Fall 22

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tedl20

International Journal of Leadership in Education Theory and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

A case study of leadership initiatives in a diverse charter school: values in agreement and conflict

James Badger

To cite this article: James Badger (2022) A case study of leadership initiatives in a diverse charter school: values in agreement and conflict, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25:6, 984-1003, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1708469

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1708469

Published online: 06 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 151

View related articles

View Crossmark data

A case study of leadership initiatives in a diverse charter school: values in agreement and conflict James Badger

University of North Georgia, College of Education, Dahlonega, GA, USA

ABSTRACT This case study offers an in-depth analysis of the initiatives implemen- ted by a principal in an intentionally diverse charter school. Through extensive interviews with the principal, assistant principals, classroom teachers, and data gathered from surveys, classroomobservations, and school documents, this research identifies the successful initiatives and challenges implemented by an experienced principal to affect curri- cular change and policies in a charter school committed to equity, social justice, and educational excellence. In this research, Lukes’ the- oretical framework of power was applied to examine the leadership of a charter school principal. Lukes’ conceptualization provides a model to analyze power in a social system and determine how an individual exerts power, whether consensus or conflict exists or it is not obser- vable. Findings from this case study identify a charter school principal’s circumscribed role of leadership to affect change and propose a governing structure for charter schools that reframes the roles and responsibilities for those in positions of leadership.

Charter schools are an alternative to American public schools with relative independence from regional educational governing bodies (Wohlstetter, Smith, & Farrell, 2015). The notion of a charter school started in the state ofMinnesota during the 1980s when lawmakers sought an alternative model of schooling that improved academic performance through greater teacher autonomy and innovative instructional practices (Junge, 2012). In the U.S., charter schools serve more than 2.5 million students in 42 states, with approximately 6,400 charter schools educating about 5 percent of public school students (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2015). These numbers are growing and reflect a system of deregulation that purport a successful alternative education model to state-funded public schools (DeMartino, 2017; Kamienski, 2011). This trend during the same period reflects international shifts in education opportu- nities and choice for parents in Canada, England, New Zealand, and throughout the OECD when market-based policies became central policy prescriptions (Lazaridou & Fris, 2005).

The charter school movement is rooted in the assumption that a combination of accountability to taxpayers and autonomy from state rules and regulations allow admin- istrators and educators to reflect the needs of students and the community through educational reforms and creative teaching practices (DeMartino, 2017; Merseth, 2009). Existing as part of a public school system rather than an independent private institution,

CONTACT James Badger [email protected] University of North Georgia, College of Education, 82 College Circle, Dahlonega, GA 30597, USA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 2022, VOL. 25, NO. 6, 984–1003 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1708469

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

charter schools have been criticized as part of a neoliberal reform agenda, with for-profit, educational management organizations operating some charter schools (DeMartino, 2017; a Mavrogordato, Goldring, & Smrekar, 2017). There are few but a growing number of studies that have investigated the leadership role of charter school principals and governing board of directors (Gawlik & Bickmore, 2017b). This case study offers an in- depth analysis exploring the initiatives advanced by a newly appointed principal in a diverse, urban elementary charter school and his relationship with the school’s govern- ing board of directors. Through interviews, survey, and observations, this research identified the leadership initiatives advanced by a charter school principal to affect curricular change and policy. Two research questions informed this case study: What initiatives motivated a recently appointed principal attempt to implement curriculum and policy changes in an intentionally diverse charter school? What initiatives advanced by a charter school principal were successfully implemented and challenged by the school’s faculty and governing board of directors?Answers to these questions contribute to the literature on charter school leadership,inform a deeper understanding of charter school governance, and identify social justice policies school leaders initiate in diverse, urban schools. The following discussion begins with a review of charter schools, defining characteristics of principalship, and its governance. Findings from this case study identify a charter school principal’s circumscribed role of leadership to affect change and reframes the roles and responsibilities for those in positions of leadership.

Charter schools: organization and governance

Charter schools have been at the center of ideological debates about restructuring public education. As an alternative to public schooling, the charter school movement is founded on a degree of autonomy from state rules and regulations that allows administrators and educators to implement innovative ideas and teaching practices. Charter schools are one of the most rapidly growing school reforms in the United States (Gawlik, 2008; Gawlik & Bickmore, 2017a). Proponents of charter schools point to a model that allows teachers the autonomy to integrate innovative practices in contrast to public schools perceived by some parents to lack innovation and reflect a dearth of school improvement policies (Gawlik & Bickmore, 2017a, 2017b). However, with increased autonomy is a tension toward increased state accountability (Cannata, Thombre, & Thomas, 2017). This means charter schools remain under the purvey of a school district’s policies regarding testing policies, regulations, and curriculum requirements. While there is an absence of network support in charter schools as public schools receive from central office to take care of facilities, buildings and budgets, student recruitment, and personnel screening, it is assumed that a charter school principal’s control over instruction, budget, and staffing decisions results in higher student achievement (Goff, Mavrogordato, & Goldring, 2012; Merseth, 2009).

There are four models of establishing a charter school. Each model is reviewed by a state charter advisory committee and operates under the control of a local governing board: conversion (the majority of the faculty and parents of a public school apply for a charter – for example, a charter school may focus on STEM (Science Technology Engineering Mathematics) or an arts-based curriculum), start-up (created by private individuals, organizations, or state/local entity), state charter (an independent school operates under the terms as a charter), and locally approved state-up (operating under the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 985

terms of a charter between the charter, local district, and state Board of Education) (Georgia Department of Education, 2015). Charter schools often receive less funding than public schools. They are funded through a combination of local, state, and federal government support, with a large portion of school revenues from local property taxes, yet charter schools are held accountable for student performance through state standards and examinations that public schools are also responsible for preparing students (Barr, Sadovnik, & Visconti, 2006; Cuban, 2013; Mavrogordato et al., 2017). In contrast to the funding sources in public schools, charter schools receive at least eighty percent from the state. The financial gap means charter school principals devote more time and attention to locate funds, negotiate with the local district, and support board efforts in fund-raising initiatives to account for revenue sources (Cravens, Goldring, & Penaloza, 2012).

Charter school principals

Leadership and leadership teams affect the culture of learning in schools. Effective leadership not only impacts student learning and achievement, but successful leaders are essential to school stability and reform (Cravens et al., 2012; Harris, 2006; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Leadership has been identified as second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to student achievement and school success (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). Research indicates that effective principals have a strong personal sense ofmission to foster a school vision, redesign organizational structures, and believe their practices can affect student learning and school culture (Bickmore&Dowell, 2011). They also recognized that building rapport and establishing trusting relationships with teachers, parents, and communities not only gains support for their ideas or programs but ‘bridges the power and culture gap between educators and parents’ (DeMatthews, 2016, p. 10). The impact of effective principals tends to be greatest in schools where the learning needs of students are most acute (Fullan, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2004).

Social justice leadership is an area of scholarship within educational leadership that focuses on how principals address equity issues in their schools and communities (Bogotch, 2002; Dantley & Tillman, 2006). Departing from traditional leadership approaches, a school leader who adopts a social justice perspective challenges school traditions that marginalize student populations and seek ways to establish an environ- ment that is inclusive and considered socially just. Through their advocacy, practice, and vision, social justice leaders place a high priority on reducing inequalities in schools based on socio-economic status, race, gender, ability, religion, and other historical and current marginalized conditions (Ogden, 2017; Theoharis, 2007). Researchers found that social justice leadership begins with an ability to recognize inequity amongst other issues associated with school administration and attempt to create more socially just schools (DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews, Mungal, & Carrola, 2015; Ogden, 2017).

The responsibilities of a charter school principal extends beyond the expectations of school improvement, innovation and improving student outcomes. This includes estab- lishing and conveying the school values, overseeing the school’s business operations and finances, fundraising, and connecting with external partners (Gawlik, 2017). The respon- sibility of a charter school principal also includes school promotion and implementing initiatives to recruit students. In contrast to public school principals, the oversight of a charter school principal extends to managing the school’s facilities and building

986 J. BADGER

relationships with local education entities. Leaders involved in school change have described the process as a journey to address difficult academic or cultural variables (Fullan, 2001, 2007; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Shachar, Gavin, & Shlomo, 2010).

Charter school principals often report directly to a school’s governing board that oversees single or small groups of charter schools or, in other organizational structures, contracting with educational management organizations (EMO). Principals are given significant latitude in the operation of the school that includes greater autonomy related to teacher hiring and evaluation (Bickmore & Dowell, 2011). Charter school principals are often younger and less experienced than public school principals. With seventy percent of charter school principals leaving their school within five years, the result is institutional memory loss and inconsistencies in school goals, policy, and culture (Cannata et al., 2017; Gawlik & Bickmore, 2017b).

The greater autonomy given to charter school principal may be different than public schools due to conditions created by deregulation and decentralization granted to charter schools (Gawlik & Bickmore, 2017a; Mavrogordato et al., 2017). The autonomy experi- enced by charter school principals results in multiple levels of decision-making that impact school improvement, instruction and curriculum, advance the school’s mission and goals, and direct their attention toward state policies and measures of accountability (Bickmore & Dowell, 2014; Gawlik, 2008). However, in exchange for greater flexibility and autonomy from some state and local policies, charter schools principals generally do not have district support and access to funding structures that are available to public school principals. Consequently, charter school principals often engage in activities to acquire finances and manage school facilities (Bickmore & Dowell, 2014). With a lack of district or centralized support, charter principals are frequently responsible for management responsibilities typically dedicated to district office personnel (Bickmore & Dowell, 2011).

Charter school governance

Charter schools are often organized as a nonprofit organization, with a governing board that serves as its legal policymaking body overseeing the budget, appointing and evaluat- ing a principal, and providing support for a school’s leadership team (Campbell, 2010; Cornell-Feist, 2011; DeKuyper, 2007). A governing board of directors is identified as another defining feature of charter schools. In the charter school model of governance, school-based management is decentralized, with the locus of control internally organized to establish relationships among teachers, administrators, parents, and students (Lazaridou & Fris, 2005).

A charter school’s governing board fulfills the responsibilities traditionally held by local school board of education. In the case of a public school board of education, it is often locally elected and has the responsibility of appointing a superintendent to manage the schools in the district, determining the funding and budget formula for individual public schools, and working with communities to improve student achievement. In contrast, a charter school’s governing board is comprised of community members, parents, teachers, school partners, and others who have an interest not only providing operational oversight but fulfilling many fiduciary roles and responsibilities (Furgeson et al., 2012; Hubbard & Kulkarni, 2009; Mavrogordato et al., 2017). A governing board provides support for a charter school’s leadership team that focuses on drafting policy and supporting initiatives

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 987

to improve instruction and student learning (Cornell-Feist, 2011; DeKuyper, 2007; National Charter School Resource Center, 2012; Wohlstetter, Smith, Farrell, & O’Neill, 2011). Charter school governing boards are most effective and sustainability if they possess a wide array of skills and knowledge in areas such as finance, real estate, education and curriculum, and community relations (Blitz, 2011). However, recruiting for diversity on a governing board is sometimes difficult as well as ensure that board members are effectively trained (Cannata et al., 2017; Wohlstetter, Smith, & Farrell, 2013).

Theoretical framework

Leadership theory and the concomitant notions of power have been variables in studies of education for years (Webb, 2008). Research on leadership and views of power account for the ideological context and structural processes within which both operate and consider how schools as organizations ‘frustrate, distort, and ultimately stifle educative relationships’ (Smyth, 1989, p.3; Watkins, 1989). In this research, Lukes’ theoretical framework of power was applied to examine the leadership of a charter school principal. Lukes’ (2005) conceptualization provides a model to analyze power in a social system and determine how an individual exerts power, whether consensus or conflict exists or it is not observable. Lukes’ work follows a tradition of analyzing the political, cultural, and social context of schools to discern the forms of knowledge, power relationships, and social control that embody leadership in schools (Smyth, 1989). While Lukes’ model focuses on a political analysis of actors and policies, his theory of power is germane to this study for it provides a meaningful and systematic framework for analyzing initiatives advanced by an elementary school principal and responses by teachers and a governing board to the same initiatives. Lukes identified three dimensions of power. Each of the three dimensions involves an analysis of power that is exercised, restricted in overt or covert conflicts of interests, or used to prevent conflict from arising.

According to Lukes (2005), power is not only the behavior and concrete decisions in making decisions where there is an observable conflict of interests or resistance of others – for example, A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests – but considers the chance that some person or association ‘could limit decision-making to relatively non-controversial matters by influencing community values and political procedures and rituals, notwithstanding that there are in the com- munity serious but latent power conflicts’ (Lukes, 2005, p. 6). Lukes’ first dimension of power involves two observable subjects, A and B, where preferences are exhibited, observable, and explicit. Power involves a focus on behavior in making decisions of issues over which there is an observable ‘conflict of interests’ (p. 19) In this one- dimensional view of power, when interests are in conflict, interests are explicit and preferences exhibited in action. In contrast to one-dimensional power, an analysis of two-dimensional power involves examining both decision-making and nondecision- making, often used covertly and behind closed doors. A distinction is made between a decision involving ‘a choice among alternative modes of action,’ and a nondecision defined as ‘a decision that results in suppression or thwarting of a latent or manifest challenge to the values or interests of the decision-maker’ (p. 22).

The two-dimension of power involves instances where power involves coercion (A secures B’s compliance by a threat of deprivation), influence (A, without resorting to

988 J. BADGER

either tacit or overt threat of severe deprivation, causes B to change his or her course of action), authority (B complies because B recognizes that A’s command is reasonable in terms of his or her own values – either because its content is legitimate and reasonable or because it has been arrived at through a legitimate and reasonable procedure), force (A achieves his or her objective in the face of B’s noncompliance by stripping him or her of the choice between compliance and noncompliance), and manipulation (compliance is forthcoming in the absence of recognition on the complier’s part either of the source or the exact nature of the demand upon him) (Lukes, 2005, pp. 21–22). In this conceptua- lization, power is a capacity not the exercise of that capacity. A two-dimensional view of power considers the ways decisions are prevented from being taken on potential issues over which there is an observable conflict of subjective interests – for example, through coercion, influence, authority, force and manipulation. This conceptualization of power also accounts for those individual and organizations satisfying and advancing others’ interests (Lukes, 2005). The two-dimensional view of power considers the question of control over an agenda, and it incorporates the ways in which potential issues are kept out of the process – or individuals or groups prevented from articulating anything – over which there is an overt or covert conflict of interests. For example, even though a situation might seem consensual on the surface, ‘this consensus was the result of conscious decisions from people in power (A) aiming at avoiding the expression of other relevant points of view (B)’ (Rømer, 2011, p. 759).

Lukes’ critique of the two-dimensional view of power advanced by Bachrach and Baratz (1962) informs his conceptualization in the framing of a three-dimensional view of power. For Lukes, associating power with actual, observable conflict not only obfus- cates other issues and the process in which individuals, groups, and institutions succeed in excluding potential alternative issues from the decision-making process, but also is a misleading understanding of power that views power exercised only in situations of overt and covert conflict (Lukes, 2005, pp. 25–26). Power is considered in situations even when there is no observable conflict. Lukes believed that power is much more difficult to observe because power shaped people’s interests unconsciously and in ways such that they remain unaware of its effects (Webb, 2008). Power is used to prevent conflict from arising in the first place. Thus, the third-dimensional view of power allows for considera- tion of the many ways in which potential issues are kept out of the process and influence people’s perceptions, cognitions, and preferences in such a way that they accept their roles in the existing order of things (Webb, 2008). The next section describes the charter school in this study before analyzing the principal’s initiatives through Luke’s three dimensions of power.

Background

Lakewood Elementary (pseudonym) is a locally approved start-up charter school situated in a large, metropolitan city in the U.S. southeast. Located near one of the largest U.S. refugee resettlement areas, the school was created to provide refugees, immigrants, and local children a rigorous and holistic education that follows the state curriculum, yet taught under the framework of the IBPYP (International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme). According to the school’s mission statement, ‘cultural differences are celebrated and children thrive in a stimulating learning environment.’ The school’s

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 989

demographics intentionally reflect the school’s mission that seek each year a diverse mix of 50% refugee or immigrant students and the other 50% Americans from the surround- ing neighborhoods. Many of the children attending Lakewood are survivors of war, speak little English, received no formal education, or are illiterate and innumerate in their native language. More than four hundred K-5th graders from over thirty-five nations collectively speaking more than twenty-five languages. Lakewood Elementary is a Title 1 school. Title 1 is a common index for poverty levels in the U.S. that indicates at least 40% of a school’s student population are from ‘low-income families’ as defined by the most recent United States Census. Title 1 schools receive federal funds for academic support and learning opportunities, and eligible Title 1 students receive free- or reduced-meals. Lakewood initially offered classes in the basement of a church before moving in 2013 to its permanent location in a sixty-three year old public school that was previously unoccupied for ten years prior to Lakewood’s occupancy.

The school receives eight-six percent of its budget from the state and county, with the balance collected from grants, after school fees, and donations. Fundraising efforts represents an ongoing challenge that Lakewood attempted to meet as an additional revenue sources to support its budget. A food bank operated every month from the school’s atrium serving twenty-eight families from the school. Flags from around the world were displayed outside the school’s entrance, and the school’s faculty, staff, students, and parents celebrates United Nations’ day each November. Thirteen indivi- duals from diverse occupational backgrounds volunteered on Lakewood’s governing board of directors for monthly meetings that were open to the community. Absent from the governing board were immigrant or refugee parents or guardians that reflected a lack of diversity.

The head of Lakewood, Mr. Morales (pseudonym), was hired as its new principal for the 2014–2015 school year. Two successive principals resigned in the 2013–2014 school year. The author of this study was permitted to observe the 2014 national search that involved candidates submitting a written response to open-ended questions on leadership and diversity, and then presenting their vision of Lakewood Elementary to local immigrant community groups. An anonymous survey was completed by those attending the presentations to local groups and final interviews were conducted by the school’s hiring committee. Mr. Morales’ family moved to the U.S. from Puerto Rico when he was a child and learned English in the New York City public school system before he completed two, post-secondary degrees. He taught for twenty years in the New York City and New Jersey public school systems and served as an elementary school principal for fifteen years. He also taught Education courses in a New York City community college for three years and was principal in a private European school for two years.

Data sources

Over an eight-month period, multiple sources of data were collected in this case study to explore the number, complexity, and interactions of important contextual variables of school leadership (Lindahl, 2007; Marshall & Rossman, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). This research, approved by an Institutional Review Board in a U.S. university, was an embedded case study design (Yin, 2009). Gathered qualitative data included semi- structured interviews with Mr. Morales every three weeks in addition to regular informal

990 J. BADGER

conversations and e-mail reflections he answered to open-ended questions on school culture, initiatives he planned to implement, and interactions with teachers, staff, and governing board members. Data were triangulated through interviews with two assistant principals, chairperson of the school’s governing board, classroom teachers who had been employed for at least two years, and three support teachers from Bosnia, Burma, and Kurdistan who provided classroom language assistance. Observations were also conducted with the interviewed classroom teachers to witness the school’s culture, instruction, relationships, and physical space (Blitz, 2011).

Field notes were gathered during the governing board’s monthly meetings, discussions between the principal and assistant principals, and meetings facilitated by the assistant principal with teachers in grades K-2 and 3–5. School documents were collected from the governing board’s communication to parents, minutes from board meetings, fund- raising letters from the principal to the community, principal’s e-mails to the school’s faculty, and a monthly newsletter to parents and community members. The school’s governing board was surveyed to identify their roles and responsibilities as well as their relationship with and perception of the Mr. Morales’ initiatives. Content analyzes of the gathered data were coded and analyzed to illuminate reoccurring themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldana, 2009). The analysis revealed three themes using a phenomenological and hermeneutic process (Van Manen, 1990): experi- enced leadership, school curriculum and policies, and ideological disputes. Each of the three themes is described in the findings section below.

Findings

Experienced leadership

Mr. Morales presented himself to the hiring committee as a leader with compassion, experience, and a diverse background that fit the school’s values and culture. According to surveyed board members, Mr. Morales’s tenure as principal witnessed increased morale among faculty, staff, and focused instruction on teaching the whole child. Mr. Morales stated that he sought to develop a school culture that ‘empowers rather than oppresses’ relationships between teacher and students:

I agree with Thomas Jefferson: the purpose of education is to create a strong democracy. The purpose of schools is to prepare our kids in the future to take our county and to help lead in the world to create communities and societies in a world that works for all people – students who are intellectually competent but also to be compassionate and caring . . . . My goal is to bring some stability back in terms of staff retention and believing and embracing in the vision of the school. The two things I try to make sure to work toward: create a learning and work environment for kids and teachers, and as we teach we are being very serious about providing an education for the whole child: heart, head, and soul.

Mr. Morales claimed his leadership philosophy and interactions focused on creating an inclusive and democratic relationship with faculty and staff that not only mirrored the school’s stated mission and vision but reflected students’ educational experience in the classroom to develop the whole child. In this view, reflecting a third dimensional view of power, the principal elevates teachers’ skills and decision-making to positively impact student learning and may reduce future conflicts related to decisions about classroom

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 991

instruction. Teachers, school administrators, and board members described Mr. Morales’ leadership style as collaborative that not only instilled the participation of others to inform his decisions but fostered confidence and collaboration amongst teachers to advance the school’s mission and vision:

He is respectful and give us suggestion. He is good to everyone, not (only) teachers but teacher assistants – (we are) all equal working under one umbrella. (Teacher assistant)

You feel he is a person of integrity, so you know he will deal with you in a straight forward way. There’s no hidden agenda, no political sort of underpinning that’s at play. (1st grade teacher)

One of the things is that (Mr. Morales) has brought the gravitas in the sense there is a separation of long-term importance over short term panic. Because, one of the problems we were having was initiative after initiative, new idea after new idea. What he has done has brought a sense of calm about the place. There is a different feel, less fraught environment . . . I see a longer term vision. I don’t see a short-term panic. I don’t see the problems of micromanagement. I detect when tough decisions need to be made, that this is the guy to make them. He is going to make tough, important decisions for the benefit of the school. (5th

grade teacher)

When asked to reflect on leadership changes in Lakewood the previous year, Mr. Morales expressed in interviews and journal submissions that his intentions were to establish openness and consensus-building that allowed teachers to be creative in their classroom and for students to take risks in their learning. Mr. Morales claimed that encouraging a culture of innovative teaching and risk-taking would contribute to the development of the whole child and support the school’s mission of fostering a stimulating learning environment. This declared position reflects a third-dimensional view of power that acknowledges the future actions of teachers integrating innovative learning activities without an exercise of potential manipulation or coercion from the principal. Mr. Morales referenced the school’s mission that was informed by the work of Martin Luther King in defense of his leadership decisions and initiatives to support classroom instruction that affected a change in instruction and the students’ learning environment:

If people are in a safe climate and can take risks to be creative, that encourages their kids to take risks. Taking risks is a big part of learning: you take a chance, try creative stuff, and try crazy stuff. Our task is to serve our teachers and to put in place the conditions and secure the resources to best serve what their task is, which is to teach. In the letter I sent to the community just before I came (to the school), I talked about the concept of the servant leader: Dr King talked about a true leader as someone with a genuine desire to serve and to help others. That’s what I see as my primary role to be a servant leader. A strong leader – a strong principal – will do for teachers what strong teachers do for kids. Strong teachers create a climate for kids to learn: to create a climate that is safe for kids embraced and eager to do things which is to learn.

In this case, the principal’s power reflected his influence when communicating with educators to support innovative classroom practices that cultivated multiple voices of democratic participation and instructional practices rather than initiating authority or manipulation to affect change. Mr. Morales’ interactions and declaration of support for teachers’ innovative pedagogy reflected an overt approach to leadership that fostered dialogue and validated teachers’ creative instructional practice.

992 J. BADGER

School curriculum and policies

Early in his tenure as principal, Mr. Morales’ presented the Global Citizen Project (GCP) to teachers, administrators, board members, and in school newsletters as a curriculum that amplified the school’s values of diversity, conservation, cultural pluralism, and social justice. During the hiring process, Mr Morales explained the GCP as a program that supported existing academic standards and supported the school’s vision, but was not an add-on to Lakewood’s existing IBPYP. During the hiring process and in meetings with teachers, Mr. Morales described the GCP as successfully implemented in previous schools he served as principal and explained to Lakewood’s faculty that GCP was designed around the Earth Charter’s four principles: respect and care for the community of life; ecological integrity; social and economic justice; and democracy, nonviolence, and peace (The Earth Charter, 2000). Reflecting a two-dimensional view of power, Mr. Morales’ influence (he did not resort to either tacit or overt threat, teachers changed their course of action) and authority (teachers complied with Mr. Morales because his authority and experiences were recognized and the value of adopting GCP was legiti- mately presented) convinced teachers to implement with fidelity the new curriculum. Teachers displayed posters of the GCP values in the classroom, initiated a GCP student- of-the-month, prompted students to make connections to the GCP with the question, ‘what does a global citizen do?’, and reflected on the curriculum through the acronym APHY: A (Accepts all people), P (Protects the environment), H (Helps those in need), W (Works for peace). Lakewood teachers explained their reasons for connecting GCP with the IBPYP and reflected on the values it instilled in students as global citizens:

With (Mr. Morales), there is the GCP. These are principles to follow and teach about. There is a student Global Citizen each month. These kids get so excited: every month they are waiting to see who gets nominated. For me, personally, I look for kids who do all four things that show they are a Global Citizen: work well with others, working for peace, protecting the environment, work well with others. (2nd grade teacher)

There is no extra work for the teacher because the attributes of a Global Citizen are what we are looking (for) in the IBPYP. (Assistant Principal)

Mr. Morales’ initiatives extended to revising some school policies. With approval from the governing board, Mr. Morales instituted a revised teachers’ salary scale based on experience and qualifications that did not previously exist at Lakewood. In journal reflections and interviews, Mr. Morales explained that the successful alignment of teachers’ salaries with an individual’s qualifications reflected the school’s values of equity and justice. Reflecting a one-dimension view of power when interests are in conflict and power involves making decisions in which there is an observable conflict of interest (Lukes, 2005), Mr. Morales viewed some of the school policies in conflict with its stated values of equity. Additional administrative changes from the principal’s office included re-organizing the administrative responsibilities of the assistant principals and moving the school start-time to align with the arrival of school buses. In each of these initiatives including the successful integration of the GCP, the principal’s power extended to his control over the school’s curriculum and policies. There was little contention from the faculty, staff, or governing board related to this initiative advanced byMr. Morales and its concomitant values of pay equity and social justice. An indicator of Mr. Morale’s impact

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 993

on the school culture and teachers’ morale was teacher retention: all but one teacher returned to Lakewood in 2015 that was in contrast to the lower teacher retention experienced the previous years.

Ideological disputes

The principal’s authority at Lakewood Elementary and its status as a charter school in the county did not go unquestioned by the county board of education. According to Mr. Morales, he received frequent e-mail and telephone communications from the county requesting compliance on regulations or integration of technology standards. Mr. Morales claimed that the county placed demands on Lakewood’s operating budget and restrictions on Lakewood’s degree of autonomy from state rules, regulations, and assessment require- ments. These requirements from the social system reflected a two-dimension of power whereby the county’s authority and force – Lakewood Elementary followed county policies to remain in compliance – resulted in conflict with Lakewood over institutional policy and implementation of educational practices. Mr. Morales stated that Lakewood’s status as a charter school received ‘second-class treatment’ by the county board of education in contrast to other public schools. He connected his leadership role as a charter school principal with his principalship in the New York City and New Jersey public school system with access to an infrastructure that supported teacher training, technological resources, and school maintenance. Mr. Morales claimed that he was unable to leverage his power with the county board of education to secure funding to comply with compulsory state regulations and resources for examination obligations.

Concomitant with these external demands were internal pressures related to the school’s financial circumstances. Ongoing plans to raise school funds andmeetings with the school’s accountant diverted Mr. Morales’ time and attention away from classroom observations and interactions with teachers. Compounding this was Mr. Morales’ attention to the school’s plumbing, heating and air conditioning system, and windows that were in disrepair and lacked financial resources and organizational support to renovate the school’s infra- structure. The state of the school reflected a structural as well as education crisis of conflicting interests and demands for Mr. Morales. The school’s infrastructure received increasing time and attention by Mr. Morales, for it was perceived to mirror an inadequate and incomplete education that did not manifest the school’s mission and values. It negatively impacted the teaching conditions and learning for all students, but especially the refugee and immigrant students whowere identified byMr.Morales as themost in need of a strong education delivered in well-maintained classrooms and facilities. Written and verbal requests by Mr. Morales to the governing board for funds to update the school’s infrastructure were deferred to a later date:

I see things that need to be changed. But I don’t see the support or the advocacy on the part of the leadership (governing board) to get things done . . . We are special because we serve the needs of these kids (immigrant and refugee). These are the kids in most need in our society. The work of the civil rights movement was to put all people in this county on a level playing field: everybody has access to quality education, health care, and a voice in selecting leadership. I have seen what good schools (can) do for kids, and we have to strive for it. When I don’t see that same kind of action from those in position of authority to secure equal access, so in the spirit of Selma – the civil rights struggled for equity and equality – it’s up to

994 J. BADGER

us to strive for it. And to settle for less is to make a compromise. If we don’t speak up for them (immigrant and refugee students), they’re not going to be heard . . . We are not going to lower the standards (but) provide the very best – and not settle for less, regardless of black or brown (students).

Mr. Morales’ vision of public education was a vehicle for democratic and social change: a setting that provided educational opportunities and social justice to make a difference for all children ‘with modern and clean resources for teachers to provide good conditions of learning,’ he said. Mr. Morales was unsuccessful con- vincing the governing board through letters, reports, and presentations to repair the school’s infrastructure. Perceived through the lens of a two-dimensional view of power, Mr. Morales asserted his authority and influence to affect the governing boards’ decisions to increase funding for the school’s infrastructure that would have the impact of diminishing future conflicts related to the promotion and implemen- tation of an equitable education for the diverse population the school serves. The governing board delayed his funding requests to a finance subcommittee, with a funding decision to be made in the following school year. The chairperson of Lakewood’s governing board described its role as advancing the school’s mission, providing fiduciary oversight, reviewing the operations of the school, and selecting, supporting, and evaluating the school’s principal:

The board of directors is the financial steward of the school. We are to manage the resources to accomplish the programs to be enacted. It is to uphold the mission and to work with the principal collaboratively to make corrections if we need. (The principal) is the implementer of the mission and vision. We (the governing board) are sort of the fence of the mission and vision . . . The board is a cohesive group of individuals, who are philosophically aligned with the mission of the school, and they are all different individuals but with sufficient respect and lack of ego in the group where we are able to make decisions. Even if there is disagreement, we are able to come together in a cohesive group (and arrive at a) consensus, decision. We have up to fifteen board members (from) very diverse and many professions represented: education, attorneys, finance, lawyers, and a variety of backgrounds.

A conflict between the principal’s request to repair the school’s infrastructure and response by some individuals on the board of directors to postpone the decision for budgetary reasons reflected a contradictory set of values and the exercise of power in a dispute that reflected a two-dimensional view of power. Mr. Morales’ attempts to influence and change the governing boards’ decision through his influence and authority were met and stymied by the chairperson’s reference to authority (the large costs associated with such an expenditure) and manipulation (the potentially negative impact such a large economic expenditure would have on other areas of the school were it implemented). Mr. Morales perceived the govern- ing boards’ decision and inaction as an educational crisis for students and tea- chers, a challenge to his experience and knowledge as a school leader, and a transgression of the school’s mission and vision. At each monthly board meet- ing, the principal presented a report of the school as well as information related to one of the board’s four subcommittees he served. The board’s chairperson con- trasted the roles of the principal as one who implemented the mission and vision of the school with the governing board that was responsible for intellectual and fiduciary oversight:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 995

The reality of funding is that it’s a limiting factor. Mr. Morales may come up with an idea that is great, and if we (the governing board) did this, then that will happen. I have to sort of pull him (Mr. Morales) back and say, “let me explain the context. We determined a while ago (that) administration was too top-heavy as a body and, looking at the finances of the school, we communicated this out broadly to everyone in the community and we cut back on staffing.” . . . Everyone needs to understand some parameters within which they are working. So, some of that needs to be clarified. We need to think of goals. Parameters can even be understood and (also) the course of events. Some of it may be relative in the present, some of it may not be. But we give him (Mr. Morales) additional information so that he make decisions, so he can be more informed in his knowledge base.

The conflict between the school principal and governing board reflected a conflict of values and example of one individual attempting to influence the decision of another through multiple measures of power. The principal and assistant principals claimed that the governing board did not fulfill its responsibilities. An assistant principal stated that the governing board’s chairperson devoted too much attention to the day-to-day opera- tions of the school and asserted that the board members neither visited the school nor observed classroom instruction. Mr. Morales described the micromanagement of some board members constraining his responsibilities during his first few months of tenure and blurring the division between the governing board and his leadership. Seen through the lens of the second-dimension of power, the intrusions on his leadership perceived by Mr. Morales suggests that his authority to make decisions and ability to influence policy were suppressed and resulted in a conflict of institutional and leadership values.

I need to feel free to administer this school without having the chilling effect of a board member constantly giving their opinion on how things should and need to be done. I know we can get Lakewood to accomplish some great things for our children, but it is key we fulfill our roles without crossing into areas where we lack expertise or jurisdiction.

With the exception of one governing board member who was an Education professor at a state university, Lakewood’s principal and assistant principals were critical of the governing board’s lack of knowledge related to state pressures on teachers and admin- istrators to produce positive examination results as well as a dearth of fundraising initiatives to support the school’s expenditures and projects. Mr. Morales claimed he did not receive a formal performance evaluation from the governing board during his first year. Instead, he said some board members extended verbal praise based on his character and integrity as a form of leadership assessment. Mr. Morales ruminated on the challenges leading a charter school as it related to his relationship with and decision from the governing board to postpone funds to renovate the school:

In charter schools, as I understand it, the board is the first line of advocacy for the school: promote the school, help to get donors potentially interested, and all that. The principal’s role is (to) administer and help us get us to the vision and mission that has been set forth by the board. They dream and conceptualize; my task is to make it real. I see things that need to be changed. But I don’t see the support or advocacy on the part of the (board) leadership to get things done. I don’t hear anything until last week: supposedly a meeting was held [about funding], but nothing significant will be done until (next) September . . . Do we really care about the kids? Do we understand about how you create conditions where kids learn? Can you and I learn in those conditions? We are talking about a population – a group of kids (immigrant and refugee) – that already have a long list of challenges . . . I have seen what good schools do for kids, and we have to strive for it. It’s up to us to strive for that and to

996 J. BADGER

settle for less is to make a poor compromise. If we don’t speak up for them (immigrant and refugee students), they’re not going to be heard.

Discussion

Conducting research in charter schools offers a window to the changing nature of leadership and how it is evolving in the 21st century (Bickmore & Dowell, 2014). Findings from this research inform charter school models of governance, the work of charter principals to address varied and multifaceted issues, and the circumscribed autonomy of a charter school principal (Betts & Atkinson, 2012; Campbell, 2010; DeKuyper, 2007; Wohlstetter et al., 2013). The realities of leading a diverse, urban charter school with a stated mission and vision rooted in social justice as proclaimed by Lakewood Elementary in this study encompass complex social and financial demands that may be challenging even for an experienced school principal. Seen through the lens of Luke’s (2005) three dimensions of power, this study analyzed some of the policy initiatives and curriculum changes advanced by an experienced principal in an elemen- tary charter school located in one of the most diverse communities in the United States.

This case study provides a descriptive analysis of the initiatives advanced by a newly appointed principal to impact the school culture and curriculum. In answer to the first research question – what initiatives motivated a recently appointed principal attempt to implement curriculum and policy changes in an intentionally diverse elementary charter school? – this study revealed a principal successfully exercising power to affect change in an intentionally diverse charter school that experienced leadership turnover and struggled with financial constraints. Mr. Morales justified each initiative and decision that he claimed advanced the school’s mission and vision of diversity, equity, and global- mindedness. However, as viewed through a second dimension of power, Mr. Morales’ unsuccessfully attempted to leverage his influence and authority to persuade the school’s governing board to increase funding to repair the school’s infrastructure. Mr. Morales claimed that the governing board’s decision would not only negatively impact classroom instruction and students’ learning but diminish the school’s stated mission of educating an intentionally diverse mix of refugee, immigrant, and American students. The principal perceived the need to repair to the school’s infrastructure an issue of social justice that would elevate similar learning conditions and educational opportunities for immigrant and refugee students that are afforded to white, middle-class students in public schools.

The conflict signaled a clash of values between the governing board’s fiduciary role and responsibilities, on the one hand, and the principal’s vision of education connected to social equity on the other. Similar tensions arise when principals are forced to make choices about school staffing, curricula, and program development (DeMatthews et al., 2015). Principals in other charter schools have encountered similar restrictions seeking to achieve the school’s mission and objectives, which include pursuing increased local and state funding to put them on an equal footing with public schools (Lazaridou & Fris, 2005).

Principal leadership possess degrees of autonomy and power that affect their ability to institute change (Cravens et al., 2012). As Mr. Morales responded to local oversight, state requirements, and requirements for academic achievement, he also confronted financial restrictions imposed by the school’s governing board and its managerialist views that clashed with his vision for Lakewood. This study supports other research that found

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 997

competing and conflicting values and accountability demands charter school leaders face from a governing board, an authorizer, and external market-based forces (Cannata et al., 2017; Gawlik, 2017). Rather than espousing a narrow concern for skills-related learning, Mr. Morales’ advocacy of social justice for Lakewood Elementary aligned with the school’s mission statement and values. It was a stance that recognized the intersecting roles of racism, classism, and other forms of marginalization in the school and commu- nities (DeMatthews, 2016). Mr. Morales’ leadership empowered school participants and acknowledged alternative views of power that were inclusive of issues of race and class (Codd, 1989; Smyth, 1989). In this study, the responsibilities and relationship between the principal and the governing board were sometimes transgressed or undeveloped, with competing organizational goals and values that went unresolved over leadership, visions of social justice, and fiduciary responsibilities. University education leadership programs need to prepare individuals to lead charter schools in order to ensure the promise of quality education and reduce problems of inexperienced leadership and contested gov- ernance that may stymie efforts to meet its educational mission (Hubbard & Kulkarni, 2009). While educator preparation programs, the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL), and scholarship on school leadership emphasize social justice and critical perspectives, some researchers (DeMatthews, 2016) suggest that school leaders ‘must critically question the status quo of schools and step outside of what they were trained to do by drawing on the principles of social justice leadership theories to interrogate existing policies and practices, demand change, engage in activism, and organize and collaborate with families and other stakeholders (p. 11).’ An external coach for both starting and veteran principals can occupy the role of a neutral, impartial party for a charter school principal to consult and find support in the event of conflicts when seeking change and engaging in activism, working with governing bodies, setting up written management agreements, engaging in policymaking on principals’ mobility, and working with performance appraisal (Krüger, van Eck, & Vermeulen, 2005). This position reflects a third dimension of power that fosters in charter school principals a deeper knowledge base when making future policy decisions. As much as leadership programs and related support resources to apply leadership abilities and skills to a particular charter school principalship position, similar training extends to charter school governing boards to address a gap in their guidance and leadership (Gawlik, 2017). Charter school governing boards require ongoing training to inform decisions affecting funding expenditures and fund-raising initiatives, mediating relations with county education authorities, revisiting a school’s mission and vision statement, assessing school leaders, and establishing boundaries of responsibilities.

In response to the second research question –What initiatives advanced by the principal were successfully implemented and challenged by the school’s faculty and governing board of directors? – this study found two initiatives implemented by the principal to influence a change in classroom instruction, curriculum, and school policies through dialogue during a period of leadership turnover. The charter school principal successfully leveraged his power to affect change through teacher salary, faculty retention, and inclusion of the Global Citizenship Project in the school’s IBPYP curriculum. Under Mr. Morales’ leadership, he introduced the Global Citizenship Project that aligned with the school’s mission statement and signaled the school’s global commitment to fostering students’ global competencies (Davis & Leon, 2014). While there is not one predetermined way to lead a global initiative,

998 J. BADGER

social justice leaders who embed global topics into the curriculum, culture, and instruction are the exception rather than the norm in administrative practices (DeMatthews, 2015; Tichnor-Wagner, 2019). Under the leadership ofMr.Morales, he encouraged collaboration in school improvement decisions and emphasized participation in evaluating a school’s academic development (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Stone-Johnson, 2014; Velasco, Edmonson, & Slate, 2012). Teachers claimed they contributed to some decision-making processes that they perceived originating from the principal’s leadership and initiatives (Hammersley-Fletcher & Strain, 2011; Harris, 2006; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).

Knowledge of organizational finance informs a charter school principal’s decisions and actions when in negotiations with a school’s accountant or governing board, or when seeking grants from private and public organizations or education funders to positively impact the school’s budget. Absent a school budget officer, a charter school principal requires business acumen to respond to budget decisions and the ability to conduct and lead fund-raising projects. However, most principals have not received fiscal training needed to effectively lead a charter school. As seen through a three dimensional view of power, developing this knowledge and skill set may contribute to a leaders’ authority and influence to inform one’s financial decision-making skills and prevent potentially con- flictual issues from arising in the future. In contrast to the relatively state of organized and more resource-abundant public schools (Cravens et al., 2012), charter school leaders must be prepared to respond to financial pressures imposed by an authorizing body and negotiate budget decisions (Hubbard & Kulkarni, 2009). While charter school principals may have greater independence from public school principals to leverage their auton- omy, charter school principals receive less support and guidance from district staff, and need further training and development to deal with complexities of leading a charter school.

Conclusion

Problematizing educational leadership acknowledges the ways in which the effectiveness of schools and school leaders is reflective of a much larger field of dominance, subordination, and the managerialist project of the state (Eacott, 2010). This study analyzed some policy and curriculum initiatives advanced by an experienced school principal to affect education and social change in a charter school. Lukes’ three dimensions of power provided a theoretical framework to examine the principal’s, teacher’s, and governing boards’ decisions to affect change through teacher salary, faculty retention, and inclusion of the Global Citizenship Project into the school’s curriculum. This case also revealed how the principal’s decision to seek funds to improve the school’s infrastructure was met with resistance from the governing board and its managerialist position. The conflict uncovered a dispute over competing values exhibited in the decision-making process between the board’s fiduciary role and the principal’s vision of social equity and social justice. This research identified a principal who questioned charter school policies, enacted practices, and created critical spaces and discourses to enable the adoption of social justice practices (DeMatthews, 2016). Principal who believed they were socially just claimed that an equal education for all students motivated their actions to address persistent and deeply entrenched inequities in their school and communities (Albritton, Huffman, & McClellan, 2017; DeMatthews, 2015; Theoharis, 2007). For Mr. Morales, his actions were

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 999

motivated by the belief that schools cannot be great until the students with the greatest struggles are given the same academic and social opportunities as students in more privileged public schools. Leadership grounded in social justice utilize the unique nature of charter schools to develop laboratories of practice, where teachers and learners can build cultural awareness and understanding, critically examine the sociopolitical influences on schooling, and emphasize the role of advocacy (Ball & Tyson, 2011). Charter schools promise, among other things, to improve the quality of schooling by fostering greater diversity in modes of delivery, academic opportunities for students, and increased account- ability to taxpayers. Fulfilling the stated mission of an intentionally diverse, urban charter school committed to equity, social justice, and academic excellence is an ongoing project fraught with competing values, numerous leadership challenges, and interests from multi- ple stakeholders that sometimes extends to the wider community seeking measures to reduce racism and establish social justice measures (Wrigley, 2013).

While a limitation of this research is that findings from this study of one charter school cannot be generalized to other schools, it serves as an example of how one experienced charter school principal initiated policy and curriculum changes rooted in social justice. It also revealed those dimensions of power that advanced the interests of immigrant and refugee students as well as those from lower socio-economic backgrounds yet clashed with the values of some members of the governing board. This account of power includes not just an analysis of decision-making by the principal but the ways potential issues are kept out of the decision-making process by leaders in a charter school seeking to implement educational reforms and social justice initiatives. This research also contri- butes to debates on how race, poverty, and class intersect in urban charter schools. Future research might investigate how principals and school leaders propose and implement social justice issues, and how they negotiate challenges or resistance pursuing equity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

James Badger, DPhil, is a professor in the College of Education at the University of North Georgia, USA. His areas of research interests include the professional development of pre-service teachers, school leadership, values in education, program evaluation, school change, and citizenship and human rights education.

References

Albritton, S., Huffman, S., & McClellan, R. (2017). A study of rural high school principals’ perceptions as social justice leaders. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 7(1), 19–38.

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 65 (4), 947–952.

Ball, A. F., & Tyson, C. A. (2011). Preparing teachers for diversity in the twenty-first century. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 399–416). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

1000 J. BADGER

Barr, J. M., Sadovnik, A. R., & Visconti, L. (2006). Charter schools and urban education improve- ment: A comparison of Newark’s district and charter schools. The Urban Review, 38(4), 291–311.

Betts, J. R., & Atkinson, R. C. (2012). Better research needed on the impact of charter schools. Nature, 335, 171–175.

Bickmore, D. L., & Dowell, M. M. L. (2011). Concerns, use of time, and the intersections of leadership: Case study of two charter school principals. Research in the Schools, 18(1), 44–61.

Bickmore, D. L., & Dowell, M. M. L. (2014). Two charter school principal’s engagement in instructional leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 24, 842–881.

Blitz, M. H. (2011). Market-based and authorizer-based accountability demands and the implica- tions for charter school leadership. Journal of School Choice, 5, 357–396.

Bogotch, I. E. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 138–156.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Campbell, C. (2010). Missed opportunity: improving charter school governing boards. In R. L. Lake (Ed.), Hopes, fears, & reality: A balanced look at American charter schools in 2009 (pp. 59–68). University of Washington Bothell: National Charter School Research Project (NCSRP). Retrieved from http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/pub_ncsrp_hfr09_jan10_0.pdf

Cannata, M., Thombre, Z., & Thomas, G. (2017). The first principal: Perspectives on founding a charter school. In the charter school principal: Nuanced descriptions of leadership. In D. L. Bickmore & M. A. Gawlik (Eds.), The charter school principal: Nuanced descriptions of leadership (pp. 9–28). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Codd, J. (1989). Educational leadership as reflective action. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 106–120). New York: Falmer.

Cornell-Feist, M. (2011). Board Meetings: A Guide for Charter Schools. The High Bar. ISBN-10: 0983786003.

Cravens, X. C., Goldring, E., & Penaloza, R. (2012). Leadership practice in the context of U.S. school choice reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11, 452–476.

Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (2006). Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (2nd ed., pp. 19–34). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Davis, S. H., & Leon, R. J. (2014). Developing a leadership brand: The heart of effective school leadership in turbulent times. Planning and Changing, 45(1–2), 3–18.

DeKuyper, M. H. (2007). Trustee handbook: A guide to effective governance for independent school boards (9th ed.). Washington, DC: National Association of Independent Schools.

DeMartino, L. (2017). Transformative charter school leaders: Tempered radicalism in practice. In D. L. Bickmore & M. A. Gawlik (Eds.), The charter school principal: Nuanced descriptions of leadership (pp. 71–89). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

DeMatthews, D. (2015). Making sense of social justice leadership: A case study of a principal’s experiences to create a more inclusive school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14, 139–166.

DeMatthews, D. (2016). Effective leadership is not enough: Critical approaches to closing the racial discipline gap. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(1), 7–13.

DeMatthews, D. E., Mungal, A. S., & Carrola, P. A. (2015). Despite best intentions: A critical analysis of social justice leadership and decision-making. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 5(2), 17–37.

Eacott, S. (2010). Studying school leadership practice: A methodological discussion. Issues in Educational Research, 20(3), 220–233.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Furgeson, J., Gill, B., Haimson, J., Killewald, A., McCullough, M., Nichols-Barrer, I., . . . Lake, R.

(2012). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse student

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 1001

impacts. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research and the University of Washington’s Center on Reinventing Public Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Gawlik, M. A. (2008). Breaking loose: Principal autonomy in charter and public schools. Educational Policy, 22(6), 783–804.

Gawlik, M. A. (2017). Principalship succession and socialization in charter schools. In D. L. Bickmore & M. A. Gawlik (Eds.), Unexplored conditions of charter school principals: An examination of the issues and challenges for leaders (pp. 81–101). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gawlik, M. A., & Bickmore, D. L. (2017a). Situating the charter school principalship. In D. L. Bickmore & M. A. Gawlik (Eds.), The charter school principal: Nuanced descriptions of leadership (pp. 1–8). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gawlik, M. A., & Bickmore, D. L. (2017b). Introduction: Exploring issues and challenges. In D. L. Bickmore & M. A. Gawlik (Eds.), Unexplored conditions of charter school principals: An examination of the issues and challenges for leaders (pp. xvii–xxi). New York, NY: Rowman &Littlefield.

Georgia Department of Education. (2015). Georgia charter schools and charter systems: 2014–2015 and 2015–2016. The Georgia Department of Education’s District Flexibility and Charter Schools Division Annual Report Submitted on behalf of the State Board of Education. Global Citizenship Project. Retrieved from https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ ESGuidebook2017.pdf.

Goff, P. T., Mavrogordato, M., & Goldring, E. (2012). Instructional leadership in charter schools: Is there an organizational effect or are leadership practices the result of faculty characteristics and preferences? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(1), 1–25.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1–27.

Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Strain, M. (2011). Power, agency and middle leadership in English primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 871–884.

Harris, A. (2006). Leading change in schools in difficulty. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 9–18. Hubbard, L., & Kulkarni, R. (2009). Charter schools: Learning from the past, planning for the

future. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 173–189. Junge, E. R. (2012). Zero chance of passage: The pioneering charter school story. Edina, MN: Beaver’s

Pond Press. Kahlenberg, R. D., & Potter, H. (2015). Restoring Shanker’s vision for charter schools. American

Educator, 38(4), 4–13, 44. Kamienski, A. (2011). Competition: Charter and public elementary schools in Chicago. Journal of

School Choice, 5, 161–181. Krüger, M. L., van Eck, E., & Vermeulen, A. (2005). Why principals leave: Risk factors for

premature departure in the Netherlands compared for women and men. School Leadership and Management, 25(3), 241-/261.

Lazaridou, A., & Fris, J. (2005). Charter schools: A matter of values. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(3), 45–70.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.

Leithwood, K. A., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning: Review of research. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Lindahl, R. A. (2007). Why is leading school improvement such a difficult process? School Leadership and Management, 27(4), 319–332.

Lukes. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Sage. Mavrogordato, M., Goldring, E., & Smrekar, C. (2017). Charter school principal’s autonomy in the

context of state accountability. In D. L. Bickmore & M. A. Gawlik (Eds.), Unexplored conditions

1002 J. BADGER

of charter school principals: An examination of the issues and challenges for leaders (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Merseth, K. (2009). Inside urban charter schools: Promising practices and strategies in five high- performing schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publishers.

National Charter School Resource Center. (2012). Standards for highly effective charter school board governance. Retrieved from https://www.charterschoolcenter.org/

Ogden, S. B. (2017). Becoming an educational leader for social justice: A micro/meso/macro examination of a southern U.S. principal. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 2(1), 54–76.

Rømer, T. A. (2011). Postmodern education and the concept of power. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(7), 755–772.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shachar, H., Gavin, S., & Shlomo, S. (2010). Changing organizational culture and instructional

methods in elementary schools: Perceptions of teachers and professional educational consultants. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 273–289.

Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1989). Critical perspectives on educational leadership. New York, NY: Falmer. Stone-Johnson, C. (2014). Responsible leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4),

645–674. The Earth Charter. (2000). Retrieved from https://earthcharter.org/discover/the-earth-charter/ Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social

justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. Tichnor-Wagner, A. (2019). Globally minded leadership: A new approach for leading schools in

diverse democracies. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 15(2), 1–17. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive

pedagogy. London: State University of New York Press. Velasco, I., Edmonson, S. L., & Slate, J. R. (2012). Principal leadership behaviors and school

climate: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Education Research, 6(3), 315–336. Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through

comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 58–74. Watkins, P. (1989). Leadership, power and symbols in educational administration. In J. Smyth

(Ed.), Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 7–26). New York, NY: Falmer. Webb, P. T. (2008). Re-mapping power in educational micropolitics. Critical Studies in Education,

49(2), 127–142. Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Farrell, C. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school perfor-

mance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). The choices and challenges of charter schools,

revisited. Journal of School Choice, 9, 115–138. Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., Farrell, C. C., & O’Neill, P. (2011).Maximizing effectiveness: Focusing the

microscope on charter school governance boards. National Resource Center on Charter School. Retrieved from (http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/resource/maximizing-effectiveness- focusing-microscope-charter-school-governance-boards)

Wrigley, T. (2013). Rethinking school effectiveness and improvement: A question of paradigms. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(1), 31–47.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 1003