write a discussion (st)

Journal of Research on Leadership Education June 2009, Volume 4, Issue 1 Leadership for Social Justice: Preparing 21 st Century School Leaders for a New Social Order Gaetane Jean-Marie University of Oklahoma Anthony H. Normore California State University, Dominguez Hills Jeffrey S. Brooks University of Missouri At the dawn of the 21 st century, there has been an increased focus on social justice and educational leadership (Bogotch, Beachum, Blount, Brooks & English, 2008; Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Shoho, Merchang & Lugg, 2005). This paper explores and extends themes in contemporary educational research on leadership preparation in terms of social justice and its importance for both research and practice on a national and international level. In particular, we examine various considerations in the literature regarding whether or not leadership preparation programs are committed to, and capable of, preparing school leaders to think globally and act courageously about social justice for a new social order.

The primary purpose of this paper is to explore and extend themes in contemporary educational research on leadership preparation and training in terms of social justice and its importance for both research and practice on a national and international level. In particular, we focus on leadership preparation programs that help schools and their leaders grapple with social justice issues. At the dawn of the 21 st century, there has been an increased focus on social justice and educational leadership (Bogotch, Beachum, Blount, Brooks & English, 2008; Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Shoho, Merchang & Lugg, 2005).

Research indicates that social justice issues are often marginalized within educational leadership degree and certification programs, as such an orientation is considered “soft” in comparison to more traditional topics such as organizational theory, principalship, school law, and finance (Shoho, 2006). Other research contends that social justice as an educational intervention is a continuously relevant topic that should be infused into every aspect of leadership preparation, Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 2 including the aforementioned subjects (Bogotch, 2005). In this era, schools are thrust into a position in which they must prepare children and communities for participation in a multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, and a multinational society (Capper, 1993). As a result, school leaders are under fierce accountability and fiscal pressures, while coping with a larger political environment that is polarized and fearful about the growing complexities of this new social order (Lugg & Shoho, 2006; McMahon, 2007; Walker & Dimmock, 2005).

A growing concern among educators is whether emerging school leaders are prepared to face these pressures and create schools that advocate for education that advances the rights and education for all children (Spring, 2001). Furthermore, studies suggest that leadership preparation programs need to better prepare school leaders to promote a broader and deeper understanding of social justice, democracy, and equity (Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Young & Mountford, 2006).

This paper examines various considerations as suggested in the literature regarding whether or not leadership preparation programs are committed to, and capable of, preparing school leaders to think globally and act courageously about social justice. Yet, while we ultimately advocate for a glocal (meaningful integration of local and global issues, imperatives, and concepts) approach to leadership preparation, it is important to note that the central context for this work is the United States. We understand that while we likely identify some issues and trends that may be relevant to scholars and educators in other national contexts, we do not pretend that this work is universally applicable. Instead, we offer a context-bound analysis from the perspective of three US-based educational leadership scholars and issue an invitation to a multi-national dialogue rather than propose a definitive statement about leadership preparation, writ large.

This article is conceptual in nature. We used the findings from a review of extant literature on the issues under investigation and conducted a content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004). Data were collected from books, professional journals, relevant websites, papers delivered at conferences, and Boolean searches through WilsonWeb and Lexis-Nexis databases, and article abstracts. These searches generated articles published within the last three decades. Identifiers and organizers such as “leadership preparation,” “equity,” “diversity,” “social justice,” “liberatory education,” “race,” “gender,” ethics,” “urban school,” “global education,” “critical pedagogy,” “oppression,” “curricula,” “social change,” “constructivism,” “social development,” “social context,” and “social order” yielded myriad results. The abstracts from the articles were reviewed to narrow the focus on issues that dealt specifically with leadership preparation, social justice, culturally relevant curriculum, critical pedagogy, and strategies for connecting social justice practice and the study of educational leadership in local, national, and global spheres. Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 3 Once data were collected, a coding scheme was implemented to facilitate the identification of emerging themes and patterns. Using inductive codes, themes were sorted into the appropriate categories. Through the use of content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Thomas, 1994; Weber, 1990) we quantified and analyzed the presence, meanings and relationships of words and concepts within chosen texts or sets of texts. (Krippendorf, 2004; Roberts, 1997). Inferences were subsequently made about the messages within the texts, the writer(s), the audience, and even the culture and time of which these are a part. The text was then coded into manageable categories on a variety of levels—word, word sense, phrase, sentence, or theme (Carley, 1992)—and then examined using the basic methods of content analysis: conceptual and relational analysis (Thomas, 1994).

Specifically, the steps for conducting a content analysis as suggested in the literature (See Carley, 1992; Krippendorff, 2004; Thomas, 1994) were followed. These include: (a) a decision on the level of analysis, (b) the number of concepts to code for, (c) whether to code for existence or frequency of a concept, (d) how to distinguish among concepts, (e) development of rules for coding the texts, (f) what to do with irrelevant information, (g) code the texts, and (h) analyze the results. Our analysis revealed four dominant issues between educational leadership and social justice literatures that are essential for creating a new social order. These are: (a) conceptualizing social justice and a new social order in leadership preparation, (b) beyond traditional leadership preparation to leadership for social justice, (c) moving toward critical pedagogy: leadership for liberation and commitment to social justice, and (d) making connections between local and global research to extend leadership for social justice. The balance of this paper is devoted to a discussion of each of these themes.

Conceptualizing Social Justice and a New Social Order in Leadership Preparation The term social justice is an elusive construct, politically loaded, and subject to numerous interpretations (Shoho, Merchant & Lugg, 2005). Its foundation is rooted in theology (Ahlstrom, 1972; Hudson, 1981), social work (Koerin, 2003), and it has deep roots in educational disciplines like curriculum and pedagogy (Apple, 1996; Freire, 1998b, 1996). Social justice has also been studied in law, philosophy, economics, political studies, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and public policy (Brooks, 2008a). However, it is a relatively new term to the field of educational administration (Shoho, Merchant & Lugg, 2005). Researchers (e.g. Furman & Gruenewald, 2004; Shields, 2003) contend that social justice has become a major concern for educational scholars and practitioners at the beginning of the 21 st century and is driven by many factors (e.g. cultural transformation and demographic shift of Western society, increased achievement and economic gaps of underserved populations, and accountability pressures and high stakes testing). Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 4 Bogotch (2002) asserts that social justice has “no fixed or predictable meanings (p. 153). However, other scholars in educational leadership (e.g.

Dantley & Tillman, 2006; Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Marshall & Oliva, 2006) identify common threads and shared understanding of social justice to include creating equitable schooling and education (Bredeson, 2004; Jean-Marie, 2008; Larson & Murtadha, 2002); examining issues of race, diversity, marginalization, gender, spirituality, age, ability, sexual orientation and identity (Dantley & Tillman, 2006); anti- oppressive education (Kumashiro, 2000); and conceptualizing the preparation of leaders for social justice (Capper, Theoharis & Sebastian, 2006; Marshall & Oliva, 2006). Synthesizing the social justice discourse in educational leadership, Furman and Gruenewald (2004) offer three shared meanings of social justice embedded in various ways throughout contemporary literature: critical-humanist perspective, focus on school achievement and economic well-being, and the narratives and values of the Western Enlightenment (see also Brooks, 2008b).

The increased attention given to social justice brings to fore a focus on the moral purposes of leadership in schools and how to achieve these purposes (Furman, 2003). As Evans (2007) observed, the scholarship of social justice supports the notion that educational leaders have a social and moral obligation to foster equitable school practices, processes, and outcomes for learners of different racial, socioeconomic, gender, cultural, disability, and sexual orientations backgrounds (p. 250). Recognition that the role of school leaders is at least in part to advocate on behalf of traditionally marginalized and poorly-served students carries a corollary contention that traditional hierarchies and power structures must be deconstructed and reconfigured, thereby creating a new social order that subverts a longstanding system that has privileged certain students while oppressing or neglecting others (Allen, 2006; Lugg & Shoho, 2006; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003).

This means that school leaders must increase their awareness of various explicit and implicit forms of oppression, develop an intent to subvert the dominant paradigm, and finally act as a committed advocate for educational change that makes a meaningful and positive change in the education and lives of traditionally marginalized and oppressed students (Allen, 2006; Brooks & Tooms, in press; Freire, 1998b). If educational leaders with this perspective on their practice “can sufficiently increase their stock of courage, intelligence, and vision, [they] might become a social force of some magnitude” (Counts, 1978, p. 29) and extend their scope of influence well beyond the school’s walls. Given this perspective, school leaders are potentially the architects and builders of a new social order wherein traditionally disadvantaged peoples have the same educational opportunities, and by extension social opportunities, as traditionally advantaged people. Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 5 Beyond Traditional Leadership Preparation to Leadership for Social Justice In considering the emergence of social justice in educational administration, two strands categorize the paradigmatic shift from indifference or ignorance toward issues of social justice by practitioners and scholars to an embracement of said issues. For the purpose of this paper, these strands are categorized as the historic administrative practice in public schools and a social justice approach to leadership preparation.

Karpinski and Lugg (2006) drew from the historical work of other researchers (e.g., Arnez, 1978; Blount, 1998; Cubberley, 1919; Nassaw, 1979;) to examine the shift of traditional leadership preparation to the emergence of social justice in the field. Similarly, Capper, Theoharis and Sebastian (2006) examined the scholarship—to name a few (e.g., Bredeson, 1995; Littrell & Foster, 1995, Murphy, 1999, 2001; Murphy & Vriesenga, 2004) who have debated what makes up the knowledge base of educational administration.

They further examined other scholarship (e.g., Dantley, 2002; Gerwitz, 1998; Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Marshall, 2004) to provide an analysis of the growing interest and body of scholarship on leadership for social justice. We likewise conducted further review of the literature which included Brooks and Miles’ (2008) retrospective on intellectual zeitgeist in educational leadership, English’s (2005) edited handbook of educational leadership, Murphy’s (2006) and Murphy and Vriesenga’s (2006) examination of the education of school leaders through an historical context, Marshall and Oliva’s (2006) edited work on leadership for social justice, Normore’s (2008) edited work on leadership, social justice, equity and excellence, and special issues of journals devoted to leadership for social justice (i.e., Educational Administration Quarterly, 2004; Journal of Educational Administration, 2007; International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 2006; and Journal of School Leadership, 2007). In the first categorization, historic administrative practice in public schools, the knowledge base of educational administration was premised on the traditional model of scholars such as Cubberly, Strayer and Mort (Brooks & Miles, 2008; Karpinski & Lugg, 2006; Murphy, 2006). Karpinski and Lugg (2006) argue that the early history of educational administration as a profession and mode of inquiry drew heavily from hierarchical and simplistic business models that obscured the rich diversity of public schools in the early twentieth century. The promotion of standardization and regimentation of grade levels, teaching materials and curricula, and curricula tracking were the bases of preparing generations of administrators committed to a “one size fits all” (Callahan, 1962) approach to their work that Brooks and Miles (2008) characterized as a “first wave of scientific management” (p. 101-102).

According to Grogan and Andrews (2002), traditionally, university-based leadership preparation programs are best characterized as preparing aspiring administrators for the role of a top- down manager and are overloaded with Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 6 courses on management and administration (i.e., planning, organizing, financing, supervising, budgeting, scheduling, etc.) rather than on the development of relationships and caring environments within schools to promote student learning (p. 238). Murphy’s (2006) and Murphy and Vriesenga’s (2006) historical overview of the preparation of school leaders reveal the impact each era of the period—i.e., ideological (1820-1900), prescriptive (1900-1915), scientific (1947- 1985) and dialectic (1986-present)—had on the field. The first three eras, in particular the ideological and prescriptive, were greatly influenced by the homogeneous scholars in educational administration (i.e., white male professors). A similar homogeneity characterized students of these periods in that nearly all were white males holding full-time positions as school administrators (Murphy, 2006, p. 5) whose training and professional socialization were grounded in technical and efficiency approaches and largely removed from the social and philosophical foundations of education (Karpinski & Lugg, 2006). Concerns with the social order of schools dominated in the 1930s and 1950s (Evans, 2007). As Karpinksi and Lugg (2006) conclude:

Efficient administrators saw human differences in terms of deficiencies and frequently labeled these differences as genetic and moral failings. As a result, generations of mainstream educational administrators were simply not interested in broadly defined discussions of individualism, democracy, and community (p. 281).

Conclusively, inclusiveness and diversity were overshadowed by the norms of dominant voices in American society (Karpinski & Lugg, 2006; Pounder, Reitzug & Young, 2002) during these periods and permeated the preparation of school leaders.

A post-scientific management shift in the preparation of school leaders occurred during the dialectic era. It was fueled by an onslaught of criticism on the state of leadership preparation programs. As some have argued (e.g., Evans, 2007; Murphy; 2006), cultural and political shifts during the eras of educational administration greatly influenced the ideologies in educational leadership preparation (Brooks & Miles, 2008). However, as the field evolved in response to broader social movements, preparation of school leaders prompted new frameworks that included standards of performance guided by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium’s (ISLLC). The standards address the school leader’s role in developing a shared vision of learning; sustaining a school culture conducive to learning; ensuring appropriate management of school operations and resources; facilitating collaboration with families to respond to diverse needs; acting with integrity and fairness; and responding to the school’s political, social, Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 7 economic, legal, and cultural context (Cambron-McCabe, 2006, 112).

As Evans (2007) cogently asserts, prescriptive performance standards have weakened school leaders’ responsibility and ability to respond to the social needs of children and families’ the public schools serve. Additionally, some (e.g., Achilles & Price, 2001; Anderson, 2001; English, 2000; Cambron-McCabe, 2006) have criticized the ISLLC standards for its inadequacy in addressing social justice concerns despite the vast improvement of underlying assumptions that impacted earlier approaches to leadership preparation. Brooks and Miles (2008) went as far as to characterize the current standards movement, including the 2002 No Child Left Behind legislation and ISLLC as a “second wave of scientific management in educational administration” (p. 109).

Embedded in the ISLLC standards is a culminating requirement, an internship that is viewed as the ultimate performance test or final rite of passage before gaining an initial license to practice. Principal interns have the opportunity to expand their knowledge and skills in authentic settings as they work on problems with real-world consequences (Southern Regional Education Board, 2007). However, the internship in preparation programs is suffering from a number of blind spots on addressing social justice concerns schools and communities confront, and have failed to provide a robust, dynamic, and multi-faceted description of leadership for 21 st century schools. Research by SREB (2007) reveals serious flaws in administrative internships, hindering candidates’ development in the competencies they will need to be effective principals. For example, among SREB’s findings, they discovered that activities like shadowing a veteran principal, handling routine chores, attending school board meetings, or taking up tickets at a school event were the extent of internship experiences.

Quality internships require significant investments by university leadership preparation programs in order to fully prepare new principals to face the challenges of leadership (SREB, 2007).

Furthermore, licensure standards must move beyond vague statements to specific actions to embody social justice (Cambron-McCabe, 2006; Marshall & Ward, 2004) in educational leadership. The second categorization which depicts a shift in leadership preparation programs is a social justice approach that focuses on how to best educate school administrators and achieve “just” schools (Quantz, Cambron-McCabe & Dantley, 1991). Scholars have paid considerable attention to practices and policies that marginalize students and pose challenging questions to school leaders, educational scholars, and the broader community to engage in discussions about leadership for social justice (Capper, Theoharis & Sebastian, 2006; Fua, 2007; Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Normore, 2008; Moos, Moller & Johanson, 2004). Hoff, Yoder and Hoff (2006) conducted a study of pre-service administrators in three master’s level certification programs at a state university in New England. Findings from this study support Shoho’s (2006) Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 8 assertion that educational leaders are not adequately prepared to lead public schools toward a greater understanding of diversity or help change the social order. These aspiring leaders claimed little responsibility for promoting social justice, especially when social change challenged local norms. According to Hoff et al., (2006), in order to prepare leaders to meet these responsibilities with skill and forethought (i.e. habits of hands and habits of mind), university leadership preparation programs must recognize they are in a key position to impact the practices and behaviors of future school leaders. As such, educators who prepare school leaders must question how well they are cultivating revolutionary educational leaders (Kezar & Carducci, 2007) to embrace the social responsibility for creating better schools and better educated students, while simultaneously serving the public good.

Schools today face shifting demands such as growing pressures for accountability, achieving higher levels of learning for all children, and an increase in public scrutiny (Jean-Marie, 2008). Expectations are escalating, and leadership preparation programs face fundamental questions in regard to their purposes, visions of excellence, and measures of programmatic quality. With the launching of a series of conversations in 1994 about the impact of leadership preparation programs and the numerous approaches used in universities around the country, the executive committee of the University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA) raised important questions about how well prepared were school leaders to respond to the demanding policy and cultural challenges schools have to contend with (Black & Murtadha, 2007). Leadership preparation programs are now challenged to provide curricula that shed light on and interrogate notions of social justice, democracy, equity, and diversity (Hafner, 2005; Young & Brooks, 2008). Among the challenges identified in the leadership preparation literature for meeting the new demands are: a need for district financial commitment for leadership development programs that will likely draw more candidates to fill the diminishing pipeline for school leadership positions (Kelley & Petersen, 2000; Jackson & Kelly, 2000; SREB, 2007); a need to select texts and articles in educational leadership curricula that adequately address issues of how race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other characteristics create a climate which places some students at an educational disadvantage (Beyer & Apple, 1988; Furman & Starratt, 2002); a need to adequately prepare educational leaders who will have experiences which affect their ability and desire to promote and practice social justice (Furman & Shields, 2005; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003); a prevalent misconception that pre- service training or even out-of-district in-service programs will provide aspiring school leaders with all they need to know about how to be an effective leader in a particular school district (Daresh, 2000), and a need for school districts and universities to forge partnerships for planning leadership development to ensure that similar goals and objectives are met with a non- Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 9 redundant curriculum (Muth & Barnett, 2001; SREB, 2007). Despite these challenges, Young and Mountford (2006) assert that there will be an influx of leadership preparation programs seeking to infuse these issues in their program of study within the next decade that will “emphasize issues of diversity, ethics, and equity, and utilize transformational learning to train leaders who will be better able to advance social justice in their schools and districts as well as in their communities and society at large” (p. 265). In considering curricular revisions to orient aspiring leaders, consideration must be given to student resistance to transformational learning around issues of diversity and social justice (Young & Mountford, 2006; Hoff et al., 2006). Preparation programs must also consider the issue that promoting diversity can be more daunting when the population of potential leaders and their own experiences are themselves homogeneous (Capper et al., 2006; Hoff et al., 2006). Many aspiring leaders have too few opportunities to cross school boundaries and form close linkages with surrounding communities in “porous” relationships (Furman, 2002). Yet, preparation programs must seek to infuse curricula with multiple perspectives to broaden aspiring leaders’ experiences beyond their familiarity or limited to their current school setting (Hafner, 2005). Dimmock and Walker (2005) argue that given the phenomenal and rapid spread of multiculturalism and globalization, there is a need for better understanding school leadership in multiple contexts. Their work in infusing culture and diversity in educational leadership seeks to inform how practitioner-leaders come to understand their immediate contexts better, while appreciating the contextual differences with their counterparts elsewhere. Challenging university educators in educational leadership, Allen (2006) asserts that professors need to reexamine how aspiring leaders are prepared to address the complexity of culture and schooling. They can be guided to reframe the issues surrounding education and develop the skills that will assist in exploring how they think about schools, as well as cultivate in them a more insightful understanding of social justice and equity. Theoretically, this will result in developing mindful leaders (Langer, 1989), an important educational task for leadership preparation programs if schools leaders are to build a new social order (Allen, 2006; Hoff et al., 2006). A 2004 special issue of Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ) examined the issue of a broader curriculum in educational leadership, focusing specifically on the ways that social justice concepts could be integrated into existing curricula. The community of scholars and scholarship in educational leadership is increasingly global, as evident by the nationality of authors published in journals such as the Journal of Educational Administration, Journal of School Leadership, Planning and Changing, Educational Administration Quarterly, International Journal for Leadership in Education, Journal of Research on Leadership Education, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, and Values and Ethics in Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 10 Educational Administration. Social justice leadership is likewise receiving attention at conferences such as the annual New Democratic Ethical Educational Leadership (New DEEL), University Council of Educational Administration (UCEA), American Educational Research Association (AERA), Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM), and UCEA Values, Ethics and Leadership conferences promulgating national and international perspectives about educational administration. Present in these professional publications and conferences are elusive themes that aim to include an increasingly broader range of perspectives. Through research and inquiry, leadership preparation programs can take a comparative perspective in regards to the influence of culture of leadership styles as well as the different world-views, values, and belief systems of our complex nation and world. Young and Lopez (2005) maintain that the nature of inquiry in educational leadership scholarship is constrained by both its theoretical and methodological tools. They believe that broader frameworks for understanding leadership, organizational life, and the role and purpose of leaders in a changing social context are needed.

They also propose that these frameworks are attainable by expanding our theoretical and methodological lenses through three theoretical approaches—critical race, queer, and feminist post-structural—that expose the field to different understandings of leadership and organizational phenomena. Critical race theory, queer theory, and feminist post-structural theory approaches have much to offer the educational leadership scholarship.

Critical race theory, a mid-1970s movement that began in law but has spread broadly to other disciplines, examines the relationship among race, racism and power, and challenges the overt and hidden manifestation of racism in the political, legal and organizational, and social arenas that maintain beliefs about neutrality, equal opportunity, and democracy in popular U.S. ideology (Bell, 1992; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000). Queer theory as a cultural study field emerged in the 1990s. It examines sexual identities such as sex, sexuality and gender and seeks to understand discourse, structures, behaviors and actions that normalize the interlocking systems of power and sexuality (Foucault, 1980; Tierney, 1997; Tierney & Dilley, 1998). Canonical texts of queer studies by scholars like Foucault (1981, 1987) heavily influenced the modern discourse on the social construction of sexual identities.

Feminist post-structural theory combines both feminist and post structural perspectives and draws from post structural conceptions of discourse, subjectivity, power and knowledge, and resistance in relation to issues of gender roles, inequity and oppression (Grogan, 2003; Ortiz & Marshall, 1988; Shakeshaft, 1989; Skrla, 2003; Young & Lopez, 2005). Embedding critical theory, queer theory and feminist post-structural theory in the curriculum of educational leadership preparation programs provides deeper knowledge for Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 11 exploring the historically neglected issues of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability and class and their impact on public school and the education of children. However, they cannot remain on the margins of mainstream educational leadership (Young & Lopez, 2005). The application of these theoretical roots of inquiry in conceptualizing leadership for social justice makes possible an agenda that strengthens research and practice and enhances the possibility for constructing new thinking, methods, and tools for teaching and doing social justice (Marshall & Oliva, 2006). As Karpinski and Lugg (2006) contend, exploring these issues in educational administration has the potential to ensure better academic and social outcomes for all students. According to Young and Lopez (2005), these theories can disrupt our taken-for-granted assumptions of what leadership is, what it can be, and what purposes it ultimately serves (p. 351). Whether critical race theory, queer theory or feminist post-structural theory, all of them, when applied to scholarship and research in educational leadership, have important contributions to make to the field. Also, when used in educational leadership, they can disrupt our taken- for-granted assumptions about the centrality of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation in schools and raise the social consciousness of school leaders (Brunner, Opsal & Oliva, 2006).

Researchers (e.g. Bell, 1992; Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, Lind, 2004; Sandoval, 2000; Shohat, 2001) have suggested that while disruption is necessary and good we also need to know how to reformulate assumptions that are more healthy and empowering to those oppressed by misguided educators and school leaders. Resistance to preparing leaders for social justice might be overcome when we are able to effectively move from the deconstruction phase to the reconstruction phase and beyond.

Grounded in feminist and critical theory, Allen (2006) and her colleagues revamped their leadership preparation program and on its fifth anniversary evaluated the program documenting their efforts on how aspiring principal interns learned to practice critical inquiry/theory in university classrooms. Course syllabi were reconstructed to reflect “looking at the big picture by investigating and gaining a sense of understanding about the social, economic, and political context of issues” (p. 5). Aspiring leaders were asked to examine their beliefs through the lens of critical pedagogy which explored how social justice sought to transform inequitable, undemocratic, or oppressive institutions and social relations (Allen, 2006). The renewed call for a new social order suggests that it is incumbent upon leadership preparation programs to teach, model, and cultivate the necessary behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge to help shape the social justice value stances and skills of practicing and future administrators (Marshall, 2004) and for shaping their organizations in ways that are inclusive.

Additionally, our analysis of the literature suggests that we may need to focus on ways for leadership preparation programs to move in the direction of a social constructivist Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 12 approach to teaching and learning involving critical dialogue and pedagogy, and a concentrated effort to understand knowledge construction and social development. Moving Toward Critical Pedagogy:

Leadership for Liberation and Commitment to Social Justice At a time when educators continue to deploy new strategies to confront the transformative and changing social and historical contexts, they struggle with a common definition for the term critical pedagogy. From a traditional standpoint, researchers have defined critical pedagogy as educational theory and teaching and learning practices that are designed to raise learners’ critical consciousness concerning oppressive social conditions (Freire, 1998a, 1998b; Ladson-Billings, 1997; McLaren, 1998, 1993; McLauren & Torres, 1999). Freire (1998a, 1998b) argues that critical pedagogy focuses on personal liberatory education through the development of critical consciousness. He further argues that liberatory education “raises students' consciousness and prepares them to engage in larger social struggles for liberation” (1998b, p. 28). Serving as a catalyst to the commitment of social justice and to the development of a new social order, liberatory education attempts to empower learners to engage in critical dialogue that critiques and challenges oppressive social conditions nationally and globally and to envision and work towards a more just society (Shields, 2002). The use of such a dialogical approach in leadership development programs is one strategy that can help current and future leaders to confront transformative and changing social conditions and historical contexts. We propose that the dialogical approach to learning abandons the lecture format and the “banking approach” to education (Freire, 1998, p.

58) in favor of dialogue and open communication among students and instructor where everybody teaches and everybody learns. In preparation for social justice leadership, critical pedagogy is particularly concerned with:

reconfiguring the traditional student/teacher relationship, where the teacher is the active agent, the one who knows - and the students receive, memorize and repeat information as the passive recipients of the instructor’s knowledge. As we move toward a critical pedagogy and a commitment to social justice we envision the classroom as a site where new knowledge, grounded in the experiences of students and teachers alike, is produced through meaningful dialogue and experiences (Freire, 1998a, p. 58). In support of critical pedagogy and a more social constructivist approach to teaching for social justice, important concepts about knowledge and learning emerged from our analysis of the literature (Gredler & Shields, 2004; Hacking, 1999). Understanding how knowledge is constructed is critical.

As Galloway (2007) asserts, knowledge Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 13 is not something that exists outside of language and the social subjects who use it. In support of earlier research (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978; Willard, 1992), Galloway suggests that knowledge is a process socially constructed and one that cannot be divorced from learners' social context. Knowledge is constructed by “doing” and from social development experience (2007).

Students bring prior knowledge into a learning situation, which in turn forms the basis for their construction of new knowledge (Searle, 1995). Upon encountering something new, learners must first reconcile it in some way with their previous ideas and experiences.

This may mean changing what they believe, expanding their understanding, or disregarding the new information as irrelevant (Gredler & Shields, 2004; Sernak, 2006; Shields, 2002). In a constructivist framework, learning is not a process of information transmission from instructor to student, but is instead a process that positions students to be actively involved in constructing meaning from a multiple stimuli (i.e., real-world examples, problem solving activities, dialogues).

As Searle (1995) indicates, the instructor makes sure she understands the students’ preexisting conceptions and guides activities to address and build on them. Constructivism also often utilizes collaboration and peer criticism as a way of facilitating students’ abilities to reach a new level of understanding (Searle, 1995) and “coming to consciousness” (Freire, 1998b). Sernak (2006) adds that leadership preparation programs ought to prepare educational leaders who seek to liberate students to make social changes, create space and spaces for trust, and nurture participatory, equitable, and just relationships rather than simply managing programs, services, and facilities. Leadership preparation programs should also provide the opportunity for empowerment rather than ‘delivering it.’ Educators of social justice leadership would be wise to seek the constructivist approach to training, preparing and developing the new 21st school leaders as the necessary first step of “praxis” configured as an ongoing, reflective approach to taking action.

According to Freire (1998b), praxis involves “engaging in a cycle of theory, application, evaluation, reflection, and then back to theory. Social transformation is the product of praxis at the collective level” (p. 75).

Researchers argue that critical pedagogy also has a more collective political component in that critical consciousness is positioned as the necessary first step of a larger collective political struggle to challenge and transform oppressive social conditions and to create a more egalitarian society (Apple, 1995; Apple & King, 1977; Broderick, 1997; Carlson & Apple, 1998; Giroux, 1998; 1996).

Although leadership preparation and development programs (as well as teacher education programs) have included curriculum topics focused on social justice as part of the prescribed curriculum, another important strategy for increased effective leadership development is to focus on the hidden curriculum (Eisner, 1994).

Hidden curriculum. Recognizing and acting on the “hidden curriculum” Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 14 (Apple, 1990; Eisner, 1994) or the “unintentional ways of teaching” (Kumashiro, 2004) can be a powerful and influential tool for effective teaching and learning. According to Lea and Griggs (2005), this “implicit curriculum” in schools is often conducted in the hallways, locker rooms, and at the back of classrooms. Ironically, in the hidden school curriculum, students often build a replica of the very power structures from which they are excluded in the larger social order. Within the culture of social and cultural oppression, students learn about competition, unequal self- worth, and psychological warfare. They also learn that covert relational aggression is a viable and useful strategy to take with them into the adult world. For example, bullying is a curriculum of dominance and oppression in which some students (both perpetrators and witnesses) have learned that bullying is an acceptable form of dehumanization, while other students (both victims and witnesses) have learned docility and silence (see SooHoo, 2004). SooHoo further asserts that an obvious issue perpetuated by educators at many levels in dealing with social issues such as racism, homophobia, and bullying is to simply ignore the issues. The age-old panacea doled out by adults to bully victims is “just ignore it.” (p. 200). The act of ignoring leads to indifference and “bystanderism.” Bystanderism and indifference.

According to SooHoo (2004), bystanderism is the “response of people who observe something that demands intervention on their part, but they choose not to get involved” (p. 200). Indifference is heavily influenced by teachers’ duty schedules and classroom geographic boundaries. A common code of conduct often expressed in the teacher’s lounge is, “If it is not on my watch or in my classroom, I am not responsible.” Responsibility for students’ behavior in transit during passing periods, nutrition or lunch breaks or in areas such as hallways, locker rooms, and lunch quads are relegated to other adult supervisors, leaving classroom teachers and school leaders not only duty-free but also absolved of any responsibility for incidences of oppressive behaviors and practices. Given current research that indicates the critical need for a new thinking and a new social order, many educators and/or theorists refuse to rethink the role academics might play in defending teaching and learning institutions of higher education as a crucial democratic public sphere (Giroux, 1998). These institutions are in a position to serve as catalysts of opportunities that address what it means to make teaching and learning more socially conscious and politically responsive in a time of growing conservatism, racism, and social injustices locally, nationally, and internationally. In the following section we discuss strategies for connecting social justice practice and the study of educational leadership in both national and global spheres by delving into other important arenas of study.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 16 philosophy, much longer. Further, in addition to being aware of historical and disciplinary discourses related to social justice in other academic fields, it is important to be aware of classic and cutting-edge conversations happening with regard to equity-related constructs such as race, gender, ethics, and many other sources from which leaders might learn lessons to guide their inquiry and practice (Grogan, 1999). In addition to expanding our perspective on social justice to include and extend lines of inquiry born in other disciplines, it likewise is important to take into account research conducted in the fields of international education, comparative education, and work on teaching for social justice. Connecting with and contributing to these disparate yet interrelated domains of inquiry will allow us much greater insight into leadership for social justice, and help scholars and practitioners contextualize their work in a global context and in the context of multiple lines of theoretical and empirical inquiry. Strategy Two: Reconsidering research designs and outcomes.

Educational researchers have relied on a relatively limited number of research designs and methodologies to inform our understanding of justice-related phenomena. While educational leadership scholars have contributed a plethora of outstanding conceptual works (e.g. Marshall & Oliva, 2006), case studies (e.g. Gooden, 2005), and a few large-scale analyses of quantitative data (Gay, 1997), we have yet to expand our approaches into other designs. In particular, the dearth of quantitative, historical, cross-cultural comparative, international, and mixed-method studies of social justice are disappointing and limit our ability to understand leadership for social justice in its many forms. However, it is important to note that in suggesting that we explore these approaches more fully and using quantitative measures, we are emphatically not calling for a single- minded emphasis on aggregate standardized and/or norm-referenced tests. It is troubling that discussions of mixed-method approaches in education tend to over-emphasize correlating outcomes and trends in student achievement data with other factors and phenomena when there are so many potentially fruitful avenues for inquiry.

For example, looking at various quantitative measures such as census data, researcher-generated measures of equitable and equal distribution of goods and services, school and district finance data, state-level educational and social service appropriations, and even biometric data all hold tremendous potential for explaining and helping us explore social justice issues as phenomena related directly to communities, both local and global. In addition to reconsidering the design of educational leadership for social justice studies, it is also important to reassess the intended beneficiaries and audiences who might use the work.

That is, considering that leadership for social justice suggests an active and possibly activist orientation toward issues of inequity, it seems obvious that the scholar of leadership for social justice cannot be content to write to a small and exclusive audience of fellow academics. If leadership for social justice Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 17 scholars are to take their charge seriously, we must reconsider the manner in which we communicate, the people with whom we communicate, and the deliverables produced by our inquiry. This may mean, for example 1. writing policy/leadership briefs about salient local issues, OP-ED for mass print media, in international journals and/or or brief articles in local and national practitioner newsletters, 2. creating free-access web sites and multi-media materials that communicate important ideas in an accessible manner, 3. seeking out politicians and policymakers who will collaborate on various initiatives, 4. giving presentations to school boards, Parent Teacher Organizations, Non- Governmental Organizations and other stakeholders, 5. producing findings in multiple languages, 6. working with established foundations/think tanks who support leadership for social justice-related initiatives OR establishing new think tanks and initiatives.

Strategy Three: Realizing that local and global are parts of one interrelated whole. In the United States, where the three of us work, the federal political organization of education makes certain levels of education more important, in a policy-making sense, than others. This tends to urge educators to focus their attention on certain levels and de-emphasize others.

In particular, the state is the most important level of educational policy implementation and interpretation in the United States. This is because states are legally empowered to interpret, and to a large part to implement, federal educational policy and legislation (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy & Thomas, 2004). After the state, educators in the United States must then look to their district to see how these decisions will be implemented before finally discovering and shaping how they will influence the daily practices of education in a school or classroom. As a result of this organizational structure, educators often develop a kind of educational myopia, wherein they focus most intently on their most immediate organizational level. Given this perspective, the scope of their vision ends at the national/federal level and they tend to think of the entire system as a hierarchical-linear system, meaning that they feel they cannot influence parts of the system much “higher” or “lower” than their level (see Figure 1). Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 18 Figure 1. Linear perspective on educational leadership practice and research Classroom ↓ School Site ↓ School District ↓ State ↓ Federal However, rather than continue this ”leveled” vision of the system and of their work, educational leaders (and educational leadership researchers) might instead seek to understand that given technological, economic, and indeed educational trends over the last half-century, the local is the global; all domains of practice—not levels—are interrelated (Weber, 2007). We argue that rather than accepting the extant organizational vision of schooling often suggested by scholars in the United States (see figure 1), educational leadership practitioners and scholars should instead adopt a vision of schooling that conceives educational leadership research and practice as interrelated domains rather than levels of schooling (figure 2). This will allow and urge leaders to consider, for example, how their local labor markets, the prices of goods and services, and student achievement influence, and are influenced by, international events and trends in an ecological rather than isolated manner. This may allow leaders of nations to move beyond competing with other leaders over international and comparative measures of student performance such as the datasets from The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and instead adopt the perspective that such tests can help us learn from one another at a global level. Imagine a world in which school leaders look not only to their peers in a neighboring school district or even another US city for ideas and solutions that might help their students, but to a global community of leaders who understand that the success of the local should be informed by and contribute to the success of students around the globe.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 19 Figure 2. An interrelated perspective on the relationship between local and global practice Local (School site, community) State (or province) National International Conclusions and Implications Based on our review of literature and subsequent analysis, a growing concern among educators is whether emerging school leaders are prepared to face political, economic, cultural, and social pressures and create schools that advocate for education that advances all children. Research suggests that leadership preparation programs ought to engage in new ways that promote a broader and deeper understanding of issues such as social justice, democracy, and equity (Marshall & Oliva, 2005; Normore, 2008; Young & Mountford, 2006). In an effort to dialogue across local, national, and international boundaries, this paper examined various propositions and considerations if leadership preparation programs are committed to preparing school leaders to think globally and act courageously about social justice. As Bogotch (2005) reminds us, more discussions of educational leadership are in order to deliberately and continuously refocus our educational work (in theory and practice) on understanding and becoming more socially just. Leadership development and preparation programs have become the object of intensive scrutiny in the past few years, and again more recently with the Levine (2005) report that questioned the efficacy of educational leadership preparation programs. Local school districts, state departments of education, as well as local and national foundations have provided funds for programs that are focused on retraining current leaders and preparing future leaders for our schools. While there is much activity, less is known about the impact of this investment. As scholars and practitioners of educational leadership, we have an obligation to move beyond high-sounding abstractions and turn to research and action. In order to help school leaders become more successful in educational leadership roles, research topics, and other activities should be developed and implemented at the postsecondary level of preparation that help school district personnel examine Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 20 how various policies, procedures, rules, and norms may limit the success of their leaders. This implies that leadership preparation programs should promote opportunities for critical reflection, leadership praxis, critical discourse, and develop critical pedagogy related to issues of ethics, inclusion, democratic schooling, and social justice.

Coordinated efforts that provide opportunities for critical dialogue and liberatory education through strategies identified in this paper (e.g., appropriate field based curricula, national and global collaborative research, alternative research designs, etc.) may lead to more effective leadership development. It seems appropriate that efforts to increase the capacity of schools by broadening educators’ work beyond conventional notions of teaching and administration would be improved by paying attention to how issues of social justice (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) shape and influence possibilities and desires for a more harmonious society that transcends national and international boundaries. An implication from this research focuses on the need to conduct further comparative studies of educational leadership and social justice in diverse countries outside the United States.

While the knowledge base in educational leadership, leadership preparation, and social justice in North America continues to grow, we know much less about these issues in other countries and the importance of transcending cultural norms, national and international boundaries. In order to fully capture the impact of gender, sexuality, race and culture on leadership, research must involve a greater number of organizations at extreme ends of the value dimensions for measuring leadership effectiveness.

We need more comparative research studies that investigate the contexts, processes, leadership and work experiences, and attitudes of school leaders with particular reference to similarities and differences between countries that experience modernization and industrialization and poor countries. Such comparative studies may generate cross-fertilization of ideas and experiences that will provide insight into the social justice leadership- orientation that, thus far, have not been illuminated in what Oplatka (2006) refers to as “current Anglo-American literature.” As noted earlier, schools are thrust into the realistic notion that they must prepare children and communities for participation in a multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, multi- ability, and a multinational society. In support of previous research (e.g., Jean- Marie, 2008; Lugg & Shoho, 2006; Walker & Dimmock, 2006), school leaders are held under fierce accountability and fiscal pressures, while coping with a larger political environment that is polarized and fearful about the growing complexities of this new social order. Given current conversations about increasing the diversity among leadership ranks, we need to provide authentic and relevant experiences pertaining to leadership and social justice. As indicated earlier, the literature related to educational Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 21 leadership for social justice has suffered by not connecting to extant lines of related inquiry in the social sciences and in other related disciplines. Much can be shared and learned from other fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, law and business that may well catapult into a whole new theory of social justice. It is time to join the conversation on effective leadership preparation and to take seriously the call to work in support of leadership success and to combat leadership failure for all educational leaders and other leaders in leadership preparation programs across the continents. References Achilles, C. M., & Price, W. J. (2001).

What is missing in the current debate about education administration standards. AASA Professor, 24(2), 8-13.

Ahlstrom, S. E. (1972). A religious history of the American people. New Havens, CT: Yale University.

Allen, L. A. (2006). The moral life of schools revisited: Preparing educational leaders to “build a new social order” for social justice and democratic community. International Journal of Urban Educational Leadership, 1, 1-13.

Anderson, G. (2001). Disciplining leaders: A critical discourse analysis of the ISLLC national examination and performance standards in educational administration.

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 199-216.

Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education. London: Open University Press.

Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and power. New York: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (1990). The hidden curriculum and the nature of conflict in ideology and curriculum. New York:

Routledge.

Apple, M. W., & King, N. R. (1977).

What do schools teach? In A. Molnar & J. A. Zahorik (Eds.), Curriculum Theory (pp.108-126). Washington, D.

C.: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Arnez, N. L. (1978). Implementation of desegregation as a discriminatory process. Journal of Negro Education, 47(1), 28-45.

Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Beyer, L. E., & Apple, M. W. (Eds.).

(1988). The curriculum: problems, politics and possibilities. Albany:

SUNY. Black, W. R., & Murtadha, K. (2007).

Toward a signature pedagogy in educational leadership preparation Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 22 and program assessment. Journal of Research on Leadership Education.

Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/pdf/v ol2/Black_Murtadha%20PDF.pdf Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools, Albany, NY: SUNY.

Bogotch, I. E. (2002). Leadership for socially just schooling: More substance and less style in high-risk, low-trust times. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 198-222.

Bogotch, I. E. (2005, November). Social justice as an educational construct:

Problems and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Nashville, TN.

Bogotch, I., Beachum, F. Blount, J., Brooks, J. S. & English, F. W. (2008).

Radicalizing educational leadership:

Toward a theory of social justice.

Netherlands: Sense.

Bredeson, P. V. (2004). Creating spaces for the development of democratic school leaders: A case of program redesign in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 708-723.

Bredeson, P. V. (1995). Building a professional knowledge base in education administration:

Opportunities and obstacles, In R.

Donmoyer, M. Imber, & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base of educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp.

47-61). Albany, NY: SUNY.

Broderick, D. (1997). Theory and its discontents. Geelong: Deakin University. Brooks, J. S. (2008a). Introduction part one: What can social justice educators learn from the social sciences? In I. Bogotch, F. Beachum, J. Blount, J. S. Brooks, & F. W.

English, Radicalizing educational leadership: Toward a theory of social justice (pp. 1-10). Netherlands: Sense.

Brooks, J. S. (2008b). Freedom and justice: Conceptual and empirical possibilities for the study and practice of educational leadership. In I. Bogotch, F. Beachum, J. Blount, J.

S. Brooks, & F. W. English, Radicalizing educational leadership:

Toward a theory of social justice (pp.

61-78). Netherlands: Sense.

Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. T. (2008). From scientific management to social justice...and back again? Pedagogical shifts in educational leadership. In A. H. Normore, (Ed.), Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice (pp. 99-114). Charlotte, NC:

Information Age.

Brooks, J. S. & Tooms, A. K. (in press). A dialectic of social justice: Learning to lead through reflection and dialogue.

Journal of School Leadership.

Brunner, C. C., Opsal, C. & Oliva, M.

(2006). Disrupting identity: Fertile Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 23 pedagogy for raising social consciousness in educational leaders.

In C. Marshall and M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 214-231).

New York: Pearson.

Callahan, R. E. (1962), Education and the cult of efficiency, Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago.

Cambron-McCabe, N. (2006).

Preparation and development of school leaders: Implications for social justice policies. In C. Marshall and M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education, (pp. 110-129), New York:

Pearson.

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M.

M. & Thomas, S. B. (2004). Public school law: Teachers’ and students’ rights. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Capper, C. (Ed.). (1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society.

Albany, NY: SUNY.

Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209-224.

Carley, K. (1992). Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis.

Unpublished Paper.

Carlson, D., & Apple, M. W. (Eds.).

(1998). Power/knowledge/pedagogy.

Cresskill: Westview.

Cohen, R. L. (1986). Justice: Views from the social sciences. New York, NY:

Plenum. Counts, G. S. (1978). Dare the school build a new social order? Originally published in 1932. Carbondale, IL:

Southern Illinois University. Cubberley, E. P. (1919), Education in the United States: A study and interpretation of American educational history, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (2006).

Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In C.

Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. (pp. 16 -30).

New York: Pearson.

Dantley, M. (2002). Uprooting and replacing positivism, the melting pot, multiculturalism, and other impotent notions in education leadership through an African American perspective, Education and Urban Society, 34(3), 334-52.

Daresh, J. C. (2000). New principals: new induction programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 24 Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2000).

Critical race theory: The cutting edge.

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2005).

Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On design and evaluation of school programs. New York:

MacMilllan.

English, F. W. (2005). The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice.

Thousands, Oaks, CA: Sage.

English, F. W. (2000, April). The ghostbusters search for Frederick Taylor in the ISLLC standards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA Evans, A. E. (2007). Horton, Highlander, and leadership education: Lessons for preparing educational leaders for social justice, Journal of School Leadership, 17, 250-275.

Freire, P. (1998a). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998b). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (New rev. 20 th anniv. ed.).

New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1996). Letters to Christina. New York: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1987). The use of pleasure (vol. 2). London, Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1981). The history of sexuality: An introduction (vol. 1).

London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge:

Selected interviews and other writings by Michel Foucault, 1972-1977 (C.

Gordon, Ed.). New York: Pantheon.

Fua, S. J. (2007). Looking towards the source—social justice and leadership conceptualizations from Tonga.

Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 672-683.

Furman, G. C. (2003). The 2002 UCEA presidential address: Toward a new scholarshipof educational leadership? UCEA Review, 45(1), 1-6.

Furman, F. (2002). School as community:

From promise to practice. Albany:

Suny.

Furman, G. C. & Gruenewald, D. A.

(2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 47-76.

Furman, G. C., & Sheilds, C.M. (2005).

How can educational leaders promote and support social justice and democratic community in schools? In W.A. Firestone & C.

Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for educational leadership (pp. 119-137).

New York: Teachers College.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 25 Furman, G. C. & Starratt, R. J. (2002).

Leadership for democratic community in schools. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21 st century (pp. 105-133). Chicago:

National Society for the Study of Education.

Galloway, C (2007). Vygotsky's constructivism. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/in dex.php?title=Vygotsky's_constructi vism Gay, G. (1997). Multicultural infusion in teacher education: Foundations and applications , Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 150-177.

Gewirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: mapping the territory, Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469-84. Giroux, H. A. (1996). Fugitive cultures:

race, violence and youth. New York:

Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (1998). Channel surfing:

racism, the media, and the destruction of today's youth. New York: St. Martin’s. Gredler,M., & Shields, C.(2004). Does no one read Vygotsky's words?

Commentary on Glassman.

Educational Researcher 33(2), 22. Gooden, M. A. (2005). The role of an African American principal in an urban information technology high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 10(4), 630-650. Grogan, M. (2003). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmoderm perspectives. In M. D.

Young & L. Skrla (Eds.),Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership (pp. 9-34). New York: SUNY.

Grogan M. (1999). Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4): 518-536.

Grogan, M, & Andrews, R. (2002).

Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-256.

Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University.

Hafner, M. M. (2005). Teaching strategies for developing leaders for social justice. In C. Marshall & M.

Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 167-193). Boston:

Pearson.

Hoff, D. L., Yoder, N. & Hoff, P. S.

(2006). Preparing educational leaders to embrace the “public” in schools.

Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 239-249.

Hudson, W. S. (1981). Religion in America (3 rd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 26 Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002).

Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212.

Jean-Marie, G. (2008). Leadership for social justice: An agenda for 21 st century schools. The Educational Forum, 72, 340-54.

Karpinski, C. F. (2006). Social justice and educational administration:

Mutually exclusive? Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 278- 292.

Koerin, B. (2003). The settlement house tradition: Current trends and future concerns. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(2), 53-68.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2004). Against common sense: teaching and learning toward social justice. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education.

Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25-53.

Kelley, C., & Peterson, K. (2000, November). The work of principals and their preparation: Addressing critical needs for the 21 st century. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Albuquerque, NM.

Kezar, A., & Carducci, R. (2007).

Cultivating revolutionary educational leaders: Translating emerging theories into action. Journal of Research on Leadership Education.

Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/JRLE/pdf/v ol2/kezar.pdf Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis:

An introduction to its methodology. 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). I know why this doesn't feel empowering: A critical race analysis of critical pedagogy. In P. Freire, J. W. Fraser, D. Macedo, T. McKinnon, & W. T.

Stokes (Eds.), Mentoring the mentor: A critical dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp.

127-141). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Da Capo.

Larson, C., & Murtadha, K. (2002).

Leadership for social justice. In J.

Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21 st century (pp. 134- 161). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Lea, V., & Griggs, T. (2005). Behind the mask and beneath the story:

Enabling students-teachers to reflect critically on the socially-constructed nature of their “normal” practice.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 93- 114. Lind, R. A. (2004). Race/Gender/Media:

Considering diversity across audiences, content, and producers. Boston:

Pearson Education.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 27 Littrell, J., & Foster, W. (1995), The myth of a knowledge base in educational administration, In R. Donmoyer, M.

Imber, & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), The knowledge base of educational administration: Multiple perspectives (pp.32-46), Albany, NY: SUNY.

Lugg, C. A. & Shoho, A. R. (2006). Dare public school administrators build a new social order?: Social justice and he possibly perilous politics of educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 196- 208.

Marshall, C. & Oliva, M. (2006).

Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education, Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.

Marshall, C. (2004). Social justice challenges to educational administration: Introduction to a special issue. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 3-13.

Marshall, C., & Ward, M. (2004).

Strategic policy for social justice training for leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 14(5), 530-563.

McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York:

Longman. McLaren, P. & Torres, R. (1999). Racism and multicultural education:

Rethinking ‘race’ and ‘whiteness’ in late capitalism. Critical Multiculturalism: Rethinking Multicultural and Antiracist Education.

Stephen May (Ed.), Falmer. McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as a ritual performance. New York: Routledge.

McMahon, B. (2007). White educational administrators: Working towards antiracism and social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 684-696.

Moos, L., Moller, J. & Johansson, O.

(2004). A Scandinavian perspective on educational leadership. The Educational Forum, 68, 201-210.

Murphy, J. (2006). Preparing school leaders: Defining a research and action agenda. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Murphy, J. (2001). The changing face of leadership preparation, The SchoolAdministrator, 58(10), 14-17. Murphy, J. (1999). Reconnecting teaching and school administration:

A call for a unified profession. UCEA Review, 40(2), 1-3. Murphy, J. & Vriesenga, M. (2006).

Research on school leadership preparation in the United States: An analysis. School Leadership and Management, 26(2), 183-195.

Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2004).

Research on preparation program in educational administration: An analysis, University Council for Educational Administration, Columbia, MO:

UCEA Monograph Series. Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 28 Muth, R., & Barnett, B. (2001). Making the case for professional preparation:

Using research for program improvement and political support.

Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 13, 109-120.

Nasaw, D. (1979). Schooled to order: A social history of public schooling in the United States, New York: NY: Oxford University.

Normore, A. H. (2008). Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Oplatka, I. (2006). Women in educational administration within developing countries: Towards a new international research agenda.

Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 604-624.

Ortiz, F., & Marshall, C. (1988). Women in educational administration. In N.

Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp.

123-141). NewYork: Longman.

Pounder, D., Reitzug, U., Young, M. D.

(2002). Preparing school leaders for school improvement, social justice, and community, In J. Murphy (Eds.), The educational leadership challenge:

Redefining leadership for the 21st century, (pp. 261-288). Chicago, IL:

The University of Chicago.

Roberts, C.W. (1997). Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing inferencesfrom texts and transcripts.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Missouri Press (MO).

Scheurich, J.J. and Skrla, L. (2003).

Leadership for equity and excellence:

Creating high-achievement classrooms, schools, and districts. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free. Sernak, K. (2006, December). School reform and Freire’s methodology of conscientization. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(25). Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll Shakeshaft, C. (1989). The struggle to create a more gender inclusive profession. In J. Murphy & K.

Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2 nd ed., pp. 99-118). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Shields, C. M. (2003). Good intentions are not enough: Transformative leadership for communities of difference. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

Shields, C. M. (2002, October). Towards a dialogic approach to understanding values. An address presented at the 7th Annual Conference of Values and Leadership, Toronto, Ontario.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 29 Shohat, E. (2001). Talking visions:

Multicultural feminism in a transnational age. New York: MIT.

Shoho, A. R., Merchant, B. M. & Lugg, C. A. (2005). Social justice: Seeking a common language. In F. W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice, pp. 47-67. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shoho, A.R. (2006). Dare professors of educational administration build a new social order: Social justice within an American perspective.

Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3).

Skrla, L. (2003). Normalizing femininity:

Reconsidering research on women in the superintnendency. In M. D.

Young & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership (pp. 247-264).

New York: SUNY.

Social development theory (Vygotsky).

(1978). Retrieved from http://www.learning- theories.com/vygotskys-social- learning-theory.html SooHoo, S. (2004). We change the world by doing nothing. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 199-211.

Southern Regional Education Board.

(2007). Good principals aren’t born— they’re mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need? Atlanta.

Spring, J. (2001). Globalization and educationalrights: An intercivilizational analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tierney, W. G. (1997). Academic outlaws:

Queer theory and cultural studies in theacademy. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (1998).

Constructing knowledge:

Educational research and gay and lesbian studies. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 49-71).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Thomas, S. (1994). Artifactual study in the analysis of culture: A defense of conceptual and relational analysis in a postmodern age. Communication Research, 21(6), 683-697.

Walker, A. & Dimmock, C. (2005).

Leading the multiethnic school:

Research evidence on successful practice. The Educational Forum, 69, 291-304.

Weber, E. (2007). Globalization, “glocal” development, and teachers’ work: A research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 279–309.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Willard, C.A. (1992). Liberalism and the social grounds of knowledge. Chicago:

University of Chicago.

Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 30 Young, M. D. & Brooks, J. S. (2008).

Supporting graduate students of color in educational administration preparation programs: Faculty perspectives on best practices, possibilities, and problems.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 391-423. Young, M. & Lopez, G. R. (2005). The nature of inquiry in educational leadership. In F. W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 337-361).

Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Young, M. & Mountford, M. (2006).

Infusing gender and diversity issues into educational leadership programs: Transformational learning and resistance. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 264-277 Gaetane Jean-Marie is an associate professor in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department at the University of Oklahoma. She is former program coordinator of Educational Administration, Curriculum and Supervision and provides leadership in administering the Principals Leadership Academy, a partnership with an urban school district. Her research interests include organizational approaches to urban school reform, educational equity, leadership for social justice, and the intersection of race, gender and educational leadership. She is co-author of a forthcoming edited book, Educational Leadership Preparation: Innovation and Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Ed.D.

and Graduate Education (2010, Palgrave MacMillan) and has two forthcoming chapters in Gender and Women’s Leadership (2010, Sage) and Educational Leadership as International Social Justice Discourse: Navigating Collaborations, Careers, and Challenges in a Global Context (2010, Information Age). Anthony H. Normore is Associate Professor and Program Development Coordinator of the Doctorate in Educational Leadership, Graduate Education Division, College of Education, at the California State University-Dominguez Hills in Los Angeles. Dr.

Normore spent the summers of 1999 and 2001 working with teachers and school administrators in the Kingdom of Nepal in the Himalayan Mountains and more recently as a visiting scholar in the Education Leadership Institute at Seoul National University in South Korea (summer, 2009). His research focuses on leadership development, preparation and socialization of urban school leaders in the context of ethics and social justice. His books include, Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice (Information Age Publishers, 2008); Leadership and intercultural dynamics (Information Age Publishers, 2009, and co-authored with John Collard); and Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks / LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 31 approaches to the Ed.D. and graduate education (currently under contract with Palgrave Macmillan, and co-authored with Gaetane Jean-Marie). His research publications have appeared in national and international peer-reviewed journals including Journal of School Leadership, Journal of Educational Administration, Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Canadian Journal of Education Administration and Policy, International Journal of Urban Educational Leadership, Educational Policy, International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, and Journal of Research on Leadership Education.

Jeffrey S. Brooks is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Missouri and a J. William Fulbright Senior Scholar alumnus. He has conducted ethnographic and case study research in the United States and the Philippines. His research interests include high school leadership and reform, teacher leadership, ethics, and socio-cultural dynamics of leadership practice and preparation. Dr. Brooks’ work has been published in Educational Administration Quarterly, the Journal of Educational Administration, and Educational Policy, among other scholarly journals. Dr. Brooks is Editor of the Journal of School Leadership, 2008-2010 Chair of the AERA Leadership for Social Justice SIG, and Series Editor of the Information Age Publishing Educational Leadership for Social Justice Book Series.