Purpose: The purpose of this article is to suggest the structure and content of an educational leadership program whose aim is to prepare principals for social justice work. Research Design: The authors have conceptualized foundational components for a comprehensive principalship program focused on social justice. They assert that educational leaders for social justice must have three goals at the forefront of their efforts: (a) They must raise the academic achievement of all the students in their school, that is, high test scores do matter; (b) they must prepare their students to live as critical citizens in society; and (c) both of these goals can only be achieved when leaders assign students to inclusive, heterogeneous classrooms that provide all students access to a rich and engaging curriculum. The components addressed for this social justice—oriented principalship preparation program include (a) how students should be selected for such a program and (b) an outline of the knowledge and content for educating social justice leaders. The importance of induction/praxis after students graduate from these programs is discussed. Conclusions: The aim of this article is to provoke a discussion in the field and spark faculty to engage in ongoing conversations and thinking about their own programs and to imagine new avenues for future research in this area. Faculty also can use these suggestions as a guide to assess their efforts and to bolster program quality, sensitive to the unique needs and schooling contexts of their particular students.

Traditional leadership preparation programs and licensure requirements give only token consideration to social justice concerns. This article examines the emerging social justice discourse in the educational administration field and discusses several challenges that must be considered as universities and others attempt to prepare school leaders for social justice critique and activism. Social justice scholarship in educational leadership emphasizes moral values, justice, respect, care, and equity; always in the forefront is a consciousness about the impact of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and disability on schools and students’ learning. School leadership programs face the challenge of preparing new leaders to critically inquire into the structures and norms that result in inequitable schooling for many students and to undertake an advocacy role to influence educational policies to achieve social justice.

a department of educational leadership, Miami university, oxford, oh, usa; b college of education, health, and society, Miami university, oxford, oh, usa; c department of secondary education and educational leadership, stephen f. austin state university, nacogdoches, tX, usa

No abstract

The work of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership begins with an important understanding: The need for change in leadership preparation is not contested. Rather, the possible approaches that can be taken to strengthen our field are the subject of debate. Those differences warrant the attention of a respected national body, the commission, to work through them, clearing the way for the further development of a critically important field. Formation of the commission provides an opportunity for the profession to create collectively the common understandings and working assumptions that are needed to inform leadership development at every level. The commission, through its composition, is recognition that the profession consists of diverse constituencies located in many places. It is an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. It is not about university faculty inviting school leaders to the table to react to their recommendations. It is about focused, collective discourse and planning of a shared agenda that contributes to the well-being of a nation's children.A significant context for our response to the commission articles is a decade of experience with the Danforth Foundation's Forum for the American School Superintendent. Work with this group of 60 superintendents has compelled us to reexamine our assumptions about leadership and the practices of the education administration field. It has left us with grave concerns 289