PurposeThis article explores the connection between Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) and Positive School Leadership (PSL) and how both engage with a concept that deeply connects both leadership expressions – trust.Design/methodology/approachA multi-year, single site case study method examined a district-level equity leader, and her struggles and successes with promoting equity and positive culture throughout a large suburban district in the US.FindingsTrust, established through regular interactions, allowed the district's leadership equity team to build positive relationships with building leaders. Trust was not only a mitigating factor on the relationships themselves, but also regulated the extent to which equitable practices were discussed and implemented in the district. Trust allowed conflicts to surface and be addressed that led to individual and organizational change.Research limitations/implicationsThe case highlights the importance of both CRSL and PSL principals, along with the idea of “soft power” in cultural change, to foster equity in schools. Established trust does not erase the difficulties of enacting CRSL/PSL, but allows the difficulties to be addressed. The authors found that dynamic, iterative, regular interactions over a long period reinforced trust allowed CRPSL to take root in the district.Originality/valueThe authors use a single subject case to argue that the core of empirical work moving forward should draw on an integration of culturally responsive leadership.

No abstract

This article presents a grounded model of how educators earn students’ trust in a high performing U.S. urban high school. This long-term anthropological project set out to understand the beliefs and practices of experienced teachers and staff members nominated by students as helping them feel like they belonged in school. Analysis of study data revealed a process of mutual discernment whereby adults and young people were reading one another as they explored the possibilities of entering into learning partnerships. For the educators, study data led us to infer that their trust building strategies were largely based on imagining the student discernment process, and responding to a set of unspoken queries about them that, over time, they seem to have learned were often on the minds of students (e.g. “Why are they here?” “How much do they respect me?”). The grounded model and practice-based evidence presented here summarize the strategies and approaches educators used to respond to these unspoken queries and communicate to students various aspects of their selves and their stance, including their motivation, empathy and respect for students, self-awareness and credibility, their professional ability, and finally, their commitment to helping students and investing emotional labor in them. Throughout, data are also presented regarding how students perceived and experienced these strategies, and ultimately how they interpreted and appraised their relationships with educators, as trusting relationships were developed.