A Measure of the Quality of Educational Leadership Programs for Social Justice

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how aspiring principals in the United States are prepared for social justice leadership, by focusing particular attention on equitable leadership for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and questioning (LGBTIQ) persons as a measure of the preparation program’s commitment to social justice. Research Method: The research design involved a cross-sectional survey instrument completed by 218 full-time faculty teaching in 53 different University Council for Educational Administration university principal preparation programs. We performed descriptive analysis of Likert-type scale responses with cross-tabulation of selected survey questions and constant comparative analysis of open-ended questions. The descriptive analysis provides a one-moment-in-time snapshot of the perceptions of particular education leadership faculty. As such, the data are illustrative of certain patterns evident across the national sample rather than definitive of these programs. Findings: Findings indicate that LGBTIQ identities and themes are only marginally integrated into U.S. principal preparation programs, inclusive of those identified as social justice programs. Social justice programs that do address LGBTIQ identities frequently depend on one faculty member or course to do so, rather than being integrated throughout the program. Implications for Research and Practice: Strategies are clearly needed for integrating LGBTIQ equitable leadership into U.S. principal preparation. More fundamentally, the study challenges the manner in which social justice discourses are constructed. It suggests that the quality of social justice preparation is appropriately measured, in part, and enhanced by the form of communal engagement with identities and experiences marginal within the social justice discourse itself.

Critical Development of Courage Within Social Justice School Leaders: Silence, Tempered Radicals, and Revolutionaries

“…Leadership for social justice is an umbrella term for these paradigms, many of which include the following characteristics: critical consciousness (Brown, 2004;Furman, 2012); the rejection of deficit-based perspectives about students, families, and communities (DeMatthews, Edwards, & Rincones, 2016;Shields, 2004); a focus on the multiple identities and intersectionality of race (Gooden & Dantley, 2012;Mansfield & Jean-Marie, 2015), gender (Mansfield, 2013), disabilities or different abilities (Pazey & Cole, 2012), sexuality (O'Malley & Capper, 2015;Marshall & Hernandez, 2012), and socioeconomic class (Shields, 2004); dismantling inequities and oppression of historically underserved groups (Brown, 2004;Dantley & Tillman, 2010); and collaboration alongside community members that is based on their perspectives (Bertrand & Rodela, 2018;Fernández & Scribner, 2018;Green, 2017). It oversimplifies these paradigms to assert that the terms can be used interchangeably.…”

School Leaders’ Political Identity-Advocacy in Addressing Social Justice-isms

“…Internal and external education stakeholders engage in bargains over the scarce, tangible and intangible, school resources (Ball, 1989(Ball, , 1990Hoyle, 1982: Iannaccone, 1991Lindle, 1994;Lindle & Reese, 2014). Those bargains may be more easily recognized, negotiated, and agreed upon among community officials and recognized or assertive individuals and groups (Marshall & Gerstl-Pepin, 2005;O'Malley & Capper, 2015;Schneider & Ingram, 1993). Yet, in every community, individuals and groups may be ignored either deliberately or inadvertently (Fowler, 2013;O'Malley & Capper, 2015).…”

The Debate Over Single‐Sex Schooling

“…Finally, developmental researchers need to understand the experiences of transgender youth, whose presence is becoming increasingly prominent in schools . Single‐sex schools highlight the gender binary, that is, the belief that people must fit in one of two categories.…”