The University of Texas at Tyler · 2017. 5. 4. · 3900 University Blvd. HPR 131, Tyler, TX 75799. Email: [email protected] or [email protected] EDITORIAL PIECE

Copyright©2016DSJELTheDepartmentofEducationalLeadership&PolicyStudieswww.uttyler.edu/elps/dsjel

TheUniversityofTexasatTyler

Volume1 Fall2016 Number1

EDITORIALAnIntellectualSpaceforEducationalLeaders' YaniraOliveras-Ortiz&DiversityandSocialJusticeDiscourse...............................................................................JenniferS.Jones

POSITIONPAPERThePhysicalandCulturalDesegregationofLatinxStudentsinUnitedStatesPublicSchools:HistoricalPrecedentsandSuggestionsforEducators...........................................CassandraM.Vara

ARTICLELeadershipinDiverseSchools:AnExaminationofEarlyCollegeHighSchoolPrincipalsinNorthCarolina................................................................HattieL.Hammonds


EDITORS

YaniraOliveras-Ortiz TheUniversityofTexasatTylerEducationalLeadership&PolicyStudies

JenniferS.Jones TheUniversityofTexasatTylerEducationalLeadership&PolicyStudies

EDITORIALBOARD

AnnAllen WesternCarolinaUniversityEducationalLeadership

ReneAntrop-Gonzalez MetropolitanStateUniversityUrbanEducation

MaryChristopher Hardin-SimmonsUniversityGiftedEducation

ToddKettler UniversityofNorthTexasGiftedEducation

IanMette TheUniversityofMaineEducationalLeadership

KouiderMokhtari TheUniversityofTexasatTylerLiteracy

AmberPenn JacksonvilleIndependentSchoolDistrictDualLanguageEducationandSpecialLanguages

AmyC.Stevens UniversityofWisconsin-WhitewaterSpecialEducation

SharonH.Ulanoff CaliforniaStateUniversity,LosAngelesDivisionofCurriculumandInstruction

VanceVaughn TheUniversityofTexasatTylerEducationalLeadership

StevenWurtz ArlingtonIndependentSchoolDistrictChiefAcademicOfficer


REVIEWERS

KarlynR.Adams-WigginsDonnaAzodiDannaBeatyShannonCole

SandyCortez-RuckerVanceCortez-Rucker

DebiCrawfordAnitadelaIsla

FaustinaGallagher-DuVallR.JeffersonGeorgeCaraHinkson

PatriciaHoffman-MillerGaryMiller

ArthurL.PetterwayStaciZolkoski

TheDSJELlogowasdesignedbyCarlosGonzalezdelCastilloPrintGraphCommercialPrintingServices

Diversity, Social Justice & the Educational Leadership Fall 2016, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-4

© 2016 DSJEL www.uttyler.edu/elps/dsjel

Dr. Yanira Oliveras-Ortiz and Dr. Jennifer Jones are the co-editors of Diversity, Social Justice and the Educational Leader. They are both assistant professors of Educational Leadership at The University of Texas at Tyler. Address: 3900 University Blvd. HPR 131, Tyler, TX 75799. Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

EDITORIAL PIECE

An Intellectual Space for Educational Leaders’ Diversity and Social Justice Discourse

Yanira Oliveras-Ortiz, Ph.D. Jennifer Jones, Ed.D.

The University of Texas at Tyler

Educational leaders, particularly the campus leaders, have often defined their job andresponsibilities as overwhelming. However, regardless of the endless tasks on school administrators’ to do lists, ensuring that every child receives an excellent education should be at the forefront of everything educational leaders do. An excellent education is one that not only transfers knowledge to children but also one that develops the critical thinking skills that students will need to make sense of the world and be successful citizens of the democracy in which we exist. Educational leaders have the moral responsibility to understand, and hopefully embrace critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970). Educational leaders must value reflective assessments of the practices that are considered the norm, which often times do not meet the needs of our diverse students. To meet the needs of the millions of students, who live in poverty, have limited English language skills, have special academic needs or whose sexual identify does not meet the heterosexual norms, educational leaders must understand and be critical of the underlining beliefs and challenges these students face in their daily lives. The practices of the education system and the impact those practices have on diverse students must be examined and challenged. Educational leaders must explore the issues that perpetuate the alienation and disengagement of linguistically and culturally diverse students.

In order to achieve such a goal, educational leaders must understand the space in which they function, the needs of the students as well as their backgrounds, their struggles and strengths. While the campus principals could not know the details of the progress of every individual child in their schools, educational leaders must be aware and possess the knowledge to lead the effort to ensure that their teachers have an in depth understanding of their students and their needs. Furthermore, educational leaders must have an understanding of diverse students' needs and how to address those needs and use that knowledge to develop the teachers ' capacity and help them understand how to better meet the needs of all students. Educational leaders must possess the understanding of critical pedagogy to lead teachers in embracing change to give historically underperforming students a real chance at succeeding and breaking patterns of oppression and generational poverty.

The Need for This Intellectual Space

One will be hard-pressed to find an educational leader who works at a school with no diversity, where all students are White, from the same social-economic class, all speak English

Oliveras-Ortiz & Jones

FALL 2016 | 2

as their first language, with no unique academic needs, and where all students identify themselves as heterosexual. One could say that such a school does not exist anywhere in the United States; the reality is that U.S. schools are consistently becoming more diverse. The National Center for Education Statistics projects that by 2022 the enrollment of White students in public schools will decrease by 6 percent while the enrollment of Black, Hispanic, Asian and students who are two or more races will increase by 2, 33, 20 and 44 percent respectively (Hussar & Bailey, 2014). If educational leaders are going to critically question the practices used to address the needs of diverse students, first they must possess the same operational definition of diversity. Castania (1996), senior extension associate in the Cornell Migrant Program based in the Department of Human Development, New York State College of Human Ecology at Cornell University defined diversity “as differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice,andotherhumandifferences”(p.2).

Diversity goes beyond race and ethnicity,itis multidimensional and complex. The people from diverse backgrounds, but who do not fall under the traditional definition of diversity, are negatively affected by the limiting “habit of construing diversity only in terms of race” (Haring-Smith, 2012, p. 8). When we think about our diverse students' needs we must include students with special needs, students who are gifted and talented and need advanced instruction to stay cognitively engaged, the LGBT students, children from economically disadvantaged homes, students from home with varied spiritual beliefs, as well as the culturally and linguistically diverse students. CulturaldifferencesasdescribedbyMilem,Chang,andAntonio(2005),include race/ethnicity (e.g., Latino, Caucasian, Asian/Pacific Islander, African American, American Indian), class, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, first language, physical and learning ability, and learning style.Recognizing the range of perspectives and needs that our students bring to the school house is only the beginning. The statement made by Chief Justice Earl Warren back in 1954, in reference to Brown v. Board of Education, still holds true today, “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Educators must understand how to meet the needs of all students, but particularly those that do not come with a foundation on what are considered norms in the U.S. school system. Educators must embrace and engage in critical dialogue. They must challenge the current practices to begin to understand and effectively address the diversity within their schools while promoting social justice.

Arnie Duncan, past Secretary of Education petitions educators to consider, “The undeniable truth is that the everyday education experience for far too many students of color violates the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise. It is our collective duty to change that” (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). By illuminating the needs of the culturally and linguistically diverse student and emphasizing the importance of achieving educational equality, our desire is to deepen the school leaders’ consciousness by helping to lay the groundwork for establishing an inclusive and culturally responsive school environments advantageous to the successful learning of all students.

The Institute of Education Sciences (2016) reported that 51.2% of students in the United States are students of color, over 40 million are English language learners, 13 percent of all public school students received special education services (IES, 2016), an estimated 3 million children are gifted and talented (NSGT, n.d.), and it is believed that 4 to 10% of students identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (PFLAG NYC, 2016). The reality is that

An Intellectual Space for Educational Leaders

FALL 2016 | 3

education takes place in a space where diversity is the norm. Therefore, educational leaders have the moral responsibility to lead the efforts to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population and create socially just schools. U.S. students are being served by teachers who are predominately White, over 80 percent of public school teachers are White (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), while our schools are led by leaders who are 80% Caucasian (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Given the disparity in the demographics of students and educators, educational leaders must create an awareness among educators about the variation in their perspective and the experiential differences that students and educators bring to the schools, and how their reality, their experiences impact teaching and learning. Being aware of these difference opens the door for discourse about the needs of our students that will inevitably benefit our students as well as our educators.

The Launch of a Journal: an Effort to Engage Educators in Critical Discourse

Diversity, Social Justice, and the Educational Leader was established with social theory as the theoretical framework. Social justice is the process through which people from all identity groups are able to fully and equitably participate in a society that respect diversity and differences, a society where people work together to create change (Bell in Adams & Bell, 2016). Boske (2012) describes the role of leading for social justice as “...highly emotional endeavor requiring courage, integrity, imaginative possibilities and self-awareness” while acknowledging “the ongoing debate and tensions regarding multiple meanings for social justice, what it means to lead for social justice, and pedagogies that encourage and support school leaders to lead for social justice” (p. 183). Effective educational leadership critically impacts not only climate, culture, and learning, but substantially influences the lives and perceptions of others. Understanding critical pedagogy, evaluative and inclusionary practices can assist in educators advocating for an egalitarian society where students are provided equal rights and opportunities in education.

Through this work the editors and the editorial board seek to expand the literature to help educational leaders understand the vast needs of diverse students. Diversity, Social Justice, and the Educational Leader aims to provide intellectual space for scholars and practitioners to engage in discourse about the implications the multitude of issues related to critical pedagogy, diversity and social justice have for educational leaders.

In this inaugural edition, two scholars begin the discourse about theoretical beliefs and practices that promote success among diverse students.

Dr. Hattie Hammonds, an English teacher in North Carolina with a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership, shares the findings of a qualitative, multi-case study focused on the work of early college high school principals in North Carolina and their efforts to promote the success of first generation, students of color and low-income students. She explores the implications the findings have for principals of diverse schools in order to effectively promote the success of culturally and linguistically diverse students.

In a position paper, Cassandra M. Vara, a candidate for Ed.D. in Educational Leadership at Mary-Hardin Simmons University, examines the historical and legal precedents of Latinx desegregation. She reviews the literature focused on the physical and cultural segregation of Latinx students. Ms. Vara provides suggestions for educational leaders to strengthen Latinx students’ academic success.

Oliveras-Ortiz & Jones

FALL 2016 | 4

References

Bell, L.A. (2016). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In Adams, M. & Bell, L.A. (Ed.) Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Routledge.

Boske,C.(2012).Sendingforthtinyripplesofhopethatbuildthemightiestofcurrents:Understandinghowtoprepareschoolleaderstointerruptoppressiveschoolpractices.PlanningandChanging,43(1-2),183-197.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). Castania, K. (1996). What is diversity. Cornell Cooperative Extension (pp. 1-4). Retrieved from

https://extension.usu.edu/diversity/files/uploads/diversity704.pdfFreire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Haring-Smith, T. (2012). Broadening our definition of diversity. Liberal Education, 98 (2), 7-13.

Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp12/index.cfm Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2014) Projection of Education Statistics to 2022: Forty-First

Edition. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf

Milem, J.F., Chang, M.J., and Antonio, A.L. (2005). Making Diversity Work on Campus: A Research-Based Perspective. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities.

National Society for the Gifted & Talented. (2016). About the Society. Retrieved from http://www.nsgt.org/about-the-society

PFLAG New York City. (2016). Statistics You Should Know About Gay & Transgender Studetns. Retrieved from http://www.pflagnyc.org/safeschools/statistics

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). New data from U.S. department of education highlights educational inequities around teacher experience, discipline and high school rigor. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-data-us-department-education-highlights-educational-inequities-around-teache

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). The State of Racial Diversity in the Educator Workforce. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf



Cassandra M. Vara is a candidate for Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cassandra M. Vara; Address: University of Mary Hardin-Baylor; 900 College St., Belton, TX 76513; Email: [email protected]

POSITION PIECE

The Physical and Cultural Desegregation of Latinx Students in United States Public Schools: Historical Precedents and Suggestions

for Educators

Cassandra M. Vara University of Mary Hardin-Baylor

Since the inception of public education in America, students of color have been segregated from their White peers. The historical segregation of Latinx students is a long-standing one, with legal and social repercussions still experienced in the 21st century. While the physical segregation of Latinx students precedes the era of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the cultural segregation of Latinx students occurs even in today’s supposed post-segregation society. When policymakers fail to protect such students, it is the duty of educational leaders to ensure that the environment, coursework, and curricula of public school campuses help Latinx students feel included, welcomed, and valued. The purpose of this position paper is to examine the historical and legal precedents of Latinx desegregation, to review the existing literature surrounding the physical and cultural segregation of Latinx students, and to explore potential suggestions for educational leaders that may bolster Latinx students’ academic investment and success.

KEYWORDS: cultural segregation, Latinx students, historic legal In educational discourse concerning the segregation, and eventual desegregation, of students across public schools in the United States, the focus often, and reasonably so, becomes the separation between African American students and their White counterparts. These are not, however, the only populations that have been affected by policy and legal decisions in the pursuit of more inclusive schools. Latinx students, too, have experienced segregation perpetuated by district, statewide, and federal policy. Their plight toward desegregation includes many legal and historical precedents, some of which were inspired by the actions of Texas school district and community leaders.

Legal Precedents

The journey toward integrated schools for Latinx students is a long-standing one, one that precedes the groundbreaking Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In 1946, a group of five Mexican-American families residing in California propelled the fight for integrated schools in Mendez v. Westminster (1947), a case in which plaintiffs argued against policies that allowed for Mexican-American students to be assigned to inferior schools based on surname and complexion. The school district’s argument in the Mendez case was that Mexican-American

Vara

FALL 2016 | 6

children were not only intellectually inferior to their White peers, but that they also carried contagious diseases due to poor hygiene, and were limited by their supposed language deficiencies (Rosenberg, 2013).

The case was initiated by Gonzalo Mendez, Sr., who wanted his children to attend the 17th Street School located close to their home in the Raitt/Townsend neighborhood of Santa Ana, California, especially given that he had attended the same school in his youth. When his children were denied enrollment to the school, but their fairer-skinned cousins with the Italian-sounding last name “Vidaurri” were accepted, Mendez was incensed. This anger was doubled when Mendez discovered that his children would instead be assigned to Hoover Elementary School, a community school known for being “non-White” and “inferior” to the 17th Street School (Rosenberg, 2013).

In response, Mendez hired civil rights attorney David Marcus, who, along with four other families and on behalf of 5,000 students, initiated a class action lawsuit against four Orange County school districts: Westminster School District, Santa Ana Unified School District, Garden Grove Unified School District, and El Modena School District (now Eastern Orange School District). The case was strengthened with powerful testimonies by the children themselves, who discussed the discrimination they faced in their educational experiences, including reading then-commonplace signs around town that read “No Mexicans, No Dogs” (Aguirre, Bowman, Mendez, Mendez, Robbie, & Strum, 2015). The United States Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that the segregation of Mexican and Mexican-American students into separate “Mexican schools” was an unconstitutional practice—making it the first ruling in the United States in favor of desegregation. While the Mendez case never reached the United States Supreme Court, its ruling in the lower court motioned toward a future in which Latinx students could not be barred from educational opportunity on the basis of ancestry, surname, or assumed language deficiency. Importantly, Mendez’s lawyer, David Marcus, could never make the claim of racial discrimination in the case based on Latinos’ technical racial classification as White (Rosenberg, 2013).

Mendez v. Westminster is not the only case in which Latinx students were segregated based on assumed deficiencies, nor was it the first of its kind. On January 5, 1931, students at the Lemon Grove Grammar School in Lemon Grove, California, were surprised when, after returning from their winter break, the school’s principal Jerome Green barred Mexican-American students from entering the building. Instead, these seventy-five students were instructed to walk to a two-room building that the school board had decided to hastily build in a largely Latinx area of the town. The Lemon Grove board had approved the decision due to what they cited as overcrowding, as well as sanitary and moral conditions (Sanchez, 2004). Significantly, the decision was made without parent notification.

However, parents of the Mexican-Americans students were not accepting of this forced change. With assistance from the Mexican consulate, a group sued the Lemon Grove school board for racial segregation of children who were United States citizens. The school board denied such allegations, instead justifying their decision by calling the new school an Americanization school, one which was aimed at bolstering the academic opportunities of students with language deficiencies and academic struggles. However, interventions to do just this had already been in place at the Lemon Grove Grammar School.

Though the court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, citing that Mexican-American students were considered racially White and thus could not be constitutionally segregated, Roberto Alvarez vs. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District would not set a precedent.

Desegregation of Latinx Students

FALL 2016 | 7

The school district did not appeal, which stopped higher courts from reviewing the ruling (Sanchez, 2004). Though the Mexican-American students of Lemon Grove were able to avoid the attempt at this segregationist practice, the same was untrue for many other Latinx students across the United States.

Several other cases did, however, set legal precedents that helped to outlaw the segregation of Latinx children in public schools; however, this progress did not occur quickly. As early as 1930, even before Mendez v. Westminster and Roberto Alvarez vs. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School District, the state of Texas became engulfed in a battle toward desegregation and educational equity for Mexican and Mexican-American students. In Del Rio Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) argued that the “separate but equal” law that applied to White and African-American children did not protect the Mexican-American students who were obligated to attend schools in Del Rio, Texas, whose facilities were less suitable than those at predominantly White schools. After an injunction by District Judge Joseph Jones, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals of San Antonio heard the case on October 29, 1930. The injunction was voided, and on December 24, a rehearing of the case was denied, making equitable facilities for Latinx students seem like a distant reality after the court failed to offer the students guaranteed protection under the law (Orozco, 2010).

LULAC and the Fight for Equity

Del Rio ISD v. Salvatierra was devastating for proponents of equal educational facilities

for Latinx students, but it helped to propel the movement of equity advocacy for Latinx children by igniting what would become an unstoppable blaze. Organizations that would help in the plight toward desegregated schools began to emerge. The most well-known, and ultimately, one of the most legally influential, of these organizations is the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC. LULAC, which was originally a merger between The Order of the Sons of America in Corpus Christi and the League of Latin American Citizens, was created in 1929 as a response to the overt prejudice, discrimination, and segregation faced by Mexican-American citizens across the state of Texas (Orozco, 2010). Soon, LULAC would play an integral role in eliminating the prejudice students faced within the four walls of the educational institution.

Throughout the twentieth century, the effects of unjust educational practices for Latinx students were becoming more apparent, particularly through differing levels of educational achievement. Up until the late 1940s, it was commonplace for schools across Texas to whom Mexican-American students were assigned to focus on vocational training rather than academic curriculum, and to do so in minimal and sometimes unsafe facilities. In 1950, the United States census showed that the median educational level attained by U.S. residents with White surnames [i.e. non-Spanish European] was 10.5 years, while the median for citizens with Spanish surnames was only 3.5 years. Even despite this glaring disparity, no significant legal action had been taken across an educational system in Texas since the failed Del Rio ISD v. Salvatierra case in 1930.

That changed when, in 1948, partnered with the American G.I. Forum of Texas, LULAC challenged Texas schools’ inequities through Delgado v. Bastrop ISD, a case in which plaintiffs argued that the segregation of Mexican-American children without a specific state law in place was a violation of their rights, especially when coupled with lesser facilities, services, and educational instruction. Using Mendez v. Westminster as a legal precedent, LULAC argued that separating Mexican-American children, who were considered racially White, was illegal based

Vara

FALL 2016 | 8

on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court’s claim that separation “within one of the great races” without a specific state law was unpermitted. The Federal Western District Court of Texas agreed, affirming that the segregation of Mexican-American students in Texas was unlawful and could only be perpetuated if justified by “scientific language tests applied to all students” (Delgado v. Bastrop ISD). The court thus ordered the cessation of separation by September of 1949, but the decision allowed room for the separation of classes on the same campus for students who were identified as language-deficient or non-English-speaking (Allsup, 2010).

Closing the Loopholes

Many believe that the culmination in the attempt to desegregate Latinx students from other children is the decision made in Herminca Hernandez et al. v. Driscoll Consolidated Independent School District (1957). In this pivotal case, the American G.I. Forum filed suit against Driscoll Consolidated I.S.D. for its development of a system of beginners’ classes for the first scholastic year, which continued over the following three years through “low first,” “high first,” and a segregated second grade all without testing the students enrolled in such courses (Allsup, 2011). Based on by the precedent set by Delgado v. Bastrop, schools could only separate students using legitimate, scientific language exams, which the Driscoll Consolidated Independent School District had not done prior to assigning students into these remedial courses. The most powerful piece of evidence against the district’s discriminatory practices toward Mexican-American students was the assignment of student Linda Pérez in what was considered the “Mexican” first grade in order to learn English, despite, interestingly enough, English being the only language that Pérez spoke (Allsup, 2011). While this case established a legal precedent disallowing the segregation of students of Mexican-American background, added legal action was required throughout the 1960s and beyond in order to challenge the lack of equitable educational opportunity for Latinx children.

An Unending Fight

Despite various legal decisions aimed at solving the problem of Latinx segregation in

schools, there is still progress to be made. The Civil Rights Project, or Proyecto Derechos Civiles, research team at the University of California, Los Angeles, uncovered that as recently as 2012, the typical White student in the United States attended a school whose student composition is nearly 75% White, while the average Latinx student attended a school whose student composition is approximately 56.8% Latinx (Orfield & Frankenberg, 2014). This data reveals that students today are as segregated in schools as they were in 1968, at the peak of attempted school desegregation reform. Significantly, the data also reveals that Latinx students are now the most segregated students of color in U.S. public schools, particularly in large suburban communities whose demographic makeups have undergone recent changes (Maxwell, 2014). According to the study, that segregation likelihood is doubled when considering socioeconomic influences. Unsurprisingly, this modern-day segregation is the result of a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to, poverty rates, housing segregation, and entrenched discrimination in the form of public policy and legislative inaction (Bouie, 2014).

Even in cases where Latinx students are not physically separated, a segregation of educational opportunity continues to permeate the fabric of public education across the United States. In 2010, a group of Republican legislators in Arizona passed the Arizona House Bill


FALL 2016 | 9

2281, a piece of legislation that would effectually ban the Mexican-American studies class taught at a high school within the Tucson Unified School District. The passage of the bill came promptly after a controversial event during which Dolores Huerta, former activist with the United Farm Workers, made the comment at a Tucson High Magnet School assembly that “Republicans hate Latinos,” a comment which, soon after, caused the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction to dispatch an aide who would tell the students otherwise.

The reactive plan failed. As the aide spoke against Huerta’s contentious claim, the students, predominantly Latinx, turned their backs and raised their fists in silent solidarity. Thus, HB 2281 was passed on the allegation that the Mexican-American studies course encouraged hate against other races, taught Latinx students that they had been historically oppressed by governmental authority, and even encouraged sedition and rebellion (Phippen, 2015). John Huppenthal, the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction at the time, once described his horror upon walking into the Mexican-American studies course and seeing a poster of Che Guevara, a major figure in Castro’s Cuban Revolution, plastered on the wall.

Curtis Acosta, the Mexican-American studies teacher and curriculum developer for the Tucson High Magnet School, believed otherwise. His description of the course curriculum and activities included reading texts by Chicano authors, studying poverty, disenfranchisement, and feminism among people of color, and viewing history through an objective lens— “not just through the nation’s conquering heroes, but also through the eyes of the displaced and conquered” (Phippen, 2015). Acosta staunchly disagreed with the passage of the bill, which he claimed infringed upon a course which engaged students who had otherwise felt detached and uninterested at school. Acosta also cited the fact that while HB 2281 banned Mexican-American studies, it made no comparable ban on similar ethnic studies courses for Asian-American, African-American, and Native American cultures. As of the fall of 2016, HB 2281 continues to be fought in court, and a final decision is set to be made late this year.

The Long-Winded Road Ahead

Despite these setbacks, there is still hope. As a response to the Arizona Mexican-

American studies scandal, Texas professor and author Tony Diaz stood before Texas legislators to petition for the offering of Mexican-American studies courses across the state. As a response, the Texas State Board of Education allowed for any interested institutions to begin including ethnic studies courses. Mission High School, in Mission, Texas, became the first public school in the state to implement a Mexican-American studies course in 2015, helping to continue to bridge the gap between White students and their Mexican-American counterparts, who often feel, if not actually physically segregated, emotionally, psychologically, and culturally segregated from the typical academic curriculum and philosophies perpetuated across public schools (Phippen, 2015). This recent transitory period toward more inclusive schools has not been without controversy. In 2016, Momentum Instruction proposed a Mexican-American history textbook to the Texas State Board of Education titled Mexican American Heritage—a textbook that describes Mexican-Americans, and namely, Chicano activists of the 1960s, as people who “adopted a revolutionary narrative that opposed Western civilization and wanted to destroy this society” (Wang, 2016, p. 2). Allegations of questionable rhetoric in the textbook did not end there. On one page of the textbook, authors Jaime Riddle and Valarie Angle wrote about Mexican-Americans’ disconnect from United States culture, as well as their ambivalence about

Vara

FALL 2016 | 10

assimilating into American values, claims that caused upset amongst Chicano advocates and scholars, including Tony Diaz, who had initially proposed the inclusion of the Mexican-American studies course (Wang, 2016).

A Call for Leadership The physical and cultural desegregation of Latinx students is still possible, especially with the aid of educational leaders who are committed to serve as advocates for students. While change begins on the plane of advocacy and organizing, current school leaders can still help Latinx students feel valued in schools, regardless of changes (or lack thereof) in statewide or federal policy. For one, school leaders can help students feel welcomed through course offerings tailored to the needs and interests of student populations. When Mexican-American studies courses (or similar ethnic studies courses) are not available, Mexican-American and Latinx-American history should be taught objectively as a critical component of United States history. This suggestion is not without purpose. Between 2008-2011, students who were enrolled in a Mexican-American Studies (MAS) course in Tucson, Arizona, were more likely to pass the state’s standardized mathematics assessment than their non-participating counterparts (Cabrera, Milem, & Marx, 2012). Similarly, Mexican-American studies students were “51 percent more likely to graduate from high school than non-MAS students” in 2009, despite initially being lower-performing than their non-MAS peers (Cabrera, Milem, & Marx, 2012, p. 6). Though the transfer of Tucson’s success may not be a guarantee across the United States, the significant correlations between Mexican-American studies and academic outcomes presents an optimistic perspective about the potential educational impact of exposing students’ to their own cultural histories and empowering them in the process.

Whether or not ethnic studies courses for Latinx students are available, teachers who interact with Latinx student populations should be well-versed in the historical contexts of Latinx culture, which means that school districts must offer more meaningful professional development for the integration of Latinx history and culture in core curriculum. Professional development in this sector is useful regardless of teacher grade level placement, as classrooms with students as young as first grade can evidence more vocabulary growth when teachers implement culturally responsive pedagogy (Underwood, P.S., 2009, p. 47). Language, an integral aspect in the historical segregation of Latinx students, should be fostered with the addition of more dual-language classrooms and schools wherein all students can develop academic vocabularies in both English and Spanish (or other native) languages. According to Lindholm-Leary and Adelson-Rodriguez (2015), students with extensive dual language instruction are less likely to drop out of school, making dual-language opportunities, even at the secondary level, a reasonable suggestion. Finally, acceptance of all ethnic groups should be promoted through modeling from faculty and staff on a daily basis and as a matter of school-wide norms, rather than through a one-day cultural celebration. This can be done through authentic multicultural materials, more opportunities for students to write about personal experiences, professional development for teachers on the dangers of stereotypes and cultural stigmas, and student-centered classrooms and discussions (Bianchi, 1999).

Aside from evidenced academic outcomes, more extensive efforts to show Latinx students the value of their history, personal experiences, and culture may help to foster school communities that are more compassionate, understanding, and culturally well-rounded in an increasingly connected global society. This is not only true for Latinx populations, but for all


FALL 2016 | 11

students who may be subjected to the commonly one-note cultural experience offered by traditional course curriculum. As early as 1997, one study uncovered that university students gained empathy and a deeper understanding of diversity after completing an intercultural communication course focused on cultural awareness (Sleeter, 2011). And for those Latinx students who do presently feel isolated, integrating their stories into the curriculum may also drive academic investment in an educational experience they can finally feel tied to.

Regardless of whether or not United States schools have reached the point of integration imagined by the visionary petitioners in Mendez v. Westminster, one truth is clear: as Latinx student populations soar, the genuine policy and practice-based desegregation for all students is a priority that should be on the forefront of our national education agenda in the years to come. Moreover, it is equally important to note that while the physical segregation of Latinx students has been at the foreground of the educational equity battle, physical desegregation is not the end-all solution. Educators and policymakers must also consider the elements that help such students feel truly and meaningfully integrated—not only within the scope of the traditional majority culture so often taught in U.S. history courses, but also within the vibrant and interconnected cultures with which Latinx students most closely identify.

References

Aguirre, F., Bowman, K.L., Mendez G., Mendez S., Robbie, S., & Strum, P. (2015) Mendez v. Westminster: A living history. Michigan State Law Review, 2014(401), 401-27.

Allsup, C. (2010). Delgado v. Bastrop ISD. Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association.

Allsup, C. (2011). Hernandez v. Driscoll CISD. Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association.

Baum-Snow, N., & Lutz, B.F. (2011). School desegregation, school choice, and changes in residential location patterns by race. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, 101(7), 3019-3046.

Bianchi, T. (1999). Multiculturalism in the schools. The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research 2, 4-9.

Boustan, L.P. (2012). School desegregation and urban change: Evidence from city boundaries. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, 4(1), 85-108.

Cabrera, N.L., Milem, J.F., Marx, R.W. (2012). An empirical analysis of the effects of Mexican American studies participation on student achievement within Tucson Unified School District. Mexican American Studies Impact Analysis.

Del Rio Independent School District v. Salvatierra, 33 S.W.2d 790 (1930) Delgado v. Bastrop Independent School District, 388 W.D. Tex. (1948) Hannah-Jones, N. (2014). Segregation now: Investigating America’s racial divide. ProPublica. Herminca Hernandez et al. v. Driscoll Consolidated Independent School District, 34 S.D. Tex.

(1957) Jordan, R. (2013). Frustrating barriers to school desegregation. Urban Wire: Education and

Training. Lindholm-Leary, K., & Adelson-Rodriguez, N. (2015). Research and resources for English

learner achievement. In the Starlight.

Vara

FALL 2016 | 12

Maxwell, L.A. (2014). Latino students are nation’s most segregated, report finds. Education Week.

Mendez et al. v. Westminster School District of Orange County et al., 64 F. Supp. 544 (1946) Muñoz, C. (2004). 50 years after Brown: Latinos paved way for historic school desegregation

case. Motion Magazine. Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat, and an

uncertain future. The Civil Rights Project. University of California. Orfield, G., & Ee, J. (2014). Segregating California’s future: Inequality and its alternative 60

years after Brown v. Board of Education. The Civil Rights Project. University of California.

Orozco, C.E. (2010). Del Rio ISD v. Salvatierra. Handbook of Texas Online. Philippa Strum. (2010). Mendez v. Westminster: School Desegregation and Mexican American

Rights. University Press of Kansas. Phippen, J.W. (2015). How one law banning ethnic studies led to its rise. The Atlantic. Rosenberg, J. (2013). ‘No dogs or Mexicans allowed:’ Mendez v. Westminster and its legacy on

the southwest. Laws that Shaped L.A. KCET. Sanchez, L. (2004). Before Brown. Union-Tribune. Sleeter, C.E. (2011). The academic and social value of ethnic studies: A research review.

National Education Association. Underwood, P.S. (2009). Effects of culturally-responsive teaching practices on first grade

students’ reading comprehension and vocabulary gains. Florida State University. Wang, Y. (2016). Proposed Texas textbook says some Mexican Americans ‘wanted to destroy’

U.S. society. The Washington Post.



Dr. Hattie L. Hammonds is the Department Chair and English teacher at North Pitt High School, Pitt County Schools in North Carolina. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Hattie L. Hammonds; Address: North Pitt High School; 5659 NC-11 S, Bethel, NC 27812; Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Leadership in Diverse Schools: An Examination of

Early College High School Principals in North Carolina

Hattie L. Hammonds, Ph.D. North Pitt High School

The purpose of this qualitative, multi-site, multi-case study was to examine how three early college high school principals in North Carolina promote the success of the first generation, students of color and low-income students they serve. The study examined these principals through a conceptual framework of democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leadership. Findings show that two out of the three principals demonstrated the qualities and characteristics of democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leaders. Additionally, each principal led their school based on the values and beliefs each held about student achievement, access, equity and educational opportunity. The study has implications for the skills, dispositions and knowledge principals of diverse school should have in order to promote the success of their culturally and linguistically diverse students. KEYWORDS: socially just leadership, culturally responsive leaders, culturally and

linguistically diverse students In 2012, the U.S. Census released data showing that by the year 2040, the majority of children born in this country will be children of color (Kayne, 2013). As the general population becomes more diverse, so does the public school population. If the educational experience that most first generation, students of color and lower-income students have traditionally experienced continues, then the country’s economic outlook will worsen as these students fail to secure jobs, attain college degrees, or invest in America’s economy (OECD, 2011). According to Murphy (1990), most school reforms fail to acknowledge the unique needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students. However, one school reform initiative that goes against this trend is the Early College High School Initiative (ECHSI).

Started in 2002, the purpose of early college high schools (ECHSs) is to increase college access and high school completion rates for first generation, lower-income, and students of color (NC New Schools, 2013). Most research on ECHSs has centered on their creation and success with helping traditionally underserved and underrepresented students graduate with a diploma and a 2-year degree (AIR & SRI, 2008; 2009); however, few studies have examined principals and their role in these schools’ success. As of 2016, there are over 400 ECHSs nationally and the majority are located in Texas, North Carolina and California. Since ECHSs have had successful outcomes with students that traditionally are underserved and unsuccessful in traditional high schools, an examination of the actions and practices principals take that help change the educational trajectory for these students is warranted.

According to Leithwood et al (2008), leadership is second to classroom instruction in factors that affect student learning. Principals are considered to be the person at the school-level

Hammonds

FALL 2016 | 14

that is responsible for maintaining and implementing the goals and objectives of a school reform initiative such as the ECHSI (Good, 2008). As schools become more diverse and demands to increase student achievement persist, principals must be able to successfully navigate competing values and interests, especially as schools seek ways to reform and improve. With this in mind, there is a need to examine how ECHS principals balance two competing interests: raising student achievement while helping the target student population (first generation, students of color and low-income students) earn a high school diploma and a college degree. Therefore, the current paper examines what actions and practices of ECHS principals promote the success of their culturally and linguistically diverse students?

Literature Review

Role of the Principal

The Wallace Foundation (2011) posited that principals perform five key functions including shaping a vision of academic success for all students, creating a welcoming and safe learning environment, cultivating leadership in others, focusing on improved instruction so teachers teach their best and student learning is optimum and managing people, data, and processes that promote school improvement. Performing these five functions are imperative as principals manage the demands of numerous stakeholders; therefore, successful principals must possess a strong and well-articulated values orientation (Day, 2004; Leithwood, 2004). What differs among principals is the way leaders apply these practices and demonstrate the principal’s responsiveness to, rather than dictation by, the contexts where they work. One study that sought to examine leadership practices in situ was the International Successful School Principals Project (ISSPP) (Day, 2004). The goal of this project has been to collect data from multiple perspectives, compare effective leadership in various contexts, and identify the personal qualities and dispositions leaders share (Day, 2004). As of today, over 200 studies have been conducted using the ISSPP protocols. Despite the number of studies within the ISSPP, few studies have examined principals who practice at schools that are part of a high school reform initiative designed to promote the success of students that have traditionally been underserved and disenfranchised in traditional high school settings.

Conceptual Framework

Since early college high schools target first generation, students of color and lower-income students, issues of race, ethnicity, and social justice are inherent and should be explored (Watlington, 2008). With this in mind, the current study uses a conceptual framework that views ECHS principals as democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leaders who promote the academic success of traditionally underserved and underrepresented students in three ways: increasing access to higher education; removing barriers to student learning using innovative solutions; and increasing opportunities for traditionally underserved and underrepresented students to attend ECHSs and earn both a diploma and a 2-year degree.

Leadership in Diverse Schools

FALL 2016 | 15

Democratic Leadership

Thoughts about democratic leadership originated with John Dewey’s notion that educators could not function within a democracy if they did not practice those same beliefs in schools (Dewey, 1916; Rusch, 1995). Democratic leadership is participatory, interactive, and collaborative with the end goal being that everyone’s voice is heard and no one is excluded from the decision-making process (1995).

Democratic leaders are active and know that their influence over the school’s development is important and can only be achieved by deciding on an agenda or purpose, leading discussion and dialogue with others inside and outside the school building and being the chief learner in the building (Johansson, 2004). At the heart of democratic leadership is a focus on the values principals possess and the ones they place on specific actions and goals (Leithwood & Duke, 1999). These values “become the mental map that guides an individual’s actions and thoughts and serves as the foundation for these processes” (Johansson, 2006, p. 623).

Social Justice Leadership

Socially just leadership derives its origins from Freire (1970) who believed that education should emancipate and people should engage in constant reflection before acting to make the world a more equitable place for all.

Socially just leaders understand that they lead based on their values and in order to ensure justice for all sometimes they will need to “leave the comforts and confines of professional codes and state mandates for the riskier waters of higher moral callings” (Rapp, 2002, p. 233). Socially just leaders also realize that not discussing or addressing issues of race and income within schools will allow deficit thinking and the status quo to continue (Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Larson & Ovando, 2001). Foster (2004) implored leaders to serve as change agents that challenged systemic institutional beliefs within schools, especially in relation to students of color and low-income student’s academic achievement and degree attainment.

Culturally Responsive Leadership

Ladson-Billings (1994) conceived the term “culturally relevant pedagogy” in her book, The Dreamkeepers, which examined the teaching practices of eight teachers that successfully worked with African American students. Ladson-Billings believed culturally responsive practitioners should aid students in being successful while maintaining cultural competence and developing a critical consciousness that challenged the status quo (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Although most research using culturally responsive pedagogy centers on teacher practices, there is a growing call for this pedagogy to be applied within school leadership, particularly in schools that have high numbers of students of color and lower-income students (Johnson, 2007). Most studies on culturally responsive leaders have focused on Black principals that practice in urban schools (Reitzug & Patterson, 1998; Bloom & Erlandson, 2003; Lomotey, 1989). These principals emphasized high expectations for students, an ethic of care, and commitment to the community.

Hammonds

FALL 2016 | 16

Research Design and Methods

The current paper reports findings from a larger qualitative, multi-site, multi-case study on ECHS principals. Research protocols were designed from two sources: The International Successful School Principals Project (ISSPP), an international network that compiles research on successful principals around the world (Day, 2004) and Santamaria and Santamaria’s work on critical leadership (2011). The goal of the ISSPP project was to collect data from multiple perspectives, compare successful leadership in various contexts and identify the personal qualities and dispositions school leaders share (Day, 2004). On the other hand, the goal of Santamaria and Santamaria’s research was to determine how and why leaders act within an organization to challenge and change the status quo. Both studies closely mirror how research on principals should be conducted because they relied on multiple sources including face-to-face interviews, focus groups, and archival data analysis to document the experiences and practices of school leaders (Gopaldas, 2013). The study also included questions centered on the context of the study, early college high schools.

Purposive sampling was used to select three ECHS principals in North Carolina that served at schools with the following criterion: student body population that had 40% or more non-white students; school had to carry a Title I designation; and the principal must have led the school for four or more consecutive years. Finally, principals had to believe that they demonstrated the qualities and characteristics of democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leaders as outlined in the aforementioned framework.

Data included archival documents, state databases, interviews (with higher education representatives and teachers at School B), focus groups (with teachers, students and parents), and interviews with each case: School A Principal Joan Robinson, School B Principal Karen Lewis and School C Principal James Washington. A total of 45 people participated in this study and descriptive information for the three principals and the school contexts can be found in Table 1. All interviews and focus group data was transcribed and coded with open coding and axial coding in NVivo 10. All analyzed data was compared and contrasted against field notes for further meaning and greater understanding of the cases.


FALL 2016 | 17

Table 1. Principals and School Context Information ________________________________________________________________________

Principal Joan Robinson

Principal Karen Lewis

Principal James Washington

Principal race and gender White female White female White male Principal Age Mid-30s Early 50s Early 60’s Yrs. in Education 15 26 40 Yrs. principal at school 4 7 8 School Information Total Study Participants 15 14 16 Enrollment 360 140 200 Racial composition (%) Black 6 36 56 White 49 45 30 Latino/a 20 11 12 Asian 20 2 0 Other 4 5 3 Free/Reduced Lunch % 53% 95% 65%

Findings

The following section provides a brief description of the school and community setting as well as each principals’ practices or actions that demonstrated whether or not they were democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leaders. School A Principal Joan Robinson

Principal Joan Robinson’s actions and practices point to a complex picture of a principal that valued success and achievement over promoting access for students that are traditionally underserved and underrepresented. Principal Robinson demonstrated democratic leadership with her staff when she encouraged teachers to plan and work collaboratively (Rusch, 1995). Additionally, she solicited participation from others when she asked parents to volunteer every Wednesday so teachers could have common planning. This volunteerism, though, could be viewed as non-democratic since parents at School A were required to volunteer for four hours yearly or their child could not march at graduation. Principal Robinson’s democratic leadership with her students also showed a conflicting picture. On one hand she was described as being “more interactive with the students than traditional high school principals” during two monthly grade-level meetings, but some students reported that during these meetings she talked at the students instead of with the students which led one female student to describe her as “abrasive”. According to a male student:

I think one of the criticisms you could make is that she is almost overly involved in the student body a lot of the times, and when we do have meetings we oftentimes have meetings that are unnecessary [or] that we really don't need to have.

Hammonds

FALL 2016 | 18

Although Principal Robinson sought student input on some school issues at these meetings or from the Student Government Association, students that were part of SGA stated that their ideas and voices were usually stifled because they never believed she would approve their suggestions. One student explained:

When I was president of SGA, whenever we proposed ideas, the whole topic on the floor became do you think [Principal Robinson] would approve that. Like whenever we proposed something, that's the first thing she [our SGA advisor] would say is, ‘Do you really think [Principal Robinson] would approve that? It wasn't a question of, ‘Alright, let's take it to her and see what happens.’ It's like, ‘No, it's probably not going to happen.’

Students expressed that it was frustrating to know that even if Principal Robinson heard what they wanted most assumed she came to conversations with them already knowing what actions she would or would not take. Principal Robinson did not exhibit many characteristics or interests of a socially just leader. Although she engaged in dialogue with stakeholders, the dialogue was not to “stimulate doubt, curiosity, risk-taking or creative” (Freire, 1970). Principal Robinson did not understand that she needed to, “leave the comforts and confines of professional codes and state mandates for the riskier waters of higher moral callings” (Rapp, 2002, p. 233). According to one teacher:

I was talking to her one day at our summer meeting about how something was misunderstood among some of the staff or some of the newer teachers. She, I don't want to say took it personally, but she really took it to heart because she said, “I take that as not that you're saying ‘I'm a bad principal’, but my job is to teach the model. I know the model. My job is to run the model.’ She said, ‘…that's why it works…I didn't make up what I'm doing. It's the model.’

This quote demonstrates that Principal Robinson was so interested in making sure that her school followed the early college high school model and remained at the top academically that she failed to take risks or come up with creative, innovative solutions to challenges or concerns in her school.

Another way Principal Robinson showed that she was not a socially just leader was when she maintained the status quo on providing access and equitable opportunities for admission to the school (Foster, 2004). She did not seem interested in coming up with new ways to attract more Black and male students to the school. When Principal Robinson was asked about this she replied: “They don’t apply” and when she traveled to middle schools to recruit, “They'll raise their hands, like they'll ask ‘What sports do you have’? And as soon as I say we don't have football, the whole crowd will be like, ‘Ugh’ and I'll say, ‘We have basketball’, and they'll say ‘But do you play so-and-so’?” Instead of figuring out a way to explain her school’s program to local Black and male students and their families, Principal Robinson maintained the status quo by defaulted to a stereotypical view on why these students did not apply for nor attend the school.

As a socially justice leader, Principal Robinson could have worked to be a change agent during the time she was at School A. Instead, she and her staff put forth minimal effort to change who applies for and enrolls in the school. According to Principal Robinson:

We've done the church route. We have tried to go to the churches. I'm just -- It's a block. It's a thing, for real, [but] it's a statewide thing. I mean, it's not -- It's a push, I should say. It's a push statewide to really draw minority -- We don't typically draw -- We draw


FALL 2016 | 19

Hispanic minority, which is also a push and African-American and Hispanic minority males are [also] a push statewide. We do draw Hispanic minority, but we don't typically draw African-American minority. This quote shows that Principal Robinson failed to be accountable for the lack of Black

and male students at her school and instead chose to place the blame for this on outside forces. Principal Robinson demonstrated a couple of behaviors of a culturally responsive leader. She set high expectations for herself, the staff and students (Reitzug & Patterson, 1998; Bloom & Erlandson, 2003; Lomotey, 1989). She was committed to making sure students reached their highest potential, strived for excellence and knew they were supported as they embarked on and completed school with both a diploma and a 2-yr degree. Teachers credited Principal Robinson with helping create a more collaborative culture among teachers and students that was interdependent and connected, but according to most study participants she did not have a true relationship with any of the school’s stakeholders (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Principal Robinson also had cultural expectations for her faculty and staff members which she called “community norms.” These “community norms” dictated behaviors and actions faculty and staff should take to make the environment “more inviting and less disruptive.” Principal Robinson explained:

Our community room, this space, how do we want that to be, all the way down to not wearing perfumes or lotions that are strong smelling, or cooking fish, or popcorn that could be abrasive to somebody. I mean we really have created community agreements that we all just really highly respect each other.

Again, this demonstrated that Principal Robinson was not challenging the status quo or allowing students and staff to be free to express their true selves. The only time that student’s cultures were acknowledged or embraced was during a yearly international festival, which runs counter to actions a culturally responsive leader would take. School B Karen Lewis

Principal Karen Lewis demonstrated characteristics and behaviors of a democratic leader when she sought to hear all sides of issues between students and teachers before making a decision. One student stated: She's willing to compromise with you as well, so if you and a teacher have a fallout, she's

willing to listen to both sides and see whether the student was incorrect in what they may have done, or whether the teacher was a little too harsh on the student, because maybe the student perceived it in a different way. She also targets certain students that just want to slack off and pulls them in to talk to them and make deals with them, like ‘I'll do this if you do that.’

Although some teachers reported that they did not like Principal Lewis’ discipline style, students appreciated that she did not use a one-size-fits-all approach to discipline. Principal Lewis’ style provided students and staff an equal opportunity to voice their concerns about disciplinary issues instead of immediately punishing the student and not helping the student (and sometimes the teacher) see how the situation could have been resolved better. This approach to discipline,

Hammonds

FALL 2016 | 20

which flies in the face of zero-tolerance discipline policies, shows that Principal Lewis valued democratic processes, compromise, and accountability. Principal Lewis also showed socially just leadership qualities when she advocated for students outside the school. For example, she spoke on behalf of students at the district-level in relation to the hoodies students wanted to wear. Students were constantly being written up for having the hoodies during the winter months at the school, so instead of continuing to punish students over a clothing item, Principal Lewis appealed to the school board to allow the hoodies as long as they did not cover a student’s face. One student reported:

She cares about our personal experiences because the only reason why I'm wearing this (the hoodie) is because of her. She literally called for the Board of Education to allow us to be more open with clothing, because if not, we wouldn't be able to wear these things.

This practical solution revealed that not only did Principal Lewis advocate for students; she also sought creative solutions to problems. Another reason the school’s early college program has been successful is because Principal Lewis and her staff help parents that traditionally are not involved in school processes understand the benefits of the program. One teacher explained:

This is an impoverished area, and a lot of kids, their parents haven't gone to school, so this was one way to get them to buy into it, especially because of the low income clientele that we have, getting these services virtually for free, and then not only that, but having a support system right here to kind of wean them into it.

As a socially just leader, Principal Lewis was determined that her students would receive an education equal to every other student in the state and that the school’s rural, economically poor location would not dictate a student’s success or future (Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Larson & Ovando, 2001). Principal Lewis’ actions did not go unnoticed from students who described her as being “caring” and “energetic” and “loving”. Finally, Principal Lewis possessed many qualities of a culturally responsive leader. She believed that the early college program would help prepare students to leave the town’s rural area and become forces for change in the world. Even though she did not come from the same cultural or economic background as many of her students, she still valued their success and challenged deficit thinking among teachers about student’s abilities and futures. School C Principal James Washington

Principal James Washington demonstrated numerous characteristics and behaviors of a democratic leader when the majority of his teachers and students reported that they felt empowered to participate in running the school and knew that their voices were included in the decision-making process (Rusch, 1995). Principal Washington explained that he tried to be “hands off” with the teachers because:

They know their subject area and what they need to teach, so me hovering over them all the time wouldn’t help. Part of my job is to prepare teacher leaders that can have a bigger voice and impact in the school.

Principal Washington’s democratic approach to leadership helped his teachers take ownership over numerous decisions at the school and led teachers to describe their relationship with him as one that was “like we’re related or like brothers and sisters” instead of boss and subordinate.


FALL 2016 | 21

Additionally, Principal Washington showed that he was an advocate for students within the school. Students stated that they came to him with problems or concerns before they went to teachers because they knew he would listen to both sides of the issue before making a decision. Although this approach to discipline frustrated teachers at times, his approach helped students know he would advocate for them even if it meant upsetting his colleagues (Conley, 1991). One teacher jokingly described Principal Washington’s relationship with the students:

If they’re in trouble, they go to him. We’re the bad guys and they’re more afraid of us than him. They still listen to him though and respect him a lot.”

Even though some teachers thought Principal Washington needed to be a tougher on the students at times, students appreciated the close almost father-like relationship they had with the principal. One student explained:

[He]s involved in our lives and pushes us to try our best in school and our college classes. He always lets us sit in his office if we need a quiet place to work and is always available if we need to talk to him about anything.

Principal Washington’s socially just leadership style helped students know that he had their best interests at heart in all his decisions. One action that showed Principal Washington’s socially just leadership was his decision to work with stakeholders to start the early college eight years ago. According to Principal Washington:

My mission here is to give the kid who doesn't have that opportunity an opportunity. We have some that make all A’s or they have perfect attendance, very few, but we do have some. You can't have the whole school just of all C students because that wouldn't be good. That's like tracking. You've got to have the high end and low end all together to make things work, but the main mission is to give those children an opportunity.

Principal Washington believed that the best way for students to overcome the poverty and low educational attainment many of them grew up around was to give them an opportunity to participate in the early college program (Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Larson & Ovando, 2001). Finally, Principal Washington possessed many qualities of a culturally responsive leader. Principal Washington challenged deficit thinking among past teachers about student’s current abilities and future, which was why so many teachers had left over the past four years. Principal Washington explained that his current hiring process existed because he wanted to find teachers that would add to the culture and mission of the school while choosing teachers that cared about the students:

When I first started, that's what I hired were people who cared, and still were confident, but they cared. That was the first rule, and I got away from that because I started letting teachers hire, so it was me along with everybody else, and we got to where we were hiring who we thought would be most competent and away from who would still be able to do different things in the classroom. They'd be open to change and that kind of stuff, but some of them we hired did not. They didn't care one bit about the kid. It was about their kid and it was about their subject. I'm into teacher empowerment, but we're not doing a good job of hiring teachers the way I want to hire teachers and so this last time I did the hiring by myself.

Hammonds

FALL 2016 | 22

Despite this turnover, current teachers thought that Principal Washington was a good principal because his purpose and mission was all about the students and their success. According to one teacher:

He really just wants them to do well. His vision is when they leave here that they can be thinkers. He wants them to be challenged and contribute. I don't think he necessarily wants them to leave with an associate's degree - I don't think that's the end all for him. He has said grades don't matter to me, which makes us cringe sometimes, but I know that grades are not the final determination of whether you're a success or not. In his mind, he really just wants the kids to be successful, make progress and be happy because it’s like they and us are his kids and he’s like the patriarch of our school family.

Teachers at School C trusted Principal Washington because they knew that he was doing whatever was in the best interest of them and the students, which points to the impact of his culturally responsive leadership.

Discussion

A cross-analysis of the three cases shows that all three principals demonstrated the qualities and characteristics of being democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leaders in varying degrees and results at the school level. ECHS principals must balance several competing interests such as access, relationship building, management of the organization and school accountability. The purpose of early college high schools is to increase college access and high school completion rates for first generation, lower-income students and students of color (NC New Schools, 2013). At times this purpose conflicts with federal and state mandates specifying that principals must show that all students are successful and achieving as measured through standardized tests. All three principals demonstrated democratic leadership, but at various levels. Principal Robinson encouraged collaboration among teachers using weekly planning meetings while Principals Lewis and Washington had open door policies where teachers and students felt welcome. Although Principal Robinson sought student voices during monthly grade level meetings, she usually did not take their opinions or desires into consideration when making decisions that impacted the student’s experiences. Lastly, Principal Robinson was not an advocate for her students inside or outside the school.

Conversely, Principals Lewis and Washington advocated for students as evidenced by them constantly working with teachers to help them understand that discipline should be administered based on student’s individual cases not through blanket, zero-tolerance policies. Although both principals’ actions at times conflicted with teacher’s beliefs on discipline, Principals Lewis and Washington thought that treating students with respect and valuing them as individuals was more important. Many educators say that they want all students to succeed, but words without deeds or actions changes nothing. A socially just leader, however, acts upon their belief that all students should have access to a quality education. With this in mind, Principal Robinson did not demonstrate socially just leader because she valued achievement and having top test scores over ensuring that traditionally underserved and disenfranchised students had access to her school. For example, only 5 out of 400 students that applied for admission two years ago were Black yet neither Principal Robinson nor the teachers and parents seemed to be concerned about this fact.


FALL 2016 | 23

School A participants believed that gaining access to the school was a privilege and that only select students should have the opportunity to attend the school, which runs counter to the beliefs and actions of a socially just leader and the purpose of ECHSs. On the other hand, Principals Lewis and Washington personified socially just leadership. Both principals wrote grants that started their schools and then allowed open access because they believed that historically underserved and underrepresented students should have the same education and services that more affluent students received. Study participants reported that both principals showed that they loved, respected and cared about their students, which helped students be more willing to take risks and participate in each school’s rigorous early college program. Each principal demonstrated culturally responsive leadership, although Principal Robinson’s actions painted a contradictory picture about cultural responsiveness. All three principals had high expectations of their students and worked to create a family-like environment within their schools, but this is where the similarities between the three ended. Principal Robinson’s push to establish “community norms” about everything from what people could warm up in a microwave to what type of perfume or clothing a person could wear showed that she expected students to assimilate into the mainstream culture upon arrival at the school. On the other hand, Principals Lewis and Washington exhibited cultural responsiveness when they challenged teacher’s deficit thinking about student’s behavior and achievement. Both principals also had an ethic of care and love toward their students and the communities where they served. Principal Washington gained credibility with parents and students when he fired and dismissed teachers that did not value the student’s or the school’s purpose and mission.

Based on the findings from this study, each leader promoted student success by creating organizations that were aligned with their personal values and beliefs on achievement, access, equity, capacity-building and relationships (Harris, 2002). While Principal Robinson created an organization that promoted student success as measured by standardized test scores and academic performance, Principals Lewis and Washington created organizations that promoted access and opportunity over academic performance and standardized test scores.

Implications

The current study is significant because schools in this country are becoming more

diverse and will require principals that demonstrate democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leadership to lead them. The reason these types of principals are necessary is because the educational history and experiences of most students of color and lower-income students in America has been overwhelming negative and counter to many educator’s claims of wanting equitable, quality educational opportunities for all students. If our country wants to remain competitive globally and relevant in the future, then a dramatic change must occur. Since school leaders are typically the person tasked with leading such changes at the school level, then current and future principals, along with stakeholders, mush acknowledge historic injustices and take clear, purposeful actions within and outside schools to bring about substantial change. This study also study has implications for states that have ECHSs or are planning to start an ECHS program or school. Principals at early college high schools must practice democratic, socially just, culturally responsive leadership if they desire to be an effective ECHS leader.

The current study has implications for traditional schools. If principals, teachers, and policymakers continue to view students of color and lower-income students as deficient and

Hammonds

FALL 2016 | 24

incapable or unwilling learners, then the results schools have seen with these students for decades will continue unabated. In light of numerous local and national protests against police brutality, unfair judicial systems, and education systems that disenfranchise students of color and lower income students, public school leaders, and teachers must accept their responsibility in leading conversations, practices, and processes that promote equitable, socially just, and culturally responsive educational opportunities for all students. School leaders, particularly those that serve at diverse schools, must consider how their action, or inaction, contributes to negative school experiences and outcomes for students of color and lower income students.

This study contributes to the body of literature on principal leadership, especially principals that serve at schools that are a part of the ECHSI. The current study also adds to literature on the actions and practices principals must take while serving in schools that predominantly enroll students of color and lower-income students. Finally, the study adds to research on the skills, knowledge, and dispositions principals at diverse schools need in order to be successful and effective leaders in those contexts.

References

American Institutes for Research and SRI International. (2008). Evaluation of the Early College High School Initiative: Select Topics on Implementation. Retrieved from www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/Eval-select-topics.pdf. American Institutes for Research and SRI International. (2009). 2003-2007 Early College High School Initiative Evaluation: Emerging Patterns and Relationships. Retrieved from www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/ECHS_Eva_2003-2007.pdf. Bloom, C. M., & Erlandson, D. A. (2003). African American women principals in urban schools: Realities, (re)constructions, and resolutions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 339–369. Day, C. (2004). The Passion of Successful Leadership. School Leadership and Management,

24(4) 425-437. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press. Foster, L. (2004). Administrator and teacher recruitment and selection: Issues, challenges and strategies. Journal of School Public Relations, 25(2), 220–232. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Gopaldas, A. (2013). Intersectionality 101. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (32), 90-94. Good, T. L. (2008). In the midst of comprehensive school reform: Principals' perspectives.

Teachers College Record, 110(11), 2341. Johansson, O. (2004). Introduction: Democracy and leadership – or training for democratic

leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 620 – 624. Johnson, L. (2007). Rethinking successful school leadership in challenging U.S. schools: Culturally responsive practices in school-community relationships. International Studies

in Educational Administration, 35(3), 49-57. Kayne, E. (13, June 2013). Census: White majority in U.S. gone by 2043. NBC News. Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18934111-census- white- majority-in-us-gone-by-2043?lite Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teaching for African-American

students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


FALL 2016 | 25

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally responsive pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Larson, C. & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134–161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Larson, C. L., & Ovando, C. J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in multicultural school communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Leithwood, K. & Duke, D.L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In J.

Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration, (pp. 45-72). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.

Lomotey, K. (1989). African-American principals: School leadership and success. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Murphy, J. (Ed.) (1990). The Educational Reform Movement in the 1990s: Perspectives and

Cases. Berkeley: McCutchan. NC New Schools Project (2013). Design principles for innovative schools. Retrieved from http://newschoolsproject.org. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicator. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en. Rapp, D. (2002). Social justice and the importance of rebellious imaginations. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 226-245. Reitzug, U. C. & Patterson, J. (1998). ‘I’m not going to lose you!’ Empowerment through caring in an urban principal’s practice with students. Urban Education, 150–181. Rusch, E. A. (1995). Leadership in Evolving Democratic School Communities. Paper Presentation at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Santamaría, L. J. & Santamaría, A. P. (2011). Applied critical leadership in education: Choosing change. New York, NY: Routledge Books. The Wallace Foundation. (2012). The School Principal as Leader: Guiding schools to better

teaching and learning. The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved on May 5, 2015, from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf

Watlington, T. B. (2008). The impact of a multicultural curriculum upon student achievement: Perceptions of potential dropouts who graduated from North Carolina’s first early- middle college high school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.