Content uploaded by Gaetane Jean-Marie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gaetane Jean-Marie on Feb 27, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Louisville]
On: 02 September 2015, At: 10:34
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20
Courageous conversations about race,
class, and gender: voices and lessons
from the field
Katherine Cumings Mansfielda & Gaëtane Jean-Marieb
a Department of Educational Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond, VA, USA
b Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education,
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
Published online: 02 Sep 2015.
To cite this article: Katherine Cumings Mansfield & Gaëtane Jean-Marie (2015) Courageous
conversations about race, class, and gender: voices and lessons from the field, International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28:7, 819-841, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2015.1036950
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1036950
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Courageous conversations about race, class, and gender: voices
and lessons from the field
Katherine Cumings Mansfield
a
*and Gaëtane Jean-Marie
b
a
Department of Educational Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA,
USA;
b
Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education, University of Louisville,
Louisville, KY, USA
(Received 3 December 2013; accepted 3 December 2013)
The purpose of this paper is to present a qualitative secondary analysis of two
empirical studies that focused on the leadership practices of female practitioners
at the secondary level engaging in discourse and practices to disrupt educational
inequities. The guiding research question is, “How do school leaders engage in
courageous conversations to: (1) transform beliefs and practices concerning
educational inequities, and; (2) engender equity to enhance learning for all stu-
dents?”Building on Singleton and Linton’s (2006) framework on courageous
conversations, this study examines how some school leaders break the silence
and interrogate educational inequities to improve schools. Findings explicate
how conversations amongst practitioners can be the impetus for transformative
actions, which in turn, lead to the educational achievement of all students. The
voices of participants are magnified and lessons from the field are forwarded.
Keywords: race; gender; class; social justice; qualitative secondary analysis
Race/ethnicity, class, gender, and other identity markers and their relationships with
educational access and achievement are the “elephant in the room”topics in many
US schools. While scholars have studied inequities in schools (Jean-Marie, 2008;
Mansfield, 2011; Mickelson, 2003a, 2003b; Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly,
2004), few practitioners interrogate how race and other identity markers shape the
educational milieu of students. Rather, these issues often take a backseat to account-
ability measures regarding student achievement. Yet, ironically, discrimination based
on students’perceived identities is often at the forefront of educational policies and
practices that are related to educational access and achievement.
The purpose of this paper is to present a qualitative secondary analysis (QSA)
(Gladstone, Volpe & Boydell, 2007; Hinds, Vogel, & Clarke-Steffen, 1997;
McCaston, 2005) of two empirical studies that focused on the leadership practices
of female practitioners at the secondary level engaging in discourse and practices to
disrupt educational inequities. The guiding research question is, “How do school
leaders engage in courageous conversations to: (1) transform beliefs and practices
concerning educational inequities; and (2) engender equity to enhance learning for
all students?”Building on Singleton and Linton’s(
2006) framework on courageous
conversations, this study examines how some school leaders break the silence and
*Corresponding author. Email: kcmansfield@vcu.edu
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 2015
Vol. 28, No. 7, 819–841, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1036950
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
interrogate educational inequities to improve schools. Findings explicate how
conversations amongst practitioners can be the impetus for transformative actions,
which in turn, lead to the educational achievement of all students. The voices of par-
ticipants are magnified and lessons from the field are forwarded.
Literature review
It is beyond the scope of this study to give a detailed examination of all the pertinent
literature concerning the nexus of student identities, issues of educational access and
achievement, and the importance of courageous conversations that address these
issues. However, we give a brief overview to scaffold the current discussion. Before
doing so, similar to Skrla et al. (2004), to situate our work on educational inequity,
we draw upon Scott’s(
2001)definition of systemic equity:
Systemic equity is defined as the transformed ways in which systems and individuals
habitually operate to ensure that every learner –in whatever learning environment that
learner is found –has the greatest opportunity to learn enhanced by the resources and
supports necessary to achieve competence, excellence, independence, responsibility,
and self-sufficiency for school and for life. (p. 6)
Our view of educational inequity is closely tied to Scott’sdefinition and we also
more broadly frame educational inequity within a social justice perspective to
account for a larger system of schooling practices characterized by inequities that
are expressed in multiple dimensions of schooling (Skrla et al., 2004).
Student identities and the schooling experience
Historically, the prevailing presumption has been that US public schools are, as pur-
veyors of a democratic culture where the “American Dream”is within reach of all
who desire it, “blind”to the race, gender, class, and religion of students who attend
them (Adams, 1997; Jean-Marie & Mansfield, 2013; Tyack, 1974; Tyack & Hansot,
2002). However, relatively recently, numerous researchers have argued that identity
markers such as socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and gender are related to
educational access and achievement (Garza, Reyes, & Trueba, 2004; Lareau, 2003;
Lee & Burkam, 2002; Mansfield, 2011; Margolis & Fisher, 2002; Rodriguez &
Fabionar, 2009; Southworth & Mickelson, 2007; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). Individ-
ual and institutionalized forms of inequities along race/ethnicity, gender, and class
(see Figure 1) dramatically continue to have an effect on educational attainment and
the achievement gap (Nieto, 2004; Weis & Fine, 1993). Within schools, the repro-
duction of class, race, and gender relations and privilege often place students of
color, whom are most often living at the intersection of multiple identity markers, at
a disadvantage for learning (Jean-Marie, 2008; Nieto, 2004).
In any examination of educational access, it is critical to include a discussion of
students’socioeconomic status or social class. Regardless of their gender or race/eth-
nicity, if students live in economically divested areas (both urban and rural), they
will also attend under-resourced schools, resulting in a default educational caste
system (Eaton, 2006; Kozol, 1991,2005; Lareau, 2003; Lee & Burkam, 2002).
Moreover, poor children in high-poverty schools perform worse than similarly poor
children who attend schools without a high poverty rate. Similarly, the achievement
level of non-poor children is reduced if they attend schools with higher, overall
820 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
poverty. However, race and ethnicity are closely tied with socioeconomic status
(Eaton, 2006). Orfield (2002) notes that, “Poverty and its consequences underlie
social separation, but it is difficult to separate poverty from race and ethnicity –par-
ticularly for African-Americans and Latinos, who are strongly discriminated against
in the housing market”(p. 10). Additionally, schools have historically segregated
students according to race/ethnicity mostly in the form of tracking (Garza et al.,
2004; Margolin, 1994; Oakes, 2005; Scribner, 1999; Southworth & Mickelson,
2007; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). In fact, “the greater the representation of minority
group students, the greater the utilization of separate educational tracks”(Margolin,
1994, p. 19). For example, Black and Hispanic students are disproportionately over-
represented in special education programs while in contrast, disproportionately
underrepresented in gifted and advanced placement programs (Clotfelter, 2004;
Oakes, 2005; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001).
Disproportionate representation in gifted programs is also a concern in terms of
gender. For example, during the elementary school years, the numbers of boys and
girls identified for gifted programs are fairly balanced. However, during the sec-
ondary school years, boys are more heavily represented (Pipher, 1994; Sadker,
1999), with the gender gap especially prominent when it comes to math and science
(Sadker, 1999). While Newkirk (2002) agreed with Sadker’sfindings, and cautions
educators from participating in a “disadvantage competition”when it comes to gen-
der, he also reported that the gap between eighth-grade boys’and girls’writing was
“over six times greater than the differences in mathematical reasoning”(p. 315).
Mickelson (2003a) conjoins prior research by pointing out that the achievement and
attainment patterns of male students are “bimodal”in that they are more likely, when
compared to females, to be “both academic stars and school failures”(p. 373).
Others agree, noting the larger proportion of boys in the highest level math and
science course work as well as special education classes, accompanied by males’
Identity
Markers
Race
Ethnicty
Gender
Class
Figure 1. Identity intersectionality markers of inequalities in schools.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 821
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
disproportionate decline in college attendance and graduation (Glazer, 2005; Tyack
& Hansot, 2002).
In addition to academic segregation, students can also be constrained by the way
they are disciplined by school authorities. Males are disciplined in greater numbers
than females (Ferguson, 2002; Kindlon & Thompson, 2002) and overall, males
remember their school experiences much less positively than do females, recalling
“painful”memories of severe “alienation”(Kindlon & Thompson, 2002). Ferguson
(2002) contends that pain and alienation is exacerbated if the male student is
African-American for whom school was a place to be “marginalized to the point of
oblivion”(p. 585). Indeed, Blacks and Hispanics are disciplined more often and
more harshly and drop out of school at disproportionately higher rates than White or
Asian students (Garza et al., 2004; Oakes, 2005; Rumberger & Rodríguez, 2002;
Valencia, 2002; Valenzuela, 1999).
Within the expansive body of research on schooling in the United States, stu-
dents of color are consistently stigmatized as underachievers and pathologically infe-
rior (see e.g. August & Hakuta, 1997; Baxley & Boston, 2010; Ladson-Billings,
1990; Nieto, 2004; Thomas & Collier, 1997; Troyna, 1984). A growing number of
scholars argue that to address inequities for diverse student populations, educational
leaders must have a heightened awareness of educational inequities in a field strug-
gling to meet the needs of all children (e.g. Bogotch, 2005; Furman & Shields 2005;
Jean-Marie, 2008; Marshall & Gerstl-Pepin 2005; Merchant & Shoho, 2006;
Smulyan, 2000; Winant, 2004).
School leaders’contextual awareness of systemic inequities
Many researchers argue (Brooks & Jean-Marie, 2008; Brooks & Miles, 2008;
Brown, 2006; Dantley & Tillman, 2009; Jean-Marie, 2008; Mansfield, 2011,2014;
Marshall, Young, & Moll, 2009; Oliva, Anderson, & Byng, 2009; Theoharis, 2007)
that the ability of the school leader to cultivate educational equity, access, and
achievement in diverse contexts depended heavily on taking an explicitly activist
stance while developing the school culture. Likewise, Dantley and Tillman (2009)
contend that it was imperative that school leaders recognized the “multiple contexts
within which education and educational leadership exist[ed]”(p. 22). Similarly,
Shields (2004) purports that if school principals acknowledged students’various
identities while they were developing their leadership practices, the result would be
a more caring pedagogy. “When children feel they belong and find their realities
reflected in the curriculum and conversations of schooling, research has demon-
strated repeatedly that they are more engaged in learning and that they experience
greater school success”(p. 122). As such, leaders must fully deconstruct the realities
of students’lives and the ways their leadership practices may or may not reproduce
marginalizing conditions.
Several scholars assert that effective school leaders who have an awareness of
broad social and cultural realties of students and their schooling experiences will
actively critique marginalizing behaviors and attitudes in their own leadership style
and practices as well as those in their school community (Dantley & Tillman, 2009;
Jean-Marie, 2008,2009; Lyman, Ashby, & Tripses, 2005). Furthermore, democratic
principles such as listening to the voices of others were practiced as well as pro-
fessed. Leadership followed the path of recognition and knowledge, followed by
engaging in dialog with others, in turn followed by action that promoted change
822 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
(Furman, 2004; Lyman et al., 2005). School leaders with social justice awareness
are cognizant of the nested contexts of their schools and the ways in which societal
norms are translated into educational, economic, and political biases. These school
leaders are viewed as social justice leaders whose practices involve acknowledging
that schools do not exist in a vacuum and recognizing that schools can be sites of
reproduction of, or resistance to, injustice found in the greater context (Dantley,
2003; Lott & Webster, 2006).
Conceptual framework
As a framework for understanding how school leaders move beyond the rhetoric of
talking about issues of inequity to challenge the status quo (Jean-Marie, 2005), we
draw upon the work of Singleton and Linton’s(
2006) conceptualization of coura-
geous conversations. Singleton and Linton’s(
2006) extensive work with schools in
the US is focused on race to “help educators improve the achievement of all stu-
dents while narrowing the gaps between the lowest- and highest- performing groups
and eliminating the predictability and disproportionality of which racial groups
occupy the highest and lowest achievement categories”(p. 27). While they focused
on race, we believe this framework can be utilized to more broadly consider discus-
sions on educational inequities as they relate to identity intersectionalities discussed
above. The concept, courageous conversations, is premised on three factors for
school systems to close the achievement gap and address educational inequities: pas-
sion, practice, and persistence (see Figure 2). It is not be construed that a combina-
tion of passion, practice, and persistence automatically results in the facilitation of
courageous conversations. Rather, one is hard-pressed to practice courageous con-
versations unless they possess and practice these three essential qualities.
Passion
Passion is defined as the level of connectedness and energy educators bring to social
justice work in their commitment to district, school, and/or classroom equity trans-
formation (Singleton & Linton, 2006). Through passion, school leaders confront
Passion
Practice
Persistence
Figure 2. A tripod approach to courageous conversations about educational inequities.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 823
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
resistance against change and school system’s resilience to maintain the status quo
(i.e. tracking minority students, limited placement of minority students in gifted and
advanced program, etc.). These school leaders are unrelenting in transforming
beliefs and practices to promote learning for all and create access for students who
historically have been marginalized. Singleton and Linton’s(
2006) emphasis of pas-
sion is premised on the “heart”of leadership:
With passion, we engage our soul and our being in this work, along with our mind and
our body …will have the strength not only to stand up for what is right but to do what
it is right for them as well. (p. 12)
Passion in this regard is equated with the ‘fire in the belly’, a term coined by a par-
ticipant in Merchant and Shoho’s(
2006) study. As quoted in their study, ‘fire in the
belly’comes from the capacity to recognize the injustice but also having cultivated
a foundational self-confidence and self-assurance (p. 98). This is cultivated through
a strong philosophical base and a sense of competence and security in self that
involves self-scrutiny.
School leaders who are steeped in this level of passion support the quest for critical
approaches to change school culture and conditions that traditionally have addressed
inequities on a peripheral level. In further support of this, Walker (2006) contends that
the first and last task of a school leader is fostering hope that will transform what [s/he]
seeks to generate, at individual, organizational, and societal levels. But this cannot hap-
pen in a vacuum or superficially. School leaders’critical assessment of their experience,
practices, assumptions and beliefs about race, gender, and other biases are important.
As Mansfield notes in Lyman, Strachan, Lasaridou, and Coleman (2012), self-knowl-
edge and acceptance of one’s own ethnicity, culture, and background are important
components of personal conviction, motivation, and awareness of social justice issues,
attributes of leaders desirous of creating schools where moral values, justice, respect,
care, and equity are guiding lights (p. 36). From passion, school leaders engage in
specific practices to address issues of inequities in schools.
Practice
Passion is the impetus for transformative practices –the second strand within the
courageous conversations model. Practice refers to essential individual and institu-
tional actions taken to effectively educate every student to his or her full potential
(Singleton & Linton, 2006, p. 6). At the practice level, passion energizes school
leaders to take actions that address the achievement gap and tackle institutionalized
inequities (Singleton & Linton, 2006; Skrla et al., 2004). For example, school lead-
ers draw on equity and context-specific issues directly involving their schools or
indirectly through the district and use data to identify patterns of marginalization.
Skrla et al. (2004) purport in their work on equity audits –a tool to guide schools in
working toward equity and excellence (i.e. teacher quality equity, programmatic
equity, and achievement equity), that school leaders will need to have access to
practical tools to use in developing a more comprehensive, more insightful under-
standing of equitable and inequitable relationships in their current systems. Whether
it is equity audits (Skrla et al., 2004) or other approaches, school leaders may need
to utilize data-based tools in order to leverage educational equity in the climate of
high-stakes accountability. Regardless of the specific approach taken, school leaders
must have a “laser-like focus”on practices that “strive to achieve the vision of an
824 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
equitable school system [that] refrain from blaming underserved students for the
system’s failures”(Singleton & Linton, 2006; p. 69).
Persistence
The final strand of the courageous conversations model is persistence –the long-
term time and energy commitment to remain focused on equity to close the achieve-
ment gap (Singleton & Linton, 2006). Persistence orchestrates the hard work of cul-
tural transformation in schools. Time and effort are devoted to instructional
improvement and school leaders garner resources to remove barriers for teachers
and staff (i.e. increase their effectiveness with students of color in the classroom).
Singleton and Linton (2006) assert that persistence is staying the course in pursuit
of equity because persistent educators consistently and collectively push forward
with their transformation ideas (p. 211). They caution that without persistence,
schools will continue to drift from one school improvement initiative to the next
without developing capacity for lasting, systemic change. Similarly, Fullan’s (2010)
work on capacity building argues change takes time and can only occur if careful
attention is given to building trust and other important social processes.
Methods
For the purpose of this study, we draw upon QSA (Gladstone et al. 2007; Heaton,
1998; McCaston, 2005) to examine how school leaders are engaging school mem-
bers (i.e. teachers, students, parents, and community) about educational inequities
for an improved understanding to better serve the needs of all learners. QSA is
defined as the use of existing data collected from prior studies to pursue a new
research question or utilize alternative theoretical perspectives (Gladstone et al.
2007; Heaton, 1998). While utilizing quantitative data in secondary analyses is quite
common, using qualitative data similarly is an emerging phenomenon (see e.g.
Barbour & Eley, 2007; Heaton, 1998; Witzel, Medjedović, & Kretzer, 2008).
Interest in the use of QSA for our current study stemmed from conversations
about our similar research on women, leadership, and social justice which led to
subsequent conversations about Singleton and Linton’s(
2006) framework on
courageous conversations. Based on our discussions, we concluded that we should
re-examine our primary data (i.e. interviews, observational and field notes, and
documents analysis) to examine a new empirical question on how school leaders are
engaging in courageous conversations to address educational inequities, distinct
from the original studies (Heaton, 1998; Hinds et al., 1997; Szabo & Strang, 1997).
Following the lead of Heaton (1998), Hinds et al. (1997), and Szabo and Strang
(1997), we adhered to ethical considerations for using QSA. First, we examined
original interview transcripts, observational notes, documents, and field notes from
both studies to check for compatibility of the data with QSA; thus, allowing addi-
tional in-depth analysis, Second, QSA is tenable if secondary analysts have access
to the original data. Since we were either the lead or solo researcher, we were well-
positioned as secondary analysts to access and reanalyze tapes, interview transcripts,
and field notes. Third, we followed the recommendations of Witzel et al. (2008) and
provided an overview of the original studies’designs and methods in addition to our
process and account of categorizing and summarizing the data for the QSA (Witzel
et al., 2008). Lastly, we took into consideration the ethical issues involved in the use
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 825
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
of original data as outlined by Hinds et al. (1997) and based on our professional
judgment, we believe that the re-use of the data does not violate the contract we
made with participants in the original studies.
Overview of original/primary studies
Primary study 1
The original study was a two-year ethnography that examined the development of a
new public magnet school founded to meet the needs of racial/ethnic minority girls
from challenging economic circumstances in a major metropolitan area in Texas (see
Mansfield, 2011). The 35 participants included the principal, teachers, students, and
parents as well as members of the central office administration, school board, and
the private foundation that partially funded the school. Adult participants consisted
of the founding members of the school and student participants were drawn from
the first graduating class of 2014.
Data collection and analysis
Data were collected via interviews with adults and focus groups with students that
lasted between one and three hours. Conversations were supported by participant
observation over a two-year period and supplemented by document analysis. Inter-
views and focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Following Wolcott (1994)
and Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (2002), quotations from participants as well as
excerpts from observational field notes and collected documents played a role in
capturing participants’meanings. Emulating the work of Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw
(1995), Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (2002), and Olesen (2005), several readings
of interview transcripts and listening for complex perspectives, multiple voices, and
recurring refrains occurred. Open coding of interview transcripts line-by-line to note
consistent themes or story lines was conducted followed by “focused coding”that
consisted of additional readings of the data utilizing the theoretical framework to
carefully filter initial impressions. A similar process of identifying symbols, themes,
and patterns was used while examining data collected via participant observation,
photography, and documents.
Primary findings
One theme that emerged with all participants in the study concerned how this school
was different from any other school in more ways than just being one of the first
single-sex public schools in Texas. Parents extolled the caring nature of the faculty
and administration and remarked on how thankful they were that their daughters
were finally in a rigorous learning environment. One parent said, “This is more than
a school. They’re preparing you for life.”Parents also expressed appreciation for the
conversations and course assignments that helped students recognize and discuss
racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia. They also remarked how “awesome”it
was that students were learning to be tech savvy as well as learning strong leader-
ship skills. Students also spoke of the school’s uniqueness. One student remarked,
“It’s the opposite of every school I’ve ever been to”in how the teachers and princi-
pal “really care for us.”Another student added, “We’re like family.”Teachers also
826 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
noted how working at the school was a welcome relief from their prior experiences.
On more than one occasion, teachers remarked about how they “finally worked
where everyone worked as hard as I do and care as much as I do”or how “Ifinally
have a principal who ‘gets it’and really cares about these girls and supports what I
do.”The principal believed much of its uniqueness derived from the fact that she
was afforded the autonomy to create a positive school culture from the “ground up.”
She also felt one major difference lie in the fact that she “loves these girls”because
she “was these girls.”The principal communicated on several occasions of her per-
sonal experiences with racism, sexism, and classism and how important it was that
she approached the development of this new school with these realities in mind. But
rather than just “help students know what they’re up against,”she felt it was impor-
tant to help empower girls to become strong women. And that was done through
rigorous formal curriculum, student-centered pedagogy, reality-driven informal cur-
riculum, and most of all: through developing deep, caring relationships.
Primary study 2
Using a phenomenological approach (Moustakas, 1994; Munhall & Boyd, 1993), in
this original study (e.g. see Jean-Marie, 2009), the professional experiences (formal
and informal leadership preparation; leadership and management practices; and
issues of diversity, race, and gender) and challenges of 11 female high school princi-
pals in one southwestern state were examined. The participants from this earlier
study represented six urban and suburban districts. The sample included seven Cau-
casians, two African-Americans, one Native American, and one Lebanese-American.
Six of the participants were 55 years old or older, and nine were married or were
once married. Four of the principals had doctoral degrees; three had 30 years of
experiences as educators, five had 11 or more years in administration including
headships in more than one site (i.e. experienced principal), while four were are at
the other end of the continuum in that this was their first placement as a principal
and at a high school (i.e. novice principal).
Data collection and analysis
Data collection included open-ended, semi-structured interviews, and each interview
lasted approximately 90 min. Participants were asked 15 questions (i.e. sample ques-
tions included: what made you decide to enter administration? what core principles
guide your leadership practices? how do you define diversity and how does your
school embrace diversity? how does your gender and/or race impact your role as an
administrator? what challenges do secondary female administrators confront today?
what recommendations would you suggest to improve/eliminate these challenges?
what recommendations would you suggest to recruit more secondary female
administrators to the profession?). Based on the research design and themes derived
from the review of literature, each question was constructed to collect information
for comparative analysis. The interviews were subsequently transcribed and
reviewed for emergent themes and patterns. Analysis of the eleven interviews
involved identifying codes and themes generated by participants and the comparison
of these themes with the existing literature. As maintained by Bogdan and Biklen
(1998), analyzing the data involved a systematic process of collecting it, organizing
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 827
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
it, dividing it into manageable units, synthesizing it searching for patterns, and deter-
mining what was important and what should be reported.
Primary findings
Three major findings dominated the discourse of the participants in this study. First,
the principals articulated the importance of engaging in collaborative efforts that
cultivated leadership for improved student learning through consensus building
efforts. These efforts represented relational dimensions of leadership practices where
openness and trust were fostered. Second, another common element of relationship
building was their approach to leadership. Specifically, principals connected their
spiritual beliefs and values as having a direct influence on how they led their schools
(i.e. articulated their beliefs and spiritual commitment about furnishing help and
being of service to teachers, students, and the community). Finally, the leadership
styles of the principals indicated an understanding of diversity and leadership for
social justice (i.e. addressing the needs of the least ‘voiced’in their schools such as
marginalized students, students on drugs, teen pregnancy, low SES students, students
who have incarcerated parents, students who live alternative lifestyles, students who
are involved with juvenile justice system, and those who are sexually abused.).
Relatedly, gender and race played significant roles in the leadership experiences of
these principals. Several women expressed concerns that in order to be successful as
females they needed to be assertive, more male-like qualities than female-like quali-
ties. While issues of gender permeated the discussion, of equal importance were
issues of race. Much like their leadership experiences as women, there was an
unconscious assumption by several of the women that race did not matter when it is
in fact present in much of their discussion and race (un)consciousness resonated
within their perspectives.
Overview of current/QSA study
The exploratory nature of QSA facilitated our interest to re-examine our original
studies using Singleton and Linton (2006) framework. The guiding research question
for this current study is: “How do some school leaders engage in courageous con-
versations with school members (i.e. teachers, students and parents) to: (1) transform
beliefs and practices concerning educational inequities; and (2) engender equity to
enhance learning for all students?”
Using a comparative, thematic approach, the analysis focused on the detection of
themes on the tenets of courageous conversations. All the interview transcripts,
observational and field notes, and document analysis from the two primary data-sets
were revisited for inclusion in the QSA. After sorting through the data, the QSA
study focused on a subset of primary data originally conducted by the authors, repre-
senting school leaders who were ‘talking and walking’(Dantley & Tillman, 2009)
about how to disrupt beliefs and practices that perpetuate inequities in educational
outcomes for those who historically have been marginalized because of race/ethnic-
ity, class, gender, etc. Specifically, we focused on participants whose philosophical
beliefs about educational inequities were at their forefront of their practices. Based
on that, our QSA focused on four exemplars (see Table 1below).
Maria, a multi-ethnic female in her thirties chose to return to her poverty-stricken
and often criminally violent community after receiving her administrative credentials
828 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
to “pay it forward.”She was hired as principal because she understood first-hand
contextual and identity complexities of people of color and her ability to have criti-
cal conversations about deficit thinking with teachers and parents. Moreover, she
had a record of turning around schools establishing a positive culture and making
curricular and pedagogical changes that better met the needs of diverse students.
Within the same school, the teacher that most exemplified a commitment to engage
in courageous conversations around race, class, and gender with parents and stu-
dents was Tanya. Tanya, a white English teacher and self-professed feminist, boldly
engaged (or attempted to engage) parents, students, and fellow educators in con-
versations about whiteness and white privilege, sexism, racism, classism, and homo-
phobia.
The other two exemplars are Principals Gertrude and Linda. Gertrude, an Afri-
can-American female principal, had been in public education for 18 years. She
began her first principalship position at the age of 44 and had been a principal at
Albert High School for eight years. Albert High was located in a suburban school
district with more than 14,000 students in 25 schools from grades Pre-K–12. A
native New Yorker, Gertrude settled with her family in this suburban community.
Linda, a Caucasian female principal with 35 years of experience in public education,
began her first principalship at age 50 at Chester High School. She was born and
raised in the town where she was a principal. Over the years, she had developed
strong ties with her constituents (parents, community, elected officials, university
partners, etc.) in an effort to build strong community support for her school. She
commented, “I’m a political person. I put all my energy into the school.”In sum,
this QSA study highlights the narratives of the four participants that purposefully
link their personal background and professional experiences revealing their passion,
practice, and persistence to disrupt the status quo about educational inequities.
Findings
In the ensuing discussion, we share our findings based on the re-analysis of our two
studies within the courageous conversations conceptual framework. Our findings
depict how practitioners in our studies exemplified the constructs of passion, persis-
tence, and practice in their commitment to engage fellow educators in courageous
conversations about race/ethnicity, gender, class, and other markers.
Table 1. Overview of QSA participants.
Study 1 Study 2
Maria, a 35-year-old multi-ethnic female
principal with 10 years professional
experience
Gertrude, an African-American female
principal, had been in public education for
18 years, began her first principalship position
at the age of 44
Tanya, a 45-year-old white female teacher
with 20 years professional experience
Linda, a white female principal with 35 years
of experience in public education, began her
first principalship at the age of 50
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 829
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Passion: confronting resistance to change the status quo
Maria and Tanya exemplified Singleton and Linton’s(
2006) framework of passion
because they especially possessed self-knowledge and acceptance of one’s own eth-
nicity, culture, and background and understood how personal experiences were
important components to personal and professional convictions and motivations. In
her initial interview, Maria shared, “I love these girls. I was these girls.”In later
interviews, she reiterated her impetus for engaging in her anti-racist/classist/sexist
work and how it related to her identity as a poor multi-ethnic female:
I think a large part of it came from my own experiences in schooling, and I think I
related to the girls because I grew up in a very similar circumstance. I grew up in pov-
erty and had very little opportunity in terms of school …And I think that when I
looked at the girls, when I saw what their challenges were, and things that they were
facing and also the opportunity to make a difference in that and to change it to where
it was acceptable for them to be different, to be smart, and to get out of that cycle of
poverty, that it was something that was very personal to me.
Additionally, she spoke of about her observations that so many of the schools that
serve poor and minority students are staffed with “poor quality teachers that weren’t
interested in teaching”and how her prior experiences as a student, teacher, and lea-
der in those schools were “part of my inspiration.”She also spoke of her experi-
ences with historically racist school finance schemes and how important it was to
not only recognize unjust practices in larger society but to “educate the children that
were there about what was going on and that there was a lot of social injustice.”
Also working alongside Maria was Tanya who was equally attuned to the injus-
tices she saw and worked to transform. Tanya was very cognizant of her “whiteness”
and bravely engaged her students and fellow educators in conversations concerning
white privilege. Unfortunately, these conversations were met with resistance from
parents. She reported that she was “accused of being a racist”because of her discus-
sions. Parents contacted her as well as Maria via phone and/or email to complain.
Tanya shared that she “can’t stop talking about race just because someone thinks
that makes me a racist.”She added that faulty thinking would mean she would have
to also stop talking about sex and gender because “would make me a sexist and a
homophobe and that just wasn’t true.”
Her passion for teaching about gender was evident on many occasions via
observation of classroom lessons as well as documented in recorded interviews.
Tanya integrated what she called, “a strong women’s studies component into all I
do.”For example, rather than just have students memorized the definitions and spel-
lings of weekly vocabulary words, she also interrogated the origins of words and
how and why they have been used throughout history:
I mean, there’s hero-heroine. I asked the girls, “What’s a hero? Who’s a hero?”They
come up with words like: men, strong, brave, adventurous, and so on. And then I say,
“What’s a heroine? Who is a heroine?”And they’re like, “a female who is a hero?”
And I say, “Look it up! Find ‘heroine’in the dictionary! Tell me where that word
comes from!”And so they did. And you know what they found? They found out that
“heroine”is the diminutive of hero! I mean, what’s up with that? Why does the male
get to be the great big hero and the female just a little bit of a hero?
Tanya also challenged the girls to understand literary concepts traditionally
taught in English courses. For example, when studying plot and the variety of roles
that are assigned to characters, the students found that –even in the most highly
830 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
regarded texts –female characters were usually given very stereotypical roles. How-
ever, male characters were usually afforded a plethora of complex characteristics
and identities. Tanya used these examples from the curriculum to discuss real-world
problems the girls are facing:
We have had long conversations about how women are expected to fall into those
usual literary roles. And we talk about how when they are adults and try to break into
new fields of study that other people will try very hard to place them back into those
neat little categories where they think they belong …and how they are going to have
to fight tooth and nail to not let that happen.
Similar to Principal Maria and Teacher Tanya, a common thread between the
other two exemplars –Principals Linda and Gertrude was that they believed in, val-
ued, and were committed to educational equity for all learners. Linda, whose high
school student population was 77 percent Caucasian, valued opportunities to engage
in teaching and learning processes that impacted the minority student population in
her school. Briefly recalling her childhood years, Linda talked about her upbringing
with regard to diversity and values, and stated:
I was lucky to be raised by parents who weren’t prejudiced. Growing up, I didn’t
understand prejudice until I watched it on TV in the 1960s. It was then I recognized
there were racial problems. I didn’t grow up that way. We must recognize that every-
one doesn’t think or come from the same background the way “you”do. We can work
together no matter what the situations are.
Her family and cultural context influenced Linda’s core leadership values. She
articulated how she was investing her energy into her school:
I want to be here and take care of my students and staff. Most of my time is focused
on building our culture through an understanding of the kids who are in this school. I
stay connected so that we [teachers and staff] understand the challenges each student
faces –black, white, Native American, girls, boys, LGBT, etc. I don’t pass this
responsibility off to someone else. I have to model this for my staff so they are not
ignorant to the challenges our students face, in particular high-poverty, minority chil-
dren.
Referencing the diversity of her suburban high school, Gertrude stated:
Diversity is about difference not deference …we have students on the high and low
end of the socioeconomic status [SES]. We have a strong middle class school; but we
have some kids who are way up in terms of SES. Then we have kids who are just try-
ing to make it.
Gertrude regularly encouraged staff members to view the school and society through
the eyes of students and the communities they come from. Articulating that she’sa
teacher first and how important it was to have that dedication or calling, her passion
about addressing the inequities that have hindered opportunities for low performing
students in her school is community focused. She noted,
It’s important to reach the community, in particular those who are struggling economi-
cally and sometimes teachers unfairly label them as failures. They are our kids. We
have to reach all of them. Excuses are not tolerated. I don’t accept the labeling. So, I
challenge my teachers to do better. Even in this suburban school, we talk about poverty
and race. It can’t only be about academics.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 831
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Practice: building capacity for achieving equity and excellence for all learners
A second theme that emerged among the four participants was that they were firmly
committed to building capacity to achieve equity and excellence for all learners and
created spaces in schools to address inequalities. For example, Principal Maria
exuded that “laser-like focus”is so important to implement practices that will move
institutions forward in their quest to educate a diverse student body to their full
potential. For example, she mentioned on many occasions that “hiring the right
teachers was the most important thing I did as a leader.”Furthermore, she stated:
Making sure that people that were in the room with the students understood where they
came from, were empathetic to their situation, but not having sympathy on them to the
point where they were hindering them. And that was one of the things that I was look-
ing for. Somebody that’s going to challenge them, push them, love them, and provide
that environment because that’s what makes the school function right.
This attitude also emerged from Teacher Tanya who also shined the spotlight on (in)
justices. Her practices in the English classroom were directly related to her beliefs
and passion for discussing race, gender, and class issues. Additionally, she refused
to blame underserved student for the school system’s failure to facilitate their growth
through her teaching discipline. Rather, like her fellow colleagues, she implemented
tutoring sessions and students were free to call her on her cell phone with questions
about homework or to further discuss concepts covered in class. On several occa-
sions, during observations of her (and her colleagues), she repeated these types of
phrases to students: “We will not let you fail at this school.”“You are smart. You
can do this. If you aren’t getting it, it means we need to try something else.”
Building on this, Principals Gertrude and Linda also articulated how their prac-
tices were aligned with their core values to eliminate inequities. Dominating their
experiences was their commitment to advance the conversations of issues related to
diversity and equity in school practices. Principal Linda shared several books that
she and her staff were reading: Alfred Tatum’s (2005) Teaching Reading to Black
Adolescent Males: Closing the Achievement Gap; Jawanza Kunjufu’s (2002) Black
Students, Middle Class Teachers; and Alan Blankstein’s (2004) Failure Is Not an
Option. She asserted that “I’m reading things all the time and that informs my prac-
tice on a daily basis”to challenge unequal power relationships based on gender,
social class, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, language, and
other systems of oppression. She also talked extensively on how she fostered ongo-
ing conversations with her school community about the knowledge, skills, and
habits of mind and heart she believed essential in developing and nurturing all her
students into informed citizens.
Further, Linda was also attentive to the increasing diversity of her school and
ensured that students had opportunities to embrace their diversities along race/eth-
nicity, gender, and LBGT through her efforts to support student clubs (e.g. Black
Student Association; Latino Group; Gay, Straight Alliance) along these markers:
We have 45 different cultures in our school, and we have 17 Katrina kids here. So
everybody’s diverse. Everybody has a different way of learning. There are 1750 ways
of looking at learning as far as our kids go. We have to be specialists in looking at
individual needs. What we believe here at Chester is it’s good to see your [ethnic]
group and to be part of your [ethnic] group. We want to celebrate all the different kinds
of people and groups.
832 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Gertrude also sought ways to motivate teachers to help transform their instructional
practices to serve the needs of the diverse student population in the school. For
example, she regularly visited different classrooms to participate with teachers and
students in multicultural activities. She asserted, “I’ll jump in there, do various exer-
cises and motivational techniques. I want to model this for my teachers.”Probing
deeper into the data, Gertrude mentioned the in-depth multicultural training she con-
ducted occasionally in her district and annually for her teachers. She discussed her
staff training, which grew into a two-week series with teachers and students:
At the beginning of each school year, I provide a one-hour staff development training
session with my staff. We ask teachers to implement instructional strategies by putting
students in groups to examine issues of race. Teachers ask students in their groups to
respond to this question, “Have you ever been looked upon unfavorably because of
your race/ethnicity?”Students share their experiences. I do this so that my teachers are
more cognizant of ethnic awareness, students’contributions, and different learning
styles. I want all my teachers to become aware of the composition of their classes and
school by listening to the voices of students. I call it the three prongs: Accept.
Accommodate. Affirm. We have to accept our students, accommodate them based on
their learning styles, and affirm them.
Both Gertrude and Linda’s leadership practices focused on recognizing and
embracing the diversity of their students’demographic and promoting efforts (i.e.
instructional leadership) to build on the strength of students’diversity.
Persistence: tenacious travelers on precarious paths
Just as practices seemed to naturally flow from passions, the quality of persistence
emanated unsurprisingly from the practices. Singleton and Linton (2006) emphasize
that persistence involves a significant investment in time and energy to remain
focused despite possible distractions. It means doing what it takes to stay the course
in pursuit of equity and transformation.
Persistence was evident in both Principal Maria and Teacher Tanya. For example,
during the school’sfirst year, Maria “counseled”two teachers to transfer to another
school. She had engaged all teachers in courageous conversations concerning race,
gender, and class and found that these particular individuals possessed and pro-
nounced deficit perspectives about learners who are African-American and Latina,
as well as made some unsavory remarks about families from lower class back-
grounds. These particular teachers also expressed discomfort about “working with
all girls”and “being around all these females.”Maria carefully confronted these
teachers about their discomforts and found that they were unable or unwilling to
thoroughly examine and rethink beliefs. While Maria’s conversations were unflinch-
ing, they also emanated from a place of caring. Both these teachers later shared that
they left because they did not “fit”with the mission of the school and that there
were “no hard feelings.”
Teacher Tanya’s persistence met with some resistance from parents during the
second year of operations. She had devoted herself to continuous improvement in
her instructional offerings to remove barriers and further open up opportunities for
transformative learning experiences. One particular assignment met with serious
pushback from a couple of what she called, “squeaky wheel”parents, but Tanya
refused to back down.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 833
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
The controversy began when Tanya decided to have students research a variety
of “women’s issues”that intersected with race, class, sexuality, and other cultural
issues such as: The AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa; the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases in American teen populations; female genital mutilation in
Somalia; and human trafficking Texas. The curriculum required students to learn the
processes of finding trustworthy sources, taking precise notes, crafting appropriate
citations, and synthesizing information into a coherent whole. Additionally, she was
committed to making all class assignments work toward cultural transformation
inside and outside the school. Unfortunately, some families balked at the “heavy”
and “sickening”research topics. Both Teacher Tanya and Principal Maria persisted
in their commitment but tried to appease offended families by offering an alternative
assignment for those students. However, a directive from the “central office”
derailed their efforts.
For Principals Linda and Gertrude, fundamentally rooted in cultural understand-
ing, their persistence to advance their school communities’levels of understanding
about educational inequities was through initiatives they implemented to raise
awareness and address these issues. In discussing the kind of impact they wanted to
have on the academic and professional lives of students and teachers, they expressed
a belief in restructuring school programs into new designs to support their students’
learning and professional communities. Both principals placed a general emphasis
on providing support programs or structures to assist students with their academic
goals, educational planning (such as individualized student development plans and
graduation plans), and instructional leadership practices (i.e. study groups, monthly
and quarterly progress reports, and extended day tutoring).
Principal Gertrude focused her efforts on developing educational programs that
attracted and retained students. She provided more instructional time and develop-
ment programs for low-performing students. Programs to help students succeed
included “Saturday for Success,”a two-hour Saturday program for students who
have less than a C average, academic lunchtime for students who needed individual-
ized instruction from the principal and assistant principal, and after-school tutoring.
Gertrude articulated the importance of fostering high academic achievement for all
students by rewarding students (academic lunch bunch), recognizing higher achiev-
ers with an “academic bowl”(all subject- area preparation for ACTs), and presenting
a letter jacket (indication of school pride) at school assemblies to motivate students.
Echoing a similar sentiment, Principal Linda evidenced an equity focus for all
students in her efforts to provide diverse student group clubs to reflect her study
body, regardless of the size of individual groups. Linda spoke of the different stu-
dent groups that were present in her school (e.g. Black Student Association, Latino
group, Native American group, LGBT group, Straight Alliance group, etc.) and
proudly affirmed, “We want kids to join different groups and integrate into these
groups …our students need to have an identity and have outlets where they can per-
sonalize how they feel.”This was a demonstration of her ethic of care toward stu-
dents, a critical dimension of her transformative leadership style.
Discussion
The women in this study served as exemplars for how school leaders can engage in
courageous conversations to transform beliefs and practices concerning educational
inequities and enhance learning for all students. Both formal and informal leaders in
834 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
this QSA study were guided by personal convictions, commitment, and considered
action to attain goals for equitable schools. They did not rest on the rhetoric of their
values and beliefs, but expended considerable strategic and practical energy toward
the realization of their vision for achieving educational equity (Jean-Marie, 2008,
2009; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003; Singleton & Linton, 2006). This was true for all the
school leaders in this study whether they originated from a place of privilege or
oppression. The findings bring focus to two important areas on schools can more
rigorously address systemic inequities and promote an environment that is support
of all learners.
Using school data to understand and improve school conditions and student
learning
Whether emanating from personal marginalizing experiences and/or unflinching
recognition of inequities, some of the school leaders articulated their commitment to
facilitating equitable outcomes for students was directly connected to professional
accountability (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003). They used their school data not only for
assessing academic performance but also understanding school conditions that
enhanced or impeded students’learning experience. They were exceptionally con-
scientious of not only their accountability to affect change for their students’lives,
but they were highly aware of the bottom line in terms of test scores. Their beliefs
in and commitment to quality education was more than a motto; it was realized in
the experiences they provided for students. Their commitment to students, while
centered on caring, also dovetailed with the political climate of their contexts: They
worked within their political realities of high-stakes testing and were tenacious in
their efforts to help their students survive and thrive within the neoliberal account-
ability climate.
Further, their interest in students’success began with developing an authentic
relationship between themselves as school leaders and their students (Bascia &
Young 2001; Furman & Starratt 2002; Jean-Marie, 2008,2009). The school leaders
also played a significant role in improving access and opportunity for children his-
torically marginalized by mainstream public schooling (Brooks & Miles, 2008;
Dantley & Tillman, 2009; Jean-Marie, 2008,2009; Larson & Murtadha, 2002). They
led with purpose, knowledge, courage, and commitment in the midst of increased
accountability and high-stakes testing. Energized to change the conditions of stu-
dents’learning, the three principals and the teacher –by chronicling how stewards
of educational equity can lead in their school communities –provide a snapshot of
the kind of transformative leadership needed in the twenty-first century. The work of
school leaders is vital for improvement of educational practices to close historic
achievement gaps in every school and district across the United States (Skrla et al.,
2004).
Educational leaders addressing student identities to eradicate systemic inequities
Similar to how school leaders in the study practiced leadership that was attentive to
identity intersectionality markers, leaders should bring focus to school members (i.e.
teachers, staff, and administrators) the realities of students’lives and the ways their
practices create marginalizing conditions. Every school member plays an essential
role to improve the quality of school learning and experience for students that is
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 835
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
focused on addressing systemic inequities (Brooks & Miles, 2008; Jansen, 2008).
But effective leadership (i.e. transformative: Shields, 2010 and applied critical
leadership: Santamaría & Santamaría, 2012) is critical to such processes. Effective
school leaders have an awareness of broad social and cultural realties of students
and their schooling experiences (Dantley & Tillman, 2009; Jean-Marie, 2008;
Lyman et al. 2005).
Moreover, the ways the intersection of student identities (i.e. race, ethnicity, gen-
der, class, etc.) form the contextual backdrop for societal inequities must be readily
recognized. Beyond an awareness of contextual factors and the importance of identi-
ties, effective leaders assess how policies and practices may be marginalizing stu-
dents as they pertain to issues of race and other markers of difference (Dantley &
Tillman, 2009). School leaders should soberly ponder the ways students are social-
ized in the school setting. As evident in the study, school leaders concerned with
educational inequities should interrogate discipline policies as well as investigate
how various educational practices such as tracking and induction to gifted or other
special education programs are accomplished and how they might impact student
populations differently according to identity complexities (Brooks & Miles, 2008;
Dantley & Tillman, 2009; Jean-Marie, 2008,2009; Singleton & Linton, 2006). They
are positioned to create a school climate of openness and intellectual rigor, and help
teachers develop strategies for closing the achievement gap between the ‘haves and
haves not’(Brooks & Miles, 2008; Dantley & Tillman, 2009; Jean-Marie, 2008,
2009; Singleton & Linton, 2006).
Conclusion and implications
At a time when the US rapidly shifting demographics are increasingly diverse and
changing the social landscape of schools, courageous school leaders are needed the
most to embrace and support the increasing levels of diversity in K-12 schools.
Leadership that is transformative (Shields, 2010), which draws upon applied critical
leadership (Santamaría & Santamaría, 2012) and advances educational equity (Jean-
Marie, 2005,2009; Theoharis, 2007), are vital to eradicating the vestiges of inequi-
ties that persist. School leaders can draw on context specific issues directly involv-
ing their schools by focusing efforts to identify patterns of marginalization based on
race/ethnicity, gender, class, etc. However, in order for school leaders to robustly
develop capacity to address educational inequities, such an effort should begin with
raising the critical consciousness of school members.
At times, this may involve school leaders turning the mirror inward (Black &
Murtadha, 2007)toreflect on their beliefs and practices that may perpetuate inequi-
ties along race/ethnicity and other forms of biases such as gender or sexual orienta-
tion. They also have to be willing to engage conversations with school members,
internally and externally on practices that are systematically creating the gap
between the “haves and haves not.”Reflecting and becoming more consciously
aware may lead to places of discomfort but it also gives them an opportunity to
understand the intricacies of racial discrimination, biases, inequities, etc. Further,
school leaders can challenge others only to the extent they change their own beliefs
and practices. In addressing issues of race in schooling, school leaders’heighten
awareness of institutional racism is important in order to effectively create a school
climate of openness and intellectual rigor (Jean-Marie, 2009) and develop strategies
for closing the achievement gap (Singleton & Linton, 2006).
836 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Finally, a broader implication of this QSA study pertains to leadership prepara-
tion programs: higher education must prepare leaders to have courageous conversa-
tions about educational inequities! Practicing these skills in the university classroom
and through field-based experiences provide aspiring leaders opportunities to
engage, share, and test their ideas (Jean-Marie, 2009). How can we prepare our stu-
dents to face this difficult task in the real world (not just theoretical)? Recent efforts
supported by the University Council of Educational Administration and US Depart-
ment of Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education grant are
bringing together through a cadre of universities in partnership with the Southern
Poverty Law Center to develop curriculum modules to prepare school leaders to sup-
port the learning and development of diverse learners. These modules include
accessible, powerful learning experiences in the areas of racial awareness, advocacy,
data use, parent and community engagement, leadership for English language lear-
ners, and problem resolving. Such initiatives at the institutional and national level,
show promise to more coherently engage faculty on integrating these modules in
existing courses offered in building-level educational leadership preparation to
enhance their knowledge and skills.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Katherine Cumings Mansfield (PhD, The University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant pro-
fessor of Leadership and Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University. Mansfield is a first-
generation college graduate who studies issues of educational and vocational access and
achievement as they relate to identity intersectionalities such as gender, class, religion, race,
and place. Mansfield is published in a variety of venues including: Education Policy Analysis
Archives,Educational Administration Quarterly,International Journal of Multicultural
Education,Journal of Educational Administration, and Journal of School Leadership.
Gaëtane Jean-Marie is a professor and chair of the Department of Leadership, Foundations,
and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville (KY, USA). Jean-Marie is an
award-winning teacher and researcher, and the author of numerous books and articles. Jean-
Marie is the editor of the Journal of School Leadership and serves on the Editorial Review
Boards of Journal of Educational Administration and Journal of Research on Leadership
Education.
References
Adams, N. (1997). Toward a curriculum of resiliency: Gender, race, adolescence and school-
ing. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from primary
and secondary schooling (pp. 153–164). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority chil-
dren: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bascia, N., & Young, B. (2001). Women’s careers beyond the classroom: Changing roles in a
changing world. Curriculum Inquiry, 31, 271–302.
Barbour, R., & Eley, S. (2007). Refereed special section: Reusing qualitative data. Sociologi-
cal Research Online, 12(3). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/contents.
html
Baxley, T. P., & Boston, G. H. (2010). Classroom inequity and the literacy experiences of
Black adolescent girls. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalization, education, and social justice (pp.
145–159). New York, NY: Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 837
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Black, W. R., & Murtadha, K. (2007). Toward a signature pedagogy in educational leadership
preparation and program assessment. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(1),
1–29.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education. An introduction to
theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon/A Viacom.
Bogotch, I. E. (2005). Social justice as an educational construct: Problems and possibilities.
Annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Nashville, TN.
Brooks, J. S., & Jean-Marie, G. (2008). Black leadership, white leadership: Race and race
relations in an urban high school. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 756–768.
Brooks, J., & Miles, M. T. (2008). From scientific management to social justice …and back
again? Pedagogical shifts in the study and practice of educational leadership. In A. H.
Normore (Ed.), Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through
inquiry and reflective practice (pp. 99–114). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative
framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 700–745.
Clotfelter, C. T. (2004). After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dantley, M. E. (2003). Purpose-driven leadership: The spiritual imperative to guiding schools
beyond high-stakes testing and minimum proficiency. Education and Urban Society, 35,
273–291.
Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (2009). 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). New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Eaton, S. (2006). The children in room E4. New York, NY: Workman.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ferguson, A. A. (2002). Naughty by nature. In The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in educa-
tion (pp. 584–608). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Furman, G. C. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational Administration, 42,
215–235.
Furman, G. C., & Sheilds, C. M. (2005). How can educational leaders promote and support
social justice and democratic community in schools? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl
(Eds.), A new agenda for educational leadership (pp. 119–137). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Furman, G. C., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Leadership for democratic community in schools.
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101, 105–133.
Garza, E., Reyes, P., & Trueba, E. T. (2004). Resiliency and success: Migrant children in the
United States. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Glazer, S. (2005, May 20). Gender and learning. The CQ Researcher, 15, 445–468.
Gladstone, B. M., Volpe, T., & Boydell, K. M. (2007). Issues encountered in a qualitative
secondary analysis of help-seeking in the prodrome to psychosis. The Journal of Behav-
ioral Health Services & Research, 34, 431–442.
Heaton, J. (1998). Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Social Research Update, 22.
Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU22.html
Hinds, P. S., Vogel, R. J., & Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of doing
a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research, 7, 408–424.
Jansen, J. (2008). The challenge of the ordinary. In I. Bogotch, F. Beachum, J. Blount,
J. Brooks, F. English, & J. Jansen (Eds.), Radicalizing educational leadership:
Dimensions of social justice (pp. 147–155). Rotterdam: Sense.
Jean-Marie, G. (2008). Leadership for social justice: An agenda for 21st century schools. The
Educational Forum, 72, 340–354.
Jean-Marie, G. (2005). Standing on the promises: The experiences of black women adminis-
trators in historically black institutions. Advancing Women in Leadership Online Journal,
19. Retrieved from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/fall2005/index.html
Jean-Marie, G. (2009). “Fire in the belly”: Igniting a social justice discourse in learning envi-
ronments of leadership preparation. In A. Tooms & C. Boske (Eds.), Building bridges,
connecting educational leadership and social justice to improve schools (pp.97–119).
Educational Leadership for Social Justice. North Carolina, NC: Information Age.
838 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Jean-Marie, G., & Mansfield, K. C. (2013). Race and racial discrimination in schools: School
leaders’courageous conversations. In J. S. Brooks & N. W. Arnold (Eds.), Anti-racist
school leadership: Toward equity in education for America’s students (pp. 19–36).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). Thorns among roses: The struggle of young boys in
early education. In The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education ( pp. 153–181). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Crown.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in
America. New York, NY: Crown.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1990). Like lightning in a bottle: Attempting to capture the pedagogical
excellence of successful teachers of Black students. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 3, 335–344.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Larson, C. L., & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, 101, 134–161.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (2002). The art and science of portraiture. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
Lott, B., & Webster, K. (2006). Carry the banner where it can be seen: Small wins for social
justice. Social Justice Research, 19, 123–134.
Lyman, L. L., Ashby, D. E., & Tripses, J. S. (2005). Leaders who dare: Pushing the bound-
aries. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lyman, L. L., Strachan, J., Lazaridou, A., & Coleman, M. (Eds.). (2012). Shaping social
justice leadership: Insights of women educators worldwide. New York, NY: R&L
Education.
Mansfield, K. C. (2014). How listening to student voices can inform and strengthen social
justice research and practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 392–430.
Mansfield, K. C. (2011). Troubling social justice in a single-sex public school: An ethnogra-
phy of an emerging school culture (Unpublished dissertation). The University of Texas at
Austin. Retrieved from http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/
22147/mansfield_dissertation_201121.pdf?sequence=1
Margolin, L. (1994). Goodness personified: The emergence of gifted children. New York,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cam-
bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Marshall, C., & Gerstl-Pepin, C. I. (2005). Re-framing educational politics for social justice.
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in
education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCaston, K. (2005, June). Tips for collecting, reviewing, and analyzing secondary data.
HLS Advisor. Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http://www.care.org/
Merchant, B. M., & Shoho, A. R. (2006). Bridge people: Civic and educational leaders for
social justice. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making
revolutions in education (pp. 85–108). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mickelson, R. A. (2003a). Gender, Bourdieu, and the anomaly of women’s achievement
redux. Sociology of Education, 76, 373–375.
Mickelson, R. A. (2003b). When are racial disparities in education the result of racial dis-
crimination? A social science perspective. Teachers College Record, 105, 1052–1086.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Munhall, P. L., & Boyd, C. J. (Eds.). (1993). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective
(2nd ed.). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Speculations on the great gender gap in writing.
In The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education ( pp. 314–328). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 839
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education
(4th ed.). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Olesen, V. (2005). Early millennial feminist qualitative research: Challenges and contours. In:
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd
ed., pp. 235–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Oliva, M., Anderson, G. L., & Byng, J. (2009). Dilemmas and lessons: The continuing
leadership challenge for social justice. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for
social justice: Making revolutions in education (2nd ed., pp. 284–314). New York, NY:
Allyn and Bacon.
Orfield, M. (2002). American metro politics: The new suburban reality. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Rodriguez, G. M., & Fabionar, J. O. (2009). The impact of poverty on students and schools:
Exploring the social justice leadership implications. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.),
Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (2nd ed., pp. 55–73). New
York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Rumberger, R. W., & Rodríguez, G. M. (2002). Chicano dropouts: An update of research
and policy issues. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, pre-
sent and future (2nd ed., 114–146). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sadker, D. (1999). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence.
Educational Leadership, 56. Retrieved October 5, 2011, from http://www.sadker.org/
ClassroomDoor.html
Santamaría, L. J., & Santamaría, A. P. (2012). Applied critical leadership in education:
Choosing change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Scheurich, J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence: Creating high-
achievement classrooms, schools, and districts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Scott, B. (2001, March). Coming of age. IDRA Newsletter. Retrieved from http://www.idra.
org/Newslttr/2001/Mar/Bradley.htm
Scribner, A. P. (1999). High-performing Hispanic schools: An introduction. In P. Reyes, J. D.
Scribner, & A. P. Scribner (Eds.), Lessons from high-performing Hispanic schools: Creat-
ing learning communities (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of
silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 109–132.
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Ed-
ucational Administration Quarterly, 46, 558–589.
Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2006). Courageous conversations about race. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leader-
ship tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40, 133–161.
Smulyan, L. (2000). Balancing acts: Women principals at work. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Southworth, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2007). The interactive effects of race, gender and school
composition on college track placement. Social Forces, 86, 497–523.
Szabo, V., & Strang, V. R. (1997). Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Advances in Nurs-
ing Science, 20,66–74.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of
social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221–258.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Troyna, B. (1984). Fact or artifact: The “educational underachievement”of black pupils. Bri-
tish Journal of Sociology of Education, 5, 153–166.
Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
840 K.C. Mansfield and G. Jean-Marie
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (2002). Feminists discover the hidden injuries of coeducation. In
The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education (pp. 12–48). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Valencia, R. R. (2002). The plight of Chicano students: An overview of schooling conditions
and outcomes. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present
and future (2nd ed., pp. 3–51). New York, NY: Routledge.
Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2001). Intelligence testing and minority students. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walker, K. D. (2006). Fostering hope: A leader’sfirst and last task. Journal of Educational
Administration, 44, 540–569.
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (1993). Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in Uni-
ted States schools. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Winant, H. (2004). The new politics of race: Globalism, difference, justice. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Witzel, A., Medjedović, I., & Kretzer, S. (Eds.). (2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative
data/Sekundäranalyse qualitativer Daten. Historical Social Research, 33(3). Retrieved
from http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Soz-u-Kult&month=
0809&msg=QcWkbdXXfyAsa6Tm6Gh2Pw
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpreta-
tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 841
Downloaded by [University of Louisville] at 10:34 02 September 2015
