ArticlePDF Available

School Leaders’ Contribution to Social Justice: A Review

  • Hemdat College of Education, Sdot Negev, Israel


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.
School Leaders
Contribution to Social
Justice: A Review
Haim Shaked1
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
International Journal of Educational
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)
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
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
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)
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,
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)
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)
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.
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.
The author(s) declared no nancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
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:
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
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)
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:
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),
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),
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)
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
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),
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)
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
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),
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.
... In supporting children from CHHs, we contend that principals can use policy directives to innovate change and encourage others to reach their goals while planning transformative activities to optimize justice and equity in schools. A recent paper on principals' potential contribution to social justice found that they should provide learners with equal opportunities (Shaked, 2019). The findings of Ezzani's (2021) paper indicate that principals should utilize strategies in schools to propel a paradigm shift in how learners are served. ...
... This implies that principals need support on how to ensure that children from CHHs are not deprived of educational opportunities -thus enacting social justice to assist such children. In light of school principals' critical part in ensuring quality learning, and their biggest encouragement being identified mainly in schools with the highest need, it is necessary to find innovative ways to optimally fulfil their potential for offering equivalent chances in school learning (Shaked, 2019). Drawing from Shaked (2019), we are of the opinion that school principals should be involved in a search to find solutions for problems that may create social injustices, whilst enacting transformative social justice leadership. ...
... The findings of Ezzani's (2021) paper indicate that principals should utilize strategies in schools to propel a paradigm shift in how learners are served. A recent paper on principals' potential contribution to social justice found that they should provide learners with equal opportunities (Shaked, 2019). Significantly, Warner (2020) notes that preventing inequalities in school systems constitutes a key mandate for principals in their quest to realize equitable societies where social justice violations against CHHs are counterbalanced and trust is instilled in principals (Akman, 2020). ...
Full-text available
Systemic inequalities pervade our education systems worldwide. No time, like the present, is more apt for school principals to thwart inequalities and ensure that quality is infused in all classrooms and permeates the entire schooling system. This article contributes to the paper on how school principals may utilize their strategic leadership role to enhance the socially just experiences of learners in child-headed households (CHHs). The aim is to investigate and counter justice and equity violations of learners in CHHs, from the perspective of social action leadership theory (SALT) with the help of deconstruction of texts in the Children’s Act, Policy on the South African Standard for Principals, and Revised White Paper on Families. The findings call attention to the human agency role of the principal to resist oppression in schools and promote equity and achieve justice and equity for learners in CHHs. Implications for a just strategic leadership plan to advance anti-oppressive practices for CHHs are shared. This article recommends that principals consider the recommended strategies to advance equity, enact human agency, and perform social justice to counter justice violations and prevent inequalities in school systems in their quest to realize equitable societies.
... Schooling holds the potential for the development of a more socially just society (Papa, 2020;Shaked, 2019). Fraser's (2009) seminal work in the area of social justice is underpinned by the notion of 'participatory parity' where justice relies on social arrangements that afford each individual equal participation in social life. ...
... Given the importance education has in enabling participatory parity and aiding the development of a more socially just society (Forde & Torrance, 2017;Gümüş et al., 2021;Papa, 2020;Shaked, 2019), it is important that the system is effective and fosters cohesion between schools, departments and governments (Miller et al., 2019). In the current time of COVID-19, when educational disadvantages are exacerbated (Gümüş et al., 2021;Sonnemann & Goss, 2020), it is timely to evaluate educational leadership at the system level in terms of its ability to positively affect social justice issues. ...
Full-text available
Since the start of the 21st century, education in Australia and Sweden have seen system level reform efforts change and shape both nations’ schools. In an endeavour to improve the educational outcomes of students, both countries have enacted neoliberal policies that aimed to decentralise education and provide increased autonomy for school leaders. The real-world consequences of these policies have restricted school leader autonomy and academic performance has declined while the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students has continually grown. When excellence trumps equity as the primary driver of education at the system level, it creates a disadvantage cycle which sees the development of societal status hierarchies and unjust participatory parity for particular social groups. In the current time of COVID-19, when these disadvantages are exacerbated, it is timely to evaluate educational leadership at the system level in terms of its ability to positively affect social justice issues. Social justice leadership at a system level holds the potential to unite schools in competition and empower them to help overcome the unjust reality faced by disadvantaged students. So, the focus of this piece is to provide commentary on whether system leadership can enhance education’s potential in realising a more socially just society.
... Un dirigente che aderisce pienamente all'ideale di giustizia sociale: promuove partecipazione nei processi decisionali e favorisce una maggiore adesione agli obiettivi istituzionali; supporta una didattica che parta dalle esperienze e dal background delle famiglie e offre eventuali supporti alle difficoltà in classe (e non fuori); crea occasioni di dialogo in caso di conflitto e cerca di evitare approcci punitivi per la gestione del comportamento; tratta equamente gli studenti e le loro famiglie, indipendentemente dal loro background o dalla loro posizione sociale; investe nella creazione di un ambiente scolastico sicuro (Shaked, 2019). ...
... La formazione tradizionale offerta ai dirigenti generalmente, quasi esclusivamente teorica, non risulta adeguata per preparare ad un ruolo così complesso. Meglio una preparazione che integri differenti strategie e promuova l'acquisizione di competenze applicate ai processi reali della scuola, aiutando a sviluppare una coscienza critica, consapevolezza della propria identità e cura degli atteggiamenti sulle tematiche della giustizia sociale (Shaked, 2019). ...
... Müdürün, okuldaki birçok faktör üzerinde etkili olduğu bilinmekte (Küçükçene & Aydoğan, 2018); sosyal adalet liderliği davranışının eğitimin paydaşları olan öğretmenler, öğrenciler ve diğer çalışanların okula ilişkin algılarını da etkilediği görülmektedir (Yüner & Burgaz, 2019). Bununla birlikte okul müdürünün sosyal adalet liderliğinin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarından (Özdemir, 2017) öğretmenlerin mesleki performansına (Jacobson, 2019); kurumda görev yapanların örgüte bağlılıklarından (Uğurlu, 2009) hedeflenen kaliteli eğitim hizmetine (Shaked, 2019) kadar daha pek çok faktöre etki ettiği bilinmekte, okul iklimi üzerinde de etkisinin olacağı düşünülmektedir. ...
Bu araştırma okul müdürlerinin sosyal adalet liderliği davranışları ile okul iklimi arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden ilişkisel tarama modelinde desenlenen araştırmanın evrenini, 2020-2021 eğitim öğretim yılında Gaziantep ili merkez ilçelerinde devlete ait anaokulu, ilkokul, ortaokul ve lise kademelerinde görev yapan 20.937 öğretmenden oluşmakta iken örneklemini ise seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemlerinden tabakalı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak evrenden seçilen 776 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada kullanılan veriler Bozkurt (2017) tarafından geliştirilen “Sosyal Adalet Liderliği Ölçeği(SALÖ)”, Canlı, Demirtaş, ve Özer (2018) tarafından geliştirilen “Okul İklimi Ölçeği” ve “Kişisel Bilgi Formu” aracılığı ile katılımcılardan toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizi için SPSS 24.0 paket programı kullanılmıştır. Okul müdürlerinin sosyal adalet liderliği davranışları ile okul iklimi arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesinde “Pearson Korelasyon”; sosyal adalet liderliği davranışının okul iklimi üzerindeki etkisinin belirlemek amacıyla “Regresyon” analizleri yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonucuna göre sosyal adalet liderliği davranışı ile okul iklimi arasında “pozitif yönlü yüksek düzeyde” anlamlı bir ilişkinin olduğu belirlenmiş; uygulayıcılara ve araştırmacılara yönelik önerilere yer verilmiştir.
... Estos planteamientos, traerían consigo la propuesta de la definición de un nuevo tipo de Liderazgo que profundiza en la dimensión del propósito social del aprendizaje, es decir, ¿por qué es importante liderar el aprendizaje del estudiantado?, ¿qué impulsa y motiva al profesor directivo a tomar determinadas decisiones sobre el aprendizaje? Así, emerge un campo reciente que aborda el estudio de la justicia social y el liderazgo escolar (Shaked, 2019). ...
Full-text available
Este libro trata precisamente de la Educación del siglo XXI y cada autor, en cada capítulo, pone su mayor empeño por aportar, desde los resultados de su investigación, para que se materialicen los principios y orientaciones que el término significa. El lector podrá notar que los objetivos, teorías y resultados de los trabajos que contiene, tienen una sola finalidad: aportar el logro de la revolución al sistema de educación. El fin último es lograr que la nueva categoría de estudiantes desarrolle las habilidades, destrezas y capacidades necesarias para desempeñarse, primero como personas y luego como profesionales, en el Nuevo Orden Mundial. De otra manera estamos poniendo en riesgo la misma supervivencia de la especie, porque esta categoría de estudiantes será la encargada de solucionar los problemas complejos que notros le estamos heredando.
... Estos planteamientos, traerían consigo la propuesta de la definición de un nuevo tipo de Liderazgo que profundiza en la dimensión del propósito social del aprendizaje, es decir, ¿por qué es importante liderar el aprendizaje del estudiantado?, ¿qué impulsa y motiva al profesor directivo a tomar determinadas decisiones sobre el aprendizaje? Así, emerge un campo reciente que aborda el estudio de la justicia social y el liderazgo escolar (Shaked, 2019). ...
Full-text available
Este libro trata precisamente de la Educación del siglo XXI, y cada autor, en cada capítulo, pone su mayor empeño por aportar, desde los resultados de su investigación, para que se materialicen los principios y orientaciones que el término significa. El lector podrá notar que los objetivos, teorías y resultados de los trabajos que contiene, tienen una sola finalidad: aportar el logro de la revolución al sistema de educación.
... Sosyal adaleti benimseyen eğitim liderleri tüm öğrenciler için eğitim fırsatı yaratarak bütün öğrencilerin gelişimini sağlamalı, herkes için eğitimin bir "hak" olduğunu bilmeli ve bütün öğrencilere adil muamele yapmalıdır. Bu açıdan okullarda ırk, sınıf, dil, cinsiyet, etnisite, fiziksel yetenek veya kabiliyetsizlik, sosyo-ekonomik sınıf ve diğer potansiyel marjinalleştirici özelliklerden bağımsız olarak tüm öğrencilere eşit fırsatlar sağlayan bir öğrenme ortamı yaratılmalıdır (Johnson ve Avelar La Sella, 2010;Shaked, 2019). Çünkü ancak bu atmosferde yaratılan bir okul ile bütün çocuklar için sosyal adalet merkezli demokratik toplumun temelleri atılabilir. ...
Full-text available
Esta investigación busca conocer cuáles son las actitudes y comportamientos del profesorado de escuelas situadas contextos desafiantes y comprender cómo muchos de ellos se convierten en docentes socialmente justos. Para alcanzar este objetivo se utiliza el enfoque metodológico de estudios de casos en cinco centros educativos: tres públicos y uno privado-concertado de España y uno público de Portugal. Los participantes fueron el personal docente y no docente de las escuelas. El análisis de documentos, la observación no participante y la realización de entrevistas semiestructuradas permitieron la recogida de datos. El análisis de estos indica i) dos tipos de perfiles docentes: uno, comprometido con la educación y la justicia social; otro, agotado y desmotivado; b) cómo son las prácticas, motivaciones y liderazgo de docentes que trabajan por la Justicia Social. Así, se evidencia la necesidad de una formación específica para el profesorado en Justicia Social y sensibilización contra las desigualdades.
Justice and peace are directly related to one another, both inside and outside the school. The successful school leader works to make all members of the school community advocates for justice and peace. The successful school establishes policies against bullying and violence and adults intervene wherever threats to members of the school community occur. Restorative justice and restorative practices are keys to addressing bullying and violence across the school community. Justice and peace should be fused with the curriculum for the sake of the school community, but also to develop justice and peace leaders in families, neighborhoods, and society. Justice and peace can be present in the curriculum through individual learning activities, entire courses, or a comprehensive approach in which the curriculum is integrated with other school structures. The successful teacher employs justice and peace pedagogy daily, through restorative practices, community building, conflict resolution, and interpersonal problem solving. The evaluation of schoolwide justice and peace programs includes needs, readiness, process, and outcomes assessment. The school can support justice and peacemaking through family education programs co-planned and co-implemented by educators and families. Partnerships for justice and peace in the school and local community can include the school, community organizations, and universities. Such programs can provide support to specific groups, involve students in community service learning, or hold community-wide events for justice and peace.
Full-text available
This study sought to determine the effectiveness of increasing student achievement of principals trained in a traditional principal preparation program and those trained in an alternate route principal preparation program within the same Mississippi university. Sixty-six Mississippi principals and assistant principals participated in the study. Of the 66 participants, 41 completed a traditional principal preparation program, and 25 completed an alternate route principal preparation program at the same university. The data included the type of principal preparation the participant received, the number of consecutive years served as a principal or assistant principal, and student achievement data for their assigned schools. The results of this study suggested the type of principal preparation program had no significant impact on student achievement in Mississippi public schools.
Full-text available
Many studies examine the importance of teachers in students’ learning, but few exist on the contribution of principals. We measure the effect of principals on gains in primary test scores in North Carolina and estimate the standard deviation of principals’ value added to be 0.12–0.17. We find that the match between principals and schools accounts for a significant amount of principals’ value added and also find that replacing the current principal has little effect on non-test-score school inputs and outcomes regardless of the new principal’s value added, but that brand new principals have a detrimental effect.
Full-text available
Extant research indicates that principals are expected to serve as instructional leaders. Instructional leadership practices of principals in Israeli and U.S.-Jewish schools have, until recently, been unexplored. Therefore, this mixedmethodological study explores instructional leadership perceptions and behaviors among Israeli and U.S. principals. Data, via questionnaires and interviews, were collected from 90 principals from each country. Findings suggest that U.S. principals demonstrated significantly higher levels of instructional leadership. In both groups, women principals demonstrated higher levels of instructional leadership. Our interviews provided unique insights leading to our suggestions for ways of promoting greater attention to instructional leadership by principals of both countries.
This article details the struggles that principals faced as they sought to enact an equity-oriented agenda. Utilizing a qualitative approach combined with principles of autoethnography, seven urban principals described the resistance they faced “at every turn” in their pursuit of equity and social justice. This resistance was produced by such factors as the scope of the principalship, the momentum of the status quo, obstructive staff attitudes and beliefs, privileged parental expectations, formidable bureaucracy, unsupportive central-office administrators, prosaic colleagues, a lack of resources, harmful state and federal regulations, and principal preparation. These leaders also explained the physical and emotional toll they experienced as a result of facing this resistance.
Historically, principals served as disciplinarians and the teachers' boss. Under current federal legislation, principals now must accept the responsibility to manage personnel, funds, and strategic planning. Today's principals also must accept responsibilities associated with being their schools' instructional leaders. As instructional leaders, principals maintain the responsibility for the learning of all students, including students with disabilities. This role becomes magnified in rural school systems that typically experience high rates of special education teacher attrition and educate a large percentage of students with disabilities. For these reasons, today's principal preparation programs need to reconsider and reconstruct philosophies and practices. In this article, the author discusses principals'contemporary responsibilities and provides suggestions for principal preparation programs to better prepare principals for today's roles and responsibilities of being the instructional leaders for students with disabilities.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore theoretical connections between educational leadership for social justice and support for immigration. The authors seek to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for further study and improved practice. Design/methodology/approach This is a theoretical research paper that introduces, evaluates and expands two frameworks for understanding leadership and immigration. Findings Findings suggested that there is a need for educational leadership scholars to more purposefully investigate issues related to social justice and immigration. Originality/value This study offers a novel theoretical perspective on leadership, social justice and immigration.
This chapter describes the third and final stage of a large scale study about the nature and consequences of distributed school leadership. Assuming considerable variation in patterns of distributed leadership in schools, the first stage and aimed to identify those patterns; four distinct patterns were identified and are described in this chapter. The second stage assumed that the four different patterns of distributed leadership would have substantially different associations with one of the school conditions (academic optimism) that compelling recent evidence suggests positively influences student achievement; we found that one of the four patterns (“planful alignment”) did have significant positive associations with academic optimism. As the final stage in our project, the study described in this chapter aimed to determine the extent to which planful alignment, mediated by “academic press” or emphasis, a key condition on the Rational Path, contributes to student achievement in mathematics.
When selected as a pilot redesign site, we decided to both refocus the underlying assumptions guiding our program and to engage in processes allowing us to model best practices while creating a new program. This article summarizes key aspects of our redesign work and offers reflections on the processes used and challenges faced. Murphy's (2006) guiding principles for “fostering the reculturing of preparation programs” serves as our point of reference for conducting this programmatic critique, examining where we were, where we are now, and where we are headed.