that economic inequality and segregation issues impact students and their communities.
The quantitative aspect of this research shows that there are strong relationships between
the accuracy of that knowledge and how CEOs value social justice leadership practices.
The data also show a strong relationship between social justice practices and involvement
with students groups, as well as with support for advocacy at the state level on social
justice issues. The qualitative interviews reveal similar understandings although the
interviews show much stronger support than the quantitative data for the need to
understand the social justice issues impacting students. Several of the CEOs made overt
references to segregation issues and economic exploitation, but overall both the
quantitative and qualitative aspects of the research show more comfort in discussing the
economic inequality issues, and then within that, much more emphasis on income and
poverty than on overall issues of wealth.
This discomfort with discussing segregation and wealth is partly revealed in the
cross-tabulations of racial identity and the accuracy variables created to explore what
CEOs believe to be true about segregation and wealth inequality in relation to what is
true. Although the relationships themselves are not statistically significant, what is
shown is significant in reality because actual beliefs and practices are shown. For
example, Figure 5.1 shows a map revealing the geographic distribution of population by
“race.” Identifiable geographical markers have been removed so that the distribution
itself can be seen:
163
Figure 10. Representative Distribution of Population by “Race”
In this figure, each dot represents 25 people, orange represent Latino/as, green
represent Asian Americans, blue for African Americans, and red for whites. The CEO of
the community college that serves this area indicated on the survey that residential
segregation was “not at all significant.” This CEO indicated a similar response for
educational segregation and only slightly higher significance for wealth inequality.
According to Census data and the Brown and Harvard Universities’ sites that explore
inequality data (http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Data.htm and
http://diversitydata.sph.harvard.edu/), this region has Indexes of Dissimilarity for both
residential and educational segregation that are above .60 – the point which marks the
highest levels of segregation (Massey & Denton, 1993). That seven other CEOs in this
survey data highly or even moderately underestimate the segregation and wealth
164
inequality impacting their communities has serious implications for leadership practices
and recommendations for educational policies and practices, especially those that relate
to “achievement.” These implications and recommendations will be examined explicitly
in the next section.
In the interpretation of these results, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical
Systems Theory (CST) direct us to consider the racism and economic
exploitation/abandonment embedded in educational related structures (Solorzano, 1997;
Ladson-Billings, 2009) and, as well, how these structures impact the outcomes on which
our attention is so fixed. We cannot transform outcomes or gaps without a serious
consideration of structures and the inputs (Watson & Watson, 2012) that perpetuate these
differences. Even if no other CEOs are mistaking the impacts of wealth inequality and
segregation on their students and the communities they serve, these CEOs are and there
are whole communities and thousands of students that are vulnerable to that. Both CRT
and CST challenge those in power and the assumptions that they bring to their practices
and decisions (Watson & Watson, 2012; Yosso, 2005). These examples point to the
serious need for CEOs to challenge their own assumptions if their goal is to truly address
the needs of their students.
Although the CEOs in the smaller qualitative sample were more willing to
acknowledge segregation and economic inequality issues as being significant, most of
these CEOs identified income as connected with poverty, instead of overall access to
wealth. These CEOs also still shied away from naming racism or segregation as primary
structures that impact education. Half of the interviewees used the word “demographic”
165
as a seeming code for “race” and almost no one mentioned race without prompting in
terms of segregation and inequality. When race was mentioned it was consistently used
in contrast to income to show that income was really the problem. These constructions of
race and emphasis on more comfortable topics echo back to Freire’s (1974) notion that
leaders, the privileged, set the narrative and control the story. When community college
leaders dismiss or ignore one set of substantial issues to favor a less complete set, this
perpetuates (or reproduces, as Bourdieu & Passeron, 2000, might suggest) the structural
circumstances that produce the outcomes they indicate they wish to address.
Research Question 2: How do CEOs’ backgrounds in education, activism, and
experience with discrimination relate to their social justice leadership practices?
Findings in relation to this question show that there are relationships among
experiences with discrimination, how active a CEO has been in relation to social justice
issues, and valuing and engaging in social justice practice. Skubikowski (2009) argues
that social justice leadership requires self-reflection, similar to the previously mentioned
need to challenge assumptions. Community college leaders should be actively examining
their own racial identities as part of challenging those assumptions and privileges (Ellis,
2004; Han, West-Olatuni, & Thomas, 2010). Experience with discrimination and
activism may be a part of that examination, or may have already led the CEO to a greater
understanding of how their own experience informs their leadership. In this study, the
quantitative data does show that personal experience with bias relates to the amount of
social justice practices that CEOs engage in and that they value social justice practices
more if they, themselves, have experienced discrimination and bias – particularly
growing up. Santamaría and Santamaría (2011) add to this that examining identities and
166
leaders’ positions of power and privilege can open the door for leaders from any
background to take responsibility as part of their active role to challenge the structures of
inequality that impact their college’s or district’s students. This means that even CEOs
who did not experience discrimination growing up or have the educational experiences
directed toward understanding social justice issues can challenge themselves to
understand their own identities and privileges and become truly knowledgeable on the
issues their college communities experience.
Some of the CEOs in the interview sample population did credit their
understanding of social justice issues with either their own experiences with
discrimination or with their activist or educational backgrounds, especially in relation to
religion. All of the CEOs mentioned some involvement in community organizations,
either as part of their leadership role or as also part of their own personal lives. Some of
these organizations are identity related, such as Puente, Umoja, NAACP, or Urban
League, but participation in these groups by CEOs did not necessarily parallel what might
be expected in terms of racial identity or ethnicity as CEOs from different racial identities
connected to these organizations. This suggests that some of these CEOs who do not
have direct experience with discrimination may want to gain understanding and
knowledge about the kinds of experiences occurring in their communities. How much
that extends into deep exploration of the historical and structural challenges facing those
particular communities, however, is not as clear. Santamaría (2012) suggests for leaders
to “choose change” (20), meaning that leaders must recognize that issues are connected to
societal structures and that their work will have to be connected this, as well. These ideas
167
lead to research question 3 and what kinds of practices and strategies leaders use to infuse
social justice into their leadership.
Research Question 3: What strategies do community college leaders have for infusing
social justice into their practice and advocating for students?
As suggested previously, the findings related to this research question center on
the kinds of practices and strategies community college leaders in this study engage in
and employ. Relevant literature for this question connects in particular to servant
leadership (Greenleaf, 1991) and transformative critical leadership (Santamaría, 2012).
Servant leadership is expressed as the necessity of allying with the least powerful and
serving first their needs and interests. This is an extension of Freire’s (1974) idea of
working “with, not for” an oppressed community. Transformative critical leadership
includes “recognizing and fully understand[ing] critical issues . . . convincing others that
the issues are in fact issues [and creating] and sustain[ing] a safe space for conversations,
reflections, and actions to occur” (Santamaría, 2012, p.20).
Some of the themes that emerge from this study in relation to social justice
leadership practices correspond to aspects of servant leadership and transformative
critical leadership. These CEOs identify numerous practices especially in relation to the
work they do on their campuses or in their districts, as well as practices in which they
engage in their surrounding communities. While not strongly represented, CEOs also
identified state level or higher practices. Some of the campus or district practices
included engaging with students’ groups with the intent of energizing their activism,
working with faculty and staff to facilitate discussions on social justice issues, and
moving their district to provide living wages to workers. Community practices included
168
sponsoring workshops and activities to connect the college to families, connecting to the
K-12 system earlier than high school, working on transportation issues to lower costs and
make routes more efficient for students, and teaching their boards of trustees about
student success data and other issues. These practices relate especially to Santamaría’s
(2012) inclusion of creating safe spaces for discussion and conversations to occur on both
the campus level and local level within the idea of transformative critical leadership.
Additionally, critical leadership is also seen here in relation to “convincing others that
issues are issues” and how some of these CEOs work with their Boards to help them
understand the larger issues. Now how much they are working to educate the board
members on structural social justice issues is not fully clear in this data, and in fact at
least one CEO mentioned that it was the Board itself that was directing much of the effort
toward understanding why different groups have different success outcomes. In this case,
it may be that both CEOs and Boards of Trustees need education on much more of the
historical and structural contexts in which they observe this “outcome” data. This, too,
would fit in with Greenleaf’s (1991) concept of servant leadership and working toward an
alliance with those in communities that are most marginalized – forming sincere
coalitions to address the broader community needs. Recommendation #4 (p.176)
addresses this issue in particular.
Only a few CEOs mentioned practices on the state level or higher. Some of the
work mentioned related to specific state or national initiatives that fund partnerships in
the community or shift practices on college campuses. One CEO made a point of
presenting financial aid information to accreditors to help them understand how changes
169
in financial aid ability would impact students. These few examples do also show intent to
understand issues impacting students and share that with others, as Santamaría (2012)
suggests in transformative critical leadership. What continues to remain unclear is how
much discussion at any level CEOs are having about the wealth inequality and
segregation issues impacting their students.
The strategy themes that come out this study wrap up many of these previously
mentioned practices into a more comprehensive way of seeing how CEOs or any
community college leaders can engage in critical social justice practices. The three
themes that the data reveal in relation to this are: visibility, earning “citizenship,” and
intentionality. These themes connect agreeably with Santamaría’s (2012) concept of
critical leadership and extends the concept to the work that community college leaders
should also do as part of engaging with the communities they serve. In fact, the theme of
earning “citizenship” makes this extension a requirement of social justice leadership
practice. The following model(s) present the concept of transformative critical leadership
(Figure 11) by Santamaría (2012) and then the Critical Social Justice Leadership
Strategies that come out of this research. The critical leadership model addresses some of
the institution-level social justice needs of community colleges:
170
Figure 11.
Transformative Critical Leadership (Santamaría, 2012)
1. Choose change
2. Understand issues
3. Convince others
4. Courageous conversations
Leadership
role/strategy
Level/location
College
Issues



Community
Power
Access
Achievement
The transformative critical leadership model presented above in Figure 11 largely
focuses on the college itself as an institution in which power plays a large role in the
kinds of equity issues that are recognized and presented as real impacts on students. The
college, then, becomes a transformative institution through the critical leadership that
creates spaces for courageous conversations and actions on issues to occur. These
strategies occur with an eye on what is happening in the community and in society as a
whole (Santamaría, 2012). Santamaría also suggests that this model can be used to
address some of the indicators presented by Nevarez and Wood (2010) in relation to
“achievement” issues such as “remediation, retention, graduation rates, and transfer”
(Santamaría, 2012, p.21). Although a specific leadership model was not a formative part
171
of the theoretical foundation of this research due to the lack of social justice leadership
concepts that accommodate macro-level contexts, this research can now fill some of the
gaps in that leadership literature and provide a new theoretical basis from which to
explore social justice leadership:
While the transformative critical leadership model focuses on the micro-level
work of the CEO, the Critical Social Justice Leadership Strategy model (Figure 12) that
emerges from this research extends transformative critical leadership to overtly include
172
visibility and earning citizenship in communities served, as well as the development of
critical consciousness, responsibility, and the naming of structural inequality issues
through intentionality. The relationship between college and community becomes more
permeable and connected through these strategies and through intentionality, in
particular. While much of the work that community college leaders will do in this model
still connects to the important transformative critical leadership work that Santamaría
(2012) advocates for on college campuses, the Critical Social Justice Leadership model
emphasizes the essential connections to the communities served by colleges and districts
and provides for stronger, sincere coalitions and alliances to address the continuing
structural inequality issues impacting both communities and the students they send to
community colleges. This makes CRT’s idea of centering the marginalized voices and
experiences of targeted communities more possible. This model also connects back to
Bell’s (2007) full definition of social justice that it is the “full and equal participation of
all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. [A] vision of society in
which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and
psychologically safe and secure. Social justice involves actors who have a sense of
agency as well as a sense of responsibility toward and with others, their society, and the
broader world in which they live” (p.1, emphasis added). Responsibility and connection
to others are an essential part of the intentionality required for social justice practice and
strategies. The issues presented in the model do not represent all of the issues that the
model could address. Certainly curricular and pedagogical issues could be
accommodated in this model as well as the “Educational Impacts” presented in the
173
Critical Debt Model (Figure 2) in Chapter 2. The Critical Social Justice Leadership
model also opens the possibility that communities and their colleges can partner in ways
that can more strongly advocate for their needs on state or other bases. Recommendations
on all of these issues follow in the next section.
Program Objectives and Recommendations for Action
Findings from this study underscore the significance of the research. Community
college leaders must understand the contexts in which their colleges and communities sit,
and that includes the historical, economic, and socio-political debts owed to those
communities and which greatly impact education. This research has connected the social
justice issues of wealth inequality and segregation to community colleges and directs us
to both acknowledge and take action on these issues as part of understanding student
achievement and success. This study has also elaborated on community college
leadership practices in relation to social justice. The following section addresses
implications of the research findings in relation to program objectives presented in the
CSUS Doctoral Leadership program and makes recommendations based on the research
through these objectives: transformational leadership, educational policy and practice,
and data-driven decision making. Overall, these objectives present policy
recommendations and necessary competencies for all community college leaders, not
necessarily only CEOs, to most effectively advocate for their students and the needs of
their college communities.
Transformational leadership
Much of this study centers on the role that leadership plays in understanding the
174
social justice issues impacting community college students and the communities
themselves. Nevarez and Wood (2010) suggest that along with vision and the
empowerment of followers, transformational leaders challenge themselves, collaborate
with others, and work to understand the contexts of the issues to be addressed and
decisions to be made. Santamaría (2012) and Shields (2004) add to this idea by
suggesting transformative aspects which help leaders connect issues to broader pictures.
Santamaría (2012) incorporates an additional facet, especially for community college
leaders, to critically challenge their own understanding of issues, to “choose change”
(p.20) and to create spaces to have courageous or crucial conversations.
The implications from this study in relation to the transformational leadership
objective offer additional ways to consider what transformational leadership can look like
when it is directed to address social justice related outcomes. The research data not only
provides examples of practice and strategies for on-campus work, but also ideas of how
community college leaders should consider their role in relation to the communities they
serve. This is a consistent overall theme that emerges from this data: a leader’s
connection to the community that the college serves is also necessary to cultivate. Both
the quantitative findings on practices and the strategies that materialize from the
qualitative findings in Chapter 4 point to a number of recommendations:
Recommendation 1: CEOs should connect with student groups as much as is reasonably
possible.
Whether this connection is in encouraging student groups directly, showing up to
events or even meetings to show support may depend on student need and the particular
context. Some colleges may need the “shit-stirrer” (as suggested by CEO 1) kind of CEO
175
to empower students to stand up and lead the way to address issues that impact them.
Another college’s students may need the visible presence of community college leaders
to support, for example, a student group on campus that has been historically
marginalized. CEOs should not underestimate the power they have to support students
through their interaction with them. The quantitative data particularly supports this
recommendation as there was a solid relationship between involvement with student
groups and advocating for social justice issues at the state level. The qualitative data also
supports this through the discussions of the impact of visibility with students.
Recommendation 2: Critical Social Justice Leadership strategies should be incorporated
into community college leadership education and work.
The findings from Chapter 4 bring out three social justice strategies: visibility,
earning “citizenship,” and intentionality. Although these three are related to each other,
they each point to different facets of leadership. The concept of visibility is one of the
obvious ways that the CEO represents to the campus, to students, and to the community
what the college (and the CEO herself) values. If students are whom we serve, we need
to be visible in all aspects of their relationship to the college; this means not just current
students but also potential students. It also means visibility with businesses and families
that support these students. Earning “citizenship” is the way that the CEO or other
community college leader becomes part of the community. This is about building trust
and sincere relationships such that the CEO can have credibility to know what issues
students are facing and then what policies might be most effective. This concept is what
puts the “community” in community college. The last strategy is in the realm of
Intentionality. This concept is what brings a CEO’s good intentions into actually
176
working with communities and their needs. Intentionality includes the action component,
but also includes critical consciousness (a self-reflective, self-education element),
accepting responsibility for the issues to be addressed, participating in the education and
empowerment of the campus, all staff, students, communities served and boards on these
social justice issues, and finally naming or making visible these ignored underlying
structures of inequality that have such impact on communities and the students they send
to community colleges. It requires no additional resources to name what is happening in
a community, to make it a persistent public message that a CEO or college is willing to
acknowledge the consequences of inequitable practices and policies and to continue to
put that out there to the campus, the community, the Boards of Trustees, the accreditors,
the policymakers. While this alone does not constitute social justice practice, making
invisible structures visible is a powerful part of beginning to undermine aspects of
education that replicate and reproduce the inequitable status quo.
A final idea of how a CEO or college can engage in critical social justice practices
relates to one of the themes that emerged from the interview data and includes the
relationship that these CEOs see between education access and democracy. An example
then of how a CEO might pursue this recommendation could be to set up a college as a
location not only of voter registration information but also as a significant site for
promoting civic participation and education on voting issues. Many of the CEOs
connected policymaking to voting and suggested that policy will slowly change as more
communities become active voters. CEOs and colleges do not need to wait but can be
catalysts in this process to push for a swifter transformation.
177
Recommendation 3: Support practices relating to college or districts that directly also
support social justice issues in the community.
This recommendation comes straight from the work one of the chancellors shared
in an interview. This chancellor supported policies to pay a living wage to workers and
vendors contracting with the college. He recognized that advocating for the workers
connected to the college and the vendors that contract with it could do its own job of
improving economic conditions in the community. This is also part of the social justice
leadership strategy of connecting to the community and earning citizenship in it – not
only knowing what the economic needs are of the community, but also by directly
impacting those needs. This recommendation includes recognizing that CEOs hire
faculty who have long-term relationships with the community through the students, so
even the act of hiring faculty, who understand social justice issues and who especially
understand those issues impacting their students, is an important social justice practice.
The recommendation could be further extended to advocating for sustainability and
environmental issues that impact the college by way of the surrounding community.
Communities of color and lower income communities face greater impacts in terms of
scarcer resources, pollution, and hazardous waste (Pulido, 2000; Lipsitz, 1998). The role
that a college plays in addressing environmentally sustainable technology on its own
campus extends benefits to students and out to the larger community.
Educational policy and practice
This study sets out in part to consider why discussions about social justice issues,
especially those issues relating to segregation and wealth inequality, are not part of the
discussion on “achievement” or “student success.” The implications of this in relation to
178
educational policy and practice are significant. When community college leaders, Boards
of Trustees, state policymakers, funders, and accreditors focus solely on the outcomes,
the full picture of inputs remains invisible and our responses and interventions focus on
the symptoms of these larger equity issues. Cross (2007) and Ladson-Billings (2006)
suggest that this redirection from the real problems of structural inequality keeps us from
actually addressing the issue of the “achievement gap” that we claim to want to
eliminate. The implications of this study in relation to this program objective is that if we
do not refocus on the structural inequality issues, wealth inequality and segregation in
this study, that hugely affect access to quality education from preschool on through
higher education, we will barely impact the outcomes on which we are so focused. Both
wealth inequality and segregation issues play huge roles in this access. Focusing intently
on transfer or persistence, then, misses the larger picture and the opportunity to addresses
the larger systems impacting these issues. Wheatley (2006) reminds us again, “studying
problems in detailed isolation doesn’t yield the promised improvements and changes” (p.
142).
The following two quotes represent the tensions in the study over what the
“achievement gap” means, its origins, and what interventions may be required:
You can’t help them as a group because they have individual pathways that they
have to follow…you can’t set your sites on lifting everybody up all at the same
time. They have individual test scores; they have individual placements; they
have individual courses. You can do things like, we have ethnic studies here and
actually we have African American studies and Chicano, Latino studies…because
we think it’s important…[y]ou need to know who you are. Part of this whole
journey is understanding who you are…I think you have some entrenched social,
probably, mostly conditions…but how do you get people to say, “I don’t want to
be a victim to the conditions that I find myself in”? ... I don’t think our society is
so rigid and things are so ingrained systemically that a person can’t rise above
179
their station, but typically it is by the individualistic ways, typically you are not
taking your group with you. – CEO 5
It’s very hard because you want to generalize and you want to treat each
individual as an individual and you can’t create programs based on treating
individuals as individuals…But we are shaping the vision that this student has of
their prospects of success and hopefully to implant those ideas in their mind or at
least help them develop their own aspirations by challenging them to grow
beyond what they’ve been told they can achieve. And they have been told, many
of our students have been told, directly and indirectly, mostly indirectly by the
systems around them, K-12 systems, police systems, social systems, they’ve been
told… “You are nobody, you are nothing.” – CEO 1
Both of these quotes point to the difficulties of addressing individual student
needs in the context of larger systemic patterns and socio-economic conditions. But the
implications for addressing the achievement gap are not the same in each quote. One
suggests that it’s up to the individual and if they succeed or fail it is largely because of
their individual effort and the other recognizes that even when wanting to support
individuals that there are larger systemic issues that cannot be ignored and that do impact
groups on the whole. This study does not suggest that connecting with individual
students and encouraging them to grow beyond themselves and the circumstances that
impact their communities is a negative. In fact, the study data shows that there are
excellent and creative ways this is happening on community college campuses. However,
the ignored connections to larger structural inequalities is part of the achievement gap
narrative which Cross (2007) connects to an underlying theme which assumes inherent
inferiority or (at minimum) something lacking in the communities often identified by
racial status as underachieving.
Both of the quotes suggest that there are ways to encourage student success
through different kinds of support including direct programs or identity affirmation
180
efforts. To challenge both the narrative that assumes inherent deficiency in groups and
the idea of rugged individualism, then, means recognizing that these social, economic,
and political structures and systems, these expectations and representations and
exclusions were not created or applied on an individual basis. They have targeted and
excluded people based on perceptions of racial identity that in turn has impacted wealth
accumulation and educational access. Accepting responsibility to address these issues
extends to all community college and community leaders, not just CEOs. Until we get to
that discussion, however, and incorporate it into the work, we will not put much of a dent
in these gaps. The following recommendation addresses these ideas:
Recommendation 4: Incorporate training on social justice issues into the support
provided to Boards of Trustees by the Community College League of California to better
serve communities and to best hire, support, and retain CEOs who are committed to
social justice work.
One of the roles of the Community College League of California (CCLC) is to
provide leadership and professional development to the Boards of Trustees that serve
community colleges and Districts (“Leadership Development,” 2014). This provides a
meaningful opportunity to incorporate understandings of the experiences and impacts of
segregated, inferior education on the students who do and will attend community colleges
and to incorporate that understanding into policies developed and implemented by the
Boards and the CEOs they hire. The Trustee Handbook produced by the CCLC offers a
definition of “equity,” which connects colleges and districts to issues impacting students
before they even arrive at a college:
“Equity refers to the effort to ensure that people from all ethnic and socio-economic
backgrounds have the skills and knowledge to benefit from and succeed in the colleges –
to close the ‘achievement gap’ between students from different demographic groups”
181
(Smith, 2013, p.3).
This section does not limit the role of boards to what happens to students after
they arrive at a college or district. An interpretation of this could be that boards and the
work they do on social justice issues through CEOs and the colleges could be occurring
simultaneously in communities and on campuses. This is further supported in other parts
of the handbook (Smith, 2013) that elaborate on the role of boards:
“A board’s primary allegiance should be to the external community and public good”
(p.45).
“Colleges can be insular institutions. One of the values of lay boards in higher education
is to provide disinterested leadership and ensure that colleges are responsive to the
broader community. Board members use their perspectives and knowledge to insist that
faculty and administration understand the framework of the larger world. They ensure
that educators are aware of needs and changes in the external communities that may
influence the college mission” (p.48).
These points require direct observation of the larger circumstances impacting
communities as they create policies to address the needs of students. And finally, of the 9
bulleted points listed for Trustees to consider when establishing goals and indicators for
their colleges or districts, 3 of them either directly or implicitly could connect to social
justice issues and establishing social justice agendas:
“Specific areas to explore when establishing goals and indicators might include:
What important demographic, economic, and social trends in the state and in the
local communities affect the colleges? How is the district responding to these
trends?
…
What kinds of preparation do students bring to community colleges? Do the
college programs respond to their needs?
…
How has the college contributed to the cultural, economic, and social health and
stability of the community? How is that measured?” (Smith, 2013, p.87).
182
Increased knowledge and understanding of social justice issues also suggest that
boards will have more information to be able to support the CEOs they hire to do the
necessary social justice work that the college or district requires and will understand the
long-term nature of some of the structural changes that must occur to support students
and their success:
“Together, the board and the CEO determine and manage the policy-making
process. The board should adopt a policy that addresses the process, which might
include a definition of roles and responsibilities and a commitment to principles
of inclusiveness and communication.
The CEO plays a major role in overseeing and supporting the policy development
process and facilitating involvement in the shared governance process. He or she
ensures that ideas and proposals are well researched and that policy options and
analyses are presented to the board” (Smith, 2013, p.71).
CEOs cannot do what is already difficult work if their boards do not understand the social
justice issues thoroughly or if the boards do not provide the necessary support for their
CEOs to do this work.
Recommendation 5: Incorporate social justice issues into the development of
accreditation standards and training for accreditors implementing those standards.
Even those Boards of Trustees and CEOs, who are working to redirect attention
toward the larger social justice issues impacting students and communities, are
nevertheless compelled to pay a significant amount of attention to outcome accountability
measures because the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(ACCJC) standards do not include or incorporate any of the essential structural inequality
issues as part of understanding or addressing the outcomes they evaluate. The ACCJC
(2012) Standards mention diversity 7 times in the document, equity 2 times, social justice
183
and engagement 0 times, and success 2 times. It mentions achievement in relation to
student learning outcomes 10 times and outcomes themselves 30 times. The word
“community” itself appears twice and one of those times is in the title (Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2012). Where is the “community” in
these community college standards? These standards while asserting to support student
learning are focusing on outcomes without context and without assessing the creative and
meaningful input that could be occurring as colleges and their communities work together
to address the long standing structural barriers that remain and impact students.
This recommendation, then, is for the ACCJC to undertake an evaluation of its
standards and underlying motives to consider what kinds of processes need to take place
to enable communities and their schools and colleges to truly provide the best possible
educational opportunities for all communities. As the ACCJC becomes part of the
process of evaluating the inputs, Standards can shift to promoting the community and
college links necessary to truly know and understand what the needs are and how to work
together collaboratively to address structural inequalities and meet those needs.
Data driven decision-making
The third program objective includes an emphasis on using appropriate data on
which to base decisions. The implications from the study in this area suggest that data is
not only necessary but that a complete set of data is absolutely necessary. This requires
both deeper and broader data and an extended sense of time. The CCLC Board of Trustee
training manual provides some additional context for how deeper and broader data can
inform social justice work related to community colleges:
184
“Colleges that enjoy a culture of evidence or inquiry are more effective in fostering
student success. Boards provide leadership in building a culture of evidence when they
support inquiry and curiosity and avoid blame. Trustee discussions and questions are
framed in a manner that makes it both safe and necessary for the college to engage in
courageous conversations about equity and student success. The board supports and
expects college employees to use data in decision-making, to risk innovatively, and to be
willing to shift when programs don’t work well. They celebrate and reward progress
toward improving student success…
Understanding the conditions that lead to student success enables boards to reinforce and
allocate funds
to programs and services that work well” (emphasis added, Smith, 2013,
p.78).
“Boards must be informed about community demographics, economic projections, and
educational needs in order to define ends goals. They must have information about
student outcomes and program effectiveness in order to evaluate progress” (Smith, 2013,
p.80).
“Colleges engage in planning in order that environmental factors such as student
characteristics, community needs, demographic shifts, workforce patterns, the global
economy, technology, changing lifestyles, and social attitudes are incorporated into the
direction of their educational programs. These trends create and change learning needs,
and require colleges to constantly adapt. These “big picture” factors are catalysts for
ongoing innovation, change and renewal” (Smith, 2013, p.81).
These quotes from the Trustees Handbook suggest that collecting deeper and
broader data is not only possible but that it is a part of the role of the Trustees to
encourage and engage in that kind of data collection. The following recommendations
reflect the need for this kind of data:
Recommendation 6: Collect all relevant, deeper data to understand the full contexts from
which students come and which impact success.
Deeper data requires more contextual, demographic information. Although there is
some college entry data such as placement data, most is largely collected on the backend
of the college experience in terms of student learning outcomes. Very little data is
considered from the larger context in which a college sits. Student Success Score Cards
185
do disaggregate data to show “success” by race, gender, and age (see:
http://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecard.aspx) but how might including segregation data and
wealth inequality improve our understandings of experiences and outcomes? What kinds
of policies would it suggest to see if there are strong correlations or predictive
relationships between these deeper issues and the experiences community college
students are having? We are currently making decisions about outcomes and success and
setting policies based on a limited set of information. The disaggregated racial data
already point directly to the purposefully inequitable structures and systems that have and
continue to deny access to wealth, integrated communities and schools, and the same
access to high expectations, creative opportunities and outstanding teaching. While the
evidence already exists, deepening our understanding of these issues through the
collection of data on them will further support the work of CEOs to make the issues
visible and will facilitate the work that communities, CEOs, and boards can do to address
them. This leads to the next recommendation.
Recommendation 7: Connect broader data from across the community.
This recommendation represents how various groups including CEOs,
communities served, and boards of trustees can work together to share data, understand
how policies and practices interact and impact each other, and facilitate the development
of mutually supportive policies. This creates opportunities and programs that are broader
reaching, that benefit more constituents across the community. When community
colleges become part of the consideration for policies relating to (for example) affordable
housing, library location, K-12 collaborations with community colleges between
186
instructors, and public transportation access, students benefit. If the bottom line is
service to students then our policies and practices must reflect a deep commitment to that,
not just ones centered on outcomes without context and understanding of experiences and
barriers.
Recommendations for Further Study
While this study has opened up a discussion on social justice leadership and what
it does, can, and should look like, it also points to considerations that may limit the
application of the research and suggest topics that need closer examination. This section
will first consider the topics that appear in this research that need more consideration and
require further study. All of these recommendations relate to the roles that various groups
connected to communities and community colleges could play in relation to addressing
social justice issues.
I was encouraged early on to consider “leaderships” plural - to consider that
community colleges and districts have many leaders who are also responsible for
advancing social justice agendas. Faculty leadership should certainly be examined more
closely, but also the role that staff leaders and union leaders can and should play in
advocating for issues facing students. This extends, as well, to the previously mentioned
boards of trustees and to the CCLC. Boards of Trustees are one area in which I am now
particularly interested, especially after having viewed the Trustee Handbook. This guide
leaves open many possibilities for boards to take on some of these roles and, at the very
least, to support the CEOs in the difficult work of establishing practices and relationships
with communities that can begin to address or at least uncover the significant structural
187
issues their colleges and districts face.
Another area that stands out as needing more exploration and research is the role
of the community, community groups, and the connection of the community to the
college. While this research has focused on the role of the CEO, the Critical Social
Justice Leadership Model shows that the role of the community (or communities) as a
partner in addressing social justice issues is essential, vibrant, and organic, and it must be
a fundamental element of change, not merely an added-in part of the equation. While a
CEO develops her or his own critical consciousness, so must the communities served by
the college. It is not the role of the CEO to direct this, but the CEO can play a supporting
role in the development of it. Alternatively, however, the community itself may have a
role in the development of a CEOs critical consciousness, because these communities are
the ones impacted, sometimes targeted, by the educational and social policies of a region.
What this relationship looks like, however, how community groups see themselves in
relation to the community college or district, or how they see themselves in relation to the
development of policies that affect educational access and opportunities is a necessary
part of understanding how social justice will happen in a community.
A final area of needed research may be some of the most impactful in terms of the
work that CEOs are doing or could do on social justice issues. This area relates to the
overemphasis in accreditation standards on outcomes rather than assessing the full picture
of issues that impact education. While there may be research out there on the ACCJC
and what its processes for standard development entail, it would be a great service to
students and communities to have their direct and material issues incorporated into the
188
work on which the colleges are evaluated. Colleges do not exist without their
communities and accreditation could go a long way to providing frameworks for colleges
to work with the communities they serve to uncover and address the structural issues that
underscore the outcomes they measure. The current standards hold back CEOs from
working to transform communities and encourage them to slap Band-Aids on bleeding
head wounds.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to this work. The first is that the quantitative
sample was small enough that it does not necessarily reveal the extent of social justice
leadership knowledge. While the “underestimation” and “accuracy” data is interesting
and has real leadership and policies connected to it, more research should be undertaken
to explore this further – not so much to chastise those CEOs who do not know, but to
discover more comprehensively what kinds of interventions and competencies are
necessary to address the needs of students in this increasingly unequal world. Also,
repeatability is a question because the data collected from zip codes cannot be easily
checked for accuracy due to confidentiality agreements. Even though the “accuracy”
variables, in particular, will be more difficult to confirm, this does point to the need for
further exploration of this with larger samples.
Although this dissertation sets out to explore wealth and asks about it in the
survey, the data used to compare to the perception of wealth inequality ends up being
income data after all. Hence, this data will underestimate the actual wealth issues in a
community and must be kept in mind. This suggests significant needs for collecting data
189
about wealth and wealth inequality based on zip codes and K-12 school districts.
Similarly, this research uses the Index of Dissimilarity as its measure of segregation
although scholars who do extensive work on segregation know that this is just one
measure among many of understanding the geography of it. Even though this particular
index is commonly used, it does not show the many facets of segregation and this
research may suffer from simplifying this concept.
Some identity categories are underrepresented or not represented at all in this
study. Gender representation in the interviews is underrepresented for those who identify
as female or other gender identities. It is important to consider why no women who took
the survey offered a further in-depth interview and if there were either barriers in the
questions or other obstacles that might have made further deeper discussions prohibitive.
Similarly, Asian American CEOs are also not represented in the samples. Future
research should consider why neither of these populations participated in the research as
would be hoped.
Additionally, this work suffers from a lack of time and support to collect data on
many different aspects of identity. The Institutional Review Board could not allow me in
a timely manner to also collect data on other aspects of identity, especially in relation to
sexuality, because of an increased risk to respondents. While I could have gone through
a longer process, the time limitations of the program also made that difficult. Even
though this particular study centered on wealth inequality and racial identity, it would be
helpful to have an understanding of how the many identities of CEOs or community
college leaders in general impact their understanding of the many social justice issues.
190
This leads to a further limitation in that this study operationalized social justice issues as
“wealth” and “segregation” but, of course, social justice incorporates many identities and
experiences and the models and concepts presented here should be interrogated in
relation to the many other issues that come in to play in education.
Reflections on Research Process
I have the satisfaction every semester of reaching the point in the Race, Ethnicity,
and Inequality course I teach when the class goes into the computer lab and, after
watching part of a film on the process of residential segregation and the exclusion from
wealth, discovers what residential segregation looks like today. I take them to maps that
show this reality in intense, vivid detail (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157626354149574/detail/) and let them
explore this for themselves. The images are not lost on anyone. They remain shocking to
students who may have still believed up to that moment in the semester that we were
talking about the past.
This is where I started in my research process. This is where the questions came
from. When I began the Educational Doctorate program, I came with these questions:
Why isn’t this a part of our discussion about educational issues, about the “achievement
gap,” about student success or outcomes? Although I wrestled with what direction to
head in terms of what group might have an influence on the conversation about this, I
settled on community college CEOs because of their positions of power and influence. I
wanted to take Critical Race Theory ideas and explore the assumptions of the powerful
and also what strategies they may already have for using their power to question and
191
challenge the status quo.
I come away from this process both more and less hopeful. I thought more CEOs
would know less. I discovered that it is not that simple - that the amount of knowledge
does not necessarily correlate with social justice work. Many CEOs do know the issues
but struggle with how to direct this in their work, depending on the communities they
serve and the support of their boards. I have much more respect for the work they do and
the challenges they face to meet the high demands of contradictory regulations and
outcome-oriented accreditors. Even though there are plenty of CEOs working sincerely
to address these issues, there are still too many not yet on the path of intentionality – they
mean well, but there is little action behind it. While I do not think this research provides
all the answers to encourage CEOs to angle themselves toward that path, I do hope that it
opens some possibilities that may not yet have been considered – especially for the good
intentioned.
Clearly I am biased and come with many preconceived ideas about how education
should happen and how structural systems impact what community’s experience. I laid
out my definition of social justice for both the survey respondents and the interviewees,
so my position was not a surprise. This may very well have impacted who decided to
participate, as possibly evidenced by the relatively small survey sample, but even in that
sample I see the glimmer of possibilities. The possibilities for connection, and coalition,
and alliances, and knowledge, and understanding, and for making sure that the
“community” in “community college” does not disappear or stay hidden. Several of the
CEO interviewees gave me more to chew on and more to hope for because some of these
192
folks are as radical as I am and looking for ways to make sure justice happens for their
communities.
Summary and Conclusion
Imagine an emergency room doctor. Every day, sometimes many times a day, she
gets patients in with injuries who come from a particularly unsafe traffic intersection.
The lights do not always work or are not always visible. Crossing information is limited.
Patients come with many different injuries, some fatal, some bearable, but similar enough
to create a pattern. This doctor did not realize for some time that these repeated injuries
were the results of this particular intersection. However, over time, even though her job
was to take care of them only once they entered the door of her emergency room, she
began to wonder about these accidents and if there was some kind of public health issue.
Her exploration revealed this intersection but her inquiry was met with, do your job
better. She could do that, she could improve efficiency and response time and evaluation
and triage and diagnosis. She could motivate her team to do their work better, get them
more training, and improve the quality of their patients’ conditions when they left the
hospital. But now that she knows this intersection is a source of these injuries, does she
have a public health responsibility to make this known and address this issue? We as
educators sometimes hear, “Let’s focus on what we can control.” Often this is meant to
indicate that our responsibility begins only once a student enters our college or district.
Public health advocates do not have the luxury of ignoring what happens to patients
before they enter the office or emergency room if they begin to notice larger patterns that
impact more than just a few people.
193
The purpose of this study has been to explore the concept of social justice
leadership in relation to wealth inequality and segregation as these issues persist and
grow, impacting communities and the educational experiences around them. Evidence
consistently shows that diversity and diverse learning environments support student
success (Orfield, Frankenburg, & Garces, 2008; Cooley, 2008) and increase opportunities
in all aspects of life. On the other hand, structural inequalities point to gaps in resources,
expectations, quality of service and teaching, and opportunities related to racial and
economic isolation (Cross, 2007). How CEOs and other community college leaders
respond to these realities can either perpetuate the invisibility of the issues or bring them
out into the open for coalitions of students, faculty, staff, administrators, community
groups and local governments to grapple with fervently.
The findings from this study show that critical social justice leadership is
possible, even if it is not completely clear to many CEOs that it is necessary. The study
shows that while many CEOs do recognize the issues impacting their communities, some
CEOs do not and cannot see the connections between wealth inequality and segregation
and the outcomes they witness. The quantitative findings suggest that more connection to
students relates to stronger advocacy at the state level. Similarly, more experience with
activism and discrimination also connect to valuing social justice practices. CEOs are
more likely to be accurate in their perceptions of inequality relative to how much they
value social justice generally. These are the leaders we should be looking to, to follow
their example in understanding how issues are impacting students and what we all might
do about that. The qualitative aspect of this research largely verified that social justice
194
work is happening and in many forms by CEOs in colleges and districts. While most of
these CEOs did fall on the activist part of the scale, many still identified the primary issue
as income, rather than the racist policies and practices that have influenced geographic
residential location and wealth acquisition, even including immigration as a factor, whites
overwhelming leave as more people and families of color move in (Teranishi, Allen, &
Solarzano, 2004). A few of the CEOs interviewed did, indeed, point to segregation
policies as significant issues, but argued that it will take social movements to address
these issues.
The recommendations from this study follow these findings and provide
suggestions for CEOs as well as other community college related leaders, such as faculty,
boards of trustees, and accreditation administrators. Being visible with students, the
campus, and the community on social justices, earning “citizenship” in served
communities, and practicing intentionality are part of social justice practice as is actually
engaging in work on campus that has a larger benefit to the community. Training boards
of trustees on social justice issues will not only make them more effective in their work,
but it will also make it easier to understand and support the CEOs as they do this work,
too. This will be made easier, still, if accreditation standards also include these
connections to community as part of what they evaluate. Finally, in an age of data driven
decision-making, we can collect even more of it, deeper and broader, so that our
decisions can be based on a more complete picture of what students and their
communities experience.
Critical consciousness is something CEOs can cultivate in themselves. Accepting
195
responsibility to do social justice work is something CEOs can do, as well. If some
leaders believe they can lead from a distance and not really know what their students are
experiencing, what they contend with every day and what barriers remain in front of
them, then they cannot support or create programs that will fully serve students’ needs
and improve their chances of success. How can we be asking community college leaders
to make decisions about and create policies for students who are hugely impacted by
racial and economic oppressions, but who have not themselves fully addressed or
examined their own identities and privileges in relation to these issues? For the CEOs
who have already made these connections and developed their critical consciousness,
they need the support of their boards of trustees to continue the difficult work they are
doing. If ultimately it will be a social movement that is required to undo these
entrenched systems, what role will the CEO play in those movements to come? Will it be
as a perpetuator of the status quo? Or will it be as a partner with the communities served
to create and recreate social and educational systems that truly serve everyone?
196
APPENDICES
197
Appendix A
Survey Instrument
198
Welcome to the Social Justice Leadership Practices Survey!
Thank you for your participation and support for research on social justice leadership. The following page will offer you a consent agreement. If you agree to participate, the 20 question survey will follow. Your sincere, confidential responses will help fill a gap in our understanding of community college leadership and issues impacting community college students. Your participation will also help develop long-­term recommendations for supporting students and their success. You may decline to answer any question at any time. Once, again, thank you! Consent Agreement
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
206
“Social Justice” for this project is generally defined to include: full and equal
participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs as well
as a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members
are physically and psychologically safe and secure…[and] able to develop to their full
capacities (Bell, 2007).
1. How does this definition of “social justice” relate to your own definition of social
justice?
2. What is your background in education in relation to social justice or diversity or
multicultural related coursework?
3. What is your background in participating in community or local organizations
working on social justice or diversity or multicultural related issues?
4. What is your background in terms of experiences with discrimination or other
inequality issues?
[How do any of these aspects of your background relate to or impact your practices as a
community college leader?]
5. What kinds of economic (especially wealth) issues impact the students coming to your
community college?
Do you feel this is considered in state and local policy making? If not, why not?
Should it be?
6. What role does segregation (racial/ethnic and economic) play in impacting students
that come to your community college?
Do you feel this is considered in state and local policy making? If not, why not?
Should it be?
7. What is the “achievement gap” and why does it exist?
How does this issue relate to or impact your role as president/Chancellor?
8. What role do community college leaders play or should community college leaders
play in addressing social justice issues/inequality issues impacting the students they
serve?
with local boards? with state policymakers? with faculty? etc.
9. What do you do to infuse social justice into your leadership practice and advocate for
social justice issues in relation to students (or faculty or staff) on your campus, in your
community, or at the state level?
What hindrances do you experience? (e.g., Board of Trustees, faculty,
accreditation, increasing accountability for “success”, etc.)
207
10. Is there anything else you would like to add or anything you believe I have left out of
my questions?
11. May I contact you for any follow-up clarifications about your responses? [I will be
sending you a draft of the transcript if you want to make any changes.]
208
Appendix C
Interview Consent Form
209
Interview Consent Form
You are being asked to participate in a study conducted by Diane Carlson, a doctoral
candidate in Educational Leadership and Policy program at California State University,
Sacramento (and a California community college faculty member). The purpose of this
research is to explore community college leaders’ understanding of social justice issues,
particularly in relation to segregation and wealth inequality in the community college
feeder communities, and how that understanding relates to leadership practices both on
the campuses and in the communities served. “Social Justice” for this project is generally
defined to include: full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually
shaped to meet their needs as well as a vision of society in which the distribution of
resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and
secure…[and] able to develop to their full capacities (Bell, 2007). Fairly little research
has explored the relationship of community colleges to social justice issues and the role
that community college leadership plays in addressing these issues. This research will
offer community college leaders a deeper understanding of issues impacting community
college students and ideas for developing long-term support for them and their success.
This research project includes a survey to be administered to all California community
college presidents and chancellors. The project also includes interviews with 8-10
current community college presidents and chancellors who will reflect on their
understanding of social justice issues in the communities served by their colleges, as well
as on their own practices both on their campuses and in the communities that seek to
address these issues. There are no specific criteria required other than being a current
community college president or chancellor, but I will work for the interviews to reflect a
balance of urban and suburban, as well as northern and southern California, community
colleges.
All interviews will be individually conducted at the time and location that is most
convenient and comfortable for you. Each interview will be no longer than 45 minutes to
one hour in length. Please note that with your additional consent the interview will be
audio-recorded and later transcribed but you may decline to be recorded and the
researcher will take notes during the interview. In order to ensure confidentiality, a
pseudonym will be provided to protect your identity and any demographic or geographic
references will be made broadly so as not to reveal any particular school or specific
location. The responses for the interviews will be known by number only – your actual
name will never be associated with a number or any gathered data in either the interview
or in the survey. Questions that ask for potentially identifiable information will be
assigned anonymous codes and will not be linked to any name.
You may decline to answer any question asked. Your participation in this research is
entirely voluntary and you may cease participation at any time before, during, or after the
interview. The researcher may also end your participation at any time. The researcher
will also send the transcripts of interviews back to you once they are completed so you
may check your responses to verify that they meet your understanding of what you
210
contributed and, if need be, to adjust them to your understanding.
By voluntarily participating in this research, you will be contributing to developing a
deeper understanding of an area of community college leadership that has been
significantly under researched. This understanding could benefit community college
leaders by potentially offering practical ideas and practices that community college
leaders could utilize to better serve students and their communities.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact Diane Carlson at
dec88@csus.edu (530) 848-1635 or her Dissertation Chair, Dr. Caroline Turner at
csturner@csus.edu (916) 278-2281.
By signing below, you are saying that you have read this consent form and agree to
participate in the interviews. With your permission, I would like to contact you if
additional clarification is required after conducting the interview. I will contact you by
email or phone.
I also agree to have this interview audio recorded. _______YES _______NO
Print name:__________________________________
Signature:___________________________________
Date:________________
211
REFERENCES
Abrahams, R. and R. Troike. (1972). Language and cultural diversity in American
education. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. (2012). Accreditation
Standards. Retrieved March, 8, 2014 from http://www.accjc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/Accreditation-Standards_Edited-Nov-2012.pdf
Adams, M., Bell, L.A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for diversity and social
justice. New York: Routledge.
Alvarez, J. (2009). Social justice education: A way down from the ivory tower. In K.
Skubikowsi, C. Wright, & R. Graf (Eds.) Social justice education: Inviting faculty
to transform their institutions (pp. xiii-xxiv). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Anyon, J. (2006). What should count as educational research: notes toward a new
paradigm. In G. Ladson-Billings, & W. F. Tate (Eds.) Education research in the
public interest: Social justice, action, and policy (pp.17-26). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Aragon, A. & Brantmeier, E. (2009). Diversity-affirming ethics and critical
epistemology: institutional decision making in community colleges. New
directions for community colleges (148): 39-51.
Banks, J (ed.). (1973). Teaching ethnic studies: Concepts and strategies.
Washington,
D.C.: National Council for Social Studies
Banks, J.A. (1975). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies. Boston: Pearson, Allyn and
Bacon.
212
Banks, J.A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. Boston: Pearson,
Allyn and Bacon.
Banks, J.A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and
teaching. Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.
Banks, J. (2006). Democracy, diversity, and social justice: educating citizens for the
public interest in a global age. In G. Ladson-Billings, & W. F. Tate (Eds.)
Education research in the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy
(pp.141-157). New York: Teachers College Press.
Beach, J.M. (2011). Gateway to opportunity? A history of the community college in the
United States. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bell, L.A. (2010). Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W.J., Blumenfeld, C.
Castañeda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga, X. (Eds.) Readings for
diversity and social justice (pp.21-26). New York: Routledge.
Bell, D. A. (2009). Who’s afraid of critical race theory? In E.Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G.
Ladson-Billings (Eds), Foundations of critical race theory in education (pp. 3750). New York: Routledge.
Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Blanchett, W., Mumford, V., Beachum, F. (2005). Urban school failure and
disproportionality in a post-Brown era: benign neglect of the constitutional rights
of students of color. Remedial and Special Education (26) 2: 70-81.
213
Block, M., Carter, S., McLean, A. (2010). Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census. Retrieved
March 9, 2014, from http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map.
Bohn, S, Reyes, B., Johnson, S. (2013). The impact of budget cuts on California
community colleges. Public Policy Institute of California, March 2013.
Bomer, R., Dworin, J., May, L., Semingson, P. (2008) Miseducating Teachers about the
Poor: A Critical Analysis of Ruby Payne's Claims about Poverty Teachers
College Record Volume 110 Number 12, 2008, p. 2497-2531
Bourdieu, P. (1986) “Forms of Capital”, in John G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (2000). Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture.
London: Sage Publications.
Bower, C.B. (2011). Social policy and the achievement gap: What Do We Know?
Where Should We Head? Education and Urban Society, XX(X): 1-34.
Boyles, D., Carusi, T., Attick., D. (2009). Theoretical and critical interpretations of social
justice. In Stovall, D., Quinn, T., & Ayers, W. (Eds.) Handbook of social justice
in education (pp.30-41). New York: Routledge.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living
systems. New York: Anchor.
Carl, J.D. (2012). A short introduction to the U.S. Census. Boston: Pearson.
214
Collins, C., & Yeskel, F. (2009). The dangerous consequences of growing inequality. In
M. Adams, W.J., Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, & X.
Zúñiga, X. (Eds.) Readings for diversity and social justice (pp.155-162). New
York: Routledge.
Cooley, J. (2008). Desegregation and the achievement gap: Do diverse peers help?
(WCER Working Paper No. 2008-7). Madison: University of Wisconsin–
Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved September 4, 2013
from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. New Dehli: Sage Publications.
Cross, B.E. (2007). Urban school achievement gap as a metaphor to conceal U.S.
apartheid education. Theory into Practice, 46(3), 247-255.
Daniel, P.T.K., & Gooden, M.A. (2010). Conflict on the United States Supreme Court:
Judicial confusion and race-conscious school assignments. Brigham Young
University Education & Law Journal, 81-111.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The color line in American education: race, resources,
and student achievement. Du Bois Review 1(2), 213-236.
Diamond, J.B. (2006). Still separate and unequal: examining race, opportunity, and
school achievement in “integrated" suburbs. The Journal of Negro Education,
75(3), 495-505.
Ellis, P.H. (2004). White identity development at a two-year institution. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 745-761.
215
English, F.W. (2002). On the intractability of the achievement gap in urban schools and
the discursive practice of continuing racial discrimination. Education and Urban
Society, 34(3), 298-311.
Ferch, S. R. (2003). Servant-leadership, forgiveness, and social justice. Voices of ServantLeadership Series. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership, Indianapolis, IN.
Fleishman, S. (2005, September 14). Minorities often pay more for mortgages: Lenders
required to give Fed data on subprime loans. Washington Post, p.D1.
Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2003). A multiracial society with segregated
schools: Are we losing the dream? The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus. New York: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Gandara, P., Alvarado, E., Driscoll A., & Orfield, G. (2012). Building pathways to
transfer: Community colleges that break the chain of failure for students of color.
The Civil Rights Project, UCLA.
Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualized analysis of social justice in education.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(1), 69-81.
Goldrick-Rab, S. & Kinsley, P. (2013). School integration and the open door philosophy:
rethinking the economic and racial composition of community colleges. In
Bridging the higher education divide: Strengthening community colleges and
restoring the American dream (pp. 109-136). New York: The Century
Foundation Press.
216
Goldsmith, P.R. 2009. Schools or neighborhoods or both? Race and ethnic segregation
and educational attainment. Social Forces, 87(4): 1913-42.
Goodman, A. H., Moses, Y.T., Jones, J.L. (2012). Race: Are we so different? Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf
Center.
Grunwald, M. (2009, October 23). Why California is still America’s future. Time
Magazine.
Gurin, P., Dey, E.L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education:
Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review 72(3),
330-366.
Guryan, Jonathan (2004), “Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates,” The American
Economic Review 94:4, 919-943
Han, H., West-Olatunji, C. & Thomas, M.S. (2010). Use of racial identity statuses as
predictors of white privilege awareness. Journal of Humanistic Counseling,
Education and Development, 47, 234-246.
Harris, D.N. (2006). Ending the blame game on educational inequity: A study of ‘high
flying’ schools and NCLB. Educational Policy Studies Laboratory. Arizona
State University, March.
Hays, D.G., Chang, C.Y., & Havice, P. (2008). White racial identity statuses as
predictors of white privilege awareness. Journal of Humanistic Counseling,
Education and Development, 47, 234-246.
217
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A. , Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse
learning environments: improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher
education. Washington, D.C.: Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Jackson, M.C. (1994). Critical systems thinking: Beyond the fragments. Systems
Dynamics Review 10(2-3): 213-229.
Jacob, Pierre, "Intentionality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/intentionality/>.
Johnson, H.B. (2006). The American dream and the power of wealth: Choosing schools
and inheriting inequality in the land of opportunity. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, J.F. & Asera, R. (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of none highperforming, high-poverty, urban elementary schools. U.S. Department of
Education.
Kezar, A. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: Examining transactional and
transformational presidential leadership styles. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 11(4), 379-405.
Kozol, J. (2005). The Shame of the Nation: the Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in
America. New York: Broadway.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A
culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31(4),
312-320.
218
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice
field like education? In E.Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson-Billings (Eds),
Foundations of critical race theory in education (pp. 17-36). New York:
Routledge.
LaFree, Gary, and Richard Arum. 2006. "The Impact of Racially Inclusive Schooling on
Adult Incarceration Rates Among US Cohorts of African Americans and Whites
Since 1930." Criminology.
Leadership Development. (2014). Retrieved March 8, 2014, from
http://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3412.
Lee, J. (2004). Multiple facets of inequity in racial and ethnic achievement gaps.
Peabody Journal of Education 79(2), 51-73.
Leonardo, Z. (2004). The color of supremacy: Beyond the discourse of ‘white privilege.’
Educational Philosophy and Theory 36(2): 137-152.
Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit
from identity politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Liptak, A. (2013). Supreme Court invalidates key part of voting rights act. June 25,
2013. New York Times.
Luebker, M. (2010). Inequality, income shares and poverty: The practical meaning of
Gini coefficients. Travail Policy Brief No. 3, International Labour Office.
219
Martinez-Wenzl, M. & Marquez, R. (2012). Unrealized promises: Unequal access,
affordability, and excellence at community colleges in southern California. The
Civil Rights Project, The University of California at Los Angeles.
Massey, D. & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of
the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McArthur, J. (2010). Time to look anew: critical pedagogy and disciplines within higher
education. Studies in Higher Education 35(3), 301–315.
McIntosh, P., (2007) White Privilege and Male Privilege: A personal account of coming
to see correspondences through work in women’s studies, in: M. Andersen & P.
H. Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender: An anthology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Melguizo, T. & Kosiewicz, H. (2013). The role of race, income, and funding on student
success: An institutional level analysis of California community colleges. In
Bridging the higher education divide: Strengthening community colleges and
restoring the American dream (pp. 137-155). New York: The Century
Foundation Press.
Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: improving completion and closing
racial gaps in California’s community colleges. Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy. October.
Morgan, G., Leech, N., Gloeckner, G., & Barrett, K. (2013). IBM SPSS for Introductory
Statistics. New York: Routledge.
220
Mullin, C. M. (2012). Why access matters: The community college student body.
American Association of Community Colleges Policy Brief 2012-01PBL,
February, 2012.
Nevarez, C., & Wood, J.L. (2010). Community College Leadership and Administration:
Theory Practice and Change. New York: Peter Lang.
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education. New York: Longman.
Okoye-Johnson, O. (2011). Does multicultural education improve students' racial
attitudes? Implications for closing the achievement gap. Journal of Black Studies
42(8), p.1252-1274.
Oliver, M.L., & Shapiro, T.M. (2006). Black wealth, white wealth: A new perspective on
racial inequality. New York: Routledge.
Oliver, M.L., & Shapiro, T.M. (2010). Race, wealth, and equality. In M. Adams, W.J.,
Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga, X. (Eds.)
Readings for diversity and social justice (pp.162-169). New York: Routledge.
Omi, M. & Winant, H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to
the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: a 21st century challenge.
Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA
221
Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E.F., & Garces, L.M. (2008). Statement of American social
scientists of research on school desegregation to the U.S. Supreme Court in
Parents v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County. Urban
Review, 40, 96-136.
Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pluribus…separation:
Deepening double segregation for more students. The Civil Rights Project,
University of California at Los Angeles.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: poverty and educational
inequality. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
Osei-Kofi, N. (2006). Pathologizing the poor: A framework for understanding Ruby
Payne’s work. Equity & Excellence in Education 38, 367-375.
Parents Involved v. Seattle School District v. Seattle School District No.1, 551 U.S. 701
(2007)
Pharr. S. (2010). Reflections on liberation. In M. Adams, W.J., Blumenfeld, C.
Castañeda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga, X. (Eds.) Readings for
diversity and social justice (pp.591-598). New York: Routledge.
Population Studies Center, University of Michigan. (2010). New racial segregation
measures for large metropolitan areas: Analysis of the 1990-2010 decennial
censuses. Retrieved September 27, 2013 from
http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/segregation2010.html
Power, S. & Gewirtz, S. (2001) Reading education action zones. Journal of Education
Policy, 16(1), 38–51.
222
Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban
development in southern California. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90 (1), 12-40.
Prentice, M. (2007). Social justice through service learning: Community colleges as
ground zero. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 266–273.
Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational
Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rugh, J.S. & Massey, D.S. (2010). Racial segregation and the American foreclosure
crisis. American Sociological Review 75(5), 629-651.
Rumberger, R.W., & Palardy, G.J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of
student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College
Record 107(9), 1999-2045.
Rumberger, R.W., & Willms, J.D. (1992). The impact of racial and ethnic segregation on
the achievement gap in California high schools. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis,14(4), 377-396.
Rutschow, E.Z, Richburg-Hayes, L., Brock, T., Orr, G., Cerna, O., & Cullinan, D.
(2011). Turning the tide: Five years of achieving the dream in community
colleges. Mdrc publications. January 2011.
Said, E.W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Random House.
223
Santamaría, L. J. (2012). Transformative critical leadership in action: Re-visioning an
equity agenda to address the community college achievement gap. Journal of
Transformative Leadership and Policy Studies 2(1), 15-23.
Santamaría, L.J. & Santamaría, A.P. (2011). Applied critical leadership. New York:
Routledge.
Searle, J.R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, T., Meschede, T., Osoro, S., (2013). The roots of the widening racial wealth
gap: Explaining the black-white economic divide. Institute on Assets and Social
Policy.
Shields, C.M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of
silence. Educational Administration Quarterly 40 (1), 109-132.
Skubikowski, K. (2009). Beyond diversity: Social justice education across the
curriculum. In K. Skubikowski, C. Wright, and R. Graf (Eds.), Social Justice
Education: Inviting faculty to transform their institutions (pp.87-99). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Sleeter, C.E. & Grant, C.A. (1988). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender. Columbus, OH: Merill.
Smith, C.J. (2013). Trustee handbook. Community College League of California.
Solorzano, D. (1997). Images and words that wound: critical race theory, racial
stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5-19.
224
Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33-35.
St.Clair, K. & J.E. Groccia. (2009). Change to social justice education: higher education
strategy. In K. Skubikowski, C. Wright, and R. Graf (Eds.), Social justice
education: Inviting faculty to transform their institutions (pp.70-84). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Stovall, D., Quinn, T., & Ayers, W. (2009). Handbook of social justice in education.
New York: Routledge.
Tatum, B.D. (2007). Can we talk about race? Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Taylor, E. (2009). The foundations of critical race theory in education: An introduction.
In E.Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson-Billings (Eds), Foundations of critical
race theory in education (pp. 1-13). New York: Routledge.
Taylor, P., Kochhar, R., Fry, R., Velasco, G., & Motel, S. (2011). Wealth gaps rise to
record highs between whites, blacks and Hispanics. Pew Research Center.
Teranishi, R., Allen, W.R., Solorzano, D.G. (2004). Opportunity at the crossroads:
Racial inequality, school segregation, and higher education in California.
Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2224–2245.
Trip, G. (2013). Virginia lawmakers pass photo-ID requirement for voters. February 20,
2013. New York Times.
UC Berkeley Initiative for Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity:
http://diversity.berkeley.edu/sp_glossary_of_terms )
225
Uhlenberg, J. & Brown, K.M. (2002). Racial gaps in teachers’ perceptions of the
achievement gap. Education and Urban Society, 34(4), 493-530.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach
the new survival skills our children need--And what we can do about it. New
York: Basic Books.
Watson, S.L. & Watson, W.R. (2011). Critical, emancipatory, and pluralistic research
for education: A review of critical systems theory. Journal of Thought, FallWinter, 63-77.
Wheatley, M.J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Zumeta, W. & Frankle, W. (2007). California community colleges: Making them
stronger and more affordable. National Center Report 07-1. The National Center
for Public Policy and Higher Education.