Dare professors of educational administration build a new social order: social justice within an American perspective

Citation

Shoho, A.R. (2006), "Dare professors of educational administration build a new social order: social justice within an American perspective", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.2006.07444caa.001

Dare professors of educational administration build a new social order: social justice within an American perspective

Over the past few years, there was been a notable increase in scholarly presentations and publications involving the role of social justice in educational leadership. The diversity of social justice issues represents one aspect of the impact of globalization on schools and its leaders. In addition, internationally, schools and its leaders are grappling with social justice issues as a once vast world becomes ever small through technology and cross-cultural interactions (via economics, war, exchanges, etc.). Yet, while this is going on, social justice issues are often marginalized within educational leadership degree and certification programs. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the USA. Viewed as “soft” in comparison to other traditional mainstream topics such as organizational theory, principalship, school law and finance, this phenomenon is representative of a historical event from 1932 when George Counts delivered an infamous speech to the Progressive Education Association entitled, “Dare the school build a new social order?” Given this backdrop, the focus of this special issue revolves around the theme of “Dare professors of educational administration build a new social order: social justice within an American perspective.”

Some 74 years ago, George Counts challenged educators to change their passive ways and become active leaders in shaping society. In recent years, the field of educational administration has been under attack for accepting weak students, providing irrelevant programs and producing leaders who are unprepared to assume leadership positions requiring knowledge and skills beyond managerial to lead schools where changing student demographics requires leaders who are able to advocate for the underprivileged and powerless. Thus, the publication of this special theme issue on social justice is especially timely. Needed are institutional and social analyses of the concept and practices of social justice within educational administration programs, social equity and how these practices interact in intended and unintended ways to affect the educational preparation of future school leaders who will lead schools where the most vulnerable children in our society reside.

This special issue contains seven articles that examine the role of social justice in American educational administration preparation programs. In one way or another, each article takes on the challenge put forth by George Counts in 1932 and illustrates the twenty-first century currency of his Dare.

The first article by Lugg and Shoho, discusses how public school administrators with a social justice perspective have an obligation to permeate society beyond their schools and how they might address the perilous politics associated with advocating social change. Lugg and Shoho argue there are many similarities between the present-day call for social justice and the earlier Social Reconstructionist movement that Counts’ manifesto sparked. Both movements have invited educators, and particularly the professoriate, to think more expansively when it comes to public education, and the influence of professors in shaping a more democratic and just country. Unlike their predecessors who favored a “managerial” approach to school administration, contemporary educational leaders who embrace a social justice ethic invite a degree of risk-taking in an environment where educational leaders are under fierce accountability and fiscal pressures, while coping with a larger political environment that is polarized and fearful.

The second article by Capper, Theoharis, and Sebastian conceptualizes a framework for the preparation of leaders for social justice. They propose that to prepare leaders for social justice, educational leadership programs must attend to critical consciousness, knowledge, and practical skills focused on social justice with their students. These three domains are positioned on the horizontal dimension of their framework. To achieve these ends, requires curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment oriented toward social justice – the vertical dimension of the framework. These six domains of the framework yield nine different aspects critical to the preparation of social justice leaders. The framework also addresses emotional safety for risk-taking. That is, for prospective leaders to fully engage with the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, professors must intentionally create a classroom and program environment and conditions where students experience a sense of emotional safety that will help them take intellectual and emotional risks toward social justice ends. Capper, Theoharis and Sebastian suggest using this framework to guide the review and development of administration preparation programs whose aim is to prepare socially just leaders.

The McClellan and Dominguez article provides another framework for the development and implementation of educational administration programs that encourage practitioners and educational administration faculty to push application and preparation beyond reproducing tendencies of the status quo as well as to open education to the potential of embracing silenced or marginalized learners. This article provides the tools to survive in existing systems and the awareness to see inequalities. The capability of creating change in educational environments expecting a business-as-usual-paradigm is also discussed.

The fourth article by Hoff, Yoder, and Hoff examines whether emerging school leaders are prepared to face the challenge of social justice and embrace the society-building responsibility at the core of public schooling. It focuses especially on students from homogeneous backgrounds, their capacity to address issues of diversity, and the extent to which their educational leadership program has prepared them to champion social justice within schools. They found that participants in their study were inadequately prepared to lead public schools toward a greater understanding of diversity or to help change the social order. Furthermore, participants claim little responsibility for promoting social justice, especially when social change may challenge local norms. The participant responses indicate their perspective is not broad enough to understand fully or internalize the social responsibility Counts advocated in 1932.

Similar to what Hoff, Yoder and Hoff discovered, Gerstl-Pepin, Killeen, and Hasazi’s article reveals the difficulties in preparing educational leaders to address the complexities of a diverse society – difficulties arising both from their limited personal experience and from voids in their educational leadership program. Their article reports on a six-year self-study of a doctoral program intended to promote social justice leadership via an “ethic of care” framework. Their findings suggest a mixed bag of results. On the positive side, the program was effective at creating a caring environment and changing students’ understanding of diversity and equity issues. On the negative side, the authors found a lack of curricular integration. They also discovered that social justice was perceived by students as a discrete concept contained to one class, suggesting a lack of integration may marginalize these issues. These weaknesses are explored using the concepts of “caring” and “colorblind” curriculums.

In another example implementing social justice concepts, Young, Mountford, and Skrla examine some of their experiences with incorporating a set of readings focused on issues of gender, diversity, leadership, and feminist thought into the curriculum of a statewide educational leadership doctoral program. Their findings suggests that, after a year of exposure to readings and written assignments about gender and other diversity issues, few students had undergone significant transformations in their learning regarding gender issues. Moreover, they found that many students demonstrated resistance to reading, reflecting upon and discussing gender issues. Based on this study, programs and professors that endeavor to prepare leaders who are transformative, require transformative teaching practices that assist in the development of such leaders. When content includes issues of diversity, the findings indicate that it is particularly important that faculty increase their knowledge of student responses to difficult content and transformative teaching strategies.

The last article by Karpinski and Lugg explores some of the current tensions associated with the practice of social justice concepts. Specifically, this article examines a case study of Rupert Picott, a principal who took on George Counts challenge to build a better society through schools. In pursuing equity in education and other venues, Picott faced legal, political, economic, and social obstacles. Persistent and keenly aware of context, circumstance, and the value of communication, Picott provides an example of how one educational leader navigated through a hostile environment to achieve equity. In an environment where accountability is narrowly defined and economic concerns continue to perpetuate a managerial model for educational administrators, those who embrace a social justice perspective, do so at their own peril. However, those who wish to act for the educational welfare and life outcomes of all children will likely adopt and adapt a social justice perspective suited to their own priorities and needs. In doing so, they may incur professional and personal tolls.

The key theme in this special issue revolves around the risk and courage it takes for school leaders to practice social justice. Modern school leaders must determine their non-negotiables and examine what Michael Fullan and colleagues have written in a series of books entitled, “What’s worth fighting for…?” At the same time, professors of educational administration must practice what they espouse in their classrooms, otherwise their lofty words will fall on deaf ears.

George Counts issued a stern challenge 74 years ago in “Dare the school build a new social order?” Unfortunately, the challenge was largely unaccepted by the education profession in the twentieth century. Are the twenty-first century educational leaders ready to accept Counts’s challenge? Only time will tell. The early evidence shows promise as professors of educational administration are stepping forward to re-energize the social justice movement and realize the dream behind George Counts’s “Dare” for a better society.

Alan R. ShohoSpecial Issue Guest Editor