Journal of Research on Leadership Education

It is well documented that the achievement gap between affluent students and economically disadvantaged students and between White students and students of color continues to widen. In addition to these achievement gaps, marginalizing practices are often imbedded in the structures of schooling. These challenges require educational leadership programs that effectively prepare school principals who can meet our most pressing school challenges and who, in particular, strive for social justice ends; however, the literature on leadership for social justice provides no clear consensus on what an entire educational leadership program oriented toward social justice would include. This study attempts to fill the gap in the literature by critically examining a curriculum and instruction leadership program that has social justice embedded into the program's core practices. Specifically we ask the following questions:

What critical elements underlie programs that prepare professionals for social justice in fields outside of educational leadership?

There were several key findings that range from how students were selected into the program to the way in which faculty worked with each other in their teaching responsibility. The paper concludes with implications and recommendations for principal-preparation programs.

The literature on preparing educational leaders does not take into account what we can learn from other disciplines that have been successful in preparing professionals for social justice over a long period of time. To address this gap in the literature, this case study examined the policies and practices of an exemplary Department of Counseling Psychology oriented toward social justice. In so doing, we addressed these research questions: (a) What are the critical elements of this successful program? (b) What types of resistance did the program face? And, (c) how can these critical elements and resistance inform educational leadership programs? Drawing on a framework for preparing leaders for social justice, we addressed the research questions by interviewing key faculty and students in the program and extensively analyzing documents and archival date. During the change process, we found that (a) evolving meanings of diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice emerged; (b) the need to manage tensions was key, and (c) leveraging funding was critical. Their key policies and practices included (a) recruiting and hiring diverse faculty; (b) recruiting and selecting diverse students; (c) depicting the public “face” of the department and (d) implementing culturally responsive knowledge, skills, and pedagogy. We identify six lessons for educational leadership programs for social justice include (a) focusing on the world in which we are preparing leaders to lead; (b) hiring faculty of color and recruit students of color; (c) exploring the meaning of equity/social justice and how it should inform department policies and that practices should be an on-going conversation; expecting and valuing conflict in the process; (d) aligning all department decisions with the department equity mission; (e) leveraging university resources, and (f) developing courses, curriculum, and pedagogy that prepare leaders for diverse contexts. The paper concludes with limitations of and suggestions for the framework.

This case study presents a picture of an Early Childhood Education program at a large, research university located in the southwestern United States. This program was selected as it is known for its dedication to social justice issues. The study examines how such issues are purposefully woven into the program and cast against a framework for preparing socially-just pre-service educational administrators. This framework is made up of four essential components: (a) selection of students, (b) critical consciousness in teaching and learning, (c) proactive systems of support and inclusive structures, and (d) induction/praxis. Introduced as well is the context for the program at the university. Findings indicate that the program should (a) carefully examine whether students have a predisposition towards social justice before they actually enter the program, (b) create a critical consciousness involves introducing students to the language of critique and the language of possibility, (c) intentionally hire faculty who are committed to social justice is essential, and (d) purposefully structure the program so that students are exposed to a very broad concept of community. Although pockets of resistance were uncovered in both the larger department and the college in which the program resides, the program itself remains solidly committed to social justice. Staying connected to scholarship, to the children, to context, and to social justice remains essential to the goals of this program, and recognizing the program's areas for improvement is vital to the language of critique that the program uses. Recommendations include: (a) regularly revisiting social justice issues as they exist and emerge, (b) investigating the induction and praxis of new teachers, and (c) mentoring new graduates so that the experience is meaningful and infused with social justice.

This cross-case analysis was based on three main questions that addressed three social justice-oriented education programs. The three questions were: 1) What critical elements underlie programs that prepare professionals for social justice? 2) What can we learn from these programs in support of educational-leadership programs whose aim is to prepare leaders for social justice? and, 3) What types of resistance have these programs perhaps faced in their preparation of leaders and educators for social justice? Each pair of authors analyzed the cases. Then we developed a “meta-consensus table” that combined all three cases for each of the three questions listed above. We then sorted the categories into themes within each meta-consensus table. Each theme was presented within the discussion of each of the three aforementioned questions. This was followed by a general discussion of the results. First, it was evident that program faculty played a key role in program development and implementation. Second, it is vital that social justice serves as the focus for all courses within a preparation program, rather than just select courses. Third, the variety of program structure across the three cases demonstrates the need for continued conversations about the most effective delivery method for individual programs and the students that they serve. Fourth, the importance of student recruitment to the program was an important component that sought to extend the existing social justice orientation of potential program candidates. The last section described resistances that were faced within the three cases. Forms of resistance came from students, faculty, and university administrators. We concluded the cross-case analysis by offering recommendations to overcome the resistances, and to encourage administrator preparation programs to place social justice at the core of student recruitment, program development, and program delivery.