Those tasked with leading large school districts direct incredibly complex organizations in what are often contentious political and social contexts, with powerful stakeholder groups espousing conflicting policy priorities. Because of their high-profile positions, superintendents often face uniquely persistent and powerful resistance and must navigate this complex decision- and policy-making atmosphere in order to effectively promote durable, long-term equitable change. This case provides useful lessons on advocating for equity from the superintendency and provides space for reflection on the practical implications of leading for equity in a dynamic and potentially fraught leadership environment.
AlstonJ. A. (2005). Tempered radicals and servant leaders: Black females persevering in the superintendency. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 675–688.
2.
AndersonG. L. (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education. Routledge.
3.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 11–39.
4.
BjörkL. G.Browne-FerrignoT.KowalskiT. J. (2014). The superintendent and educational reform in the United States of America. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(4), 444–465.
5.
BrooksJ. S.MilesM. (2006). From scientific management to social justice . . . and back again? Pedagogical shifts in the study and practice of educational leadership. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(21), 1–11.
6.
BrownK. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 79–110.
7.
CallahanR. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410).
8.
DeMatthewsD. (2018). Social justice dilemmas: Evidence on the successes and shortcomings of three principals trying to make a difference. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(5), 545–559.
9.
DeMatthewsD.IzquierdoE.KnightD. S. (2017). Righting past wrongs: A superintendent’s social justice leadership for dual language education along the US-Mexico border. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 1.
10.
FurmanG. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191–229.
11.
GreenT. L. (2017). Community-based equity audits: A practical approach for educational leaders to support equitable community-school improvements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(1), 3–39.
12.
GreenT. L.DantleyM. E. (2013). The great white hope? Examining the white privilege and epistemology of an urban high school principal. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16(2), 82–92.
13.
KhalifaM. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424–467.
14.
KowalskiT. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In BjorkL. G.KowalskiT. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 1–18). Corwin Press.
ParkV.DalyA. J.GuerraA. W. (2013). Strategic framing: How leaders craft the meaning of data use for equity and learning. Educational Policy, 27(4), 645–675.
17.
Rivera-McCutchenR. L.WatsonT. N. (2014). Leadership for social justice: It is a matter of trust. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 17(4), 54–65.
18.
RyanJ.TutersS. (2017). Picking a hill to die on: Discreet activism, leadership and social justice in education. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(5), 569–588.
19.
SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J.GarciaJ.NollyG. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 133–161.
20.
TheoharisG. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258.
21.
WoulfinS. L.DonaldsonM. L.GonzalesR. (2016). District leaders’ framing of educator evaluation policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 110–143.
