Chapter 4: Interpretivist Epistemology

On the epistemological framework described in Figure 4.1, interpretivism is

premised on the subjective nature of knowledge (horizontal axis) and nature of
change oriented toward regulation (vertical axis). An interpretivist epistemology of
organizations focuses on social life interactions and the meaning of these
interactions as perceived by individuals, rather than so-called objective reality
(Sirotnik & Oakes, 1986). Because this epistemology is rooted in the sociology of
regulation, “the problems of conflict, domination, contradiction … and change play
no part … in this epistemology” (Burrell & Morgan, 1982, p. 31, cited in Capper, 1993,
p. 11). While the structural functional epistemology focuses on how organizations
operate with a goal of efficiency, interpretivists are concerned mainly with how
people experience the organization with a goal of understanding. As I wrote in 1993,
“An interpretivist epistemology shares structural functionalists’ assumption that the
existing social order and its institutions are legitimate, necessary, and not
problematic” (Capper, 1993, p. 12; Burrell & Morgan, 1982). Educators who adopt
the interpretivist epistemology posit that schools as “organizations are socially
constructed and exist only in the perceptions of people” (Capper, 1993, p. 11)
Individuals are viewed as interdependent, dependent on others (Gibson, Ivancevich,
& Konopaske, 1984). Interpretivist epistemologies and research methodologies focus
on participant meaning and understanding, patterns of behavior, and feelings of
persons which undergird qualitative research methodologies (Sirotnik & Oakes,
1986). Using interviews and observations of events and interactions in this
interpretive mode can uncover the similar and different perceptions of what is
happening in the setting. Figure 4.1 An Epistemology Framework Sometimes
interpretivist understandings and analyses may point to the necessity of change, but
this change is oriented toward regulation (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Sirotnik & Oakes,
1986). Even though multiple perspectives are solicited on proposed changes,
interpretivism is like structural functionalism in that change is believed to be
evolutionary, step-by-step and maintains the status quo (Burrell & Morgan, 1982;
Fullan, 2016). Similarly, a leader may ensure that stakeholder perspectives are
included, but maintains the leader’s own perspective, and in the end the leader
makes the final decision and the goal of stability remains the same. As such, a
collaborative effort among teachers, students, community members, and agencies
does not necessarily mean that equity will be prioritized unless this is the goal of the
collaboration. THE HUMAN RESOURCE FRAME Many organizational theories
emanate from and span structural functional and interpretive perspectives, including
human relations and systems theories (Burrell & Morgan, 1982; Foster, 1986). For
example, systems theories were espoused beginning in the late 1940s. They
suggested, in part, that schools as organizations are dependent on their
environments, and information sustaining the organization is gained via
communication and systems feedback loops. Dating back to the 1950s, human
relations theories suggested that educational organizations exist to serve human
needs. Human relations theories include participatory management, job enrichment,
self-managing work teams, and organizational development. Two frames of Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) four-frames approach can be aligned to the interpretivist
epistemology: the human resource frame and the symbolic frame. With the human
resource frame, Bolman and Deal offer the following assumptions based on the
organizational theory literature: Organizations exist to serve human needs rather
than the converse. People and organizations need each other. Organizations need
ideas, energy, and talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities. When the
fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer. Individuals are
exploited or exploit the organization – or both become victims. A good fit benefits
both. Individuals find meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the
talent and energy they need to succeed (p. 118). From Bolman and Deal’s (2017)
human resources frame, the metaphor for organizations is family; central concepts
are needs, skills, and relationships; and the basic leadership challenge is aligning the
organization to human needs. The human resources frame suggests, “Build and
implement an HR strategy. Hire the right people. Keep them. Invest in them.
Empower them. Promote diversity” (p. 138). With “promoting diversity” (p. 138),
Bolman and Deal (2017) discuss the importance of welcoming and hiring individuals
across race, gender, and sexual identity. They cite several high-profile discrimination
cases from Denny and Coke as reasons to “promote diversity” because, in their
words, “in the end, it makes good business sense for companies to promote
diversity. If a company devalues certain groups, word tends to get out and customers
become alienated” (2017, p. 152). Thus, from the human resources perspective,
organizations should “promote” diversity in hiring as a means to avoid alienating
customers. Motivation theory resides within the human resource frame as discussed
by Bolman and Deal (2017). They refer to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory for
leaders to consider when leading an organization and working with individuals within
the organization, even though, as they explain, little empirical evidence exists for the
effectiveness of this theory in practice. Further, as Shakeshaft (1989) discusses in her
ground-breaking book on women in educational leadership, Maslow’s theory is
steeped in androcentric bias. Shakeshaft explains how theories, like Maslow’s, are
“formulated using a male lens but applied to both males and female” (p. 159), and
that, according to Maslow, “Excellence in humanity is, therefore, excellence in
masculinity” (p. 158). Additional theories from a human resource frame include the
literature on organizational development. Bolman and Deal (2017) cite Lewin’s work
in the 1940s on sensitivity training, known as “T-groups”(p. 154),) as one example of
organizational development work. Interestingly, Lewin was one of the first
organizational theory scholars to address race (Burnes, 2004), and sought to
understand how racial conflict and intergroup relations related to race could be
addressed. Bolman and Deal report that one criticism of his work was that this
sensitivity training was “better at changing individuals than organizations” (p. 154).
The human resource frame also includes theories by Argyris and Schon (1978), who
explored the contradictions between “espoused theory” (i.e., what people say they
believe) and “theory in use” (cited in Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 161) (i.e., what people
actually do or theory of action). Often, educators are encouraged to articulate a
“theory in action” for their practice – to be explicit about the theory guiding their
practice. At the same time, just because an educator is clear about the theory
guiding their action, the theory or action may not be equity focused. Similarly,
ensuring that an espoused theory aligns with one’s actions does not necessarily
mean that the actions advance equitable ends. Argyris and Schon (1978) also
described two models for human behavior. Model I is based on: the core assumption
that an organization is a dangerous place where you have to look out for yourself or
someone else may do you in. This assumption leads individuals to follow a
predictable set of steps in their attempts to influence others. (Bolman & Deal, 2017,
p. 162) These steps include the following: Assume that the problem is caused by the
other person(s). Develop a private, unilateral diagnosis and solution. Since the other
person is the cause of the problem, get him or her to change, using one or more of
three basic strategies: facts, logic, and rational persuasion (argue the merits of your
point of view or your solution); indirect influence (ease in, ask leading questions,
manipulate the other person); and direct critique (tell the other person directly what
he or she is doing wrong and how he or she should change). If the other person
resists or becomes defensive, this confirms the original diagnosis (that the other
person caused the problem). Respond to resistance through some combination of
intensifying pressure, protecting the other person, or rejecting the other person. If
your efforts are unsuccessful, or less successful than hoped, it is the other’s fault.
You need feel no personal responsibility (pp. 162–163). In contrast, Argyris and
Schon’s Model II of human behavior suggests the following: Emphasize common
goals and mutual influence. Communicate openly; publicly test assumptions and
beliefs. Combine advocacy with inquiry (cited in Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 163).
Neither Model I and Model II considers how individuals from traditionally
marginalized identities may experience typical organizations as repressive and
oppressive, which in turn informs their response to these oppressive environments
and situations. Argyris and Schon (1978) suggest that when people are frustrated in
an organization, they resist or adapt to the frustration in the following ways (cited in
Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 125): Withdraw from the organization via absenteeism or
simply by quitting. Stay on the job, but withdraw psychologically, becoming
indifferent, passive, apathetic. Resist the organization by restricting productivity,
deception, and sabotage. Climb the hierarchy to better jobs. Create groups/coalitions
to address the power imbalance. In sum, Bolman and Deal’s human resource frame
and the theories that comprise the frame all emanate from the interpretivist
epistemology. While the assumptions and theories within the frame move beyond
structural functional approaches, they stop short of considerations of power,
privilege, and equity. THE SYMBOLIC FRAME In addition to the human resource
frame, Bolman and Deal’s (2017) symbolic frame of organizational theory also
emanates from interpretivist epistemology. According to Bolman and Deal, “The
symbolic frame forms an umbrella for ideas from several disciplines, including
organization theory and sociology (Selznick, 1957; Blumer, 1969; Schutz, 1967; Clark,
1972; Corwin, 1976; March & Olsen, 1976; Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Weick, 1976;
Davis and others, 1976; Hofstede, 1984)” (p. 241). The assumptions of the symbolic
frame include the following: What is most important about an event is not what
happened, but what it means. Events and meanings are loosely coupled: the same
events can have very different meanings for different people because of differences
in the schema they use to interpret their experience. Many organizational events and
processes are important more for what they express than for what they produce.
Facing uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, find
direction, and anchor hope and faith. These events and processes weave a tapestry
of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories to help
people find purpose and passion (p. 241). Throughout their text, nearly all the
leaders and associated heroes and heroines portrayed are white males adhering to
traditional notions of masculinity. In their discussion of the symbolic frame, Bolman
and Deal (2017) reference Collins’ (2001) book Good to great, a study of corporations
and an often-used text in educational leadership programs. Representative of the
interpretivist epistemology, the book does not ask readers to consider “Good for
whom?” If educators assume that their schools are already “good,” then good for
whom? Our public schools have always been decently good for white, middle-upper
class students who are heterosexual, cisgender, whose home language is English, and
without a disability label. However, for students who do not fit that category –
students from low-income families, of color, for whom English is not their home
language, labeled with a disability; lesbian, gay, bisexual; or transgender and their
intersections – most schools have been anything but good. To declare our schools as
“good” schools reflects our denial about the inequities in those schools. Thus,
educators could become deeply enamored with Collins’ concepts and ideas, but in so
doing remain distracted from addressing inequities. Out of Bolman and Deal’s (2017)
symbolic frame emerged their popular definition of culture as “the way we do things
around here” (p. 258). Yet, as one would predict of a concept grounded in the
interpretivist epistemology, “the way we do things around here” reflects systems of
privilege and power. That is, “the way we do things around here” most often reflects
white and other privileged assumptions with the expectation that all will fit into this
culture of simultaneous privilege and oppression. Bolman and Deal (2017) also
identify “Diversity as a competitive advantage” (p. 269) as an important tenet of the
symbolic frame, taken from a review of a computer company more than 30 years
ago. Bolman and Deal defined diversity among the all-male engineers in the
company as diversity of “specialty and personality” (p. 269) – yet none of their other
intersecting identities was mentioned. The only woman to appear in their case
example was a woman they described who functioned as the “mother superior” (p.
269) or “den mother” (p. 275) to the all male group. Bolman and Deal (2017) again
mention diversity when discussing the symbolism of structure. They refer to an
example of hiring a diversity officer, establishing diversity committees and task
forces, and developing diversity plans which symbolize that something is being done,
even if nothing changes. They explain: New structures reflect legal and social
expectations and represent a bid for legitimacy and support from the attending
audience. An organization without an affirmative action program, for example, is
suspiciously out of step with prevailing concerns for diversity and equity.
Nonconformity invites questions, criticism, and inspection. It is easier to appoint a
diversity officer than to change hiring practices deeply embedded in both individual
and institutional beliefs and practices. Because the presence of a diversity officer is
more visible than revisions in hiring priorities, the addition of a new role may signal
to external constituencies that there has been a new development in the drama even
if the appointment is “window dressing” and no real change has occurred. (Bolman &
Deal, 2017, p. 286) In sum, the symbolic frame, like the human resources frame, is
grounded in interpretivist epistemology. Although a leader or educator may believe
they are shifting among frames when viewing a situation from the human resources
frame versus the symbolic frame, both frames are grounded in the interpretivist
epistemology and thus both frames can perpetuate oppression and inequities. Does
this mean that considerations of human relations and of symbolism and culture are
not relevant to social justice leadership? In the chapter on critical theory (Chapter 5),
I will explore in more detail whether and how theories associated with the human
resource and symbolic frame could be recast toward social justice ends. LEADERSHIP
AND THE INTERPRETIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY Leaders leading from an interpretivist
epistemology emphasize personal awareness, the significance of relationships, and
having a purpose or mission. From the interpretivist epistemology, the education
leader serves as a facilitator and collaborator. Although it appears that these
interpretivist themes move beyond a structural functional perspective, they stop
short of equity goals. Other leadership practices aligned with the interpretive
epistemology include the work on emotional intelligence, leadership styles, the
Myers-Briggs inventory, distributed leadership, spirituality and leadership, the
reflective practitioner, leading for learning, and the learning organization. All these
aspects of leadership move beyond structural functionalism, but equity and social
justice are not the explicit goals of these practices. Thus, these practices can mask
and distract from equity work, and in so doing perpetuate inequities. The differences
between the interpretivist epistemology and critically oriented epistemologies which
I discuss later in the book may be summed up by the phrase “Charity, not justice.”
For example, from an interpretivist epistemology, educators may feel sorry for
students from low-income homes, hold a deficit view of these students and their
families, and thus hold lower expectations of these students. As such, educators with
an interpretivist epistemology focus on charity and sympathy but not on changing
the systems and practices to prevent poverty in the first place, as discussed in
Chapter 3. “Caring” leadership has emerged again recently in the educational
leadership literature (Louis, Murphy, & Smylie, 2016). Yet, as Reitzug (1994) noted:
“even such notable notions as caring can result in inequity” (p. 213). I wrote in 1993
that the problem with the “caring” literature: is because parents “cared” for the
welfare of their white children that they established segregated schools in the south.
It is because people “care” about the educational achievement of their own children
and believe that students with special needs deserve “special help” away from
“typical students” that administrators … and parents promote the continued
segregation of students without disability labels away from students with those
labels. (Capper, 1993, p. 295) Leadership from an interpretivist epistemology shifts
from structural functionalism. Nearly all of the leadership literature in business and
education advocates an emphasis on relationships, collaboration, professional
learning communities, constructivist learning, and caring. Yet it stops short of
considering power, privilege, or equity. THE INTERPRETIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY,
ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY, AND RESPONSE TO DIVERSITY Many educational
practices emanate from the interpretivist epistemology, including constructivist
learning theory, multiple intelligences (Gardner, 2011), cooperative learning, whole
language, some forms of multicultural education, professional learning communities,
adaptive schools, differentiated instruction, Universal Design for Learning, learner-
centered classrooms, multi-age classrooms, project-based learning, co-teaching, and
personalized learning. While all these educational practices shift beyond structural
functional epistemologies, none addresses equity or makes eliminating inequities the
explicit goal. That is, none of these educational practices identifies “to what ends”
these practices are directed and the goal of eliminating inequities is not identified as
the goal for this work. As previously discussed, when the goal is not equity or social
justice explicitly, then these practices can perpetuate inequities by educators being
deeply engaged in these practices but not addressing inequities in doing so. Thus, the
outcomes of these practices do not change the inequities in the school, even though
educators believe they are fundamentally changing what is happening in the
classroom. Most of these practices rely on the language of “all students,” “all
learners,” similar to most school districts in their mission statements; yet the
practices are not specific to eliminating inequities among learners. These
instructional practices are laid on top of the broken structural functional education
system reviewed in the chapter on structural functional epistemology (Chapter 3),
and ignore the assimilationist culture and oppressive system of schooling. Like most
leadership or educational practices grounded in an interpretivist epistemology, many
of these educational practices claim to be about systems change, changing the
system, or transforming education. For example, in their book on personalized
learning, Bray and McCleskey (2014) argue: “Our system is broken, and it’s time to
really look at personalizing learning as a way to transform education” (p. 205), and
“Consider personalized learning as a culture shift and transformational revolution
shaking up teaching and learning” (p. 7). Yet, the transformation called for in most
education practices is speaking about transformation from structural functional to
interpretivist epistemology, as is the case with Bray and McCleskey’s articulation of
personalized learning – which is no small shift. At the same time, this epistemological
shift falls short of shifting toward equitable outcomes for all students, as I will discuss
in the chapters on critically oriented epistemology. This does not mean that an
educational practice grounded in an interpretivist epistemology cannot be utilized
toward equitable ends. However, because equity is not the explicit purpose of the
practice, nor are all the associated professional development, materials, and
examples oriented toward these ends, then the practice is highly unlikely to be
leveraged for, or result in equitable outcomes. Personalized learning that is not
focused on equity can distract from the equity work and, as a result, inequities may
increase. Further, “personalizing” learning could mean ascribing lower expectations
for students from low-income families, students of color, students labeled with
disabilities, and students who are linguistically diverse. These students are routed
into lower level “personalized” learning experiences. Given the plethora of
educational practices that emanate from the interpretivist epistemology, this
epistemology along with structural functionalism guides much of educators’
responses to diversity and difference. I characterize interpretivist response to
diversity or difference as a “it’s a small world” response where educators are seeking
harmony and “celebrating diversity,” informed by school curricula of studying
cultures around the world, ethnic nights at school, or when extra-curricular clubs
develop service projects to “help the under-privileged.” While these practices shift
beyond completely ignoring race, culture, and class, at the same time these practices
do not address the historic, systemic, structural oppression across these differences.
For example, the popular Tribes program aptly represents the interpretivist
epistemology with its focus on building community in schools. Tribes defines its work
as follows (Tribes Learning Community, 2016): “Every school should be a model
home, a complete community actively developing future compassionate citizens
capable of creating, leading and contributing to the kind of democratic communities
– in which we all long to live.” Yet, the Tribes program suggests implementing these
practices with no mention of addressing segregated, tracked, pull-out programs that
perpetuate student hierarchy and inequities. Thus, in practice, educators have
shared that teachers in their schools have been implementing a Tribes community-
building activity while, during that activity, students labeled with disabilities have
been pulled out of the classroom for instruction. Thus, Tribes activities are occurring
in classrooms that are not a “model home” or “complete community” and are not
representative of “democratic communities – in which we all long to live.” With the
specific case example of disability, like the structural functional epistemology, when
educators address disability from an interpretivist epistemology they continue to
defer to the experts who deliver student services, maintaining the divide between
general and special education. These educators will most often claim that their
schools are “inclusive” as long as some students with disabilities are educated in
general education for part of the time. Students with disabilities are included
because of the importance of social relationships for these students, with less
attention given to academic needs. Students labeled with disabilities are viewed as
needing support and as objects of pity among other students. Programs in schools
such as “disability buddies” or other similar artificial friendship systems emanate
from the interpretivist epistemology. If students labeled with disabilities were truly
thought of as peers and equals in the school and integrated throughout the school in
natural proportions learning alongside students without disability labels, natural
friendships would form and there would be no need for contrived friendship groups
based on charity. Educators addressing diversity and difference from an interpretivist
epistemology perhaps unknowingly favor charity over justice. Students outside the
norm, as previously described, may be felt sorry for or may be objects of pity based
on deficit assumptions about students and families outside of the norm. Students
labeled with disabilities may be included in ways that do not disrupt the status quo
of schooling, in particular courses or classes. Students experiencing poverty are
viewed as deficit, and that they have a “culture of poverty” (Donnor & Ladson-
Billings, 2018), that all experience “trauma” while ignoring the daily trauma of
oppressive structures and cultures that schools inflict upon students. Students of
color and their families are also viewed as deficient – that difference equals
deficient, that intrinsic student learning and life potential remains limited. Nearly all
“diversity” trainings and workshops emanate out of the interpretivist epistemology
(Evans, 2007; Stovall, 2004; Sue, 2015). While educators may at best be challenged
to disrupt their notions of, in particular race, this possible increase in racial
consciousness often does not extend to other identities and their intersections to
disrupting the structures and systems of schooling that oppress and marginalize.
Critically oriented epistemologies push beyond charity and arise from and center
justice. Historically, critical theory emerged as the first critically oriented
epistemology that I take up next in Chapter 5. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES After reading the chapter, educator development activities I describe next
for the interpretivist epistemology include (1) playdough sculpture, (2) discussion
questions for whole class discussion, (3) critical analysis of the educator’s own
leadership, and (4) case study analysis. It is best to work through all the activities in
the order they are presented here. I also provide time estimates. ACTIVITY 1:
Playdough Constructions Using playdough and with a partner, construct a symbolic
representation of the interpretivist epistemology (10 minutes). Large group check-in:
One person in each dyad presents their construction. Ask students to take notes, and
the instructor takes notes so that all can see, writing down the keywords for each
construction such that by the end, educators have used their own language and
words to describe interpretivism (depending on group size 15 to 20 minutes).
ACTIVITY 2: Discussion Questions for the Interpretivist Epistemology (Large group
about 20 minutes) From the interpretivist epistemology: What are the organizational
goals? What does leadership look like? How is the organization structured? What
does decision-making look like? What aspects of education emanate from this
epistemology? What is the goal of education? What does the curriculum look like?
What does instruction look like? What does assessment look like? What does
evaluation/supervision look like? How does this epistemology respond to power,
privilege, and difference? What are the strengths and limitations of this
epistemology? ACTIVITY 3: Critical Reflection on Your Own Leadership from the
Interpretivist Epistemology (5 minutes of self-reflection, 10-minute share with
partner with each taking 5 minutes, large group asks, “What is one point of your
discussion you want to share out?”) Identify two or three specific examples of your
leadership practices that reflect the interpretivist epistemology. How have these
interpretivist practices identified in number 1 prevented more equitable practices
from happening? ACTIVITY 4: Case Analysis from the Interpretivist Epistemology
(About 35 minutes) First, each educator reviews the interpretivist epistemology case
analysis handout below (5 minutes). Individual case analysis: What are the issues in
your case from an interpretivist epistemology? What are the possible solutions in
your case from an interpretivist epistemology? (Write down notes to these
questions, 7 to 10 minutes.) With a partner, exchange and read each other’s cases (5
minutes). With the same partner, share the issues and possible solutions to your case
from the interpretivist epistemology. Your partner may add additional ideas they saw
that you may have missed. Next, switch partners and repeat (7 minutes each, 14
minutes in total). Due the following week, educators will then write up the
interpretivist epistemology case analysis – the issues and possible solutions –
supported by the literature, and limited to about two pages. INTERPRETIVIST
EPISTEMOLOGY ANALYSIS OF CASE SITUATION (ADAPTED IN PART FROM BOLMAN
AND DEAL, 2017) Concept: Espoused theories vs. theory in use/action (Argyris &
Schon, 1978). To what extent is your situation a problem between espoused theories
(what you believe) and theories in action of yourself, or the people involved in the
case? Are your espoused beliefs lining up with your actions? Are the espoused beliefs
of individuals in the case lining up with their actions? Review the Model I that Argyris
and Schon (1978) propose above. To what extent is this going on in your case? To
solve what is going on in the case, how helpful would Argyris and Schon’s (1978)
Model II be? To what extent does your case address collaboration without a goal of
equity? To what extent does your case seek stakeholder perspectives, yet, in the
end, the leader makes the final decision; that the case illustrates an illusion of
democratic decision-making? What role does Bolman and Deal’s (2017) symbolic
frame play in your case? Are policies or practices in place in your case that are
symbolic of addressing equity on the surface, but in the end are not addressing the
historical, cultural, and structural inequities of the system?
Chapter 5: Critical Theory Epistemology

Referring to the epistemological framework that guides this book, the critical theory
epistemology emerged as the first historic critically oriented epistemology that lies
on the radical change end of the change continuum (vertical axis) (see Figure 5.1)
with the nature of knowledge for critical theory oriented along the
subjective/objective continuum (horizontal axis). Though Burrell and Morgan (1985)
parse out the differences between the subjective (radical humanism) and objective
(radical structuralism) ends of the nature of knowledge continuum, the
epistemological framework for this book examines radical social change along both
dimensions of knowledge. Critical theory originated in the 1930s within the Frankfurt
School of Thought in Germany that comprised a group of intellectual elite white men
(sexuality unknown), including Habermas, Marcuse, Adorno, and Horkheimer (Foster,
1980, 1986a, 1986b). William Foster introduced critical theory to the field of
educational leadership in his Harvard Education Review publication on critical theory
scholar Habermas (1980), followed by his ground-breaking book Paradigms and
promises that featured critical theory applications to educational administration
(1986a). Though Foster reviews the organizational theory literature across time, he
stops short of articulating how critical theory could inform organizational theory. He
ends his organizational theory review by advocating a dialectical view of
organizations, moving beyond organizations such as schools as static, to recognizing
“organizations as human constructs that become concretized over time but still
remain open to change by human intervention” (p. 146). Figure 5.1 An Epistemology
Framework As mentioned in Chapter 2, at about the same time as Foster’s (1980)
scholarship, Zey-Ferrell and Aiken (1981) contributed to the initiation of critical
theory approaches to management in Europe with their volume on critical
perspectives of complex organizations. The European critical management theory
scholarship remains robust today, recognized as Critical Management Studies (see
criticalmanagement.org) applied largely to businesses and organizations other than
education. The Critical Management Studies website description reflects some of the
tenets of critical theory: Critical Management Studies (CMS) is a largely left-wing and
theoretically informed approach to management and organisation studies. It
challenges the prevailing conventional understanding of management and
organisations. CMS provides a platform for debating radical alternatives whilst
interrogating the established relations of power, control, domination and ideology as
well as the relations among organisations, society and people.
(criticalmanagement.org retrieved January 1, 2018) The explicit focus on power,
inequities, oppression, and marginalization distinguishes critical theory from the
structural functionalist epistemology (Chapter 3) and the interpretivist epistemology
(Chapter 4). Further, structural functional and interpretivist renderings of
organizational theory clearly demarcate between theories associated with
leadership, change, and decision-making. We will discover that within critically
oriented epistemologies – including critical theory – leadership, change, and
decision-making are inextricably intertwined. CRITICAL THEORY TENETS I identify key
principles and assumptions of critical theory, and all these principles and
assumptions inform leadership, change, and decision-making. Critical theory tenets
include a concern for suffering and oppression, a critical view of education, reuniting
facts and values with a goal of social justice, an emphasis on power between the
oppressor and the oppressed, disrupting power via communication and dialogue,
praxis, and leadership as a political act (Capper, Keyes, Theoharis, 2000; Foster,
1986b; Sirotnik & Oakes, 1986). Acknowledge and relieve suffering and oppression.
Critical theory pivots upon relationships of power – who has power, who does not –
and assumes the presence of suffering and oppression in organizations. According to
Gioia and Pitre (1990), “The goal of [leaders informed by critical theory] is to free
organization members from sources of domination, alienation, exploitation, and
repression” (p. 588). Because of its foundation in Marxian thought, critical theory
originally focused on social class as “first and foremost … a critical analysis of the
capitalistic system” (Foster, 1986a, p. 67). According to Smyth (1989), within the
organizational theory literature, oppression meant the “inability to participate in
capitalistic society in economic terms” (Capper, 1993, p. 12, Foster, 1986a). Freire’s
tome Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000) remains one of the most significant
scholarly contributions of critical theory to education, spawning critical pedagogy.
Contemporary scholars who rely on critical theory may also include gender, race, and
class in their work (Apple, 1988) as reviewed in the equity research in educational
leadership detailed in Chapter 2. Critique education’s perpetuation and disruption of
power. Within education, critical theorists explicitly link education “to its historical,
political, economic, and societal contexts” (Capper, 1993, p. 13), and leaders critique
policy and practice to determine the degree to which they address or perpetuate
oppression (Apple, 2014; Sirotnik & Oakes, 1986). According to Foster (1986a),
educational leaders “must critically examine taken for granted assumptions and what
is considered common sense” and determine “to what degree … this administrative
practice contribute[s] to the development of truth, freedom, or justice, and offer[s]
options for change” (p. 255). When educational leaders engage in a critique of their
school’s practices based on critical theory, they uncover “how some individuals and
groups have access to resources and others do not, why some groups are
underrepresented and others are not, why certain influences prevail and others do
not” (Yeakey, Johnston, & Adkinson, 1986, p. 115). Reunite facts with values with a
goal of social justice praxis. Rather than based on one objective “truth” devoid of
values within a structural functionalist epistemology, critical theory reunites facts
with values (Foster, 1986b), and the educational leader must practice morally and
ethically. Beyond critique, educational leaders practicing within the critical theory
epistemology aim for social change and their hallmark is an unwavering drive to
emancipate the oppressed and disenfranchised (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). From this
epistemology, leaders critically analyze situations and align moral concerns with their
actions, and as a result, persons along the axis of oppression are empowered (Foster,
1986a; Sirotnik & Oakes, 1986). Thus, according to Foster, effective leaders are not
determined from a community and school popularity contest; rather, “it is the ends
of schooling that really must be at the heart of the dialogue on what constitutes
effective administrative behavior” (Foster, 1980, p. 504). Foster then advocates
practice informed by theory informed by practice or critical praxis. Power between
the oppressor and oppressed. As featured in Freire’s scholarship on the pedagogy of
the oppressed (2000), the critical theory epistemology centers on “empowerment”
and sharing power to disrupt oppression. Educators engaged in critical theory
epistemology then work to “give voice to the voiceless” in their work with oppressed
persons (Tierney & Foster, 1991, p. 3). For educators grounded in a critical theory
epistemology, “the nature of power is an ‘all or nothing’ phenomenon. That is, a
person either possesses power or does not; a person is either an oppressor or a
member of an oppressed group” (Capper, 1998, p. 356). Critical theory-based
educators typically view power as a “seamless entity with the power elite holding all
the power within the upper hierarchical echelons of organizations and institutions;
marginalized individuals have the potential for power, but those in power hold
opportunities beyond their reach” (Capper, 1998, pp. 356–357; Gioia &. Pitre, 1990).
This power is exercised through “unobtrusive forms of control” primarily through
knowledge and communication (Foster, 1986a, p. 44). Power disrupted via
communication from equal participation. Although educators engaged in critical
theory recognize ubiquitous societal oppression, that recognition is not without hope
for change. As Foster (1986a) explains, “One aspect of leadership is communicating
to others that the particular situation, the particular organizational form, is made by
us and can be changed by us” (p. 184). Strongly influenced by the work of Habermas
(1984), a critical theory epistemology suggests that educators accomplish social
justice by engaging in dialogue about problems of practice, with an explicit focus on
power relationships (Apple, 1988; Popkewitz, 1984; Sirotnik & Oakes, 1986).
Accordingly, when Sirotnik and Oakes (1986) discuss critical theory in action, they
pay considerable attention to competent communication and consensus in group
decision-making about the “truth” of what exists. They argue that the essential
ingredient for this critical process is “unlimited opportunity for discussion, free of
constraints from any source” (p. 37). They suggest that educators strive for “free
exploration, honest exchange, and non-manipulative discussion … in light of critical
questions like: What goes on in this school? Who benefits from the way things are?”
(p. 39). Accordingly, as I wrote in Capper (1998): These educators rely on the
deliberate involvement of typically marginalized individuals in dialogue to identify
problems, causes, and solutions based on the individual’s personal experiences with
inequity. In turn, this involvement helps typically disempowered people recognize,
understand, and act against the objects of their oppression. (p. 356) For Foster
(1986a), characteristics of critical change require the following: Develop truly
representative systems of participation in the school and democratic ways of
realizing organization. Develop a process [emphasis in the original] wherein
individuals can rationally attempt to communicate wants and needs without
distortion and be instrumental in the participatory development of an educational
institution. Rais[e] the consciousness about possibilities by penetrating the
dominating ideas or total ideologies and analyzing the possible forms of life. Cut
through the “natural,” taken-for-granted status quo to explore new arrangements.
Question the given structures and divisions: those between teachers and
administrators and students. Suspend our heritage and history, particularly as they
have determined our structures. (p. 167). Foster’s (1986a) definition of critical
inquiry and its role in change reflects his previous work on Habermas and the
emphasis on competent communication: [T]he heart of critical inquiry involves
developing an organization populated by a community of scholars [italics in the
original] who can engage in continuing and unrepressed communication about
existent school conditions and possibilities for change. Such a community does not
look at change efforts as additive, adding to the structure that is already there, but as
transformative, changing and transforming the basic structures that have been
established (emphasis added). (p. 167) Leadership is political. Leading via critical
praxis requires leadership that is not neutral but political (Anderson, 2009; Foster,
1986a). According to Foster (1986a), Organizational change requires political action
(p. 168). … At its heart, leadership – the search for democratic and rational
participation in social events – is political. It is a political act to educate people, it is a
political act to demystify structures and penetrate “normal” conditions; it is a
political act to argue for participation in decision making. (p. 187) Although Bolman
and Deal (2017) identify the political frame as one of their four frames of
organizations, their political frame is positioned within structural functional and
interpretive epistemologies. That is, their description of politics represents
maneuvering for scarce resources within a system without questioning the larger
systemic, societal marginalization context. Within Bolman and Deal’s political frame,
regardless of who “wins” or “loses” in the conceptualization of politics, the existing
system remains intact. To be sure, to lead for social justice requires the leader to be
politically astute in the way that Bolman and Deal describe. In that sense, Bolman
and Deal’s political frame can and probably should be appropriated toward social
justice ends. I discuss why and how to leverage considerations of politics further in
Chapter 7 on Critical Race Theory. One of the political examples in their most recent
text describes the work of a community organizer. Yet, without a critical theory
epistemology understanding of the unique ways politics plays out when leading
toward social justice ends, understanding and deploying the political frame as
Bolman and Deal describe ignores and thus perpetuates inequities. CRITICAL
THEORY, DIVERSITY, AND DIFFERENCE From critical theory, the goal of education
focuses on social justice and equity. Curriculum and instruction emphasizes learning
about the history of oppression and continued oppression globally and in the United
States to develop students’ critical consciousness, knowledge, and skills to work
against oppression for the rest of their lives (McKenzie et al., 2008). Attempting to
level the hierarchy through interpretivist epistemology practices (discussed in
Chapter 4), such as professional learning communities, distributed leadership, or
meeting students’ needs via personalized learning, is not enough. Educators
grounded in critical theory ask the question: professional learning communities to
what end? Personalized learning to what end? Distributed leadership to what end?
For critical theorists the end centers on social justice and equity. By not explicitly
addressing inequities, these practices uphold and perpetuate the status quo, existing
power structures, and their associated inequities. Several publications on education
practice emanate from the critical theory epistemology, including Rethinking
Schools, the journal Democracy and Education, Teaching Tolerance, and Engaging
Schools (formerly Educators for Social Responsibility) (Capper, 1998). Scholars have
relied on the critical theory epistemology to frame particular approaches to
multicultural education such as multicultural education for social reconstruction
(Sleeter, 1991), to analyze the hegemonic role of textbooks in schools (Apple, 1988),
to discuss the hegemonic use of knowledge in school administration (Bates, 1980), to
frame action research in teacher education (Liston & Zeichner, 1991), and as the
basis for the entire democracy in education movement that continues today (Apple
& Beane, 2007; Dewey, 2015). THE EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
MOVEMENT Critical theory in educational leadership forms the theoretical and
epistemological basis for the social justice movement in educational leadership.
McKenzie et al. (2008) acknowledged this basis when describing a framework for the
preparation of social justice leaders, and in so doing acknowledged the relationship
between critical theory and social justice: [we] suggest … four differences between
critical theory and the newer orientation toward social justice. First, the latter sees
the social world as less totalized or monolithic in terms of injustice and inequity.
Second, there are, instead, multiple, dynamic, shifting discourses and activities
within all contexts, from schools and universities to corporations and churches, and
some of these discourses favor social justice and equity, whereas others favor
injustice and inequity. Third, as a result, institutions or organizations, such as schools,
are loosely coupled to the dominant norms of injustice and inequity, which means
that it may be possible to have social justice as a dominant norm within one school
or district while the larger society has a dominant norm of injustice and inequity.
Fourth, many of the newer advocates of social justice are more willing to involve
themselves within institutions and organizations and appropriate various complex
discourses, such as school accountability, with the goal of moving social justice
forward. All of these four, though, are arguable and certainly would not apply to
every case for the advocates of critical theory or for the advocates of the more
recent focus on social justice. (p. 115) In a previous review, I outlined limitations of
critical theory (Capper, 1998), which included the limitations of rationality in
dialogue and the impossibility of an “ideal speech situation” promulgated by
Habermas and those who interpret his work (Foster, 1980). As Ellsworth (1989)
explained, “rational argument has operated in ways that set up as its opposite an
irrational Other which has been understood historically as the province of women
and other exotic Others” (p. 301, cited in Capper, 1993, p. 16). The origination of
critical theory in Marxism and the emphasis on social class even with subsequent
acknowledgement of racial and gender power inequities constituted a second
limitation. More recently, I identified five ironies and limitations of the educational
leadership for social justice literature (Capper & Young, 2014). One irony and
limitation addressed integration/inclusion. Although the concept and practice of
inclusion/integration anchored the civil rights movement, integration that dismantles
segregation via tracking, ability, grouping, and pull-out programs “tends not to be
central in the educational leadership for social justice discourse; rather, it remains
marginalized, ill defined, and undebated” (p. 159). Second, the educational
leadership for social justice literature also struggles with identity in a number of
different ways. The literature tends to generically address “all students” or includes a
list of some identities, though often excluding sexuality and disability (Capper,
Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006). Related, then, the literature does not typically
substantively address disability, sexuality (O’Malley & Capper, 2013), poverty, race
(Khalifa, Gooden, & Davis, 2016), language, or the intersections thereof. From its
inception in educational leadership, the social justice movement has been rightfully
severely criticized for the way it glosses over racial inequities, explained by Knaus
(2014): “it is in the interest of White educators to adopt social justice language
instead of integrating anti-racism into the foundation of academic programs” (p.
422). Third, the educational leadership for social justice literature remains unclear on
the role and measure of student learning and achievement in social justice work.
Further, district and school leaders must contend with state policies that send mixed
messages about inclusive/integrative practices and the role of student achievement
in those policies. The lack of policy and practice coherence to address inequities at
the federal, state, and local levels and the lack of an equity framework or process at
the district and school levels to filter the conflicting federal and state policy
messages significantly dilutes the social justice leadership impact. Finally, social
justice leadership requires both super-hero and collaborative leadership – one
without the other is not enough. In our social justice critique, we called upon
educational leaders for social justice to engage the following: An agreed upon
understanding of what inclusion/integration means should be the central, visible,
unambiguous anchoring feature of all scholarship, policies, and practices aimed
toward eliminating educational inequities. Make increased student learning and
achievement the primary goal of their work. Attune themselves to, and become
experts on, the range of student differences and their intersections. Suggestions for
creating more socially just schools must be understood as the responsibilities of a
principal for social justice along with leadership teams and community members
rather than the domain of single individuals (Capper & Young, 2014, pp. 162–163).
Although the critical theory epistemology addresses oppressed groups and
individuals in general with some allusions to social class, race, and gender, other
critically oriented epistemologies are rooted in and centered from a range of
marginalized identities that I discuss in each of the following chapters. Many of these
critically oriented epistemologies emerged in response to the limitations of critical
theory and others emerged unto themselves. These critically oriented
epistemologies’ only point of convergence with critical theory lies in an examination
of power inequities. Beyond that, however, all differ in significant ways. Next, in
Chapter 6, we learn about the feminist and poststructural critique of critical theory,
and the feminist poststructural critique of feminism and poststructuralism in relation
to organizational theory. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES After reading the
chapter, educator development activities that I describe next for the critical theory
epistemology include (1) playdough sculpture, (2) discussion questions for whole
class discussion, (3) critical analysis of the educator’s own leadership, and (4) case
study analysis. It is best to work through all the activities in the order they are
presented here. I also provide time estimates. ACTIVITY 1: Playdough Constructions
Using playdough and with the assistance of a partner, construct a symbolic
representation of the critical theory epistemology (10 minutes). Large group check-
in: One person in each dyad presents their construction. Ask students to take notes,
and someone takes notes for all to see, writing down the keywords for each
construction. By the end of the activity, educators have used their own language and
words to describe critical theory (depending on group size 15 to 20 minutes).
ACTIVITY 2: Discussion Questions for the Critical Theory Epistemology (Large group
about 20 minutes) What are the organizational goals? What does leadership look
like? How is the organization structured? What does organizational culture look like?
What does decision-making look like? What does change look like? What aspects of
education emanate from this epistemology? What is the goal of education? What
does the curriculum look like? What does instruction look like? What does
assessment look like? What does evaluation/supervision look like? When a student
struggles academically, how does the school respond? How does this epistemology
respond to difference and diversity? What are the strengths and limitations of this
epistemology? ACTIVITY 3: Critical Reflection on Your Own Leadership from the
Critical Theory Epistemology (5 minutes of self-reflection, 10-minute share with
partner, with each taking 5 minutes. Large group discussion, “What is one point of
your discussion you want to share out?”) Identify one or two specific positive
examples of how your leadership for social justice reflects the critical theory
epistemology. Identify two or three aspects of your social justice leadership which
you need to develop further to reflect the critical theory epistemology, and how you
will do so. ACTIVITY 4: Case Analysis from the Critical Theory Epistemology (About 35
minutes) First, each educator reviews the critical theory epistemology case analysis
handout below (5 minutes). Individual case analysis: What are the issues in your case
from the epistemology? What are the possible solutions in your case from the critical
theory epistemology? (Write down notes to these questions, 7 to 10 minutes.) With
a partner, exchange and read each other’s case (5 minutes). With the same partner,
share the issues and possible solutions to your case from critical theory
epistemology. The partner can add additional ideas they saw that you may have
missed; next, switch partners and repeat (7 minutes each, 14 minutes in total). Due
the following week, educators then write up a critical epistemology case analysis –
the issues and possible solutions – supported by the literature, and limited to about
two pages. CRITICAL THEORY EPISTEMOLOGY ANALYSIS OF CASE SITUATION
(ADAPTED FROM CAPPER, 1998) Are the experiences, attitudes, values, and
behaviors of persons from different identities considered? How is the situation
perpetuating unequal relations among people? Are there any indications of
questioning related to “how some individuals and groups have access to resources
and others do not; why some groups are underrepresented and others are not; why
certain influences prevail and others do not” (Yeakey et al., 1986)? Who is
benefitting from the way things are? Whose interests are being served (and are not)
by the way things are? Whose knowledge or point of view is privileged? To what
extent do the persons in the situation seek the input of others with identities
different from themselves? To what extent is the situation perpetuating stereotypes,
unequal power? To what extent can the “solution” take into account individual
differences (race, gender, etc.)? To what extent is your situation a “dodge” or “crisis
point” which serves to distract the people in the setting from working on issues of
equity and justice? What are the unquestioned assumptions/givens of the situation?
How would people with identities different from yours view the situation? (i.e., in
terms of gender/race, etc.)?

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)

Colleen A. Capper. Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge, 2019.

APA (American Psychological Assoc.)

Colleen A. Capper. (2019). Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge.
Feminist, Poststructural, and Feminist Poststructural Epistemologies1 Nearly all the
scholarship related to feminist, poststructural, and feminist poststructural
epistemologies in educational leadership to date remains unconsciously white,
straight, “abled,” and not intersectional with other identities. I address all three
epistemologies in this chapter primarily because doing so renders the central tenets
of each epistemology visible and, in the comparison of each, the tenets distinct to
each epistemology clearer. I devote the chapter that follows this one to Black
feminist epistemologies. In the epistemology framework (see Figure 6.1), historically,
feminism followed the development of critical theory, followed by poststructuralism,
then feminist poststructuralism, then Black feminism – all a critique of the preceding
epistemology. As mentioned, I briefly discuss feminist and poststructural
epistemologies, then spend the bulk of the chapter discussing feminist poststructural
epistemologies. I consider how each of these epistemologies can inform
organizational theory and what they can contribute to educational leadership for
social justice. FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGIES Kenway and Modra (1992) offer the
following definition of feminism and its relationship to education: Feminism is
premised on the recognition that gender is a phenomenon which helps to shape our
society. Feminists believe that women are located unequally in the social formation,
often devalued, exploited and oppressed. Education systems, the knowledge which
they offer and the practices which constitute them, are seen to be complicit in this.
Feminists share a commitment to a form of politics directed towards ending the
social arrangements which lead to women to be “other than,” less than, put down,
and put upon. (p. 139) Figure 6.1 An Epistemology Framework Feminist scholars have
offered considerable critique of critical theory – that despite occasional nods to
feminist work, critical theorists historically tended to ignore feminist
perspectives/scholarship, including the feminist perspective on the private/public
sphere, citizenship, democracy, emancipation, the individualist ethic, and critique
and action (Luke & Gore, 1992). Referring to the limitations of critical theory, Luke
and Gore (1992) argued for “a serious skepticism of and critical attention to those
contemporary educational narratives that claim to be emancipatory, ideologically
critical, self-reflexive, and politically conscientious, and yet remain theoretically
entrenched in gender- and color-blind patriarchal liberalism” (p. 49). Kenway and
Modra (1992) concurred and argued that for educators relying on the critical theory
epistemology, [I]t is uncommon for them to either examine the gendered
assumptions embodied deeply and subtly in their theoretical premises or to grasp
the full significance of the presence and power of gender in educational settings.
Such theorists seem to believe that gentle genuflections alone demonstrate their
gender sensitivity and make respectable their politics, while at the same time
relieving full range and complexity of feminist literature on and for education. As
critical pedagogy theorists claim that they are quintessentially engaged in
democratization in the education process, this failure to engage with feminism casts
considerable doubt on their authenticity. (p. 138) As with critical theorists, educators
who adopt feminist epistemologies value dialogue and consensus. Unlike critical
theorists, educators who adopt feminist epistemologies do not cling so tightly to
rationality and the intellect, but value intuition, emotion, experience, and the
relational over abstract moral reasoning. For example, Ellsworth (1989) asserts that
“rational argument has operated in ways that set up as its opposite an irrational
Other, which has been understood historically as the province of women and other
exotic Others” (p. 301). Educators who adopt feminist epistemologies maintain a
closer connection to practice and context rather than perseverating on theoretical
abstractions (Lather, 1991; Luke & Gore, 1992). Scholars who have examined women
in educational leadership include Blackmore (1999, 2007, 2013, 2014), Brunner
(1999, 2000; Brunner & Grogan, 2007), Grogan (1996, 2000; Grogan & Shakeshaft,
2011; Grogan & Smith, 1998), Mansfield (2014; Mansfield, Welton, & Grogan, 2014),
Marshall (1997; Marshall & Young, 2013), Shakeshaft (1987, 2011), and Sherman
Newcomb (2005, 2014; Sherman Newcomb & Niemeyer, 2015; Sherman & Beatty,
2010; Sherman & Wrushen, 2009; Newcomb & Mansfield, 2014). Although these
scholars examine women and educational leadership, they do not necessarily rely on
feminist epistemologies. For example, gender research in educational leadership
includes a study related to legal issues and single-sex schools (Eckes & McCall, 2014);
how identities including gender impact leadership practice (Santamaría, 2014); the
importance of listening to student voice in social justice research with a focus on
Latina girls who attended a Latina female academy (Mansfield, 2014); and a meta-
analysis of gender differences in instructional leadership which suggest that female
principals are more actively involved in instructional leadership than male principals
(Hallinger, Dongyu, & Wang, 2016). Newton (2006) also examined how
superintendent recruitment normalizes the superintendent as male, and Eckman
(2004) compared the work of male and female high school principals and how they
manage their roles. In this chapter, I only address educational leadership research
anchored in feminist epistemologies. A special issue of Educational Administration
Quarterly focused exclusively on women and the superintendency (2000, 36(1)), and
all studies in the special issue were conceptualized with feminist or feminist
poststructural epistemologies (Grogan, 2000). Blount’s ground-breaking scholarship
on the history of women in the superintendency (1998) forms the backdrop to this
work. None of these studies examined race, ability, sexual/gender identity, and their
intersections with gender. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Capper and Green’s (2013)
analysis of equity research in the Educational Administration Quarterly found that
when scholars conceptually framed their work from combinations of critical, critical
race, and feminist theories, feminist theories were relied on more centrally and
frequently than the other two. For example, André-Bechely (2005) examined parent
choice in schools through the perspectives of low-income and middle-income white
females and an upper income female relying on a combination of Critical Race
Theory and “feminist critical policy studies (Marshall, 1997); feminist standpoint
theory (Harding, 1991), and feminist sociology (D. Smith, 1987, 1999)” (cited in
André-Bechely, 2005, p. 269). Mahitivanichcha and Rorrer (2006) combined feminist
economic theory and feminist organizational theory to guide their data collection
and analysis related to women’s access to and participation in the superintendency.
Jackson et al. (2013) co-authored the first publication in educational leadership that
specifically addressed gender across all races and all sexual identities. Jackson et al.
explain the status of the educational leadership literature related to gender: Within
[this literature], issues of gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual identity are typically
addressed separately. Yet every individual is positioned along a gender, race, and
sexual identity continuum. An emerging literature base in school leadership seeks to
illuminate the intersection of (typically) two identity components, either gender and
race or gender and sexual orientation, but rarely race and sexual orientation or
gender and sexual orientation, let alone all three together. … This chapter argues
that an important next step in our inquiry is to avoid uncritically narrowing the focus
of our research in such a way that one or more aspects of identity are assumed
away, and therefore silenced. (p. 327–328) I agree with Jackson and co-authors’
(2013) definition and delimitation of the literature on women in educational
leadership: Research on women that does not explicitly address the intersection of
gender and race is presumed to refer to White women; research on women and race
that does not explicitly reference sexual identity is presumed to refer to heterosexual
women. (p. 328) Jackson et al.’s chapter reviews the educational leadership of
women of all races and sexualities, including women who are African American,
Asian, Native American, Latino, and women educational leaders on the sexuality
spectrum. Jackson et al. point out that, to date, not a single study in educational
leadership has addressed the sexuality spectrum within women. Thus, in their
review, Jackson et al. relied on “the current state of scholarship on gays and lesbians
in educational leadership (with no specific references in that literature to bisexual
women or transgender women)” (p. 349). Jackson et al. conclude their review and
recommendations for future research by reinforcing: The intersection of gender,
race, and sexual identity in school remains a fruitful and under-researched nexus of
identity, position, and privilege. The literature base in school leadership that explores
the intersection of two of these aspects of individual identity has grown in recent
years. In addition to encouraging the continuation on these avenues of scholarship,
this chapter highlights the importance of expanding our inquiry to include the
intersection of all three of the identity components simultaneously. This step is vital
to ensure that inquiry designed as emancipatory does not itself inadvertently silence
or marginalize individual or group voices and perspectives. (p. 349) Within
organizational studies, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Kathy Ferguson’s ground-breaking
text The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy (1984) was the first book-length work to
apply feminist theories to bureaucratic discourse. Mills and Tancred (1992) examined
gender, including a critique of organizational analysis and feminist perspectives on
varying aspects of organizations. Holvino (2010) analyzed organizational theories to
date and noted that “though the inclusion of more sophisticated perspectives on
gender has gained ground” (p. 248), fewer scholars address the intersections of
gender with race, ethnicity, and social class. POSTSTRUCTURALISM, ORGANIZATIONS,
AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY Thus far, all the epistemologies we have reviewed
are positioned on the modernism end of the modernism/postmodernism continuum
(see Figure 6.1). Thus, whether the epistemologies addressed thus far in this book
are oriented toward radical social change (e.g., feminism, critical theory), all these
epistemologies share common assumptions from being grounded in modernism.
According to Cherryholmes (1988), the structural aspects of modernism “operate
prescriptively in education when preferred structural procedures, interpretations,
and organizations are promoted with a promise of order and rationality” (p. 16).
Within modernism, decision-making can proceed from the top down (structural
functionalism), initiated through teams of people representing differing perspectives
(interpretive epistemologies), or agreement arrived at through dialogue and
consensus (critical theory). Although change may be initiated top down (structural
functionalism), as a result of considering multiple perspectives (interpretive), or
through a democratic process (critical theory) within modernism, change moves
step-by-step, is evolutionary, and is clearly linked to ideas of cause and effect.
Epistemologies within modernism consider knowledge to be along a continuum from
objective to socially constructed. Educators who adopt modernist approaches
believe that power is all or nothing; that is, “you either have it, or you do not”
(Capper, 1998, p. 362). Power is considered at the top and to be hoarded at all costs
(structural functionalism), to provide the appearance of power sharing, though the
power continues to be contained at the top of the organization (interpretivism), or
power needs to move from oppressive to empowering (critical theory). Within
modernist epistemologies, individuals have an essential nature that remains stable,
fully aware, or in need of others to bring forth this awareness. The poststructural
epistemology influence on educational leadership followed the typical trajectory of
social philosophy and theory, first in the social sciences, then within the field of
organizations while somewhat simultaneously in the field of education, then in the
field of educational leadership in the early 1990s (Anderson, 1990; English, 1998).
Given the unequivocal focus of this book on leadership for social justice, I spend less
time on poststructural epistemologies compared to critically oriented epistemologies
given that poststructural epistemologies are more about analysis than about practice
(see Capper (1998), where I detail the differences between critically oriented
epistemologies and poststructuralism). However, I find some aspects of
poststructural thought useful in social justice work that I explain in this chapter.
Although nuanced differences exist between the terms postmodern and
poststructural, I use the terms interchangeably. Poststructural scholars include
Derrida (1981), Lacan (1977), Althusser (1969), Foucault (1980, 1988), and Lyotard
(1984). Poststructural epistemologies offer critiques of structural functionalism,
interpretivism, and critically oriented epistemologies. Poststructuralists view a
person as part of “an observer-community which constructs interpretations of the
world,” with interpretations that are neither wrong nor right (Cooper & Burrell,
1988, p. 94). Situations are viewed in terms of paradox and indeterminacy.
Poststructural epistemologies suggest, in part, that all meaning is not definitive and
shifts depending on perspective, is theoretically distant from practice, and as a result
does not necessarily support individuals taking action. Although critical theory seeks
consensus in decision-making, the poststructural focus relates to the nuances of
dissensus (Cherryholmes, 1998). In this chapter, I examine the nature of power,
change, decision-making, and the individual/subject from poststructural
epistemologies. Nature of power. Three key aspects of the nature of power within
poststructural epistemologies include that power is not confined only within
particular people or hierarchical positions, but that power is within all of us and
everywhere – termed disciplinary power. Second, rather than oppressive, the
exercise of power produces more power. That is, resistance and pushing back to
power also constitutes a form of power; thus the exertion of power followed by
resistance to power results in the production rather than the oppression of power.
Third, surveillance serves as the primary strategy of disciplinary power. Power is
everywhere as disciplinary power. Critical theory and poststructural epistemologies
both focus on power although with distinct differences. Critical theory considers
power to be as all or nothing and as hierarchically centralized. Poststructural
epistemologies consider power to be “decentralized, plural, complex, and web-like”
(Capper, 1998, p. 364). Rather than specific and overt, Foucault (1988) described
disciplinary power as power that exists everywhere (Capper, 1998). According to
Foucault, Since the seventeenth century, individuals have been caught within a
complex grid of disciplinary, normalizing, panoptic powers that survey, judge,
measure, and correct their every move. There are no “spaces of primal liberty” in
society; power is everywhere. What I am attentive to is the fact that every human
relation is to some degree a power relation. We move in a world of perpetual
strategic relations. (Foucault, 1988, p. 168, cited in Best & Kellner, 1991, p. 54)
Rather than being oppressive as is suggested from critical theory, power is
productive. Burrell (1988) explains that rather than extreme forms of violence,
power within the poststructural epistemology is “complex” and operates as “subtle
forms of correction and training … as individuals, we are incarcerated within an
organizational world. Thus, while we may not live in total institutions, the
institutional organization of our lives is total” (p. 24). Foucault (1980) developed the
concept of biopower, which means that power is exercised on and through the
physical body, spirit, and desire. Foucault believed that the strongest power comes
not from oppressive rules and regulations per se, but from commonsense, natural
activities and beliefs that sanction our bodies, souls, desires, and day-to-day living.
Foucault believed that this sanctioning follows us everywhere, including into our
homes and workplaces, and influences our interactions with our families and
significant others (Cooper & Burrell, 1988). The sanctioning function of power
develops within “disciplinary blocks” or institutions, such as asylums, schools, the
field of psychiatry, and discipline practices, and then radiates outward to society.
Thus, government and similar macrostructures are not necessarily the center or base
of power but are symptoms of power differences. Rather than only considering how
those in power influence others, poststructural views of power consider how those
in traditionally lower positions of power exert their influence over others and how
power is constantly being circulated among and around us. · Power is productive
rather than repressive. Foucault (1980) also believed that power was productive in
that it did not necessarily repress people but that it multiplied the number of people
under its rule, which served to reinforce this power. According to Foucault, power
produces certain kinds of characteristics and behaviors in people. He further
believed that power controls and produces the physical body. Modern forms of
power also control the body, but the postmodern forms differ in their covertness.
For example, Rouse (1987) explains that instead of being overtly punished or
incarcerated, “the body was made visible and carefully scrutinized; instead of being
tortured, it was programmed and exercised; instead of its simply being placed in
servitude, its activities were reconstructed for efficiency and productivity” (p. 211).
Rouse (1987) explains the production of power, providing an example that reflects
education’s reliance on and promulgation of practices such as special education and
the plethora of labels and programs (discussed in Chapter 10 on Disability Studies
theories). Rouse argues that power is gradually refined in relation to the body and
that the normalizing function of power is corrective. It reconstructs the person and
her or his behavior by gradual steps and small impositions. The gaps between
observed behavior and established norms are made thematic, and corrective
procedures are invoked to bring the offender into line. Normalizing judgment does
not aim to abolish deviance, for that would also obviate its own existence. Rather, it
creates distributions around the norm, which can be classified, ranked, and dealt
with differentially. It both continually corrects and reduces deviation and creates it in
new forms so that the norms serve a distributive function. (pp. 217–218) From
poststructural epistemologies, power operates when educators seek to identify who
is normal and who is not through remediation systems such as Response to
Intervention and special education – and then seek to make these students more
normal (Capper, 1998). Strategies and tactics of disciplinary power. Rouse (1987)
explains that surveillance is a primary strategy or tactic of disciplinary power.
Surveillance connects with the organization or structure of space, which leads to
“classification, description, and explanation, and documentation” (p. 217). In the
past, people in power and those over whom power was exercised were both quite
visible. With surveillance, however, the “exercise of power is hidden, while those
upon whom it works are increasingly laid open to scrutiny” (Rouse, 1987, p. 214).
Architecture is designed to increase this visibility and the ability for surveillance.
Surveillance also contributes to the organization of people and space. The ways
“people are enclosed, grouped, distributed, separated, and partitioned” determine
physical space, which is related to power/knowledge (Rouse, p. 214). How we are
spatially organized with people shapes our behaviors and interactions with one
another. As one example, positioning chairs in a circle could be interpreted as a
strategy for inclusion. However, a circle could also be considered as a form of
surveillance; a circle configuration allows actions and behaviors to be more visible
and thus more vulnerable to correction and control. Nature of change. In addition to
poststructural perspectives on the nature of power, poststructuralism can also
inform the nature of change. Rather than working toward an end-point, in terms of
change, educators who adopt poststructural epistemologies call into question the
end-point itself – whether it is constituted by efficiency (structural functionalism),
understanding (interpretivism), or social change (critical theory). Within
poststructural epistemologies, change is not viewed in terms of progression, but,
according to Lather (1991), change is considered “non-linear, cyclical, indeterminant,
discontinuous, contingent” (p. 161). Educators who adopt poststructural
epistemologies do not shy away from change, but they move away from causality
regarding change. Derrida argues that change is personal and “must not be the same
as that for anyone else in another place, another class, another country. From this
standpoint, political action is … constantly strategic” (Kaplan & Sprinkler, 1993, p.
215). The actions which educators take are amenable to change or may change each
day; actions are not finite and are to be consistently re-evaluated. Given their view
that any suggestion for practice can be deconstructed, educators who adopt
poststructuralist epistemologies would question leadership for social justice practice
and point out the ambiguity of all social justice work. Accordingly, in the
poststructural world, there is no final moment of knowing – no beginning point or
end. Poststructural epistemologies shun elevating any idea, system, or symbol to the
status of solution (Capper, 1992). Educators who adopt poststructuralist
epistemologies seek instead to foster the natural tension and disagreement inherent
in educational practices by deconstructing them. Poststructural epistemologies, by
deconstructing social justice practice, can help educators to be conscious of
developing new oppressive practices when trying to work toward equity and justice
(Capper & Jamison, 1993). Nature of decision-making. As discussed in the previous
two sections, poststructural epistemologies can inform the nature of power and the
nature of change. In this section, I consider poststructural approaches to decision-
making. Educators who adopt poststructural epistemologies question decision-
making associated with dialogue and consensus (critical theory), which they believe
oversimplify and mask power issues and which can create an illusion of community.
Although consensus decision-making has merit, critical issues may be overlooked in
reaching consensus – issues that could push the situation toward more meaningful
change (Capper, 1992). Rather than consensus, “it is dissensus which continually
compels our attention” (Cherryholmes, 1988, p. 98). Ellsworth (1989) asserts that
sometimes it is better to support a coalition of “multiple, shifting, intersecting, and
sometimes contradictory groups carrying unequal weights of legitimacy. Sometimes
groups/persons need time to ‘talk back’ to the larger group, while the rest … listen
without interruption” (p. 317). Nature of the individual/subject. The nature of the
individual/subject within the poststructural epistemology may be described by
positioning it against feminist views of the same. As previously described, educators
who adopt feminist perspectives tend to essentialize male and female, ascribing
specific characteristics and behaviors to males and a different set to females, while
ignoring the complexities of identity among and within individuals, regardless of
gender. Rather than an objective/essentialized male/female from feminist
perspectives, educators engaged with poststructural epistemologies consider the
individual as constructed of multiple, shifting identities Lather (1991) describes this
nature of the individual as a “de-centered subject, culturally inscribed/constructed,
contradictory, relational … continuously recreated and recreating … fractured” (p.
160). Accordingly, the agency of the subject, or the ability of a person to make a
difference or to do something, also shifts and diminishes in poststructural thought.
For some feminists, critiques of the subject are useful because it steers away from
essentialism, which suggests that women and men “are just like that,” to
understanding how society and its institutions socially construct and shape the
female/male subject. Some feminist theorists have raised additional concerns
regarding poststructural epistemology. I explore these concerns in the section on
feminist poststructuralism. When compared to critical theory, the postmodern
epistemology could be considered as a way of viewing a situation rather than as a
guide for action, although it does not preclude action. In sum, rather than modernist
views of change as being rational, evolutionary, and step-by-step, poststructural
epistemologies consider change as “non-linear, cyclical, indeterminant,
discontinuous, contingent” (Lather, 1991, p. 161). Modernist epistemologies view
power as all or nothing, while poststructural epistemologies view power as complex,
web-like, everywhere, related to the body, productive, and perpetuated by strategies
such as surveillance and control of space. Diverging from a view of the nature of the
subject/individual as essentialized, poststructural epistemologies consider the nature
of the subject/individual to be multiple, shifting, “decentered … culturally
inscribed/constructed, contradictory, relational … continuously recreated and
recreating … fractured” (Lather, 1991, p. 160). Poststructural Epistemologies and
Leadership for Equity In previous sections, I discussed how the postmodern
epistemology informs decision-making and change theory, and embedded within
that discussion lie implications for leadership as well. Poststructural epistemologies
can inform leadership for equity related to the nature of power, the individual, and
the role of individuals in equity work. Poststructural epistemologies provide for hope
in social justice leadership. Rather than viewing oppression and marginalization as
monolithic and immutable, poststructural epistemologies suggest that gaps and
opportunities always exist for change and transformation within organizations.
Likewise, rather than viewing individuals resistant to equity change as essentialist
and unmovable, poststructural epistemologies ask us to view individuals as complex
and that, like organizations, individuals shifting toward equity change is possible.
Rather than believing that only one way exists to effect equity change (for example,
from an activist standpoint), poststructural epistemologies suggest multiple ways to
effect equity change and all ways are important in the equity change process at
multiple levels. Instead of hoping for the lack of resistance to our equity work,
poststructural epistemologies remind us to expect resistance and not to fear it.
Postmodern epistemologies have greatly influenced the critically oriented
epistemologies that evolved during the time of postmodern epistemology formation,
including Disability Studies theories (Chapter 10) and Queer Theory (Chapter 11).
Critical scholars could not help but be influenced by postmodern epistemologies
circulating at the time. FEMINIST POSTSTRUCTURALISM Feminist poststructural
epistemology refers to the interactions and contradictions among subjectivity,
power, and language that contribute to “common sense.” Common sense relates to:
Particular definitions of what is natural, normal, or commonsensical. … However, its
power comes from its claims to be natural, obvious, and therefore true. … These
supposed truths are often rhetorically reinforced by expressions such as “it is well
known that,” “we all know that”, and “everybody knows that” which emphasize their
obviousness and put social pressure on individuals to accept them. (Weedon, 1987,
p. 77) Feminist poststructuralists examine these unquestioned underlying
assumptions to consider how power is exercised (Weedon, 1987) and the potential
for change. The feminist poststructural epistemology claims some affinity with
critical theory and poststructural epistemologies but is not fully at home with either
of them. Here, I position feminist poststructuralist epistemologies against these
epistemologies, unpacking the similarities and contradictions among them. Tensions
with critical theory. Educators engaged with feminist poststructural epistemologies
of education avoid the limitations of critical theory and move beyond the gendered
relations of feminist theories. These educators appreciate the messiness and
complexity of poststructural epistemologies but maintain a focus on social change
(Capper, 1994). Educators working within critical theory do not explicitly take a stand
and then recognize their own partiality and contradictions. In contrast, educators
engaged with feminist poststructural epistemologies do not shy away from taking a
stand, but they recognize the “undecidability, partiality, and uncertainty within a
theoretical commitment” (Luke & Gore, 1992, p. 48). In short, a feminist
poststructural epistemology suggests that an educator take a stand on an issue,
overtly identify their own epistemological position, recognize the partiality and
contradictions within the position, and then engage in self-interrogation of that
position. Tensions with the poststructural epistemology. Feminist theorists have not
warmly embraced poststructural epistemologies. They have been suspicious of a
theory, promulgated primarily by white males, that in part dismisses the importance
of practice, does not adhere to any normative standard of right or wrong and,
because of the structural constraints of a patriarchal society, removes the
possibilities of persons in power to make a difference, especially when increased
numbers of Anglo women and men and women of color are in positions of power
(Nicholson, 1990; Scott, 1988). Consequently, the feminist contribution to the
poststructural epistemology includes, in part, the retention of practice with the
development of theory, the reinstatement of human potential to make a difference
in practice, and the predisposition to take a stand amid continual self-reflection
(Lather, 1991). Irigaray accuses postmodern philosopher Derrida of appropriating
feminine or feminist characteristics for his own use and support while
simultaneously excluding women. Irigaray argues that “as soon as something
valuable appears to be coming from the side of women, men want to become
women” (cited in Whitford, 1991 p. 131). She also argues that: when male
theoreticians employ women’s discourse instead of male discourse, that act remains
a phallocentric gesture. It means, We will become, and we will speak a feminine
discourse in order to remain the master of discourse. What I would want from men is
that, finally, they would speak a masculine discourse and affirm that they are doing
so. (cited in Whitford, 1991, p. 131) Fraser and Nicholson (1988) criticize Lyotard’s
view of postmodernism for privileging itself as the supreme view of theory and
failing to consider its own history and that it is, itself, “simply one more discourse
among others” (p. 87). As such, theorists argue that modernist epistemologies have
proved beneficial for equity work. For example, Best and Kellner (1991) explain that
modernist approaches have: given women weapons to fight against their oppression.
Modern[ist] categories such as human rights, equality, and democratic freedoms and
power are used by feminists to criticize and fight against gender domination. …
Indeed, the very discourse of emancipation is a modern[ist] discourse. (pp. 208–209)
In addition to not wanting to disengage totally from the benefits of modernist
epistemologies, educators engaged with feminist poststructuralist epistemologies
find continuities between the modernist and postmodernist project and prefer a
dialectical stance between them (Flax, 1990; Lather, 1991; also see Irigaray, cited in
Whitford, 1991). For example, according to Best and Kellner (1991), the feminist
poststructural epistemology can contribute to poststructuralist perspectives and
could: help avoid the dead ends and traps of extreme postmodern theory by
overcoming the nihilism and defeatism evident in some varieties of postmodern
theory. We find pure postmodern theory without a strong dose of feminist or
Marxism to be incapable of addressing concrete political problems. Postmodern
theory in its more extreme forms tends to be exactly what it accuses modem theory
of being: one-sided, reductionist, essentializing, excessively prohibitive … politically
disabling … reductive [and] dogmatically closed to competing perspectives. (p. 263)
Similarly, Lather (1991) believes that poststructural epistemologies offer feminism
“less fixed, and determined ways of looking … and avoid dogmatism and the
reductionism and single-cause analysis” (p. 39). Irigaray also advocates for a dialectic
between feminism and deconstruction. According to Whitford’s (1991)
interpretation of Irigaray, “It is not difficult to see that, if deconstruction can
‘deconstruct’ feminism, feminism offers a standpoint from which to contextualize or
interpret deconstruction” (p. 132). Fuss (1989) agrees, and argues for a dialectic
between essentialism and constructivism in relation to the subject/individual that I
take up in the next section. Tension with the subject/individual. Subjectivity or
subject positions within feminist poststructural epistemology are defined as “ways of
being an individual” or personal identity (Weedon, 1987, p. 3). The term “identity” is
used to refer to “the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the
individual, her knowledge of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to
the world” (Weedon, 1987, p. 32). But a person does not possess just one identity
(once and for all); instead, identity is “precarious, contradictory, and in process” (p.
33), constantly being reshaped whenever we think, speak, or write. The feminist
poststructural epistemology, rather than centering on class analyses reflective of
traditional critical theory or the holy trinity – gender, race, and class – of more
contemporary critical theorists, allows the exploration of the shifting, contradictory,
incomplete, and competing interpretations of personal identity. Weedon (1987)
asserts that “the ways in which people make sense of their lives is a necessary
starting point for understanding how power relations structure society” (p. 8).
Feminist poststructuralist scholars are uncomfortable shifting the emphasis away
from a singular subject or individual and the ability to make a difference as described
within poststructural epistemology. At the time that scholars were promulgating
poststructuralism, feminist poststructuralists argued that typically marginalized
individuals were just beginning to be recognized as individuals in the first place – as
individuals with power and as individuals capable of working toward equity systems
change. In the past, typically marginalized individuals have been excluded from the
conversation and discourse. Thus, feminist poststructuralists believe that, at the
time, just when women were being recognized and accorded power, some (typically
white, male, elite scholars) suggest that theory and practice must move beyond the
singular subject/individual and that the conceptualization of the subject/individual
must be a dispersed one. However, this dispersion may result in marginalized
persons never being recognized as individuals effecting equity change. For example,
Whitford (1991) argues that: “multiplicity” in one form or another has become one
of the themes of contemporary French philosophy, and one of the characterizing
features of what has come to be called postmodernism. … The problem is that
“multiple” can exclude women just as certainly as the “one” or the “same”. … One is
still left with the fact that the move from the masculine subject to the disseminated
or multiple subject bypasses the possibility of the position of woman-as-subject. …
Women … are not in the same situation since (according to modem theory itself)
they have never had a subject to lose. The problem for women, then, is that of
acceding to subjectivity in the first place. (pp. 82–83) Snitnow and Thompson (1984)
concur, and suggest that “to close a discussion that began for some only very
recently is to leave those speakers once again beyond consideration. … It is too soon,
then, for silence” (cited in Whitford, 1992, p. 215). Language and discourse. The
language and discourse construct of feminist poststructuralism theory addresses the
limitations of rationality, dialogue, and consensus. Feminist poststructuralists believe
that “the way we speak and write reflects the structures of power in our society”
(Lather, 1991, pp. 11–12). Feminist poststructuralists suggest that language should
be examined and “understood in terms of competing discourses, competing ways of
giving meaning to the world, which imply differences in the organization of social
power” (Lather, 1991, p. 24). According to Cherryholmes (1988), the meanings of
words or situations are “shifting, receding, fractured, incomplete, dispersed, and
deferred” (p. 61). The meanings of language are always shifting and incomplete.
According to Cherryholmes (1988), the language in schools, whether written,
gestured, or spoken, “determines what counts as true, important, or relevant, what
gets spoken, what remains unsaid” (p. 35). The term “discursive fields” in feminist
poststructuralist epistemology refers to language that is specific to the culture of a
discipline. Weedon (1987) explains that “discursive fields consist of competing ways
of giving meaning to the world and of organizing social institutions and processes”
(p. 35). According to Cherryholmes, (1988), “discursive fields are generated and
governed by rules and power” (p. 35). Cherryholmes (1988) interprets Foucault and
frames questions such as: how do schools develop a language culture? How does the
language used shape and influence educational practices? And how do schools
regulate the language used? Feminist poststructuralists question who and what
structure and what cultures have power over what may be spoken or written in
school. The authority of discourse relies on what is viewed as “natural” or “normal”
(Weedon, 1987) in language. Using feminist poststructuralism as a tool to act has
often been questioned, since one of the main tenets of poststructuralism has been
that discourses or societal systems largely shape our thoughts, feelings, and
existence. Alcoff (1988), for example, suggested: The idea here (in poststructuralism)
is that we individuals really have little choice in the matter of who we are, for as
Derrida and Foucault like to remind us, individual motivations and intentions count
for nil or almost nil in the scheme of social reality. We are constructs – that is, our
experience of our very subjectivity is a construct mediated by and/or grounded on a
social discourse beyond (way beyond) individual control. (p. 268) However, many
others have suggested that within given parameters, poststructuralism and feminism
can ask critical questions and can inform practice and action (Lather, 1991; Sawicki,
1991; Scott, 1988; Weedon, 1987). As Ropers-Huilman (1998) described:
Poststructuralist feminism does not claim that we have total control over our
position in life; yet it advocates that we can recognize and choose to act within the
social constructs that have acted to create the positions that we currently hold. (pp.
14–15) Implications for educational leadership. I offer suggestions and questions for
research and practice from the feminist poststructural epistemology. Although I rely
on social structures such as race, class, gender, and sexuality, in the examples I
recognize that these categories are not always consistent, stable, or even
recognizable. I urge the reader to problematize the use of those categories and to
consider the underlying assumptions and gaps inherent in the work. Within feminist
poststructural epistemologies, the educational system remains comprised of many
discourses, all operating with various levels of power. Education, in turn, affects all
who participate in the system. Education serves to both produce and reproduce
societal norms and structures (Ropers-Huilman & Capper, 1995). Educators engaged
with feminist poststructural epistemologies provide access to multiple knowledge
sources and ways of knowing. These educators believe that teaching and learning
take place everywhere by everyone in all interactions. Within feminist poststructural
epistemologies, effective “supervision” includes paying attention to the strategies
and sources of normalization between the teacher and “supervisor.” When
educators view the curriculum from feminist poststructural epistemologies, the
curriculum is never neutral and is simultaneously, never fully reflective of its
contents; there is no “truth” to be conveyed; rather, the curriculum is constructed of
knowledges that are not static. What is presented as valid knowledge is related to
current power structures. Educational leaders within feminist poststructural
epistemologies believe that a leadership vision reflects only particular voices, is a
product of multiple discourses, and should be continually re-evaluated and
problematized. Rather than striving for consensus or utopian views of “community,”
feminist poststructuralist epistemologies value dissensus, conflict, contradiction, and
resistance, and would seek to understand and use this understanding to inform
practice rather than to squelch conflict. A few studies and theoretical essays in the
field of educational leadership have been informed by feminist-poststructural
epistemology. Capper (1992) first applied feminist poststructuralism as part of a
mulit-paradigm framework for addressing educational leadership, diversity, and
societal pluralism. Grogan (2000), in a special issue of Educational Administration
Quarterly on women and the superintendency, framed her essay with feminist
poststructuralism. She considered women and the superintendency for future
research and practice with four dimensions of feminist-poststructuralism –
discourse, knowledge and power, subjectivity, and resistance. She argued for
reconceptualizing the superintendency from a feminist poststructural epistemology.
Guided by feminist poststructuralist theory, Wrushen and Sherman (2008) studied
the leadership of eight female secondary principals: four Caucasian and two women
who were African American, one Hispanic, and one Asian. The study addressed two
research questions: (1) Who are women secondary school principals?, and (2) How
are they experiencing their leadership roles at the secondary level? Through the
conceptual framework of feminist poststructuralism and the tenets of language and
discourse, power, and subjectivity, the analysis revealed the complexity of race and
gender with their leadership. Wrushen and Sherman’s study represents an example
of research that considers the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender, and the
methods included identifying the participants’ age range, years of experience, and
size of schools, but the authors are silent on their sexual/gender identity, disability
status, their social class upbringing, and other identity markers and their
intersections. While it is plausible to want to consider only two dimensions of
identity and their intersections, the authors do not indicate their reasoning or the
range of other possibilities. Across poststructural and feminist poststructural
epistemologies, educators analyze, take apart, or deconstruct policies and practices
that emanate not only from structural functional (Chapter 3) and interpretive
epistemologies (Chapter 4), but also from equity-oriented epistemologies such as
critical theory (Chapter 5). As discussed in this chapter, while feminist theories
emerged as one critique of critical theory, Critical Race Theory also emerged as a
critique and advancement from Critical Legal Studies (undergirded by critical theory).
We turn next in Chapter 7 to Critical Race Theory and its implications for
organizational theory and educational leadership. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY 1: Discussion and Critical Reflection on Your Own Leadership
from Feminist, Poststructural, and Feminist Poststructural Epistemologies Language
How does the language used in my setting shape and influence educational
practices? How do educational settings regulate the language used? What labels and
language are used in my educational setting and how does this language mask power
inequities? What are some examples in our setting of when something or someone is
viewed as natural, normal, or commonsensical or as “the way we do things around
here,” “we all know that,” “everybody knows,” or “it is well known that” (Weedon,
1987)? Do I question this? Who is considered the authority, the expert, the
knowledgeable one? How does this consideration maintain existing power relations?
Change To what extent do I … Allow the nature of change to be messy,
unpredictable? Tend to try and control the process of change too much to reach my
predetermined end-point? Foster and am I comfortable with dissensus, resistance,
contradiction, and conflict? Recognize that there is not one solution to a so-called
problem but multiple possibilities for a given situation? Do I recognize that these
possibilities need to be personal, local, and close to the people in each situation and
that these possibilities can change each day, that they are not finite? Decision-
Making To what extent am I conscious of the way in which consensus, dialogue, and
democratic decision-making can serve to mask power inequities; that persons with
differing opinions in the minority of the group are relegated to the side; and that
consensus can lead to an illusion of community and stifle creative conflict? Power To
what extent do I … Recognize that power is everywhere and that it can emanate
from many different points? Recognize that all people have the potential for power,
that it can come from anyone, and that all people can exert normalizing power over
others, but that some people have access to channels of power that others do not?
Recognize that power is operating on me in ways I may not expect or realize,
governing my desire, needs, and my physical body? ACTIVITY 2: Case Analysis
Questions Feminist Epistemology How is the situation “producing and reproducing
gender differences and gender inequalities” (Kenway & Modra, 1992, p. 141)? How
does the situation (e.g., discourse, curriculum, policy, etc.) misrecognize,
misrepresent, neglect, deny, or undervalue the “social contributions and culture
experiences of [individuals who consider themselves girls and women]” (Kenway &
Modra, 1992, p. 141)? How and to what extent are outcomes, rationality, reason,
competition, and the abstract conflated in the situation? How and to what extent are
process, emotion, cooperation, nurturance, intuition, the relational, and experience
suppressed in the situation? Poststructural Epistemology Does the case consider how
space is set up in the organization in a way to manage and control people? Does the
case consider how different groups of students/individuals are relegated to different
spaces, and how this arrangement may maintain unequal power relations? How is
the language used in the situation influencing educational policy and practices? How
is the situation regulating the language used? How is the language used in the
situation masking power inequities? Identify the sources of power in the case.
CHAPTER 7 Critical Race Theory, Black Crit

Although the first published application of Critical Race Theory (CRT) to education
occurred 20 years ago (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), implications of CRT for
educational leadership did not occur until López (2003) conducted a CRT analysis of
the politics of education literature. Since then, including Lopez’s work, few
publications apply CRT directly to educational leadership as it relates to formal
positions of authority (e.g., school principals or superintendents), and no
publications identify implications for leadership practice guided explicitly by the CRT
tenets. As such, the purpose of this chapter is to promulgate CRT as a framework to
inform organizational theory and to guide the practices of educational leaders to
eliminate racial inequities in their leading of equitable, socially just schools. On the
epistemology framework, Critical Race Theory is positioned across the
subjective/objective nature of knowledge continuum and on the radical change end
of the change continuum (see Figure 7.1). The next section describes the history of
CRT and its lineage after critical theory and feminist theories discussed in the
previous chapters. BRIEF HISTORY OF CRT Here, I offer a brief history of CRT. In each
section of the chapter where I define and describe the central tenets of CRT, I refer
back to some of the key scholars in the historic formation of CRT. In defining and
explaining CRT, like Solórzano (1998), I do not view CRT as “uniform and static” (p.
123). Crenshaw (2011) agrees in her historical account of the formation of CRT:
Figure 7.1 An Epistemology Framework CRT is not so much an intellectual unit filled
with natural stuff – theories, themes, practices, and the like – but one that is
dynamically constituted by a series of contestations and convergences pertaining to
the ways that racial power is understood and articulated in the post-civil rights era. …
I want to suggest that shifting the frame of CRT toward a dynamic rather than static
reference would be a productive means by which we can link CRT’s past to the
contemporary moment. (p. 1261) Tate (1997), who published one of the first papers
to apply CRT to education, concurs with this multiple view of the history and
formation of CRT: I use the heading “One Historical Overview” to indicate that my
historical interpretation of the origins of critical race theory is subject to critique and
debate. Moreover, the heading reflects my belief that it is possible to construct more
than one history of this scholarly movement. (p. 237) Given these caveats, I draw
upon Crenshaw’s (2011) history of CRT, substantiated by other histories of CRT
referred to in the initial applications of CRT to education (Ladson-Billings, 1998;
Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Parker, 1998; Parker, Deyhle, Villenas, & Nebeker,
1998; Solórzano, 1997, 1998; Solórzano & Yosso, 2000, 2001; Tate, 1994; 1997) and
earlier (López, 2003) and later applications of CRT (Horsford, 2010a) to educational
leadership. Tate (1997) argues that “Although no identifiable date can be assigned to
the conception of CRT, its foundation is linked to the development of African
American thought in the post-civil rights era: the 1970s to the present (Bell, 1980a, b;
Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw, 1993)” (p. 206). Yet, as Solórzano and
Yosso (2001) point out, it may be argued that “CRT’s roots go back as far as the turn
of the last century with DuBois’ s (1903) work The Souls of Black Folk” (p. 474). Tate’s
(1997) CRT history presents key scholars in the CRT movement such as Bell (1980b),
Delgado (1990), and Crenshaw (1988) who in the early 1980s identified the
inadequacies of Critical Legal Studies (CLS) in addressing racism. According to Tate
(1997), Crenshaw’s contribution to the movement began when she was a Harvard
Law student who helped organize student protests over the lack of faculty of color
and the lack of courses in their program related to race and other dimensions of
difference. Crenshaw helped create the Alternative Course developed by students
and scholars external to Harvard based primarily on the work of Bell (1992). These
scholars and others gathered for the first CRT Workshop in Madison, Wisconsin in
1989. Crenshaw (1988) and other scholars critiqued not only neoliberal aspects of
the law but also CLS for its perpetuation of racism. Although Tate (1997) presented
this CRT history in part, centered on these three scholars, Solórzano and Yosso’s
(2001) CRT history points out how “these criticisms had their roots and are still being
influenced by similar criticisms that were developing in ethnic studies, women’s
studies, cultural nationalist paradigms, Marxist and neo-Marxist frameworks, and
internal colonial models” (p. 474). As such, some histories of CRT in CLS chronicle the
central role of critical theory in its development (Solórzano, 1997; Solórzano & Yosso,
2001), in response to laws, associated policies, and legal practices that perpetuated
oppression. Solórzano (1997, 1998) relies on Matsuda (1991) to define Critical Race
Theory as: the work of progressive legal scholars of color who are attempting to
develop a jurisprudence that accounts for the role of racism in American law and
that works toward the elimination of racism as part of a larger goal of eliminating all
forms of subordination. (Solórzano,1998, p. 1331) López (2003) further explains:
“CRT’s premise is to critically interrogate how the law reproduces, reifies, and
normalizes racism in society in particular for individuals of lower social classes and
persons of color” (p. 83). From this CRT history in law, the applications of CRT to
education and educational leadership may be aligned with six primary, interrelated
CRT tenets as identified in the education and educational leadership literature
(Horsford, 2010a; Ladson-Billings, 2013; López, 2003). I briefly define these six tenets
in Table 7.1. CRT scholars in education moved the research on race in education
(Tate, 1997) and educational leadership (López, 2003) from a racial deficit
perspective to unearthing the prevalence and persistence of racism within society
and reproduced in education and schools (race is endemic to society). CRT from law
described how whiteness is property (Harris, 1993), and CRT education scholars
identified how the white curriculum is defended as white property (Ladson-Billings,
1998) and, as a result, leaders can expect white resistance when seeking to address
race in the curriculum (Pollack & Zirkel, 2013). CRT in legal studies identified the
critical importance of experience and minoritized voices which paved the way for
mining counter-stories in education (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001) and in educational
leadership (Horsford, 2009, 2010a, 2010b), and how these counter-narratives push
back against majoritarian stories. CRT in legal studies argued how seemingly legal
advances only occurred when such advances also supported white interests at the
same time and, in so doing, negated racial progress (Bell, 1980a) (interest
convergence). CRT scholars in education (Ladson-Billings, 1998) echoed the legal
studies critique of Brown vs. Board of education as a prime example of interest
convergence, while educational leadership scholars revealed interest convergence in
policies such as school finance (Aléman, 2007). In the same way that CRT scholars
critiqued the critical discourse in Critical Legal Studies (Tate, 1997), CRT also provided
a way to critique the liberal multicultural and diversity discourse in education
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) and the leadership for social justice discourse in
educational leadership (López et al., 2003) in that these progressive discourses
submerge, marginalize, and perpetuate racism (critique of liberalism). Among the
CRT in education scholars, Solórzano (1997, 1998) presented the most explicit
extrapolation of intersectionality to education from legal studies (Crenshaw, 1988),
followed by Parker (1998) and López (2003) in educational leadership with the
importance of surfacing hidden oppression when examining the intersection of race
with other identities. Table 7.1 Critical Race Theory Tenets Figure 7.2 Critical Race
Theory Tenets Across the CRT in educational leadership publications, most scholars
articulated similar CRT tenets, though they all chose to emphasize different tenets in
their data analyses. Nearly all the publications viewed the data through the CRT lens
of the endemic nature of racism (16) and counter-stories (16), while critique of
liberalism (11), interest convergence (9), and whiteness as property (9) were nearly
equally addressed. Only four articles identified intersectionality as a CRT tenet to be
considered. None of the publications comprehensively traced the CRT pedigree in
educational leadership in their reviews of literature. Although intersectionality
emerged as a tenet of the CRT studies I reviewed, rather than discuss
intersectionality in this chapter, I address intersectionality in Chapter 12 CRT TENETS
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR LEADERSHIP PRACTICE Next, I define and describe each of
the six interrelated CRT tenets I apply to educational leadership. Within each tenet, I
draw from the CRT in educational leadership literature, supported by related
literature and my own analysis linked explicitly to the tenet to explicate implications
for leadership practice to eliminate racism. Permanence of Racism López (2003)
contends that many people perceive racism “as an individual and irrational act in a
world that is otherwise neutral, rational, and just” (p. 69). Further, according to
López (2003), “most people view racism … as the enactment of overt racial acts – for
example, name calling, burning crosses, hate crimes, and so forth – while ignoring
the deeper, often invisible, and more insidious forms of racism that occur on a daily
basis” (López, 2003, pp. 81–82). Thus, rather than viewing racism as random,
infrequent, isolated, out-of-the ordinary events, CRT posits that racism has always
been and always will be endemic and pervasive in society (Tate, 1997). Mentioned in
16 of the CRT in educational leadership publications, from this perspective, racism is
understood to be normal (López, 2003), happening all the time, everywhere, at the
individual, institutional, societal, and epistemological levels (Tate, 1997). CRT points
to the importance of understanding the enormity and pervasiveness of the
structural, political, economic embeddedness of racism throughout the history of
and currently within the U.S. (Horsford, 2010a). As such, a challenge to ahistoricism
is threaded throughout all CRT six tenets – a separate tenet identified by Tate (1997)
and amplified throughout applications to education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995;
Ladson-Billings, 1998) and educational leadership (Horsford, 2010a). The
pervasiveness of societal racism remains true even with seeming societal racial gains
and persons of color occupying positions of power and prestige in U.S. society. These
facts do not mean that we now live in a “post-racial” society with racism in the past
and not relevant today, as these gains most often prop up white privilege,
perpetuate racism on other levels, and remain in stark contrast to the massive racial
inequities that continue in society (Ladson-Billings, 2011). That is, that “race [still]
matters” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 8), and will always matter. This tenet of the
permanence of racism can help white educational leaders acknowledge that they
themselves are racist, that all leaders regardless of race are complicit in racism
(Khalifa et al., 2014), and that all schools and districts embody and perpetuate racism
throughout the culture, organization, policies, and practices, and will always do so.
This pervasiveness of racism exists even though educational leaders may have
addressed their own racist assumptions and beliefs, participated in diversity training
(Evans, 2007), engaged in meaningful work or relationships with persons of color, or
made progress with students of color in their schools. These leaders understand that
working against racism is a lifelong process personally, and is an ever-evolving and
continuing process of working against organizational racism in their schools
(Theoharis & Haddix, 2011). The endemic and pervasiveness of racism at all levels of
schools and society and within ourselves, however, is not without hope that progress
can be made or that persons of color are without agency. Bell (1992), considered one
of the godfathers of CRT, discusses racial realism as part of CRT which is “a
philosophy [that] requires us to acknowledge the permanence of our subordinate
status” which “enables us to avoid despair and frees us to imagine and implement
racial strategies that can bring fulfillment and even triumph” (pp. 373–374). Bell
believed that by acknowledging racial realism, individuals would be motivated to
move beyond incremental, status quo change that, while addressing racial inequities
in one form, spawns further racial inequities elsewhere. Ladson-Billings (1998)
agrees: “Adopting and adapting CRT as a framework for educational equity means
that we will have to expose racism in education and propose radical solutions for
addressing it” (p. 22). As such, CRT in educational leadership literature suggests four
interrelated practices educational leaders can take to recognize and eliminate the
pervasiveness of racism. First, educational leaders should work toward developing an
anti-racist identity (Gooden, 2012; Theoharis & Haddix, 2011), which evolves through
a series of stages and is ongoing through one’s life. To date, the educational
leadership scholarship on anti-racist leadership has focused on leadership
preparation (Lightfoot, 2009; Young & Laible, 2000) and more work needs to be
conducted that examines how leaders can further develop an anti-racist identity for
themselves and how to develop such an identity with their staff and students.
Gooden (2012) offers suggestions for anti-racist identity development based on his
analysis of African American principals, including future and practicing principals,
who need to understand individual, societal, and institutional racism. In doing so,
leaders can investigate their own racial histories by writing racial autobiographies,
then analyzing these autobiographies using racial identity development models.
Horsford (2014) describes another model for developing an anti-racist identity,
drawn in part upon the CRT tenet of the pervasiveness of racism where leaders move
through a series of stages: racial literacy, racial realism, racial reconstruction, and
racial reconciliation. Importantly, developing an anti-racist identity cannot happen as
the result of attending one workshop or reading a few articles or books on white
racism. Evans (2007) studied school leader perspectives on the demographic changes
in their schools. She found that even with white leaders who had participated in
diversity training and who held authentic relationships with persons of color, they
continued to hold deficit beliefs about students of color in their schools. In sum, an
anti-racist identity occurs as a result of leaders being committed to lifelong work on
their own racist assumptions and beliefs via professional development, readings,
media, authentic relationships with individuals of color, and other experiences.
Successful principals of students of color in a study by Theoharis and Haddix (2011)
did not avoid racial issues, but talked about race with their staff “plainly and often”
(p. 1340). Thus, as a second strategy to address the pervasiveness of racism,
educational leaders need to engage in informal individual conversations and whole-
faculty conversations about race with their staff when issues arise at the school that
are informed by race. Educational leaders should be models of this process to
facilitate the development of an anti-racist identity with their staff and students – a
third way leaders can recognize the historical and current pervasiveness of racism
and work toward eliminating racism (Theoharis & Haddix, 2011). These leaders
themselves may facilitate race work with their staff and students or hire trained
facilitators to do so. When facilitating race work with staff, CRT scholars argue that
leaders must ensure that the work moves beyond diversity/multicultural training
(Sherman, 2008; Stovall, 2004). According to Stovall (2004): Unfortunately, many
diversity and cultural sensitivity workshops sanitize race and attempt to promote
false senses of unity. … Instead of confronting the difficult issues that race can
present, some trainings amount to “we’re a multicultural society and we should get
along better.” This is not enough. (p. 11) Instead, leaders can evaluate the quality
and effectiveness of professional development on race based on the extent to which
the CRT tenets represented in this chapter are addressed. Conducting equity audits
of their schools constitutes a fourth way whereby leaders can recognize and
eliminate the pervasiveness of racism in their schools. Leaders can collect and
analyze race data (Gooden 2012; Theoharis & Haddix, 2011), develop concrete goals
and implementation plans to eradicate these inequities, design effective measures of
progress, and make all of these data and strategies transparent and easily accessible
to the community. In sum, CRT in educational leadership literature calls upon leaders
to acknowledge the pervasiveness of racism within ourselves and our schools
accompanied by hope that change is possible. To that end, this literature suggests
four leadership practices that grapple directly with and work against the endemic
nature of racism. Whiteness as Property The CRT tenant of whiteness as property
refers to U.S. history where property rights were and are more important than
human rights (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). From the
founding of the U.S., a person who owned property was able to participate in the
governance of the Union, whereas a person who did not own property could not
participate. Starting with the take-over of Native American land, not only were
whites the only people who could legally own property; African Americans could not
own property and they themselves became property who could be traded and sold.
To be able to own property accorded the property owner incredible power, privilege,
status, and rights, based simply on skin color. Put simply, to be white meant
something then, means something now, and will always mean something – an
automatic affordance of rights and privileges – that whiteness is property. According
to Harris (1993), who penned the germinal scholarship on the concept of whiteness
as property in legal studies, the legal right to exclude forms the conceptual anchor
for understanding whiteness as property. She explains: “In particular, whiteness and
property share a common premise – a conceptual nucleus – of a right to exclude.
This conceptual nucleus has proven to be a powerful center around which whiteness
as property has taken shape” (p. 1707). Harris further explains: The right to exclude
was the central principle, too, of whiteness as identity, for mainly whiteness has
been characterized, not by an inherent unifying characteristic, but by the exclusion
of others deemed to be “not white.” The possessors of whiteness were granted the
legal right to exclude others from the privileges inherent in whiteness; whiteness
became an exclusive club whose membership was closely and grudgingly guarded. In
addition to the absolute right to exclude, legally, anyone who holds property holds
“rights of disposition, rights to use and enjoyment, reputation and status property”
(Harris, 1993, pp. 1731–1737). In one of the earliest publications that applied CRT to
education, Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) linked the whiteness as property tenet in
a literal way to property values; that is, because public school finance is based on
local property taxes, wealthier communities are able to allocate more funding to
education than economically poor communities. They explain, “The quality and
quantity of the curriculum varies with the property values of the school” (p. 54).
Alemán (2007) illuminated this link between property and curriculum in his analysis
of Texas school finance policy on Mexican majority American school districts. He
analyzed how Texas finance policy, which was hailed as transformative and more
equity oriented than previous finance policy, continued to marginalize Mexican
majority school districts and to perpetuate racism. Thus, in public schools, aspects
that uphold white privilege may be viewed as property that whites will fiercely
protect for themselves. For example, the curriculum remains the most valued
property in schools, and whites will fiercely defend the property of the school
curriculum in at least two interrelated ways. First, whites defend the entire system of
advanced placement (AP), gifted, and honors programs (collectively considered as
the AP system) (Pollack & Zirkel, 2013) and the associated remedial, tracked, and
special education system that upholds and reinforces the AP system. A second way in
which whites uphold and defend the curriculum includes “the distortions, omissions,
and stereotypes of school curriculum content” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18) which
ignores and erases the perspectives of people of color. While whiteness as property
is defined or mentioned in nine of the CRT in educational leadership publications,
only two of the publications provide an extensive analysis of race in educational
leadership relying on this tenet. One of these two publications, by Pollack and Zirkel
(2013), provides the most extensive examination of whiteness as property within the
curriculum in the field of educational leadership in their study of equity failure at one
high school. The specific equity practice that failed focused on changing the time of
science labs that took place before and after school to during school time when more
low-income students and students of color could participate. Pollack and Zirkel
explain that the property interests of AP students and their families “include the
entire AP system of material advantage – including a superior and more engaging
curriculum, exclusivity, status, and a substantial competitive advantage in college
admissions” (p. 301). They further explain, “we see that the AP students (and, by
extension, their parents) clearly had a long-established, taken-for-granted hold on
the rights of disposition, use and enjoyment, and status … [and] their absolute right
to exclude” (p. 302). In this case, Pollack and Zirkel (2013) identified the competing
interests as parents of students who were not benefitting from the times that labs
were currently offered (these were primarily parents on low income and students of
color) and parents of students who were in advanced placement (AP) science who
were currently benefitting (these were primarily middle- and upper class white
families). Within the school, the competing interests were teachers who believed
that students of color had been systemically and historically disadvantaged at the
school and thus change was needed, and teachers who believed that such a change
was “eroding standards” (p. 301). The science teachers identified with the latter
group and these teachers would also lose extra pay they had been receiving for
teaching the labs outside of standard school time. Pollack and Zirkel (2013) believed
that the leaders in this study understood these competing interests. However, as
Pollack and Zirkel point out: Unfortunately, merely identifying the competing interest
groups and anticipating how they would be likely to respond to the change proposal
was insufficient to prepare for the fierce resistance that ensued. What sets the
groups apart are not simply different perspectives on educational processes and
goals, but rather different underlying property interests and varying levels of power
and privilege that can be exerted to protect those interests. We suggest, therefore,
that it would have been far more helpful to first identify and address the specific
property interests at issue. (p. 301) Pollack and Zirkel seamlessly linked power,
privilege, and property rights in their analysis of the situation. Although different
power positions are clearly understood and visible such as power differences
between teachers and leaders, privilege is less visible, and persons with the most
privilege hold the strongest property concerns. Obviously, in this case, those who
benefitted the most from the existing practices were the predominantly white and
affluent students and families. Low-income students of color not only benefitted
least from the before- and after-school labs, but the existing structure harmed these
students. When white families fiercely protect their property interests of the AP
system, these actions also further prop up and maintain the remedial, tracked,
special education system that serves to protect the AP system. The white AP system
is protected when students of color are over-represented in special education and in
Response to Intervention (RtI) programs (Orosco & Klinger, 2010), when students
who are bilingual are segregated in particular classrooms or schools, and students of
color are pulled out of the classroom and segregated for these separate programs, all
under the well-intentioned but mythical guise of helping students succeed. When
educators pull students of color out of classrooms and segregate them away from
their white peers and from the core curriculum in these ways, whites exercise their
“absolute right to exclude” (Harris, 1993, p. 1731) and further protect the general
education classroom as property for white interests. In addition to the AP system as
property fiercely protected by whites, the typical white public school curriculum
itself may be viewed as property for whites when perspectives of people of color are
silenced. Ladson-Billings (1998) explains: Critical race theory sees the official school
curriculum as a culturally specific artifact designed to maintain a White supremacist
master script. … This master scripting means stories of African Americans are muted
and erased when they challenge dominant culture authority and power. (p. 17) As
one solution to a white curriculum and school culture, some schools engage in work
on cultural diversity, multicultural, and culturally responsible teaching initiatives.
Unless these initiatives directly address power, privilege, and the embeddedness of
racism as explicated across all six CRT tenets, these initiatives serve as a distraction
to white racism and further preserve and protect the curriculum for whites. Ladson-
Billings (1998, 1999a) agrees that initiatives such as celebrating diversity and
multiculturalism not only mute and sanitize the history of African Americans in this
country, but further protect the white curriculum from change. White families may
rally against multicultural and social justice initiatives in their schools, since they
perceive these initiatives as threats to their white curriculum property. One high
school in Evans’s (2007) CRT in educational leadership study held an annual black
history assembly in which students were not required to attend, and over time an
increasing number of white parents excused their children from attending the event.
When the school board then canceled the program, Evans explained, “this
occurrence illustrates the ways in which school curriculum and events, as intellectual
property, serve as established property interests to be preserved and protected by
those in power” (pp. 174–175). Marx and Larson’s (2012) CRT in educational
leadership study discussed in detail how whiteness as property worked in principal
Larson’s middle school where Larson implemented curriculum improvements for
Latino students: [C]ulturally relevant teaching, bilingual education, and Spanish for
native speakers classes can be perceived as threatening to the White-dominant
school culture and curriculum. … Strategies for improving schooling for Latina/o
students that required embrace of their culture(s) and language(s) were resisted as
unnecessary by [the middle school]. These are examples of Whiteness as a property
right that was protected and maintained … even as it sought to better address the
needs of its Latina/o students. … That is, the White students in the school (who
composed the majority of the student body population) were not perceived as
needing or benefiting from these changes in curriculum and teaching. (p. 294) Given
this definition and description of whiteness as property across legal studies,
education, and educational leadership, the CRT whiteness as property tenet suggests
at least one implication for leadership practice. That is, many educational leaders
may approach the elimination of inequities in their school from a place of naïve
goodness. Leaders may assume that if they provide clear data and evidence that
expose racial inequities, then all staff and community members also out of a sense of
goodness and justice will fully support work to eliminate those inequities. Leaders
may especially hold these community assumptions when the school is located in a
liberal community, as were the schools in the studies by Pollack and Zirkel (2013) and
Knaus (2014). However, this assumption does not consider the property interests at
stake. Understanding the CRT whiteness as property tenet can help leaders
anticipate, understand, and respond to the fierce backlash they will experience from
white middle-/upper class families – including liberal families (Brantlinger, Majd
Jabbari, & Gusin, 1996) protecting their property interests when leading equity work.
Toward this end, Pollack and Zirkel (2013) pose two questions for school leaders to
consider prior to implementing equity change: “What forms of ‘property’ are at stake
in this area in which we believe change is needed? Whose material interests are
likely to be adversely affected?” (p. 300). Pollack and Zirkel argue that leaders should
identify the property interests of upper class white students and families from the
beginning of equity change. That is, for example, that these students and their
families will strongly defend their property of the AP system that affords them
enormous rights and privileges that will extend far beyond high school. The leaders
should then anticipate that these students and families will also: use their
considerable resources, access to media and social networks, and ‘cultural capital’ …
to frame the debate in ways that serve their interests. … By anticipating this reaction,
educational leaders [can play] a more central role in framing the narratives that
defined the debate right from the start. (p. 302) To help leaders learn how to frame
narratives while working toward equity ends, leaders can learn from the CRT tenet of
counter-narratives, which I discuss in the next section. In sum, the CRT tenet
whiteness as property views the entire AP system along with the typical public school
curriculum with the perspectives of people of color silenced as white property
fiercely protected by whites, while the school remedial system upholds and sustains
that property. To lead toward the elimination of racism, leaders should identify the
property interests at stake and anticipate the resistance from white families to this
work. Counter-narratives and Acknowledgment of Majoritarian Narratives A third
key tenet of CRT addresses the importance of personal experience shared via
narratives of people of color (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Solórzano & Bernal, 2001;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). These narratives are positioned as counter-stories to the
white norm at the individual, institutional, societal, and epistemological levels
(Solórzano & Yosso, 2001; Tate, 1997), and make visible the daily micro-aggressions
and societal and institutional racism that people of color experience. Solórzano and
Yosso (2001) were among the first CRT in education scholars to develop counter-
storytelling as a research method and further legitimize counter-stories as justifiable
data and valid (Ladson-Billings, 1998) that “can be used as theoretical,
methodological, and pedagogical tools to challenge racism, sexism, and classism and
work toward social justice” (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, p. 23). Delgado (1993) explains
further: “Majoritarians tell stories too. But the ones they tell – about merit,
causation, blame, responsibility, and social justice – do not seem to them like stories
at all, but the truth” (p. 666). Smith, Yosso, and Solórzano (2007) agree and argue:
“Counterstories challenge this facade of truth by revealing the perspectives of
racialized power and privilege behind it” (p. 565). While most CRT scholars in
educational leadership emphasize the importance of legitimizing counter-stories of
people of color, other scholars take up the converse idea of majoritarian stories
which Delgado (1993) identifies as it applies to equity work. For example, Pollack and
Zirkel (2013) explain how majoritarian narratives “help preserve the property rights
of privilege and whiteness” (p. 297). In their study, privileged, white upper class
families relied on majoritarian narratives to uphold and maintain their property
rights. Understanding this linkage can help leaders understand why equity-oriented
reforms are often subverted as they attempt to lead successful equity-focused
changes in their schools. Counter-narratives along with the permanence of racism
were mentioned, defined, or relied on as a research method in the CRT in
educational leadership articles more frequently than the other CRT tenets. This
literature features counter-narratives of African American superintendents about
school segregation (Horsford & McKenzie, 2008; Horsford, 2009, 2010a, 2010b),
African American teacher experiences in “equity” schools (Knaus, 2014), an African
American principal turning around a school (Brown, Beckett, & Beckett, 2006),
African American and Latino mothers across social classes and school choice (André-
Bechely, 2005), and Latino superintendents as they grappled with state finance
policy (Aléman, 2006, 2007), though none of this literature offered implications for
leadership practice. In this literature, Pollack and Zirkel (2013) offer the most
nuanced and detailed explanation of how counter- and majoritarian stories operate
when educational leaders are engaged in equity work, and, given the purpose of this
chapter that focuses on implications of CRT for organizational theory, and leadership
practice, I review their study in detail. Pollack and Zirkel explain that whites use
majoritarian narratives to “justify, legitimate, and help to maintain the status quo of
racial inequities” (p. 298). Whites use these narratives to explain racial inequities –
narratives that are “embedded with racialized omissions, distortions, and
stereotypes” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18), deficit thinking, and blame the victim. For
example, some whites may explain that racial inequities exist because “African
American and Latina/o students ‘do not value education,’ or based on ‘cultural
differences’ or ‘deficiencies’” (Pollack & Zirkel, p. 298). These deficit-based
explanations “fail to account for patterns of accumulation and disaccumulation of
economic, social, and symbolic capital” (Pollack & Zirkel, p. 298) that produce and
perpetuate the pervasiveness of racism. Pollack and Zirkel add, white people tend to
view these narratives not as reflecting a particular perspective (theirs), but rather as
uncontestable reality – simply the “way things are” … Narratives about who is
deserving predominate – deserving of access to the best curriculum or access to the
best colleges. Deserving in all these instances is defined in circumscribed ways that
lead back to the most privileged people having the greatest right to additional
privileges. (p. 298–299) Pollack and Zirkel suggest two questions from the CRT tenet
of counter-/majoritarian narratives to guide leaders attempting to make equity-
oriented changes: “What are the narratives we might use to frame public debate?
What are other narratives that might surface in response and how can we anticipate
them?” (p. 300). Pollack and Zirkel (2013) identified four majoritarian narratives of
privilege in their case example: (a) to be fair means to not notice race, to be color-
blind, nor to do anything different for/with students of color, to treat all students the
same; (b) a belief that difference in intelligence or ability are genetically determined,
and thus “normal, expected, and to be accepted” (p. 303), and further, that the racial
inequities prevalent across the country in every school confirm this fact; (c) student
achievement differences are due to talent and effort, and thus some students are
more worthy than others, and it is best to invest resources into students who are
worthy, rather than low performing students of color; and (d) if equity efforts aim to
increase the achievement of students of color, then these efforts are unfair to
students who are already successful and thus we are rewarding students who are
unworthy and punishing students who work hard. These majoritarian narratives then
make racial achievement inequities and racial segregation and stratification in
schools via special education, remedial education, tracking, and response to
intervention programs normal, acceptable, and in no need of change. These four
narratives – centered on which students are deserving and which students are not –
serve as a distraction to the central issue of privileged white families and students
protecting their property rights of the Advanced Placement system. These four
majoritarian narratives also explain why simply sharing racial equity audit data with
staff, families, and community members may not motivate these individuals to want
to correct these inequities. In fact, the racial equity data can serve to reinforce
stereotypes and deficit views of students of color and the four majoritarian
narratives that Pollack and Zirkel (2013) describe. When school staff have not
historically taken responsibility for low achievement for students of color, and
instead hold deficit perspectives about students and their families, then equity audit
data that show racial inequities may result in school staff feeling blamed about the
inequities and react defensively, and blame the inequities on students of color for
reasons that reinforce negative stereotypes and deficit thinking about students of
color. Counter-narratives and Decision-making To counter the eruption and
strengthening of these majoritarian narratives, the CRT tenet of counter-narratives
suggests that leaders working to eliminate racism need to ensure that individuals
and communities of color are authentically included in democratic decision-making
about strategies and plans to eliminate racial inequities. At the beginning of equity
work, leaders must seek the perspectives of students, families, and communities of
color and make public their stories, views, and examples of how the current system
is not working for them (Knaus, 2014). Seeking these perspectives must occur at the
school and district level in multi-layered ways. For example, Horsford (2010a)
suggests that “practicing and aspiring educational leaders … study the historical,
political, economic, and social contexts of the school communities they serve to
include informal interviews that capture the experiential knowledge of people who
have been marginalized, underserved, or silenced in a particular community” (p.
313). The African American superintendents in her study offered counter-narratives
of integrated schooling, including the strengths of African American schools pre-
Brown. Thus, Horsford argues for the critical importance of deeply engaging with the
history of marginalized individuals in the school community. Horsford also suggests:
Exposing aspiring educational leaders to multiple perspectives of knowing and
understanding, as uniquely experienced by veteran educational leaders of color, has
educative value not only through the sharing of lived professional experiences but
also through exposure to diverse leadership philosophies, styles, and practices that
have proved effective in school communities of color. (p. 313) Additional examples of
ways to include the counter-stories of students of color include conducting focus
groups with students of color and involving students of color in demographically
proportional ways in school decision-making teams that include students. At the
district level, district administration can conduct focus groups of community
members at each school site and ensure that these focus groups are demographically
representative of the school student population. Depending on the community
context, district and school leaders may wish to solicit community family and school
input particular to specific races/ethnicities; for example, hosting sessions with
African American or Latino families and community members. In addition to seeking
the perspectives of educators and individuals of color in the school community, CRT
scholars in educational leadership call for deep engagement with the community
(Khalifa, Dunbar, & Douglas, 2013; Khalifa et al., 2014; Knaus, 2014; Sherman, 2008:
Stovall, 2004) and with families of color (Theoharis & Haddix, 2011) as critical to
racial equity. Stovall explains how this community engagement can lead to the
development and use of community resource guides and positioning the schools as
community centers. This CRT tenet of counter-narratives in the educational
leadership literature reiterates the importance of hiring educators of color and
creating working conditions for these educators to thrive and to be genuinely
mentored into leadership positions (Knauss, 2014; McCray, Wright, & Beachum
2007). Leaders must also aggressively ensure that district and school decision-making
teams are racially representative of the school community. Of course, these staff of
color cannot speak for all of their race or community; however, they offer important
counter-narratives that are critical to equity decisions. Marx and Larson (2012)
discuss how equity changes for Latino students at principal Larson’s middle school
were limited because all the individuals involved to bring about change were white.
To this end, McCray, Wright, and Beachum (2007) analyzed the hiring of African
American secondary principals in one southeastern state post-Brown. They found
that African American principals are most likely to be hired in majority African
American schools (which are often under-resourced), while white principals are hired
for majority African American, diverse, and majority white schools. While African
American leadership role models are important in majority black schools, at the
same time leaders of color should be given the opportunity to lead diverse and white
majority schools. Santamaría’s (2014) study of diverse leaders in higher education
and K-12 also confirms the importance of the leadership of individuals with
differences across identity (race, class, ethnicity, language, gender, sexual identity),
and how their identity can have a positive impact upon their leadership practice
toward equity. At least two interrelated factors converge for equity leaders to
consider when inviting and integrating counter-stories from individuals and
communities of color in their equity work: a) the ways in which white privilege and
majoritarian narratives act upon and socialize individuals and communities of color
(Aléman, 2009; Gooden & Dantley, 2012; Khalifa et al., 2014), and b) racial
essentialism. Related to the first CRT tenet of the endemic nature of racism, all
individuals have been subjected to and socialized with white, privileged majoritarian
narratives about schools and education (Aléman, 2009; Gooden & Dantley, 2012;
Khalifa et al., 2014). For example, students, families, and communities of all races
may accept that the over-representation of students of color in special education,
tracked into lower level courses and classes, or the over-representation of students
of color in remedial efforts such as Response to Intervention programs are not only
acceptable and immutable but are in fact the most effective ways to support and
educate students of color. In addition, educators, families, and communities of all
races may accept that the most effective way to educate students who are bilingual
is within segregated classrooms. As Khalifa and colleagues (2014) explain in their
study of the closure of a majority black high school: postracial, technical-rational
administrative behaviors were enacted in the move to close [the high school] despite
the fact that the superintendent was Latino and the principal was African American.
This is another reminder that even minoritized school leaders can knowingly or
unknowingly enact, reproduce, and reinforce systems of racial marginalization. (p.
168) Thus, leaders must analyze and anticipate how students, families, and
community members of color may react against equity work, and leaders may need
to educate students, families, and community members in ways to undo the
dominant majoritarian narratives which these individuals have believed in and
bought into (Aléman, 2009; Gooden & Dantley, 2012; Khalifa et al., 2014). Leaders
also should not essentialize the perspectives of particular racial groups or identities.
That is, for example, not all Latino families will respond in the same way when
leaders wish to integrate students who are bilingual throughout the school rather
than segregated into particular classrooms. In these two ways, then, leaders for
equity cannot assume that when aggressively soliciting counter-narratives in the
process of equity change these counter-narratives from families and students of
color will unilaterally support these efforts, and in fact, these families and
community members may join with the majoritarian narratives and rally to work
against the leaders and equity work. In sum, the CRT tenet of counter-
narratives/majoritarian narratives refers to the importance of soliciting and listening
to the perspectives and stories of students, families, and communities of color as
integral to anti-racist leadership via community relationships, and hiring and
supporting staff of color. In so doing, these counter-stories work against majoritarian
stories by whites that mask as the only truth in opposition to equity work. Interest
Convergence and Change A fourth tenet of CRT addresses interest convergence,
meaning that any gains toward racial equality have only happened and can only
happen when whites also benefit (Horsford, 2010a; López, 2003). CRT scholars
critique apparent gains for racial equality, such as the Brown vs. Board of Education
decision because that legal decision benefitted whites by increasing the positive
stature of the U.S. with the rest of the world during the Cold War (Ladson-Billings &
Tate, 1995). From a CRT perspective, the decision was also made to quell another
potential African American uprising in the U.S.A. and the potential harm to whites in
the U.S.A. should this happen (López, 2003). Further, this decision eroded black
education and resulted in the widespread dismissal of black teachers and
administrators across the south (Horsford, 2010a; Tillman, 2004). Thus, the Brown
vs. Board of Education decision is one example of how apparent progress for people
of color is made only when it meets the needs and interests of whites, and further,
that liberal racial reform such as Brown exacerbates racial inequities. Across the CRT
in educational leadership publications through the lens of interest convergence,
Khalifa, Dunbar, and Douglas (2013) detail how neoliberal reforms and high-stakes
testing, though touted as ways to increase achievement for students of color, benefit
whites and businesses more. Gooden (2012) points out why whites admire tough
black principals like Joe Clark, as it converges with their own interests to alleviate
themselves of racial guilt. Marx and Larson (2012) explain how principal Larson’s
school implemented literacy and math classes for low-achieving white students and
students who were linguistically diverse, and how these classes served as an example
of interest convergence. In these classes, white students benefitted as well; thus the
interests of white and Latino parents converged. However, these same families and
educators impeded substantial changes for Latino students such as culturally
relevant teaching, Spanish for native speakers’ classes and bilingual education
because these changes threatened the core school curriculum and worked against
the unconscious or conscious assimilationist agenda of the school to maintain white
cultural norms. Educators and families may reject these deeper changes by claiming
that they do not benefit all students in the school, especially when white families
believe the school is working well for most students. In this example, these changes
for Latino students do not converge with white interests. Thus, the
interest/convergence tenet suggests that if leaders expect their equity efforts to be
successful, their work must be framed in such a way that middle- and upper class
whites in the community will also benefit; otherwise white families will believe that
the racial equity work is not worth doing. Unlike the other CRT in educational
leadership literature, Knaus (2014) offers a nuanced analysis of interest convergence
in his study of “equity” principals. These principals identified an African American
teacher in each of their schools as “most promising” for leadership potential, yet
failed to support and promote these teachers to leadership positions in the same
way they did white promising teachers. Knaus explains, “This research suggests that
considering African American teachers as ‘most promising’ was in the interests of the
principals because they could then claim to support equity-focused culturally
responsive approaches (without even knowing what that meant)” (p. 440). When
applying interest convergence to leadership practice, Pollack and Zirkel (2013) argue
that leaders must appeal to the concerns of parents across race, culture, and class to
garner change support. They also suggest that leaders be specific about how current
practices are harming students of color. Pollack and Zirkel pose two questions for
leadership practice guided by interest convergence: “What commonalities of
interests might exist [across races]? Can we identify and articulate areas of potential
agreement among affected parties?” (p. 300). As such, educational leaders can
strategically employ interest convergence as a tool for equity change. At the same
time, scholars caution about the limits of interest convergence, in that the change
which results will typically be: limited, weak, and/or short-lived … perhaps interest
convergence is best seen as one strategy in the arsenal, and a beginning rather than
an end. Interest convergence can get change moving – but we need to be ever
vigilant if those changes are to remain. (Pollack & Zirkel, 2013, p. 300) Alemán and
Alemán (2010) also articulate the limits of interest convergence for equity change
and argue, instead, that using interest convergence as a political strategy can
perpetuate racism. They conclude that relying on interest convergence as an equity
practice to foster racial inequity is limited, yet they offer three suggestions to curb
these limitations. One, relying on interest convergence as a change strategy, may
result in leaders being resistant to discussions about race and racism, and being
resistant to “strategies that focus centrally on the elimination of racism” (p. 15). To
counter this limitation of interest convergence, Alemán and Alemán (2010) argue
that “discussions of race and racism and their implications for public policy and social
life are central, regardless of how unpleasant these conversations may be perceived
to be … [these] discussions are foundational to CRT praxis” (p. 15). Second, an
interest-convergence perspective can also foster an acceptance of slow, incremental
equity gains and these gains in racial equity rely on “notions of meritocracy,
colorblindness, and ‘fair play’ within a democratic system, all without critiquing the
power differentials that remain intact” (Alemán & Alemán, 2010, p. 16). While
Alemán and Alemán acknowledge that racial gains have been made, they point to
the persistent and pervasive educational racial inequities as just one example of
evidence of the limitations of federal law and policies designed to purportedly
eliminate these inequities. They explain further: “our critique with [the incremental
change] approach is when community leaders present it as the sole (emphasis in the
original) strategy in the struggle for change … [the] interest-convergence principle
should not be utilized as a justification for an incrementalist strategy of change” (p.
16). Third, taking an interest-convergence approach may also lead to educators
blaming racial inequities on individuals rather than on the “institutional and systemic
racism that exists” (p. 15). Thus, Alemán and Alemán (2010) insist that educators
“attack society’s embedded racist structures, shifting blame and responsibility away
from individuals” (p. 16). In sum, educational leaders must address equity changes by
considering how all students could benefit and how students of color are harmed by
current practices. However, at the same time, leaders must keep race and the
elimination of racism central to the equity work and not back down from the difficult
racial conversations as a result of this work, ensure that race discussions focus on
eliminating structures and systems of racism rather than becoming mired in blaming
individuals, and understand that interest convergence is just one strategy among a
plethora of strategies for eradicating racism. Critique of Liberalism: Color-blindness
and Critique of Equity Policies and Practices CRT also critiques liberalism – a fifth CRT
tenet applied to education. In this section, I focus specifically on concepts related to
liberal ideas of color-blindness and the ways liberal equity policies and practices can
perpetuate racial oppression. Scholars in educational leadership who rely on CRT
often refer to the problem of color-blindness in race equity work (Horsford, 2010a;
López, 2003; Khalifa, Dunbar, & Douglas, 2013; Khalifa, et al. 2014; Valles & Miller,
2010). The concept of color-blindness can be manifested in two ways: first, when
educators claim to not see a student’s color or claim that race does not matter; and
second, when educators do not realize the ways their school is not race neutral and
reflects white culture, and, in turn, when they expect students of color to assimilate
to and blend into the existing white school culture. Across the CRT in educational
leadership literature, five publications analyzed how color-blindness perpetuates
racism initiated by López (2003), who illuminated the color-blindness of traditional
political theory. Other studies examined how school leaders took a color-blind
approach to issues such as demographic change (Evans, 2007) and closing a majority
African American high school (Khalifa et al., 2014). Leaders in both studies
downplayed race and approached these challenges from a supposedly neutral
perspective and denied that race mattered. In Khalifa and colleagues’ study, the
leaders relied on policies and data to avoid race. Yet leaders in both studies relied on
race to perpetuate a deficit perspective of African American students and families.
Khalifa, Dunbar, and Douglas (2013) also analyzed how high-stakes testing and
neoliberal reforms reflect color-blindness in insisting that school reforms are in the
best interest of all students. Phrases which educators may say related to the first
example of color-blindness include “I do not see a student’s color,” “I treat all
students the same,” “I hold the same high standard for all my students,” “A student’s
race does not matter to me.” Marx and Larson (2012) explain that the majority of
educators believe their “color-blind glasses” “prevent them from seeing any
differences among children of varying racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic
backgrounds” (p. 298). Marx and Larson explained how Larson as a white principal
initially denied that race mattered, and claimed he was color-blind. Indeed, principal
Larson believed, as do many white educators, that claiming to be color-blind is the
right thing to do, and to intentionally attend to and respond to racial differences
reflects racist beliefs and practices. However, to claim color-blindness, or that race
does not matter, or that educators need to treat all students the same and not
differently, denies the atrocity of racial inequities in the past and the pervasive racial
micro-aggressions, societal racism, and systemic racism that individuals of color
experience daily and the way racism permeates all aspects of schools (Evans, 2007).
Educators also manifest color-blindness when they remain unconscious of or deny
the ways their school reflects white culture. Marx and Larson (2012) explain how the
majority of U.S. educators are “not cognizant of their Whiteness, nor that of the
curriculum and schools within which they work. Rather than recognizing that they
work in a cultural/racial/linguistic milieu, many educators believe their own school
settings are culture free” (p. 293). As a result, educators expect students of color to
“blend into the dominant White, English-speaking culture reflected in the school” (p.
293). Thus, when educators in principal Larson’s school were asked to implement
culturally responsive practices that address the needs of Latino students, principal
Larson and his staff experienced these expectation as “vague, hard to achieve,”
“radical, inappropriate … a threat to the core curriculum,” “and contrary to the
assimilationist climate of the school” (p. 293). In sum, many educators claim color-
blindness, that they do not see a student’s color, and are unconscious of the ways
schools are not racially neutral but reflect white culture. In Marx and Larson’s (2012)
study, principal Larson’s perspective shifted and “Rather than ignoring or denying the
presence of the Latino students … and their cultural and racial group in a colorblind
manner,” principal Larson sought to get to know the students and their families
better. The principal took off his color-blind glasses and “recognize[ed] children for
who they are: diverse people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, strengths, and
weaknesses, qualities that can be built on only when they are recognized” (p. 298).
Thus, to counter a color-blind perspective, leaders need to know that “not seeing
race” or being “color-blind” rather than neutral or positive reflect racist assumptions
and beliefs. Leaders need to recognize the races and cultures in their school
communities and reach out to families and students, and recognize their assets and
value to the school and their unique needs. Leaders also need to help staff recognize
the ways the school, its culture, and practices are not race neutral and reflect white
culture (Valles & Miller, 2010), and the ways they expect students of color to
assimilate and blend into the school. Instead, leaders must ensure that all aspects of
the school – the curriculum, culture, structure, and policies – not only reflect the
racial diversity in the school but also challenge and eliminate racist assumptions. In
addition to addressing color-blindness, the CRT tenet critique of liberalism also
suggests that educational leaders be critical and discerning about equity policies and
practices to ensure that these policies and practices do not perpetuate racial
inequities (Valles & Miller, 2010). Scholars of CRT in educational leadership literature
have demonstrated how Texas “equitable” school finance policy perpetuated
inequities (Aléman, 2007), and how desegregation policies and practices aimed
toward equitable ends can perpetuate inequities (André-Bechely, 2005; Horsford,
2010a). André-Bechely suggests that leaders for equity must examine how “the rules
and processes that districts institutionalize to bring about access, equity, and
equality may serve to hide the very real ways that race and class still support
exclusion in our schools” (p. 302). Horsford (2010a) also cautions that: inclusion
programs and initiatives that fail to recognize how race and racism work to maintain
hierarchies, allocate resources, and distribute power will not do much to address
gaps in student achievement, low school performance, and distrusting school
communities. (p. 311–312) Further, even effective practices such as culturally
relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 1999b), if not fully understood or
implemented properly, can fall far short of addressing racism. Ladson-Billings (2014)
disappointingly notes: What state departments, school districts and individual
teachers are now calling ‘culturally relevant pedagogy’ is often a distortion and
corruption of the central ideas I attempted to promulgate. The idea that adding
some books about people of color, having a classroom Kwanza celebration, or
posting ‘diverse’ images makes one ‘culturally relevant’ seem to be what the
pedagogy has been reduced to. (p. 82) In the final section of this chapter, I discuss
curriculum practices that purport to promote equity such as Universal Design for
Learning and the social justice discourse in educational leadership as additional
equity examples that can perpetuate racism. In sum, the CRT tenet of the critique of
liberalism requires leaders to understand how the concept of color-blindness reflects
a racist perspective and denies historical racism and the current and pervasiveness of
racism. Further, the critique of liberalism points to how school culture and practices
are never race neutral, and perpetuate and require students of color to assimilate
into white culture. This CRT tenet also calls on leaders to question and critique liberal
and progressive equity work that does not directly address systemic and persistent
racism. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR CRT AND EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP PRACTICE This analysis of CRT in educational leadership suggests a CRT
Inventory for Leading the Eliminating of Racism (see below). This inventory can help
leaders assess the legitimacy and effectiveness of racial policies, practices, initiatives,
and equity change efforts to help ensure that these efforts do not perpetuate racial
inequities and racism, and to eliminate racism in public schools. While designed
initially for practicing school leaders, faculty in leadership preparation programs can
also adopt the CRT Inventory as a means to interrogate their own practice and
program. Further, many questions in the inventory are under-researched and can
guide future research in the field. Leaders and faculty who prepare them can rely on
the inventory at regular intervals throughout the year for critical self-reflection of
their own leadership practice in conjunction with using the inventory with their
leadership team and with their entire faculty as a means to critically interrogate their
educational practices in schools and leadership preparation programs. In the same
way that Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) critiqued the diversity and multicultural
discourse for marginalizing race, future scholarship on CRT and educational
leadership must directly address and critique the current social justice discourse in
the field and the ways in which the social justice discourse perpetuates racism
(Knauss, 2014). As Knauss explains, “it is in the interest of White educators to adopt
social justice language instead of integrating anti-racism into the foundation of
academic programs” (p. 422). As I previously explained, CRT emerged out of a
critique of radical, critical legal studies. In turn, the application of CRT to education
was in part a critique of the multicultural discourse at the time (Ladson-Billings &
Tate, 1995). As Crenshaw (2011) wrote about the emergence of CRT out of CLS: “ it
was difficult to imagine how to proceed with a conversation about race ‘out there’
without addressing race ‘in here’” (Crenshaw, 2011, p. 1295). Scholars in educational
leadership need to critique the “racism in here” that remains pervasive and
unquestioned in the social justice discourse in the field. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY 1: Complete and Discuss the CRT Inventory for Leading the
Elimination of Racism CRT Inventory for Leading the Elimination of Racism
Pervasiveness of Racism Are we actively engaged in ongoing work on our own racism
and ongoing work on developing an anti-racist identity? Is the historical and current
pervasiveness of racism in all of society, including schools, and within ourselves
acknowledged and addressed? Do we frequently engage in informal and formal
conversations about race with our staff? Are policies and practices in place to
facilitate the ongoing development of an anti-racist identity with staff, students,
families, and community members? Do we conduct equity audits that include
disaggregation of race data and establish concrete measurable goals, action plans,
effective measures of progress, and follow-up as a result of the audit? Is academic
achievement for students of color and developing critical consciousness with all
students the primary focus and measure of effectiveness for all the race work?
Whiteness as Property Do we acknowledge that the curriculum itself and the
AP/honors/gifted systems are white property, with all the rights and privileges
afforded property, including the right to enjoyment and the fundamental right to
exclude, and that whites will fiercely defend this property? Have we identified the
property interests at stake and prepared for how we will respond to the defense of
that property by whites? Do we acknowledge that the entire remediation system,
including special education, remedial education, response to intervention, and other
remediation practices, and the labeling of students for these programs, all purported
to address racial achievement gaps, perpetuate racial inequities? Do we
acknowledge that this remediation system upholds, maintains, and reinforces the AP
system of privilege, and thus the primary task toward equitable change includes
policies and practices that result in a highly rigorous curriculum for all students via
integration, heterogeneous classrooms, de-tracking, proportional representation,
and inclusive schooling? Do the equity efforts include a focus on the voices and
perspectives of people of color in the curriculum, moving beyond diversity and
multiculturalism to culturally transformative practices? Counter-
narratives/Majoritarian Narratives What strategies, policies, and practices are in
place to ensure the hiring of leaders of color, that school and district conditions
support their leadership success, and that these leaders are not always assigned to
majority of color schools? How and in what ways are the perspectives and stories of
students, families, and community members of color solicited, drawn upon, and
presented at the beginning of the equity change to frame the work proactively, and
not as a reactive response to majoritarian resistance? Have we identified why and
how students, staff, families, and community members of color may resist the equity
change because of their own socialization by the majoritarian narratives, and have
we determined how we will re-educate all about the harms of current practices and
benefits of the equity work? Have we ensured that school and district decision-
making, planning, and other teams are racially representative of the community and
that in these team meetings all perspectives are heard and considered? Have we
identified what the majoritarian arguments will be against the equity change from
staff, families, and community members, and how we will respond? Interest
Convergence Have we identified the interests of the white privileged students,
families, and communities and determined how the equity changes will benefit these
students and families? In identifying the interests of whites in the equity change, are
we ensuring that the work on the pervasiveness and structural embeddedness of
racism historically and currently does not abate, and that racial equity remains the
public goal of equity work? While we acknowledge positive results from incremental
racial equity work, do we ensure that incremental change is not the only way for
successful, enduring change to occur? Critique of Liberalism Have we acknowledged
that claims of being color-blind, treating all students the same, not seeing color, and
not acknowledging race all reflect racist beliefs and assumptions? Have we analyzed
and critiqued the equity change or new policy or practice to determine if or how it
could perpetuate racism in its implementation? ACTIVITY 2: CRT Analysis of Case
Situation Identify the issues in your case and then possible solutions for your case
from a CRT epistemology. Pervasiveness of Racism How is the historical and current
pervasiveness of racism in all of society, including schools, and within ourselves
acknowledged and addressed? How is the racial identity development of the actors a
factor in the case? Whiteness as Property What aspects in the case could be
considered an example of whiteness as property? What property interests are at
stake in the case? To what extent is the case about the defense of white property?
To what extent are remediation systems as perpetuators of racial inequities a factor
in the case? Counter-narratives/Majoritarian Narratives To what extent do the case
issues consider proactively employing educators of color and supporting their
success? How and in what ways are the perspectives and stories of students, family,
and community members of color solicited, drawn upon, and presented in the case
proactively? Have we identified why and how students, staff, families, and
community members of color may resist the equity change because of their own
socialization by the majoritarian narratives? Has the case considered that school and
district decision-making, planning, and other teams are racially representative of the
community and that in these team meetings all perspectives are heard and
considered? Does the case consider the majoritarian arguments to resist change?
Interest Convergence Does the case consider the interests of the white privileged
students, families, and communities? Does the case consider that in recognizing the
interests of whites we are ensuring that the work on the pervasiveness and
structural embeddedness of racism historically and currently does not abate, and
that racial equity remains the public goal of the equity work? Does the case consider
that incremental change is not the only way for successful, enduring change to
occur? Critique of Liberalism Does the case consider that claims of being color-blind,
treating all students the same, not seeing color, and not acknowledging race all
reflect racist beliefs and assumptions? Does the case consider how the situation
could perpetuate racism?
CHAPTER 8 LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit Theories

In the previous chapter, I reviewed the literature on Critical Race Theory (CRT) in
educational leadership, defined the key tenets of CRT, and described how CRT could
inform leadership to eliminate racism. This chapter extends that work to examine
LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit theories in educational leadership (see Figure 8.1).
More specifically, the research question that anchors this chapter asks: How can
LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit theories inform organizational theory and, in turn,
how can these theories contribute to the leadership of socially just schools? LATCRIT
THEORY Developed by the early founders of CRT, LatCrit theory originated in the late
1990s and early 2000s (Alemán, 2007). LatCrit theory complements rather than
supplants CRT (Alemán, 2007, 2009), and expands the black/white binary that
dominated racial discourse to address a broader spectrum of race and its
intersections with other identities. Huber (2010) explains how LatCrit theory extends
beyond CRT to address the unique histories and experiences of Latinos in the U.S.A.:
LatCrit can be used to reveal the ways Latinas/os experience race, class, gender, and
sexuality, while also acknowledging the Latina/o experience with issues of
immigration status, language, ethnicity and culture. Thus, LatCrit theory enables
researchers to better articulate the experiences of Latinas/os specifically, through a
more focused examination of the unique forms of oppression this group encounters.
(p. 79) Figure 8.1 An Epistemology Framework In addition to the tenets of
immigration status, language, ethnicity, and culture, Alemán (2009) also identified
Latinx essentialism and assimilation as key tenets of LatCrit theory. As such, LatCrit
directly addresses moving beyond racial essentialism and addressing race across
races, and also overtly addresses the intersection of Latinx identity with race, gender,
social class, ability, and sexual/gender identity. LatCrit theory is often combined with
CRT within empirical studies where it has served as the theoretical lens, including
research on pre-K-12 education in general (Gonzalez & Portillos, 2007; Huber, 2011;
Irizarry & Raible, 2014; Malagon, 2010; Peralta, 2013; Portillos, Gonzalez, & Peguero,
2012; Solórzano & Bernal, 2001; Valdez & Lugg, 2010); the education of Latinx
students in Chicago Public Schools (Davila & de Bradley, 2010); the experience of
Latinx students in high school (Fernández, 2002); higher education in general (Flores
& Garcia, 2009; Villalpando, 2003); Chicano college students’ experiences (Bernal,
2002; Huber, 2010); pre-service teacher education (Franquiz, Salazar, & DeNicolo,
2011; Irizarry, 2011; Rodriguez, 2011); environmental education (Arreguin-Anderson
& Kennedy, 2013); K-16 education (Urrieta & Villenas, 2013); mathematics education
(Gutiérrez, 2013); community change (Quiñones, Ares, Padela, Hopper, & Webster,
2011); and education research (Huber, 2009; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002). One
paper practically applied CRT, LatCrit, and Tribal Crit to social studies classrooms
(Daniels, 2011). Only two studies viewed educational policy and finance through a
LatCrit lens (Alemán, 2007, 2009). Relative to educational leadership, Alemán (2009)
studied the perspectives of eight Mexican American superintendents in Texas
regarding their perspectives of changes in Texas school finance policy. Relying on a
combination of CRT and LatCrit theory for data collection and analysis, Alemán
focused on the CRT tenets of interest convergence and whiteness as property in his
analysis. Alemán (2009) learned that though the superintendents recounted stories
of racism in their families and lives growing up, they believed that underachievement
of Latino students was due to lack of motivation or work ethic and not to systemic
racism. In so doing, they framed racism at the individual level rather than pervasive,
historical, and societal and, in turn, did not consider the inequitable Texas finance
policy from a racial perspective. As a result, when testifying before the legislature,
even though the superintendents admitted that the current finance policy was unfair
to their districts, they used a “majoritarian” rhetoric. Rather than testifying that the
policy was inequitable, they instead thanked the politicians for the financial support
their districts had been given. Alemán (2009) believed that “employing a
majoritarian perspective as their sole political strategy, refuting the permanence of
racism, and internalizing whiteness as property … cannot lead to a socially just school
finance system” (pp. 194–195). Alemán defined this practice as “politically passing”
(p. 197) which could be viewed as a form of interest convergence; that is, advocating
for a particular equity policy or practice from a whiteness perspective in ways to
ensure whites continue to benefit. Alemán argued that this “avoidance of racial
analysis represents a traditional mode of leadership – one that allows the dominant,
majority, political and racial hierarchy to continue its ‘historical and continuing
pattern of white racial domination’” (p. 186, cited in Harris, 1995, p. 1710). Alemán
(2007) also analyzed school finance policy in Texas, relying on Critical Race Theory
and LatCrit theory to inform critical policy analysis. In so doing, he traces the history
of Texas school finance policy to date and identifies the structural and institutional
racism in the policy. Alemán makes the case that even though policy-makers sought
to create finance policy which they believed was more equitable, a closer
examination revealed how it continued to perpetuate inequalities based on property
taxes. As an extension of LatCrit theory, Huber (2010, 2011; Huber, Lopez, Malagon,
Velez, & Solorzano, 2008) further developed a theory of racist nativism (Chang,
1993). Huber defines racist nativism as “the institutionalized ways people perceive,
understand and make sense of contemporary US immigration, that justifies native
(white) dominance, and reinforces hegemonic power” (p. 380). Huber developed this
theory as a means to understand the experiences of undocumented Chicano college
students, but the theory also applies to indigenous people or to anyone perceived as
a “foreigner” in the U.S.A. Huber (2011) further explains: “A critical element of this
definition is that racist nativism is based solely on perceptions. Thus, Latinas/os are
racialized as nonnatives regardless of actual immigration status. This process of
exclusion then, becomes a function of white dominance” (p. 382). In sum, LatCrit
theory extends beyond the black/white binary originally promulgated with CRT and
explicitly considers race across races and the intersection of race with other
identities such as class, gender, ability, and sexual/gender identity. Tenets of LatCrit
theory can include CRT tenets but extends beyond those to also consider
immigration status, language, ethnicity, culture, assimilation, and Latinx essentialism
– all unique to the Latinx experience. With LatCrit theory as a base, Huber (2010,
2011) developed a theory of racist nativism. This theory helps explain how whites
marginalize anyone who they believe is not “native” to the United States – labeling
anyone with this status as a “foreigner” regardless of immigration status, and
perceive individuals with this label as a threat and as justification for white
dominance. TRIBAL CRIT THEORIES According to Brayboy (2005), who was the first to
articulate the tenets of Tribal Crit theory, while the primary tenet of CRT is that
racism is endemic in society, the primary tenet of Tribal Crit theory focuses on the
fact that “colonization is endemic to society” (p. 429). In addition to this tenet,
Brayboy identifies eight other tenets of Tribal Crit theory: 1) U.S. policies toward
Indigenous peoples are rooted in imperialism, White supremacy, and a desire for
material gain. 2) Indigenous peoples occupy a liminal space that accounts for both
the political and racialized natures of our identities. 3) Indigenous peoples have a
desire to obtain and forge tribal sovereignty, tribal autonomy, self-determination,
and self-identification. 4) The concepts of culture, knowledge, and power take on
new meaning when examined through an Indigenous lens. 5) Governmental policies
and educational policies toward Indigenous peoples are intimately linked around the
problematic goal of assimilation. 6) Tribal philosophies, beliefs, customs, traditions,
and visions for the future are central to understanding the lived realities of
Indigenous peoples, but they also illustrate the differences and adaptability among
individuals and groups. 7) Stories are not separate from theory; they make up theory
and are, therefore, real and legitimate sources of data and ways of being. 8) Theory
and practice are connected in deep and explicit ways such that scholars must work
towards social change. (pp. 429–430) A few studies have applied these eight tenets
of Tribal Crit theory to studies with Indigenous educators.1 For example, Castagno
(2012) studied a teacher education program designed for the preparation of
Indigenous teachers for Native American schools. The program was housed in a
predominantly white university that had explicit goals about “serving Indigenous
communities and that … was founded and developed with the commitment to
increase the number of culturally responsive Navajo teachers” (p. 16). Through the
lens of Tribal Crit theory, she identified the ways the program perpetuated white
colonialism and assimilation. The reasons for the programmatic assimilation included
(a) the lack of buy-in and support from the College of Education; (b) divisions
between program participants and those not in the program and among program
participants, some whom spoke Navajo and some of whom did not, and (c) the ways
that liberal multiculturalism anchor most teacher preparation programs. Castagno
summarized the situation: “Indeed, throughout the College of Education, there exists
a culture that values colorblindness, equality and sameness for all, and an
extraordinarily slow pace of social change” (p. 16). The outcome of this
programmatic assimilation included the fact that the Indigenous teachers were not
fully prepared to teach in culturally responsive ways in Navajo schools. Concluding
that “good intentions and isolated strategic efforts are simply not enough to
overcome entrenched patterns of assimilation and colonization” (p. 16), Castagno
(2012) then identified specific ways in which teacher education could resist
colonization and assimilation: (1) prepare Indigenous teachers with culturally
responsive curricula driven by the goal of self-determination and centered around
Indigenous knowledge systems; (2) are led and directed by Indigenous faculty and
community members; and (3) are supported with hard-money funding sources... (p.
17) Castagno further explained: Successful examples of this sort of culturally
responsive teacher preparation share the following characteristics: (1)
contextualizing and localizing curriculum and pedagogy so that it resembles the
knowledge and learning of local communities; (2) the knowledge, values, resources,
and epistemologies of communities are viewed as legitimate and are intimately
integrated into schools; (3) students are engaged and learning ‘school knowledge’ at
the same time and through experiences that also facilitate the learning of local
community knowledge and … (4) includes a central and explicit focus on sovereignty
and self-determination, racism, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. (Brayboy &
Maughan, 2009; Castagno & Brayboy, 2008, cited in Castagno, 2012 p. 17) Castagno’s
study offers several important implications for theory and practice that I discuss in
the final section of this chapter. At the same time, Castagno’s study reveals several
limitations. First, the study does not address the importance of not essentializing
Indigenous identity, even though one of the tensions in her study were differences
among the Navajo students, some of whom spoke the Navajo language and some of
whom did not. Further, the study does not address the intersections of Native
American identity with gender, social class, ability, or sexual/gender identity. For
example, she critiques the lack of culturally relevant pedagogy in the teacher
preparation program and in the teaching practices of the Indigenous teachers;
however, she does not address to what extent the students were prepared to teach
across student differences by ability or how students labeled with disabilities were
addressed in their schools. In this way, the study is one example of how addressing
one area of difference (Indigenous identities) could further serve to mask and
perpetuate oppression of other identities. The study also does not address the
practicality of how to implement her ideas in diverse schools where students of
many races are enrolled, including Native American students. Finally, the study does
not consider how the implications could apply across other identities beyond
Indigenous students and teachers. In another study, Castagno and Lee (2007) relied
on Tribal Crit theory to examine Native American mascots and ethnic fraud (where a
person self-identifies as a Native American on university forms to gain advantage but
who is not Native American) at a midwestern university. Along with the CRT tenant
of interest convergence, Castagno and Lee relied on the Tribal Crit tenets of
“colonization is endemic, Indigenous people are not just racialized but also occupy a
unique political status within the United States, and that policies and practices aimed
at tribal nations are generally rooted in assimilationist and white supremacist goals”
(pp. 4–5) to analyze interviews with Native American female students and staff. They
learned that though the university took steps to celebrate and confirm diversity, the
university only did so to the extent that the policies continued to serve their own
interests and stopped short of fully working toward equity and social justice with
these particular policies. In their study, Castagno and Lee (2007) indirectly addressed
non-essentializing Native American identity when they identified differences in
perspectives between Native American women with stronger affiliations with their
tribe and with the Native American community compared to Native American
women who were more strongly rooted in the white community. While Castagno
and Lee focused their study on Native American perspectives and policies particular
to this identity, they considered how their findings could inform university
approaches to diversity, multiculturalism, and white racism more broadly. At the
same time, their applications and examples centered on race rather than on other
identities and their intersections. Indigenous Knowledge Systems. As an extension of
Tribal Crit theory, Brayboy and Maughan (2009) developed a theory of Indigenous
Knowledge systems (IK). Importantly, Brayboy and Maughan (2009) argue that
Western and Indigenous Knowledge systems can complement each other rather than
be positioned as binaries against each other. According to Brayboy and Maughan
(2009), Indigenous Knowledge systems: are processes and encapsulate a set of
relationships … entire lives represent and embody versions of IK … are rooted in the
lived experiences of peoples … these experiences highlight the philosophies, beliefs,
values, and educational processes of entire communities. (p. 3) Characteristics of IK
include that knowledge is a verb, not a noun, and is acted upon. Further, a premise
of IK includes: A circular worldview that connects everything and everyone in the
world to everything and everyone else, where there is no distinction between the
physical and metaphysical and where ancestral knowledge guides contemporary
practices and future possibilities. … This fundamental holistic perspective shapes all
other understandings of the world. (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009, p. 13) From an IK
framework: survival of a community is at the core of the matter. We simply cannot
understand ways of knowing and being without a deep and abiding understanding of
what community means and how, for many Indigenous peoples, community is at the
core of our existence. (Brayboy & Maughan, 2009, p. 15) Thus, in these ways, IK
extended the tenets of Tribal Crit theory. Critical Indigenous Pedagogy. As a further
extension of critical pedagogy, Garcia and Shirley (2012) relied on Critical Indigenous
Pedagogy (CIP) as a theoretical lens to engage Indigenous educators and youth in a
decolonization process as a means toward activism. They define CIP as: theoretically
grounded in critical methods that resist the injustices caused by colonization and
oppression experienced by Indigenous peoples. CIP utilizes pedagogical methods
that are critical, self-reflexive, dialogical, decolonizing and transformative while
valuing and relying on Indigenous knowledge systems to promote, protect and
preserve Indigenous languages, cultures, land and people. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p.
80) Garcia and Shirley focused on the importance of decolonization, defined as:
developing a critical consciousness about the cause(s) of our oppression, the
distortion of history, our own collaboration, and the degrees to which we have
internalized colonialist ideas and practices. Decolonization requires auto-criticism,
self-reflection, and a rejection of victimage. Decolonization is about empowerment –
a belief that situations can be transformed, a belief and trust in our own peoples’
values and abilities, and a willingness to make change. It is about transforming
negative reactionary energy into the more positive rebuilding energy needed in our
communities. (Wheeler cited in Wilson, 2004, p. 71, cited in Garcia & Shirley, p. 81)
The purpose of decolonization is to develop a critical Indigenous consciousness,
“which is ‘the freeing up of the Indigenous mind from the grip of dominant
hegemony’ in order to achieve transformation in Native communities” (Garcia &
Shirley, p. 82). Garcia and Shirley identified four steps of the decolonization process:
“1) examining history and power; 2) engaging in a self-reflexive process and critical
dialogues; 3) becoming empowered to transform oppressive situations; and 4) taking
action to reclaim and center Indigenous knowledge systems and values” (p. 88).
Importantly, Garcia and Shirley believe that Indigenous persons must engage in the
decolonization process before they can effectively work toward social justice for
their own Indigenous communities. Garcia and Shirley reported cross-study findings
on two decolonization studies. In the first study, Garcia and Shirley (2012) engaged a
focus group of Hopi/Tewa teachers and leaders about how they made curricular and
pedagogical decisions for Hopi students (Garcia, 2011). To inform the decolonization
process, these educators learned about Tribal Crit and Red Pedagogy, deconstructed
the history of Hopi/Tewa education, “explor[ed] Indigenous knowledge within
curriculum and pedagogy; analyz[ed] Western curriculum materials and pedagogy;
and discuss[ed] what self-education, self-determination and tribal sovereignty mean
for Hopi/Tewa education” (p. 82). In the second decolonialization study, a group of
Diné youth aged 11 to 14 (Shirley, 2011) engaged in a focus group where: the youth
self-reflected on their own identities, critiqued colonialism to expose the ways in
which the presence of colonialism continued to exist among their people, and
envisioned how they could actively engage in self-determination for themselves and
their people. The topics within the focus group sessions centered on examining the
history of the Diné long walks and boarding schools; critiquing the influences of
popular culture and the media on Diné identities; and responding to and reflecting
on Diné stories and philosophy in relation to their identities. (p. 82) Across the
educators and youth in the two studies, central themes included the importance of
Indigenous youth and educators learning Indigenous history and how the educators
and youth became aware of how they colluded with, adopted, and internalized
Western ways. For the educators in the study, they realized they were not conscious
about including Indigenous knowledge in the curriculum. In so doing, the Indigenous
educators learned that they: are contributing to the issue of the loss of cultural
identity with their Indigenous students. When teachers and educational leaders in
our Indigenous school systems are unaware of their unconscious hegemonic
tendencies toward Western culture, they fail to question their curriculum policies
and practices in their schools and classrooms; thus perpetuating and privileging
Western knowledge systems that contribute to such issues as the youth losing their
Indigenous identities. (Shirley, 2011, p. 85) Another theme, “It Made Me Think About
My Life,” emerged with the participants critically reflecting on their lives from the
learning in the process and how they wanted to live their lives differently (for the
youth) more in line with Diné culture and epistemologies. The educators critically
reflected on their teaching practices that promulgated Western thinking. The final
theme drew upon hope, empowerment, transformation, and personal agency with
the participants seeking to live their lives differently to reflect their history, identity,
and culture. Thus, Tribal Crit theory has spawned Indigenous Knowledge systems and
Critical Indigenous Pedagogy Tribal Nation Building. Brayboy, Castagno, and Solyom
(2014) drew upon principles of Tribal Crit theory and Indigenous Knowledge systems
to develop the concept of tribal nation building as a foundation for graduate
education. They describe tribal national building as being grounded in “reciprocity
rooted in relationships and responsibilities that suggests individuals serve their
nation and communities while being supported by that same nation and its
communities” (p. 587). Brayboy and colleagues (2014) explain how tribal nation
building can inform graduate education through its investments in tribal
communities: [It] insists that graduate programs work with and through tribal
nations and Indigenous leaders to identify critical issues, problems, and
opportunities facing their community as well as how they might be addressed …
higher education can fold into a larger agenda of tribal nation building and vice versa
– since nation building cannot be fully or adequately pursued without some agenda
of higher education [it] encourages graduate education to invest in tribal nations and
Indigenous communities … [and] commit[ed] to tribal nation building goals. In
addition to the mutual investment of higher education and tribal nations with each
other, Brayboy et al. (2014) suggest how tribal nation building can inform graduate
education in program development, including culturally relevant pedagogy and the
location of courses in Native American communities. Brayboy and colleagues (2014)
offer several recommendations on the ways in which tribal nation building can
inform student recruitment and admissions. First, “institutions and Nations ought to
work together to identify, recruit, and encourage individuals for graduate programs”
(p. 591). Second, for admissions, rather than focusing on single test scores for
graduate admissions like GPA or GRE scores and admissions which consider only the
past “success” of students, the primary criterion for graduate admissions should be
the extent to which the student will be able to contribute back to his or her
community. They argue that admissions and the evaluation of the effectiveness of
the institution as a whole should center on the idea of democratic merit. They
explain: At the individual level, democratic merit calls for an investment-based
system whereby individuals are invested in (and, thus, “rewarded”) based on their
potential for contributing to the larger democratic project (Dodson, 2008).
Therefore, individuals who have promise and capacity for becoming leaders and for
giving back to their communities, for creating good and sustainable relationships, are
the ones who graduate programs should be recruiting, admitting, and investing in.
(Brayboy et al., 2014, p. 586) Brayboy and colleagues (2014) further explain how the
concept of democratic merit should be applied not only at the individual level in the
admissions process but also at the institutional level as part of evaluating the
effectiveness of graduate education: Institutions are rated highly (or not) based on
the prior accomplishments of the individuals they admit. Instead, Guinier argues,
universities should focus on and be held accountable according to treatment effects,
which would be the value added that they invest in individuals and the larger society
toward the democratic project. Under this system, an institution would be rated
highly (or not) based on the degree to which their graduates are better off than
when they entered the institution – with better off assessed by their capacity to
contribute to a healthy democratic society. (Dodson, 2008, p. 587) Thus, in these
ways, tribal nation building can inform action at the individual and institutional level.
Importantly, when applying tribal nation building to higher education, Brayboy et al.
(2014) moved beyond essentializing Native American identity: [A] great deal of
diversity exists among Indigenous peoples. For example, there are over 560 federally
recognized tribes in the United States and at least half that many state-recognized
tribes (US Government Accountability Office, 2012). Indigenous peoples live within
the borders of these nations, in rural communities, in urban centers, and everywhere
in between. Therefore, the vision, goals, and needs of a community are likely to vary
depending on their unique population and context. (p. 580) Regarding
intersectionality, however, Brayboy et al. (2014) applied nation building only to
Native American students in a teacher education program and graduate education in
general and did not consider how these graduate school changes could or should
apply across other racial identities. In addition, they focused on transforming
graduate school for Native American students but did not consider the intersections
of Native American identity with other identities. For example, they explained how
the teacher education program of which they were a part included two additional
courses: one on the history of Native American education and the other on
Indigenous Knowledge systems. They did not address how the intersections of
identities with Native American identity were considered in these courses, such as
sexuality (e.g., “two spirited” people in Native American culture), gender, gender
identity, social class, or ability. In sum, Tribal Crit theory emerged in 2005, first
articulated by Brayboy (2005). Building upon CRT, Brayboy identified eight tenets of
Tribal Crit theory, yet all eight tenets are unique to the Native American experience.
Several studies have applied Tribal Crit theory alone to Indigenous teacher
preparation (Castagno, 2012), or in combination with CRT; for example, to the study
of Native American policies in higher education (Castagno & Lee, 2007). As an
extension of Tribal Crit theory, Garcia and Shirley (2012) identified Critical Indigenous
Pedagogy (CIP) as a means for a decolonization process for Indigenous educators and
youth. Similar to the Alemán (2007, 2009) and Huber (2010) LatCrit studies, their
studies demonstrate how Indigenous educators and youth often collude in their own
oppression. As such, Garcia and Shirley (2012) argue that the decolonization process
remains an essential prerequisite for social justice work. Brayboy and Maughan
(2009) expanded on Tribal Crit theory to identify what they term Indigenous
Knowledge systems to characterize Indigenous ways of knowing. Brayboy and
colleagues (2014) further extended Brayboy’s earlier Tribal Crit work to create the
concept of tribal nation building as the anchor for graduate education. Across all
these associated Tribal Crit theories, no studies have applied these theories to
educational leadership, organizational theory, and socially just schools. ASIAN CRIT
THEORY Among the race-based critical theories (e.g., CRT, Black Crit, LatCrit, Tribal
Crit), Asian Crit theory is the least developed and the least applied to education.
Developed initially within critical legal studies, Chang (1993) argued for Asian
American legal scholarship which began the formation of Asian Critical theory. Chang
emphasized the importance of Asian American history and the Asian American
perspective or counter-stories. Yet, subsequent education scholarship on Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) has not taken up this theory. For example, a
special 2006 issue of Race, Ethnicity, and Education devoted to and authored by the
leading scholars of AAPIs in education did not mention Asian Crit theory. In that
special issue, Coloma (2006) suggests four conceptual frameworks for examining the
AAPI experience in education: pan-ethnic, intersectional, cultural, and transnational.
In that same issue, Kumashiro (2006) calls for the expansion of theory in the study of
AAPIs in education, including Critical Race Theory, cultural studies, feminist post-
colonial theories, Queer Theory, and psychoanalysis. Similar to Tribal Crit theory, no
studies have applied Asian Crit theory to organizational theory or to educational
leadership for equity. LATCRIT, TRIBAL CRIT, ASIAN CRIT, AND ORGANIZATIONAL
THEORY As may be seen by a review of this literature, only two studies have applied
LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit theories to the field of educational leadership
(Alemán, 2007, 2009). Across the theories, none have been applied to the study of
educational leadership within schools; nor have these theories been applied to
organizational studies. In this next section, I identify lessons from these theories and
the studies that have been guided by these theories that can inform our
understanding of traditional dimensions of organizational theory: leadership, change,
and decision-making. Although I discuss leadership as a separate dimension from
change and decision-making, as does traditional organizational theory, in fact the
practice of leadership for equity remains entwined with change and decision-making.
I then consider how these epistemological perspectives can inform organizational
theory beyond these traditional dimensions of organizational theory and, in turn, can
inform leading for equity. Leadership Alemán’s (2009) study offers important
implications for leadership. First, for leadership practice, Alemán proposes a LatCrit
educational leadership framework which he defines as an alternative social justice
framework from which to practice educational leadership and activism: LatCrit
educational leadership is foundationally political and just as LatCrit scholars
complicate notions of race and racism and problematize the black/white binary. …
The framework centers the permanence of racism, values multiple voices,
understands and utilizes the histories of Latina/o peoples, and endorses activism to
achieve social transformation. A LatCrit educational leadership framework requires
that coalition building occur, interest convergence analysis be utilized, and
internalized racism and notions of whiteness be refuted. (p. 195) Thus, Alemán
suggests that a LatCrit educational leadership framework move beyond a generalized
liberal social justice leadership approach. Instead, a LatCrit leadership framework
centers on race/ethnicity and in so doing moves beyond the black/white binary. A
LatCrit educational leadership framework pivots on the CRT tenets of the
permanence of racism, counter-stories and histories of Latina/o people, and interest
convergence with social justice at its core. Enacting LatCrit theory-inspired leadership
for social justice requires disrupting internalized racism and coalition building. A
second implication for leadership from LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit theory
centers on the hiring of leaders and educators of color. As Alemán’s (2007, 2009),
Garcia and Shirley’s (2012), and Huber’s (2010) studies suggest, hiring leaders and
educators of color does not guarantee that these leaders will advance equity and
social justice, since it depends on where these educators are in their own racial
identity development. Instead, these studies illuminate how educators of color can
internalize and collude in their own oppression and support policies and practices
that perpetuate white racism. For example, Alemán (2009) argues that given that
many districts in the southwest of the United States are led by leaders of color
proportional to the student racial demographics and that inequities persist in these
districts, then “What appears evident is that solely increasing numbers of leaders of
color is not sufficient to garner social change” (p. 183). Alemán believes that the
reason the leaders in his study did not push for more significant change in finance
policy centered on evidence of internalized oppression as described by Padilla (1999,
2001). Alemán explains: Padilla (1999, 2001) discusses how assimilation issues and
internalized oppression or racism (i.e., the problem of the colonized mind) affect
Latina/o identity and leadership. Explaining that ‘internalized oppression and racism
are insidious forces that cause marginalized groups to turn on themselves, often
without even realizing it’ (2001, p. 61), Padilla asserts that ‘destructive behavior’ is
the result of ‘self-fulfilling negative stereotypes’ (p. 61) and can stymie
empowerment of their communities. She also writes that it is often ‘survival
instincts’ that trigger an ‘unquestioned acceptance of liberal ideology’ that
encourages Latina/os to ‘claim a White identity’ (p. 186). Garcia and Shirley (2012)
revealed similar findings with indigenous educators, leaders, and youth who colluded
in their own oppression. Thus, when hiring leaders regardless of race, we need to
ensure that their beliefs, experiences, and expertise align with disrupting oppression
and marginalization in schools. Further, regardless of our race, we are responsible to
continue to deepen our own racial identity development and facilitate the racial
identity development of others. The Tribal Crit empirical studies provide evidence of
the power and importance of simultaneous decolonization and racial identity
development as a prerequisite to social justice leadership across youth and adults
(Garcia & Shirley, 2012). Change Like change from Critical Race Theory perspectives,
change from LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit theories ask the question “change to
what end?” with the only answer being racial justice. Thus, unlike how typical change
is carried out in schools such as in the math curriculum, change from LatCrit, Tribal
Crit, and Asian Crit theories means that individuals are being asked to address their
own racism and how they are complicit in all levels of racism as they work to initiate
change that works against white racism toward racial justice. Castagno’s (2012)
Tribal Crit study in a school of education demonstrates, similar to Pollack and Zirkel’s
(2013) Critical Race Theory study in a high school, how good intentions are not
enough, and that leaders must be cognizant that their social change efforts may
morph into colonization and assimilation. In the Castagno (2012) study, many
aspects were in place in the predominantly white school of education to support the
preparation of Indigenous teachers for Indigenous students, including holding
explicit goals about: “serving Indigenous communities and that … was founded and
developed with the commitment to increase the number of culturally responsive
Navajo teachers” (p. 16). Yet, the Indigenous teacher education program failed to be
effective. Castagno quoted Ladson-Billings and Tate (2006), who describe how
liberal, multicultural approaches do not support social change and, as a result, anti-
racist work ends up being “sucked back into the system”: We argue that the current
multicultural paradigm functions in a manner similar to civil rights law. Instead of
creating radically new paradigms which ensure justice, multicultural reforms are
routinely “sucked back into the system”; and just as traditional civil rights law is
based on a foundation of human rights, the current multicultural paradigm is mired
in liberal ideology that offers no radical change in the current order. (Castagno, 2012,
p. 25) Thus, as Castagno’s (2012) study illustrates, leaders are constantly working
against social justice change becoming sucked back into the structural functionalist,
interpretive, or liberal, progressive system. Yet, as Castagno suggests, social justice
efforts are not without hope and we can take steps to effect significant social change
against the odds. Similarly, Castagno and Lee’s (2007) study of how a university
responded to policies about Native American mascots from other universities
revealed the limits of racial change from a Tribal Crit perspective. Their study
suggested how the university engaged in interest convergence related to changes in
equity policies and practices in that the university was willing to attend to issues of
diversity and equity only to the extent that these changes continued to align with
university interests. Alemán’s (2007) study of Mexican superintendents in Texas also
revealed how the actions of these Texas superintendents to bring about change in
school finance policy collapsed into interest convergence. These superintendents
relied on the majoritarian narrative as a way to maintain their current school funding
and so as not to appear “too racially radical” to white policy-makers. In so doing, the
superintendents aligned their interests with the white policy-makers and urged
finance policy change only to the extent that it continued to support the interests of
the legislators. In sum, in all of these examples, LatCrit and Tribal Crit theories reveal
the limits of structural functional changes toward efficiency, interpretive changes
that revolve around collaboration, and critical changes toward social justice ends in
general. LatCrit and Tribal Crit theories reveal the limits of yet possibilities for change
toward racial justice in a context of liberal multiculturalism and interest
convergence. Decision-making Similar to Critical Race Theory, decision-making from
a LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit lens means that equity leaders are aware that all
decisions are racial justice decisions. Thus, the outcome of any decision has an
impact upon racial justice – for good or for worse. Further, LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and
Asian Crit perspectives on decision-making require demographically
representative/proportional representation in all decisions. Thus, leaders must
ensure that communities are demographically represented on all decision-making
teams and, at the same time, not essentializing these perspectives. In sum, from the
perspectives of LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit, traditional organizational theories
such as those related to leadership, change, and decision-making are fundamentally
and epistemologically shifted from the goals of structural functionalism of efficiency,
the goals of interpretivism of understanding, and the goals of critically oriented
theories of equity and social justice, to the goal of racial equity and eliminating racial
oppression. More specifically, LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit theories call for
considerations of identity unique to the individual Latino/a, Indigenous, and Asian
history and experience within a context of white hegemony as those experiences
intersect and collide with gender, social class, sexual identity, gender identity, ability,
and their intersections. Thus leadership, change, and decision-making from LatCrit,
Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit epistemologies are not generic practices. Likewise, from the
perspectives of LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit, equitable leadership, change, and
decision-making aims not for a generic liberal, progressive, social justice leadership,
but instead, leadership, change, and decision-making are anchored in the unique,
lived, individual Latino/a, Indigenous, Asian experiences with the goal of racial
justice. LATCRIT, TRIBAL CRIT, ASIAN CRIT THEORY: IMPLICATIONS BEYOND
TRADITIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL THEORIES LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit Theory
offer theoretical implications beyond traditional organizational theories of
leadership, change, and decision-making. These theoretical implications apply across
leadership, change, and decision-making, and include considering how theories
associated with individual identity at the micro-level can reflect back to organizations
at the macro-level and the importance of pedagogy. I discuss this further in Chapter
12 when I propose a theory that links individual identity development with
organizational identity development toward social justice ends. In the final section of
this chapter, I consider applications of LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit theories
beyond their individual identities. Individual Identity and Organizations Brayboy and
colleagues’ (2014) essay which proposed tribal nation building for graduate
education moved beyond single identity theories that focus on the individual as the
unit of analysis and applied principles of nation building to higher education as an
institution. Likewise, Castagno and Lee’s (2007) study applied Tribal Crit theory to
higher education policies and practices. Castagno’s (2012) study also relied on Tribal
Crit theory to analyze the policies and practices in teacher education that prevented
the effective preparation of Indigenous teachers. Further, Huber’s (2011) research
promised to “better articulate the relationship between individual experiences with
microaggressions and the institutionalized, systematic forms of racism from which
they emerge to expose a process of domination over Latina/o students and
communities” (pp. 380–381). In so doing, she connects the individual experience of
Chicana/o K-12 students to the larger institution. Unlike traditional organizational
theories that completely ignore individual identity, all these examples illustrate how
considerations of individual identity can and should inform organizational and
institutional policies and practices. Beyond Instructional Leadership: Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy Castagno’s Tribal Crit study (2012) reiterates the critical
importance of culturally relevant pedagogy for preparing Indigenous educators and,
in turn, for Indigenous educators to be proficient teachers of culturally relevant
pedagogy for Indigenous students. Garcia and Shirley’s (2012) studies also
demonstrate the significance of culturally relevant pedagogy as one tool for
disrupting the power of colonization. In one of their studies, Indigenous educators
assimilated and colluded with Western thinking and ideals and in so doing
perpetuated this assimilation with Indigenous students. Their study illuminated how
Indigenous youth and educators experienced culturally relevant pedagogy as part of
the decolonization process along with learning about Tribal Crit and Indigenous
history. Their study also demonstrated how a purposeful process, such as the
decolonization process which includes culturally relevant pedagogy, not only can
move individuals along the identity development continuum toward social justice
action, but is a prerequisite for such action. Further, Brayboy and colleagues (2014)
centered the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy in graduate education
linking pedagogy to tribal communities. As such, rather than the benign calls for
generalized instructional leadership (Neumerski, 2013), or leadership for learning
(Hallinger, 2011), LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit asks instructional leadership
toward what end, and what kind of leadership for learning exactly what? Further,
instructional leadership and leadership for learning rarely address the means to
learning. To this end, then, rather than instructional leadership, LatCrit, Tribal Crit,
and Asian Crit epistemologies require culturally relevant instructional leadership.
Further, these theories call for culturally relevant instructional leadership for learning
that advances achievement and racial justice. As such, culturally relevant
instructional leadership requires leaders to become proficient in culturally relevant
pedagogy and to be able to teach and support classroom teachers to become experts
in culturally relevant pedagogy as well. In this sense, then, culturally relevant
pedagogy becomes a means to disrupt colonization of staff and students and a
prerequisite for racial justice action. As such, culturally relevant instruction, rather
than an “add-on” special program or short-term initiative, forms the core
instructional work of the school. In so doing, educators must consider culturally
relevant pedagogy across races and their intersections with other identities such as
gender, social class, sexual/gender identity, and ability. Applications beyond Identity
LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit may be applied to studies and practice relative to
these identities and their intersections, but not necessarily inclusively so. For
example, if an educator is examining Latinx education policy or practice in education,
LatCrit theory may be one lens for that examination. At the same time, many
empirical studies exist that have examined populations who are linguistically diverse,
including Latinx students, but these studies do not necessarily rely on LatCrit theory
(Kanno & Kangas 2014). Theoretical perspectives in addition to LatCrit can offer
important insights on Latinx education policy and practice. Further, educators need
to consider whether and to what extent LatCrit theory may be applied to the
experience of other U.S. immigrants such as Hmong immigrants to the U.S.A. who
also experience issues of immigration, status, language, ethnicity, and culture
(DePouw, 2012). In addition, though most aspects of Tribal Crit Theory and its
derivatives have been applied to Indigenous individuals and communities, many
aspects of these theories can and have yet to be applied across identities and their
intersections. CONCLUSION To conclude, LatCrit theories have only been applied to
two studies in educational leadership, while no studies in educational leadership
have relied on Tribal Crit or Asian Crit as a theoretical lens. Yet, these epistemologies
offer several important implications for organizational theory in education and for
leading socially just schools. With the increasing population of Latinx students and
immigrant students in U.S. schools, and the persistent, historical oppression of
Indigenous students, more studies are needed from these epistemologies that
examine schools as organizations and the leaders within them as they work toward
racially just education. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES After reading the
chapter, leadership development activities that I describe below for the Lat Crit,
Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit epistemologies include: (1) questions for whole class
discussion; (2) critical analysis of the educator’s own leadership, and (3) case study
analysis. It is best to work through all the activities in the order they are presented
here. ACTIVITY 1: Discussion Questions for LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit
Epistemology What are the organizational goals? What does leadership look like?
How is the organization structured? What does organizational culture look like?
What does decision-making look like? What does change look like? What aspects of
education emanate from this epistemology? What is the goal of education? What
does the curriculum look like? What does instruction look like? What does
assessment look like? What does evaluation/supervision look like? How does this
epistemology respond to differences and diversity? ACTIVITY 2: Critical Reflection on
Your Own Leadership from LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit Epistemologies Table 8.1
Critical Reflection on Your Own Leadership from LatCrit, Tribal Crit, and Asian Crit
Epistemologies ACTIVITY 3: LatCrit Epistemology Case Analysis Note: I offer an
example of case analysis from LatCrit epistemology given that Tribal Crit and Asian
Crit have not yet been applied to educational leadership or organizational theory.
“LatCrit can be used to reveal the ways Latinas/os experience race, class, gender, and
sexuality, while also acknowledging the Latina/o experience with issues of
immigration status, language, ethnicity and culture” (Huber, 2010, p. 79). Alemán
(2009) also identified Latinx essentialism and assimilation as key tenets of LatCrit
theory. LatCrit directly addresses moving beyond racial essentialism and addressing
race across races, and also overtly addresses the intersection of Latinx identity with
race, gender, social class, ability, and sexual/gender identity. LatCrit Tenets: Are the
issues or solutions to your case related to issues of immigration status, language,
ethnicity, culture, assimilation, or essentialism? If not, could it be expanded to
consider these aspects? That is, even though not directly addressed in the case, did
you inadvertently not address these aspects, but these aspects could be or should be
considered? Intersectionality: Similar to LatCrit theory, how do your case issues or
solutions address intersectionality of two or more identities (e.g., the intersection of
race, class, gender, ability, gender identity, language)? How could your case address
intersectionality in its issues or solutions? Politically Passing: Alemán’s (2009) study
of Latino superintendents revealed that they argued for funding equity using
majoritarian perspectives only. Alemán defined this practice as “politically passing”
(p. 197), which may be viewed as a form of interest convergence; that is, advocating
a particular equity policy or practice from a white perspective in ways to ensure that
whites continue to benefit. To what extent are issues in your case related to any
individuals in your case “politically passing?”; that is, working for equity but from a
white perspective? To what extent could politically passing or interest convergence
be a short-term solution for your case? Equity Practices Perpetuating Inequities:
Alemán (2007) analyzed Texas finance policy and learned that though policy-makers
sought to create finance policy they believed was more equitable, a closer
examination revealed how it continued to perpetuate inequalities based on property
taxes. To what extent is the issue or solution in your case a situation of how what
was perceived to be a more equitable policy or practice is actually perpetuating
inequities? Racist Nativism: Huber defines racist nativism as “the institutionalized
ways people perceive, understand and make sense of contemporary US immigration,
that justifies native (white) dominance, and reinforces hegemonic power” (p. 380);
the theory also applies to Indigenous people or anyone perceived as a “foreigner” in
the U.S.A. Huber (2011) further explains, “racist nativism is based solely on
perceptions. Thus, Latinas/os are racialized as nonnatives regardless of actual
immigration status. This process of exclusion then, becomes a function of white
dominance” (p. 382). This theory helps explain how whites marginalize anyone who
they believe is not “native” to the United States – labeling anyone with this status as
“foreigner” regardless of immigration status and perceive individuals with this label
as a threat and as justification for white dominance. Are the issues or solutions in
your case related to an individual or individuals perceived as a “foreigner” (i.e., not
of this community, an outsider, “different from us”)?

CHAPTER 9 Black Feminism and Black Feminist Epistemology

The purpose of this chapter and its central research question asks: How can the
literature on Black feminist epistemology in educational leadership inform
organizational theory and equity leadership? As Tillman (2009) noted, “It is likely that
research questions about African-Americans in school leadership are important to
African-Americans as well as to the field of educational leadership as a whole” (p.
461). Similar to feminist poststructuralism (Chapter 6), Black feminist epistemology
includes elements from the radical change end of the change continuum within
modernism and also draws from poststructuralism (see Figure 9.1). In the literature,
about a dozen studies focused on black female leaders but did not rely on Black
feminist epistemology to conceptually frame the study. I confined my analysis only to
those studies that explicitly relied on Black feminist epistemology because of their
explicit attention to interlocking oppressions of gender, race, and class and other
identities and to theoretically explore how Black feminism and organizational theory
could inform each other toward social justice ends. Hill Collins (1991, 2000)
articulated the dimensions of an African American feminist epistemology more than
25 years ago and I located a little over two dozen empirical studies in educational
leadership that relied on Black feminist epistemologies (Atlas & Capper, 2003). For
example, a special issue of the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education (February, 2012) features emerging African American female scholars
writing about black female K-12 leadership. This special issue was conceptually
framed by “Black Feminist Thought, leadership theory, and intersectionality”
(Horsford & Tillman, 2012, p. 2). Although this special issue focuses on the
intersections of race and gender, the editors point out: “it is important to assess
whether or not other factors such as age, professional experience, sexuality, ability,
and context have an impact” (p. 2). I conducted a content analysis of all the
publications I located, identifying themes of Black feminism that not only inform
black female leadership but also inform educational leaders of all races and genders
in leading to eliminate inequities. Figure 9.1 An Epistemology Framework BLACK
FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins (1991) articulated Black
feminist epistemology in the early 1990s. Hill Collins explicitly positions African
American feminist epistemology against white Eurocentric masculinist
epistemologies (i.e., structural functionalism and interpretivism discussed earlier in
this book), and offers not only an alternative epistemology to positivism but also
provides a different set of knowledge validation “rules” based on African American
feminism. In so doing, Hill Collins explains that though positivists can easily dismiss
and marginalize alternative epistemologies based on their rules of validation,
identifying a different set of knowledge validation rules calls into question the entire
positivist epistemology. Hill Collins’s (1991, 2000) framework for Afrocentric feminist
epistemology includes the following four tenets of African feminist epistemology
that comprise the epistemology and at the same time serve as a set of knowledge
validation rules to determine the validity of knowledge claims: concrete experience
as a criterion of meaning, the use of dialogue in assessing knowledge claims, the
ethic of caring, and the ethic of personal accountability. That is, for knowledge to be
valid, it must be grounded in concrete experience; developed and assessed through
dialogue; emanate from an ethic of caring derived from individual uniqueness,
emotion, and empathy; and make visible the relationship between personal identity
and the knowledge claims. Concrete Experience as a Criterion of Meaning For Hill
Collins (1991, 2000), the concrete experience of African American women forms a
fundamental underlying criterion for developing and assessing knowledge claims.
According to Hill Collins, (1991): For most African-American women those individuals
who have lived through the experiences about which they claim to be experts are
more believable and credible than those who have merely read or thought about
such experiences. Thus concrete experience as a criterion for credibility frequently is
invoked by Black Women when making knowledge claims. (p. 209) With concrete
experience as a criterion of meaning,1 Hill Collins distinguishes between wisdom and
knowledge or “book learning,” and argues that for African American women, their
central criterion of life meaning is the wisdom they garner from concrete life
experiences. They rely on this wisdom to survive in a repressive world. From this
view, black women are more valued, believed, and accepted based on the extent of
their life experiences. According to Hill Collins (1991): This distinction between
knowledge and wisdom, and the use of experience as the cutting edge dividing them,
has been key to Black women’s survival. In the context of race, gender, and class
oppression, the distinction is essential. Knowledge without wisdom is adequate for
the powerful, but wisdom is essential to the survival of the subordinate. (p. 208) Hill
Collins then points out how most black women are supported in this importance of
concrete experience by their communities, their churches, their families, and by their
sisterhood with each other in ways that are different than for white women. The Use
of Dialogue in Assessing Knowledge Claims In addition to relying on concrete
experience as one measure of assessing claims and developing knowledge, an African
American feminist epistemology calls on the use of dialogue to assess knowledge
claims. Unlike qualitative or quantitative research methods and unlike structural
functional and interpretive epistemologies, Hill Collins (1991) argues that knowledge
claims can only be worked out in dialogue with others: For black women, new
knowledge claims are rarely worked out in isolation from other individuals and are
usually developed through dialogues with other members of a community. A primary
epistemological assumption underlying the use of dialogue in assessing knowledge
claims is that connectedness rather than separation is an essential component of the
knowledge validation process. (p. 212) For Hill Collins, for dialogue to work out this
knowledge validation process two criteria must be met: (1) all must participate
equally in the dialogue, no one can be left out; and (2) all must truly say what they
believe in the dialogue: “To refuse to join in, especially if one really disagrees with
what has been said is seen as ‘cheating’” (p. 213). The Ethic of Caring For Hill Collins
(1991, 2000), the knowledge validation process and the creation of knowledge must
include the ethic of caring, “and that personal expressiveness [or individual
uniqueness], emotions, and empathy are central to the knowledge validation
process” (1991, p. 215). According to Hill Collins, individual uniqueness is “Rooted in
a tradition of African humanism, each individual is thought to be a unique expression
of a common spirit, power, or energy inherent in all life” (p. 215). Hill Collins (1991)
then links the black church to the ethic of caring with the appropriateness of
emotions in dialogue, moving beyond the intellect/emotion binary. Supported by the
black church, she explains, “Emotion indicates that a speaker believes in the validity
of an argument” (p. 215). The third aspect of caring – empathy – emanated from
black women’s lives of struggle and history of overcoming oppression. Black women
held empathy for individuals who struggle because of their own lives of struggle.
These three aspects of caring pervade and are supported by African American
culture, including black families and the black church. The Ethic of Personal
Accountability An African American feminist epistemology insists on the importance
of the relationship between the personal identities of the knower and that which is
claimed to be known: “every idea has an owner and … the owner’s identity matters”
(Hill Collins, 1991, p. 218). From this epistemology, an individual’s knowledge claims
are not separate from the individual’s character, values, and ethics. Hill Collins (1991)
argues that for African Americans, they must take personal positions on issues and
should “assume full responsibility for arguing their validity” (p. 218). Individuals need
to have confidence in their ideas when they speak and be willing to take a stand on
their personal beliefs. BLACK FEMINIST THOUGHT AND EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
THEORY AND PRACTICE Nine themes emerged from the Black feminist epistemology
and educational leadership research that can inform educational leadership to
eliminate inequities. Some of these themes have implications for traditional concepts
of organizational theory, including leadership theory, change theory, and decision-
making theory. One theme emerged from this literature that contributes beyond
traditional categories of organizational theory. Taken together, these themes
constitute fresh ways to theorize about organizations and leadership. Black Feminist
Epistemology and Leadership Theory Three themes emerged from the literature on
Black feminist epistemology that demonstrate the limitations of traditional
leadership theories in the organization literature and the utility of Black feminism for
equity leadership: (a) Moral Obligation from Within, (b) Community Other Mothers,
and (c) Education as Political Liberation. Moral Obligation from Within Black feminist
epistemology suggests that leaders for equity use their social capital, not to advance
their own careers but for “collective racial and community uplift” (Wilson & Johnson,
2015, p. 106). These leaders realize that their position of authority brings with it a
communal and societal responsibility to make the world a better place, starting with
their schools. According to Dillard (1995), equity leadership actions “arise from
personal biographies, which are always located in a more collective (and sometimes
connected) history” (p. 558). As such, the motivation for addressing inequities comes
from the leaders’ own experiences with oppression, marginalization, discrimination,
growing up in families that developed this worldview, or encounter experiences
(Bass, 2012). These leaders feel “they are morally obligated to do everything in their
power to remedy oppressive situations” (Bass, 2012, p. 74). This moral obligation
stemming from personal experience then helps sustain these leaders when facing
opposition to their work and when faced with the enormity of pushing back against
centuries of oppression. Bass (2012) learned in her study of African American female
principals that they demonstrated resilience by continuing to work in a system they
knew to be unjust to make it better: “These women demonstrated resilience in that
they were able to effectively navigate and function within a system they perceived as
unjust to accomplish their purpose of helping those for whom they cared” (Bass,
2012, p. 193). Because of their personal marginalized identities (e.g., gender, race,
ability, sexual/gender identity, language, and their intersections) or because of
leading toward social justice in white, masculinist environments regardless of
personal identities, these leaders lead as outsiders/within (Hill Collins, 2000; Bass,
2012). That is, these leaders view and experience themselves or their ideas often as
marginal as they are seeking social justice ends within white, masculinist
environments. Community Other Mothers As well, leaders leading from a Black
feminist epistemology feel morally responsible to be advocates for all students in
their school, especially for students of color, and they also feel a moral responsibility
and advocacy for their communities outside the school (Newcomb & Niemeyer,
2015). Leaders informed by Black feminist epistemology view their leadership as an
expression of love and care (Newcomb & Niemeyer, 2015). Deliberately engaging
with families and their communities, and viewed as “mothers of others’ children” or
“other mothers,” these leaders affirm students’ home cultures and center students’
learning experiences in the students’ history, culture, and communities (Dillard,
1995). They advocate for and support families in advocating for their own children
and how to navigate the dominant system. Yet, at the same time, Reed (2012) and
Reed and Evans (2008) report that district leaders should not assume that black
female principals assigned to predominantly black schools will be able to experience
a positive connection with black male students and may need professional
development toward this end. From a Black feminist epistemology, this support and
love for community forms a reciprocal circle back of love and support from the
community. Black female educational leaders recognize how others have supported
them to be where they are as leaders, mothers, grandmothers, and, because of that,
they want to give back to their families and communities (Angel, Killacky, & Johnson,
2013). These leaders experienced high standards of achievement and behavior from
family and community and an expectation that they would go to college and do well
and do better than earlier generations (Angel, Killacky, & Johnson, 2013). These
leaders cited critical support from family, community, and the church that formed a
network of support for their equity leadership, ensuring that these leaders were not
isolated in the work (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003). Education as Political Liberation
From Black feminist epistemologies, leadership is not just about rhetoric or holding
the position; leadership credibility and authority stem from the leaders’ relationships
and actual critical work on behalf of students of color (Dillard, 1995). As such, unlike
traditional leadership theory where the “what” or “target” or outcomes of leadership
are generically defined, if at all, Black feminist educational leadership focuses on the
critical importance of academic achievement, “creating ways and means for students
to achieve at all costs” (Dillard, 1995, p. 552). The African American female principals
across the studies emphasized how their black families and communities valued the
importance of education (Dillard, 1995) because black communities “regard
educational attainment as a tool for political liberation and socioeconomic
advancement” (Wilson & Johnson, 2015, p. 13). The black female principal in Dillard’s
(1995) study provided clear rules and expectations for students and was direct in her
admonishments and equally direct in her praise as a means to hold her highest
expectations of students for their achievement and growth. In sum, Black feminist
epistemology contributes to traditional conceptions of leadership theory in three
ways. Black feminist epistemology suggests that leadership derives from a moral
obligation within leaders stemming from leaders’ personal biographies that position
equity leaders as outsiders/within their schools and districts (Hill Collins, 2000). In
addition, leading from Black feminist epistemology, leaders feel a moral obligation to
be advocates for students of color and all students who struggle and their
communities as “other mothers” as a way to give back to families and communities
who have supported the leader in their lives. Third, Black feminist epistemology
contributes to leadership theory by being explicit about the target, goal, or outcome
of leadership; thus, equity leaders are adamant about the critical importance of
education as political liberation from oppression. Black Feminist Epistemologies and
Leadership and Change Theory One theme from Black feminist epistemology holds
implications for change theory (Multiple Approaches to Equity). I also identified
three themes that can inform both leadership and change theory: (a) Leadership as
Activism, (b) Everyday Acts of Resistance, and (c) Bridge Leaders. I discuss both of
these sets of implications in this section. Multiple Approaches to Equity For change
theory alone, Black feminist epistemology suggests that equity leaders must lead at
multiple levels of change – grassroots, community, professional, and institutional
levels. These leaders “pursue varied paths of resistance toward similar goals” (Wilson
& Johnson, 2015, p. 105). Historically, some black feminists engaged in public
protests; others “pursued quieter, yet still courageous, change oriented measures
implemented within institutions” (Wilson & Johnson, 2015, p. 105); as such when
pursuing change, all change is directed toward equity ends, and leaders work toward
this equity change at multiple levels. Leadership is Activism Informing leadership and
change theory, Black feminist epistemology suggests that leadership is not neutral
but rather leadership is activism, and that “effective leadership is transformative
political work” (Dillard, 1995, p. 560). Loder-Jackson (2011) learned in her study from
black female educators that “Although the professional practices of teachers and
school administrators are veiled behind the schoolhouse wall, these practices
constitute daily individual struggles for group or professional survival … that teaching
and leading [are] legitimate expressions of activism” (p. 166). For example,
leadership as activism requires not just enacting a policy as it is but also leading as a
change agent toward equitable ends (Newcomb & Niemeyer, 2015). Rather than
being merely receivers of federal and state policy, leaders as activists know how to
take any federal or state policy or law and translate and leverage it toward equitable
ends in their schools. Everyday Acts of Resistance A second implication for leadership
and change theory refers to the daily small acts of leadership that are critical for
equity work (Dillard, 1995), which provide congruence in all the leader says and does
toward equitable ends, and that all add up to more equitable outcomes. Dillard’s
(1995) study of a black female high school principal revealed how this principal’s
“simple, ordinary acts” (p. 548), such as speaking or teaching, “may also be
interpreted as powerful acts of resistance – of talking back or acting up – particularly
for African American women working within powerful White male dominated sites
such as high school principalship” (Dillard, 1995, p. 548). While activist leadership
conjures up radical, expansive, public acts, “Collins (1990, p. 746) … validated the
notion that ‘everyday acts of resistance’ can contribute to communal, institutional,
and/or societal transformation” (cited in Wilson & Johnson, 2015, p. 104). According
to Dillard (1995), “What looks like something ordinary, is in fact disrupting the status
quo” (Dillard, p. 548). Reed’s (2012) study of three African American female
principals also reflects how these principals quietly went about making significant
steps in addressing inequities in their schools. These “Black women school leaders
[made] quiet, but steady advancements on behalf of the children they serve” (p. 55).
As an additional example of everyday acts of resistance, Frattura and Capper (2015)
discuss the importance of language in leading to eliminate inequities and how
language drives equity practice. They refer to the importance of using person first
language, for example, putting the person first and then the descriptor after, such as
instead of saying “autistic student,” saying “student with autism”; instead of “poor
students,” saying “students from low-income homes”; instead of ELL or English
Language Learners, saying, “students who are bilingual” or “students who are
linguistically diverse.” They also suggest not using other deficit language such as
“minority students” and instead using “students of color”; not using “subgroups”
which connotes deficit thinking and labeling. Instead of referring to education
practices that meet the needs of learners in their classrooms as “push-in” services
which denotes a practice that is unusual or harsh and the opposite of a loving school
community, they suggest not using the phrase “push-in” at all, and instead that
services are provided in the classroom. District administrators have attributed these
small, everyday acts of resistance as the underlying basis and the driver of the entire
equity change efforts and resultant more equitable outcomes in their districts and
schools (personal communication, Lisa Dawes, July 25, 2015). Bridge Leaders A third
implication of Black feminist epistemology for leadership and change theory refers to
bridge leadership and the importance of “serving as a bridge for others, to others,
and between others in oppressive and discriminatory contexts over time” (Horsford,
2012, p. 17). Equity leaders serve as bridge leaders between work at the individual
and at the institutional levels. Enacting bridge leadership “foster[s] ties between the
social movement and the community; and between prefigurative strategies (aimed
at individual change, identity, and consciousness) and political strategies (aimed at
organizational tactics designed to challenge existing relationships with the state and
other societal institutions)” (Horsford, 2012, pp. 15–16). Bridge leaders challenge
top-down, hierarchical leadership “that fail[s] to meet the needs of people where
they are and even worse are unable to connect with who they are” (Horsford, 2012,
p. 18). Bridge leadership also refers to equity leaders who are able to navigate
complex “community-based, institutional, and political terrains” (Wilson & Johnson,
2015, p. 105). Horsford (2012) importantly emphasizes that work on individual
change, identity, and consciousness and identity development (discussed in Chapter
12), while important, on its own will not change the historical, structural oppression
in schools – that this identity development work must be paired with political
strategies and the deliberate dismantling of oppressive school structures such as
tracking, ability grouping, and pull-out programs. Hill Collins (1999) agrees, noting
that a focus on the individual level of identity work perpetuates white American
individualism and that “questions of individual identity resonate with distinctly
American beliefs that all social problems can be solved by working on oneself” (p.
86). In sum, Black feminist epistemology informs leadership theory in organizational
theory: first, by emphasizing the importance of leading as a moral obligation that
emanates from within the leader. Second, leaders practice their leadership as
“community other mothers” by leading as advocates for students of marginalized
identities who struggle in their schools and as advocates for and with their families
and communities. Third, leaders drawing upon Black feminist epistemologies view
education as a way out of oppression, as political liberation, and thus hold the
highest of expectations for student achievement and growth. Black Feminist
Epistemology and Decision-making Theory The literature on Black feminist
epistemology in educational leadership did not directly mention decision-making,
except for Beard’s (2012) study of an African American district superintendent’s
decision-making related to closing opportunity and achievement gaps in her district.
Beard learned that the district superintendent’s identity centered all her decision-
making about achievement: “She attributed her decision-making to being informed
by her cultural membership, life experiences, values developed through socio-
historical circumstances, and her world view” (Beard, 2012, p. 60). The Black feminist
epistemology literature suggests that – unlike traditional categories of organizational
theory that address decision-making, leadership, and change as separate, distinct
entities – all the previous themes discussed here associated with leadership theory
and change theory are intertwined with decision-making. From a Black feminist
epistemology perspective, leadership is about making decisions and change toward
social justice ends; all decisions are about equity, even seemingly mundane
decisions. This leadership ensures that community and students not only inform but
are key players in all decisions. Black Feminist Epistemologies Extending beyond
Traditional Organizational Theory Categories Absent from traditional categories of
organizational theory are any considerations of historical context; traditional
categories of organizational theory are ahistorical. In contrast, Black feminist
epistemologies hold leaders responsible for deeply understanding racial history and
that this understanding constitutes a prerequisite for equity leadership.
UNDERSTAND RACIAL HISTORY AND INTERLOCKING SYSTEMS OF OPPRESSION Black
female educational leaders hold a strong sense of their own racial history. Likewise,
Black feminism requires that leaders for equity must hold a critical consciousness
about the history of racism in the U.S.A. (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003), “and the impact
of structural racism and micro-to-macro level oppression” (Wilson & Johnson, 2015,
p. 105). These leaders understand how educational inequities are not because of
students, families, or communities but are a result of the structural, historical
inequalities in society and schools (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003). In addition, equity
leaders must understand this history and interlocking systems of oppression related
to gender, race, class, language, ability, sexual identity, gender identity, and their
intersections (McClellan, 2012) as they are played out in schools. BLACK FEMINIST
EPISTEMOLOGY AND CHALLENGES TO EQUITY LEADERSHIP The Black feminist
epistemology literature suggests at least three challenges to equity leadership. First,
black female educational leaders experience blatant racism, sexism, or other forms
of discrimination (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003; Dillard, 1995; Gaetane, 2013; McClellan,
2012). More research is needed to explore in detail how leaders who are not white,
male, and heterosexual experience macro- and micro-aggression when leading to
eliminate inequities, and how heterosexual, white males who lead for equity
experience marginalization in leading for social justice pushing against historical
systems and structures of white racism. Second, the studies of Black feminist
epistemology in educational leadership literature suggest that at times the
leadership and change previously described make for complicated relationships with
teachers and staff in the school and with district leadership. Doing what is fair and
advocating for students can at times put the leader at odds with teachers and with
district leadership (Dillard, 1995). Across these studies, the principal intervened
directly with teachers for two reasons – first, to mentor and support those who align
with her beliefs; and second, to address the teachers’ lack of effort or inequitable
outcomes in their work (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003). In Dillard’s study, the principal
declared that, in the midst of politicized labor relations with teachers, “if it is not
good for kids, it is not good for Rosefield” (p. 556). One black female principal in
Bloom and Erlandson’s (2003) study reported on consequences that resulted from
her focus on students: What I did not know hurt me. I did not understand or believe
that the welfare of children was subordinate to the needs of adults. The politics
within the district was astounding. … When I started stirring the pot, and parents
became too involved, and the students wanted more opportunities, and the teachers
were expected to teach, I got the boot. I became the problem. (p. 354) Black female
principals also report feeling isolated and not supported by the district when working
against the status quo (Bloom & Erlandson, 2003; Gaetene, 2013; Peters, 2012). They
reported that to move up in position, they were expected to conform to the status
quo and not disagree with their superiors or other people; otherwise district
administrators would not support or hire them (Beard, 2012). For example, the black
female district administrator in Beard’s (2012) study reported: Several principal
mentors told me if you really want to move up, you need to hold your tongue and
straighten your hair – they don’t hire people to lead school districts with your
hairstyle. Here, I thought it was about the content of my character; the intellectual
horsepower, now you’re telling me it’s about appearance? You’ve got to be kidding.
They told me to change my hairstyle and don’t let people know you disagreed with
them. (p. 65) This leader countered and knew that if she had the data to show
improvement, the district would finally support her. According to Beard, “Dr. S.
rejected being defined by outsiders and articulated her self-valuation. She created
her own standard for evaluating herself based on her values, and her confidence in
her vision, ability, intellect, and self-efficacy” (p. 65). Theoharis’s (2007) research on
social justice educational leaders confirms that a major source of resistance to their
work flowed from the district office where district leaders did not necessarily support
the work and district mandates and demands served as distractions to the equity
work. Third, black female leaders experience a lack of mentoring because there are
so few black female leaders (Gaetene, 2013) or other equity leaders. The black
female leaders in this literature reported the importance of being mentored by other
black female leaders, yet these leaders were not available. In addition, locating
equity mentors for principals leading for equity of all races and genders may be
difficult when there may be so few principals actually leading for equity, and few
university supervisors who understand equity work, the unique challenges of equity
work, and how to support principal candidates in this work. Typical state and
national administrator associations may also not provide relevant professional
development to support this leadership. In sum, Black feminist epistemology
suggests a rethinking of traditional categories of organizational theories for
leadership theory (Moral Obligation from Within; Community Other Mothers;
Education as Political Liberation); change theory (Multiple Approaches to Equity);
and leadership and change theory (Leadership as Activism; Every Day Acts of
Resistance; and Bridge Leader). Black feminist epistemologies also inform
organizational theory beyond these traditional categories with the critical
importance of leaders understanding U.S. racial history and how it is currently
manifested in schools. The literature also revealed challenges to leadership,
including discrimination, complicated relationships with teachers and the district,
and lack of mentors. Across the critically oriented epistemologies discussed thus far,
critical theory (Chapter 5); feminist, poststructural, and feminist poststructural
(Chapter 6); Critical Race Theory and Black Crit (Chapter 7); LatCrit, Asian Crit, and
Tribal Crit (Chapter 8); and Black feminism (Chapter 9), none mention ability. Even
when all these critical epistemologies lay claim to some aspect of intersectionality in
their formation and application, this literature fails to even include ability/disability
in the list of intersectional identities and thus does not substantively engage
disability at all. Chapter 10 redresses this blatant omission in critically oriented
epistemologies by addressing Disability Studies in Education (DSE) for the first time in
relation to organizational theory. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY 1:
Discussion Questions and Critical Self-reflection on Our Leadership from Black
Feminist Epistemologies Table 9.1 Discussion Questions and Critical Self-reflection on
Our Leadership from Black Feminist Epistemologies

CHAPTER 10 Disability Studies in Education Epistemology

Disability Studies in Education (DSE) has evolved more recently than the other
epistemologies discussed in this book. Similar to feminist poststructuralism (Chapter
6) and Black feminist epistemology (Chapter 9), DSE lies on the radical end of the
change continuum within modernism (see Figure 10.1) and has also been heavily
influenced by postmodernism (Chapter 6). To date, not a single published study
exists in the field of educational leadership that is conceptually grounded in DSE.
Likewise, Disability Studies theory has been minimally addressed in the study of
organizations. Williams and Mavin (2012) explain that in spite of “a wider range of
theoretical perspectives and voices in organization studies … disability theory and
disabled people’s voices have remained marginal” (p. 159). Connor and Gabel (2013)
catalogued the research on DSE in education and not a single study addressed
leadership, principals, or whole-school social justice approaches. Likewise, disability
has been minimally addressed in the field of educational leadership. Capper,
Theoharis, and Sebastian (2006) reviewed the literature on social justice leadership
preparation in the field and noted that none of the publications addressed disability.
To locate implications for leadership preparation related to disability required the
authors to review the literature on special education. Across 16 years of equity
research in educational leadership as reviewed in Chapter 2, not a single study has
been grounded in DSE, and few of these studies examined special education or
disability. At the same time, O’Malley and Capper (2015) found in their national
study of educational leadership preparation programs that 79.7 percent of the social
justice programs claimed they attended to disability in their programs to a moderate
or high degree (compared to race/ethnicity 95.4 percent, social class 94.9 percent,
and culture 93.8 percent). What we do not know from their study is how disability
and special education are attended to, and as I discuss further in this chapter,
whether in these programs disability is addressed in structural functional or critical
ways. Figure 10.1 An Epistemology Framework In this chapter, I first discuss how
disability has been addressed in the field of educational leadership. I next review the
history of Disability Studies in Education, define it, and discuss its central tenets. I
then consider the implications of DSE for the field of educational leadership and how
some current research in educational leadership can inform DSE. To close the
chapter, I discuss the implications of DSE for organizational theory, including
leadership theory, change theory, and decision-making theory. DISABILITY AND
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP The relationship of disability to the field of educational
leadership is depicted in Figure 10.2. The figure shows how disability or special
education is typically not addressed in educational leadership at all, even in studies
of social justice leadership (Pazey & Cole, 2013). Exceptions are research on
principals grappling with the complexities of including students with disabilities in
schools (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; DeMatthews, 2014; Frick, Faircloth, &
Little, 2013), case studies of principals implementing inclusive schooling (Hoppey &
McLeskey, 2011; Ryan, 2010; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011), and entire school
districts implementing inclusive practices (Ryndak, Reardon, Benner, & Ward, 2007).
The literature also includes calls for principal preparation programs to address
special education (Pazey & Cole, 2013). These calls for addressing special education
in educational leadership over the past several decades have been largely ignored by
the educational leadership field based on conference/convention sessions,
publications, and the latest educational leadership preparation standards. Special
education administration continues to stand as a field apart, with its own national
and state organization through the umbrella organization Council for Exceptional
Children and its associated journals. Figure 10.2 How Special Education/Disability is
Addressed in Educational Leadership The underlying epistemologies of most of the
few studies in educational leadership that do address disability or special education
are essentially structural functional and uncritical. A critical special education/DSE
perspective would ask an entirely different set of questions of these studies which I
will discuss further in this chapter. Danforth and Gabel (2006) concur with this
assessment: [W]ith few exceptions, special education researchers have struggled
little with the complexities and ambiguities of social categories, giving little attention
to the processes and practices that actively construct disability types in the public
schools, and perhaps paying even less attention to the interactions of power and
identity across categories of race, class, gender, etc. (Danforth & Gabel, 2006, p. 12)
The way disability has been represented in educational leadership is similar to how
Danforth and Gabel (2006) portray Disability Studies and educational research:
“educational research has long perpetuated the myth of the need for distinctions
between research about disabled students and research about all other students” (p.
3). Only a few scholars (Capper & Frattura, 2008; Frattura & Capper, 2007; Theoharis,
2007, 2010) address students labeled with disabilities and the importance of
inclusive practices along with eliminating tracking and pull-out programs as part of
an overarching principal leadership for social justice across student differences (e.g.,
race, social class, ability, gender, sexual/gender identity, language, and their
intersections). DISABILITY STUDIES IN EDUCATION Connor, Valle, and Hale (2015)
offer the most recent history of DSE, building on the histories of Disability Studies in
Education by Danforth (2006), Taylor (2006), Connor, Gabel, Gallagher, and Mortond
(2008), Baglieri, Valle, Connor, and Gallagher (2011a), Ferguson and Nusbaum
(2012), and Connor and Gabel (2013). A distinct field of Disability Studies formed in
the late 1970s across disciplines. In the early 1990s, educators interested in a critical
view of special education participated in an international conference on Disability
Studies. In 1999, U.S. scholars who considered themselves critical special educators
joined together at the first conference in New York City to explore these ideas. Some
of these scholars then formed the Disability Studies in Education special interest
group of the American Educational Research Association. DSE as a field of study
evolved in part in response to the limits of other critically-oriented epistemologies
discussed in previous chapters. Danforth and Gabel (2006) explain how the social
justice discourse and the critical epistemologies that inform that discourse often do
not address disability: Another source of the growing interest in DSE builds from an
awareness that the critical educational research traditions – areas that ask serious
and deep questions about power, identity, and justice – have left something out. The
standard critical trinity of class, race, and gender, even if fortified by constructs such
as sexual orientation or immigrant status, fails to provide relevant, persuasive insight
into the dynamics of power and identity within public schools by ignoring the most
vulnerable students (those with significant cognitive impairment, for example) or by
adding-on disability without fully exploring the ways in which disability transforms
arguments about power, identity, and justice. (Danforth & Gabel, 2006, p. 3)
According to Danforth and Gabel (2006), DSE is defined as understanding “what
disability means; how it is interpreted, enacted, and resisted in the social practices of
individuals, groups, organizations, and cultures” (p. 5). They further explain: Done
well, DSE leaves readers with a nagging sense of discomfort with the reified status
quo, a lingering pang of guilt for accepting what went unnoticed before, and a flicker
of anger over the customs, complacencies, and good intentions that mask social
injustices on a daily basis. (Danforth & Gabel, 2006, pp. 6–7) Taylor (2006) defines
DSE as a field that “examines disability in social and cultural context. Constructions of
disability are questioned and special education assumptions and practices are
challenged” (p. 19). Tenets of Disability Studies in Education DSE scholars have been
reticent to identify specific DSE tenets, as doing so works against their stance of not
wanting to develop another limiting paradigm (Connor, Gabel, Gallagher, & Mortond,
2008). Yet, Connor and colleagues (2008) reported that the DSE special interest
group of the American Educational Research Association agreed on DSE tenets that
“centre on engagement in research, policy, and action that: contextualize disability
within political and social spheres; privilege the interests, agendas, and voices of
people labelled with disability/disabled people; promote social justice, equitable and
inclusive educational opportunities, and full and meaningful access to all aspects of
society for people labelled with disability/disabled people; and assume competence
and reject deficit models of disability” (Connor et al., 2008, p. 447–448). Ferguson
and Nusbaum (2012) identified five core concepts of Disability Studies and
considered their implications for individuals with significant intellectual disabilities,
and scholars and practitioners for whom this aspect of disability is their focus. These
five core concepts include: (a)The study of disability must be social. (b) The study of
disability must be foundational. (c) The study of disability must be interdisciplinary.
(d) The study of disability must be participatory, and (e) The study of disability must
be values based. With my analysis of the DSE literature, I identified DSE tenets that
align with these previous tenets and core concepts, but I also identified additional
tenets to inform organizational theory, leadership practice, and research. I derived
the tenets from the DSE literature, though DSE scholars may or may not agree that
these tenets characterize DSE. I also identify and describe each tenet separately;
however, their assumptions are fully integrated, and each informs the other. These
seven DSE tenets include (a) hegemony of normalcy, (b) denouncement of labeling,
(c) disability is socially constructed, (d) critique of special education (e) importance
and critique of inclusion, (f) disability voice, and (g) intersectionality. Hegemony of
Normalcy According to Baglieri et al (2011c), “There is clearly a normative center
around which schools gravitate. Like gravity itself, the force exists despite being
invisible (p. 2136) … our aim is not only to focus on the margins, but also, perhaps
more critically, to deconstruct the center” (p. 2146). Thus, DSE exposes how all of
society is based on a standardized norm, and society deems anyone who does not fit
this norm as deficient. Connor and Gabel (2013) refer to the “Hegemony of
Normalcy” (p. 101) and explain: “The hegemony of the special–general education
bifurcation, therefore, is very much alive and, in turn, continues to reinforce the
Hegemony of Normalcy – a concept that has been used in oppressive ways to
segregate, marginalize, devalue, and abnormalize children” (Connor & Gabel, 2013,
p. 101). DSE scholars believe that “DSE, in concert with other criticalist perspectives,
can educate citizens to question school organization, personnel, and practices that
perpetuate the damaging ideologies and discourses of difference that conjure the
myth of normal/average/ordinary/typical/standard children” (Baglieri, Bejoian,
Broderick, Connor, & Valle, 2011b, p. 2119). This hegemony of normalcy is pervasive
in society and contributes to the pathology of difference. That is, when a student
displays learning differences, these differences are pathologized and then we
marginalize these students in the name of helping them. As Erevelles (2011) explains,
special education holds a “persistent commitment to pathologize difference in order
to provide ‘appropriate’ services in contexts that ultimately exclude” (p. 2157). This
concept of normalcy cuts across race, class, language, ability, gender, gender
identity, sexual identity, and their intersections, in that what is considered normal is
most often white, male, middle to upper class, for whom English is his first language,
heterosexual, able-bodied, and cisgender, and any student who deviates from those
identities we often identify as different and deficient, Parallel to the whiteness as
property tenet within CRT, the pervasiveness of normalcy renders normalcy as it
intersects with identities as valuable property – in Leonardo and Broderick’s (2011)
terms “smartness as property” – with all the attendant privileges to the best
curriculum and education in the school. Denouncement of Labeling Student labeling
becomes the primary outcome of the hegemony of normalcy, the pathology of
difference, and normalcy as property. As Connor and Gabel (2013) explain, “The
increasing number of students labeled is evidence of an obsession within education
to locate, and then often relocate, children who are viewed as insufficiently normal
in behaving, learning, focusing, following instructions, speaking correctly, and so on”
(Connor & Gabel, 2013, p. 103). As such, I use the phrase throughout this chapter
“students labeled with disabilities” versus students with disabilities. The former
phrase makes clear that students have been labeled with disabilities by educators in
the school and such labeling is socially constructed, variable, and arbitrary compared
to the latter phrase “students with disabilities” that positions the disability within the
student: that the student “has” “within them” a disability which represents the
medical model of special education that DSE disputes. At the same time, I recognize
the prerogative of disability activists who reclaim disability as an identity marker of
power and who place disability first for this reason. Disability is Socially
Constructed/An Ideological System Given that schools and society are centered in
normalcy, difference is pathologized, these pathologies are then labeled, and
students with these labels are marginalized, DSE scholars believe that disability is
socially constructed: “[DSE] … frames disability as a social, cultural, political, and
historical phenomenon situated in a specific time and place rather than a medical,
scientific, or psychological ‘objective fact’” (Baglieri, Bejoian, Broderick, Connor, &
Valle, 2011c, p. 2130). That is, disability is not a medical or psychological diagnosis,
but a function of the environment and how people respond to difference. The social
construction of disability applies not only to non-medical categories such as
emotional disturbance and learning disabilities but to all categories that may
typically be seen as medical, such as visual impairments. A person may have a visual
impairment but how the school responds to and supports the student determines
whether the visual impairment becomes a disabling condition in the school. At the
same time, Leonardo and Broderick (2011) discuss the limits of the social
construction of disability concept and, instead, that disability should be viewed as an
ideological system: By locating ‘mental retardation,’ ‘competence,’ or ‘smartness’
primarily as social constructions rather than systems of ideology that operate to
constitute and sustain unequal relations of power, there is an as of yet incomplete
exploration of the oppressive and mystifying ways in which power and privilege
operate. (p. 2219) Thus, DSE views disability not as a medical diagnosis but as an
ideological system that perpetuates structures and systems of power and privilege in
schools. Critique of Special Education Critical special education served as a precursor
to DSE. Because the field of special education is based on a history of normalization
and the medical model, DSE practitioners critique special education practice as it is
typically conceived with its emphasis on identification, labels, interventions, and
subsequent isolation and segregation. Special education operates as one of the
primary managers and perpetuators of normalcy in the school. In the special
education administration literature, the goal of special education leadership is to
manage special education programs to be as efficient and effective as possible, and
the focus of leadership is often legal compliance. Special education administration
focuses unquestioningly on child deficits and not on how the school has created and
perpetuated those deficits and the ideological systems of oppression that create and
perpetuate deficits. In contrast, from a critical special education perspective, Connor
and Gabel (2013) explain, “By focusing on the overall system rather than on the child
as the site of responsibility, teachers and scholars in the field of DS engage in
combating structural ableism that is embedded in the everyday arrangements of
schooling” (p. 107) Importance and Critique of Inclusion Most DSE scholars advocate
for inclusive practices as a matter of civil rights for individuals labeled with
disabilities and an associated curriculum that is universally designed (Connor &
Gabel, 2013). Yet, DSE scholars point out the ironic limits of inclusive practices,
arguing that most inclusion stops at inclusive spaces and does not address
curriculum and other school features that are not inclusive across student
differences (Baglieri et al., 2011b, 2011c; Erevelles, 2011). Further, educators often
view inclusion as including students within an ideological norm and as a form of
“assimilation and normalization rather than changing and actually moving toward
coexistence within a broader notion of diversity” (Valle, Connor, Broderick, Bejoian,
& Baglieri, 2011, p. 2285). Erevelles (2011) agrees and argues: “inclusion as it is
currently conceived, appears more as a synonym for assimilation and normalization,
then we need to challenge the ways its rhetoric efficiently manages difference by
allowing schools to essentially stay the same” (p. 2159). As such, DSE scholars argue
for the following parameters around inclusive practices: that inclusive education (a)
is fundamentally about all learners (rather than just about disabled learners), (b) is
fundamentally about striving to make all learners’ experiences with schooling
inclusive and participatory rather than exclusionary and marginalizing (rather than
just being concerned with where particular learners are physically placed), and (c) is
concerned with aspirations for democratic and socially just education, and therefore
fundamentally concerned with interrogating the cultural practices of schooling
(rather than just seeking to prescribe procedural, techno-rational definitions of
inclusive schooling to be implemented). (Baglieri et al., 2011c, p. 2128) While most
educators claim that their schools are “inclusive” or that they practice inclusion of
students with disabilities, educators most often practice many different iterations of
what I call the ironic limits of inclusion (Scanlan, 2006). The eight ironic limits of
schools which claim to be practicing inclusion, not all of which are fully addressed in
the DSE literature, include the following: (a) students labeled with disabilities are
included only in particular courses or classes for parts of the day, (b) only students
with particular disability labels are included (e.g., students labeled with learning
disabilities) but students with significant intellectual disabilities are included only in
limited ways or not at all, (c) some students labeled with disabilities are included but
only within lower track courses in co-teaching models, (d) students labeled with
disabilities are included in particular classrooms/processes, while students labeled
English Language learners (ELL) are included only in certain other classrooms, (e)
students labeled with disabilities are included for part of the day, but students with
other labels (e.g., response to intervention, students who are ELL, students labeled
gifted) are pulled out for parts of the day, (f) the over identification of students
labeled with disabilities (more than 10–12%) is ignored, such that inclusion is
happening in a context where the needless labeling of students is not addressed, (g)
a concern for student labeling is highlighted, but students who are labeled speech
and language are not considered in this labeling, even though students from low
income families and students who are linguistically diverse are often over-labeled for
speech and language and they and their families are signaled as deficient as a result,
and segregated for parts of the day for this deficit, and (h) inclusive practices are
targeted only for students labeled with disabilities and the needs of other students,
such as students experiencing teasing and bullying because of their gender identity
are not addressed (Baglieri et al., 2011b, 2011c). As to the latter point, Erevelles
(2011) concurs and argues: “the rhetoric of inclusion currently in vogue does little to
critique how Other students, not just students with recognizable disabilities, are
excluded by the normative discourses of schooling” (Erevelles, 2011, p. 2159).
Theoharis (2007, 2010; Theoharis & Haddix, 2011) remains one of the few scholars
who has studied social justice principals and their inclusive practices related to
students with disabilities and students labeled ELL (Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011).
What we do not know from Theoharis’s work is the extent to which any of the ironic
limits of inclusion were taking place in the schools that were studied. Likewise, we
have experienced schools devoted to community-building processes and classrooms
engaging in community-building activities while students with disabilities are pulled
out of the classroom and excluded from the community-building activity, or districts
committed to racial consciousness work while students labeled with disabilities are
bussed across the district and are unable to attend their neighborhood schools. In
sum, I agree with Graham and Slee (2008), who argue that “inclusive education is
now no longer a progressive educational practice because it is more often used to
explain, defend, and protect the status quo” (cited in Erevelles, 2011, p. 2158).
Disability Voice Similar to Critical Race Theory, DSE advocates what could be
considered counter-narratives – seeking the perspectives of individuals with
disabilities. I extend this tenet to include the perspectives of individuals with
disabilities but also families and students across differences. In Theoharis’s (2010)
study, the principals ensured that staff were involved in decisions about the school
and the principals explicitly reached out to typically marginalized families to engage
them with the school. Ryan’s (2010) study of principals at a new inclusive school also
described how the principals extensively involved the participation of students, staff,
and families in school decision-making. Intersectionality None of the DSE definitions
or DSE tenets I reviewed explicitly addressed intersectionality. Some DSE scholars
have described how the deficit perspectives of some educators: about certain
children according to race, social class, and dis/ability results in referrals for
pseudoscientific testing, the inscription of labels, and the likelihood of situating these
students outside the general classroom – a literal placement outside of the norm.
Echoing the concerns of Leonardo and Broderick (2011), the authors likewise identify
school practices that reinforce intelligence as whiteness (and conversely, disability as
color) and argue for a conscious shift toward cultural responsiveness in pedagogical
practices and structural arrangements. (Valle et al., 2011, p. 2286) Thus, even though
some DSE scholars acknowledge how students of color, of low income, and labeled
with disabilities are similarly marginalized in schools, these scholars do not identify
the intersections of these identities. Some DSE scholars address the “double
jeopardy” of students of color, including their over-representation in special
education, and how, once they are identified for special education they are placed in
more segregated settings than white students labeled with disabilities (Fierros &
Conroy, 2002; Zion & Blanchett, 2011). Zion and Blanchett examined the intersection
of race, social class, and ability in their critique of inclusion in the United States that
continues to segregate and marginalize students of color. Recent DSE scholarship
examines the theoretical intersections of Disability Studies in Education and Critical
Race Theory (DisCrit) and the intersections of race, gender, and social class
(Annamma, Connor, & Ferri, 2013; Connor, Ferri, Annamma, 2015), Other DSE
scholars have examined the intersections of disability, race, social class, and sexual
identity (Erevelles, 2011). In sum, seven tenets of DSE include (a) the hegemony of
normalcy, (b) denouncement of labeling, (c) disability is socially constructed/an
ideological system, (d) critique of special education, (e) the importance and critique
of inclusion, (f) disability voice, and (g) intersectionality. In the next section, I
consider the implications of these DSE tenets for educational leadership and
organizational theory. IMPLICATIONS OF DSE FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND
ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY In this section, I consider the implications of DSE for
educational leadership to build the foundation for further implications for
organizational theory. DSE demands a different set of questions and lens for
disability and special education in educational leadership than previously asked. The
limited research studies in educational leadership related to disability and special
education have all made important contributions to the field. I take a similar view of
this research as do Leonardo and Broderick (2011) in their critiques of Disability
Studies and whiteness studies in that “although we [can] take theoretical and
political strategies from [this work], [this work] on its own is theoretically and
politically incomplete” (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011, p. 2225). Danforth and Gabel
(2006) acknowledge that one major critique of DSE is its limited connection to
practice and lack of consideration of how practice can inform DSE. To that end, a
recent text in DSE includes practice in the title, Practicing disability studies in
education. Acting toward social change (Connor, Valle, & Hale, 2014). This text
includes a section on applying DSE to educational practices, yet all the papers in that
section focus on higher education. This lack of implications for practice in DSE is due
in part to the, at times, conceptual complexity of DSE, but also it can be difficult to
imagine DSE in practice without re-inscribing oppressive ideologies of normalcy while
doing so. In this sense, when considering DSE for educational leadership practice, we
are always working against limits of normalcy, though, at the same time, we are
always working to expand those limits. Even with these limits, however, Theoharis’s
scholarship (2010) on social justice principals identifies explicit strategies they
employed to address inequities in their schools – practices that align with DSE theory
and the DSE tenets I discussed previously. While no studies in educational leadership
have been conceptually framed by DSE, nonetheless, DSE scholars have much to
learn from some of the limited research in educational leadership on the practical
strategies of school principals leading for social justice. Theoharis’s (2010) study of
social justice leaders provides one exemplar of DSE for leadership practice to
eliminate inequities from which DSE scholars could learn. To review, Theoharis
(2010) studied six social justice public school principals at the elementary, middle,
and high school levels who were working toward eliminating inequities in their
schools. Their schools each evidenced equity data toward that end related to
achievement, attendance, and suspensions among other data. Theoharis did not rely
on DSE as the conceptual framework for his study; however, the strategies these
principals employed to eliminate inequities reflect some of the DSE tenets. I rely on
examples from Theoharis’s (2010) study to illustrate four implications of DSE for
educational leadership and organizational theory toward equitable ends: (1) dissolve
the hegemonic normative core, (2) denounce labeling, (3) engage in substantive
inclusion, and (4) critique special education. Dissolve the Hegemonic Normative Core
All the principals in Theoharis’s (2010) study anchored their leadership in inclusive
practices across student differences, not for assimilation or normalization, but in a
way that sought to transform the core of teaching and learning to be responsive
across student differences. Theoharis describes the situation: The principals
described the conditions they found upon starting at their respective schools as built
on norms that separated students into various fragmented programs. In these
programs, students of color, students from low-income families, students learning
English, and students with disabilities were continually removed from general
education classes to receive a fragmented curriculum from a range of teachers, much
of which did not have a connection to the core or general education curriculum of
the school” (p. 341–342). As such, the first injustice the principals addressed were
“School structures that marginalize, segregate, and impede achievement” (p. 341).
The strategies the principals engaged in to disrupt this injustice included: “(a)
Eliminate pullout/segregated programs, (b) Increase rigor and access to
opportunities, (c) Increase student learning time, and (d) Increase accountability
systems on the achievement of all students” (p. 341). These principals truly practiced
what DSE scholars call for, including substantive inclusion, beyond the rhetoric, and
that moves beyond spacial inclusion (Erevelles, 2011). Their inclusive practices were
not just about general education space but also included dissolving the normative
core of the school (Baglieri et al., 2011b) and establishing a rigorous and responsive
curriculum, a welcoming and inclusive community, and developing staff capacity to
effectively teach across student differences. Importantly, among the strategies the
principals in Theoharis’s (2010) study employed to address injustices did not include
a “hunt for” deficiencies in students (Baker, 2002) by evaluating students, diagnosing
the students as deficient, and then labeling them under the guise that their teachers
could better support them. The principals in Theoharis’s (2010) study did not focus
on more effective special education practices or ensure that responses to
interventions were implemented with fidelity (Ferri, 2012). They did not spend time
on restructuring the school day to ensure that particular students were identified
and sorted into “intervention blocks.” These principals were not engaged in inclusive
practices to make their students more normal. They did not label, segregate, and
marginalize students in the name of helping them. These principals did not
pathologize student differences nor perseverate on screening, early identification,
labeling, and progress monitoring in the name of helping. The principals did not seek
to fix the students or their families. Instead, all the principals’ efforts to address the
injustices in their schools focused on changes that the principal and staff could make,
locating students’ issues as a problem of the system, not of the students and their
families. In addition to the four strategies the principals engaged in to address
injustice which I discussed previously, Theoharis identified three additional injustices
and eight strategies to respond to those injustices – none of which blames or focuses
on fixing students or families (see Table 10.1). Table 10.1 Injustices and Principal
Strategies to Disrupt (Theoharis, 2010) Denounce Labeling DSE suggests that
educational leadership scholars and practicing leaders must become critically
conscious about the extensive damaging problems of labeling, including disability
labels, speech/language labels, RtI labels, gifted labels, tracking labels, and ability
grouping labels. Hattie and Yates (2014) report that not labeling students has an
effect size of .61 on student learning (with .40 effect size as the hinge point above
which has a larger impact on student learning). DSE suggests that educational
leadership research that considers special education or disability must not tacitly
accept, but instead take a critical perspective on the growing numbers of students
labeled with disabilities as a problem not within the students themselves (e.g., that
there are just simply more students with disabilities), but as a problem of how
educators respond to students who learn differently, intent on preserving the
normative core of the school, as discussed in Chapter 3 (this volume). Thus, from a
DSE epistemology, this aversion to labeling necessitates working to dismantle
separate programs that require a need for labels in the first place such as Response
to Intervention, lower tracked courses, or alternative schools. In addition, research in
educational leadership that addresses disability or special education should include
the extent to which students in the setting are labeled as one of the contexts of
inquiry. Two concerning aspects of Theoharis’s (2010) study regarding labeling
emerged. First, four of the six principals’ schools labeled an extraordinarily high
percentage of students with a disability, ranging from 20 to 25 percent. Yet, federal
law suggests that about 8 to 10 percent or fewer of students should be considered as
having a disability across all schools. (Given the constructs of DSE, I realize that this 8
to 10 percent could be contested as to why even this lower percentage of students
needs to be labeled). In schools that are working to widen or dissolve the normative
core of schools to encompass all student differences, the percentage of students
labeled with disabilities drops, in many schools by half (Frattura & Capper, 2015).
Moreover, schools engaged in intensive early literacy result in far fewer students
labeled with learning disabilities. Yet, none of the principals in Theoharis’s study
identified the high percentage of students labeled with disabilities in their school as
an issue, and none of their social justice strategies resulted in fewer students
requiring special education services. Further, Theoharis (2010) reports that the
percentage of students labeled with disabilities in these schools did not include
students labeled for speech and language. Educators tend to downplay the negative
consequences of students being labeled for speech/language, yet the ascription of
this label and response to the label is much the same as any other disability label –
including pathologizing the child’s speech and language and remediating via pull-out
programs. Further, students from low-income families and students who are
linguistically diverse, or both, are often over-identified for speech/language
programs. Related to the previous points, principals may work to provide
speech/language services within general education and develop the capacity of
teachers to address speech and language needs across the school day to avoid the
negative consequences of pull-out programs. Yet, in doing so, they are not
addressing why so many students have been labeled for speech and language and
the extensive negative ramifications of this labeling in the first place. In addition,
much research has drawn attention to the over-representation of students of color in
special education and that students of color, once identified, receive more
segregated placements than do white students labeled with disabilities (Zion &
Blanchett, 2011). Yet, DSE scholars point out that even if students of color were
proportionally represented, it leaves unexamined students being identified and
labeled in the first place (Leonardo & Broderick, 2011). Thus, students could be
racially proportionally represented in special education, but if a high percentage of
students are labeled with a disability, disproportionality is not the underlying
problem. In sum, DSE suggests that principals must become critically conscious about
the extensive damaging effects of student labels. Addressing this issue will require a
dismantling of separate programs that require students being labeled in the first
place. Further, research in educational leadership related to student differences,
including research on social justice leadership, leadership related to racial inequities,
and related equity research, should include the percentage of students labeled as a
context for this research, critically address the multiple ways and extent to which
students are labeled as part of the study, and report how principals are working to
reduce the need for programs that require such labels. Engage in Substantive
Inclusion DSE suggests that research and practice in educational leadership must
focus on substantive inclusion, defined based on four interrelated parameters. These
four parameters include (a) Applies to all students, (b) Transform the instructional
core, (c) Inclusion limits based on the school, and (d) Effective inclusion
implementation Applies to all students. First, substantive inclusion applies to all
students in the school and not just to students labeled with disabilities, including, for
example, students labeled English Language Learners, students struggling with
reading, and students who are LGBTIQ – across literally all students and all student
differences and their intersections. DSE scholars argue that the ways students
identified with disabilities are excluded reflect larger exclusion issues across the
school for other students who are marginalized (Erevelles, 2011). According to
Theoharis (2010), “Inclusive schooling is a necessary and enriching component to
enacting justice” (p. 368). The social justice principals in Theoharis’s (2010) study
focused not only on students with disabilities, or students of color, or African
American students. They discussed strategies that advanced the learning for literally
all students, including students labeled with disabilities, students from low-income
families, students of color, and students who were culturally and linguistically diverse
and their intersections (the principals, however, did not mention gender, gender
identity, or sexual identity). Theoharis explicitly defined what he meant by social
justice leaders: These principals advocate, lead, and keep at the center of their
practice and vision issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and
other historically and currently marginalizing conditions in the United States. This
definition centers on addressing and eliminating marginalization in schools. In doing
so, inclusive schooling practices for students with disabilities, English language
learners, and other students traditionally segregated in schools are also necessitated
by this definition. (Theoharis, 2007, p. 222, cited in Theoharis, 2010, p. 333) It is also
implied that principals are responsible for literally all students in their schools, and
that responsibility should not be passed off to special education teachers and
administrators (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Pazey & Cole, 2015). Thus, when
conducting research on inclusive practices in schools, DSE suggests that we include
information about all students. This does not mean that we cannot learn from
studies of principals’ practices that zone in on a particular identity, for example,
including students with significant cognitive disabilities (and their intersections of
race and social class) across the curriculum. Such studies, however, should provide
information on the context of this effort related to inclusive practices across the
school for all students. Transform the instructional core. Second, and related to this
point, substantive inclusion concerns itself with transforming all aspects of the
school, particularly the instructional core and culture of the school toward equity
ends, working to “dissolve the normative center” (Baglieri et al., 2011c). Given this
parameter, then, when educational leadership scholarship and practice address
inclusive practices, such practices cannot and should not be considered an “inclusion
program,” an “inclusion model,” or an “inclusion initiative” as doing so renders this
work as something separate from the normative center of schooling – essentially a
structural functional rendering of inclusive practices. This structural functional
approach to inclusion, as DSE scholars point out, often yields “inclusion classrooms,”
“inclusion students,” or “inclusion teachers” (Baglieri et al., 2011c). These “inclusion
classrooms” are frequently structured around a “co-teaching model” where a special
education teacher is paired with a general education teacher (Baglieri et al., 2011c).
Yet, Frattura and Capper (2015) point out how co-teaching perpetuates inequities.
That is, from elementary through high school, students with disabilities are often
segregated into these co-taught classrooms in numbers much higher than their
proportional representation in the school. At the high school level, often these
classrooms/courses include students without disability labels who are also struggling,
constituting lower track classrooms. General education teachers become dependent
on the special education teacher in the classroom. The goal of the special education
teacher in these classrooms is usually one of supporting students, rather than further
developing the capacity of the general education teacher to effectively teach all
students to the point that the special education teacher is no longer needed in the
classroom. These references to inclusive practices ironically assume that inclusion is
a separate program apart from the core of the school, or what I call “segregated
inclusion.” Thus, DSE suggests that research needs to move beyond questioning
principals about their “inclusion program” or their “inclusion model” (as simply one
ideologically neutral choice among many such choices) for students labeled with
disabilities, as uncritically doing so perpetuates oppressive ideologies and structures.
Instead, DSE suggests that research should consider how principals are addressing
the normative core of schooling across student differences. They may find that
principals are implementing inclusive practices in segregated, structural functional
ways, and those findings should be problematized relative to DSE. Inclusion limits
based on the school. An uncritical special education perspective approaches the
degree to which students are included based on “student needs” and “best interest
of students” – again locating disability within the student. Instead, a third parameter
of substantive inclusion assumes that any limits of inclusion are not because of the
student, but are due to the not yet realized potential of educators and the school.
Valle and colleagues (2011) argue, “Legitimizing widespread segregation as ‘special’
is both a misnomer and disservice to all children. And yet most teachers uncritically
regard special education referrals as ‘doing what is best’ for students” (p. 2290).
According to Erevelles (2011), Inclusive education is, now, no longer the radical idea
it was once purported to be. In fact, most schools would say that they do some form
of inclusive education in which students with disabilities are included in the least
restrictive environment best suited to their educational needs. (emphasis added. pp.
2157–2158) DeMatthews and Mawhinney (2014) describe the limits of inclusive
practices and the complexities around inclusion from this “not-yet” perspective, with
the limiting factor on how or to what extent students are included dependent on the
unrealized capacity of the school and educators: Principals who choose to segregate
students cannot promote inclusion and do not reflect values of social justice. School
leaders are responsible for establishing a school culture that rejects segregation and
inequitable treatment. Their daily work must reflect this responsibility. Yet, scholars
must recognize the inclusion of all students may not be immediately obtainable
during transitional reform periods (schools moving from segregation to full inclusion)
because inclusive reforms often confront obstacles that cannot be remedied in the
short term. (p. 851) DeMatthews and Mawhinney’s point is different from when
educators believe that “our school cannot meet the students’ needs” as a reason to
not accept students into the school or segregate students. Instead, this parameter of
substantive inclusion suggests that educators take the stance that they are unsure
how to dissolve and transform the normative core of the school to integrate a
particular student but are committed to do so, and committing to working
continually toward that end. Effective inclusion implementation. A fourth parameter
related to substantive inclusion examines the complexities of inclusive practices
without calling into question the effectiveness of the inclusion implementation that
may have perpetuated the inclusion complexities in the first place. That is, in some
educational leadership research related to disability, inclusion complexities are
attributed to inclusive practices themselves, and not to poor implementation of
inclusive practices related to the previous three parameters. It is beyond the scope
of this chapter to delve into a deep diagnosis of the literature on the complexities of
inclusion to determine the extent to which the identified complexities are
attributable to implementation errors per the literature, rather than inclusion itself.
Here, I identify a few examples to illustrate this fourth parameter. DeMatthews and
Mawhinney (2014) describe the complexities and contradictions of inclusive
practices which two principals faced, both of whom were committed to inclusion. In
one case, the district initiated inclusion of students with disabilities across the
district, focused only on students with disabilities – singularly focused on place – and
did not address the normative core of schooling across student differences. The
“initiative” took place in a context of rampant district segregation, under three court
orders, that included segregated schools only for students with disabilities and
students with disabilities over-placed in residential and out of district placements.
The principal established co-teaching with particular classrooms identified as the
“inclusion classrooms” with a general education teacher and special education
teacher assigned to the classrooms, a practice which has been previously critiqued in
this chapter (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014). The principal also struggled to
include students with behavioral issues and felt overwhelmed by the number of
students with behavioral issues in her school; she thus advised some parents of
students with behavioral challenges in the neighborhood that their children should
attend a different school – in opposition to district policy. What we do not know
from the case is the extent to which the principal attempted to work with the district
office in ways to ensure that all students in the school’s neighborhood could attend
her school, regardless of disability. Because some parents of students with
disabilities protested the inclusion, the principal maintained segregated classrooms
for four to five students labeled with disabilities whose parents did not want them
included (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014). What we do not know from the study is
the extent to which the principal educated all parents about inclusive practices. We
also do not know whether she planned for the inclusion process to take place over
several years and how she would phase in the inclusion of all students, and thus the
segregation of some students was part of a time-limited process in implementation.
The principal also wanted to hire another special education teacher and social
worker but to do so required the principal to take funds away from an after-school
tutoring program for all students (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014). Relative to this
point, we do not know the percentage of students with disabilities labeled in the
school; thus we do not know whether additional staff were needed because students
were over-identified with disabilities in the first place. Further, we do not know to
what extent the principal sought to develop staff capacity to be effective with a
range of learners in lieu of hiring more staff. In sum, DSE suggests that substantive
inclusion for educational leadership practice and research requires four parameters.
First, substantive inclusion applies to all students, not only to students labeled with
disabilities. Second, substantive inclusion concerns itself with transforming all
aspects of the school, particularly the instructional core and dismantling pull-out,
tracking, and other programs that segregate and marginalize students. Third,
substantive inclusion does not make excuses about the degree to which students are
included based on “student needs,” but, instead, holds the educators and school
responsible for the not realized potential of inclusive practices in the school. Fourth,
the potential of substantive inclusion is based on effective inclusive implementation
that relies on the three previously mentioned substantive inclusive parameters.
Critique Special Education In addition to dissolving the hegemonic normative core, a
denouncement of labeling and substantive inclusion, a fourth related implication of
DSE for educational leadership and organizational theory requires a critique of
special education. Without a doubt, the initial Public Law 94–142 that required all
public schools to provide a free, appropriate, public education to students labeled
with disabilities was with good intent, and without such a law thousands of children
with disabilities may never have been provided or continue to be provided with
access to public schools. At the same time, the research is clear that the public
school outcomes of students labeled with disabilities can no longer be defended,
including low achievement with 12 percent reading at or above proficient
(Chudowsky & Chudowsky, 2009; National Assessment of Academic Progress, 2015),
low graduation rates of a mere 61 percent (Stetser & Stillwell, 2014), and low post-
school employment with a mean hourly wage of $9.40 (Sanford et al., 2011).
Scholarship and practice in educational leadership related to special education and
disability can no longer unquestioningly accept special education and the special
education knowledge base as it is. From a DSE perspective, the goal cannot be to
make special education better or more effective, but to work at changing the
normative core of schooling across student differences. As Slee (2007) argues,
inclusive schooling “is not the adaptation or refinement of special education. It is a
fundamental rejection of special education’s and regular education’s claims to be
inclusive. Inclusion demands that we address the politics of exclusion and
representation” (p. 164, cited in DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014, p. 851). Just as
scholars in educational leadership could not defend uncritically including literature in
their preparation programs that take a deficit view of students and families of color
or students from low-income homes, from a DSE perspective, then, educational
leaders cannot justify including literature in leadership preparation that takes an
uncritical view of special education. Although a few publications over the past
several decades have called for more attention to special education integrated
throughout leadership preparation programs, I offer a different opinion. Given the
uncritical view of special education in most of these publications, I oppose the
suggestion of integrating uncritical special education into educational leadership
preparation. To do so perpetuates all that we do not want schools to be related to
deficit ideology, labeling and removing students, and ignoring the negative outcomes
of special education. Uncritically including special education and disability in
educational leadership preparation programs perpetuates the marginalization of
students and an ideological system that reproduces unequal power relations
(Leonardo & Broderick, 2011). As such, from a DSE perspective, educational
leadership preparation programs are better off not addressing special education or
disability at all than addressing these topics in uncritical ways as discussed in this
chapter. IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY Given these implications of
DSE for educational leadership, DSE offers several implications for organizational
theory. One central implication is that though traditional organizational theory
parses out leadership theory, change theory, and decision-making theory, with
equity and social justice leadership, these theories are all intertwined and cannot be
separated. Social justice leadership is anchored in change and decision-making
toward equitable ends. Equity change requires a particular kind of leadership and
decision-making as reflected in this chapter. All decisions are equity decisions, and
require social justice leadership and understanding about change processes to
implement equity decisions. I begin this discussion with change theory, as change
theory related to equity change informs leadership and decision-making. Change
Theory The DSE literature critiques current practices and at times mentions the
possibilities of what could be, but this literature does not discuss the process of
change toward equitable ends. As demonstrated in this chapter, the limited
literature on social justice educational leadership and how principals and educators
are changing schools toward those ends can inform the DSE literature. DSE for social
justice leadership suggests four implications for change theory. First, equity change,
such as substantive inclusion, requires both ideological and technical change
(Ferguson & Nusbaum, 2012). One without the other is not enough. As such,
dissolving the normative core as part of the work of substantive inclusion requires a
seismic internal and external shift – not only a shift of one’s worldview of
normativity, but also to learn new skills and new roles and responsibilities. Although
educational leaders will face resistance at both the ideological and technical levels,
technical resistance is most often due to ideological resistance. Educators are more
apt to problem-solve proactively to implement substantive inclusion when they
believe ideologically in such change – when their set of inner core beliefs align with
substantive inclusion practices. The ideological aspect of substantive inclusion also
helps explain the resistance to such change that educational leaders can expect.
Similar to the discussion on resistance discussed in Chapter 7 on Critical Race Theory,
leading to implement substantive inclusion means leading against literally centuries
of exclusion and the normative core that anchors the founding history and
development of public education in the United States. All educators have been
professionally prepared and licensed under the assumptions of the normative core of
schools; nearly all professional development and all federal and state law and policy
foster the normative core and work against substantive inclusion. Education
professionals and schools continue to be rewarded and affirmed for sustaining the
normative core. As such, most education professionals hold tightly to their beliefs
and practices – that these beliefs and practices are fundamentally the right beliefs
and practices, and that changes in practice that substantive inclusion demands will
fundamentally harm students. Many educators hold these beliefs even in the face of
all countervailing evidence from their own equity data that reveal stark inequities for
students labeled with disabilities and inequities across student differences and from
the research that supports substantive inclusion. Second, DSE can inform change
theory by considering who is required to make the equity change. That is, what are
the social identities of those being asked to change toward equitable ends? In this
case, the vast majority of public school educators are white, with the teaching
profession dominated by white females and administrators mostly represented by
white males. Thus, from an unconscious white perspective, whites bear no personal
consequences when we maintain the normative core through our ideological beliefs
and practices. If the normative core remains, our personal and professional lives and
the lives of our families without labels can continue not only without harm and
continue to be comfortable, but also continue to prosper. Changing one’s ideological
beliefs and practices will be personally and professionally difficult. Further, whites
will question whether our own children or loved ones will continue to prosper if the
normative core dissolves. At the same time, some urban school districts employ a
majority of administrators of color (e.g., Milwaukee), or some districts in Texas
include a majority of administrators who are Latino, as discussed in Chapter 7
(Alemán, 2009; Khalifa et al., 2014). In such districts we would expect that the
resistance to substantive inclusion would be less formidable; that educators of color
would be supportive and advocates for dissolving the normative core and its
accompanying systems of oppression. However, all of us, regardless of identity, are
impacted by white racism and regimes of oppression such that some people of color
then also collude with the systems of oppression in place (Alemán, 2009; Khalifa et
al., 2014). Third, as discussed in the section on the parameters of substantive
inclusion, change toward substantive inclusion informed by DSE means that such
change is always partial and incomplete, and thus lifelong and never finished. Such
change eludes the neat and tidy change process articulated in traditional change
theory from initiation, to implementation, to continuation (Fullan, 2007). McKenzie
et al. (2008) affirm that no perfect social justice school exists: A leader may be strong
in some aspects of social justice, such as including students with disabilities, but
weak in addressing the needs of students who are English-language learners
inclusively. Nevertheless, our goal in preparing leaders for social justice is that they
become equally “expert” across student differences, that is, while striving toward
this goal, a leader’s area of expertise may be uneven. What we are aiming for is that
the leaders realize their unevenness in the application of social justice and strive to
close the gap between the ideal and the application. The same can be said of the
instantiation of social justice in schools, that is, although students in these schools
have made significant academic gains compared to other schools and although these
leaders are determined to continue to make academic progress, the fact remains
that not every single student in these schools is high achieving, although that is the
goal. Thus, while persistently working toward the goal of high achievement for
literally every single student, social justice may not be fully and completely
accomplished, yet. (p. 116) As a fourth implication for organizational theory, DSE
suggests that the positionality of the change within schools and districts determines
the extent to which the normative core is disrupted. For example, schools and
districts often move forward with equity work and do not address disability or special
education as part of that work. Often in these districts, directors of special education
and student services are not centrally included on the district leadership team
addressing inequities. Other districts initiate an “inclusion initiative” as detailed in
DeMatthews and Mawhinney’s study (2014), completely separate from other work in
which the district is involved. Neither approach will lead to substantive inclusion.
Substantive inclusion is only possible when special education constitutes a key aspect
of the equity process. In sum, DSE suggests four implications for organizational
change theory: (a) equity change requires both ideological and technical change, (b)
the identities of those involved in the changes impacts how and the extent to which
change will take place; (c) equity change is non-linear, a lifelong process at the
individual and institutional levels, and (d) the positionality of the change within
schools and districts relative to other work in which the schools and districts are
engaged determines the extent to which the normative core is disrupted. Leadership
Theory DSE offers two implications for leadership theory. First, that leaders are
responsible for literally all students in their school. Equity principals cannot only
focus on race or social class, and ignore other dimensions of identity and difference
and their intersections. Equity principals cannot make as their primary goal including
students with disabilities and not address race, social class, sexual/gender identity,
and their intersections. They must literally become responsible for all students in the
school because they recognize that though identity histories are unique, the
ideological systems of oppression in response to these differences are similar.
Second, leadership for equity must expect and anticipate resistance to this work
given that leadership for social justice is pushing back centuries of historical, societal,
and structural oppression – that this work is truly civil rights work. Hence this
leadership demands the development of leadership teams at the school and district
levels to lead the work forward in their settings in collaboration with the
communities in which the school and districts are embedded. Decision-making
Theory DSE suggests that all decisions are about equity. Theoharis states, “[The
social justice principals] saw their commitment to the achievement of marginalized
students, as one principal described, as ‘permeating everything I did, every decision I
made, every conversation I had, and every part of my leadership’” (p. 363). Not only
are all administrative decisions about equity, but these decisions must be worked
out in collaboration with demographically representative communities. In sum, this
chapter has reviewed the literature on disability, organizations, and leadership and
explicated the major tenets of Disability Studies theory. The chapter then considered
the implications of DSE for leadership practice and organizational theory, moving
beyond and denouncing calls for consideration of special education for educational
leadership. Next, Chapter 11 turns to Queer Theory and its implications for
organizational theory and educational leadership. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES After reading the chapter, leadership development activities that I
describe next for Disability Studies in Education (DSE) include: (1) discussion
questions for whole-class discussion; (2) critical analysis of the educator’s own
leadership, and (3) case study analysis. It is best to work through all the activities in
the order they are presented here. ACTIVITY 1: Discussion Questions for Disability
Studies in Education Epistemology What are the organizational goals? What does
leadership look like? How is the organization structured? What does organizational
culture look like? What does decision-making look like? What does change look like?
What aspects of education emanate from this epistemology? What is the goal of
education? What does the curriculum look like? What does instruction look like?
What does assessment look like? What does evaluation/supervision look like? How
does this epistemology respond to differences and diversity? ACTIVITY 2: Critical
Reflection on Your Own Leadership from Disability Studies Theory and Epistemology
Discuss your leadership strengths relative to addressing the (a) hegemony of
normalcy and dissolving the hegemonic normative core, (b) denouncement of
labeling, (c) substantive inclusion, (d) critique of special education, (e) importance
and critique of inclusion, (f) disability voice, and (g) intersectionality. Discuss how
your leadership for equity could be strengthened relative to addressing the (a)
hegemony of normalcy and dissolving the hegemonic normative core, (b)
denouncement of labeling, (c) substantive inclusion, (d) critique of special education,
(e) importance and critique of inclusion, (f) disability voice, and (g) intersectionality.
ACTIVITY 3: Case Analysis Questions Discuss how the problem(s) of the case is relate
to the DSE tenets: (a) hegemony of normalcy, (b) denouncement of labeling, (c)
disability is socially constructed, (d) critique of special education, (e) importance and
critique of inclusion, (f) disability voice, and (g) intersectionality. Discuss how the
problem(s) in the case can be informed by the four implications of DSE for
educational leadership and organizational theory toward equitable ends: (a) dissolve
the hegemonic normative core, (b) denouncement of labeling, (c) substantive
inclusion, and (d) critique of special education. Discuss how the problem(s) in the
case can be informed by (a) change theory, (b) leadership theory, and (c) decision-
making theory as informed by DSE. Discuss possible solutions to your case per the
DSE tenets: (a) hegemony of normalcy, (b) denouncement of labeling, (c) disability is
socially constructed, (d) critique of special education, (e) importance and critique of
inclusion, (f) disability voice, and (g) intersectionality. Discuss possible solutions to
the case informed by the four implications of DSE for educational leadership and
organizational theory toward equitable ends: (a) dissolve the hegemonic normative
core, (b) denouncement of labeling, (c) substantive inclusion, and (d) critique of
special education. Discuss how the solution(s) in the case can be informed by (a)
change theory, (b) leadership theory, and (c) decision-making theory as informed by
DSE.

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)

Colleen A. Capper. Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge, 2019.

APA (American Psychological Assoc.)

Colleen A. Capper. (2019). Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge.

CHAPTER 11 Queer Theory

 Similar to the other chapters in this book, I examined the literature on Queer Theory
as it relates to organizational theory and educational leadership. Referring to Figure
11.1, I position Queer Theory as originating from both critically oriented
epistemologies and poststructuralism. Similar to the Disabilities Studies
epistemology (Chapter 10), Queer Theory has been strongly influenced by
poststructural epistemologies, in part because of when scholars developed Queer
Theory after poststructuralism (O’Malley, 2013). Scholars also typically draw across
critically oriented epistemologies to undergird Queer Theory conceptual applications
to educational leadership. For example, Rottman (2006) relies on “poststructuralist,
feminist and identity-based political foundations of Queer Theory to construct a
conceptual lens which complements other critical, anti-oppression frameworks” (p.
1). O’Malley (2013) refers to poststructuralism, feminist, and gay/lesbian studies as
antecedents to and scaffolding for Queer Theory. In this chapter, I briefly review the
educational leadership literature related to LGBT identities and the use, or not, of
Queer Theory in that research. I identify and discuss tenets associated with Queer
Theory which I gleaned from the literature. I review the history of Queer Theory in
the organizational studies literature, and consider hetero-organizational culture and
structures and resistance and queerness in organizations. Related to
intersectionality, I also briefly discuss Queer of Color theory. I close the chapter with
a discussion of applications of Queer Theory to leadership, change, and decision-
making. The chapter includes questions for discussion and Queer Theory case
analysis questions. Figure 11.1 An Epistemology Framework QUEER THEORY AND
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP Payne and Smith (2017) categorized the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender (LBGT), and educational leadership literature into two central
categories. One category includes studies that examine the leadership of LGBT
identified leaders (Blount, 1996, 2000; Fraynd & Capper, 2003; Koschoreck, 2003;
Lugg & Tooms, 2010), and studies of educational leadership practice related to
student, staff, and family who identify as LGBT (cited in Payne & Smith, 2017). As to
the former, Rottman (2006), who offered one of the first applications of Queer
Theory to educational leadership, describes epistemological and practical conflict
when studying educational leaders on the queer spectrum: [T]his literature is
problematic in that it implicitly defines sexually-marginalized people as a ‘species’
(Foucault 1990) to be studied, while those in heterosexual relationships whose
desires are publicly sanctioned continue to act as the implicit moral standard against
which all others are measured. This practice of focusing on those most marginalized
by sexual norms reifies a heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy, elevates the status of
those who identify with the first category over those who identify with the second,
and presents ‘queer’ as though it were an internally consistent category. (p. 2) A
second category of LGBT research in educational leadership includes studies that
examine educational leadership preparation programs and LGBT identities (Allen,
Harper, & Koschorek, 2009; Jennings, 2012; Marshall & Hernandez, 2013; O’Malley &
Capper, 2015, all cited in Payne & Smith, 2017). To date, this literature across both
categories remains limited and none of the studies Payne and Smith cite rely on
Queer Theory for the conceptual framework. The few studies that view educational
leadership from a Queer Theory epistemology are theoretically robust, though they
are not as explicit in implications for practice (Lugg, 2003a, b; Lugg & Murphy, 2014;
O’Malley, 2015; Rottman, 2006). Unfortunately, the record of sexual identity in the
field of educational leadership remains blemished. In a national study of social justice
leadership preparation programs, sexual identity was the least included in these
programs (O’Malley & Capper, 2015) among the range of identities. That is, though
leadership programs claim to be social justice focused, fewer than half address
sexual identity. This raises the question about how social justice leadership
preparation programs define social justice if they exclude sexual identity in the
program. Further, in the previous chapters in this text on critically oriented
epistemologies and educational leadership, none substantively address the
intersection with sexual identity. QUEER THEORY TENETS Similar to the Disability
Studies in Education epistemology discussed in Chapter 10, queer theorists are
reticent to articulate tenets of Queer Theory, since the epistemology itself works
against categories and fixed meanings (O’Malley, 2013). For this chapter, I reviewed
literature across education and educational leadership that relied on Queer Theory
to identify key themes which authors referred to in their rendering of Queer Theory.
These tenents include: (a) homophobia and heterosexism are pervasive and normal;
(b) disrupt what is normal, (c) against the binary, social construction, and
unstableness of identities; (c) pervasiveness and critique of heterosexuality; (d) anti-
queer bias embedded in law and policy; (e) power is contested; (f)
resistance/liberationist goal; (g) importance of language; and (h) intersectionality.
Homophobia and Heterosexism are Pervasive and Normal Similar to Critical Race
Theory (CRT) (Chapter 7), where racism is considered pervasive and normal, Lugg
and Murphy (2014) convey similar dynamics with Queer Theory: As forms of CPA
[Critical Policy Analysis], both QT [Queer Theory] and QLT [Queer Legal Theory] are
interested in how power is used, negotiated, and subverted in organizational
settings. Like other CPA forms of analysis, QT and QLT look at deep structures of
oppression, particularly as they are woven into the woof and weave of institutions
and professions like education. Furthermore, like one of its intellectual predecessors,
Critical Race Theory (López, 2003) – that assumes racism to be a normal facet of life
in the US – QT and QLT assume homophobia to be normal. Consequently,
homophobia is expected to be a part of everyday life, no matter how enlightened the
institution or particular individual might claim to be – even including queer people
themselves. (Valdes, 1995, pp. 1186–1187) Lugg and Murphy explain how
homophobia continues to be perpetuated through stigma and erasure, historically in
three ways: legally, psychologically, and religiously. Legally, homosexuality was illegal
in all U.S. states until 2003, though, according to Lugg and Murphy, some states
continued to seek legal enforcement of heterosexuality through 2013.
Psychologically, homosexuality as a mental illness was removed from the American
Psychological Association’s list in 1973. However, to date, the religious form of queer
erasure remains. Lugg and Murphy apply their arguments to the “no promo homo”
laws. As explained on the website of the Gay, Lesbian Straight Educators Network
(GLSEN), no promo homo laws are: local or state education laws that expressly forbid
teachers from discussing gay and transgender issues (including sexual health and
HIV/AIDS awareness) in a positive light – if at all. Some laws even require that
teachers actively portray LGBT people in a negative or inaccurate way. These statutes
only serve to further stigmatize LGBT students by providing K-12 students false,
misleading, or incomplete information about LGBT people. There are currently 7
states that have these types of laws: Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. (Retrieved on January 15, 2018) Lugg and
Murphy explain that these policies and laws are premised on: any form of gay
tolerance in school is actually an insidious means of promoting homosexuality – that
openly discussing the matter would encourage kids to try it, turning straight kids gay
(Rubin Erdely, 2012, para. 20). Such an argument was and is ludicrous in light of the
data on identity formation (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Meyer, 2010; Wilchins, 2004). (p.
1188) Disrupt What is Considered Normal Similar to the Disability Studies in
Education epistemology discussed in Chapter 10, Queer Theory centers on disrupting
what is considered normal. Dilley (1999) explains: “the dominant culture’s
stronghold on proclaiming normality and deviance must be overthrown, or at least
displayed as power-laden and repressive” (p. 466). Dilley (1999) further argues: The
tenets of Queer Theory could be used, or adapted, in many varied areas of
educational research as the underlying questions of what is normal, and how we
know that, can enlighten our understanding of not only our human lives, but our
teaching, our learning, and our questioning. (p. 470) This tenet of Queer Theory
remains most applicable across settings and identities compared to the other Queer
Theory tenets, as this tenet extends beyond considerations of sexuality and gender.
Against the Binary, Social Construction, and Unstableness of Identities Queer Theory
moves against typical sex and sexuality binaries such as male/female and
heterosexuality/queer (Rottman, 2006). Binary constructions reflect asymmetries of
power, with one side of the binary (the first side) considered the norm and the other
side the deviant from the norm and that which is deficient and inferior (O’Malley,
2015). Rottman extends Queer Theory beyond sex/gender binaries to interrogating
binaries of any sort. She explains, “In this case the link [of educational leadership] to
Queer Theory is in the ‘queering’ or the ‘making strange’ or the ‘disrupting’ of
traditional dichotomous categories” (Rottman, 2006, p. 13). Reflective of
poststructuralism discussed in Chapter 6, Queer Theory also moves against the idea
that identities are stable and fixed (Lugg, 2016 Lugg & Murphy, 2014), of which
poststructuralism refers to as essentializing identities (O’Malley, 2015). Instead,
Queer Theory asserts that sexual “identity is neither fixed nor unitary but multiple
and shifting” (Kissen, 2002, p. 5) and that the self remains “partial, contested, and
fluid” (O’Malley, 2013, p. 361). Queer Theory scholars assert that identities are
multiple and complex, and according to Griffin (1996), researchers need to “not
‘universalize’ or essentialize the experiences of individuals” and need to “tak[e] into
account the multicentered nature of identity, rather than focusing only on LGBT
[lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] identity. We all have race, gender, class, religion,
age, and able/disabled identities too” (p. 4) that, in and of themselves, are partial,
intersectional (Crenshaw, 1991), incomplete, unstable, complex, fluid, and
contested. Not necessarily focusing on the essentialized individual sexual identity of
a person, scholars relying on Queer Theory examine instead the social construction
of sexual identity, its multiplicities, and how this social construction reinforces power
relations (see Beemyn & Eliason, 1996; Butler, 1993; Foucault, 1990; Fuss, 1991;
Sedgwick, 1990; Seidman, 1996; Stein & Plummer, 1994). Pervasiveness and Critique
of Heterosexuality Queer Theory reveals the pervasiveness of heteronormativity
historically, structurally, culturally, and systemically. Queer Theory makes visible the
ways “heterosexuality becomes normalized as natural” (Britzman, 1995, p. 153;
Rottman, 2006). Queer Theory critiques the pervasive assumption of heterosexuality
and critiques heterosexuality as a “privileged, compulsory, dominant mode of social
organization” (O’Malley, 2013, p. 6). This critique of heterosexuality reveals the
relationship of gender to heterosexism, because heterosexism depends on “the
ongoing performance of hegemonic masculinity” (Rottman, 2006, p. 9). Anti-queer
Bias Embedded in Law and Policy Similar to the foundations of Critical Theory
(Chapter 5) and Critical Race Theory (Chapter 7), Queer Theory emerged in part out
of Critical Legal Studies. Queer Legal Theory (QLT) suggests how anti-queer bias is
deeply embedded in law and policies in educational settings; for example, when
schools require gender-specific uniforms for band, choir, or graduation, or prom
courts that feature matched biological males and females (Lugg, 2015, p. 3), and
classroom lessons that divide the class by biological sex or gender. Power is
Contested Similar to the other critically oriented epistemologies, “power, status, and
privilege are inequitably distributed, typically along lines of historic marginalization”
(Lugg & Murphy, 2014, p. 1196). Thus, according to Lugg (2015), “Queer Theory and
Queer Legal Theory also assume that power, that is, who has the power to shape the
political culture and culture-bearing institutions, such as public schools, is contested”
(p. 3). Resistance/Liberationist Goal Similar to the other critically oriented
epistemologies, a tenet of Queer Theory includes resistance with a goal of liberation
for those oppressed along the gender and sexuality continuum. Lugg (2015, p. 4)
argues that: the most important outcome of any scholarly endeavor is to liberate
queer people from political and cultural oppression as well as the oppression that
occurs within institutions, whether it is the legal system, the health system and, in
this case, the educational system. (p. 4) The work of gay rights activists indicates that
there is a political and social basis for resistance along the lines of gender and
sexuality (Britzman, 1995; Koschoreck, 2003). The Importance of Language The
importance of language as a Queer Theory tenet reflects the poststructural influence
on Queer Theory as discussed in Chapter 6. Lugg (2015) explains that “Queer Theory
and Queer Legal Theory are concerned with how language is used to classify,
stigmatize and oppress” (p. 4). Lugg relies on the term “queer” in her writing, “which
includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexual, and queer-questioning
people. I also made it normative, meaning that gender-typical heterosexuals are non-
queer or are somehow lacking” (p. 4). Rottman (2006) traces the historical evolution
of language related to queer, explaining how even the supposedly inclusive term
“queer” can be marginalizing in its essentialist and assimilationist tendencies.
INTERSECTIONALITY Similar to Critical Race Theory (Chapter 7), and LatCrit, Asian
Crit, and Tribal Crit (Chapter 8), and influenced by its postmodern roots (Chapter 6),
intersectionality of identities forms a key tenet of Queer Theory. As Lugg and Murphy
(2014) explain, Both QT [Queer Theory] and QLT [Queer Legal Theory] use a
combination of intersectionality and multidimensionality … to decenter the legal and
social structures that privilege and police heteronormativity, patriarchy, white
supremacy, class advantage, and heterosexuality. QT’s policy and political goal is to
liberate sexual minorities without falling back on essentializing assumptions that
demand historically marginalized groups assimilate – or leave. (p. 1183) These Queer
Theory tenets reveal how Queer Theory draws from critically oriented
epistemologies like Critical Theory (Chapter 5) and Critical Race Theory (Chapter 7)
with tenets such as the pervasiveness of homophobia and heterosexism, anti-queer
bias in law and policy, and resistance with a goal of liberation. Likewise, some of the
Queer Theory tenets are oriented toward poststructural epistemologies (Chapter 6):
for example, the disruption of normal; against the binary, social construction, and
unstableness of identities; and the importance of language. QUEER THEORY AND
ORGANIZATIONS The history of sexuality and organizational theory began in the
1980s and early 1990s with European scholars writing on gender and sexuality and
organizations. These scholars produced the most extensive work to date related to
sexuality and organizations in the edited book The sexuality of organization by
Hearn, Sheppard, Tancred-Sheriff, and Burrell (1990). The authors conclude:
Different degrees of hierarchy in organizations are likely to be associated with
different forms of sexuality, and moreover heterosexuality, in those organizations.
This is because of the general eroticization of dominance … and the more specific
association of hierarchy and heterosexuality. … This theme is so pervasive that we
should perhaps have named this text The Heterosexuality of Organization. (p. 179)
Importantly, these scholars did not use Queer Theory as a lens for this scholarship.
These scholars argued that the heterosexual culture of an organization controls
behavior of all, regardless of sexuality. Although norms of heterosexuality are
pervasive in organizations, these scholars suggest how postmodern theories can
explore resistances and ruptures to these heterosexual norms, whether intentional
or not. As such, studying the sexual culture and structure of schools as organizations
can provide insight into how sexual norms, rituals, ceremonies, and other artifacts of
culture and structure serve particular individuals at the expense of others and
maintain heterosexual hegemony. As this literature reveals, although researchers
have given attention to sexuality and organization, the primary focus has been on
heterosexual relationships. In this section, I consider organizational theory and
heteroorganizational culture and structure, and resistance and queerness in
organizations. Hetero-organizational Culture and Structure The study of
organizational culture has proved fruitful for many scholars (Deal & Kennedy, 1990).
Although typically not included in the organizational theory canon, several authors
have deconstructed male-stream organizational culture theories and exposed their
gendered (Mills & Tancred, 1992) and sexual (Burrell & Hearn, 1990) nature. The
heterosexual culture of an organization controls the behavior of all individuals,
regardless of sexual identity in subtle and powerful ways. A heterosexual-identified
female student in one of my courses provides one example of how the heterosexual
culture constrained her as a teacher: There just wasn’t any discussion of gay, lesbian,
or bisexual anything or anyone. Even though there wasn’t discussion, however, the
unwritten rule was always present. I remember when I first got my job, I wanted to
take to school a few personal items for my desk. One was a picture of my best friend
Andrea and myself. As I looked through the snapshots of us together I realized that
there was not one photo of us where we aren’t hugging or holding one another. The
one picture I really loved was taken in my backyard at graduation. I picked her up
and was holding her up in the air and we were laughing. As I looked at this picture, I
knew it would cause speculation at my school so I didn’t take it in. I didn’t take any
pictures of us in to put on my desk. I just didn’t want to chance being thought of as a
lesbian. Now I think back to that thought and I wonder what it was that intimidated
me so badly and I begin to realize how strong those unwritten rules really are in
people’s lives. Sheppard (1990) writes about the gendered nature of organizational
structure, an analysis that could easily accommodate sexuality. Substituting sexuality
in her analysis of structure, she argues, The notion of organizational structure as an
objective, empirical and [nonsexual] reality is itself a [heterosexual] notion. … It
masks the extent to which organizational politics are premised on the dominance of
one set of definitions and assumptions that are essentially [heterosexually] based. (p.
142) Noticing the sexual culture and structure of schools as organizations can
provide insight into how sexual norms, rituals, ceremonies, and other artifacts of
culture and structure serve particular individuals at the expense of others and
maintain heterosexual hegemony. Critically reflective leadership questions could
include: How is the heterosexual culture and structure of schools used to promote
and maintain existing arrangements of power and control (Sheppard, 1990)? How is
heterosexuality produced and reproduced in these organizational arrangements
(Hearn, Sheppard, Tancred-Sheriff, & Burrell, 1990)? How does organizational culture
contribute to the “construction and maintenance of [heterosexua] subjects” (Mills,
1990)? Resistance and Queerness in Organizations While norms of heterosexuality
are pervasive in organizations, postmodern theories would suggest that we explore
resistances and ruptures to these heterosexual norms, whether intentional or not.
Burrell and Hearn (1990) suggest that though heterosexuality reflects the
bureaucracy of organizations, queer expression of all forms is not absent. QUEER OF
COLOR THEORY Anzaldúa (1998) challenged the racism and classism inherent in
Queer Theory: White middle-class lesbians and gay men frame the terms of the
debate. It is they who have produced Queer Theory and for the most part their
theories make abstractions of us colored queers. They control the production of the
queer knowledge in the academy and in the activist communities. … They occupy
theorizing space, and though their theories aim to emancipate, they often
disempower and neo-colonize. They police the queer person of color with theory. (p.
274, cited in Rottman, 2006, p. 7) Pritchard (2013) conducted a Queer of Color
analysis of bullying in K-12 schools and explains: Queer of color critique draws on
theories of intersectionality to explore multiple oppressions and identities in ways
that do not elide the specificity of difference but resist the undertheorizing of
identities by acknowledging their complexities in our analysis of the everyday. (p.
371) Brockenbrough (2016) offers a comprehensive yet concise explanation of Queer
of Color (QOC) critique and its application to education. Brockenbrough defines QOC
critique as “an interdisciplinary corpus of scholarship on the dialectics between
hegemony and resistance that shape the lives of queer people of color across local,
national, and transnational contexts” (p. 286). Brockenbrough notes the lack of
scholarship on QOC in education, and argues that “educational scholarship that
engages QOC critique could make important contributions to critical scholarship on
QOCs, as well as to broader educational discussions on difference, power, and social
justice” (p. 7). Given the obvious dimensions of intersectionality in QOC critique,
Brockenbrough identifies intersectionality in action as: the daily negotiations of
multiple identities, noting how QOCs may make certain identities more visible at
times (e.g., race, ethnicity, class, religion) while downplaying others (e.g., queer
sexuality, gender non-conformity, immigrant status, HIV status) to strategically
position themselves for participation in myriad social contexts. (p. 287)
Brockenbrough (2016) applies QOC to education with two examples from his own
research. One of his studies focuses on the “politics of queer visibility” (p. 288) and
recasts “coming out” research that has often focused on the white queer experience,
and has typically framed coming out as a form of strategic justice. Instead,
Brockenbrough describes queer invisibility itself as a form of strategic justice, “where
queerness may be completely hidden, or, if visible, is not openly acknowledged –
emerges as an agentive practice for some QOC’s who prioritize connectedness with
families and racial communities over coming out” (p. 288). In his study of black male
teachers, which included five black queer men, Brockenbrough learned that these
teachers were able to challenge homophobia and connect in meaningful ways to all
their black students, “despite – and arguably because of – their closeted queerness”
(p. 288). Brockenbrough (2016) identifies three key tenets of QOC critique. First, QOC
emphasizes institutional factors that produce marginality rather than focusing on the
traditionally marginalized individual and locating “the problem” within that
individual. Thus, the focus of change is at the institutional level rather than on
expecting queer people of color to transform policies and practices. Second, QOC
critique highlights the strategies of resistance and in so doing disrupts white
renderings of the importance of queer visibility and the myth of “safe space” for
queer individuals and other white queer agendas. Third, Brockenbrough (2016)
emphasizes the importance of centering QOC individuals’ lives and stories – similar
to Critical Race Theory and counter-stories (Chapter 7) – and the critical importance
of developing connections and relationships with QOC individuals that support
honest, nuanced exchange. Brockenbrough acknowledges that nearly all the QOC
research has focused on black males and that future research should consider QOC
teachers and administrators. QUEER THEORY AND CHANGE, LEADERSHIP, AND
DECISION-MAKING THEORY As with the other critically oriented epistemologies,
Queer Theory implications for leadership, change, and decision-making converge.
One central lesson of Queer Theory for change theory within organizational theory
centers on how equity change oriented toward one area of marginality (e.g.,
culturally responsive curriculum) may continue to erase and stigmatize queerness
and reinforce heteronormative hegemony. Lugg and Murphy (2014), for example,
point out how the American Educational Research Association (AERA), though
claiming political neutrality, nevertheless took clear political stands against federal
and state immigration and racial policies, and continued to stigmatize and erase
queerness in education. Queer Theory also uncovers the pervasiveness of
homophobia and heteronormativity across policies, practices, and scholarship that
address other marginalized identities. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter,
though nearly all University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA)
institutions claim to be social justice focused, fewer than half address sexuality. A
recent study of social justice principals revealed how they continued to ignore queer
identities in their schools (Payne & Smith, 2017). In an additional example from
practice, a cisgender African American female district administrator described the
vehement resistance of some of her black educator colleagues to her advocacy for
gender identity and gender expression policy in a large urban district, pushing back
on her that “why are we talking about this, when we should be talking about
racism?” The district administrator exclaimed back, “in a district with 80 percent
African Americans, what race do you think the transgender students are?,” pointing
out that advancing transgender/gender identity advocacy also acknowledged the
racism in the district. Similar to the other critically oriented epistemologies we have
reviewed thus far in this text related to decision-making, in queering educational
leadership, Rottman (2006) argues for decentering the educational leader and for
representation in decision-making. She explains, If differently positioned people gain
access to decision making structures and the power and resources attached to these
structures, the resulting decisions will more likely resonate with multiply positioned
educational stakeholders. Queering educational norms provides one avenue through
which to challenge our current inclination to place the burden and authority of
problem solving on the backs of individual leaders who cannot possibly represent the
socially diverse group of students, staff or community members who live, learn and
work in North American public schools. (Rottman, 2006, p. 14) In each of the
chapters devoted to critically oriented epistemologies and organizational theory thus
far, we have addressed race (Chapters 7, 8, 9), gender (Chapter 6, 9, 11), social class
(Chapter 5), sexual/gender identity (Chapter 11), and ability (Chapter 10) and, within
each of these chapters, identity intersections. Thus, identity – no matter how fluid,
multiple, fractured, and anti-esssentialist – matters. I close the book with Chapter 12,
where I draw across the critically oriented epistemology chapters to consider identity
development formation within individuals and organizations toward social justice.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY 1: Queer Theory Discussion and
Leadership Critical Self-reflection What are examples in your setting of a
heterosexual culture and structure? How are these examples used to promote and
maintain existing arrangements of power and control (Sheppard, 1990)?
Heterosexuality is enforced partially through the enforcement of stereotypical
gender roles. What are examples in your setting of how stereotypical gender roles
are reinforced and supported? What are examples in your setting of how the
stereotypical gender binary is reinforced? (E.g., boys vs girls groupings; male/female
bathrooms; boys vs. girls uniforms, etc.) How does your setting (and you now/in the
past) respond to individuals whose gender expression does not adhere to typical
norms? “Homophobia and heterosexism demand vigilant institutional maintenance
of heterosexuality as a normative sexual identity. What educational policies and
practices in your setting maintain normative heterosexuality?” (Rottman, p. 13).
What changes could be made to remove (or at least lessen the impact of) the
heterosexual norm? Decision-making processes within heterogeneous queer
communities are settled through inequitable contests for power and primacy. How
are status and privilege assigned to individuals who are perceived as masculine,
feminine, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual or transgendered in your
context? How do issues of racism and classism intersect with these sexualized and
gendered identities? What is the effect on [formal leaders], students and teachers in
your school? How do you know? (adapted from Rottman, 2006, p. 13). The work of
gay rights activists indicates that there is a political and social basis for resistance
along the lines of gender and sexuality. What examples of resistance have emerged
in your [educational setting]? What structures have supported and constrained these
efforts? (adapted from Rottman, 2006, p. 13). ACTIVITY 2: Queer Theory Analysis of
Case Study Note: Individuals in your case do not have to be on the sexual/gender
identity continuum (e.g., identify as LGB or transgender) for Queer Theory to be
relevant to your case. As in all the epistemologies discussed in this book, each of the
epistemologies calls you to reflect on what is not considered in your case and why it
is not considered. What is left silenced or assumed in your case? What is considered
normative and unquestioned in your case? What aspects of the case issue could be
informed by Queer Theory? Are there any possible solutions to the case from a
Queer Theory epistemology? How is the (hetero)sexual culture and structure of the
situation used to promote and maintain existing arrangements of power and control
(Sheppard, 1990)? In what ways is heterosexuality assumed or presumed in your
case? In what ways is sexuality silenced in your case? If sexuality or gender identity
of the actors in your case does not seem salient, consider how the dynamics of your
case would change should the sexual identity of one or more actors in your case shift
toward the LGBT spectrum and its intersections. How is heteronormativity produced,
maintained, and reproduced in your case (Hearn et al., 1990)? How does the
organizational culture in the case contribute to the “construction and maintenance
of [heterosexual] subjects” (Mills, 1990)? How do the organizational structure,
culture, practices, and policies serve to reinforce gender stereotypes? How is sexual
surveillance enacted, and how does it perpetuate existing discourses of power?

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)

Colleen A. Capper. Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge, 2019.

APA (American Psychological Assoc.)

Colleen A. Capper. (2019). Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge.

CHAPTER 12 Individual and Organizational Identity Formation toward Social Justice

We know that some leaders identify themselves as social justice focused (Theoharis,
2007), and that schools, districts, and universities exist that are more equitable than
others (Smith & Brazer, 2016). Less is known about the evolution of these leaders
and these educational settings toward social justice ends – that even in these
exemplar settings some identities and differences are addressed more so than
others. A few studies reveal the complexities of social justice leadership that result in
leaders engaging in contradictory leadership practices (DeMatthews & Mawhinney,
2014). To date, no literature examines how the social justice identity of educational
leaders evolves, how social justice change unfolds in educational settings, and how
these aspects could help us understand further the contradictions in social justice
leadership practice. Thus, this chapter addresses the relationship between the
individual identity formation (e.g., racial identity formation) of educational leaders
and the social justice identity formation of educational settings as organizations. The
research question that anchors this chapter asks: How does the identity formation of
the educational leader and other stakeholders at the individual level inform the
organizational identity of the educational setting as it evolves toward equitable
ends? Most of the literature that grounds this research question refers to identity
“development.” I concur with the work of Adams (2016), who suggests the phrase
identity “formation” versus identity “development.” Identity development assumes a
series of lock-step stages that individuals process through over time as their identity
evolves relative to race, gender, social class, ability, sexual/gender identity, language,
religion, and their intersections. Identity formation “acknowledge[s] the fluidity of
identity, changes in salience of identity in different contexts, and the social and
cultural communities within which identity is formed, challenged, and reworked”
(Hurtado, Gurin, & Peng, 1994; Wijeyesinghe, 2001, cited in Adams, 2016, p. 36). This
chapter problematizes the contemporary use of social justice in the educational
leadership literature that often erases race (Capper, 2015) and marginalizes
sexual/gender identity (O’Malley & Capper, 2015). Instead, social justice identity
formation within individuals and schools is conceptualized as explicitly addressing
race, ethnicity, language, ability, gender, sexual/gender identity, social class, religion,
and their intersections to eliminate inequities. This chapter is the first step in the
theory’s development by analyzing the existing literature to propose theory.
Subsequent research will empirically test the theory via qualitative and mixed
methods studies of social justice leaders and their schools. LITERATURE REVIEW To
frame this chapter, I review three strands of literature: (a) organizational identity, (b)
individual identity formation, and (c) social justice identity development.
Organizational Identity The literature on organizational identity is fairly well
developed with a special issue of Organization devoted to the topic in 2008
(Alvesson, Ashcraft, & Thomas, 2008). In the Introduction to this special issue, the
authors trace the organizational identity lineage across three epistemologies of
structural functionalism, interpretivism, and critical theory. The studies on
organizational identity tend to focus on the individual’s relationship to the
organization. These scholars acknowledge that most of the research on organizations
and identity emanates from the structural functional and interpretivist
epistemologies. Importantly, none of the featured five empirical studies in the
special issue addressed critically oriented epistemologies and none addressed the
demographic identities of individuals and their relationship to their organizational
work toward equity. Although the authors identify possible avenues for future
research across the three epistemologies, their suggestion for critical epistemology
remains severely limited. Ashforth and Mael (1989) describe Social Identity Theory
(SIT) and the organization. This literature focuses on the degree to which and in what
ways individuals identify with an organization. Ashforth and Mael acknowledge that
an individual’s identity, such as age, gender, and political affiliation, may influence
the degree and in what ways the individual identifies with an organization. Thus, an
individual with a strong social justice orientation may identify more readily with an
educational setting that also aspires toward these ends. This theory, however, does
not consider how an individual’s identity development along race, class, and other
identities and their intersections influences the shift of an organizational identity
toward equity ends. In sum, though the empirical research on organizational identity
remains robust, this literature focuses primarily on the relationship of the individual
to the organization. No studies examine the evolution of an organization toward a
social justice or equity identity, and the role of individual identity development in
that process. Individual Identity Formation Identity development models have been
developed across races, including white (Hardiman, 1982; Helms, 1990) African
American (Cross, 1991), Latino (Gallegos & Ferdman, 2007), Native American (Horse,
2005), and Asian (Kim, 2012). By their name, these models focus only on racial
identity, not on other identities (e.g., ability), and not on the intersection of race with
other identities (e.g., black transgender). In addition to race, Adams (2016) describes
additional social identity models, including: coming out models of gay liberation
(Cass, 1996), feminist identity models (Bargad & Hyde, 1991), disability identity (Gill,
1997) … and ethnic and racial identity development models that reflect the
ethnic/racial complexities of identity for immigrant communities of color (Hurtado,
Gurin, & Peng, 1994). (pp. 36–37) Adams (2016) further explains the similarities
across these identity development models: 1) accepting and internalizing the
dominant ideology and values that assume the superiority of the dominant group
and the inferiority of the subordinated group; 2) questioning, rejecting, and resisting
the dominant ideology and oppressive systems and thus the way their social group is
characterized; 3) exploring, redefining, and developing a new sense of social identity
that is not rooted in the norms and values of superiority and inferiority; and 4)
integrating and internalizing the new identity along with a commitment to social
justice. (p. 36) One problem with the racial identity and other identity development
models is the way they essentialize identity (Hernandez, 2005; Langdridge, 2008). For
example, Helms’s (1990) white racial identity development model focuses solely on
race generically defined. It does not account for individuals who identify as white and
may be at varying places in their racial identity development regarding races other
than white (e.g., Latinx, African American, Asian, or multiracial as examples). In
addition, these racial identity development models do not consider the complexities
of racial identity with other identities (e.g., Latina transgender male). None of this
literature discusses the social and organizational impact upon identity development,
nor how this identity development could inform organizational development and
vice versa toward social justice ends. Social Justice Identity Development Adams,
Bell, and Griffin (1997) describe a social justice action continuum that moves from
supporting oppression to confronting oppression. Adams and colleagues identify
eight discrete points along this continuum (see Figure 12.1). Figure 12.1 Continuum
of Social Justice Identity Development In relation to the epistemologies discussed in
Chapter 2, the social justice action continuum of Adams et al. (1997) reflects
movement from structural functional to critically oriented epistemologies. The last
four stages of their model reflect a continuum of action within critical
epistemologies. Their model illustrates that not only do leaders need to consider
epistemological movement from interpretivist to critically oriented perspective but
also to consider movement from less to more consciousness and action within
critically oriented epistemologies. The social justice action continua, such as the one
promulgated by Adams et al. (1997) or the identity development models, can reflect
the fluidity of movement from structural functionalist to critically oriented
perspectives, and can reflect movement within critically oriented perspectives; at the
same time, these models essentialize the practice of social justice. The continuum is
presented as if an educator is equally adept at working across identities and
difference in their educational settings, but our research and work with leaders in the
field show this to be far from the case (Scanlan, 2005). THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL
AND INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY TOWARD SOCIAL JUSTICE Garcia and Shirley’s (2012)
study that relies on Critical Indigenous Pedagogy illustrates and confirms the
importance – as a prerequisite of social justice leadership – of deepening one’s own
identity development and understanding one’s own cultural history (see Figure 3.1).
In their study of Indigenous youth and Indigenous teachers, they discovered that
when these individuals learned about Indigenous theory and Indigenous history,
these learnings deepened their own Indigenous identity development. Their
advancement in their own Indigenous identity development then, in turn, helped the
youth and adults understand more clearly the nature of Indigenous oppression, their
own role in perpetuating that oppression, and to understand more clearly how they
could take steps to interrupt that oppression for themselves and other Indigenous
individuals in their communities. Leaders for social justice must advance their own
identity development across race, gender, social class, language, ability,
sexual/gender identity, religion, and their intersections to inform their social justice
leadership practice. In turn, leaders must engage with their staff processes that can
inform teachers’ own identity development. In so doing, then, teachers can learn
how to engage in this identity development work with their students. These identity
development processes among leaders, staff, students, and community may in turn
contribute to the social justice identity of an educational setting. Six principles inform
this theory of individual and organizational identity development toward social
justice. First, identity development within a leader – along the dimensions of race,
ethnicity, social class, gender, ability, gender identity, religion, language, sexual
identity, and their intersections – comprises the internal foundation for a leader for
social justice. That is, as Garcia and Shirley (2012) suggest, the development of
identity along multiple and intersecting identities within individuals contributes to
and is a prerequisite for the social justice identity of an individual. In addition, the
leader’s identity development can determine, in part, the degree to which a school
evolves to being more socially just. The social justice identity development of an
educational setting will always be limited by or open to possibility by the social
justice identity development of the leader. Second, the social justice identity
development of individuals within the educational setting contributes to the social
justice identity development of the organization. For this to make sense, we must
ascribe to the idea that organizations hold an identity or associated underlying
epistemology unto their own, informed by the multiple and shifting identities and
epistemologies of individuals within the organization. Third, though most literature
attests to the power and influence of the leader on organizational identity, at the
same time an organization’s social justice identity could also be significantly
informed by the staff, students, and educational community. Thus, the organization’s
social justice identity development process is a process of mutuality among all those
involved: staff, students, community, and the leader in a continual process of
influencing identity development within each other and within the school (see Figure
12.2). Figure 12.2 Theory of Individual and Organizational Identity Toward Social
Justice Fourth, this identity formation process does not have a concrete finish or end
at the individual or organizational level. Instead, this social justice identity formation
process is ongoing and lifelong at both levels. In addition, evolution of identity across
differences and their intersections within individuals and the organization will not be
linear. Individuals shift forward and back at various levels in identity formation
throughout their lives. Similarly, reflecting the aforementioned oftentimes
meandering identity formation of individuals, the trajectory of educational settings
may not always necessarily evolve toward social justice. An organization that has
evolved toward social justice can retreat when the identity formation of individuals
within the educational setting changes. For example, I have conducted research in
schools that had evolved into inclusive communities ignited by a principal with these
values and associated skills and a willing staff and community. Yet, when the
principal was replaced by a principal without these same beliefs, the school evolved
away from these inclusive ideals. Fifth, the leader’s own identity formation along
multiple dimensions, in turn, influences leadership practices along these dimensions.
For example, leaders who have addressed their own racial identity formation in
limited ways will also be limited in how they address race in the school. In addition,
leaders’ typically uneven identity formation along these identities will be reflected in
uneven leadership practice. For example, leaders who have progressed on their own
racial identity development may in turn address white racism in their own schools
directly and effectively. However, these same leaders may be limited in their sexual
identity development and understanding, and thus their leadership practices
associated with students on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersexual,
Questioning (LGBTIQ) spectrum may be more limited as compared to their racial
practices. This unevenness in identity development can be reflected within identities
and their intersections. For example, a leader may be effective in the proportional
representation assignment of students with disabilities across the school; however,
these same leaders may be less skilled in inclusive practices for students with
significant intellectual disabilities. As a second example, a leader may strongly
support the school’s Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA), but may be less effective in
supporting students and staff when addressing the racial injustices perpetuated by
the GSA. Identity development and practice inform each other and do not necessarily
flow in one direction from identity development to practice. For example, as leaders
learn more about eliminating segregated programs for students labeled with
disabilities, learning about these practices will in turn inform their disability identity
development. Garcia and Shirley’s (2012) Tribal Crit study suggests that learning
about related theories can and perhaps should be part of this identity development
process (see Figure 12.3). In their study, when students and educators learned about
Tribal Crit theory along with the other aspects of decolonization, the theory
contributed to their social justice identity development. The same may be said for
this text. Individuals learning more about the range of critically oriented
epistemologies can advance their identity across these epistemologies and their
intersections. Finally, a sixth principle of the theory suggests that as leaders deepen
their identity development along one dimension of identity, such as race, doing so
could contribute to their development along other dimensions of identity such as
ability, though not necessarily so. However, further empirical study will reveal if this
is necessarily so, and moves beyond the superficial impact of one aspect of identity
development to another. In sum, six principles emerge from this proposed theory of
individual and organizational identity development toward social justice. This theory
may help explain contradictions in social justice leadership practice and for exploring
the evolution of school leaders in their own social justice leadership identity, and the
linkage of this identity toward the evolution of socially just schools. Figure 12.3
Relationship Between Identity Theory, Identity Development, and Identity Practice In
sum, this chapter has discussed the relationship between our own identity
development, our work as leaders for social justice, and the evolution of our schools
as organizations toward socially just ends. Traditional organizational theory does not
recognize personal identity development and its relationship to the organization, and
remains neutral on organizational goals. In contrast, organizational theory informed
by critically oriented epistemologies centers identity development in all aspects of
organizational life – decision-making, conflict, structure, culture, motivation,
leadership, politics, among others – anchored in the ultimate goal of organizational
equity. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS This chapter proposes a theory that links
individual identity development theories and their intersections to organizational
identity and development toward social justice. I identified six key principles of this
theory that may begin to help explain and inform leadership for social justice,
contradictions in this leadership, and how schools evolve toward social justice.
Beyond generic calls for leadership for social justice, the theory can inform the more
nuanced details of social justice leadership practice than previous research.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ACTIVITY 1: The Example of Racial Identity
Development To further illustrate this theory, consider the example of racial identity
development. Table 12.1 includes examples of racial identity development models
for a range of races and for individuals who are multiracial. Undoubtedly, these
models are limited in that they do not portray all racial possibilities. You should
engage in these steps with the models. Read through all the models to develop an
understanding of racial identity development across races. Select which model most
closely corresponds to your own racial identity. Read again the racial identity
development model you selected and decide on the current status of your own racial
identity development on that model. Reflect on your own racial life experiences that
influenced the current status of your racial identity development. Consider the
usefulness and limitations of this model. Find a partner to share responses to steps
one through two to five. In this example we engaged in examining our own racial
identity development. Where we are in our own racial identity development will
determine how we engage with race as leaders in our schools, with our staff,
community, and students, and will influence how our school evolves in its own racial
identity development as an organization. ACTIVITY 2: Identity Formation across
Differences and Our Education Practice To further illustrate the relationship between
identity formation at the individual level and its relationship to the identity formation
of the school as an organization, please complete Appendix 12.1 to assess your own
individual identity formation across different identities and then, in turn, consider
the formation of that identity at the school level. Classroom teachers can also assess
the identity formation within your classroom on the scale. While completing the
scale, consider how where you locate yourself on the identity development scale is
reflected in the school identity development in that same area (see Appendix 12.1).
SAMPLE IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT MODELS (ADAPTED FROM HERNANDEZ, 2005)
Table 12.1: Black Identity Development Model – Cross’s (1991) Model of Nigrescence
(Nigrescence means the process of becoming black) Stages Features Pre-encounter -
Low salience attitude toward being black. - Blacks in this stage do not deny being
black but do argue that their blackness is in no way connected to how others interact
with them. - “[P]lace value in things other than their Blackness, such as their religion,
their lifestyle, their social status, or their profession” (Cross, 1995, p. 98). Encounter -
Blacks begin to seek identification with black culture. - Characterized by a crisis that
causes blacks to question their worldview and that brings them closer to
Nigrescence. - Plummer (1995) argues that this crisis is a “critical incident in one’s life
that leads the individual to reconceptualize issues of race in society and to
reorganize racial feelings in one’s personal life” (p. 169). - Involves two steps: “first
experiencing the encounter and then personalizing it” (p. 105). Internalization -
Blacks begin to experience a comfort level with being black and to acknowledge their
African American background. - This is the stage when the person internalizes the
new identity, “which now evidences itself in naturalistic ways in the everyday
psychology of the person” (Cross, 1995, p. 113). Internalization-Commitment - A
repeat of the activities, behaviors, and attributes of what was shown in the previous
four stages (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). - Cross (1995) describes this
stage by comparing blacks who “fail to sustain a long-term interest in Black affairs”
to those who “devote an extended period of time, if not a lifetime, to finding ways to
translate their personal sense of Blackness into a plan of action or general sense of
commitment” (p. 121). - It is the latter people who embody the final stage of
Nigrescence. Table 12.2: Asian American Racial Identity Development Model (Kim,
2012) Ethnic Awareness - Generally comes from family and relative interactions and
first occurs prior to a person’s entrance into school. - Asian Americans who are raised
in “predominantly Asian or mixed neighborhoods have greater exposure to ethnic
activities and experience more ethnic pride and knowledge of their cultural heritage”
(Torres et al., 2003, p. 72). - Asian Americans living in mostly white neighborhoods
are uncertain about what it is to be Asian and have far fewer experiences with ethnic
activities. White Identification - Begin to adopt white “societal values and become
alienated from self and from other Asian Americans” (Torres et al., 2003, p. 60). -
“[A]re not sure what makes them different from their peers” but “try at all costs to
fit into White society in order to avoid publicly embarrassing themselves” (p. 73). -
While whites are the reference point during this stage, many Asian Americans feel
isolated from them and often get involved in school activities, such as being class
officers, and excel academically to “compensate” for this isolation (p. 74). - Stage two
is characterized by Asians’ growing awareness of how different they are from their
peers and is often associated with painful encounters in which Asians are made fun
of during socialization. Awakening to Social Political Consciousness - See themselves
as a distinct cultural group and begin to shed their white societal values. - “[A]re able
to shift their worldview and realize that they are not personally responsible for their
situation and experiences with racism” (Torres et al., 2003, p. 74). - The political
awareness of white racism provides alternative perspectives, a new paradigm for
Asian Americans. This new worldview allows Asian Americans to reinterpret their
lives and lets them know that things could be different. - Reject white societal values
as the only reference point or standard available. - Do not become anti-white but
work at not being or acting white. - Involvement in social political movements and
campus politics, in which Asian Americans identify themselves as a minority in the
United States who do not wholly accept white values. Redirection to an Asian
American Consciousness - Identify and embrace the Asian American identity and
immerse themselves in the Asian American experience. - Can result in negative
feelings toward whites that are based on introspective reflection on white racism in
the United States and the impact it has had on their views of themselves and of
others. - Racial pride is displayed during this stage and a “positive self-concept as
Americans with Asian heritage” is accepted (Torres et al., 2003, p. 79). - The primary
reference group is other Asians at the same stage. - Immersion in the Asian American
community and a sense of self and belonging. Incorporation - Reach a level of
balance and confidence that “allows Asian Americans to relate to many different
groups of people without losing their own identity as Asian Americans” (p. 80). -
Begin to understand commonalities with whites but do so on their own terms by
using an Asian American perspective to ground their own views. - Understand
culture better and do not see one culture as better than another. Table 12.3: Native
American Identity Development Model (Horse, 2005) Influences and Features - How
well one is grounded in the native language and culture. - Whether one’s
genealogical heritage as an Indian is valid. - Whether one embraces a general
philosophy or worldview that derives from distinctly Indian ways, that is, old
traditions. - The degree to which one thinks of oneself in a certain way, that is, one’s
own idea of self as an Indian person. - Whether one is officially recognized as a
member of a tribe by the government of that tribe. - At the core of Indian identity is
the fact that Indians “are engaged in a cultural struggle that is becoming more and
more one-sided in favor of non-Indian influences” (Torres et al., 2003, p. 104). - “[I]n
those cultures, ultimately, lies our identity as native people. As individuals too, we
draw much of our personal identity from those cultures” (p. 104). - Most Americans
do not recognize diversity within the Native American community. - Although “risky”
to generalize about Indian identity, “there are identity issues that affect most, if not
all, American Indians” (p. 91). Table 12.4: Latino and Latina Racial Identity
Orientations (Gallegos & Ferdman, 2007) Table 12.5: Multiracial/Biracial Identity
(Root, 1990) 1. Acceptance of the identity society assigns. Family and a strong
alliance with and acceptance by a (usually minority) racial group provide support for
identifying with the group into which others assume the biracial individual most
belongs. 2. Identification with both racial groups. Depending on societal support and
personal ability to maintain this identity in the face of potential resistance from
others, the biracial individual may be able to identify with both (or all) heritage
groups. 3. Identification with a single racial group. The individual chooses one group,
independent of social pressure, to identify him- or herself in a particular way (as in
resolution 1). 4. Identification as a new racial group. The individual may move fluidly
among racial groups but identifies most strongly with other biracial people,
regardless of specific heritage backgrounds. Root, M.P.P. (2003). Racial identity
development and persons of mixed race heritage. In M.P.P. Root and M. Kelley (Eds),
Multiracial child resource book: Living complex identities. Seattle, Washington, DC:
MAVIN Foundation. Table 12.6: White Racial Identity Development (WRID) (Helms,
1990) All the above models are adapted from the work of Hernandez, F. (2005). The
racial identity development of selected Latino school principals and its relation to
their leadership practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-
Madison. IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY Identity Development Inventory of
Yourself, Your Teaching/Immediate Sphere of Influence, and Your
School/District/Organization Adult Version Directions: First, read through the
description for each item on the rating scale 1–6. On the following pages, mark your
identity for each area: Mark in the box where you are in your own identity
development. Mark in the box that identity area where you believe you are in your
own teaching/immediate sphere of influence Mark in the box that identity area
where you believe your school/district/agency to be in its own identity development.
NOTE This scale measures only one identity at a time, such as race, gender, ability,
etc. Yet, all of us comprise multiple identities based on our gender, race, social class,
ability, sexual identity, gender identity, language, and their intersections. Thus, for
example, we may be further along the identity development scale for race, yet we
may not be as far along the identity development scale for African American
transgender females. Thus, though the scale only measures one identity at a time, it
may be possible to also consider our identity development along intersecting
identities by combining identities on the scale. IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY
OF YOURSELF, YOUR TEACHING/IMMEDIATE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, AND YOUR
SCHOOL/DISTRICT/ORGANIZATION ADULT VERSION ADAPTED FROM THE RIDDLE
SCALE 1 = Repulsion or Fear Identity is seen as a crime against nature. For example,
someone who is gender nonconforming or transgender is considered sick, crazy,
immoral, sinful, psychologically unstable. There is a level of fear at times with this
identity based on stereotypes (e.g., fear of black males), fear/discomfort interacting
with someone with a significant cognitive disability, etc. 2 = Pity This identity is to be
pitied and felt sorry for. Education is viewed as charity. For example, students from
low-income homes are considered less fortunate and to be felt sorry for. Students
with physical disabilities are pitied or felt sorry for, and seen as weak. A focus on
deficits and lower expectations. 3 = Neutrality/Ambivalence Not repulsion, fear, or
pity. A feeling of distance from this identity, that it does not really have anything to
do with you. Live and let live. Do the best you can. Treat everyone the same. All are
equal. All are human. 4 = Acceptance A respect and celebration of
differences/diversity. The “it’s a small world after all” view. Emphasis on getting
along. Still implies that there is something to accept. The existing societal history and
systems and structures of oppression and discrimination are ignored or believe there
is nothing really that can be done about these systems. This view ensures the
comfort of someone in the majority. 5 = Admiration It is acknowledged that being
any of the particular identities and their intersections takes strength. People at this
level are willing to truly examine their own racism, classism, homophobia,
transphobia, sexism, among other oppressions, yet they are unsure at times how to
make a difference or question their ability to do so. It is easy to fall back into
privileged comfort and to be timid about taking on the task of dismantling oppressive
structures. No sense of urgency. 6 = Ally Understand that one can never fully stop
working on one’s own oppressive attitudes/beliefs/behaviors, that it is a lifelong
task. Work diligently and urgently as an ally with typically marginalized individuals
toward justice. Do whatever it takes to dismantle systems that perpetuate
oppression. Be clear at the core of being about the critical importance of social
justice work and one’s role in it. IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY OF YOURSELF,
YOUR TEACHING/IMMEDIATE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, AND YOUR SCHOOL/DISTRICT/
ORGANIZATION ADULT VERSION Table 12.7: Identity Development Inventory Identity
notes: In which identity areas and their intersections have you made some progress
with yourself and your immediate sphere of influence? In which identity areas and
their intersections would you like to develop further within yourself and your
immediate sphere of influence?

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)

Colleen A. Capper. Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge, 2019.
APA (American Psychological Assoc.)
Colleen A. Capper. (2019). Organizational Theory for Equity and Diversity : Leading
Integrated, Socially Just Education. Routledge.