School Leaders’ Contribution to Social Justice: A Review

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this review is to examine what is known as well as what we still seek to know in terms of principals’ potential contribution to social justice in their schools. Design/methodology/approach: This review provides an evaluative report of the current knowledge in the literature related to the influence of principals on social justice at the school building level. Findings: The current review reveals that there is solid evidence of the significant impact of school leaders on student learning. This impact constitutes the conceptual basis for social justice school leadership, where school leaders ascertain that all students are provided equal opportunities for quality education. However, the available knowledge regarding the optimal way to prepare social justice school leaders is still limited. Research implications: In as much as recent literature does not provide satisfactory answers to the question of how to train social justice school leaders, workable approaches to developing leaders who are effective in achieving social justice, equity, and excellence should be explored. Originality/value: In today’s Western school systems, non-White, LGBT, poor, or differently-abled students often lag behind their peers in academic achievement and acquisition of higher education while leading in school dropout rates. The review seeks to understand how school principals can bring about a real change in this undesirable situation, creating a social justice educational system.

Full text

School Leaders’
Contribution to Social
Justice: A Review
Haim Shaked1
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this review is to examine what is known as well as what
we still seek to know in terms of principals’ potential contribution to social justice
in their schools. Design/methodology/approach: This review provides an eval-
uative report of the current knowledge in the literature related to the influence
of principals on social justice at the school building level. Findings: The current
review reveals that there is solid evidence of the significant impact of school leaders
on student learning. This impact constitutes the conceptual basis for social justice
school leadership, where school leaders ascertain that all students are provided
equal opportunities for quality education. However, the available knowledge re-
garding the optimal way to prepare social justice school leaders is still limited.
Research implications: In as much as recent literature does not provide satisfac-
tory answers to the question of how to train social justice school leaders, workable
approaches to developing leaders who are effective in achieving social justice, equity,
and excellence should be explored. Originality/value: In today’s Western school
systems, non-White, LGBT, poor, or differently-abled students often lag behind their
peers in academic achievement and acquisition of higher education while leading
in school dropout rates. The review seeks to understand how school principals
can bring about a real change in this undesirable situation, creating a social justice
educational system.
1 Hemdat Hadarom College of Education, Netivot, Israel
Corresponding Author:
Haim Shaked, Hemdat Hadarom College of Education, Netivot, Israel.
Email: haim. shaked@ hemdat. ac. il
Article
International Journal of Educational
Reform
00(0) 1–14
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub. com/ journals- permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1056787919857259
journals. sagepub. com/ home/ ref

International Journal of Educational Reform 00(0)
2
Keywords
social justice, school principals, principal preparation
In today’s Western schools, white, straight, middle-class, and physically-able students
reach higher levels of achievement, drop out less, and have greater chances of attain-
ing a higher education than students who do not possess these characteristics (Darling-
Hammond, 2010; Sweet, Anisef, Brown, Walters, & Phythian, 2010). Educational
inequality constitutes a signicant policy concern, because quality education may be
seen as a dimension of well-being in its own right, or at least as a fundamental compo-
nent of one’s capacity to function and ourish, which often translates into better health,
a longer life, and higher earnings (Cutler & Lleras-Muney, 2006; Mitchell, 2014).
Among various school-related factors, leadership is of great importance:
“Leadership has very signicant eects on the quality of school organization and on
pupil learning… there is not a single documented case of a school successfully turning
around its pupil achievement trajectory in the absence of talented leadership”
(Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). School leadership can thus play a major role in
creating a learning climate that provides all students with equal opportunities regard-
less of race, class, gender, physical ability or disability, sexual orientation, and other
potentially marginalizing characteristics.
This review aims to examine what we already know as well as what we wish to
know about school leaders’ contribution to social justice. Initially presenting ndings
relating to school leaders’ great impact on students’ scholastic achievements, this arti-
cle proceeds to explore how school principals can become social justice leaders
through utilizing their signicant inuence to ensure that all students receive equal
learning opportunities. The paucity of literature specically addressing the preparation
of such leaders is discussed in the last section. A review of the available knowledge
reveals that pragmatic approaches to developing social justice school leaders are still
necessary.
School Principals’ Influence
In light of school leadership’s pivotal role in improving student learning, and its great-
est inuence being sensed particularly in schools with the greatest need, it is impera-
tive to speedily nd the way to optimally fulll its potential for providing equal
opportunities in school learning. Leithwood et al. (2008) noted that “school leadership
is second only to classroom teaching as an inuence on pupil learning” (p. 27). Bryk
and others (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010) disagreed, argu-
ing that “school leadership sits in the rst position” (p. 197). In any case, the link
between school leadership and improved student learning has been empirically proven
in recent years.
The consideration of principalship as a powerful force motivating school eective-
ness has been justied by solid evidence, showing that eective school leaders

Shaked 3
signicantly improve student performance, while ineective principals have a simi-
larly large negative eect (Branch, Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2012; Clark, Martorell, &
Rocko, 2009; Coelli & Green, 2012; Dhuey & Smith, 2018; Grissom & Loeb, 2009;
Hallinger & Ko, 2015a; Jacobson & Bezzina, 2008). One of the largest in-depth stud-
ies of educational leadership conducted by Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, and
Anderson (2010) has armed that school leaders’ importance cannot be
overemphasized:
In developing a starting point for this 6-year study, we claimed, based on a preliminary
review of research, that leadership is second only to classroom instruction as an inuence
on student learning. After six additional years of research, we are even more condent
about this claim. To date we have not found a single case of a school improving its stu-
dent achievement record in the absence of talented leadership (p. 9).
Why is school leadership of crucial importance? Louis et al. (2010) opined that the
potential of most school variables, considered separately, to impact student outcomes,
is at most quite small. A signicant eect can occur only if individual variables com-
bine to comprise a critical mass. It is the principal’s responsibility to create the condi-
tions under which that can transpire by generating synergy across the relevant variables,
thus unleashing the potential hidden in the organization’s latent capacities. The princi-
pal can also foster a synergy across the various school’s stakeholders, such as district
personnel, parents, and teachers, who all strive for students’ success by coordinating
their eorts and activating their respective strengths. Put dierently, “the school prin-
cipal... orchestrates the collaborative process of school transformation” (Bryk et al.,
2010, p. 203).
In addition to examining whether school leaders inuence student learning, recent
research also explored how they generate improvement. Research ndings show that
principals impact student performance mainly in indirect ways (Murphy, Neumerski,
Goldring, Grissom, & Porter, 2016), by inuencing teachers’ teaching strategies (Heck
& Hallinger, 2014; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010) and shaping learning environ-
ments (Louis, 2008; May & Supovitz, 2011; Murphy & Torre, 2014). Aiming to pin-
point specic leadership practices that improve teaching and learning, researchers
have found principals’ eorts to be eective in providing quality professional devel-
opment, ensuring various school programs’ coherence, and developing a positive
learning climate, which in turn impact classroom instruction and student outcomes
(Giles, Jacobson, Johnson, & Ylimaki, 2007; Gimbert & Fultz, 2009; Jacobson, 2011;
Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).
Beyond specic practices, school leadership approaches appear to possess the
potential for the most signicant inuence on student learning. Principals’ deep and
direct involvement in teaching and learning manifests in the instructional leadership
approach (Hallinger & Wang, 2015b; May, Hu, & Goldring, 2012). Instructional
school leaders are those principals who become intensely involved in curricular and
instructional issues, which in turn directly aect student achievement (Glanz, 2006;

International Journal of Educational Reform 00(0)
4
Neumerski, 2012). The instructional leadership approach may be dened as “the eort
to improve teaching and learning for PK–12 students by managing eectively, address-
ing the challenges of diversity, guiding teacher learning, and fostering organizational
learning” (Brazer & Bauer, 2013, p. 650). This results in high quality instruction,
which is a prerequisite for students’ improved achievement levels (Blase & Kirby,
2009; Stein & Coburn, 2008).
As mentioned, the links between principals’ instructional leadership and students'
achievements have been clearly established through research (Glickman, Gordon, &
Ross-Gordon, 2014). Interestingly, the eect of instructional leadership on student
outcomes was found to be three to four times as great as that of transformational lead-
ership, where leaders inspire, empower, and stimulate teachers (Robinson, Lloyd, &
Rowe, 2008).
An additional school leadership approach that may considerably improve student
learning is distributed leadership, where the number of people involved in making
decisions related to the school’s organization, operation, and academic aspects is sig-
nicantly increased (Lumby, 2013; Robinson, 2008). This style of leadership increases
the organization's opportunities to benet from more of its members’ capabilities
(Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Malloy & Leithwood, 2017). Moreover, members’ enhanced
participation in decision-making is prone to foster a greater commitment on their part
to the organization's goals and strategies. This greater commitment is likely to lead,
albeit indirectly, to ameliorated student achievements (Leithwood, Mascall, & Strauss,
2009). The adoption of a distributed approach, under the right conditions, can contrib-
ute to organizational development (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016; Spillane & Coldren,
2011).
School principals can utilize their great inuence on teaching and learning to ensure
that all students are provided equal learning opportunities, regardless of potentially
marginalizing conditions. As aforementioned, by organizing their schools to advance
all students' equitable learning, principals become social justice leaders.
Social Justice School Leaders
Recent years have produced many studies on social justice in school leadership
(Oplatka, 2014). From the vantage point of such leadership, social justice concepts
should be realized in schools so that they provide equal opportunities and treatment for
all students, without any discrimination or favoritism whatsoever (Capper & Frattura,
2007; Wang, 2015).
At the same time, a school is also a means of promoting social justice in the extra-
school world, because by providing equal opportunities and warranting that no talent
is wasted, the school can contribute to the future assignment of its graduates to the
academic and social elds that t their talents and aspirations, regardless of their fam-
ily background, social status, or nancial situation (Beachum & McCray, 2010;
Bogotch & Shields, 2014). A key role is played by schools in terms of raising active
supporters of social justice. This is implemented by schools that enable their students

Shaked 5
to recognize and question social injustice issues, encouraging them to become social
justice agents who partake in activities for promoting this core value (Jong & Jackson,
2016; Meister, Zimmer, & Wright, 2017).
Inequalities exist in most contemporary schools in the Western world, where non-
White, gay, lesbian, poor, dierently abled students tend to become lower achievers
and drop out of school in greater numbers. They are also less likely to reach higher
education than their White, straight, middle-class, and physically able counterparts
(Darling-Hammond, 2010; Sweet et al., 2010). Hurting mainly the marginalized, par-
ticularly the poor and non-White students, recent accountability-based reforms have
not been helpful in alleviating the situation. The abovementioned marginalized stu-
dents often nd themselves in schools with particularly limited resources, learning via
inappropriate methods, with teachers who would prefer to be elsewhere if they had a
choice (Fabricant & Fine, 2013; Hursh, 2007; Ryan, 2016).
The premise of social justice school leadership is that all students can succeed aca-
demically, without exceptions or excuses. This belief motivates social justice leaders
to transform school environments into spaces where all students thrive, even under
minimal material conditions, though it appears that the situation is hopeless. At the
same time they also engage in seeking and discovering solutions for problems that
generate and reproduce societal inequities (Marshall & Oliva, 2009; Theoharis, 2007,
2008a, 2008b, Theoharis, 2009). Students from diverse groups with a wide range of
needs are supported by principals who have adopted this sort of orientation (Brooks,
Normore, & Wilkinson, 2017; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014), that is, who strive
for both equity and excellence (Dantley & Tillman, 2010; Jean-Marie, 2008).
From a practical perspective, social justice leaders explore dierences in academic
success as they pertain to students' race, ethnicity, culture, neighborhood, income of
parents, or home language (Johnson & Avelar La Salle, 2010), and invest eorts in
eliminating inequities in school policies, procedures, and practices (Brown, 2006;
McKenzie et al., 2008; Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2008).
Assignment of students to classrooms so that the proportion of students from every
demographic group in each classroom matches that of their proportion in the school is
another important tactic in social justice educational frameworks (Johnson & Avelar
La Salle, 2010), in addition to promoting teaching practices that are inclusive of varied
types of students’ as well as their families’ perspectives and experiences (Shields,
2004; Kose, 2007; 2009). Advocating inclusive education (Lewis, 2016) translates
into bringing services to students in their usual classroom rather than sending them out
to a special resource room, as this involves extracting them from their natural environ-
ment (Frattura & Capper, 2009), and “counter the sorting mechanism of schools”
(Villegas, 2007, p. 378).
Generally, social justice school leaders see exclusionary discipline practices, such
as suspension and expulsion, as actively removing students from their school commu-
nities and exacerbating feelings of isolation and resentment (Losen, 2015). Thus, they
attempt to meet the need for a safe environment while also addressing institutional
inequities (Hollie, 2013; Vincent, Randall, Cartledge, Tobin, & Swain-Bradway,

International Journal of Educational Reform 00(0)
6
2011), advocating restorative justice in schools (Fronius, Persson, Guckenburg,
Hurley, & Petrosino, 2016; Halverson & Kelley, 2017), which is “an approach to dis-
cipline that engages all parties in a balanced practice that brings together all people
impacted by an issue or behavior” (González, 2012). In other words, restorative pro-
cesses’ primary aim is to repair the harm caused by a specic incident through the
active involvement of all stakeholders in discussion regarding what has happened, and
reaching a decision on a suitable reaction (Normore, 2017)
Social justice school leaders take action in the managerial aspect by working for inclu-
sive decision making and policymaking processes, help sta members to critically reect
on their actions and practices, and ensure that representatives of various community
groups are meaningfully included in school processes (Anderson, 2009; Furman, 2012;
Homan, 2009). They make a point of treating diverse families and communities fairly
and equitably by being both attentive and responsive to their needs, rather than only to
those of the dominant group (Villegas, 2007). They transform beliefs and values by chal-
lenging, deconstructing, and changing teachers’ negative beliefs and misperceptions
about diverse students, families, and communities (Theoharis, 2007).
Ryan (2016) termed this sort of activities “implicit activism,” meaning social jus-
tice activism that attracts minor attention only. Explicit activism, which attracts more
attention, may be too much to expect from school leaders due to their demanding role.
They may also understandably feel unable to champion social justice which at times
may contradict entrenched value systems, violating the culture of their organizations
or oending powerful stakeholders. Supporting social justice initiatives might thus
relegate school leaders to marginal positions within their organizations.
Because it is widely agreed that social justice school leaders do make a benecial
contribution to their schools, the question that remains to be answered is how they are
to be prepared so that they become such leaders. Quality preparation would obviously
make for quality social justice school leaders, yet the available knowledge regarding
the exact contents and procedures of such a preparation is still relatively meager.
Preparing Social Justice School Leaders
Policymakers, university faculty, and educators are concerned about current principal
preparation programs (Anderson & Reynolds, 2015; Davis & Darling-Hammond,
2012; Gutmore, 2015). Also researchers and eld personnel have expressed their
doubts as to the suciency of traditional approaches to preparing and licensing aspir-
ing principals (Duncan, Range, & Scherz, 2011; Oplatka & Waite, 2010; Reed &
Kensler, 2010), claiming that principal preparation programs produce principals who
are not suciently qualied nor capable of running schools successfully (Lynch, 2012;
Schechter, 2011; Williams, 2015). The training that principals typically receive has
been shown by study after study to be far from satisfactory (Hernandez, Roberts, &
Menchaca, 2012; Pannell, Peltier-Glaze, Haynes, Davis, & Skelton, 2015).
A recent report revealed that many university professors believe that their programs
warrant improvement, echoing district leaders who are also generally dissatised with the

Shaked 7
quality of principal preparation programs (Wallace Foundation, 2016). According to
Drago-Severson (2009, 2012; Drago-Severson, Blum-DeStefano, & Asghar, 2013), cur-
rent preparation programs are mostly informational, that is, involving the broadening of
learners’ theoretical knowledge and skills only: “All too often… we teach leadership
development in the same way we teach world history: by presenting just the facts, just the
contents” (Drago-Severson, 2012, p. 8). She claims that for preparation programs to be
truly eective, they must involve transformational learning, which “relates to the devel-
opment of the cognitive, emotional, interpersonal and intrapersonal capacities that enable
a person to manage the complexities of work (e.g., leadership, teaching, learning, adap-
tive challenges) and life” (Drago-Severson, 2009, p. 11). Thus, in view of the growing
criticism of existing preparation programs, guring out how to better prepare pre-service
principals for their future role is an urgent policy concern.
In many principal preparation programs, most diversity-related education is con-
centrated in a single course and centers on broad societal conditions aecting students,
such as discrimination, inequitable school resources and poverty, rather than actually
addressing these inequities as they manifest within schools. Teaching social justice is
often left to the discretion of individual faculty members, who are not necessarily
experts in this eld (Hawley & James, 2010), while only token consideration is given
to actual social justice concerns (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005).
What, then, would be the ideal preparation course for quality social justice school
leaders? The answer appears to be that adequate preparation programs should integrate
social justice knowledge, attitudes, and skills throughout the curriculum, instruction,
and assessment processes, rather than oering them in a single, add-on course
(McKenzie et al., 2008; Zembylas, 2010). Forming social justice school leadership
must consist of moving beyond surface-level knowledge to engage prospective princi-
pals at the critical or transformative level (Lopez, 2010) using a variety of instructional
methods (Brown, 2004, 2006; Theoharis, 2007).
Not only the principal, but also faculty members should develop commitments to
social justice which “require[s] faculty to rethink underlying assumptions, actions and
policies, roles and relationships, pedagogical approaches, and levels of preparedness
that challenge current modes of operation and force faculty to answer why and for
whom” (Byrne-Jimenez, 2010). Preparation programs should provide faculty mem-
bers with professional development in the area of social justice (Rusch, 2004), and
make human resource practices diversity-conscious, hiring more faculty of color
(Young & Brooks, 2008).
Capper, Theoharis, and Sebastian (2006) have proposed a practical framework for
preparing school leaders to become social justice leaders. Their framework's horizon-
tal dimension describes what principals must believe, know, and do as social justice
leaders, including three domains: critical consciousness, knowledge, and practical
skills focused on social justice. To achieve these goals, the vertical dimensions of the
framework—curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment oriented toward social justice—
are to be employed appropriately. Guerra, Nelson, Jacobs, and Yamamura (2013)
pointed to programmatic elements that may assist the development of social justice

International Journal of Educational Reform 00(0)
8
leaders during their preparation, including: developing awareness of their identity,
reading literature that highlights inequities in schools, participating in intense class-
room conversations where their thinking is challenged both by instructors and peers,
and leading and implementing action research projects.
The existing research on the preparation of social justice school leaders reviewed in
this section is signicant albeit limited in scope. It provides only general guidelines for
social justice leadership training, leaving much to be desired.
Conclusion
Principals’ great impact on student learning is clearly proven in the literature. As
school leadership is the second most important school-based factor in students’ aca-
demic achievements (Leithwood et al., 2008; Louis et al., 2010), or perhaps even the
rst (Bryk et al., 2010), the rationale for social justice school leadership is obvious:
principals must utilize their inuence to ensure that all students are provided equal
opportunities for quality learning, irrespective of race, gender, religion, national ori-
gin, ability or disability, sexual orientation, age, or any other potentially marginalizing
characteristic (Marshall & Oliva, 2009; Theoharis, 2009).
True social justice school leaders proactively assure that all their students thrive,
even under unfavorable conditions (Brooks et al., 2017; DeMatthews & Mawhinney,
2014). How such leaders are to be prepared for the task is the big question. What is the
optimal training for producing social justice school leaders? Because recent literature,
partially reviewed in this article, does not provide satisfactory answers to this ques-
tion, workable approaches to developing leaders who are eective in achieving social
justice, equity, and excellence, are still necessary, as they can be most useful for those
who wish to improve contemporary school systems.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) declared no nancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Anderson, E., & Reynolds, A. L. (2015). A Policymaker's guide: Research-based policy for
principal preparation program approval and licensure. Charlottesville, VA: University
Council of Educational Administration.
Anderson, G. (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Shaked 9
Beachum, F., & McCray, C. R. (2010). Cracking the code: Illuminating the promises and
pitfalls of social justice in educational leadership. International Journal of Urban
Educational Leadership, 4(1), 206–221.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P. (2009). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals do.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bogotch, I., & Shields, C. M. (2014). Do promises of social justice trump paradigms of
educational leadership?. In I. Bogotch & C. M. Shields (Eds.), International handbook
of educational leadership and social (in)justice (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Springer.
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on
public sector productivity: The case of school principals (NBER Working paper 17803).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Brazer, S. D., & Bauer, S. C. (2013). Preparing instructional leaders: A model. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 645–684.
Brooks, J. S., Normore, A. H., & Wilkinson, J. (2017). School leadership, social justice and
immigration: Examining, exploring and extending two frameworks. International
Journal of Educational Management, 31(5), 679–690.
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving and pedagogy.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108.
Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative
framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 700–745.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing
schools for improvement: Lessons from chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Byrne-Jimenez, M. (2010). Point/counterpoint: Preparing leaders for diversity. UCEA Review,
51(3), 6.
Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. M. (2005). Educating school leaders for social justice.
Educational Policy, 19(1), 201–222.
Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing
leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209–224.
Capper, E. M., & Frattura, C. A. (2007). Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for
all learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rocko, J. (2009). School principals and school performance
(working paper 38). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Coelli, M., & Green, D. A. (2012). Leadership eects: School principals and student
outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31(1), 92–109.
Cutler, D. M., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2006). Education and health: Evaluating theories and
evidence (working paper No. 12352). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (2010). Social justice and moral transformative leadership.
In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for Social Justice (2nd ed, pp. 19–34).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The at world and education: How america's commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College.

International Journal of Educational Reform 00(0)
10
Davis, S. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Innovative principal preparation programs:
What works and how we know. Planning and Changing, 43(1-2), 25–45.
DeMatthews, D., & Mawhinney, H. (2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion:
Exploring challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 844–881.
Dhuey, E., & Smith, J. (2018). How school principals inuence student learning. Empirical
Economics, 54(2), 851–882.
Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Drago-Severson, E. (2012). Helping educators grow: Strategies and practices for leadership
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Drago-Severson, E., Blum-DeStefano, J., & Asghar, A. (2013). Learning for leadership:
Developmental strategies for building capacity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Duncan, H., Range, B., & Scherz, S. (2011). From professional preparation to on-the-job
development: What do beginning principals need? International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 6(3).
Fabricant, M., & Fine, M. (2013). The changing politics of education: Privatization and the
dispossessed lives left behind. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Frattura, C. A., & Capper, E. M. (2009). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities: How
leaders go beyond inclusion (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fronius, T., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative
justice in us schools: A research review. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through
preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191–229.
Giles, C., Jacobson, S., Johnson, L., & Ylimaki, R. (2007). Against the odds: successful
principals in challenging US schools. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful
principal leadership in times of change: An international perspective (pp. 155–168).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Gimbert, B., & Fultz, D. (2009). Eective principal leadership for beginning teacher
development. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(2),
1–15.
Glanz, J. (2006). Instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach (9th ed). London, UK: Pearson.
González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the
school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law & Education, 41(2), 281–335.
Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2009). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of
parents, teachers and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial
skills (working paper 35). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Guerra, P. L., Nelson, S. W., Jacobs, J., & Yamamura, E. (2013). Developing educational
leaders for social justice: Programmatic elements that work or need improvement.
Education Research and Perspectives, 40(1), 124–149.

Shaked 11
Gutmore, D. (2015). Principal preparation-revisited-time matters. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice, 12(3), 4–10.
Hallinger, P., & Ko, J. (2015a). Education accountability and principal leadership eects in
Hong Kong primary schools. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3, 18–29.
Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2015b). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal
instructional management rating scale. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Halverson, R., & Kelley, C. (2017). Mapping leadership: The tasks that matter for improving
teaching and learning in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence,
misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146.
Hawley, W., & James, R. (2010). Diversity-responsive school leadership. UCEA Review,
51(3), 1–5.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to
school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(3), 659–689.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal eects of school leadership on
teaching and learning over time. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653–681.
Hernandez, R., Roberts, M., & Menchaca, V. (2012). Redesigning a principal preparation
program: A continuous improvement model. International Journal of Educational
Leadership, 7(3).
Homan, L. (2009). Educational leadership and social activism: A call for action. Journal of
Educational Administration and History, 41(4), 391–410.
Hollie, S. (2013). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom
practices for student success. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell.
Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518.
Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership eects on student achievement and sustained school success.
International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33–44.
Jacobson, S., & Bezzina, C. (2008). The eects of leadership on student academic/aective
achievement. In G. Crow, J. Lumby, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), The international handbook
on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 80–102). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Jean-Marie, G. (2008). Leadership for social justice: An agenda for 21st century schools. The
Educational Forum, 72(4), 340–354.
Johnson, R. S., & Avelar La Salle, R. (2010). Data strategies to uncover and eliminate hidden
inequities: the Wallpaper effect. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Jong, C., & Jackson, C. (2016). Teaching mathematics for social justice: Examining preservice
teachers' conceptions. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 7(1),
27–34.
Kose, B. W. (2007). Principal leadership for social justice: Uncovering the content of teacher
professional development. Journal of School Leadership, 17(3), 276–312.
Kose, B. W. (2009). The principal's role in professional development for social justice: An
empirically-based transformative framework. Urban Education, 44(6), 628–663.

International Journal of Educational Reform 00(0)
12
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (Eds.). (2009). Distributed leadership according to
the evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lewis, K. (2016). Social justice leadership and inclusion: A genealogy. Journal of Educational
Administration and History, 48(4), 324–341.
Lopez, G. (2010). Mainstreaming diversity? 'What'chu talking about, Willis?'. UCEA Review,
51(3), 6–8.
Losen, D. J. (2015). Closing the school discipline gap equitable remedies for excessive
exclusion. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Louis, K. S. (2008). Learning to support improvement—next steps for research on district
practice. American Journal of Education, 114 (4), 681–689.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, L. E. (2010). Learning from
leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: Wallace
Foundation.
Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 581–597.
Lynch, J. M. (2012). Responsibilities of today's principal: Implications for principal
preparation programs and principal certication policies. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 31(2), 40–47.
Malloy, J., & Leithwood, K. (2017). Eects of distributed leadership on school academic press
and student achievement. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun, & K. Pollock (Eds.), How school
leaders contribute to student success: Studies in educational leadership (Vol. 23, pp.
69–91). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in
education (2nd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.
May, H., Hu, J., & Goldring, E. (2012). A longitudinal study of principals' activities and
student performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 417–439.
May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2011). The scope of principal eorts to improve instruction.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332–352.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M.,
González, M. L. (2008). From the eld: A proposal for educating leaders for social
justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 111–138.
Meister, S. M., Zimmer, W. K., & Wright, K. L. (2017). Social justice in practitioner
publications: A systematic literature review. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching and
Research, 13, 90–111.
Mitchell, J. (2014). Educational attainment and earnings inequality among us-born men: A
lifetime perspective. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2014). Creating productive cultures in schools: For students,
teachers and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Murphy, J., Neumerski, C. M., Goldring, E., Grissom, J., & Porter, A. (2016). Bottling fog?
The quest for instructional management. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(4),
455–471.

Shaked 13
Neumerski, C. M. (2012). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know
about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go
from here?. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347.
Normore, A. H. (2017). Social justice and restorative processes in urban schools: Historical
context. In A. H. Normore (Ed.), Restorative practice meets social justice (pp. 1–18).
Charlotte, NC: Age.
Oplatka, I. (2014). The place of 'social justice' in the eld of educational administration: A
journal-based historical overview of emergent area of study. In I. Bogotch & C. M.
Shields (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Social (In)Justice
(pp. 15–35). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Pannell, S., Peltier-Glaze, B. M., Haynes, I., Davis, D., & Skelton, C. (2015). Evaluating the
eectiveness of traditional and alternative principal preparation programs. Journal of
Organizational and EducationalLeadership, 1(2).
Oplatka, I., & Waite, D. (2010). The new principal preparation program model in Israel:
Ponderings about practice-oriented principal training. In A. H. Normore (Ed.), Global
perspectives on educational leadership reform: The development and preparation of
leaders of learning and learners of leadership – advances in educational administration
(Vol. 11, pp. 47–66). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Reed, C. J., & Kensler, L. A. W. (2010). Creating a new system for principal preparation:
Reections on eorts to transcend tradition and create new cultures. Journal of Research
on Leadership Education, 5(12), 568–582.
Robinson, V. M. J. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational
outcomes. Journal of Organizational and Educational Leadership, 46(2), 241–256.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the dierential eects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 564–588.
Rusch, E. A. (2004). Gender and race in leadership preparation: A constrained discourse.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 16–48.
Ryan, J. (2016). Strategic activism, educational leadership and social justice. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(1), 87–100.
Schechter, C. (2011). Switching cognitive gears: Problem-based learning and success-based
learning as instructional frameworks in leadership education. Journal of Educational
Administration, 49(2), 143–165.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The inuence of principal leadership on classroom
instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.
Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of
silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109–132.
Spillane, J., & Coldren, A. F. (2011). Diagnosis and design for school improvement. New
York, NY: Teachers College.
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of
two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114 (4), 583–626.

International Journal of Educational Reform 00(0)
14
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers inuence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.
Sweet, R., Anisef, P., Brown, R., Walters, D., & Phythian, K. (2010). Post-high school
pathways of immigrant youth. Toronto, Canada: Higher Education Quality Council of
Ontario.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of
social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258.
Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. N. (2008). Oppressors or emancipators: Critical
dispositions for preparing inclusive school leaders. Equity and Excellence in Education,
41(2), 230–246.
Theoharis, G. (2008a). Woven in deeply: Identity and leadership of urban social justice
principals. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 3–25.
Theoharis, G. (2009). The school leaders our children deserve: seven keys to equity, social
justice, and school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Theoharis, G. (2008b). At every turn': The resistance that principals face in their pursuit of
equity and justice. Journal of School Leadership, 18(3), 303–343.
Villegas, A. M. (2007). Disposition in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of
Teacher Education, 50(5), 370–380.
Vincent, C. G., Randall, C., Cartledge, G., Tobin, T. J., & Swain-Bradway, J. (2011). Toward
a conceptual integration of cultural responsiveness and schoolwide positive behavior
support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 219–229.
Wallace Foundation. (2016). Improving university principal preparation programs: Five
themes from the eld. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
Wang, F. (2015). Conceptualizing social justice: Interviews with principals. Journal of
Educational Administration, 53(5), 667–681.
Williams, S. M. (2015). The future of principal preparation and principal evaluation:
Reections of the current policy context for school leaders. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education, 10(3), 222–225.
Young, M. D., & Brooks, J. S. (2008). Supporting graduate students of colour in educational
administration preparation programs: Faculty perspectives on best practices, possibilities,
and problems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 391–423.
Zembylas, M. (2010). The emotional aspects of leadership for social justice: Implications
for leadership preparation programs. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(5),
611–625.
Author Biography
Haim Shaked is Vice President for Academic Aairs at Hemdat Hadarom College of
Education, Netivot, Israel. As a scholar-practitioner with 17 years of experience as
school principal, his research interests include instructional leadership, system think-
ing in school leadership, and education reform.