Indigenous Urban School Leadership: A Critical Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis of Educational Leaders in New Zealand and the United States

Abstract

This qualitative inquiry compares the practice of one Māori primary school leader of urban education for indigenous multicultural multilingual learners in New Zealand (NZ), to research on the practices of nine educational leaders of colour in the United States (US). This study identifies and compares leadership practices for leaders struggling with ways to positively impact learner outcomes in similar settings (e.g., UK, Canada). From a critical comparative perspective, this school principal shares her leadership practice and lessons learned to inform leadership practice in similarly multifaceted urban settings. This research is undertaken by a collaborative cross-cultural team of educational leaders and scholars from the US and NZ, from the local university and urban primary school. The research team comprises multiple perspectives, the basis for global comparative discourse on school leadership. This contribution offers a cross-cultural model, framework, and way of doing educational research to increase understanding of leadership in different societies.

Exploring Indigenous education leadership research in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand

“…In addition, a great number of scholars have employed a qualitative method to conduct research on Indigenous education leadership (Cherubini and Volante, 2010;Ford et al, 2018;Lickers, 2016;Santamar ıa et al, 2015;Williams, 2012). Ethnography (Blakesley, 2011;Jorgensen, 2016;Rhea, 2015;White, 2010) and case studies (Donald et al, 2013;Niesche and Keddie, 2014;Preston et al, 2016;Santamar ıa et al, 2014) were used by the same number of scholars, each group representing eight percent of the publications. What is more, mixed methods were selected by certain scholars (Hynds et al, 2015;Riley and Webster, 2016;Walsh et al, 2018) whose research was included in this corpus.…”

“…Indigenous education leadership development has been a crucial focus of Indigenous education leadership research (Andersen, 2018;Berryman et al, 2017;Blakesley, 2008;Purdie and Wilkinson, 2008;Rhea, 2015;Santamar ıa et al, 2014;Waite, 2017). Australian scholars have shown a particular preference for this topic (Andersen, 2018;Purdie and Wilkinson, 2008;Rhea, 2015).…”

“…Various perspectives have been adopted in this field of study. First, the importance of studying this topic has been emphasized by some scholars (Berryman et al, 2017;Purdie and Wilkinson, 2008;Santamar ıa et al, 2014). Second, a number of scholars have put forward some suggestions for furthering the development of Indigenous education leadership (Andersen, 2018;Berryman et al, 2017;Santamar ıa et al, 2014).…”

Untitled

“…The authors refer to research by L. T. and Delgado and Stefancic (2011) evaluating white privilege in Aotearoa, where Päkehä educators failed to recognise the difference between their Mäori and Pacific students. Accordingly, this leads to forms of acting out both conscious and unconscious micro-aggressive, discriminatory and prejudice behaviours (Santamaria et al, 2014). Bishop et al (2009) have argued that in order "to serve the interests of a mono-cultural elite", the education system has been dominated by Eurocentric agendas and deficit theorising that must be challenged with "agentic positioning promoted by teachers" (p. 738).…”

Leadership through learning – Normalising Māori and Pacific leadership and learning success in a tertiary environment

“…The authors refer to research by L. T. Smith (2012) and Delgado and Stefancic (2011) evaluating white privilege in Aotearoa, where Päkehä educators failed to recognise the difference between their Mäori and Pacific students. Accordingly, this leads to forms of acting out both conscious and unconscious micro-aggressive, discriminatory and prejudice behaviours (Santamaria et al, 2014). Bishop et al (2009) have argued that in order "to serve the interests of a mono-cultural elite", the education system has been dominated by Eurocentric agendas and deficit theorising that must be challenged with "agentic positioning promoted by teachers" (p. 738).…”