The Ironies and Limitations of Socially Just Educational Leadership

• In Event: Mapping Leadership for Social Justice: Innovations, Applications, and Syntheses

Abstract

In this paper, we identified six ironies and limitations of the social justice leadership literature. The meaning of social justice remains in flux. Some authors define it in terms of particular identity groups (e.g., race, class, gender, sexual identity, ability, etc…) or intersectionally. Others define it in terms of practices and outcomes, such as equity or inclusion. We argue that social justice and socially just educational leadership (ELSJ) must hold inclusion as a core tenet. Operating from this understanding, we identified six ironies and limitations of current conceptualizations of ELSJ, each of which we discuss briefly below. The paper concludes with a call to leaders for social justice to reflect on and alter their practice in several fundamental ways.
The first irony emerges within the meaning of inclusive practice. The concept of inclusion is not central in the ELSJ discourse; rather, it remains marginalized, ill-defined and undebated. Furthermore, it is typically applied only to students labeled with disabilities, though the implications of inclusion/integration for students of color, students who are linguistically diverse, students from low income families including those who experience homeless, and students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) are clear.
The second, albeit similar, irony concerns the issue of intersectionality. Scholarship in ELSJ tends to focuses on specific student groups, such as race and social class (O’Malley & Capper, 2012); rather than considering the multiple identities of students (e.g., gender and homelessness, LGBT and race). ELSJ scholars are in a unique position—a position where it is possible to look across student identity and differences and to think broadly about leadership practice and the students leaders serve.
The third irony involves the divisions within the field of ELSJ concerning the issue of achievement. On one side of the argument, scholars argue that achievement matters and should be a core goal in socially just schools. On the other side, ELSJ scholars assert that academic achievement is overemphasized to the detriment of other benefits of schooling. More recent voices in this debate are advocating for high expectations while recognizing that students must be supported to reach such expectations.
A fourth irony and limitation of ELSJ practice is the lack of policy and practice coherence to address inequities. In addition to the sheer number of uncoordinated federal and state policies and initiatives and the lack of focus on inclusion/integration in the majority of policies and initiatives, few educators have sufficient policy fluency to serve as educational advocates.
The fifth and final irony and limitation concerns the overused image of educational leaders who, on their own, can make everything right for all student populations regardless of the challenges put in their path merely by shear will and moral fortitude does little to advance social justice practice. In future scholarship, we hope to learn more about how leaders work with their leadership teams, teachers and communities to collaboratively build inclusive and integrated communities and hold one another responsible for effective practice, positive student experiences, and strong student and community outcomes.

Authors

• Colleen A. Capper, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Michelle D. Young, University Council for Educational Administration