School Reform: Equal Expectations on an Uneven Playing Field

Abstract

Educational reform efforts in the United States have produced little sustainable results. Reformers are quick to impose standards and to label schools and the students they serve. Yet, they rarely acknowledge the serious inequities and inequalities found throughout the educational process. This article seeks to present a more comprehensive view of the collective disparities found in the American educational system, with the idea that “leaving no child behind” requires a serious attempt at leveling the playing field. Inherent in this presentation is the notion that reform efforts that produce real change must begin with public policy that acknowledges and removes the faults and errors of the system.

Leveraging Policy Implementation for Social Justice: How School Leaders Shape Educational Opportunity When Implementing Policy for English Learners

“…Yet the literature also cautions that many school leaders espouse beliefs and articulate a commitment to social justice, but in reality often separate social justice from daily practices that affect students directly (Merchant & Shoho, 2006). Scholars suggest that some of the disconnect between social justice beliefs and actions among school leaders can be attributed to a lack of preservice training focused on preparing school leaders to engage in social justice or equity work (Bell, Jones, & Johnson, 2002; Brown, 2004; Henze, Katz, Norte, & Sather, 2002; Lyman & Villani, 2002; Marshall, 2004; Rapp, 2002; Rusch, 2004). Moreover, school leaders face multiple demands at the school and district level that can make it difficult to focus on social justice work, including “obstructive staff attitudes and beliefs and insular and privileged parental expectations” and “unsupportive central office administrators, a formidable bureaucracy, prosaic colleagues, [and] a lack of resources” (Theoharis, 2007, p. 240).…”

Social Justice Educational Leaders and Resistance: Toward a Theory of Social Justice Leadership

“…A recurring theme from these schools and from the literature on school change is that exemplary leadership helps point to the necessity for change and helps make the realities of change happen (Bell, Jones, & Johnson, 2002;Blackmore, 2002;Bogotch, 2002;Fullan, 1993;Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002;Grogan, 2002aGrogan, , 2002bLyman & Villani, 2002;Rapp, 2002;Riester et al, 2002;Solomon, 2002). A recurring theme from these schools and from the literature on school change is that exemplary leadership helps point to the necessity for change and helps make the realities of change happen (Bell, Jones, & Johnson, 2002;Blackmore, 2002;Bogotch, 2002;Fullan, 1993;Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002;Grogan, 2002aGrogan, , 2002bLyman & Villani, 2002;Rapp, 2002;Riester et al, 2002;Solomon, 2002).…”

Hegemony, Principal Preparation, and the Language of the Oppressor: The Elusive Preparation of Socially Just School Leaders

“…One of the definitions for social justice leadership that has been used in a number of publications since its first use is that of Theoharis (2007) (see Hernandez & Marshall, 2016;Kemp-Graham, 2015;McKenzie et al, 2008;Trujillo & Cooper, 2014). Using the work of Gewirtz (1998); Goldfarb and Grinberg (2002); Bell, Jones, and Johnson (2002); Blackmore (2002); Bogotch (2002); Rapp (2002); and others, Theoharis (2007) offered a definition of social justice leadership. Theoharis (2007) stated, "I define social justice leadership to mean that these principals make issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently marginalized conditions in the United States central to their advocacy, leadership, practice, and vision.…”

“…783. ) The literature around social justice leadership development published in the early 2000s often noted the ways in which social justice, and specifically the preparation of social justice-oriented school leaders, has been marginalized by the traditional training of educational leaders (Bell et al, 2002;Brown, 2004;Dantley, 2002;Jean-Marie et al, 2009;Marshall, 2004;Rapp, 2002;Rusch, 2004;Solomon, 2002). Specifically, Marshall (2004) noted this may have occurred because faculty members in educational administration may not have "knowledge, materials, strategies, rationales, or skills to infuse their curriculum content (e.g., public relations principalship, school finance, school law, interpersonal relations, and so forth) with issues related to poverty, language minority, special needs, gender, race, and sexuality, for example" (p. 4).…”