8085 assgn 1 mod 4
Candyy31
8085Assgnment1advocacyoverview..docx6
Discussion 1: advocacy overview
Student name
Institutional affiliation
Instructor
Course
Date
Discussion 1: advocacy overview
Introduction
The term advocacy refers to any activity taken to promote, recommend, advocate for, support, defend, or plead on behalf of another person's cause or interest. In this discussion one assignment, I will discuss the advocacy topic that I have selected for this assignment: human trafficking. Forced work, sexual slavery, or profitable sexual misuse are all forms of human trafficking, and they all fall under the canopy term of human trafficking. Giving a spouse in the background of involuntary marriage or the elimination of organs or tissues, comprising surrogacy and ova exclusion, may fall under this usage category. (Schroeder et al., 2022) Human trafficking can take place both within and outside of a republic. Since the victim's liberty of movement is limited and they are subjugated for profit, human trafficking is a crime contrary to humankind. A person doesn't need to be transported from one location to another to be. Deliberated a victim of human trafficking.
Importance of human trafficking to early childhood education
Human trafficking is the biggest threat globally; with technological advancement, people can do various things, such as organ transplants, using this technology. Teaching children about this issue is crucial because it will create awareness among individuals early. People who commit this crime of human trafficking are people who are amongst us. People who we will with, by being able to create this awareness. Education and knowledge of trafficking in persons among all other members of the community are crucial to decreasing human traffickers. According to the doctor, Chutikul. Many organizations, including government agencies, non-profit organizations, and commercial businesses, must work together to promote public awareness of this crime and its effects on victims.
The importance of citizen reporting cannot be overstated. Neighbourhoods and friends must watch out for one other's best interests. An opportunity exists for non-governmental organizations to cooperate more closely with the government and help identify those in danger. In light of this, it is critical that citizens have easy access to government officials, and the government should take steps to ensure that essential agencies like the police are well-versed in issues related to human trafficking.
What is it about this topic that stirs my professional passion?
This topic lays fundamental issues that need to be addressed. For instance, human trafficking's effects are; that it causes trauma; U.S. officials say that since traffickers damage and actualize their sufferers, victims' inherent feelings of power, discernibility, and dignity often get veiled. Trafficking sufferers might suffer mental significances both during and after their suffering. After a shocking event, several people may suffer from post-traumatic anxiety, relationship difficulties, depression, memory loss, worry, dread, and other feelings of shame and guilt after a traumatic event. Other effects are; physical trauma, ostracism, and lack of independent living skills. (Clay-Warner et al., 2021) These effects stir my professional passion for working hard to create awareness to reduce these effects. We need to live in a society where we are not feared about our lives, and we need to stay where there is harmony to have enough security.
Who does your topic influence?
My topic influences the victims of human trafficking and those who commit this crime. To start with, om the victims, this topic influences them by making or giving them ways in which they will be able to cope with these traumas after they have survived this crime of human trafficking. On the other hand, the criminal offenders, this topic influences them to change their ways and live good in the community with others.
Why should this topic be of interest to others?
This topic of human trafficking should be of interest to others because; this topic or this issue is the biggest threat to the world right now; people are being sold. This topic should interest others in ultimately creating the awareness needed to end this crime. This act is inhuman, and it must be stopped for humans to see each other as equal. (Clay-Warner et al., 2021)
What do children need? What do you want for the children with whom you associate? What do you want them to be like long after they leave you?
Children need a safe environment to live in the community, and they don't need to stay in a place where they are threatened about their lives. I want the children I stay with to create awareness of this issue, among others; this is because; children need to grow with morals and respect for others. I want the children to be good ambassadors after I leave them so that they can continue to spread awareness of this issue.
What makes you mad when you think about children and their families in the world today? What wakes you up at night?
What makes me mad when I think about children and their families in the world today is what these families go through; when these crimes are committed to the children, families remain with trauma, and they fail to cope with the loss of their loved one or the suffering of their loved one. This significantly impacts families since many lose hope even though things such as divorce occur.
What energizes you? What makes you hopeful?
What energizes me and makes me hopeful is the government's efforts to minimize this issue of human trafficking. For instance, to combat human trafficking, the United States Section of Health and Human Facilities has developed programs and regulations that impact millions of people daily, especially those in underprivileged communities who are disproportionately affected by it. (Williams, 2018) Office on Trafficking in Individuals at HHS Management for Teenagers and Family objectives to develop a national system that benefits fighters of all kinds of trafficking by allowing present service systems, creating organizations, and organizing central or indigenous reactions. Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Individuals was instructed by the Trafficking Sufferers Protection Deed of 2000 to coordinate anti-trafficking activities across federal government entities.
References
Schroeder, E., Edgemon, T. G., Aletraris, L., Kagotho, N., Clay-Warner, J., & Okech, D. (2022). A Review of Prevalence Estimation Methods for Human Trafficking Populations. Public Health Reports, 137(1_suppl), 46S-52S.
Clay-Warner, J., Edgemon, T. G., Okech, D., & Anarfi, J. K. (2021). Violence predicts physical health consequences of human trafficking: Findings from a longitudinal study of labour trafficking in Ghana. Social Science & Medicine, 279, 113970.
Williams, B. A. (2018). Efforts to stop human trafficking. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 41, 623.
By Day 4 of Week 10 I NEED A 4 PAGE PAPER PLEASE THIS IS THE ASSIGNMENT
Submit a 10- to 15-minute summary presentation of your advocacy action plan using media of your choice. This is the same presentation shared with your colleagues in the Discussion.
http://gseuphsdlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/justice-and-caring.pdf
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/001/ethics/0003.html
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002455/245511e.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMVjEkM3g38
Social Justice Leadership as Praxis: Developing Capacities Through Preparation Programs
First Published January 5, 2012 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11427394
|
|
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual framework for social justice leadership as praxis and to explore the implications of this framework for leadership preparation programs. Conceptual Argument: The conceptual framework for social justice leadership is grounded in a review of literature and organized around three central concepts. First, leadership for social justice is conceived as a praxis, in the Freireian sense, involving both reflection and action. Second, leadership for social justice spans several dimensions, which serve as arenas for this praxis. These dimensions include the personal, interpersonal, communal, systemic, and ecological. Third, each dimension within the framework requires the development of capacities on the part of the leader, capacities for both reflection and action. The author argues that the central purpose of leadership preparation programs is to develop these capacities in aspiring school leaders. Implications: At present, the literature on social justice leadership and most preparation programs address some of the capacities for social justice leadership well (e.g., critical consciousness about social justice issues) but others poorly or not at all (e.g., the actual skills needed for leadership praxis). The praxis framework proposed in this article facilitates a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of the capacities needed by contemporary school leaders working for social justice and therefore how preparation programs might be designed and delivered.
Keywords
educational leadership , social justice , praxis , preparation programs , educational administration
Social justice is a major concern for many contemporary educational scholars and practitioners. Multiple factors drive this concern, including the growing diversity of school age populations ( Goddard, 2005 ), increasing awareness of (and better data on) achievement gaps across cultural groups ( Shields, 2004b ; Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004), and insightful analyses of the deficit thinking that pervades school policies and programs intended to address these gaps (Anyon, 2005; Black & Murtadha, 2007 ; Blackmore, 2002 , 2009 ; Ryan, 2006 ; Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005 ; Skrla & Scheurich, 2001; Taylor, 2006 ; Theoharis, 2007a; Valencia, 1997 , 2010 ). As Blackmore (2009) points out, “increased accountability has focused system and media attention on social inequality” so that the “state is no longer able to ignore issues of educational inequality” (p. 8).
Within the field of educational leadership, many scholars are exploring the meanings of social justice, the nature of leadership for social justice, and implications for leadership preparation programs. This emerging body of work (e.g., Blackmore, 2009 ; Brown, 2004 ; Theoharis, 2008) is generating multiple opinion and advocacy pieces, conceptual explorations of the nature of social justice leadership, and some case study evidence related to the dispositions and actions of school leaders who self-identify as working for social justice. However, to date, the literature offers few specifics about the actual practice of social justice leadership in K-12 schools and the capacities needed by school leaders to engage in this practice. In turn, the literature on leadership preparation is thin in regard to explicit methods for developing these capacities. As Capper, Theoharis, and Sebastian (2006) state, “current preparation programs aimed toward social justice tend to focus on critical consciousness . . . [and] find it difficult to prepare leaders to acquire the actual skills needed to make equity-based changes in schools” (p. 218).
The purpose of this article is to contribute to the discourse about leadership for social justice by proposing a more explicit and comprehensive framework for social justice leadership and to use this framework to understand the capacities needed for social justice work in schools. This more comprehensive and detailed understanding can then serve as a clearer guide for designing leadership preparation programs aimed at developing these capacities. The proposed framework is centered on the concept of praxis ( Brown, 2004 ; Foster, 1986 ; Freire, 2002 ), which is appearing more frequently in the educational leadership literature but has yet to be fully developed in terms of what it means for leadership practice. I argue in the article that praxis has the potential to be a powerful, unifying concept in regard to leadership for social justice, because it captures both the reflection and action needed for such work, and furthermore, that this more detailed analysis of leadership as praxis can generate more creative thinking about leadership preparation pedagogy focused on social justice.
In the next section, I briefly review the literature on leadership for social justice with the purpose of identifying the major, emergent themes about the nature of this work. Then, guided by this review, I delineate the conceptual framework for social justice leadership as a praxis across five critical dimensions—the personal, interpersonal, communal, systemic, and ecological. I argue that the central purpose of leadership preparation programs is to develop the capacities for this praxis in each of these dimensions and offer specific suggestions for preparation program content. My purpose is not to propose an exhaustive model for leadership preparation but to generate fresh thinking about what might be included in a “signature pedagogy” ( Black & Murtadha, 2007 ) targeted specifically on developing the capacities for social justice leadership in K-12 schools.
Leadership for Social Justice in Schools
The Plural Meanings of Social Justice
Defining social justice is not easy ( Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks, 2009 ), and it remains an “under-theorized concept” in education ( North, 2006 ). One conceptual issue is that social justice is an umbrella term with multiple meanings. Blackmore (2009) states that social justice “encompasses a range of terms—some more powerful than others—such as equity, equality, inequality, equal opportunity, affirmative action, and most recently diversity” and, further, that each term “takes on different meanings in different national contexts” (p. 7). Boyles, Carusi, and Attick (2009) add that “due to such widely varied meanings [of social justice], it is possible for different groups to act in opposition to another, yet each can do so under the aegis of social justice” (p. 37).
Gewirtz and Cribb (2002) sort out some of the confusion by identifying three major facets of social justice—distributive, cultural, and associational. Distributive justice refers to the Rawlsian concern with the equitable distribution of goods in society, cultural justice means the absence of both cultural domination and “non-recognition” of cultural groups, and associational justice refers to the full participation of marginalized groups in decisions that affect their lives. Fraser and Honneth (2003) link these facets of social justice by arguing that distributive and cultural justice are “co-fundamental and mutually irreducible dimensions of justice” (p. 3). Boyles et al. (2009) add another nuance in distinguishing between the distributive justice paradigm, which is dominant in education, and “emancipatory” social justice, which seeks to free people from oppression; they critique the social justice discourse in education for failing to recognize these conceptual nuances.
Despite these ambiguities and critiques, a common understanding among many leadership scholars is that social justice focuses on the experiences of marginalized groups and inequities in educational opportunities and outcomes. For example, Dantley and Tillman (2010) state “the concept of social justice focuses on . . . those groups that are most often underserved, underrepresented, and undereducated and that face various forms of oppression in schools” (p. 23). Theoharis (2007b) adds that social justice means “addressing and eliminating marginalization in schools” (p. 223). It follows from these understandings that leadership for social justice involves identifying and undoing these oppressive and unjust practices and replacing them with more equitable, culturally appropriate ones. As Dantley and Tillman (2010) state, leadership for social justice “investigates and poses solutions for issues that generate and reproduce societal inequities” (p. 20).
The Nature of Leadership for Social Justice
The importance of social justice leadership in K-12 schools is widely recognized. Reyes and Wagstaff (2005) claim that leadership is a “powerful intervening variable [that can determine] . . . whether schools are successful or not with their students, especially those from diverse backgrounds” (p. 101). Supporting this claim, Leithwood and Riehl (2005) concluded from a literature review that “leadership appears to be especially important in schools serving diverse students and to be practiced differently as well” (p. 23), and Skrla and Scheurich (2001) found that superintendents in Texas districts that had “displaced” deficit thinking about marginalized children had led the change process through their “antideficit leadership orientations” (p. 252). Marshall, Young, and Moll (2010) sum up this view: “Social justice leadership is a critical building block in the educational equity project” (p. 315).
Yet, despite the importance placed on social justice leadership over the last few years, its specific nature remains elusive. Most relevant writings are theoretical/conceptual or “normative and prescriptive” ( Jansen, 2006 ). Empirical research on the actual practice of social justice leadership is just emerging, with most of this research in the form of case studies. For example, Theoharis (2008) explored the motivations and leadership traits of school principals who self-identified as social justice advocates in seven urban schools in the Midwest and identified their common leadership traits: a sense of “arrogant humility,” passion about their work in schools, and a “tenacious” commitment to social justice. Theoharis’ case study and the others that I was able to identify in the literature ( Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore, & Hodgins, 2007 ; Cooper, 2009 ; Gerstl-Pepin & Aiken, 2009; Giles, Johnson, Brooks, & Jacobson, 2005 ; Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002 ; Jansen, 2006 ; Jean-Marie, 2008 ; Kose, 2007; López, González, & Fierro, 2010 ; Merchant & Shoho, 2010 ; Riester, Pursch, & Skrla, 2002; Theoharis, 2007b; Wasonga, 2009) are summarized in the appendix .
In thinking about what to expect from research, Bogotch (2002) cautions that there are no “right” or “objective” models for leadership for social justice, rather that “all social justice/educational reform efforts must be deliberately and continuously reinvented and critiqued” (p. 154). Brooks et al. (2007) agree that leadership for social justice is a process that is continually reconstructed in response to shifting needs in the local context. Furthermore, the emerging case studies on social justice leadership (as cited previously and summarized in the appendix ) have different purposes, use differing methods and conceptual frames, and, not surprisingly, surface different nuances of social justice leadership in their findings. Thus, as McKenzie et al. (2008) point out, it is specious to expect research to produce a generalized theory or “essentialized” prescription for social justice leadership in schools.
Yet, taken together, the writings on leadership for social justice—conceptual, normative/prescriptive, and empirical—surface a set of consistent patterns and common themes about the nature of this leadership in schools. These themes are that leadership for social justice is action oriented and transformative, committed and persistent, inclusive and democratic, relational and caring, reflective, and oriented toward a socially just pedagogy. In addition, some authors offer the beginnings of a “toolbox” for this leadership practice and identify the barriers encountered by leaders engaged in this work. I briefly summarize these themes in the following paragraphs.
Action-Oriented and Transformative
Perhaps the most prevalent theme in the literature is that social justice leaders are proactive change agents, engaged in “transformative leadership” ( Shields, 2003 ). To do this transformative work, they must first “develop a heightened and critical awareness of oppression, exclusion, and marginalization” ( Brooks & Miles, 2006 , p. 5); that is, they must recognize and understand how institutional power arrangements and practices favor some groups to the detriment of others. Based on this awareness, it is then possible for school leaders to imagine and construct “new institutional possibilities” ( Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002 , p. 162). Recent case studies confirm that social justice leaders are activists, continually working for substantive change in their schools ( Brooks et al., 2007 ; Jansen, 2006 ; Jean-Marie, 2008 ; Lopez et al., 2010 ; Theoharis, 2007b). Rapp (2002) nicely sums up this theme: “Leaders for social justice . . . resist, dissent, rebel, subvert, possess oppositional imaginations and are committed to transforming oppressive and exploitative social relations in and out of schools” (p. 226).
Committed and Persistent
To function as transformative, activist change agents in challenging contexts, school leaders need to be deeply committed to a social justice agenda and “stubbornly persistent” in their efforts (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003). Commitment and persistence surface frequently in case studies as traits of social justice leaders (Gerstl-Pepin & Aiken, 2009; Giles et al., 2005 ; Jansen, 2006 ; Merchant & Shoho, 2010 ; Riester et al., 2002; Theoharis, 2008). For example, Jansen (2006) notes the “uncharacteristic courage” of principals leading for social justice in a challenging South African context. Persistence, commitment, and courage are especially important given the inevitable barriers and resistance to social justice work in schools, discussed in more detail below ( Blackmore, 2002 ; Jansen, 2006 ; Oliva, Anderson, & Byng, 2010 ; Riehl, 2000 ; Theoharis, 2007a, 2007b ).
Inclusive and Democratic
To address social justice and marginalization issues, educational leaders work to create more inclusive practices within their schools ( Cooper, 2009 ; Gerstl-Pepin & Aiken, 2009; Giles et al., 2005 ; Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002 ; López et al., 2010 ; Merchant & Shoho, 2010 ; Riehl, 2000 ; Riester et al., 2002; Ryan, 2006 ; Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008; Wasonga, 2009). In fact, inclusion is often considered to be synonymous with social justice outcomes. Ryan (2006) states: “Those who promote inclusion believe that social justice can be achieved if people are meaningfully included in institutional practices and processes” (p. 5). Similarly, Goldfarb and Grinberg (2002) see “authentic participation” as the cornerstone of social justice work; they state, “the role of leadership is . . . that of facilitating the opportunity for empowerment . . . [and creating] . . . mechanisms and spaces for democratic processes” (p. 167). Inclusive practices are wide ranging and include “deep collaboration with parents and community” (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003, p. 119) and integrated learning environments for all students, including special education students (Frattura & Capper, 2007). Ryan (2006) sums up the landscape of inclusive practices: “Inclusive leadership consists of a number of distinct practices. They include advocating for inclusion, educating participants, developing critical consciousness, nurturing dialogue, emphasizing student learning and classroom practice, adopting inclusive decision- and policymaking strategies, and incorporating whole school approaches” (p. 9).
Relational and Caring
Social justice leaders work to develop caring relationships based in authentic communication. Dantley, Beachum, and McCray (2008) state that social justice leadership “should be relationship-driven, holistic, and morally grounded . . . relationships are at the crux of educational leadership” (p. 128). Providing empirical evidence, Theoharis (2007b) found that principals motivated to work toward social justice and equity in their schools named “building relationships” as a key strategy and that in turn, “purposeful and authentic communication” was the key to building these relationships. Ryan (2007) elaborates on the importance of these communicative practices:
Dialogue is important in contexts of diversity . . . it can assist marginalized groups to be meaningfully included in cultural institutions such as schools. Ideally, the right dialogical practices provide the bridges that bring together disparate and different communities in ways that enable them to overcome the powerful barriers that prevent them from sharing in what schools and communities have to offer. (p. 340)
Reflective
As a basis for their leadership practice, social justice leaders engage in critical self-reflection aimed at personal awareness and growth. This self-reflection is seen as a way for leaders to identify and come to grips with their prejudices and assumptions arising from their cultural backgrounds. Brown (2004) states that critical self-reflection includes the “deep examination of personal assumptions, values, and beliefs” (p. 89). Dantley (2005) argues for a “psychology of critical self-reflection” in which “the educational leader comes to grips with his or her own identity” (p. 503) and urges educational leaders to “come clean with their own prejudices and their own issues that in many ways serve as the very foundation for their professional practices” ( Dantley, 2008 , p. 455).
Oriented Toward a Socially Just Pedagogy
Leaders for social justice need to prioritize the enactment of a socially just pedagogy in K-12 schools ( Furman & Gruenewald, 2004 ; Furman & Shields, 2005 ; Kose, 2007; McKenzie et al., 2008 ; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003). Kose (2007) states that social justice leaders must “continuously examine whether . . . student learning is equitable for all student groups . . . and encourage teachers to critically examine their practice for possible bias in regard to race, class, and gender” (p. 279). Furman and Shields (2005) call this the “pedagogical dimension” of social justice work and argue for the “centrality of learning” within the social justice landscape. They state that educational leaders must be proactive in orienting and organizing instruction and rethink “the nature of curriculum around the values of social justice” (p. 130).
A Developing Toolbox
In addition to these themes about the nature of leadership for social justice, the literature offers the beginnings of a toolbox for this work in schools. Some of these tools relate to auditing or assessing the current school context in regard to equity and inclusion. For example, Scheurich and Skrla (2003) and Skrla et al. (2004, 2010 ) describe “equity audits,” which can be used by school leaders to reveal the “levels of equity and inequity in specific, delimited areas of schooling” (Skrla et al., 2010, p. 264); 1 the results of these audits can then be used to drive change efforts. Frattura and Capper (2007) provide a detailed protocol for an “Integrated Comprehensive Services” analysis of a school or district in regard to equitable student inclusion and access to high-quality programs. Bustamante, Nelson, and Onwuegbuzie (2009) suggest using a “School-Wide Cultural Competence Observation Checklist” to assess schoolwide values, assumptions, and norms related to cultural competence. Finally, Kose (2007) offers a rubric that principals can use to help assess their teaching staffs’ awareness of socially just learning and teaching.
In addition to these auditing tools, some authors focus on specific leadership practices that address social justice issues, though the literature is surprisingly thin in this area. 2 These suggested practices tend to focus on the principal’s role in professional development for teachers, thus addressing the concern with a socially just pedagogy. For example, McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) , in describing strategies for addressing “equity traps” in schools, suggest engaging teachers in neighborhood walks to establish positive rapport between school and community and enhance teachers’ awareness of their students’ home lives, having teachers participate in book studies that address racial issues, and having teachers visit schools and classrooms that are successful with students of color. Similarly, Kose (2007) describes how principals can design specific teacher professional development content that focuses on personal diversity awareness and building cultural capital for marginalized students.
Barriers to Social Justice Leadership
Theoharis (2007a ) identifies a number of barriers or “countervailing pressures” that can derail social justice work in schools. These include the deficit thinking about marginalized groups that prevails in most schools, the valuing of “technical” leadership over moral leadership both in the field and in preparation programs, national and local policies that work against equity and social justice, and the cost or burden to the individual of engaging in transformative leadership. Reinforcing Theoharis’ analysis, Ryan and Rottmann (2009) found that “bureaucratic and market structures work hand in hand . . . to disrupt democratic efforts” in schools (p. 493). Similarly, McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) identified the “equity traps” that disrupt the “possibilities for creating equitable schools for children of color” (p. 603). These traps include deficit thinking, “racial erasure” or denial of racism, and teachers ducking accountability for the outcome of their practices. In regard to these many barriers, Theoharis (2007b) found that principals engaged in social justice work used a variety of coping strategies to support themselves and theorized that principals “develop resistance” to sustain their social justice agenda in the face of these barriers and traps.
Implications for Leadership Preparation
Most authors who write about leadership for social justice generate “implications for preparation programs” based on their analyses. Often, these are generalized or fairly abstract recommendations for what aspiring leaders should learn. A good illustration is from J. Murphy’s (2002) edited book on “redefining” leadership around the “valued ends” of school improvement, democratic community, and social justice. In their chapter on preparation, Pounder, Reitzug, and Young (2002) state,
Social justice preparation for educational leaders can be organized around a set of principles that . . . include developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to: (1) understand social justice and its implications for our nation’s schools; (2) identify, challenge, and counteract discrimination and prejudice; (3) foster a culture of high expectations for all children and faculty; (4) facilitate the construction of a curriculum that is rigorous, multicultural, and inclusive; (5) support the development of socially just practices among one’s faculty, staff, and study body; (6) develop learning-focused and inclusive communities; and (7) sustain widespread commitment to unqualified equity. (pp. 275-276)
A more recent example from Jean-Marie et al. (2009) is that 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” (p. 20).
In addition to these generalized recommendations, the literature includes some specific frameworks and concrete ideas for leadership preparation curricula and instruction. Brown (2004) offers a model based in a “weaving” metaphor that juxtaposes the “warp” of three theoretical perspectives (adult learning theory, transformative learning theory, and critical social theory) with the “woof” of three pedagogical approaches (critical reflection, rational discourse, and policy praxis). Based on this model, Brown describes several methods to increase leadership students’ “awareness, acknowledgement, and action” (p. 89) in regard to social justice. These include cultural autobiographies, life history interviews, prejudice-reduction workshops, reflective analysis journals, cross-cultural interviews, “educational plunges” in unfamiliar settings, diversity panels, and activist action plans. Brown’s ideas have been widely cited and were partially evaluated in her subsequent empirical work ( Brown, 2005 ).
Hafner (2006 , 2010 ), drawing from Brown (2004) and several other sources, argues that preparation programs should model social justice teaching by attending to students’ personal safety, providing guidelines for group behavior, supporting the personal experience of the student as learner, and attending to social relations within the educational leadership classroom. She also offers a set of “action oriented instructional strategies” (p. 194), including having students prepare “equity action plans” for their own schools:
This type of process involves collecting different forms of data, evaluating or auditing that data in terms of issues of equitable access and outcomes, and developing an action plan for change relative to areas of need identified through the auditing process. (p. 211)
This strategy thus engages students in practicing to use the “auditing tools” described by Scheurich and Skrla (2003) and Skrla et al. (2004, 2010 ), as discussed in the “toolbox” section.
Recently, Capper et al. (2006) and McKenzie et al. (2008) have proposed more comprehensive models for social justice leadership preparation. Capper et al.’s model is represented in a 3 × 3 matrix that intersects the domains of program content, listed across the top of the matrix (critical consciousness, knowledge, and practical skills), with preparation program methods, listed on the vertical axis (curriculum, pedagogy, assessment), resulting in nine matrix cells. For each cell, these authors review programmatic suggestions gleaned from the literature. For example, for the cell that intersects critical consciousness with curriculum, they state, “We define this dimension as curriculum or content that raises students’ consciousness about power, privilege, and associated issues” and cite relevant curricular recommendations from Brown (2004) , Rapp (2002) , and Parker and Shapiro (1992) . McKenzie et al.’s (2008) framework is guided by their definition of social justice, which requires school leaders to “raise the academic achievement of all the students in their school,” “prepare students to live as critical citizens in society,” and “structure schools to ensure that students learn in heterogeneous, inclusive classrooms” (p. 116). Based on this definition, McKenzie et al. focus on three key aspects of the preparation program—selection of students, knowledge and content, and the importance of induction after graduation. They suggest that preparation programs proactively select students who already have an understanding of social justice and the “propensity . . . to critically question the inequities found in schools” (p. 188). Their knowledge and content recommendations include raising the “critical consciousness” of students, placing more emphasis on instructional leadership, and teaching students how to create inclusive school support structures for all students in their care. Finally, McKenzie et al. recommend that the program include a structured 2- to 5-year induction period following graduation.
Summary
This emerging body of work on leadership for social justice, despite ambiguities and legitimate critiques, is generating a lively, informative, sometimes inspiring, and sometimes frustrating discourse in the field. It is clear that no one theory or concept of social justice dominates, which is to be expected given the cautions of Bogotch (2002), Blackmore (2009) , and others. In addition, both theorists and researchers tend to focus on different facets of social justice leadership (e.g., inclusion, caring relationships, or pedagogical leadership), and a more holistic model has not yet emerged. It is also somewhat frustrating that this work has generated a great many conceptual/normative generalizations but very few specifics in regard to both social justice leadership practice and leadership preparation. Looking specifically at leadership preparation, one issue is that without a clearer and more holistic framework regarding the capacities needed by social justice leaders, it is difficult to design the specifics of curriculum and instruction. While the programmatic frameworks offered by Brown (2004) , Capper et al. (2006) , and McKenzie et al. (2008) provide excellent starting points for program analysis and design, they tend to focus primarily on raising students’ “critical consciousness” about social justice issues and lack specifics in regard to developing other capacities needed by aspiring social justice leaders. In the remainder of this article, I delineate a framework for understanding these capacities as a praxis and provide examples of preparation program curricula and instruction related to developing these capacities.
The Praxis-Dimensions-Capacities Framework: Implications for Leadership Preparation
The conceptual framework for social justice leadership proposed here is organized around three central concepts. First, leadership for social justice is conceived as a praxis, in the Freireian sense, involving both reflection and action. Second, social justice leadership spans several dimensions, which serve as arenas for this leadership praxis—the personal, interpersonal, communal, systemic, and ecological. While there is overlap among these dimensions, it is heuristically useful to view them as distinct levels within the framework. Third, each dimension of social justice leadership requires certain capacities on the part of the school leader, capacities for both aspects of praxis—reflection and action. It is the development of these capacities that then becomes the central purpose of leadership preparation programs committed to developing social justice leaders.
Social Justice Leadership as Praxis
What is meant by the concept of praxis? In the education literature, the term is beginning to appear more frequently in multiple areas, 3 including in educational leadership (e.g., Black & Murtadha, 2007 ; Brown, 2004 ; Dantley & Tillman, 2010 ; Jean-Marie et al., 2009 ; Wenglinsky, 2004). While uses of the term vary in meaning, most echo Freire’s (2002) notions of praxis and “conscientização,” as developed in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In this work, Freire uses these terms more or less synonymously. He defines conscientização as “learning to perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 35). In turn, he defines praxis in this way:
It is only when the oppressed find the oppressor out and become involved in the organized struggle for their liberation that they begin to believe in themselves. This discovery cannot be purely intellectual but must involve action; nor can it be limited to mere activism, but must include serious reflection; only then will it be a praxis. (p. 65)
Thus, Freire is defining both terms, conscientização and praxis, as involving the critical perception of “reality” or “naming the world” (p. 88), reflecting on this reality, and taking action leading to liberation from oppression. In other words, Freire is saying that knowledge and reflection without action is worthless, and vice versa; the former is simply “verbalism,” while the latter is uninformed “activism.” A true praxis involves the continual interplay between reflection and action. It is this understanding of praxis that is commonly reflected in the education literature.
Some examples from the educational leadership literature are illustrative. Foster (1986) , in his seminal book credited with introducing critical theory to the field, refers to the praxis of leadership as “action working with theory” (p. 189). Brown (2004) , in presenting her framework for transformative leadership, states that praxis means “moving back and forth in a critical way between reflecting and acting on the world” (p. 96). Black and Murtadha (2007) envision leadership praxis as “an ethical and moral craft that draws from conceptual and abstract knowledge [and] engages in ongoing critical-reflective inquiry” (p. 10). Dantley et al. (2008) add further nuance by drawing on Freire’s idea of “unfinishedness”: Praxis must involve not only study and self-reflection, but also a “consciousness of our incompleteness,” which leads to “rigorous curiosity” and “motivates our searching and inquiry” (pp. 127-128).
These allusions suggest that praxis has captured the attention of leadership scholars and influenced their thinking about the reflective dimensions of social justice leadership. However, a close read of these sources indicates that praxis is usually discussed at an abstract level without a detailed analysis of what leadership as praxis actually means and entails. Thus, while praxis has the potential to be a powerful, unifying concept in regard to leadership for social justice, because it captures both the reflection and action needed for such work, it has not yet gained much theoretical traction or broader play in the field in regard to understanding the actual practice of social justice leaders. Part of my purpose here is to further develop the concept of praxis in terms of what it actually means for leadership in schools.
To be explicit, the concept of praxis that guided the development of the framework offered here draws from Freire’s (2002) , Foster’s (1986) , and Brown’s (2004) ideas, but is my own construction:
Praxis involves the continual, dynamic interaction among knowledge acquisition, deep reflection, and action at two levels—the intrapersonal and the extrapersonal—with the purpose of transformation and liberation. At the intrapersonal level, praxis involves self-knowledge, critical self-reflection, and acting to transform oneself as a leader for social justice. At the extrapersonal level, praxis involves knowing and understanding systemic social justice issues, reflecting on these issues, and taking action to address them.
In the next section, I consider how this concept of praxis helps in analyzing the specific capacities that school leaders need to engage in social justice leadership.
The Dimensions of Social Justice Leadership as Praxis
I developed the framework for the dimensions of social justice leadership as praxis by analytically juxtaposing the concept of praxis with the various ideas in the literature regarding the nature of social justice leadership, as reviewed in this article. In other words, for each relevant idea in the literature, I applied the following queries: For a school leader, what is the nature of reflection related to this idea, and what is the nature of action related to it? This analysis resulted in identifying five dimensions or arenas for social justice leadership as praxis: the personal, interpersonal, communal, systemic, and ecological. It is helpful to visualize the framework as a nested model, with the first dimension—the personal—in the center and the other dimensions expanding out to reflect the broadening arenas or contexts for the praxis of social justice leadership (see Figure 1 ). The nested model simultaneously suggests the uniqueness of praxis at each level (e.g., capacities for praxis at the interpersonal level will differ from those at the communal level) and the interdependence of the levels (e.g., capacities at the interpersonal level depend on previously developed capacities at the personal level). Thus, the nested model represents the gestalt of social justice leadership as praxis across multiple dimensions but also that this praxis can be understood in more detail by considering the specific nature of reflection and action in each dimension.
Figure 1. The dimensions of social justice leadership praxis
In the following sections, I explore the nature of the praxis—reflection and action—related to each dimension, the capacities needed to engage in this praxis, and how preparation program content can help develop these capacities in aspiring educational leaders. These programmatic suggestions are not exhaustive—they relate only to program content that specifically targets these capacities. I do not discuss here other important programmatic issues, such as program structure (e.g., cohorts and internships), student recruitment, and the institutional politics involved in programmatic change, important topics that others have addressed (e.g., McKenzie et al., 2008 ; McKinney & Capper, 2010 ; Rodríguez, Chambers, Gonzáles, & Scheurich, 2010 ). Furthermore, most of the instructional ideas here are not original with me, though I have used and modified several in my own courses; they draw from the many fine analyses and recommendations by scholars reviewed earlier in this article, as well as other relevant sources. But, I believe that organizing these ideas according to the framework’s praxis dimensions offers a fuller picture of what should be included in a preparation program centered on social justice leadership and a fresh way to analyze how these various ideas fit together, what they address well, and what is missing. Finally, these suggestions are intended only as a reference; it is not possible here to describe these ideas in detail.
The Personal Dimension
Praxis at the personal level involves the deep, critical, and honest self-reflection identified by many writers as the foundation for social justice work. School leaders engaged in this critical reflection explore their values, assumptions, and biases in regard to race, class, language, sexual orientation, and so on and in turn, how these affect their leadership practice. In addition, self-reflection should address the “shadow side” of leadership, for example, “competitiveness, need for control, and self-esteem concerns” (Kezar & Carducci, 2007). However, it is not enough to develop self-knowledge through critical reflection—action in the personal dimension requires acting on this self-knowledge and reflection to transform oneself as a social justice leader ( Brooks & Miles, 2006 ). Social justice leaders thus need to commit to an ongoing process of self-development and transformation.
Developing capacities for reflection in the personal dimension
Many, if not most, of the preparation ideas offered to date in the literature pertain to the development of critical self-knowledge and reflection ( Capper et al., 2006 ). These excellent suggestions include:
1. Engaging students in writing and sharing their cultural autobiographies. Autobiographies are a powerful tool for engaging leadership students in the exploration of their culturally based identities, values, assumptions, and biases and how these impact their leadership work in schools. Students need clear guidance to enter this new terrain of self-exploration; Terrell and Lindsey (2009) and Brown (2004) provide helpful ideas for guiding and structuring this assignment. In addition, students can be better prepared for this activity by studying and practicing the research methods of auto-ethnography ( Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001 ; Ellis & Bochner, 2000 ). The cultural autobiography should not be seen as a one-shot assignment; while it is very useful at the beginning of the preparation program to generate students’ initial self-reflections, it should be revisited at appropriate times in the program as students engage in a deeper analysis of the effects of their cultural backgrounds (e.g., White privilege) on their thinking and their work. It is through this ongoing work that students develop the capacity for continued reflection when they leave the program.
2. Structured self-reflection. Branson (2007a , 2007b ) developed a model for structured self-reflection in which students are asked to consider their lives in stages of development (e.g., early childhood, teen years, young adulthood, etc.). For each stage, they identify one or more significant life experiences, critical choices, and/or pivotal people; and for each of these items they write about the effects on their self-esteem, motivations, values, beliefs, and leadership behaviors. Branson’s (2007a ) research showed that this method had an impact on school principals’ self-knowledge and awareness of how their values impact their behaviors. As with the cultural autobiography, this is an activity that can be revisited throughout the preparation program.
3. Guided reflection and journaling. Guided reflection and journaling have a long history of use in leadership preparation ( Kottkamp, 1990 ; Osterman & Kottkamp, 1993 , 2004 ). However, they are especially important in social justice preparation programs, given the need to develop students’ critical consciousness. Creasap, Peters, and Uline (2005) found that guided reflection helped early career principals clarify their leadership visions and develop “important knowledge, skills, and dispositions, resulting in effective problem finding, vision building, and problem solving on behalf of their respective schools” (p. 381). Brown (2004) suggests using “reflective analysis journals” throughout a course as a means of identifying and clarifying “thoughts, feelings, beliefs, perspectives, worldviews, challenges, hopes and aspirations” (p. 100).
Developing capacities for action in the personal dimension
To transform themselves as social justice leaders, students need to use their self-reflections to begin a structured process of personal development that they can continue to use throughout their careers. Reflective journaling, as discussed earlier, is one valuable tool in this process. In addition, students should develop a leadership growth plan based on their self-reflections. Terrell and Lindsey (2009) , writing from the perspective of culturally competent leadership, provide a template for a “leadership development plan” based on insights from the cultural autobiography and structured reflections. This leadership development plan can include a program of future readings in areas in which students determine that they need further development.
The Interpersonal Dimension
The interpersonal dimension reflects the central role of relationships in social justice work ( Dantley et al., 2008 ; Theoharis, 2007b). Within this dimension, social justice leaders proactively build trusting relationships with colleagues, parents, and students in their schools, across cultural groups. Praxis in this dimension first involves the leader’s self-knowledge and reflection in regard to communication/interaction style and behaviors and how these affect and possibly contribute to silencing and marginalizing others. In addition, knowledge of others—especially students from diverse cultural backgrounds—is important as a basis for authentic relationships. Shields’ (2002) research in a predominantly Navajo school demonstrated that educators have many misconceptions about their students that affect relationships and lead to deficit thinking and inequitable practices. School leaders also need knowledge of various theories and models of interpersonal relationships in order to analyze and improve their relationship skills. Informed by these three types of knowledge—of self, of others, and of relationship theories—action at the interpersonal level involves the proactive practice of interpersonal relationships based in respect and caring, active listening, and clear communication. Thus, praxis at the interpersonal level requires both a philosophy of respectful, caring interpersonal relationships and the practice of interpersonal skills that bring that philosophy to life.
Developing capacities for reflection in the interpersonal dimension
The structured reflections (described under the personal dimension) are useful tools for developing self-knowledge in regard to communication and relationship skills. Lupi and Tong (2001) provide guidance for focusing these reflections specifically on communication style. To develop knowledge of others, students can use the tools of life history, cross-cultural interviews, and diversity panels as described by Brown (2004) . In addition, to get to know the students they work with directly in their school settings, they should become familiar with the concept of “student voice” ( Lalas & Valle, 2007 ; Mitra, 2004 , 2009 ) and how to develop processes in schools that allow for student voice to be expressed and heard. To develop leadership students’ knowledge of relationship theories and models, the curriculum should include topics such as the “ethic of care” (Noddings, 1984, 2005 ; Starratt, 1994), the principles of dialogue and cross-cultural communication (Burbules, 1993; Isaacs, 1999 ; Lupi & Tong, 2001; Ryan, 2002 , 2007 ; Shields, 2003 , 2004b ; Shields & Edwards, 2005 ; Sidorkin, 1999; S. T. Murphy, Censullo, Cameron, & Baigis, 2007 ), and the principles of “deep,” “good,” and “transformative” listening ( Beatty, 1999 ; Glover, 2007 ; Kurth-Schai & Green, 2000).
Developing capacities for action in the interpersonal dimension
Action in the interpersonal dimension means putting into practice a philosophy of caring relationships and knowledge of relationship theories and models. One method to develop the capacity for this action is role-playing, in which students practice the principles of good listening, dialogue, and cross-cultural communication; to enhance this experience, role-play episodes can be video-taped and analyzed collaboratively with other students (Lupi & Tong, 2001; Myers, Buoye, McDermott, Strickler, & Ryman, 2001 ). In addition, students can be trained in and practice a modified Delphi method designed to elicit multiple perspectives on school issues (Kurth-Schai & Green, 2000). Students should be encouraged to include the development and practice of interpersonal skills in their ongoing leadership development plans.
The Communal Dimension
Within the communal dimension, social justice leaders work to build community across cultural groups through inclusive, democratic practices. As the earlier review emphasized, inclusion is seen by many as synonymous with social justice (Frattura & Capper, 2007; Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002 ; Ryan, 2006 ; Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008). The basis for praxis in this dimension is in-depth knowledge of the communities and cultural groups served by the school, the meanings of democracy and democratic community in contemporary education, and the principles of inclusive practice. Action in the communal dimension then involves proactive efforts to establish democratic forums and processes for dialogue and decision making that are inclusive and include traditionally marginalized groups ( Furman & Starratt, 2002 ). Many of the skills developed for action in the interpersonal dimension are relevant to this work, for example, deep listening, dialogue, and cross-cultural communication.
Developing capacities for reflection in the communal dimension
To develop students’ capacities for reflection in the communal dimension, the preparation program should ask students to practice the type of data gathering they will need to use throughout their careers to gain deeper knowledge of the communities in which they work and cultural groups served by their schools. The life histories and cross-cultural interviews discussed in the interpersonal dimension are useful tools, which can be augmented by the neighborhood walks described by McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) . In addition, the curriculum should include study of the meanings of democracy and democratic community most relevant to social justice issues; these include the concepts of “deep democracy” ( Green, 1999 ) and “deliberative democracy” ( Young, 2000 ), the principles of democratic communities in schools ( Furman & Starratt, 2002 ), and the idea of cross-cultural “communities of difference” ( Furman, 1998 ; Norte, 2001 ; Shields, 2004a ). As a basis for engaging in inclusive practices, another important area of study would be issues related to inclusion in school environments ( Armstrong & McMahon, 2006 ; Frattura & Capper, 2007; Ryan & Rottmann, 2009 ; Stainback & Stainback, 1996; Villa & Thousand, 1994 ).
Developing capacities for action in the communal dimension
Action in the communal dimension requires a set of skills related to team building, open communication, and inclusion. To develop team-building skills, leadership students can practice implementing the principles of team building ( Hackman, 1990 ; Turk, Wolff, Waterbury, & Zumalt, 2002 ), including “open space technology” ( Owen, 1997 ), within the preparation program classroom (Grasinger & Barber, 2001) as well as their own school settings. To develop skills for inclusive instructional practices, students should audit their own school settings in regard to inclusion of students in quality instructional programs (Frattura & Capper, 2007) and, based on this audit, develop an action plan for enhancing inclusion (Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008). To develop skills for broader school and community inclusion in school governance and decision making, students should analyze and critique their school settings in regard to structures “that allow diverse and marginalized groups to participate in influence processes and have their voices heard” ( Ryan, 2007 , p. 345) and experiment with designing and implementing structural improvements that facilitate this participation.
The Systemic Dimension
Praxis in the systemic dimension includes assessing, critiquing, and working to transform the system, at the school and district levels, in the interest of social justice and learning for all children. Reflection in this dimension first requires a critical consciousness or “ethic of critique” (Starratt, 1994) in regard to systemic social justice issues, that is, the responsibility to critically examine the school system’s structures, policies, and practices for injustices and barriers to learning. As McKenzie et al. (2008) state, school leaders must “recognize structures that pose barriers to students’ progress and create proactive structures and systems of support for all students” (p. 126). Second, reflection in this dimension requires an accurate and comprehensive assessment of current school practices. These critiques and assessments must include, even prioritize, the curriculum and classroom teaching practices, as a socially just pedagogy is the foundation for a socially just school. To engage in this critique, school leaders need a solid background of knowledge in regard to socially just teaching (Kose, 2007). Based on these critiques and assessments, action in the systemic dimension means engaging in transformative leadership practice to change the system; such action is broad ranging and includes prioritizing, working incrementally for meaningful change in the face of resistance and barriers (Theoharis, 2007b), and engaging others in this communal or “distributed” social justice work ( Brooks et al., 2007 ). Shaping professional development for teachers around socially just pedagogy is an example of action in this dimension (Kose, 2007).
Developing capacities for reflection in the systemic dimension
Many of the preparation ideas offered in the literature focus on the development of critical consciousness in regard to social justice issues. These include targeted readings with guided discussions related to multiple areas of difference (e.g., race, language, poverty, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability) ( Capper et al., 2006 ), culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy ( Gay, 2010 ; Ladson-Billings, 1997 ), and the “ethic of critique” (Starratt, 1994); visitations to schools and classrooms that are successful in promoting learning for all students ( McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004 ); educational plunges and diversity panels, as suggested by Brown (2004) ; and studying systemic sources of resistance to social justice work (Kezar & Carducci, 2007; Theoharis, 2007a, 2007b ). To develop the skills for assessment of current school practices, students should experiment with equity auditing tools that address teacher quality, equity in student placement, and achievement gaps (Frattura & Capper, 2007; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003; Skrla et al., 2010); the “cultural competence” of school staff ( Bustamante et al., 2009 ); and teachers’ awareness of socially just pedagogy (Kose, 2007). Leadership students can practice applying these perspectives and tools in case study simulations or, when possible, in their own school settings.
Developing capacities for action in the systemic dimension
To develop the capacity for transformative action, leadership students should be required to develop activist action plans based on auditing and critique of their school settings ( Brown, 2004 ; Capper, 1993 ; Hafner, 2010 ; Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008). To the extent possible given their professional positions, they should experiment with implementing these plans and should evaluate/critique their leadership in regard to this implementation. These plans should include professional development for teachers related to socially just pedagogy (Kose, 2007) and opportunities for leading staff in “courageous conversations” about race ( Singleton & Linton, 2006 ). In addition, preparation programs might train students in the principles of action research so they will be prepared to engage in collaborative research with their school staffs ( Black & Murtadha, 2007 ; Herr & Anderson, 2005 ; James, Milenkiewicz, & Bucknam, 2008 ; Stringer, 2007 ). Finally, since teachers’ knowledge, dispositions, and skills are critical to developing a socially just pedagogy, leadership students can role-play teacher interviews using equity interview protocols, as suggested by McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) .
The Ecological Dimension
Praxis in the ecological dimension involves acting with the knowledge that school-related social justice issues are situated within broader sociopolitical, economic, and environmental contexts and interdependent with broader issues of oppression and sustainability ( Bowers, 2001 ; Osterman & Hafner, 2009 ; Rapp, 2002 ). Reflection in this dimension includes awareness and understanding of these relationships and of the school’s role in addressing these broader issues. For example, given the relationship between “the domination of nature and the domination of oppressed groups” ( Furman & Gruenewald, 2004 , p. 57), what is the school’s role and responsibility in regard to promoting awareness of these issues and promoting action to address them? Based on these understandings, action in the ecological dimension might include designing pedagogical experiences for both teachers and students related to these broader issues. Furman and Gruenewald (2004) suggest a “critical pedagogy of place” that aims to reconnect educators and students with local economic and environmental issues that affect their lives.
Developing capacities for reflection in the ecological dimension
To develop knowledge and reflection in the ecological dimension, the preparation curriculum should include a set of readings and guided discussions related to the connections between education and broader societal issues ( Goddard, 2005 ; Jean-Marie et al., 2009 ); based on these readings, leadership students can be asked to selectively analyze local social, economic, or environmental issues and what role the school plays in enabling, ignoring, or addressing these issues.
Developing capacities for action in the ecological dimension
Action in the ecological dimension requires the skills to educate others regarding the relationship between the school and broader societal issues and to facilitate a more productive relationship between the school and the local community. One approach is to lead the development of a “pedagogy of place” ( Furman & Gruenewald, 2004 ) that engages K-12 students in studying their local communities. Leadership students can be asked to design professional development for staff focusing on pedagogy of place activities that seek to reconnect school and community. These include natural history projects, cultural journalism, and various forms of action inquiry conducted by K-12 students in their communities ( Furman & Gruenewald, 2004 ).
As Ryan (2006) states, “educators have good reason to be concerned with social justice in today’s schools” (p. 4). The alarming disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes among student groups distinguished by differences in race, ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, primary language, and so on suggest an educational system that is un-just and even “oppressive” ( Dantley & Tillman, 2010 ). These persistent inequalities demand new approaches to transformative action in schools and, thus, new approaches to educational leadership. The field has responded with a burgeoning and promising literature on leadership for social justice; however, scholars are just beginning to understand the nature of this leadership and some of the specific practices used by school leaders to address social justice issues. Relatedly, the developing literature on leadership preparation, while promising, tends to focus on “critical consciousness” of aspiring school leaders and lacks specifics in regard to developing relevant leadership skills.
In the face of these issues, there is an urgent need to advance knowledge in the field, to understand more holistically the nature of social justice leadership, and, using this understanding, to design leadership preparation program content. In this article, I have attempted to address this issue by proposing a framework for social justice leadership as praxis and arguing that the central purpose of preparation programs is to develop the capacities for this praxis. I contend that praxis has the potential to be a powerful, unifying concept in regard to leadership for social justice because it captures the dynamic interplay between the reflection and action needed for this work in schools. Furthermore, the praxis framework facilities a more detailed analysis of the capacities needed for reflection and action across multiple dimensions—the personal, interpersonal, communal, systemic, and ecological—all important facets of social justice work. In turn, these more detailed understandings can inform the design of leadership preparation programs intended to directly develop these capacities in aspiring school leaders.
The utility of the praxis framework needs to be tested through additional in-depth, case study analyses of social justice leaders at work. The emerging case studies on social justice leadership as reviewed in this article (and summarized in the appendix ) are guided by different purposes, use differing methods, and, not surprisingly, surface different nuances or characteristics of social justice leadership in their findings. Use of a more holistic framework, such as the one offered in this article, might lead to better understandings of the many “dimensions” of social justice leadership, how these are approached by school leaders in various settings, and how local context and need affect the interplay of these dimensions within an individual leader’s practice.
Regarding leadership preparation, I have offered here some concrete suggestions for preparation program content specifically targeted at developing the praxis capacities in aspiring school leaders. These ideas are just a beginning and intended to be suggestive of the possibilities for program design. This work needs to be continued with a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of how preparation programs can support the cycle of praxis by including the knowledge needed by social justice leaders, promoting reflection on this knowledge, and teaching the skills needed for transformative action in schools. I hope that the framework and analyses presented here will stimulate more creative thinking about developing a “signature pedagogy” ( Black & Murtadha, 2007 ) for leadership preparation programs focused on social justice.
|
Appendix Summary of Case Studies Related to Social Justice (SJ) Leadership
The author declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
1. Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, and Nolly’s (2004 , 2010 ) notion of equity audits focuses on teacher quality (teacher education, experience, mobility, and certification), programmatic equity (variations of student placement in special programs), and achievement (test scores and graduation rates across groups).
2.Many suggestions for leadership practice are stated at a high level of abstraction, for example, the principal should be a “catalyst for conversation and dialogue.” Here I include only explicit, concrete ideas for practice.
3.For example, McKay (2010) discusses “critical race praxis” in the field of community education, and Shahjahan (2010) considers the “spiritual praxis” of faculty of color in higher education.
|
|
Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
|
|
|
Armstrong, D. E., McMahon, B. J. (Eds.). (2006). Inclusion in urban educational environments: Addressing issues of diversity, equity, and social justice. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
|
|
|
Beatty, J. (1999). Good listening. Educational Theory, 49, 281-298. Google Scholar | Crossref
|
|
|
Black, W. R., Murtadha, K. (2007). Toward a signature pedagogin educational leadership preparation and program assessment. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/jrle Google Scholar
|
|
|
Blackmore, J. (2002). Leadership for socially just schooling: More substance and less style in high-risk, low-trust times? Journal of School Leadership, 12, 198-222. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
|
|
|
Blackmore, J. (2009). Leadership for social justice: A transnational dialogue. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 4(1), Article 5. Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/jrle Google Scholar
|
|
|
Bogotch, I. E. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 138-156. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
|
|
|
Bowers, C. A. (2001). Educating for eco-justice and community. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Google Scholar
|
|
|
Boyles, D., Carusi, T., Attick, D. (2009). Historical and critical interpretations of social justice. In Ayers, W., Quinn, T., Stoval, D. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 30-42). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
|
|
|
Branson, C. M. (2007a). Effects of structured self-reflection on the development of authentic leadership practices among Queensland primary school principals. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 35, 225-246. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
|
|
|
Branson, C. M. (2007b). Improving leadership by nurturing moral consciousness through structured self-reflection. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 471-495. Google Scholar | Crossref
|
|
|
Brooks, J. S., Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., Hodgins, D. W. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 378-408. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
|
|
|
Brooks, J. S., Miles, M. (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, Article 21. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll Google Scholar
|
|
|
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 79-110. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
|
|
|
Brown, K. M. (2005). Transformative adult learning strategies: Assessing the impact on pre-service administrators’ beliefs. Educational Considerations, 32(2), 17-26. Google Scholar | Crossref
|
|
|
Bullough, R. V., Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in auto-biographical forms of self-study. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13-22. |
