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

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.

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.

Social Efficiency and Social Mobility as Educational Goals

The fundamental premises of moral leadership assume that a leader's critical emphasis should be placed on ethics, values, and beliefs. If, for instance, integrity is the core value of a leader, it will not only be successfully demonstrated in his or her personal stance and leadership activities, but will also be reflected in typical interactions with others. Consistency and honesty are the qualities most closely linked to integrity in the minds of individuals (Morris, 2004). Leaders who act with integrity tend to be straightforward with others, so as to communicate clearly and avoid misunderstanding; this value system is generally applied by them in every situation, whether public or private. Adopting such a value in leading — taking a clear stance against cheating or unethical shortcuts — assists leaders in penetrating the conscience of followers, resulting in desirable behaviors such as freedom, respect, and openness. It has been argued, however, that leading with integrity does not always prove easy, particularly given the ethical difficulties surrounding a sometimes-constant societal push toward instant gratification regardless of the appropriateness of the means used (Riehl, 2000).

Americans have generally sought to turn schools into institutional manifestations of their egalitarian and democratic political principles, in addition to using schools as a social instrument to realize those principles. Furthermore, they have tried to make their schools a mechanism through which students can adapt to both the obligations of a hierarchical social structure and the needs of the career marketplace (Labaree, 1997). This latter educational goal — implying social efficiency — has influenced American schools through structural practicality, put into operation via approaches such as educational stratification and vocationalism.

The goal of social efficiency has influenced schools in the U.S. by turning them toward the pragmatic constraints surrounding the market-based structure of social and economic life. An evident indication of this influence lies in the historic movement toward vocationalism. During the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, a varied alliance of educational, labor, and business leaders began an effort to make school curricula more receptive to occupational structure requirements. While the groups disagreed about the precise effect desired from this social mobility effort, members agreed that there was a danger of schools becoming economically counterproductive and socially irrelevant unless they formulated educational content more thoughtfully, keeping in mind future occupational requirements (West, 1999). However, there are those who discount this drive toward vocational education as mere lip-service. Most vocational programs have been removed from K-12 education, and there are many popular advocates — such as Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" fame — who continually seek to bring back vocational education and stress the dire need for skilled tradespeople (welders, skilled equipment operators, plumbers, mechanics, and others) in today's society.

Where social efficiency claims that students should learn how to adapt to the current post-educational socioeconomic structure, the goal of social mobility maintains that students should be provided with the educational qualifications needed to advance through that structure — or to hold on to their current standing. Both goals accept as given the inequality that lies at the core of a market society, and both are enthusiastic about schools adapting themselves to that society's demands. They differ, however, in their assessment of education's contribution to market societies. The goal of efficiency emphasizes the overall needs of the social structure, adopting the viewpoint of educational service providers such as the state, policymakers, taxpayers, and employers who will hire graduates.

The goal of mobility, by contrast, emphasizes the needs of individual students. While one goal views the structure top-down, the other perceives it bottom-up — or even sideways, as true enhancement of students' abilities may mean encouraging them to pursue a less traditionally "employable" field such as art or music. While one perspective views education as addressing a group need, the other perceives it as addressing individual needs. From the viewpoint of efficiency, the identity of the person who fills a given job is of no consequence; so long as every job is filled by competent personnel, the particular results of the allocation process are immaterial to the system's efficient operation. From the viewpoint of mobility, however, individual outcome counts most. This results in a focus on individual status attainment rather than human capital production (Labaree, 1997).

The focus on status and mobility may not necessarily encompass all that transformative leadership truly seeks as its goals — the perceived status of an unemployed but fulfilled artist is not necessarily elevated, yet the student has achieved personal fulfillment. Obviously, focusing only on mobility or efficiency leaves out an entire dimension relating to the genuine nature of what is called "transformative" (Labaree, 1997).

Conclusion

The ideas presented in this paper as key components of transformative leadership theory offer guidance to educational leaders who wish to promote socially just education and to impart social justice education. They do not simply focus on leading an efficient, effective organization; rather, they concentrate on those organizational elements that are truly educative. This is imperative because the similarities between educational institutions and other organizations — such as businesses or nonprofits — are frequently overemphasized. The educational and business environments are, however, fundamentally distinct. No overt physical product exists in educational leadership, although ultimately there is the societal product of the successful student. The objective of providing education to all students and enabling them to assume an active part in ensuring a more equitable, peaceful, and better world is therefore a positive and essential focus for the transformative leader. This kind of leadership focuses not only on structures and organizations, policies and politics, human relations, and finances, but also on attitudes, beliefs, curriculum, pedagogy, and — most essentially — on relationships: on understanding the material realities and differences of individuals within an organization and striving to eliminate inequities.

One cannot underestimate the necessity for moral courage in a leader. Leadership positions cannot be entered into without clearly knowing what guides and grounds the leader, what the leader wishes to accomplish, and what the leader's non-negotiable points are. Only after being sure of these answers can the leader, in any particular instance, decide if a certain dispute is worth addressing — if it represents a point that the leader is not willing to concede. Patience and perseverance are important qualities, but only if they are built upon a clear vision of one's objectives and a commitment to taking small, sure steps in their direction.

The most fundamental aspects of transformative leadership have to do with the drive toward provision of equity in the educational system; this may require a courageous, active, and engaged role by the principal and other leaders. The goal of building a future for all students that maximizes their potential to succeed — in whatever direction they choose — will require the full commitment of such leaders, as well as the necessity to build and, where necessary, develop a coalition among educators, families, students, and the broader system, so that complete support is available and exclusionary barriers are removed. While full equality is not always achievable, complete equity in education is an appropriate, meaningful, and reachable goal, given a committed transformative leader. With a constant focus not only on the education of students but also on self-education for the leader and the educators under the leader's influence, progress toward an educational system that maximizes student abilities, goals, and potentials is truly possible. Ultimately, with transformative leadership, the learning environment becomes wholly inclusive and just; and the fruits of this labor include not only student achievement but also family involvement and community engagement.

Appiah, K. A. (2006). The politics of identity. Daedalus, 135(4), 15–22.

Barrett, A. (2012). Transformative leadership and the purpose of schooling. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.

Bell, D. A. (1987). Neither separate schools nor mixed schools: The chronicle of the sacrificed Black schoolchildren. In D. Bell (Ed.), And we are not saved: The elusive quest for racial justice (pp. 102–122). New York: Basic Books.

Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Education Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cooper, C. W. (2009). Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools: Implications for expanding transformative leadership frameworks. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 694–724.

Dantley, M. (2005). Faith-based leadership: Ancient rhythms or new management. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(1), 3–19.

Darren, J. E. (2010). An exploration of the role of senior leadership teams in enhancing the mission integrity of selected Catholic schools in the Mercy tradition. Doctoral thesis, Australian Catholic University.

Gale, T., & Densmore, K. (2003). Democratic educational leadership in contemporary times. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(2), 119–136.

Jensen, L. (2001). The demographic diversity of immigrants and their children. In R. G. Rumbaut & A. Portes (Eds.), Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America (pp. 21–55). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.

Larson, C., & Ovando, C. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in multicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lopez, G. R., Gonzalez, M. L., & Fierro, E. (2006). Educational leadership along the U.S.–Mexico border: Crossing borders/embracing hybridity/building bridges. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 64–84). Boston: Pearson Education.

Lynn, M., & Parker, L. (2006). Critical race studies in education: Examining a decade of research on U.S. schools. The Urban Review, 38(4), 257–290.

Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (Eds.). (2006). Building the capacities of social justice leaders. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 1–15). Boston: Pearson Education.

Mendwell, J. (2009). Developing a model of teacher-team building at secondary schools in Thailand (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

Morris, J. (2004). Can anything good come from Nazareth? Race, class, and African-American schooling and community in the urban South and Midwest. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 69–112.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Kindle version.

Ramalepe, M. L. (2014). The role of school management teams in cultivating moral purpose in Limpopo secondary schools. Doctoral thesis.

Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55–81.

Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Kindle edition.

Shields, C. M. (2000). Learning from difference: Considerations for schools as communities. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(3), 275–294.

Shields, C. M. (2014). Leadership for social justice education: A critical transformative approach. In I. Bogotch & C. M. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social (in)justice. Dordrecht, Holland: Springer, Chapter 19.

Shields, C. M., & Sayani, A. (2005). Leading in the midst of diversity: The challenge of our times. In F. W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 380–406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shields, C. M., Bishop, R., & Mazawi, A. E. (2005). Pathologizing practices: Deficit thinking in education. New York: Peter Lang.

Starratt, J. (2011). Preparing transformative educators for the work of leading schools in a multicultural, diverse, and democratic society. In C. M. Shields (Ed.), Transformative leadership: A reader. New York: Peter Lang, Chapter 9.

Tate, W. F. (1995). School mathematics and African-American students: Thinking seriously about opportunity-to-learn standards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 424–448.

Theoharis, G. (2007a). Navigating rough waters: A synthesis of the countervailing pressures against leading for social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 17(1), 4–27.

Theoharis, G. (2007b). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258.

West, C. (1999). The new cultural politics of difference. In C. West (Ed.), The Cornel West reader (pp. 119–139). New York: Basic Civitas Books.

Zhou, M. (2003). Urban education: Challenges in educating culturally diverse children. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 208–225.