Five Practices for Equity-Focused School Leadership

Sharon I. Radd, Gretchen Givens Generett, Mark Anthony Gooden, George Theoharis

• Verlag: ASCD
• Jahr: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781416629771
• Thema: Éducation
• Thema: Éducation multiculturelle

This timely and essential book provides a comprehensive guide for school leaders who desire to engage their school communities in transformative systemic change. Sharon I. Radd, Gretchen Givens Generett, Mark Anthony Gooden, and George Theoharis offer five practices to increase educational equity and eliminate marginalization based on race, disability, socioeconomics, language, gender and sexual identity, and religion. For each dimension of diversity, the authors provide background information for understanding the current realities in schools and beyond, and they suggest "disruptive practices" to replace the status quo in order to achieve full inclusion and educational excellence for every child.

Assuming that leadership to create equity is a unique practice, the book offers* Clear explanations of foundational terms and concepts, such as equity, systemic inequity, paradigms and cognitive dissonance, and privilege;
* Specific recommendations for how to build support and sustainability by engaging colleagues and other stakeholders in constructive dialogues with multiple perspectives;
* Detailed descriptions of routines and roles for building effective equity-leadership teams;
* Guidelines and tools for performing an equity audit, including environmental scans;
* A change framework to skillfully transform your system; and
* Reflection activities for self-discovery, understanding, and personal and professional growth.

A call to action that is both passionate and practical, Five Practices for Equity-Focused School Leadership is an indispensable roadmap for educators undertaking the journey toward an education system that acknowledges and advances the worth and potential of all students.

---

Practice II

---

Preparing for Equity:
The Ongoing Emotional and Intellectual Work of Equity Leadership

---

Chapter 3

---

Preparing to Learn for Equity:
Key Concepts and Guiding Principles

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Donald

Donald, a White male, was in his third year as superintendent of a midsized, first-ring suburban school district. Others saw him as an up-and-coming superintendent because he had declared himself to be a racial equity champion and had made "closing the achievement gap" the central goal of his superintendency. With his contract renewed for a second term, but with significant concern about a lack of progress on his equity goals, Donald directed his executive cabinet to complete an equity audit. In the process, he became aware of the incredible disproportionality in discipline rates between White students and students of color. Aware of how the suspension rate for African American males contributes to the "school-to-prison pipeline," he decided that the best course of action was to prohibit suspensions in the district's schools. After sharing this information with his leadership team, he convened a press conference to announce the policy change.

Disrupting Punitive Practice and Policies

Susan

Susan, a White female, was a sixth-year principal in the district's most racially diverse middle school and had been leading with a clear focus on equity since her arrival. With several efforts producing positive results, she was concerned about this new policy. She knew that some of her fellow administrators were far too quick to issue harsh discipline to African American and other students of color. She was also aware that many other factors might be at play when students act in disruptive ways. She believed that her responsibility was to equip her staff with the tools and skills to effectively engage students in learning, build quality relationships with students and families, and manage behavior to support classroom learning goals.

Out of School and Off Track: The Overuse of Suspension in American Middle and High Schools

In the year following Donald's policy change, many schools became more chaotic, and learning outcomes decreased. In addition, conflict increased among school staff, administrators, and the community as many students felt unsafe at school and found their learning opportunities overshadowed by stressful and tumultuous interpersonal and behavioral interactions.

At Susan's school, however, things continued to improve. She had strong relationships with her staff and the school community, founded on gathering input and collective decision making. To respond to Donald's policy change in ways that improved the community and the learning environment, Susan convened a series of conversations with students, staff, and families to discuss their concerns, values, needs, goals, and approaches to social, emotional, and behavioral learning at the school. Stakeholders identified what they needed to learn and do differently to reduce and eliminate suspensions. Topping their list were the following items: help teachers create stronger, more inclusive classroom communities; teach all school staff how to de-escalate tense situations in ways that maintain everyone's sense of dignity and belonging; agree on a set of grounding principles/values to guide all community members in their interactions with one another; create safe spaces and processes for supporting students when their emotions feel particularly intense; create accessible pathways to strengthen the relationships and communications between families and school staff; and adopt a restorative approach for responding to situations where someone has been harmed.

The involvement of so many stakeholders in the process resulted in broad and deep engagement in implementing the plans they created. The process took a significant amount of time and the outcome was not perfect, but the school community continued to improve its approach to supporting students' development and sense of belonging, while also improving their learning.

What happened here? What can we learn from Donald and Susan?

Equity leadership involves working in complex, dynamic, and sometimes hostile educational environments. Further, barriers to equity plague the education profession and schools and can leave you feeling depleted and hopeless in your effort to create change. Donald's approach to leadership in this context is common: It's initially easy and quick to use a hierarchical and isolated approach to decision making. However, doing so often erodes trust and momentum and ultimately leaves organizations and communities in conflict and turmoil. Although less common, Susan's approach is more effective and will not necessarily be quick, but more efficient over time.

For you to be effective in your equity leadership, you must prepare emotionally and cognitively to continuously increase your understanding of equity. This path is not the shortest or easiest. Moreover, you must develop the skills to engage others in this important learning and work. This section walks you through a framework for your individual learning and planning your approach to equity leadership.

Paradigms and Cognitive Dissonance

We use the term paradigm¹ to refer to the perspectives through which people view their world and come to understand the activities, items, and relationships within it. They act as complex webs of meaning making that people hold in their subconscious and unconscious mind and that operate and influence them at all times. Paradigms both create and result from social constructions. They evolve from a composite of beliefs, assumptions, values, and theories, and they are influenced over time by a person's experiences, successes, disappointments, and life circumstances. Still, they tend toward simplistic explanations and understandings and thus are incomplete, often containing inaccuracies, paradoxes, and conflicts. Despite these shortcomings, and because most people are usually unaware of their paradigms, the meanings that result from them are often treated as the truth—sturdy, durable, and resiliently so—even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Paradigms involve two intersecting aspects, as shown in Figure 3.1. Horizontally, you see that paradigms are individual and collective. In other words, individuals hold paradigms, which we refer to as "individual self paradigms"; and groups of people, professions, institutions, and so on collectively hold paradigms, which we refer to as "collective systems paradigms." Self paradigms and systems paradigms overlap and influence one another.

---

Figure 3.1. Paradigms

---

In addition, paradigms operate on a continuum from the surface of consciousness, where they may be more visible and flexible, to deep in the unconscious, where they are incredibly difficult to notice and are deemed to be fundamental truths. At that deeper level, people are almost completely unaware of them, do not consider their accuracy or appropriateness, and use them to fundamentally guide how to live and act. Paradigms dictate the social norms, codes, and rules that individuals and groups live by. They dictate decisions about how and what should happen, but even in doing so, they are usually unstated and unquestioned. However, within a group of people, they can result in multiple and vastly different ways of seeing a situation and of considering what should happen at any given time.

In the case of Donald and Susan, several sets of paradigms are at play, as detailed in Figure 3.2. As you review the table, note where there are similarities and contradictions between and among the various paradigms. Note which paradigms align with your beliefs and which are contrary your beliefs. Take a moment to record your reactions.

---

Figure 3.2. Varying Paradigms Regarding Leadership, Equity, and Suspension from School

Surface

Donald's Individual Self Paradigms

• If suspension patterns reveal racist tendencies, we must end suspensions.
• Suspensions are the problem.
• To be an equity champion, I need to take swift and decisive action to end this injustice.
• It's my job as superintendent to make this happen.
• I'm action-oriented; I can and will get this done.
• I will tell the principals to implement this at their schools and they will do what I say.

Collective Systems Paradigms

• Something has to happen to kids who act badly.
• Leaders are responsible for fixing problems.
• Rules and procedures fix problems.

Susan's Individual Self Paradigms

• If suspension patterns reveal racist tendencies, we must do something to change them.
• This is a complex—not simple—problem.
• Although suspensions are a symptom, not the problem, they also create other problems.
• It's my job as principal to take this on.
• Our stakeholders will know what to do.
• The way to find and enact a solution is to involve those who are closest to the problem.

* * *

Mid-Level

Donald's Individual Self Paradigms

• The way to make this happen is for me to decide.
• People need to do what I tell them to do; it's their obligation as my employees.
• Taking quick and decisive action will bolster my credibility and reputation as an equity champion.

Collective Systems Paradigms

• Kids who act out should be punished.
• Fast, simple solutions are needed and sufficient.
• The system is fair; rules and consequences are applied evenly.

Susan's Individual Self Paradigms

• I don't have the answers; we have the answers.
• You can't assume that simple solutions will solve complex problems.

* * *

Deep

Donald's Individual Self Paradigms

• I can, should, and will make important decisions.
• Others' input and involvement is rarely needed and might get in the way of doing what I know needs to be done.

Collective Systems Paradigms

• Unequal outcomes are OK as long as White kids don't come out on the losing end.

Susan's Individual Self Paradigms

• When faced with important decisions that will significantly impact others, my job is to gather people together and facilitate a process through which we collectively come up with a solution.

---

In the United States, deep paradigms about education, work, and wealth dictate decisions about who deserves and is entitled to the finest facilities, the most-skilled teachers, and the richest opportunities. These paradigms are fueled by a system of school funding that perpetuates a feeling of scarcity. The No Child Left Behind legislation enacted in 2002 was built on a paradigm that believes competition is the most reliable source of motivation. One of the most powerful paradigms that drives inequality and inequity is a belief that the school system is fair and offers equal opportunity for all who "work hard" to learn, have "success," and have access to further opportunities to achieve their dreams.

We have provided—and will continue to share—information that challenges that paradigm. This information may conflict with your underlying/deep paradigms, creating cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is that disruptive sensation you experience—physically and/or emotionally—that causes you to think and feel, in your gut, that "something isn't right." When you feel cognitive dissonance, it is because you perceive that things aren't happening the way you think they should be happening. You have all sorts of tools to dismiss dissonant information and rationalize your reactions and paradigms. Argyris (1985a, 1985b) calls these defensive routines, referring to those actions and thought processes that protect your current paradigms, allowing them to remain as is rather than become more accurate in the face of dissonant information. Then, you use the conscious, thinking part of your brain to rationalize your perspective and articulate some sense of logic and consistency.

Watch a video on paradigms in education

Notice when you feel cognitive dissonance and the ways that your mind may internally argue with the information. Begin to build the "discipline of reflection and inquiry skills" (Senge et al., 2012, p. 8), shedding any rigid certainty in order to become curious and contemplative in your response to dissonant information.

The Ladder of Inference

The Ladder of Inference (Senge et al., 2012) is a tool you can use to work through cognitive dissonance and create more accurate and complete paradigms (see Figure 3.3). It provides a schema for understanding how the mind takes in information, makes sense of it, and determines action. For example, your school or district is awash in data, including not only the data that you typically think of, such as test scores or graduation rates, but also data related to areas such as family perspectives, teacher decision making, and student attitudes. Based on this "pool of available data," you make decisions about which data you think matter; these are the data you select to pay attention to. Still, as you begin to review the data, some will seem more credible or important than others, leading you to assign meaning and draw conclusions. From that step, you take action, generating more data.

---

Figure 3.3. Ladder of Inference

Source: Excerpt(s) and "Ladder of Inference" from Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents and Everyone Who Cares About Education by Peter Senge, Nelda Cambron-McCabe, Timothy Lucas, Bryan Smith, Janis Dutton, Art Kleiner, copyright © 2000, 2012 by Peter Senge, Nelda Cambron-McCabe, Timothy Lucas, Bryan Smith, Janis Dutton, Art Kleiner. Used by permission of Doubleday, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. All rights reserved.

---

As you may guess, the Ladder of Inference is not just applicable to school-related data. It is at work in each person in every waking moment. In fact, the human brain runs up and down the Ladder of Inference in milliseconds, constantly and repeatedly. Further, this process most often happens below the level of conscious thought, so that when people reach conclusions and take action, it may seem like the only logical path but is actually the result of multiple decisions a...