Purpose: This article investigates how school leaders make sense of social justice and democracy in their practice in two settings, a high-stakes testing and accountability context, the San Francisco Bay Area, California, and a low-stakes testing and accountability context, Norway. It demonstrates how leaders view relationships among education, democracy, and social justice, when located in a neoliberal democracy with a minimalist welfare state or in a social democracy with a robust welfare state. Design and Evidence: Through a comparative design, we analyze qualitative data from two international principal exchanges designed to capture outsiders’ impressions of schools in each context. Participants included alumni from an American and a Norwegian university’s principal preparation programs. Through preobservation and postobservation interviews and focus groups, we explore observations by practitioners, who acted as coconstructors in the research. Findings and Implications: The article presents three findings: (1) While principals in both systems conceptualized equity similarly, their conceptions of democracy were aligned with the type of democracy in which they were embedded; (2) Schools’ norms, climate, structures, and leadership, as well as students’ daily lives, reflected the values implicit in their respective political contexts; (3) Principals perceived elements of their macro- and micro-level settings to enable or constrain their ability to craft democratic, socially just schools. These findings help scholars move beyond discourse about the need for leaders to advocate for equity, to deeper understandings about conditions that shape democratic schools, such as values about collectivism, welfarism, and the common good—tenets of a socially just civic society.
The purpose of this article is to investigate the multiple political histories that have coalesced to produce support for or resistance to the Oakland Unified School District’s full-service community schools policy. It analyzes oral history interview data from eight stakeholders who represent the district’s major constituencies to explore the reasons why each individual, positioned differently within the larger district system, may or may not support a seemingly democratic, community-based reform. Through their voices, the article explains how different constituencies can interpret an urban district’s policies and form community-based coalitions that either further or obstruct a democratic, equity-minded reform.
District leaders have rich insights into managing civic-minded reforms, like community schools, yet, little research on school reform examines their experiences within policy paradigms and political contexts that are increasingly marketized. Through oral histories with two longtime Oakland education leaders, we show how leaders negotiated and carried out initiatives while juggling challenges. Despite commitments to quality public education, leaders often faced competing pressures and values by local and external actors. We argue that Oakland represents a critical case of central office reform amid a resource-scarce, market-oriented educational landscape that shapes racialized community engagement and redefines power dynamics in the district.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.