Str u ggling f o r Democr acy · what they can to w o rk fo r inclusion, equity and social justice in local and global communities (Br own, 2004; Gale and Densmor e, 2003; K arpinski

473

Struggling for DemocracyAdministrative Communication in a Diverse School Context

James Ryan and Cindy Rottmann

A B S T R A C T

This article describes a study that explores efforts to promote democratic practice in adiverse school context. More specifically, it documents administrative endeavors toinclude members of the school community—teachers, parents and students—in thevarious school processes by encouraging inclusive communicative practices. Thefindings of the study indicate that administrators attempt to achieve such ends byestablishing relationships with members of their school community that will enabledialogue. They do their best to display their caring natures, vulnerability and senses ofhumor. They also make themselves visible and approachable, work on greeting people,understanding them and dismantling the hierarchies that exclude people. In the end,however, their efforts fail to foster meaningful democratic and inclusive practices.Administrators in the study end up bypassing democratic options and drawing on thehierarchical power associated with the bureaucratic system in which they work inorder to ensure that the school will be able to attract students in the quasi-marketsystem in which it operates.

K E Y W O R D S democracy, education, leadership, principals, social justice

Introduction

Over the last couple of decades, democratic ideas have found their way into thediscourses of education leadership. At present, they surface regularly in policy-related documents, academic scholarship and in the actual practices of educa-tors. Those who favor them do so because they believe that they represent animportant antidote to the cumbersome, dysfunctional and inequitable bureau-cratic sensibilities that have dominated educational organizations for some timenow. Advocates of democratic approaches to leadership feel that giving thosewithin organizations who are most affected by organization policies and prac-tices—such as teachers, parents and students—the opportunity to determinethe course of events at the local level will allow schools to work in the inter-ests of everyone. Unfortunately, putting these democratic ideas into practiceis never a straightforward matter. This is because our increasingly diverse

Educational Management Administration & LeadershipISSN 1741-1432 DOI: 10.1177/1741143209334579

SAGE Publications (London, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)Copyright © 2009 BELMAS Vol 37(4) 473–496; 334579

A RT I C L E

educational organizations continue to revolve around deeply entrenched hier-archical relationships that work against such practices. More than this, though,recent market-based initiatives, despite their democratic intentions, alsocomplicate these efforts. Even the most committed will be challenged to estab-lish meaningful democratic practices in such contexts. Questions remain,however, about how senior school administrators or managers who favor demo-cratic practices are able to promote them in the hierarchical and market struc-tures within which they work. This article examines this issue. It describes astudy that explores efforts to include members of the school community—teachers, parents and students—in the various school processes. More specifi-cally, the study documents administrative efforts to promote inclusivecommunicative practices in a diverse school that operates, like so many others,in a bureaucratically organized school system that is sympathetic to marketendeavors.

Democratic Leadership and Governance

One way to understand the concept and practice of leadership is as a formof governance (Woods, 2004). Regardless of orientation, scholars and practi-tioners employ the term ‘leadership’ to refer to a particular way in which lifein institutions is, or should be, organized. Leadership, however, did notalways figure as prominently in the language of organizational governance asit does today. Until recently, other monikers such as management or admin-istration were more closely associated with governance strategies thatrevolved around more-or-less explicit efforts of a select few to control whathappened in organizations. In these contexts, particular individuals—managers or administrators—sought to use their power to coordinate othermembers in ways that the former felt would best achieve organizational goals.This power, however, was not exclusively associated with individual people.Rather, it was also derived from the manner in which these institutions wereorganized. That is, the hierarchical manner in which these entities were setup endowed those who occupied administrative positions with power that wasdenied to others in subordinate positions. Over the years, the academic liter-ature was also implicated in these arrangements. Scholarship in educationaladministration, for example, circulated a discourse that implicitly endorsedthese arrangements while promising to give administrators the means tocontrol the future of their organizations (Bates, 1980; Greenfield and Ribbins,1993; Ryan, 1988, 1999b).

More recently, dissatisfaction with these managerial models and relatedbureaucratic arrangements has prompted a move away from them. Those whoreject the former arrangements feel that the educational bureaucracies thatdelivered mass education and industrial efficiency over the years are outmodedand inefficient (Gale and Densmore, 2003). In their place, they envision different kinds of school organizations—organizations that are ‘led’ rather than

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(4)

474

‘managed’. While there are many different views of leadership, most draw adistinction between leading and managing, seeing leadership as a practice thatestablishes relationships in organizations capable of exorcising the rigid andimpersonal hierarchies that characterize managed bureaucracies (Bush, 2008;Harris, 2004). Some leadership practices go further than others in this respect,openly promoting inclusion and empowerment of organization members.Versions of participative, distributive and teacher leadership approaches, forexample, seek to involve members of school organizations, particularly thosenot normally included, in decision-making processes (Blase and Blase, 1997;Glickman et al., 1994; Gronn, 2002; Lieberman and Miller 2004; Pounder et al.,1995; Spillane, 2006; Spillane et al., 2001). Other approaches go even further.Proponents of various forms of democratic, social justice and inclusive leader-ship recognize the deep-seated nature of exclusion and oppression, seek to craftleadership practices that move beyond participation in decision-making, and dowhat they can to work for inclusion, equity and social justice in local and globalcommunities (Brown, 2004; Gale and Densmore, 2003; Karpinski and Lugg,2006; Ryan, 2003, 2006a, 2006b; Ryan and Rottmann, 2007; Woods, 2004, 2005;Theoharis, 2007).

Democratic leadership approaches draw on various ideas of democracy. Justas there are many versions of democratic leadership, so too are there a multi-tude of views of democracy. Indeed democracy is very much a contestedconcept and practice. Generally speaking, the Western world sees democracyin a positive light. The version with which many Westerners identify is one thatviews democracy as a political system where all citizens can vote for represen-tatives who make decisions for everyone. But this is just one view, and not onethat is universally accepted. The problem with this version of democracy is thatit cannot guarantee that everyone, particularly the already-disenfranchised,will have a voice in governance decisions, nor can it ensure that that the inter-ests of everyone will be equitably served. Not all those affected by decisionswill have had the opportunity to influence the outcome of the decision-makingprocess (Young, 2000). The view of democracy that we endorse here movesbeyond republican majority rule arrangements to one that equitably includeseveryone in decisions that affect them. It does not just, as Touraine (1997)contends, institutionalize majority rule, but also ensures the individual andcollective right to identify with various social, national or religious collectivi-ties.

Democratic practice and democratic leadership, however, do not come natu-rally or easily, particularly in hierarchical and bureaucratic contexts. Despitethe contemporary rhetoric that favors flat structures, rule making and empow-erment over bureaucratic rule following and hierarchical arrangements, thelatter continue to persist, particularly in decision situations that involve themost substantive and critical issues (Gale and Densmore, 2003). This has ledsome scholars to characterize the term, democratic leadership, as a contradic-tion in terms (Riley, 2003) and an oxymoron (Starrat, 2001). These and other

Ryan & Rottmann: Struggling for Democracy

475

scholars continue to wonder whether the relationships that accompany thesekinds of leadership practices will actually cut through the hierarchical arrange-ments and bureaucratic environments in which they occur. They see the ideaand practice of leadership—or at least some versions of it—as just another wayof controlling what happens in organizations. Foster (1989), for example,contends that leadership, like management, is subservient to the needs of thecurrent system. He notes that it has been hollowed out, chewed up and swal-lowed down by the requirements of contemporary bureaucracy. Anderson(1998), on the other hand, is skeptical of inclusive rhetoric, citing in particularits conserving nature. He contends that the discourse of participation tends tobe absorbed into a managerial bias that advances the supposedly neutral andagreed-upon purposes of the organization; in most leadership models, partici-pation is not used to create or challenge goals, but to incorporate members intoexisting ones. Both of these scholars contend that instituting meaningful demo-cratic and inclusive practices in schools will continue to be difficult becausemany of these efforts are superficial. Many of these practices end up maskingmore subtle controlling practices and marginalizing already-disenfranchisedgroups.

Ironically, democratic school structures designed specifically to includealready-marginalized members of the school community can actually excludethem (Anderson, 1998). This occurs regularly in fora that favor middle-classparent groups and professional educators (Hatcher et al., 1996; Lewis andNakagawa, 1995; Ryan, 2006a). For example, minoritized groups often find itdifficult to influence the course of events in structures like school councils thatare set up specifically to include parents in school decision-making (Dehli,1994; Delgato-Gaitan, 1991). Not only are disenfranchised groups reluctant toparticipate in these councils (Hatche et al., 1996), but they also have difficultypenetrating the unique discourse and procedures associated with formalmeetings (Dehli, 1994; Fine, 1993). On the other hand, middle-class parents areable to use their resources and familiarity with the system to capture thesedemocratic structures and use them to advocate for their children (Anderson,1998; Apple, 2006). Professional educators also have advantages. Their uniqueaccess to information, positional power and their ability to employ abstractlanguage enable them to smother or exclude individuals and initiatives that donot meet with their approval (Malen and Ogawa, 1992; Ryan, 2006a). Thisresearch illustrates that even when those without power are given the oppor-tunity to participate in decision-making processes, deeply embedded inequali-ties prevent them from doing so. Marginalized groups continue to be excludedeven when systems are introduced to include them.

Democratic practice in education is also complicated by market-orientedpractices, even though the latter are actually designed to promote the former.These market approaches revolve around choice. In such arrangements,parents and students have the opportunity to choose from a variety of educa-tional alternatives. This contrasts with traditional bureaucratic education


476

conventions that restrict educational options for students and parents. Proponents find market practices attractive because they believe that they willbenefit both the educational consumer and the system. In these arrangements,parents and students can decide what is best for them, and in doing so, makeit possible for the best options to continue to be available. In the end, propo-nents believe that market practices can accomplish democratic ends by extend-ing to parents choices over elements of their children’s education that theynever had before. More than this, though, advocates also believe that such prac-tices can increase the competitive edge necessary to survive in the globalmarket place, displacing in the process, ponderous bureaucratic structures thatare incapable of responding effectively to changing economic and socialcontexts (Chubb and Moe, 1990). In this vision, quasi-market practices make itpossible for education to become not just more democratic, but also more efficient; rigid hierarchies fall by the wayside as school systems effectively copewith a rapidly changing environment. But like other practices geared topromote democracy in education, quasi-markets fail to generate more inclusivepractices. This is because they are actually not democratic, at least not in thesense that everyone has an equal opportunity to exercise choice. Research illus-trates that already privileged parents are the ones who end up exercisingchoice, while marginalized students and their parents are unable to take advan-tage of these opportunities in ways that benefit them (Apple, 2006; Gillborn andYoudell, 2000). The other illusion is that the hierarchies associated with bureau-cratic organizations will dissipate as markets flourish. This has not occurred,however, and these hierarchies continue to flourish. More than this, though,these regulatory organizational structures are placed increasingly in the serviceof the market.

The relationship between bureaucracies and markets continues to evolve inambiguous ways. Even though proponents decry that market practices areuniquely equipped to promote democratic practice in schools, in part by coun-teracting the dysfunctional properties of bureaucracies, they often overlook therecent tendency of these two structures to work together. This phenomenon isoccurring in educational institutions, just as it is in other sectors. Schoolsystems are increasingly employing the bureaucratic hierarchies at theirdisposal to support quasi-market practices. Although not as obvious, the statecontinues to be a significant player in education (Gale and Densmore, 2003),particularly in situations where market practices are favored. State legislationsin many Western countries have been willing in recent years to exercise theirlegal power to enforce particular orders within schools and school systems thatcomplement or foster market practices. In fact, the market now depends morethan ever on regulatory systems to provide conditions that allow it to maintainitself and to expand (Apple, 2006; Olssen, 1997). These control mechanismswork in at least two ways. The first is as a system for generating performanceindicators (Apple, 2006). Centralized state reporting requirements, accountkeeping procedures, national curriculum documents, and testing regimes


477

ensure that the public is appraised of the supposed efficiency and effectivenessof schools so that individual schools will be able to enhance their relativeposition in local competitive systems and parents will have the knowledge tomake the right choices about their children’s schooling. The other way in whichcontrol mechanisms come into play is at the local school level. In order tomaintain a level of competitiveness, individual schools will have to project animage that will attract a certain clientele, that is, ‘motivated’ parents with ‘able’children (Apple, 2006). Developing such an image may require the establish-ment and enforcement of bureaucratic norms that override efforts to promotedemocracy and inclusion.

Given the current regulatory context and preoccupation with the market, itwill not be easy to introduce, promote or sustain democratic practice in schools.The increasing presence of toothless democratic practices, quasi-markets andcentralized regulation works against efforts to meaningfully include allmembers of school communities in its various practices. Questions remain,however, about how these systems play themselves out in schools that actuallyfavor democratic practice. Are democratic-minded administrators able to instilldemocratic practices in their schools in spite of these regulatory systems? Ifthey are, how do they do it? The study described in this article examines theefforts of a democratically minded administrative staff of a diverse school to getaround the deeply entrenched and exclusive hierarchies in their institution,and at the same time promote market practices, and include teachers, studentsand parents in school operations. It looks at how the principal/headteacher andher administrative staff attempt to employ inclusive communication practicesand promote wider forms of inclusion in a system that favors market practicesand revolves around hierarchies typical of many bureaucratic school systemsin the Western world.

Democratic Leadership and Inclusive Communication

Democracy is a contested term. Even so, most concepts of democracy revolvearound the idea that people ought to be able to shape the institutions, cultureand relationships of which they are a part (Woods, 2004). For this to happen, atleast two things must occur—people must be included in decisions that affectthem and they must be able to communicate effectively with one another.Meaningful inclusion in this sense will only be achieved when everyone is ableto influence the outcome of the decisions. One approach to democracy—delib-erative democracy—maintains that the latter will occur only when people candeliberate over the options before them (Young, 2000). Ideally, legitimatedemocracy will be realized when participants cooperate with their fellows,reach beyond their unique interests and perspectives, and recognize and under-stand others’ different points view (Woods, 2004). Communication plays animportant part in this process. Meaningful discussion can only occur whenpeople can effectively communicate with one another. Ideally, the right kind


478

of communication practices can help people come to understandings acrossdifferences and work together to shape the institutions in which they live andwork (Burbules, 1993; Young, 2000).

Needless to say communication presents many challenges for diverse schoolsettings (Ryan, 2007). Members of diverse school communities, includingadministrators, will not always find it easy to communicate with those whosecultural backgrounds and life experiences differ from their own. The mostobvious obstacle will be the many language differences. But problems withcommunication go beyond language. They also extend to differences in world-views and values, and to the differences in power that accompany diversity. Itwill not always be easy for administrators to understand others who see theworld in different ways, help them participate fully in communication practicesand in school activities, and also ensure that educational policies are carriedout. School administrators will be especially challenged because of the natureof their responsibilities, the range of people with whom they must communi-cate, and the many ways in which they differ from members of their schoolcommunities. They will also have to deal with the entrenched hierarchies. Butif schools are to work towards democratic practice, then administrators willhave to deal with these challenges. They will have to find ways to communi-cate across these differences, and they will also have to help others do the same.

This study explores the attempts of the administration of a diverse school topromote inclusive communication practices. The democratically minded prin-cipal of this school and her fellow administrators do their best to includemembers of the school community in communications, and through thesecommunications, in the various school processes. While they have yet to insti-tute a comprehensive form of deliberative democracy, they nevertheless seetheir actions as a stepping-stone towards this end. In this regard, they see them-selves moving—however slowly—toward a form of collective leadership (Ryan,2006; Woods, 2004) that transcends a view of leadership that is associated exclusively with individual administrators.

The Study

This study was part of a larger study that explored the communication prac-tices of principals of diverse schools. It consisted of two parts. The firstincluded interviews with 30 principals. The second segment involved casestudies. This article focuses on one of the case studies—City Secondary School(a pseudonym). This school was chosen as a site for one of the case studiesafter the initial round of interviews. We selected Jean (a pseudonym), theprincipal, and her school on the basis of what we perceived to be Jean’scommitment to inclusion and democracy, her promising communicationstrategies, and the diverse community in which the school was located. Themethods consisted of interviews with Jean, ten teachers and ten parents,conducted in the 2004/5 school year. These were carried out by two


479

researchers who questioned research participants about administrativecommunication practices, consistent with the principal aim of the data collec-tion. Teachers were selected on the basis of their availability, their willingnessto talk to us, and the frequency of their contact with the administration. As itturned out, we interviewed mostly teachers who had some administrativeresponsibility. We chose them because we believed that they would have themost to say about administrative communication. We spoke with them in class-rooms after the school day or when they had breaks during the day. The prin-cipal recommended the parents whom we interviewed. For the most part, theywere people that Jean knew and would have something to say about the wayin which the school and the administration communicated. Interviews werecarried out in the school and parents’ homes.

Initially we asked teachers and parents about how Jean communicated withher various constituencies. However, as time went by, we realized that weneeded to explore not just Jean’s communication practices, but also those ofher fellow administrators because of the way in which Jean approached herjob—she tended to share responsibilities with her veteran female and twonovice male vice principals. Also, when teachers and parents spoke of commu-nicating with the administration, they referred to the vice-principals as well.While Jean was prominent in the talk of the participants, so were her fellowadministrators. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. They wereanalyzed with the assistance of computer software, in particular, N6. Using theconstant comparative method (Glasser and Strauss, 1976), we identified anumber of communication themes. We eventually picked out four prominentones—inclusion strategies, efforts at understanding, reducing hierarchies, andcontrol—and organized the data in this article around them.

Re-imaging City Secondary School

City Secondary School is located in a large and diverse North American city.The city has been diverse for some time now, a preferred destination for immi-grants for many years. In the more distant past, most of these immigrantsemigrated from Western Europe. More recently—within the past 30 years orso—the numbers of Western European immigrants have declined, while thosefrom other parts of the world have increased. The community that surroundsCity Secondary has become home to many of these newer immigrants. One ofthe unique characteristics of this community is that its population is fluid—families tend to move in and out on a regular basis. Despite this transience, thecommunity continues to display a high degree of ethnic diversity. At one pointa school survey revealed that its approximately 1400 students spoke 67languages and they or their parents were born in 49 different countries. At thetime of the study the largest group had emigrated from an eastern Europeanregion, their emigration prompted by circumstances in the area.1 The nextlargest groups hail from Pacific-rim countries, such as Korea, Vietnam, Laos and


480

the Philippines. The school also caters to significant numbers of South Asian,Iranian, Central European and Caribbean students. Anglo-Saxon studentsconstitute one of the smallest groups in the school. The diversity in the commu-nity is not just ethnic, however. The community is home to both well-off andpoor families. It is not unusual for some students to come to school withoutlunches because they cannot afford them.

City Secondary School is part of a public system of education, and as such,is subject to three levels of government. The first resides at the provincial levelwhere policies and regulations are formulated for all public school districts inthe province. The second form of governance occurs at the district level; hereelected local trustees make decisions on various issues. Recently, however theirpower has been reduced. For example, local school districts no longer have thediscretion to regulate local school taxes and they continue to be subject togreater provincial control over curricula and testing. The final level of gover-nance occurs at the school level. While City Secondary has a school council, itdoes not function like a governing board. It has no formal authority, and fewparents participate. City Secondary is not yet at a point where it relies on demo-cratic governance procedures. Instead, like many other schools in the area,local decisions are made by the administration, often the principal, who willconsult, when appropriate, with other members of the school community. Theschool is early in its journey toward democratic governance, concentratingprincipally at this time on its inclusive communication efforts.

City Secondary serves a particular community. While the community hasboundaries, they are permeable. The school allows students—those whoqualify—from outside its catchment area, to attend if they wish to take uniqueprograms that it offers. Efforts to attract these students came about as the schoolattempted to change its public image so that it could turn around the declinein student enrolment. Not so long ago, City Secondary had a poor reputation inthe community. Jean, the principal, says that when she first arrived on thescene seven years ago, it was a ‘composite school with a high technical popu-lation [students who take non-academic programs]’. The neighborhood had theimpression, not completely warranted according to Jean, that it was a ‘scaryplace’. She says that the students were ‘quite needy but quite nice’. One of thefirst things Jean attempted to do was to ‘re-image’ the school. With input fromthe school community, she set about to do two things. The first was to developnew programs. In time, the demand for the new Athletic, Arts, Science and Co-op2 programs would attract students from outside its catchment area. The otherthing that Jean did was to promote an atmosphere of caring and respect. Shesays:

I’ve been here seven years; this is the start of the eighth. And I would say just inthe last couple of years, you’ve started to see people wanting to come to CitySecondary and us not having space for that. And it would be for special programs.We’d be known for special programs, but more importantly, I think we’d be knownfor care. I think that would be the biggest thing we’d be known for.


481

Parents and teachers also make reference to the school’s turnaround.Marilyn, a parent, contends that in the past community impressions of theschool were negative. Now she says:

There’s so many wonderful programs here. Our kids have raised the bar. And Ibelieve that’s been a direct result of the administration here and the leader. I thinkthey’ve communicated to these kids ‘Be the best you can be’ and it’s really provenit out with the awards they’ve won, with the programs that have been allowed todevelop in this school, specifically. And now . . . kids go ‘Hey, I get to go to CitySecondary now.’ And I mean that’s a real positive.

This transformation has come about in conjunction with the school’s effortsto communicate with its diverse constituents.

Inclusive Strategies

City Secondary values inclusion. It recognizes the importance of including allits community members and their perspectives in school activities. Theseinclusive efforts are closely associated with communication, and in particular,dialogue. Jean and her fellow administrators do their best to include students,parents and teachers in dialogue. Towards this end, they look to establish rela-tionships with members of their school community that will enable dialogue.In this regard, they do their best to display their caring natures, vulnerabilityand senses of humor. They also make themselves visible and approachable,work on greeting people, understanding them and dismantling the hierarchiesthat exclude people. Their hope is that these tactics will make it possible forstudents, teachers and parents to become meaningfully included in conversa-tions and in the key educational activities.

Jean devotes considerable time and effort to establishing relationships thatwill enable people to become involved in dialogue. She maintains that ‘the reallybig thing [is] relationships’. Jean feels that these relationships ought to display anumber of qualities, the most important of which is compassion. She tells thestory of taking advantage of a university-sponsored seminar to talk about puttingin place ‘solid, caring, positive relationships’. When Jean and the teachers shetook to this seminar returned to the school they looked for ways in which theycould emphasize these caring relationships. As part of her efforts to entrenchthese kinds of relationships in the school community, Jean models them in herinteractions with others. Many of the participants speak of her compassion forstudents. One parent tells a story about Jean spending the night at the policestation with a student. Another remembers the time when Jean provided herwith support when her son was sick and she was penniless. But Jean also recog-nizes that she needs to show the same compassion for teachers. Jean and herfellow administrators work on these relationships in ways that are designed toinclude members of the school community. They ensure that they are visible,approachable and that they take time to greet students, teachers and parents.


482

The administrators at City Secondary go out of their way to make themselvesvisible and approachable. They accomplish this, in part, in the way they greetmembers of their school community. The general feeling in the school commu-nity about the administrators is that they are approachable and easy to talk to.In order to accomplish this, Jean and her vice-principals make a point of beingvisible. One parent observes that she ‘is visible and there. I think that’s whatreally makes it work for the students. She is there, morning, noon, and night.And the students know that, and I know that. And her visibility makes herapproachable.’ Part of Jean’s strategy for making herself accessible is to makesure that she is in places where people can see her. But she does more thanjust stand around at these times; she also interacts with everyone she encoun-ters in ways designed to make others comfortable. She says, ‘we do use compli-ments a lot and we do make a point of trying to speak to everybody that werun into as often as possible’.

The administrators employ other tactics to make members of the schoolcommunity feel comfortable enough to become involved in school activities.They attempt to make themselves vulnerable in their communications andthey use humor. One way in which they make themselves vulnerable is to tellstories about themselves. Jean does this on occasion, revealing a bit of herselfto others in the process, and the problems and life dilemmas that she has incommon with others. Three of the four administrators also use humor to makeothers feel comfortable. While Jean says she employs humor, others maintainthat she does not. One teacher says ‘both male administrators use a lot ofhumor, even though they’re very cautious about not to use any humor that maynot be politically correct. And the two female administrators do not use humorat all.’ At times, the two male administrators use humor to reveal their vulner-ability. Not all members of staff members appreciate their approach to humor,however.

These inclusive strategies go hand-in-hand with other measures that aredirected at more specific outcomes—understanding others and reducing hierarchies.

Understanding Others

Jean and her fellow administrators take a number of steps to understand andto make themselves understood to members of their diverse community. Theyemploy the services of translators, seek to gather knowledge of communitygroups, engage in dialogue with them, and take care to adjust their language tosuit their fellow communicants. Their hope is that communication with thevarious constituents in the community will facilitate their inclusion.

The administration is aware of the challenges of communicating with themany community members who do not speak English. Recognizing the impor-tance of school–parent interaction, they make use of translators to ensure thatthe different parties understand one another. These translators are employed


483

more for face-to-face interaction than for documents or one-way transmissions.Even so, City Secondary makes use of volunteers to translate school documents.This volunteer project is just in its infancy, however, and most school docu-ments are still in English, such as the school newsletters and report cards. Onthe other hand, the school provides translators for most situations whereparents and teachers or administrators meet. These situations may includeparent meetings with administrators or teacher–parent nights.

Administrator efforts to understand and make themselves understood gobeyond providing translation services. The administration also seeks to acquireknowledge of the various community groups so that they can better understandtheir respective perspectives. Jean, for example, acknowledges that understand-ing others is a key to being able to communicate with them. She takes the timeto learn about the various groups in her community and uses this knowledgewhen interacting with them. Jean employs this knowledge in two ways. Thefirst is to adapt her language so that all parties in the communication exchangecan understand what the other is attempting to convey. Her awareness of othercultures and others’ situations helps her understand what kinds of statementsstudents or their parents do not comprehend, and what expressions are appro-priate. She is particularly sensitive to students who do not speak English astheir first language. In her conversations with them, she avoids sarcasm andcolloquial expressions and checks to make sure that students understand whatshe is saying to them. Jean says:

Kids don’t understand sarcasm, they don’t understand some expressions, particu-larly ESL [English as a Second Language] students don’t have a clue. Their formerprincipal used expressions a lot and he said to one student one day—the studenthad caused a fight but not participated in it—’Son, if you’re in for a nickel, you’rein for a dime.’ And the ESL student reached in his pocket and gave him 15 cents,because he had no idea what he was trying to say but he thought that somehow 15cents was going to solve it. Because he knew nickels and dimes, that’s all he knew.So you have to be careful when you talk with students that you don’t use an analogyor an expression that they will take quite literally and not understand at all whatyou’re saying. And I always, I’m very conscious of words that I use, so if I use aword, I’ll say to them ‘Do you know what that word means or should I pick a different word?’ Instead of them having to admit that they don’t understand, theymight just say ‘Well maybe a different word‘ or something like that, and I’ll re-explain. You can usually tell by their eyes that uh-uh, I’ve used a word that’s toocomplicated or that’s not a familiar word to some students.

Jean also employs her knowledge of community groups to grasp the signifi-cance and consequences of what others may be saying, and in light of thisunderstanding, adjust what she says. This applies to her interactions withparents and students. Jean says:

You really need to understand the culture. And there are some cultures where youknow that if you call home with a concern, the student could be severely disciplinedand physically disciplined. Because that is the way of the culture. So to get at that


484

difficulty there are other ways of being able to handle that, and to temper whatyou’re saying with some praise and some compliments and to try and work throughthat, so the student is always safe.

In their efforts to clarify the meanings of communicants’ messages, admin-istrators employ translators, seek to gain knowledge of the various communitygroups, and dialogue with them. Parents and teachers indicate that they arepleased with translation efforts in the face-to-face interaction. But parents alsowish they had access to more textual information—presumably in their ownlanguage—about the school. Parents and teachers say little about the role ofstudents in translation, even though it is apparent that the school relies on themto translate documents that go home—when they do arrive—and to translatefor other students whose English is poor. The school offers English as a SecondLanguage service, but recent financial cut-backs limit what it can do to helpstudents whose first language is not English.

Another communication strategy involves gathering information about thegroups with whom administrators communicate. The hope is that this knowl-edge will enable them to understand others’ perspectives and the significanceof the latter’s message so that they can adjust how they respond in communi-cation situations. Dialogue appears to be the preferred mode for accomplishingthese ends. In two-way exchanges characteristic of dialogue, partners candirectly ask each other about various meanings and understandings. In thepassage above, Jean directly asks the student if he understands what she issaying and whether she has understood him. She feels that her knowledge ofstudents allows her to read both verbal and non-verbal cues in order to ascer-tain whether she and her conversation partner have understood one another.But while knowledge of particular groups may lead to common understandingsin communication situations, common understandings achieved in dialoguecan in turn also lead conversely to a more complete knowledge of these groups.Jean uses these dialogues as a strategy to gain a greater appreciation of theperspectives of the various groups in her school community and include themin school activities.

Reducing Hierarchies

Jean and her fellow administrators do their best to reduce the hierarchieswithin the school because they believe that they can work against inclusion.Participants in the study acknowledged the efforts of the administration toreduce hierarchies. Jean says little about the issue of hierarchy. It is theteachers and parents who bring this topic up. They contend that Jean hasfostered an atmosphere that is less hierarchical than many have experiencedin other schools and with other administrators. John, a teacher, contends that‘the administrators try very hard to be on the same level with the staff, especially teachers, in general. So I don’t think there is a threat because of their


485

status or because of their position.’ Marie, another teacher, feels that theabsence of traditional hierarchical relationships with the administration makesit is easier to communicate with them:

I think it’s easier in the sense that we feel more equal, you know, the system is not,it’s easier to communicate with the administrators now. I mean, a first year orsecond year teacher doesn’t think twice about calling anybody by their first nameor walking right into the principal’s office and you know, explaining what they feelor what they need. So in that sense it has become easier because people feel thatthey have, I guess, the right or the ability to communicate, and they should commu-nicate how they feel in the work force. So in the sense that it’s less, I guess, whatam I am trying to say is that there is less hierarchy, yes, so it’s less hierarchical.

Marie goes on to attribute this relative equality to gender. She feels that thepresence of more female administrators has made this possible. She says thatthe reason there is less hierarchy is:

because a lot of very paternalistic figures, particularly males, have left the system.And so with more females in roles of authority, that has become easier. And alsothe male administrators have been, have taken professional development andcommunications have been a focus of the system.

The administrators at City Secondary do their best to reduce hierarchies.Their attempts, however, are only partially successful, as we illustrate in thenext section. The administration is also preoccupied with controlling what goeson in the school, and as a consequence, relies on the power bequeathed it inthe entrenched hierarchy to achieve this end.

Pursuing Control

Communication practices play an important role in control at City Secondary.Administrators employ all modes of communication in their efforts to ensurethat schooling proceeds in an orderly fashion. They circulate written docu-ments, such as newsletters, posters, signs, memos, surveys, and report cards,employ technological devices such as computers, the phone and the publicannouncement (PA) system, and rely on face-to-face authoritative and dialogi-cal approaches to ensure this control. The picture that emerges in the data isof administrators—in particular, Jean, the principal—who are friendly, open,easy to approach and talk to, but who also use their personal skills, institutionalpower and relationships with members of the school community to enforce aparticular order. For example, even though she maintains that her daily lunchhour walkabout is ‘not so much supervision’ as ‘establishing a relationship withstudents’, Jean is nevertheless doing both at the same time, using her positionto ensure that students are conducting themselves appropriately.

Hierarchies can facilitate control. But they are generally antithetical to inclu-sion and meaningful dialogue. Jean and her fellow administrators recognize


486

this, and they take measures to reduce these hierarchies. However, they onlyachieve limited success in their endeavors. This is because hierarchy is builtinto the system in which they work, and much of their work occurs within thishierarchy. The administrators, after all, are agents of the system, responsiblefor ensuring that its mandates are carried out. Moreover, they also take advan-tage of these hierarchies—particularly the positional hierarchy that providesthem with a measure of power—to control what happens in the school. Theambiguity of reducing, and at the same time, retaining hierarchy is recognizedby members of the school community. Regina, for example, a teacher, says:

. . . the positions are not hierarchical, but they are. So in some ways I am reporting.In other ways I have to talk as an equal. And sometimes you have administratorswho have less experience than you have yourself. And we’re fortunate because inthe case of one of our administrators that is a year and a half as a vice principal andhe’s also young and very mild mannered. He’s very conscious of what he knowsand what he doesn’t know and when we can be helpful. So you know, with him I’vebeen able to work as a team.

Regina’s comments speak to the complexity of the relationships that she haswith administrators. On the one hand, she appreciates the efforts of adminis-trators to make themselves accessible by downplaying hierarchies. On theother hand, she acknowledges her status as an employee, and in that capacity,recognizes that she has to report to them. Complicating all of this is the back-ground, experience and personality of the individual administrators. Reginarecognizes that power is not tied exclusively to the position of the administra-tor, but is always associated with other elements that are valued in this insti-tutional context, like experience. What comes through in many comments,however, is that the position of the administrators, in particular the principal,is sufficient to alter teacher behavior, particularly in view of the fact thatadministrators are no longer part of the teacher union. Ginny, a teacher, main-tains that:

I’ll be perfect honest, they’re [administrators] not part of my union any more. AndI wouldn’t trash [the Premier of the province] in front of Jean, for example. I justdon’t think that’s a politically wise thing to do. I mean, I don’t know what they feelabout [the Premier]. I mean, it’s just, this is the boss, there is that sense, we knowwho the boss is. And there are some that are friendlier, and not friendly. There arejust certain topics. You might sit around the lunch table talking about . . . adminis-trative policy or . . . education policy in a different way with a group of colleagues,but as soon as an administrator sits down, I tone it down. I actually rarely talk aboutit because there’s not much left to say actually. That’s really why I don’t talk aboutit. But I do think you have to watch the register around an administrator. I thinkwe’re all aware of that. There is a different level of communication between staffand I do think that’s natural anywhere. That there’s certain topics you just edit.

In some ways the relationship between administrators and others is ambigu-ous, but in other ways it is not. While members of the school community might


487

appreciate the way in which Jean communicates with them, the intent of thiscommunication is clear. Cathy, a teacher, contends that:

There are very clear expectations that the principal has and she’s put several thingsinto place. She tells the new teachers what she wants from you, the teacher. I thinkit probably focuses around the people, the code of behavior and the school plan thatthere are very clear guidelines for students to follow. I think it’s helped a lot havingthat clarity—that things are spelled out. But Jean, having no agendas, you don’t haveto hunt to find the thing you want to say to the students. And I think that’s a directresult of the principal wanting it this way.

Teachers are under no illusions that they are to pay attention to Jean’s expec-tations, which they maintain, she clearly spells out to them. They do appreci-ate the direct way in which she does this, however. Jean understands the valueof being open and direct in these kinds of situations in others. She says ‘I amquite direct . . . if somebody is really wrong, or they’re really out of control, Imay have to be quite direct with them.’ At one point she was forced to confronta teacher who acted in ways that she did not favor. In that case she told theteacher, ‘This is not like you, this is not the Joe Blo I know of you. So I’ll assumeyou were having a bad day and that this isn’t going to continue. And hopefullywe won’t have to talk about this again.’

A key issue for Jean is student behavior and she uses a number of commu-nication strategies to ensure that students conduct themselves appropriately.As part of the re-imaging campaign, which in turn is geared to make the schoolmore attractive to potential students in the quasi-market in which it operates,the principal and a number of teachers developed a new behavior code forstudents, referred to above. In their attempt to set a positive tone for the school,they designed a set of guidelines, promoting qualities like citizenship, respectfor others, safety and success. An important part of the school’s strategy toenforce the code was to communicate it to the student body in a number ofways. Jean, for example, talked up these standards in two ways. The first wasin her interactions with teachers, parents and students. The other was throughthe PA system. Kathryn, a parent, observes that:

Jean does talk a lot about being a good citizen and that kind of thing for the studentsand just sort of how they behave in the plaza across the street and on the street andthat kind of thing and just courtesy. And so I think that they’re trying to instillvalues and behavior in the students that will reflect well on the community.

Another strategy included posters. To communicate the code, the adminis-tration designed posters and placed them around the school. These posterswere constructed in ways that attracted notice, and because they depicted onlythe basic elements of the code in print and graphic symbols, they were easy tounderstand; most students, regardless of their culture or language, could under-stand the details of the code. Jean comments on the poster strategy:


488

Well, something that the school has done, well, obviously through the administra-tion, is you know, put in poster form the code of behaviour, what is expected of thestudents, and also what you want to happen in the school. And we have these twoposters actually and again, that comes through visual communication, it’s donethrough a poster, where the design will attract somebody to look at it. And thoseare posters up around through the school. It’s one way of setting the tone and it setsa positive tone, what we want to happen in this school.

The posters constituted only one part of this communication strategy,however. Margerie, a teacher, says that:

Certain very important things like our code of behavior and the school plan, areposted pictorially in every classroom. So there’s a visual kind of cue and then there’ssome fairly basic points there without too much clutter that reinforce these things.Then those things are also reinforced, usually verbally, by the teachers.

The administration expects teachers to talk about the behavior code with thestudents. So at the beginning of the year, and at other times when the needarises, students and teachers would talk—have a discussion—about the code.There were limits to the how the discussion unfolded, however. The code wastaken as a given, not open to adjustments or changes as a result of the discus-sion. It was not seen as something that accommodated the ongoing wishes,views or various perspectives of the student body or the community, but as anartifact that was already established and fixed. The purpose of the discussionwas not to acknowledge voices of the diverse student body, but to make surethat students knew and understood the various rules so that they would obeythem and inevitably project an image of the school that would attract potentialstudents.

Discussion

The administrators of City Secondary School take pride in their communicativeefforts to include students, parents and teachers. They see them as part of apreliminary push to introduce democratic practices. Towards this end, theyattempt to make it possible for members of the school to be involved in dialogueby establishing relationships with them and by understanding them. They alsoattempt to work toward this goal by subverting the hierarchies that pervadetheir school and school system. Unfortunately, they are only partially success-ful in this endeavor. Positioned within bureaucratic and market structures, theyfall prey to the pressure that impels them to draw on their hierarchical privi-leges to control what happens in the school. Instead of reducing the hierarchiesthat obstruct inclusion and democracy, they breathe life into them by tappinginto the resources, that is, the power associated with these structures in theirefforts to enforce a particular order in the school. In the process, they excludemembers of the school community both from communication practices andthrough them.


489

Communication plays an important part in inclusion at City SecondarySchool. Jean and her fellow administrators employ communication strategiesto promote inclusion. They circulate documents and use various techno -logically mediated tools, such as the phone and computer. They also spendmuch time attempting to initiate and sustain dialogue with students, teachersand parents. An important part of this inclusive strategy involves efforts tounderstand others in this diverse community. Administrators, parents andteachers at City Secondary speak of understanding in two related ways. Thefirst is in terms of their knowledge of particular groups. When Jean speaks ofher understanding of groups she is referring to her efforts to know more aboutthe people in her community—where they come from, their religious practicesand beliefs, their attitudes toward discipline, education, and so on. Her senseis that she needs to have knowledge about people so that she can deal with theother type of understanding—decoding what others say to her in their commu-nications with her in ways they anticipate, and adjusting her speech so thatothers can decode her words and phrases in ways that she intends. For example,Jean believes that she is better able to decode the meaning of conversationsabout discipline with particular parents and adjust her responses when sheunderstands or has knowledge of their disciplinary attitudes and practices. Suchknowledge will also help her with her conversations with students whoseEnglish language skills are limited. Conversely, this decoding ability can alsohelp acquire knowledge, that is, achieve a more complete understanding of thevarious groups in the school community, and as a consequence, include themin conversations and in other school activities.

Jean and her administrative team also—at times unconsciously—work toreduce the hierarchies that exist between them and the rest the school commu-nity. They do so because they believe that these hierarchies can get in the wayof inclusion. A few of the participants in the study believe that they are able todo so because of the youth, experience and manner of the two male vice- principals and the gender of the principal. There are two opposing views of therole of communication and gender. One champions the idea that there aregender-specific forms of communication. Shakeshaft and Perry (1995), forexample, contend that women tend to use language in a more egalitarianfashion than men—to establish rapport, make connections and foster commu-nity. On the other hand, they feel that men employ language to report, estab-lish independence and maintain hierarchy. Wodak (1995) takes issue with thisview. She contends, instead, that women are just as likely to employ control-ling and authoritarian tactics as men. Yet a third view explains the differencesthat some may attribute to gender. Corson (1998) contends that differencesbetween communication styles of men and women ought to be attributed topower differences rather than specifically to gender. He says that the keyvariable is access to power. When men are placed in relatively powerless posi-tions they employ the more egalitarian forms of communication sometimesidentified with women. Thus, it may be the case at City Secondary that the


490

reason that administrators use language in an egalitarian fashion is that, at leastin some ways and times, both the men and women are relatively powerless—the women, by the fact of their gender, and the men by virtue of their lack ofexperience.

Teachers and parents said many positive things about the ways in whichadministrators attempted to communicate with them and include them. Somewere conscious of the way that they attempted to reduce hierarchies to makeit easier to communicate and include them. But they were also aware of theambiguities associated with these efforts. Regina, for example, commented thatthe relationship she has with administrators is ‘not hierarchical but it is’. On theone hand, it may be easy to approach and talk to them, but on the other hand,she must ‘report’. She also referred to other elements in the relationships thatmay complicate them even further, like experience. Other teachers were clearabout the status of administrators, particularly the principal. They acknowl-edged that Jean favors certain ways of doing things and did not hesitate inletting people know what she wanted. Teachers were conscious of her power,even though she did not wield it in a heavy-handed manner.

While City Secondary administrators attempt to reduce hierarchies, theirefforts do not always generate the inclusion that they hope for. This is becauseexisting structural hierarchies facilitate the control for which they also strive.Like most other school administrators, they are preoccupied with control, andthey rely on their superior positions in the organizational hierarchy to achievethis control. In many respects, they have little choice. By law, the principal isresponsible for everything that goes on within, and in some instances outside,the school property. At City Secondary, Jean is responsible for seeing that thebroader goals and more specific policies of the system are carried out. So, forexample, she must ensure that the annual standardized tests run smoothly, thenew guidance practices are in place, the drink machine in the cafeteria isworking, and that nobody comes to any harm. This requires that she and herfellow administrators see that members of the school community conductthemselves in ways that are consistent with these goals and policies. However,the pursuit of control threatens efforts at inclusion. It is not always possible tocontrol what goes on in the school if the perspectives and practices of commu-nity groups and individuals—particularly those that are not consistent with thedominant order—are allowed to flourish.

Jean and her fellow administrators are not unique in their control orienta-tion. They and other administrators in many schools and school systemsaround the world are part of bureaucratic (Weber, 1947) or ‘disciplinary’(Foucault, 1977) organizations. These kinds of organizations have a history,going back to their genesis in 17th-century Europe. From the beginning theysupposedly represented the most efficient way of organizing large groups ofpeople to produce designated outcomes or products. In these organizations,entrenched hierarchies, divisions of space and time, pervasive observation andsets of impersonal rules and regulations systemically work on the bodies of


491

men, women and children to make them docile and productive. The idea is thatorderly and passive human beings are best placed to carry out organizationalmandates, whether they revolve around the production of widgits, learning orscores on standardized tests (Ryan, 1991). Administrators are important in thisquest, but they are not exclusively responsible for the control orientation or thehierarchy. Rather, these hierarchies work through administrators as they makeuse of the power bequeathed to them to accomplish ends that they are posi-tioned to favor. And while the administrators at City Secondary may be ambiva-lent toward hierarchy, their investment in it makes it difficult for them toactively work around or destabilize it.

Despite criticism of these bureaucratic forms and subsequent attempts tointroduce alternate forms of organization, they continue to persist. But not onlyare they still with us, they have been re-tooled to complement and supportother emerging and long-standing forms of control (Olssen, 1997). One of theorganizational forms that they now complement is the market, or in the caseof many education systems, the quasi-market. Bureaucratic hierarchies havebeen adjusted to support these markets in a number of ways. One of the mostobvious is proliferation and extension of performance indicator systems (Apple,2006). They enable schools to enhance their relative position in local compet-itive systems and supply parents with knowledge to make choices about theirchildren’s schooling. These systems also have an impact on what local schoolsdo. Among other things, these accounting systems pressure educators to projectan image of their school that will make it attractive to potential consumers.Doing this may require them to enforce a particular order within the school.Such practices, however, erode efforts to promote inclusive and democraticpractices.

Like other schools in the district, City Secondary has been enticed to developprograms to attract students outside of its catchment area. Jean has led the wayin this endeavor. Not liking what she saw when she assumed her position asprincipal, she sought to ‘re-image’ the school in a way that would make it lookbetter to certain segments of the community and attract students from otherparts of the school district, in part, to avoid the consequences of a plummetingstudent enrolment. Two key elements of her plan included developing uniqueprograms and putting in place a new code of student behavior. Her hope, nowpartially realized, was to attract a particular type of student and change thebehaviors of the students within the catchment area. Members of the schoolcommunity have had little choice but to go along with the requirements of theplan, impelled by the dictates of this quasi-market and the power that comesfrom the bureaucratic entitlements.

The administration employed a number of communication tactics to enforcea code of behavior that would make the school more attractive to potentialstudents and their parents. It circulated posters that illustrated the rules,promoted them over the PA system and talked to students and teachers at strategic times during the day. Dialogue was also used as a means of controlling


492

behavior at City Secondary. The administration encouraged students to talkabout the code of conduct among themselves in their classrooms at particulartimes of the year. The idea was that talking about it would help students becomefamiliar with the already-established code, accept it and follow it. But theseconversations were necessarily limited. Students were invited to discuss therules, but only within the given parameters—they could talk about the code,but they could not challenge or suggest substantive changes to it. This wasbecause the ultimate purpose of this exercise was control and not inclusion.The administration hoped that by getting students to talk about the rules theywould come to know them and, more importantly, identify with, and obeythem. Giving students a voice was important only in so far as they employedtheir voices to discipline themselves, that is, regulate their own actions in themanner that the administration wished (see also Foucault, 1978). The ultimateend was to create a positive image of the school so that it could attract the kindof student, who in turn, would attract other desirable students.

Bureaucratic and market structures work hand in hand at City SecondarySchool to disrupt democratic efforts. Positioned within a market environment,the administration actively worked to secure the position of the school. It didthis, in part, to stave off the plummeting student enrolment, and the conse-quences that might ensue from it. Operating in a market environment requireda number of proactive strategies to meet the threat of surrounding schoolsdrawing from the pool of their potential students. One of the key strategies wasa re-imaging program designed to make the school attractive to potentialconsumers. An element of this re-imaging involved changing the behavior ofthe students—from disruptive to well behaved. In order to do this, the admin-istration drew on the power that came from the bureaucratic hierarchy. Jeanand her administration communicated this vision to teachers, students andparents in a variety of ways, and they enforced it by drawing on the hierarchi-cal power that came from their positions. In the end, Jean and the other admin-istrators resorted to decidedly undemocratic means to enforce a behavior codethat they felt was necessary for them to survive in a competitive marketplace.

Ultimately, the administration’s quest for inclusion fell short on a number ofaccounts as control preoccupations trumped democratic ideals. Positionedwithin market practices that called for them to draw on powers that reside inhierarchical structures that they did not favor, Jean and her fellow administra-tors found themselves controlling the diversity that they hoped to encourage.

Conclusion

Despite recent rhetoric that favors democratic leadership, substantive obstaclescontinue to obstruct its practice in schools. The most obvious is the hierarchi-cal context of schools and school systems. It is not always easy to meaningfullyinclude students, teachers and parents in school processes that revolve aroundbureaucratic and market structures that pay little heed to their voices. This is


493

particularly true in diverse schools like City Secondary where minoritized anddisenfranchised groups frequently find themselves excluded. But even thoughCity Secondary favors inclusive practices, it has not yet reached a point whereit relies on democratic governance procedures. It is currently at a more basicor preliminary stage. The administrators are content for the moment to expendtheir efforts trying to include as best as they can, the various members of theirschool community in their communication endeavors. But even at this point,the bureaucratic and market structures that take control of local action presentsubstantive barriers, and students, teachers and parents are not always includedin administrators’ communication practices. More than this though, they arefurther excluded as administrators employ some of these very practices to exertcontrol over them. If meaningful democracy or inclusion is to be realized inschools like City Secondary, then something will have to be done about thestructures that spawn the powerful control ideology that pervades these insti-tutions. Administrators like Jean need to first recognize and then contest institutional hierarchy and the control orientation of which they are a part ifthey are to have any chance at all of honoring diversity and including differentothers in school learning and governance activities.

Notes

1. We do not identify this country/area to protect the anonymity of the school.2. Co-op programs allow students to get credit for work that they do for local businesses.

References

Anderson, G. (1998) ‘Toward Authentic Participation: Deconstructing the Discourses ofParticipatory Reforms in Education’, American Educational Research Journal 35(4):571–603.

Apple, M. (2006) Educating the ‘Right’ Way, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Bates, R. (1980) ‘Educational Administration, the Sociology of Science, and the

Management of Knowledge’, Educational Administration Quarterly 16(3): 1–20.Blase, J. and Blase, J. (1997) The Fire is Back? Principals Sharing School Governance.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Brown, K. (2004) ‘Leadership for Social Justice and Equity: Weaving a Transformative

Framework and Pedagogy’, Educational Administration Quarterly 40(1): 77–108.Burbules, N. (1993) Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice. New York: Teachers

College Press.Bush, T. (2008) ‘From Management to Leadership: Semantic or Meaningful Change?’,

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 36(2): 271–88.Chubb, J. and Moe, T. (1990) Politics, Markets and America’s Schools. Washington, DC:

The Brookings Institute.Corson, D. (1998) Changing Education for Diversity. Philadelphia, PA: Open University

Press.Dehli, K. (1994) Parent Activism and School Reform in Toronto: A Report. Toronto: Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education.Delgato-Gaitan, C. (1991) ‘Involving Parents in Schools: A Process of Empowerment’,

American Journal of Education 100(1): 20–46.Fine, M. (1993) ‘[Ap]parent Involvement: Reflections on Parents, Power and Urban

Public Schools’, Teachers College Record 94(4): 682–710.


494

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: PantheonBooks.

Foucault, M. (1978) The History of Sexuality, vol 1. New York: Random House.Foster, W. (1989) ‘Toward a Critical Practice of Leadership’, in J. Smyth (ed.) Critical

Perspectives on Educational Leadership, pp. 39–62. London: Falmer.Gale, T. and Densmore, K. (2003) ‘Democratic Educational Leadership in

Contemporary Times’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 6(2): 119–36.Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Garrison, J. (2004) ‘Ameliorating Violence in Dialogues Across Differences: The role of

Eros and Logos’, in M. Boler (ed.) Democratic Dialogue in Education: Troubling Speech,Troubling Silence. New York: Peter Lang.

Gillborn, D. and Youdell, D. (2000) Rationing Education: Policy, Practice, Reform andEquity. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Glickman, C., Allen, L. and Lunsford, B. (1994) ‘Voices from Principals inDemocratically Transformed Schools’, in J. Murphy and K.S. Louis (eds) Reshaping thePrincipalship: Insights from Transformational Reform Efforts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P. (1993) Greenfield on Educational Administration: Towards aHumane Science. New York: Routledge.

Gronn, P. (2002) ‘Distributed Leadership’, in K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (eds) SecondInternational Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Harris, A. (2004) ‘Distributed Leadership and School Improvement: Leading ormisleading?’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 32(1): 11–24.

Hatcher, R., Troyna, B. and Gewirtz, D. (1996) Racial Equality and the Local Managementof Schools. Statfordshire: Trentham Books.

Karpinksi, C. and Lugg, C. (2006) ‘Social Justice and Educational Administration:Mutually Exclusive?’, Journal of Educational Administration 44(3): 278–92.

Leiberman, A. and Miller, L. (2004) Teacher Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewis, D. and Nakagawa, K. (1995) Race and Educational Reform in the AmericanMetropolis: A Study of School Decentralization. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Malen, B. and Ogawa, R. (1992) ‘Community Involvement: Parents, Teachers andAdministrators Working Together’, in S. Bachrach (ed.) Education Reform: MakingSense of it all. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.

Olssen, M. (1997) ‘Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Neo-Liberalism: AssessingFoucault’s Legacy’, Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 189–202.

Pounder, D., Ogawa, R. and Adams, E. (1995) ‘Leadership as an Organization-WidePhenomenon: Its Impact on School Performance’, Educational AdministrationQuarterly 31(4): 564–88.

Riley, K. (2003) ‘Democratic Leadership—a Contradiction in Terms’, Leadership andPolicy in Schools 2(2): 125–39.

Ryan, J. (1988) ‘Conservative Science in Educational Administration’, Journal ofEducational Administration and Foundations 3(2): 5–22.

Ryan, J. (1991) ‘Observing and Normalizing: Foucault, Discipline, and Inequality inSchooling’, Journal of Educational Thought 25(2): 104–19.

Ryan, J. (1999) ‘Beyond the Veil: Moral Administration and Inquiry in a PostmodernWorld’, in P. Begley (ed.) Values and Educational Leadership, pp. 106–24. Albany, NY:SUNY Press.

Ryan, J. (2003) Leading Diverse Schools. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Ryan, J. (2006a) Inclusive Leadership. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Ryan, J. (2006b) ‘Inclusive Leadership and Social Justice for Schools’, Leadership and

Policy in Schools 5(1): 3–17.


495

Ryan, J. and Rottmann, C. (2007) ‘Educational Leadership and Policy Approaches toCritical Social Justice’, Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations 18(1/2):9–23.

Ryan, J. (2007) ‘Dialogue, Identity and Inclusion: Administrators as Mediators inDiverse School Contexts’, Journal of School Leadership 17(3): 340–69.

Shakeshaft, C. and Perry, A. (1995) ‘The Language of Power Versus the Language ofEmpowerment: Gender Differences in Administrative Communication’, in D. Corson(ed.) Discourse and Power in Educational Organizations. Toronto: OISE Press.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001) ‘Investigating School LeadershipPractice: A Distributed Perpective’, Educational Researcher 30(3): 23–28.

Spillane, J. (2006) Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Starrat, R.J. (2001) ‘Democratic Leadership Theory in Late Modernity: An Oxymoron or

Ironic Possibility?’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 4(4): 333–52.Touraine, A. (1997) What is Democracy? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Theoharis, G. (2007) ‘Social Justice Educational Leaders and Resistance: Toward a Theory

of Social Justice Leadership’, Educational Administration Quarterly 43(2): 221–58.Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Development. New York: Oxford

University Press.Wodak, R. (1995) ‘Power, Discourse, and Style of Female Leadership in School

Committee Meetings’, in D. Corson (ed.) Discourse and Power in EducationalOrganizations. Toronto: OISE Press.

Woods, P. (2005) Democratic Leadership in Education. London: Paul Chapman.Woods, P. (2004) ‘Democratic Leadership: Drawing Distinctions with Distributed

Leadership’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 7(1): 3–26.Young, I.M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Biographical notes

J IM RYAN is a professor and co-director of the Centre for Leadership and Diversity atthe Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. His interests revolve around leadership,inclusion and social justice. His most recent books include Inclusive Leadership (2006)and Leading Diverse Schools (2003).

CINDY ROTTMANN is a PhD candidate at OISE/University of Toronto. Her researchinterests include social justice teacher unionism and educational leadership. Recentpublications include articles in the Canadian Journal of Education, Journal of EducationalAdministration and Foundations and the International Journal of Leadership in Education.

Correspondence to:

J IM RYAN, Centre for Leadership and Diversity, Ontario Institute for Studies inEducation, Toronto, ONM5S 1V6, Canada. [email: [email protected]]


496

Documents

Str u ggling f o r Democr acy · what they can to w o rk fo r inclusion, equity and social justice in local and global communities (Br own, 2004; Gale and Densmor e, 2003; K arpinski