Transformative Leadership for Equity and Social Justice in Education

Introduction: Equity, Equality, and the Case for Transformative Leadership

Even among principals who are equity-oriented, marginalized dynamics may emerge in schools that are changing demographically at a rapid pace (Cooper, 2009). This essay reflects upon how educators may play the role of transformative leaders by engaging in cultural work that tackles inequity, addresses and removes socio-cultural barriers, and promotes inclusion. The theories of Cornel West on "the new cultural politics of difference" inform this discussion, as does scholarly literature on transformative leadership and social justice.

Highlighting the ever-changing policy responses in the history of educational leadership — along with their contextual settings — explains the necessity for a fresh examination of how educational leadership should be understood today. Educational leaders are now faced with contradictory pressures: on the one hand, pressure to favor some student groups over others; yet, on the other hand, pressure to ensure that disadvantaged students have a voice in educational decision-making (Gale & Densmore, 2003). Recent as well as longstanding concerns about professional autonomy for teachers, educators, and administrators clash with the demand for greater participation in educational decision-making. Moreover, examining the history of educational leadership is also a way to engage with political questions about how these leaders are able to respond to changed and changing conditions. It is intended here to further expand the debate on leadership as distinct from the sometimes-obsessive interest this topic usually places upon individual or personal qualities of the leader. While special responsibilities are clearly held by official leaders, the possibilities of exercising those responsibilities in collective forums — for supporting and developing the public interest — are also considered (Gale & Densmore, 2003).

At the outset, it is important to distinguish between the two concepts of "equity" and "equality" with respect to the educational milieu. Perhaps most important is to realize that "equity" is an achievable goal, whereas equality is not. Using the terms with regard to something as simple as a chocolate cake: equality would mean each of eight people received an identical-sized slice with the same amount of frosting. Equity would instead provide a smaller piece for the two-year-old child, another small piece for the elderly gentleman who does not want a large serving, and a special piece with the frosting rose for the birthday girl. In terms of education, equity provides opportunities for all concerned. There may be advanced classes in all subjects, with these opportunities "open to all" but not necessarily required or even achievable by every student. Equity allows each student to reach his or her full potential — with special classes in art for the talented, as well as special mathematics and music classes. However, not everyone is required to enroll in advanced math or advanced art, nor required to take advanced placement tests, though the opportunity is present if the student wishes. Not everyone wants to enroll in the music class or play in the band; not everyone is interested in the after-hours chemistry lab course.

There are data, derived from several studies, indicating that school principals (in K-12 education) are leaders who are equity-oriented (Larson & Ovando, 2001; Shields & Sayani, 2005; Zhou, 2003). They wish to offer equitable educational opportunities as well as high-quality education to every student, irrespective of his or her cultural and socioeconomic background. However, there may be instances where separatist politics and cultural tensions that ostracize linguistic- and ethnic-minority students, as well as their families, have not been properly addressed by these principals. The public educational system advocates first-rate schooling and equitable educational prospects for all students, yet social and academic inequalities continue to permeate public schools. Without strong leaders intervening and striving to counter these marginalizing factors, inequities will continue to exist (Larson & Ovando, 2001; Shields & Sayani, 2005; Zhou, 2003).

Transformative leadership in the field of education requires numerous factors. These include engagement in self-reflection, systematic analysis of a school's actualities as opposed to its ideals, and confrontation of observed inequities based on class, language, race, gender, physical and mental abilities, and sexual orientation. In so doing, progressive steps toward a social revolution in education can be made (Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Theoharis, 2007a). Though critical educationalists recognize the difficulty of employing a transformative leadership policy for ensuring social justice, they point out that it can be done — especially when handled with a cooperative ethos. Transformative leaders are typically bridge builders; they endeavor to create caring and emancipatory spaces for children, teachers, parents, and other members of their school community (Lopez et al., 2006, p. 67; Riehl, 2000; Shields, 2000; Shields & Sayani, 2005).

Because of the risks and difficulties involved with transformative leadership, educational leaders, activists, and scholars would likely benefit from drawing upon a broad collection of relevant practical and philosophical sources. Additional narratives, empirical research studies, and theories are useful, particularly with respect to the use of transformative leadership in attaining social justice. Relevant frameworks have been developed by several scholars that contribute meaningfully to this arena (Brown, 2004; Lopez et al., 2006; Riehl, 2000; Shields & Sayani, 2005; Theoharis, 2007b).

Transformative Leadership and Cultural Divide

The Nature of Transformative Leadership

Regarded simply as "shared leadership," the transformative approach to leadership is distinct from the heroic leadership model. This approach is one that potentially reveals individuals' talents and capabilities (Darren, 2010). Further, it may describe a team or group of people who collectively work toward an established objective. Thus, there is an element of collaboration, and strength through shared visions, present in cases of shared leadership. In terms of teamwork, this means assembling a professional work group of individuals with a defined purpose, clear communication, collective decision-making, and the requisite ability and knowledge to plan and work together to accomplish specific goals (Medwell, 2009). This statement emphasizes that the shared leadership approach might involve the establishment of teams that each focus on particular objectives.

Cultural Divide and Moral Purpose

The fundamental moral purpose of education — and of transformative leadership — includes ever-improving student achievement while ensuring that achievement gaps between lower- and higher-performing pupils and schools are reduced where possible and appropriate. This portrayal of the moral purpose of education highlights that its chief objective is the transformation of every student's learning, with a concomitant increase in achievement levels (Ramalepe, 2014). Darren (2010) stated that the moral purpose of education includes showing commanding respect to individuals. This means that, to achieve the central goal of moral purpose, school management teams should create an atmosphere in which students, teachers, administrators, and parents treat one another respectfully. Treating individuals with respect consists of controlling those impulses that may adversely affect others in the school community. The "respect" factor points toward the significance of moral leadership in cultivating moral purpose (Ramalepe, 2014).

Public schools in the United States have played an influential part for quite some time in attempting to assimilate students from differing linguistic and cultural backgrounds through educational policies, practices, and structures. In the process, these school systems have generally — albeit often unconsciously — valued male, Anglo-centric, middle-class standards. This trend has brought about a failure of schools to recognize and affirm the assets, knowledge bases, and experiences of individuals and populations that differ from the perceived "norm" (Larson & Ovando, 2001). This has led to the disengagement and marginalization of families and students based on gender and race in American schools, despite the fact that women already constitute the dominant population by gender, and ethnic and racial minorities are on the verge of becoming the majority population of the nation.

Honest evaluation would also reveal, however, that some minority cultural groups — such as Asian Americans — have succeeded despite all of the inherent disadvantages. Numerous studies indicate that this is often due to familial involvement and commitment to the educational process, something still less prevalent in other cultural communities. Indeed, Asian Americans have been described as "the model minority," and there are now studies addressing the disadvantages faced by Asian students who are not interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Education of families and communities has therefore become a necessity in order to educate students, as the value of education and the effort it requires must be communicated across generations and environments for success to occur. Where families perceive education — particularly for females — as a waste of time, as remains the case in some minority communities, educational effort directed solely at the school environment cannot succeed. Similarly, there are many outspoken individuals in African-American communities who describe the difficulties they faced when they attempted to better themselves through education — demonstrating clearly that change is needed in family, community, and societal perspectives as well.

An earlier study found that the Caucasian population of the nation decreased from 76% in 1990 to 69% in 2000; Latino Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans have been projected to collectively compose more than half of the U.S. population by the year 2044, with Hispanic Americans projected to be the dominant population by 2042 (Jensen, 2001). Thus, the United States — and its schools — is increasingly diverse, culturally, linguistically, and racially, more so now than at any prior time.