University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Integrating education for social justice and social innovation: a gap analysis of a high school program innovation to increase justice-oriented action

(USC Thesis Other)

Integrating education for social justice and social innovation: a gap analysis of a high school program innovation to increase justice-oriented action

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION

1

INTEGRATING EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL INNOVATION:
A GAP ANALYSIS OF A HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM INNOVATION TO INCREASE
JUSTICE-ORIENTED ACTION

by

Alison Badgett

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

July 2017

Copyright 2017 Alison Badgett
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 2
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the faculty of the International School of the Americas for your partnership
in this study. I could not have hoped to work with a more reflective and insightful group of
educators. Your commitment to preparing students who understand themselves in the context of
our world and their responsibility to improving it is inspiring. If the results of this study are
helpful to achieving your mission in even some small way, I consider this effort successful.
Thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Rob Filback, for championing this study. I am
tremendously fortunate to have found a chair with such expertise in and passion for the work of
educating students for social justice. Thank you as well to the members of my dissertation
committee, Dr. Helena Seli, Dr. Ruth Chung, and Dr. Larry Picus, for your feedback and
encouragement.
For his support of my doctoral education I am extremely grateful to Charles Butt, whose
belief in the power of education for the public good is unparalleled. I am also grateful to David
Anthony for encouraging me to pursue this program, and to all of my colleagues who
accommodated the many weeks I was away at work on this study.
And finally, to Constance Brinkley-Badgett, whose support knows no beginning or end, I
can offer no adequate words of appreciation, so will just say thank you.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of the Problem 10
Importance of Addressing the Need 11
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Organizational Performance Need 13
Organizational Performance Goal 14
Description of Stakeholder Groups 15
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals 15
Stakeholder Group for the Study 16
Purpose of the Project and Questions 16
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 17
Definitions 17
Organization of the Study 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Education for Social Justice 20
What is Social Justice? 20
History of Education for Social Justice 22
Approaches to School-based Programs for Social Justice Action 23
Education for Social Innovation 28
What is Social Innovation? 28
Approaches to Education for Social Innovation 29
Generating a Program Innovation to Promote Student Justice-Oriented Action 36
Practical Strengths and Weaknesses of Approaches Relative to Shared Process
Objectives 36
Integrating and Leveraging Relative Strengths to Maximize Justice-oriented Action 41
The Role of Teachers in Education for Social Justice and Social Innovation 42
The Role of Teachers in Education for Social Justice 43
The Role of Teachers in Education for Social Innovation 45
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences 47
Knowledge 47
Motivation 49
Organization 52
Summary 54
Chapter Three: Methodology 55
Purpose of the Project and Questions 55
Methodological Framework 55
Assumed Performance-Based Influences 57
Knowledge and Skills 57
Motivation 62
Organizational 66
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 4
Participating Stakeholders 69
Data Collection 70
Validation of the Performance Need 73
Trustworthiness of Data 73
Role of the Investigator 73
Data Analysis 74
Limitations and Delimitations 75
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 77
Social Justice Education Results and Findings 78
Faculty Exhibited Consistent Understanding of Social Justice Concepts 79
Experienced Faculty Have Strong Understanding of how to Educate Students on Social
Justice Issues, but New Teachers May Struggle 82
Faculty Have Inconsistent Understanding of Best Practice in Social Justice Action 83
Though Faculty Perceive Education for Social Justice as a Priority, There is no Formal
Effort to Orient New Faculty to the School’s Social Justice Tradition 85
Synthesis of Social Justice Education Results and Findings 86
Social Innovation Education Results and Findings 87
Faculty Have Inconsistent Understanding of Social Innovation and do not Perceive it
as a School Priority 87
While the School Appreciates Creative Problem-Solving, Faculty Lack Confidence in
Helping Students Apply Creativity to Social Problems 90
Justice-Oriented Action Results and Findings 91
Some Faculty lack of Understanding About What Constitutes Justice-oriented Action and
the Distinction Between Charity and Change 91
Faculty have incomplete Knowledge of how Social Justice and Innovation Education can be
Leveraged to Promote Justice-oriented Action 93
Nearly all Faculty Recognize Current Student Justice-oriented Action as Inadequate and
Support Increasing it 93
Faculty Believe Implementing the Program Innovation Will Result in Greater Justice-
oriented Action 94
Faculty Expressed Limited Concern with the Program Innovation’s Divergence from
Cultural Norms 95
Faculty Have Mixed Perception of Developmental Appropriateness 97
Faculty Perceive Competing and Complementary Demands 99
Faculty Have Inconsistent Understanding of Continuity Between Grades in Promoting a
Justice Orientation 105
Faculty Believe Additional Resources are Required to Implement the Program
Innovation and Have Mixed Confidence in the School Providing for Them 106
Assessing Teacher Impact on Justice-oriented Action is Important to Faculty but not
Well Understood or Executed 108
Synthesis of Justice-Oriented Action Results and Findings 110
Summary of Results and Findings 112
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation and Evaluation 114
Solutions and Implementation 114
Organizational and Human Capital Background 118
Overview of Implementation Plan 119
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 5
Proposed Solution One: Generate Understanding of the Program Innovation Through
Professional Development 119
Proposed Solution Two: Identify how the Goal of Promoting Student Justice-oriented
Action can be Coherently Integrated into Existing Requirements Across a Student’s Four
Years 126
Proposed Solution Three: Develop Evaluation of Faculty Impact on Current Student
Justice Orientation and Justice-oriented Action, as well as Alumni Justice-oriented
Action 132
Evaluation 135
Level 1: Reaction 135
Level 2: Learning 136
Level 3: Behavior 138
Level 4: Results 138
Future Research 141
Conclusion 142
References 147
Appendix A Semi-Structured Teacher Interview Protocol 158
Appendix B Teacher Survey 160
Appendix C Document Analysis Checklist 164
Appendix D Assumed Need and Corresponding Content Category 166
Appendix E Validated, Partially Validated, and not Validated Social Justice Education Needs 169
Appendix F Validated, Partially Validated, and not Validated Social Innovation Education
Needs 170
Appendix G Validated, Partially Validated, and not Validated Justice-oriented Action Needs 171
Appendix H Thematic Findings and Corresponding Needs not Validated 173
Appendix I Thematic Findings and Corresponding Validated, Partially Validated and not
Validated Needs 174

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 15
Table 2: Relative Strengths of Education for Social Justice and Social Innovation 37
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Needs, Sources of Identification, and Validation
Methods 58
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Motivation Needs, Sources of Identification, and Validation
Methods 63
Table 5: Summary of Assumed Organizational Needs, Sources of Identification, and
Validation Methods 67
Table 6: Interview Data Collection Schedule 71
Table 7: New Needs Emergent From Data 72
Table 8: Thematic Findings from Needs not Validates 112
Table 9: Thematic Findings From Validated and Partially Validated Needs 112
Table 10: Key Findings and Proposed Solutions 115

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: The gap analysis process. Adapted from Clark and Estes (2008). 56
Figure 2: Survey responses to “How would you define social justice?” 79
Figure 3: Survey responses to, “A Social Justice Approach to School-Based Community
Engagement with Social Issues Aims to do which of the Following?” 85
Figure 4: Survey responses to, “A Social Innovation Approach to School-Based Community
Engagement with Social Issues Aims to do which of the Following?” 89
Figure 5. Survey responses indicating low degree of faculty concern with deviating from state
norms on justice-oriented education. 96
Figure 6: Global citizenship conceptual model (Marais & Ogden, 2011). 104
Figure 7: Resources necessary to promote justice-oriented action. 107

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the faculty knowledge, motivational and organizational
needs associated with increasing student justice-oriented action at the International School of the
Americas (ISA), a nationally recognized leader in social justice education. While students at ISA
are highly educated on social justice issues, they are infrequently taking justice-oriented action,
defined as action that addresses the root causes of social problems. A review of the literature
revealed two predominant approaches to promoting student social action, one a social justice
approach and the other a social innovation approach. The literature further indicated that both
share common objectives related to social change but exhibit different strengths in practice.
Social justice education excels at generating student understanding of the structural nature of
social problems, whereas social innovation helps students conceive of social change action over
the long-term. A program innovation was proposed integrating the respective strengths of each
approach to maximize justice-oriented action. Data were collected through document analysis,
faculty surveys, and interviews to identify needs and assets related to implementing the program
innovation. Findings indicate that faculty have strong understanding of social justice concepts
and are highly motivated to increase justice-oriented action. However, they lack knowledge of
how to assess improvement in student justice orientation and in how to help students take action.
Three categories of solutions are proposed: professional development, integration of the program
innovation, and evaluation instrument development. The study concludes with an
implementation and evaluation plan to support faculty in piloting and iterating on approaches to
increasing justice-oriented action over the course of a student’s high school career.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Socioeconomic inequality in the United States has reached an unprecedented level, and
the need to understand and address its causes and consequences is critical (Duncan & Murnane,
2011; Picketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2012). While global economic growth has served to reduce
poverty and increase communication, current patterns of economic development in the United
States are unsustainable. In addition to damaging environmental implications, wealth
concentration and limited opportunity for mobility threaten to undermine social cohesion
(Stiglitz, 2012; Temin, 2017; UNESCO, 2015).
Our current education paradigm may compound inequitable socioeconomic conditions
and the tensions they create. While early American education was promoted as a citizenship
building tool essential to a democratic republic, the dominant perception of American education
has evolved from a vehicle for pursuit of the public good to a means for private gain (Labaree,
2010). Paradoxically, as Labaree (2010) explains, it was the American civil rights call for equal
educational access that solidified the commodification of education for personal advancement.
Spring (2015) labels this trend the “economization of education” (p. 32), wherein preparation for
competitive participation in the workforce is paramount. By extension, assessments promoted as
measuring skills deemed workforce relevant assume significant weight. Student performance in
the aggregate is taken as indication of a nation’s economic potential (Hanushek & Woessmann,
2015; Spring, 2015), further elevating education for human capital at the expense of civic virtue
(Labaree, 2014).
As a result, the knowledge, propensity and skill required to advance the common good is
not just deemphasized, it is devalued. As Biesta (2009) notes, what we assess has implications
for what we value in education; reciprocally, we value what we can assess. While it is
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 10
challenging to evaluate a student’s capacity and commitment to pursue the common good, it is a
critical outcome. Indeed, there may be no more urgent enterprise than educating students to
understand and address the country’s current inequities. The task requires education that not only
enables individual advancement, but also inspires and equips students to seek advancement for
others.
Background of the Problem
Progressive educators, dating to the turn of the 20th century, acknowledge structural
causes of socioeconomic inequality and regard education as a vehicle for redressing them
(Spring, 2015). Progressive educators not only seek to mitigate barriers to education, but also
believe students should be educated to actively promote social justice. Despite the implications
of persistent inequity, progressive pedagogy has never been widely embraced (Labaree, 2011).
By its nature, education for social justice can stir controversy, as it aims to expose and alter the
social, political, and economic structures of society (Rhoads, 1997; Westheimer & Kahne, 2007).
Even among schools that promote student engagement with social problems, not all
advance understanding of structural inequity and how it might be addressed (Butin 2007;
Mitchell, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Some school-based programs result in charity
more than change by focusing on manifestations of social problems more than their root causes
(Mortan, 1995). Westheimer and Kahne (2004) offer a relevant framework for distinguishing
between three types of social issue engagement on the spectrum of charity to change in the
context of citizenship education. They are personally responsible, participatory, and justice-
oriented citizenship. Whereas the personally responsible citizen might contribute food to a soup
kitchen, the participatory citizen would organize a food drive. Both responsible and participatory
action may sustain unjust systems by alleviating their consequences, but not their causes. In
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 11
contrast, the justice-oriented citizen identifies why people are hungry and acts to mitigate those
underlying structural roots. The promise of justice-oriented education is not only to educate
students on the structural nature of social problems, but also to foster the skills necessary to
reshape those structures.
The predominant school-based programs promoting student action on social issues can be
categorized by one of two theoretical approaches. One is a social justice approach with origins in
the civil rights and feminist movements, wherein education was seen as a means to promote
equity for social identity groups in school and society (Adams, Bell, Goodman & Joshi, 2016).
The other is a social innovation approach, developed in recent decades through the application of
business principles to social problems (Christensen et al., 2006; Phills et al., 2008). School-based
social justice projects focus on facilitating student understanding of the structural nature of social
problems (Adams et. al, 2016), whereas education for social innovation emphasizes student
exposure to processes for addressing a social problem over the long-term (Martin & Osberg,
2015). Both education for social justice and social innovation articulate the shared goal of
solving social problems (Adams et. al., 2016; Miller, 2008; Mulgan, 2007) and offer different
strengths relative to promoting justice-oriented citizens. However, the two approaches are rarely
integrated, which might facilitate greater justice-oriented action than either approach on its own.
Importance of Addressing the Need
Promoting the public good through education does not require a return to education for
citizenship so much as it does implementing a particular kind of citizenship education. Without
understanding and implementing justice-oriented education, even educators committed to social
justice will fall short of educating effective social change agents. Worse, they may unwittingly
perpetuate inequity through reliance on participatory and responsible citizenship education.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 12
Moreover, without a justice-oriented education, we cannot expect students to be inclined or
prepared to take justice-oriented action as adults.
Organizational Context and Mission
The International School of the Americas (ISA) is a magnet high school in the North East
Independent School District of San Antonio, Texas. ISA is housed in its own building on the
campus of the Robert E. Lee comprehensive high school. The mission of ISA emphasizes
promoting student growth, both in relation to personal academic achievement and in ability to
positively impact others, locally and globally. According to its website,
The mission of [ISA] is to challenge all members of the school community to consistently
reflect on and question what it means to be acting at one’s fullest potential as a learner,
leader, and global citizen. Students and teachers are asked to use their education to
improve themselves, their school, and the local and global community. (North East
Independent School District, 2017)
ISA’s vision statement echoes its mission statement in striving for high achieving students who
are prepared to engage in a globalized world through an international curriculum and the
application of classroom learning to real-world experiences.
The International School of the Americas was established in 1995 and conceptualized by
Thomas Sergiovanni, a professor at neighboring Trinity University who advocated for small
schools to promote strong relationships between and among students and teachers (Sergiovanni,
1994). In a white paper proposing ISA’s creation to NEISD, Sergiovanni emphasizes relevant
learning and character development for social responsibility and active citizenship (Sergiovanni,
n.d., as cited in Quinn, 2015).
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 13
The International School of the Americas is a member of, and served as the model school
for, the Asia Society’s International Schools Network. Established in 2003, the network now
includes 40 schools in eight states that have adopted the Asia Society’s dual focus on closing the
achievement gap and promoting globally competent students who can compete and collaborate in
a globalized world (Asia Society, n.d.).
The International School of the Americas currently has 465 students, with 120 freshmen
selected by lottery from a pool of approximately 300. ISA students are 55% Latino and 33%
white. Sixty percent of students are female and one-quarter of all students qualify for free or
reduced-price lunch. ISA has no English language learners and two percent of students are
classified as needing special education. ISA students consistently outperform students
academically in their district and in the state of Texas.
Organizational Performance Need
Quinn (2015) studied ISA as one of three schools identified by a national panel of experts
as particularly committed to promoting social justice education. Social justice education at ISA
primarily consists of coursework and service learning experiences. Grade-level teams of teachers
in English, math, science and social studies meet every other day to develop and support
implementation of an interdisciplinary social justice curriculum. Every year, each grade level
participates in a travel experience allowing for learning about social justice issues, from which
they develop and present a policy recommendation to the school community. Students also have
a 120-hour service program requirement, which may include volunteerism, community service,
and service learning activities. In interviews with teachers and administrators, one-on-one and in
focus groups, Quinn consistently found both groups emphasized the importance of students
taking action to address social injustice.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 14
Quinn found the majority of student action resulting from ISA’s social justice coursework
and service learning activities consisted of students educating others about injustice: juniors, for
example, present their findings on the relationship between current and past civil rights issues to
the community. Furthermore, while the study found that students frequently reported changing
their personal practice in response to broader social issues, recycling, for example, in reference
to environmental sustainability, they less often reported engaging in action to address the issue’s
systemic causes.
Quinn’s study references Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) framework for differentiating
between types of civic education, suggesting that ISA students engage in responsible and
participatory citizenship activities, but far less often, justice-oriented action. In order to fulfill its
mission to “challenge all community members … to use education to improve themselves, their
school, and their local community” ISA would need to both facilitate understanding of social
justice and help students take justice-oriented action on what they learn. ISA provides a helpful
case study in which to identify why students are not engaged in justice-oriented, or “disruptive”
action, as Quinn also (p. 60) labels it. Exploring this need at ISA could help other schools
committed to social justice education identify what justice-oriented action among students might
look like and how it could be supported.
Organizational Performance Goal
ISA’s performance goal is that, by July 2018, a pilot group of seniors will participate in
justice-oriented action. This goal was established by the principal and the researcher. Progress
towards the goal will be measured by the number of teachers who receive training in practices
associated with promoting justice-oriented action, the number of teachers who integrate relevant
practice into their social justice education, and the number of students who take justice-oriented
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 15
action. Justice-oriented action will be defined as an action designed to address the root causes of
a social problem, wherein the intervening action is conceived as part of longer-term plan to effect
structural change.
In the second year of implementation, success will be determined by growth in the
relative justice orientation of students as indicated by changes in student behavior at each grade
level over the course of the school year as well as by justice-oriented action taken over a
student’s 4 years. Growth in alumni justice-oriented action will also be assessed in out years,
with a baseline assessment of alumni action in May 2018 conducted by the researcher the first
year and by faculty thereafter.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
ISA stakeholder groups include administrators, teachers, and students. The
administrators’ role is to voice support for students taking justice-oriented action and for teachers
improving their social justice education accordingly. The teachers’ role is to integrate practice
related to justice-oriented action into their instruction and guide students in its effective use. The
students’ role is to embrace and execute practice related to justice-oriented action.
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of the International School of the Americas (ISA) is to challenge all
members of the school community to consistently reflect on and question what it
means to be acting at one's fullest potential as a learner, leader, and global citizen.
Students and teachers are asked to use their education to improve themselves, their
school, and the local and global community.
Organizational Performance Goal
By July 2018, ISA will have implemented the program innovation with a subset of
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 16
seniors, which integrates education for social justice and social innovation, resulting
in a pilot cohort of seniors taking justice-oriented action.
Administrators Teachers 12
th
Grade
Students
10-year
Alumni
By September
2017, faculty
leadership will
develop a strategy
to train teachers in
theory and practice
related to
promoting student
justice-oriented
action.
By January 2018, all
grade-level teachers
will have integrated
theory and practice
related to promoting a
justice orientation into
their grade-level
instruction to result in
an increased justice
orientation among all
students by May 2018.
By May 2018, a
pilot cohort of
graduating seniors
will have taken
justice-oriented
action.

By 2028, 25%
of 2018
graduates will
have engaged in
justice-oriented
action as
alumni.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
ISA’s current performance gap in relation to the performance goal is nearly 100% as few
students participating in the school’s social justice education program are taking justice-oriented
action as a result. While a complete gap analysis would address and analyze the goal-oriented
performance of each stakeholder group, this study will focus on teachers as they are responsible
for implementing the improvement. All teachers are expected to integrate theory and practice
foundational to students taking justice-oriented action. ISA’s principal and the researcher
collaboratively established the 12th grade student performance goal based on the desire to pilot
the program innovation with seniors before implementing more broadly.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs’ analysis in the areas of knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational
performance goal of all teachers integrating justice-oriented education into their instruction, and
a pilot group of seniors taking justice-oriented action by May 2018. The analysis begins by
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 17
generating a list of possible needs and then moves to examining these systematically to focus on
needs found present. While a complete needs’ analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for
practical purposes, the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is teachers.
Two questions guided the needs analysis to address knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organization resources and solutions for teachers:
1. What are the teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to
increasing the number of students taking justice-oriented action?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study applies the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis to
understand the difference between current and desired organizational performance. Assumed
needs and assets of the organization relative to implementing the program innovation are
identified through informal interviews and a review of the literature related to the program
innovation a well as general literature on learning, motivation, and organizational culture. These
needs and assets were validated through document analysis and surveys and interviews of the
stakeholder group. These data were analyzed to produce descriptive statistics for use in a
qualitative case study of the actions necessary to implement the program innovation.
Implementation strategies are proposed, which build on organizational assets, address
organizational needs, and incorporate relevant research-based solutions. An evaluation of the
program innovation implementation is also proposed specific to the proposed implementation
strategies and organizational performance goals.
Definitions
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 18
Catalytic innovation: The application of disruptive innovation to effect social change.
Community service: Volunteerism to address a community need.
Critical consciousness: The understanding of one’s relationship to internal and external
structures and dynamics of oppression, which enables one to collectively challenge and change
oppressive structures.
Critical service learning: Service learning challenging systemic causes of inequality in
sustained partnership with the community, with facilitated reflection on students’ relationship to
structural oppression.
Design methodology: A human-centered iterative process of inspiration, ideation and
implementation to generate innovative solutions.
Design thinking: The process of applying design methodology.
Disruptive innovation: Targeting areas of non-consumption with solutions or services
that may be less expensive or more efficient, which may impact the relevant industry or market
as a whole.
Justice-oriented action: Action addressing the systemic causes of social injustice,
wherein the intervention is conceived in the context of a long-term plan to effect structural
change.
Social entrepreneurship: The development of a social innovation that has both direct and
transformational impact on a population, by effecting systemic change over time.
Social innovation: A new approach to meeting a social need or solving a social problem,
which can be implemented and scaled to benefit society.
Service learning: Community service participation related to classroom-based learning
on a social issue.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 19
Social justice education: Education enabling students to understand, critique and mitigate
internalized and external oppression.
Structural oppression: The subjugation of a group at the individual, institutional and
societal or cultural level, and the dynamic interplay between their different manifestations.
Youth organizing: Youth-led or adult-facilitated student inquiry into a manifestation of
structural oppression impacting students, yielding collective action to challenge it.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters. The first introduces the reader to the need for a
program innovation that integrates the strengths of education for social justice and social
innovation to generate student justice-oriented action. Chapter One reviews the organization’s
mission, performance goal and key stakeholder group. The methodological and conceptual
framework for identifying organizational needs and assets through a gap analysis is also
introduced. Chapter Two reviews the literature related to the proposed program innovation as
well as the general literature on learning, motivation and organizational culture. Chapter Three
identifies the assumed needs and assets based on the literature review and informal scanning
interviews. It also details the methodology used to validate assumed needs and assets. In Chapter
Four, data from document review, interviews and surveys is analyzed. Chapter Five proposes
solutions to close the performance gap as well as an implementation evaluation.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter includes four sections. The first reviews the literature on education for social
justice and the second on social innovation. The historical development of each, and their
implications for justice-oriented action, is examined. The third section identifies the respective
strengths and weaknesses of approaches to education for social justice and social innovation
relative to the goal of promoting student justice-oriented action, and proposes a program
innovation that integrates the complementary strengths of both approaches to maximize justice-
oriented action. The final section examines the role of teachers in education for social justice and
social innovation. It draws from both subject-specific literature and general learning theory to
identify the knowledge, motivational, and organization needs associated with implementing the
program innovation.
Education for Social Justice
While the predominant pedagogy of education for social justice developed out of the
consciousness raising movements of the 1960s and 70s, its intellectual roots stretch back a
century to the philosophy of pragmatism articulated by John Dewey (1900). Dewey (1908) and
others debated the merits of charity-based engagement with social issues, arguing instead for
social change. As the following review of the literature indicates, the degree to which school-
based community engagement programs result in charity or change is an important lens through
which to differentiate between programs that contribute to justice-oriented action and those that
do not challenge, and so effectively sustain, structural oppression.
What is Social Justice?
Social justice refers to the equitable distribution of resources among and recognition of
social groups (Adams et al., 2016; Rawls, 1999; Young, 2011). A just distribution of resources
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 21
relates not only to financial wellbeing, but also to political capacity and social status (Rawls,
1999). Recognition and respect for different groups is also a critical aspect of social justice,
which has implications for individual and group ability to participate equitably in a democratic
society (Young, 2011). Social justice is both a process and a goal (Adams et al., 2016). The goal
of social justice is a fair distribution of recognition and resources among individuals and groups,
which provides them with an equitable capacity to shape society to meet one’s needs. The
process of achieving social justice should reflect this democratic principle, with individuals and
groups empowered to promote and meet their own needs.
Social justice education seeks to enable students to understand, critique, and mitigate
structural oppression, which occurs at the individual, institutional, and societal level (Adams et
al., 2016; Colby, Erlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003). At the individual level, one may
internalize attitudes towards self and others, which act to perpetuate the subjugation of subgroups
(Adams et al., 2016). Gramsci (1971), in his theory of hegemony, argued oppressed groups may
consent to internalized oppression, accepting the dominant conception of hierarchical status even
if it disadvantages them. Bourdieu (1986) posited that individuals come to accept a naturalized a
set of cultural norms and expectations associated with the groups with which one is affiliated.
Thought to be the result of innate qualities, these naturalized beliefs, or habitus as Bordieu labels
it, obscure structural inequality.
Institutional oppression refers to inequality of access to or benefit from social institutions,
whether the institution is related to education, the workforce, or law enforcement, for example
(Adams et al., 2016). Bowles and Gintis (1977) argued that subjugation in one institutional is
made stronger by a corresponding subjugation in another; specifically, they argued that structural
inequity in education reflects and reproduces structural inequity in the workforce by preparing
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 22
students for hierarchical roles in the labor force. Oppression at the societal, or cultural, level
entails unjust attitudes and behavior that pervade a society in relation to groups (Adams et al.,
2016). Just as Bowles and Gintis (1977) theorized a correspondence of oppression between
multiple institutions, Adams et al. (2016) acknowledge intersectional oppression between
different structural levels: individual subjugation may reflect and reinforce institutional
oppression, for example.
History of Education for Social Justice
Education for social justice has its roots in multiple historical and intellectual
developments, including consciousness raising movements, experiential learning, and social
identity development theory (Adams et al., 2016; Butin, 2007; Stanley, 1992). Consciousness
raising movements, developed in different parts of the world, sought to facilitate understanding
of structural oppression and action to address it. In the black civil rights and feminist
movements in the United States, education was seen as a means to identify and promote justice
for social identity groups in school and society (Butin, 2007). Freire’s (1970) theory of critical
pedagogy for liberation through adult literacy in Brazil aided students in theorizing about
internalized and external oppression, becoming critically conscious of injustice. The objective of
critical consciousness is to challenge structural oppression collectively, refashioning political
structures to be more just.
Stanley (1992) argues the social reconstruction movement of the 1920s and 1930s was an
antecedent to critical pedagogy, thus providing the foundation for social justice education.
Emerging from a period of severe economic instability, social reconstructionists sought
alternatives to free-market capitalism and social Darwinism. They believed education was the
vehicle to reshape America into a more just society, and teachers, by virtue of their perspective
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 23
and position, those best equipped to lead the effort. Experiential learning theory also emerged
during the early 20th century, most notably through the philosophy of pragmatism as articulated
by John Dewey. Dewey (1900) argued that learning for its own sake, independent of social
application, could lead to self-serving individualism. Instead, education must have a social aim,
with student learning self-directed in service to the community.
The formulation of social identity development theory, led by Erikson (1968), suggested
the individual’s identity is not merely the result of inherent factors. Rather, through social
interaction, adolescents develop a view of how the social world functions, and a conception of
just interaction within it. Because identity is not inherent, it can be shaped by the deliberate
facilitation of interaction with others, which may lead to cognitive dissonance between one’s
existing worldview and a reality that contradicts it. Kegan (1983, p. 44) suggests individuals can
either “assimilate” the dissonance into their existing worldview; or they can “accommodate” the
experience by changing their worldview.
Approaches to School-based Programs for Social Justice Action
Community service and service learning programs, as opposed to classroom-bound
learning, are the dominant school-based means of promoting student action related to social
issues (Butin, 2007; Skinner & Chapman, 1999). Youth organizing has also grown in recent
years, though has remained primarily the purview of community-based organizations. (Christens
& Kirshner, 2011). These organizations include those promoting social justice for youth
associated with different social identity groups, as well as those also focused on adult community
organizing. Still, because youth organizing programs are designed to generate student
understanding and challenging of structural oppression, an analysis of them is relevant to the
development of school-based programs for justice-oriented action. The pedagogy of these three
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 24
programs—community service, service learning, and youth organizing—reflect different
elements of the historical and intellectual traditions of education for social justice.
Community service. Community service emerged in the 1930s as a reflection of the shift
to a service-based economy and a reaction against charity work, which had failed to redress
inequality in the United States (Daynes & Longo, 2004; Mortan & Saltmarsh, 1997; Taylor,
2002). Charity work hit its practiced height in the 1880s. It presumed the poor responsible for
their socioeconomic circumstances. Charitable visiting, which entailed the middle class visiting
with the poor, was intended to impress upon them the positive character associated with
affluence (Mortan & Saltmarsh, 1997). Dewey (1908) was an early critic of charity, as the
existence of a charitable class necessitated and perpetuated the existence of a dependent class.
What Dewey wanted, along with others who decried charity, such as Day (1952) and Adams
(1908), was political and economic justice for the oppressed.
The 1930s and 1940s solidified America’s service-based economy and welfare state,
wherein wealthier Americans obtained needed services through the private market, while the
poor relied on community, or social services (Mortan & Saltmarsh, 1997). Through the second
half of the 20th century, K-12 schools increasingly adopted community service programs, which
provided students with opportunities for volunteerism reflecting a charitable model. Community
service participation grew through the 1990s, with the creation of the Corporation for National
and Community Service (CNS) in 1993, funded largely by corporate donations (Taylor, 2002).
The CNS’s articulated intent was to distance community service work from the charity model
associated with a welfare state to one requiring quantifiable outcomes in the mold of corporate
America (Taylor, 2002). The CNS stopped short of calling for social policy reform, prohibiting
the use of CNS funding on political activism (Daynes & Longo, 2004).
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 25
Without education for students on the structural causes of the need for volunteerism,
community service programs risk maintaining and even reinforcing structural oppression if
students are left assuming the service recipient is responsible for his or her socioeconomic
condition (Mortan & Saltmarsh, 2007). In failing to provide students with an understanding of
the structural causes of the need for service, community service precludes generating the
knowledge and inspiration for justice-oriented action. In the context of social justice education’s
intellectual tradition, while community service may provide students the experiential element of
education for social justice, it fails to generate the critical consciousness necessary to altering
social identity development.
Service learning. Service learning complements community service with classroom
learning on the political and socioeconomic context of service, but it does not necessarily result
in justice-oriented action (Bortolin, 2011; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002;
King, 2004; Mitchell, 2007; Sandy & Holland, 2006; Seider, 2008; Swalwell, 2013). As Cipolle
(2010) observes, the majority of service learning programs are charity-based. If service learning
programs do not adequately educate students on the systemic causes of the need for service, they
risk leaving students to fault service recipients for their socioeconomic circumstance (Ginwright
& Cammarota, 2002; Mitchell, 2007). Programs that do expose students to concepts of structural
inequality may leave students feeling overwhelmed, or helpless to effect change (Seider, 2008;
Swalwell, 2013). Furthermore, the student/service recipient relationship can constitute a
subjugating association: student learning objectives may be paramount to community benefit,
and projects developed without community input can imply superior/inferior roles (Bortolin,
2011; Eyler & Giles, 1999; King, 2004; Sandy & Holland, 2006).
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 26
Critical service learning. Given the shortcomings of service learning relative to
promoting social change, some have called for a critical service learning that examines the root
of inequality and results in social justice action (Cipolle, 2010; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002;
Mitchell, 2007, 2008; Rosenberger, 2000). Whereas traditional service learning contemplates
meeting individual needs, critical service learning seeks to identify and challenge systemic
causes of inequality, in sustained partnership with the individual, social group or community
(Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Mitchell, 2008; Rosenberger, 2000). Structured reflection
facilitated through the classroom can build on the dissonance between students’ service
experience and previous perspective on groups and issues to generate an understanding of social
injustice (Eyler & Giles, 1999; King, 2004). Densmore (2000) argues that classroom learning
should not only facilitate examination of current relationships between social groups, but the
historical basis for those relationships as well. Service learning programs resulting in social
change action effectively cultivate critically conscious students, who accommodate the service
learning experience by altering their worldview, or social identity, in the process. In this way,
traditional service learning, like community service, may be considered an act of charity where
critical service learning is an act of change (Butin, 2007; Mortan, 1995).
Youth organizing. Through youth organizing, adolescents gain experience in
community-based research, organizing and advocacy with the goal of collectively addressing an
issue related to structural oppression (Christens & Kirshner, 2011; Delgado & Staples, 2008;
Kirshner & Geil, 2010). Delgado and Staples (2008) acknowledge youth organizing tends to
focus on small scale issues, but emphasize the positive implications of skills youth develop in
research, writing, and negotiation. Youth organizing supports youth development as much as it
does community development, they write. Kirshner and Geil (2010) similarly suggest youth
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 27
organizing is an effective mode of experiential learning, wherein students use and gain research
skills to address a social justice problem relevant to their lives and to their community. Christens
and Kirshner (2011) identify four common elements of youth organizing: relationship
development through collective action; education to develop a critical understanding of structural
inequality; social action in the community; and participatory research and evaluation, oftentimes
in partnership with a university, to analyze and define social justice issues. Delgado and Staples
suggest the differences in approaches to youth organizing center on the degree of autonomy
youth have relative to adults in organizing efforts: adults can be mentors, collaborators, or
facilitators.
An example of a school-based youth organizing program resulting in justice-oriented
action is the Social Justice Education Project based in the Tucson, Arizona, public schools
(Cammarota, 2007, 2008; Cammarota & Romero, 2009; Christens & Kirshner, 2011). The Social
Justice Education Project began in 2003 as a school-university partnership program for 11th and
12th grade Mexican-Americans. Drawing on Freirean critical pedagogy, the two-year curriculum
guides 11th graders in critically reflecting on American history and their own educational
experience. As 12th graders, students engage in community-based research, developing a justice-
oriented advocacy agenda based on their findings. The Social Justice Education Project resulted
in students becoming more engaged in their learning and motivated to pursue higher education,
as they recognized the relevance of education to their lives. The project also generated justice-
oriented action. Students researched and quantified racial and income segregation in the Tucson
school district. They developed a video contrasting the school facilities serving middle-income
and low-income students, which resulted in safety improvements to the latter (Cammarota,
2008).
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 28
Education for Social Innovation
Education for social justice has a far longer history than does education for social
innovation. Social innovation articulated as a framework for approaching social issues is a
product only of recent decades. Social innovation approaches to social problems are distinctly
change-driven, with the stated intent of disrupting, challenging, and altering unjust systems
(Christensen et al., 2006; Martin & Osberg, 2007). While evidence of their ability to achieve
these ambitious objectives may yet be thin, efforts to effect social change may be well served by
processes associated with social innovation given the growing complexity of global social
problems will demand increasingly innovative solutions (Brown, 2009).
What is Social Innovation?
A social innovation is a new approach to meeting a social need or solving a social
problem, which can be implemented and scaled to benefit society (Mulgan, 2007; Phills,
Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008). Mulgan (2007) identifies several basic iterative stages of
innovation. They are understanding the need to be met; identifying potential solutions; and
scaling those that work. A social innovation can take several forms: it may be organizational in
nature, legislation, a process, social movement, idea, or product (Mulgan, 2007; Phills et al.,
2008). The context, or vehicle, of social innovation may also vary, from government, to the
nonprofit or private sector (Mulgan, 2007; Phills et al., 2008). Phills et al. (2008) suggest that
prior to 1980, social innovations were often the purview of government. The New Deal for
example reflects the social innovation of a welfare state, and with it organizational innovations
designed to meet social needs, such as the Social Security Administration. The Reagan
administration deemphasized government’s role in meeting social needs. Since that time,
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 29
corporations have assumed a greater mandate for social responsibility, and the lines between all
three sectors—government, nonprofit, and business—have increasingly blurred.
Social innovation reflects the growing trend of business principles applied to social
problems (Christensen et al., 2006; Phills et al., 2008). Social innovation is grounded in business
innovation literature (Phills et al., 2008). Christensen et al. (2006) propose the framework of
“catalytic innovation” for understanding the application of innovation principles to social change
(p. 96). The authors suggest catalytic innovation as a subset of disruptive innovation, which
targets areas of non-consumption with solutions or services that may be less expensive or more
efficient. Disruptive innovation contrasts with sustaining innovation, which maintains focus on
the existing customer base and oftentimes reflects more incremental change. Disruptive
innovation can often creep upwards, impacting the market or industry as a whole. Christensen et
al. argue social change may result from disruptive innovation, but it is a byproduct, not the
intent. Catalytic innovation, on the other hand, aims to effect social change. The authors propose
several components to catalytic innovation: change is systemic; the need is either served
inefficiently or not at all; the solution is simpler, perhaps less expensive, but perceived as
effective enough by the beneficiary; and the solution draws resources not coveted by existing
players in the field.
Approaches to Education for Social Innovation
While a number of post-secondary institutions have programs in education for social
innovation, those for secondary school students are few. Therefore, analysis is largely conceptual
in nature regarding whether social innovation approaches, such as social entrepreneurship and
design thinking, offer promising processes for promoting student justice-oriented action.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 30
Social entrepreneurship. The aim of social entrepreneurship is systemic social change
through social innovation (Dees, 2006; Light, 2010; Martin & Osberg, 2007; Martin & Osberg,
2015). Martin and Osberg (2007) write that social entrepreneurs identify an “unjust equilibrium,”
(p. 35) which excludes or otherwise harms people. Social entrepreneurs develop a social
innovation that challenges and ultimately changes the equilibrium to benefit the once
marginalized population. They further define social entrepreneurship in contrast to social
services and social advocacy, arguing what distinguishes social entrepreneurship is that it has
both a direct and transformational impact on the population served. While social services have a
direct impact on people, it is not a transformational impact, but, rather, an incremental one; in
effect, social service organizations act to sustain, rather than solve, the problem. While social
advocacy can result in systemic change, the impact is indirect. Advocates promote the direct
action of others, such as advocating that elected officials pass legislation.
Equilibrium shift takes time. Martin and Osberg (2015) profile social entrepreneurs
pursuing justice-oriented projects, which ultimately result in systemic change. Based on the work
of successful social entrepreneurs, Martin and Osberg (2015) propose a four-stage iterative
process to social entrepreneurship. First, social entrepreneurs must understand the system in
which they are working, then envision a new systemic equilibrium, develop a sustainable
solution and scale it. While K-12 school-based social entrepreneurship programs are limited, one
such example is Stanford University’s “Summerfuel” (Academic Study Associates Summerfuel,
2015). It offers secondary school students exposure to and experience with principles and phases
of social entrepreneurship through a two-week summer program, during which students develop
a social enterprise related to a social problem of personal interest. Students learn how to research
an issue and develop problem-solving strategies. From there, they design a project addressing an
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 31
unmet need related to the issue and create an operational plan to implement the project. They
learn how to market and finance their social venture, as well as develop a business model for
scaling and sustaining the intervention.
While the term social entrepreneurship derives from business entrepreneurship, there are
important distinctions between the two (Dees, 1998; Martin & Osberg, 2015). Dees (1998)
suggests the term reflects the blurring of traditional boundaries between nonprofit, for-profit and
public sectors. Social entrepreneurs pursue social change, which may or may not have an
economic dimension. In contrast, business entrepreneurs always seek economic change. As such,
the value of each activity is measured differently. The value of social entrepreneurship is
measured by social impact, not by monetary market valuation as in the case of business
entrepreneurship (Dees, 1998).
Dees (1998) describes the historic development of the term entrepreneurship, which has
implications for understanding the root of social entrepreneurship. From its 17th century French
origin as a description of those who stimulate economic development, entrepreneurship theory
developed in the 20th century through the work of Joseph Shumpeter, who posited innovators
alter production patterns through use of a new technology or service. More recently, David
Drucker emphasized the role of entrepreneurs in taking advantage of new opportunities produced
by changes, such as those of a technological or social nature. Finally, Howard Stevensen
suggested a key characteristic of social entrepreneurship is the pursuit of innovation without
concern for resource constraints. As is evident in Christensen et al.’s (2006) theory of catalytic
innovation, the social change aspect of social entrepreneurship reflects the disruptive aspect of
business entrepreneurship.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 32
The degree to which social entrepreneurship is a charitable or change-oriented activity
has been debated (Dees, 1998; Dees, 2006; Shaw & Carter, 2007; Yunus, 2007). Dees (1998)
suggests the term reflects the blurring of traditional boundaries between nonprofit, for-profit and
public sectors. Shaw and Carter (2007) write that social entrepreneurship emerged in the 18
th
and
19th century with the rise of charitable and philanthropic work. Shaw and Carter’s assumption
that all charitable work constitutes social entrepreneurial activity sharply diverges from the
predominant definition of social entrepreneurship, which presumes sustaining the problem while
reducing suffering is insufficient; the social entrepreneur must seek social change (Martin &
Osberg, 2015). Dees (2006) writes contemporary social entrepreneurs often condemn charity, for
the same reasons John Dewey did one hundred years ago: because charity does not aim to solve
social problems, it perpetuates them. Dees suggests this tension resulted from the rise of a
problem-solving culture, which conflicts with a charitable culture. Whereas the charitable culture
reflects values of spontaneous, or crisis-driven altruism, a problem-solving approach seeks long-
term, analytic solutions to social problems. Dees writes that the problem-solving culture
developed during the scientific and industrial age rejected the charity culture, and has only been
reinforced by more the recent emphasis on entrepreneurial innovation. He argues, however, that
a strict dichotomy between the two cultures is misguided: after all, the social entrepreneur is
motivated by charitable values; and oftentimes, social entrepreneurial activity is supported in
part by charity.
Service learning has been used as a vehicle for experiential education in social
entrepreneurship through which students learn skills associated with launching and growing new
ventures (Calvert, 2011; Litzky, Godshalk, & Walton-Bongers, 2009). As with any service
learning activity absent a critical framework, social entrepreneurship education failing to
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 33
generate understanding of systemic social justice context precludes justice-oriented activity.
Increasingly, there is a recognition that successful social entrepreneurship requires not only
technical skills in launching a new venture, but also, explicit training in creating systemic social
change (Bloom & Dees, 2008; Elmes, Jiusto, Whiteman, Hersh, & Guthey, 2012; Worsham,
2012). Bloom and Dees (2008) propose an ecosystem framework for advancing social change,
which requires identifying individuals, organizations, and environmental conditions that will
impact or be impacted by pursuit of the social change objective. They define environmental
conditions as the political and economic structure, cultural norms, and infrastructure. Creating
systemic change, they argue, demands either changing environmental conditions, through
legislative advocacy, for example, or implementing an innovation which in turn impacts
environmental conditions, microfinancing being a prominent example.
Elmes et al. (2012) argue social entrepreneurship education requires incorporating a more
robust approach to analyzing context than identifying competitors and market opportunities.
They propose a place-based framework for understanding context, one that analyzes and
addresses the political, social, economic and historical dynamics of the entrepreneurial activity.
They furthermore argue that students should understand how the dynamics of place affect their
perspective on the entrepreneurial activity, echoing a critical orientation to social action. Given
the community’s understanding of place is necessarily different than the student’s,
entrepreneurial solutions cannot be imposed from above, but, rather, must emerge from the
community itself. Elmes et al. (2010) further caution that location-based conception of
community may be outmoded. Drawing on the work of Massey (1994), they stipulate that
community can encompass networks related to identity, and that those identities can be multiple
and conflicting. As a consequence, Elmes et al. (2010) argue that social entrepreneurial
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 34
interventions must emerge as a reflection of the community’s conception of place and the social
problem therein. Similarly, in an interview by Worsham (2012), Greg Dees contends that
empathy should be central to the social entrepreneurship process, but acknowledges it is an
“underdeveloped area of entrepreneurship education,” (p. 448) even in his own teaching. He
observes that too often, empathy is superficial, reflecting a charitable perspective on social
issues. Empathetic entrepreneurship would not impose solutions, but, rather, be driven by the
community’s ability and understanding of how to promote their own wellbeing.
Design thinking. Like social entrepreneurship, design thinking applied to social issues
aims to effect social change; however, design thinking emphasizes a process that is as much
empathetic and intuitive in nature as it is analytic (Brown, 2009; Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Kelley
& Kelley, 2013). Brown (2009) submits the term design thinking was created by David Kelly,
founder of the design thinking firm, IDEO, as the process of applying a design methodology to
any number of problems. However, Rowe (1987) used the term in an earlier examination of the
design process used by architects and urban planners; so, it may be more accurate to suggest
Kelley popularized the term. While there is variation in design thinking methodologies, there are
common pillars and principles informing the process. Design thinking is human-centered. It
begins by developing empathy with a stakeholder group through observation, conversation, and
interviewing. Kelley and Kelley (2013) refer to this phase as inspiration. From there, the
designer or group of designers synthesize observations, identifying themes and insights. Next is
ideation; through divergent thinking practices and the suspension of judgment, designers engage
in structured brainstorming. Promising ideas are then prototyped and tested with stakeholders to
iteratively improve the proposed solution before implementation. As opposed to linear steps,
Brown and Wyatt (2010) refer to activities associated with inspiration, ideation and
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 35
implementation as “spaces” in design thinking (p. 33). Because design thinking is wholly
iterative, a designer may move from one space to another, informed by a continuous loop of
stakeholder engagement.
While the roots of design lay in private sector product development, design thinking has
increasingly been applied to social issues over the last decade (Allio, 2014; Brown, 2009; Brown
& Wyatt, 2010; Kirk, Hickel & Brewer, 2015). IDEO has played a major role in popularizing the
application of design thinking to social issues. Established in 1991, ten years later, IDEO found
itself increasingly asked to work on social issues (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). The company founded
IDEO.org in 2011 to focus exclusively on improving the lives of those in poverty through
human-centered design. As a consulting firm, IDEO.org partners with nonprofit organizations,
government agencies and others on human-centered design projects. IDEO also offers public
guidebooks for practicing design for social issues, including the Design Thinking for Educators
Toolkit (IDEO, 2012). Government agencies are also adopting design practices. The United
Nations Development Program Global Center for Public Services, a program jointly run by the
United Nations and the Singapore government, issued a white paper in 2014 on the relevance of
design thinking to reinventing government (Allio, 2014). The white paper outlines a framework
for using design to improve public service policy and practice. Like IDEO.org, the Center’s
focus is on project-based innovation.
The project-based nature of design thinking has both strengths and limitations in
achieving social change (Brown, 2009; Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Kirk et al., 2015). The design
thinking process begins with the development of a design brief, which outlines the project’s
objectives, benchmarks, and constraints (Brown, 2009). The benefit of this approach is it allows
designers to have an impact, to move from conceptualization to implementation of a solution as
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 36
it relates to a social problem (Brown, 2009). The project-based approach has the further benefit
of building designers’ self-efficacy, their sense of ability to effect social change (Kelley &
Kelley, 2013). Over time, with successive projects design thinkers develop what Kelley and
Kelley (2013) label “creative confidence” (p. 7). Kirk et al. (2015) argue for moving beyond the
project-based application of design to redesigning unjust systems. They give the example of
global poverty, and how design thinking might be used to address its root causes. Citing
persistently high rates of global poverty, they contend the design of United Nations development
programs is flawed. They write, the UN is effectively asking “How can we eliminate poverty,”
when it should begin be asking, “Why does poverty exist, and how can we eliminate its causes?”
Focusing on the former leads one to address contemporary manifestations, essentially symptoms
of poverty, such as poor health care and education. A designer would look for historical
dynamics and themes in human decision-making that have systemically produced poverty and its
symptoms.
Generating a Program Innovation to Promote Student Justice-Oriented Action
Education for social justice and social innovation share the common goal of promoting
student justice-oriented action. They also share common aspirational, or conceptual, process
objectives aligned with promoting that goal as detailed in the above literature review. The
literature also indicates, however, the degree to which those process objectives are achieved
varies depending on the approach.
Practical Strengths and Weaknesses of Approaches Relative to Shared Process Objectives
Table 2 summarizes, through a scale of 0 to 3, the strength of each approach in
implementation relative to process objectives. The researcher scored each approach based on
evidence available through the review of literature elaborated in this chapter. The table is
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 37
followed by a more detailed analysis of the relative strengths of social justice and social
innovation approaches pursuant to promoting student justice-oriented action. Given conceptual
alignment among these approaches, this study proposes that different procedural strengths of
each approach relative to individual process objectives can be combined and leveraged to
maximize student justice-oriented action through a program innovation.
Table 2
Relative Strengths of Education for Social Justice and Social Innovation

Process objective

Strength in Practice on a Scale of 0 to 3

Approaches to Social Justice Student Action Approaches to Social
Innovation Student Action
Community
Service
Service
Learning
Critical
Service
Learning
Youth
organizing
Social
Entrepreneurship
Design
Thinking
Facilitate student
understanding of a
problem’s structural
root causes
0 1 3 3 2 1
Develop student
empathy for the
stakeholder group or
service recipient
1 1 3 3 1 2
Develop an
intervention with the
stakeholder group
0 0 2 3 1 2

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 38
Table 2, continued

Process objective

Strength in Practice on a Scale of 0 to 3

Approaches to Social Justice Student Action Approaches to Social
Innovation Student Action
Community
Service
Service
Learning
Critical
Service
Learning
Youth
organizing
Social
Entrepreneurship
Design
Thinking
Ensure the
stakeholder benefit
from community
engagement equals
or exceeds the
student benefit
1 1 2 3 2 2
Generate student
understanding of a
school-based
project's systemic
context
0 1 3 3 2 2
Develop student
understanding of
and facility with
means to effect
systemic change
0 0

1

2 3 1

Facilitates understanding of structural root causes. In relation to facilitating
understanding of structural root causes, critical service learning and youth organizing evidence
attention to not only institutional and societal structural oppression, but also to oppression at the
individual level through the development of critical consciousness. Recent literature on social
entrepreneurship suggests an evolution in social entrepreneurship theory from an exclusive focus
on unjust equilibrium at the societal or institutional level to recognizing the need for analyzing
one’s personal experience of that oppression (Elmes et al., 2010).
Develops empathy for the stakeholder. Dees (as cited in Worsham, 2012)
acknowledges that, too often, social entrepreneurship undervalues developing empathy, though it
should be central to the process of social intervention. The literature on design thinking to date
has not addressed understanding one’s personal relationship to structural oppression. This
omission may limit the ability of design thinking to achieve one of its most prominently
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 39
articulated objectives: developing stakeholder or community empathy through a human-centered
process. Not cultivating one’s own critical consciousness regarding a social problem may lead
one to impose or conflate one’s perception of a problem with that of the stakeholder. Social
justice approaches excel in this area.
Intervention developed with the stakeholder. Design thinking does, however, employ
an iterative process for engaging the community in intervention development. It could be
considered a relative strength in this process objective. Dees (as cited in Worsham, 2012)
recognizes that current social entrepreneurship practice does not adequately differentiate between
the aspects of an intervention the community can apply itself and those which would benefit
from the entrepreneur’s actions. Dees suggests this shortcoming is related to insufficient
empathy.
Youth organizing offers the clearest procedural strength in intervention development with
the community, since students are of the community they are serving. While the literature does
not address youth organizing among privileged students, one can extrapolate relevance. If
privileged students are oppressed it is not because their social identity prevents them from
accessing institutional and societal benefits. Rather, they are oppressed in so far as they are held
ignorant of structural oppression, and by extension, their own advantage. Sensoy and DiAngelo
(2012) label this dynamic “internalized dominance” as opposed to “internalized oppression” (p.
49). Privileged youth organizing might focus on challenging institutions maintaining privileged
student ignorance. In the context of school, privileged students could organize in support of
social issue engagement in and outside of the classroom, which enables them to understand,
question and advocate for education on structural oppression for privileged students.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 40
Stakeholder benefit exceeds the student’s. Any intervention that is developed and
imposed without adequate community partnership or initiative is likely to benefit the student
more than the community (Bortolin, 2011; Eyler & Giles, 1999; King, 2004). In the case of
youth organizing, the benefit to the stakeholder equals that to the student since the two groups
are the same. As a consequence, among approaches to student action, youth organizing also
yields the clearest benefit to the stakeholder.
Generates understanding of project’s systemic context. Student action, which is by
nature project-based, will likely not result in structural change within the life of the project.
However, projects can further social justice: they can reflect and challenge structural oppression,
and generate in students the knowledge, ability and commitment to pursue systemic change long-
term. Only an approach that generates student understanding of a project’s systemic context can
be justice-oriented. Critical service learning and youth organizing offer a relative strength in
contextual analysis and understanding by grounding student action in social justice curricula and
pedagogy. Elmes et al. (2010) promote the need for a more robust approach to understanding the
context of social entrepreneurship activity. It is not enough to train students in the technical skills
of launching a new venture; effecting social change requires understanding the political, social,
and economic dynamics of the entrepreneurial activity. Kirk et al. (2015) similarly argue for
moving beyond project-based design thinking to the redesign of unjust systems.
Develops understanding of and facility with means to effect systemic change. Critical
service learning and youth organizing generally result in student action consisting of advocacy.
The service experience itself in critical service learning might involve placement with an
advocacy or social service organization. Martin and Osberg (2007) suggest advocacy results in
indirect impact on a community, policymakers being the intermediary. Meanwhile, social
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 41
services generate only incremental change. Social innovation, however, provides the opportunity
for both transformational and direct change, but only if the entrepreneurial activity is grounded
in a systems change strategy. Design thinking offers a process for generating novel, disruptive
approaches to problems that if adequately contextualized may serve transformational change.
Social entrepreneurship theory offers a technical framework for scaling a project-based solution,
such as that created through design thinking, to generate systemic change. Scale requires
engaging an ecosystem of actors to adapt to and support justice-oriented systems change (Martin
& Osberg, 2015). Whereas critical service learning and youth organizing focus on the
implications of social change for the oppressed, social entrepreneurship provides a process for
identifying and engaging an ecosystem of individuals, organizations, and environmental
conditions that will affect or be affected by the social change goal (Bloom & Dees, 2008). Bloom
and Dees (2008) suggest that systemic change requires either changing environment conditions
or generating an innovation that impacts environmental conditions. Martin and Osberg (2015)
note that direct change innovations can be scaled more expediently when combined with
advocacy.
Integrating and Leveraging Relative Strengths to Maximize Justice-oriented Action
Based on the above analysis, teachers could integrate the following procedures to develop
an innovative approach to increasing student justice-oriented action:
• Facilitate understanding of the structural root causes of the social issue through social
justice curriculum and pedagogy, which requires critically consciousness teachers to
support the development of critically conscious students.
• Facilitate critical consciousness of students through social justice pedagogy to enable
empathy with the community related to the social issue.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 42
• Facilitate student ability to work with the community to develop the intervention,
identifying where the community can assume responsibility for implementation drawing
on youth organizing principles. To the extent students develop the intervention, ensure
the development process is an iterative one with the community as it is in design
thinking.
• Facilitate student understanding of the systemic context of the project, which includes
reflection on the socioeconomic, political and historical dynamics of the intervention
using social justice curriculum.
• Facilitate student ability to generate both practice and policy interventions that are
disruptive, rather than sustaining in nature, using social innovation processes.
• Facilitate the development of a scaling plan for the intervention drawing on social
entrepreneurship procedures, which includes a strategy for engaging the ecosystem of
actors and conditions that will impact or be impacted by pursuit of the social change goal.
The Role of Teachers in Education for Social Justice and Social Innovation
The literature on the role of teachers in education for social justice is more extensive than
that for social innovation because of the latter’s nascent use by secondary school educators. In
terms of social justice education, the literature covers both what and how to teach for social
justice. It also addresses the type of disposition to social justice issues teachers should have to be
effective educators for social justice. Literature on the role of teachers in facilitating social
innovation in K-12 schools includes practical steps for facilitating the design thinking process
and addresses the type of environment teachers should foster to enable the development of
creative solutions.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 43
The Role of Teachers in Education for Social Justice
Teachers must understand both what and how to teach for social justice (Adams et al.,
2016; Cipolle, 2010; Gorski & Pothini, 2014). In terms of the how, pedagogical practices should
reflect the aims of education for social justice; that is, the learning environment itself should be
just. Classrooms should be democratic, with students co-leading their learning (Adams et al.,
2016). Teachers need to understand their students’ relationship to structural oppression (Adams,
et al., 2016), and facilitate student reflection appropriate to developing critical consciousness
(Cipolle, 2010). Cipolle (2010) cautions teachers must be careful students do not uncritically
accept a teacher’s perspective on social justice issues. She recommends introducing a “third
medium,” (p.60), an experience such as service learning, or an individual, such a community
member, which can provide students with personal perspective on social justice issues. Cipolle
(2010) and Swalwell (2013) offer guidance specific to facilitating critical consciousness in
students of privilege.
In terms of what to teach for social justice, Adams et al. (2016) provide guidance on
developing lesson plans covering content relevant to different forms of structural oppression,
such as racism, sexism, and classicism. Each chapter, covering one such issue, begins with the
knowledge and understanding the lesson is intended to facilitate broken into several sections:
definition of terms; the historical genesis of the concept; and contemporary manifestations of the
issue at the individual and institutional and/or societal level. Lesson plan activities are then
proposed, grouped in four quadrants according to phases of exposure to and contemplation of an
issue. The first establishes group norms of discussion on social justice issues; the second
generates understanding of social identity development relative to the issue; the third helps
students examine the issue in relation to its historical development and contemporary
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 44
manifestations, including in relation to other forms of oppression (for example, the intersection
of race and class-based oppression); and the fourth quadrant of activities helps students challenge
the oppression by envisioning alternative structures and relations, and identifying how to
promote them. Gorski and Pothini (2013) offer case studies in teaching social justice, which
illustrate social justice pedagogy and curriculum in implementation.
To teach students about social justice, teachers must themselves be educated in social
justice issues; they must not only be able to facilitate critically conscious students, but to do so
effectively, must also become critically conscious (Adams et al., 2016; Cipolle, 2010; Gorski,
Zenkov, Osei-Kofi, & Sapp, 2013). Accordingly, teachers must examine social systems,
structural oppression, and their own internalized oppression to understand their relationship to
the issues students will be engaging (Cipolle, 2010), what Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) refer to
as a teacher’s “positionality.” Gorski et al. (2013) provide examples of how to generate teachers’
understanding of social justice concepts. Through case studies of teacher education, the authors
focus on strategies for overcoming what they have identified as “common cognitive bottlenecks”
(p. 4) to understanding manifestations of structural oppression. For example, Cohen and Lesnick
(as cited in Gorski et al., 2013) examine how the attempt to appear open-minded can create a
bottleneck to understanding the concept of meritocracy’s relationship to institutional structural
oppression, including as it relates to educational access. The desire to seem sympathetic to those
perceived as underprivileged may prevent teachers from critically engaging and questioning the
portrayal of educational access as meritorious. Moving past this bottleneck to inquiry and
understanding requires facilitating teachers’ understanding of the intersection between race,
class, political influence, and education. They use a strategy of “overlaying” (p. 205) different
texts, experiences, and images to generate tension between perspectives on merit. They caution
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 45
not to seek resolution of tension, but rather to use it in service of generating new perspectives
among teachers.
The Role of Teachers in Education for Social Innovation
Teachers may be averse to teaching social innovation processes out of fear they are not
creative enough, or creative by nature (Spencer & Juliani, 2016). Kelley and Kelly (2013) offer
practical “creativity challenges” (p. 212) to build experience and confidence in creative practices.
Among others, these include step-by-step instructions for exercises, such as mind mapping to
brainstorm divergent solutions to a problem; organizing field observations through empathy
maps to differentiate between what one observes people doing and saying, and what one infers
they feel or think; practice receiving and giving constructive feedback; and reframing challenges
into “How might we …” (p. 238) questions to generate solutions.
Spencer and Juliani (2016) offer K-12 teachers guidance on leading each phase of the
design thinking process through a framework they label with the acronym LAUNCH. For the
first phase, “Look, listen and learn,” (p. 67) the authors suggest questions teachers can use to
facilitate student observation, such as “What questions come to mind when you observe this?”
and sentence stems, like “I find it interesting that…” (p. 71). They similarly suggest questions
and sentence stems to help students identify social problems for exploration. For the second
phase, “Ask tons of questions” (p. 91), they offer exercises teachers can use to help students ask
deeper questions about the problem, such as modeling effective questioning and conducting
mock interviews. The third phase, “Understanding the information” (p. 113) requires students to
research the problem. Spencer and Juliani differentiate between types of research for students to
conduct, from audience and market research, to research on systems relevant to the problem and
skills needed to address it.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 46
The fourth phase, “Navigating ideas” (p. 130), is broken into three parts: the first is
ideating. The authors suggest processes to facilitate student brainstorming. They recommend
students first generate ideas alone to address the problem, then share and discuss with a partner,
followed by listing the ideas of the entire group. Teachers then facilitate student grouping and
consolidation of ideas. Spencer and Juliani recommend teachers encourage students to include
several ideas that are odd or have been discounted. Then teachers ask students to connect ideas
that appear disparate. Part two of phase four involves assessing the strengths and weaknesses of
ideas relative to addressing the problem. This might include listing the pros and cons of each
idea and discussing trends. The third part involves sketching the prototype, and identifying what
is needed to develop it, including materials and individual student roles.
The fifth phase is creating. As Brown (2009) and Kelly and Kelley (2013) observe,
design thinking requires an environment where students feel comfortable taking risks and are
able to fail without fear of judgment. Spencer and Juliana suggest strategies for reducing fear
among students, such as teachers sharing their own concerns with creating. They observe that
encouraging a growth mindset is critical to creating an environment conducive to creativity.
They also provide practical guidance on structuring environments, including classroom
management issues to consider, like how teachers will facilitate student movement. The sixth
phase is “Highlight and improve the product” (p. 173). This phase involves students identifying
strengths and weaknesses of the solution and obtaining feedback on the same from others. The
authors outline a 20-minute peer feedback process wherein peers ask students questions but the
student does not respond.
Finally, the LAUNCH phase, where teachers help students understand how to market the
product or solution, which requires: clarifying the audience; the method to reach and convince
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 47
them; and strategies for implementation. Spencer and Juliana believe, too often, students are
asked to develop solutions but not execute them. They argue the LAUNCH phase provides
students with experience critical to generating and pursuing innovative solutions to problems.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
The preceding literature review on education for social justice and social innovation has
implications for the knowledge, motivational and organizational elements that support teachers’
promotion of student justice-oriented action. The following section analyzes this subject-specific
literature, as well as the general literature on learning, motivation, and organizational theory, to
identify assumed needs relevant to implementing the proposed program innovation.
Knowledge
Krathwohl (2002) identifies four dimensions of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Krathwohl defines factual knowledge as the basic terminology
stakeholders must understand to address a problem of practice. Conceptual knowledge refers to
the relationship between elements of a structure, theory or field. Procedural knowledge is that
related to skills and processes for completing a task. Metacognitive knowledge requires
understanding the state of one’s own knowledge and performance and the ability to adjust one’s
approach to achieve a better result. The following analysis categorizes needs relevant to
increasing justice-oriented action according to Krathwohl’s four dimensions of knowledge.
Factual knowledge. The factual knowledge teachers must understand related to
promoting justice-oriented action includes the definitions of justice-oriented action (Westheimer
& Kahne, 2004), social justice (Adams et al., 2016; Rawls, 1999; Young, 2011) and social
innovation (Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008; Mulgan, 2007). Ambrose, Bridges, Dipetro,
Lovett, and Norman (2010) observe that learners come to a subject with “prior knowledge” that
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 48
can be insufficient or inaccurate (p. 4). Both can impact the facility of learning new knowledge.
New knowledge that conflicts with prior knowledge, for example, may be discounted. Gorski et
al. (2013) observe that teachers must understand “threshold concepts” (p. 4) of social justice
issues, that is, different manifestations of structural oppression, such as patriarchy or white
privilege, before they can understand how different oppressions relate to one another.
Conceptual knowledge. Ambrose et al. (2010) explain that correcting inaccurate
knowledge is far easier if that knowledge is not nested in conceptual understanding. This caution
is particularly relevant to teaching for social justice. As Ginwright and Cammarota (2002) and
Mitchell (2007) explain, service learning programs may expose students to experiences
challenging their prior knowledge. Teachers must facilitate conceptual understanding of the
relationship between the service experience and its systemic causes; if they do not, service
learning can leave student stereotypes, that is, inaccurate prior knowledge, intact. Teachers must
also understand how to facilitate reflection on the inconsistency between prior and new
knowledge to generate understanding of social injustice (Eyler & Giles, 1999; King, 2004). In
order to teach concepts of social justice, teachers must themselves understand them, including
the relationship between current manifestations of structural oppression and their historical
development, as well as the intersection of different forms of oppression (Gorski et al., 2013).
Teachers must, furthermore, understand the relationship between education for social
justice, social innovation and student justice-oriented action, and the relative strengths and
weaknesses of these approaches to promoting justice-oriented action (Bortolin, 2011; Cipolle,
2010; Densmore, 2000; Elmes et al., 2012; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002;
King, 2004; Kirk et al., 2015; Mitchell, 2007, 2008; Mortan & Saltmarsh, 2007; Rosenberger,
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 49
2000; Sandy & Holland, 2006; Seider, 2008; Swalwell, 2013); and how elements of these
approaches can be integrated to increase student justice-oriented action.
Procedural knowledge. Ambrose et al. (2010) suggest that, to be competent at a task,
one must be able to both integrate skills and apply them. Teachers must understand not only
what, but also how to teach for social justice (Adams et al., 2016; Cipolle, 2010; Freire, 1970;
Gorski, & Pothini, 2014) and social innovation (Bloom & Dees, 2008; Elmes et al., 2012; Kelley
& Kelley, 2013). Understanding the how includes procedures associated with promoting student
action related to social issues, such as critical service learning, youth organizing, social
entrepreneurship and design thinking (Adams et al., 2016; Cipolle, 2010; Eyler & Giles, 1999;
Kelley & Kelley, 2013; Martin & Osberg, 2015; Mulgan 2007; Spencer & Juliani, 2016), and the
steps involved in applying the integrated program innovation. It also includes how to facilitate
democratic classrooms (Adams et al., 2016).
Metacognitive knowledge. Ambrose et al. (2010) write that conceptual change happens
gradually, and, at times, invisibly. Teachers must be able to assess and change their approach to
promoting student justice-oriented action based on insight into the state of students’ critical
consciousness and their ability to take justice-oriented action. To do so, teachers must be
critically conscious themselves: they must understand their own relationship to structural
oppression and how it influences their perspective on and ability to facilitate student
understanding of structural oppression (Adams et al., 2016; Cipolle, 2010; Gorski et al., 2013).
Motivation
Schunk, Meece, and Pintrich (2012) define motivation as the impetus for initiating and
continuing to pursue goals. The relationship between learning, performance and motivation is
one of mutual affect: Beliefs about learning and performance impact motivation to learn and
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 50
perform just as motivation to learn impacts learning and performance (Pintrich, 2003).
Furthermore, personal belief, or self-perception, is inseparable from motivation. To what one
attributes the reasons for success or failure will impact one’s future motivation to act (Wiener,
2005).
Pajares (2010) characterizes self-efficacy as foundational to motivation. Individuals who
do not believe they can execute a task to achieve a goal have little reason to pursue it (Bandura,
1997). Pajares (2010) differentiates self-efficacy from expectancy outcome, which is the belief
that an action will result in an outcome, or the anticipation of a specific consequence from a
given behavior. Pajares suggests that self-efficacy can outweigh expectancy outcome as a
motivational driver: though one may believe studying hard results in good grades, with low self-
efficacy in relation to studying ability, one may not engage in studying. Furthermore, in addition
to individuals, groups can develop a collective sense of self-efficacy.
The following analysis is relevant to increasing justice-oriented action according to
motivational factors identified in the general theoretical and subject-specific literature reviewed
in the first half of this chapter.
Goals. Ambrose et al. (2010) identify two components common to most motivational
theory: the perceived value of a goal and the relative expectation for success at achieving the
goal. While individuals may hold multiple goals, alignment between goals is important as
conflicting goals may harm motivation (Rueda, 2010). Teachers may be more motivated to
implement the program innovation if they understand that the goals of education for social
justice and social innovation are aligned. Teacher motivation to initiate and pursue the goal of
student justice-oriented action can also be supported by ensuring that what constitutes progress
towards and the achievement of that goal is well defined.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 51
Goal orientation. Goal orientation is generally framed in motivational literature as
bifurcated between performance- and mastery-based goal orientation (Rueda, 2010). A
performance-oriented individual is motivated to pursue a task by the competitive promise of
outperforming another. A mastery goal orientation focuses instead on the intrinsically beneficial
reasons for pursuit of a goal. A performance-oriented teacher may be unmotivated to purse the
goal of student justice-oriented action if their success in doing so relative to other teachers is not
easily determined or recognized.
Self-efficacy. Pajares (2010) suggests performance goal orientation may result in a lower
sense of self-efficacy than a mastery orientation. Teachers may, therefore, feel greater self-
efficacy and more motivation to implement the program innovation if they perceive an intrinsic
benefit from achieving the goal of student justice-oriented action. Teachers will also be more
motivated to implement the innovation if they feel confident in their ability to facilitate student
creativity and critical consciousness as required by social innovation and social justice
approaches respectively.
Attribution. Self-efficacy is influenced by to what one attributes success or failure.
Weiner (2005) identifies three dimensions of attribution: Stability, the perception of the degree to
which attributions are dynamic or immutable; locus, whether one attributes success and failure to
internal or external forces; and control, the degree to which one feels he or she can control an
outcome. Teachers may not feel they can control whether or not students achieve critical
consciousness. In the case of socioeconomically privileged students, for example, teachers may
attribute failure to generate critical consciousness to external structural forces that inhibit student
perception of injustice. In so doing, teachers may discount their own ability to generate student
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 52
understanding of their personal relationship to structural oppression. Student misperception of
the cause of socioeconomic disparity itself reflects attribution error.
Expectancy outcome. Whether or not a specific action is anticipated to yield a desired
outcome also impacts motivation (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Teachers may be unmotivated to
implement the program innovation if they do not feel it will achieve its intended goal or generate
greater student justice-oriented action than current social justice or social innovation approaches.
Task value. Motivation to complete a task is in part determined by its perceived value.
Wigfield and Eccles (200) identify four dimensions of task value: Attainment, the positive
feeling one gets from achieving a goal; intrinsic, the enjoyment one experiences in executing a
task; instrumental, whether executing a task helps accomplish another goal; and cost, the benefit
of achieving the goal must outweigh the benefit of pursuing an alternate goal. Teachers will be
particularly motivated to implement the program innovation if they perceive each dimension of
task value in relation to the innovation. In the context of this study, teachers should perceive the
instrumental value of each procedural component of the program innovation, believing an
integrated social justice and social innovation approach will result in greater student justice-
oriented action.
Affect. Emotions related to learning and performance also impact motivation (Dembo &
Seli, 2013). Teachers may feel negative about the implication they have not adequately promoted
student justice-oriented action and thus be unmotivated to learn about and implement the
program innovation.
Organization
The following section reviews organizational and culture-related literature as it relates to
the goal of promoting student justice-oriented action. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 53
distinguish between the cultural model and cultural setting of an organization. The cultural
model is defined as the shared understanding of how the world does and should work. The
context in which the model is enacted is the cultural setting, such as a classroom or school.
Furthermore, culture, at multiple levels, is dynamic (Erez & Gati, 2004).
Cultural model. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) argue that cultural models manifest
in shared practices, including the manner in which people interpret and react to change or
challenges. Teachers may be averse to change generally, which would not be conducive to
implementing the program innovation. Erez and Gati (2004) observe that culture at the
individual, organizational, national and global levels impact each other. A school-based cultural
model that prioritizes justice-oriented action may conflict with the district, state, national, and/or
global cultural model of education, which emphasizes standardized academic performance over
the application of learning to social justice problems. Teachers may be concerned with the
cultural model beyond the cultural setting of their school—for example, they may be concerned
with the metrics by which future potential employers will judge their current performance.
Accordingly, teachers may perceive the external incentive for promoting student achievement on
standardized tests trumps their school’s incentive for promoting justice-oriented action.
Cultural setting. The cultural model and setting influence each other (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). The cultural setting of a school influences the cultural model shared by
teachers. The school setting may prioritize and reward teachers for high student test scores more
than achieving student justice-oriented action; in which case, teachers may perceive the two
goals as conflicting or they may feel justice-oriented action is a new goal layered on top of other
goals, without a clear sense of their compatibility. Teachers may also perceive conflicting
guidance if the school defines social justice and social innovation differently than the program
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 54
innovation contemplates, or if the school mischaracterizes charity-driven activities as change-
oriented. Finally, teachers may feel they lack the resources, such as time or money, to implement
the program innovation effectively.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the literature on education for social action, finding two
predominant approaches, one based in a social justice tradition, the other in the emerging field of
social innovation. Though both approaches share the common goal of promoting action to
address structural oppression, the literature revealed different strengths and weaknesses to both
approaches in practice. Given aspirational alignment of education for social justice and social
innovation, as revealed by the literature, a program innovation is proposed, which leverages the
strengths of both approaches to increase justice-oriented action more than either might on its
own.
The general literature on learning and organizational theory was also reviewed to
generate insight into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs pursuant to
implementing the program innovation. Together with the literature on the teacher’s role in
education for social justice and social innovation, also reviewed in this chapter, the literature on
learning and organizational theory will inform a set of assumed needs relative to program
implementation enumerated in Chapter Three.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis examining the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational needs associated with implementing an innovative model of
school-based student engagement with social issues. The model integrates aspects of education
for social justice and social innovation to result in greater justice-oriented action by students. The
study will analyze and validate a set of assumed needs related to program implementation. Two
research questions guided this analysis:
1. What are teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary to
increase student justice-oriented action?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
This chapter outlines the methodological approach used to investigate these research
questions. It begins with an overview of the gap analysis framework. Assumed causes of the
performance gap based on scanning interviews are reviewed. These assumptions are
summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5, which delineate the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational needs associated with implementing the program innovation. These tables also
incorporate needs identified through the review of the literature detailed in Chapter Two. The
key stakeholder group is described, as is the process for collecting and analyzing data. Finally,
limitations and delimitations of the study are addressed.
Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework offers a methodology for solving
organizational performance problems. Once a performance goal has been established, the process
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 56
begins by assessing current achievement relative to the goal, which yields a definition of the
performance gap to be closed. Potential causes for the gap are then hypothesized based on
relevant research literature, informal interviews and personal insight, and are categorized as
either knowledge, motivational, or organizational in nature. Potential causes are then validated
as root causes through triangulated research methods, which may include interviews, surveys and
document analysis. From there, solutions are implemented to address root causes. The process
concludes with an evaluation of outcomes, which can inform the establishment of new
organizational performance goals. The gap analysis process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The gap analysis process. Adapted from Clark and Estes (2008).
For purposes of this study, the gap analysis process was adapted to define and address the
performance improvement required to increase the justice-oriented activity of students at ISA.
Solutions were implemented and evaluated with all teachers in the 2017-2018 academic year,
Establish Goals
Assess Current
Achievement
De,ine Gaps
Hypothesize
Causes:
-Knowledge
-Motivation
-Organizational
Validate Root
Causes
Develop
Solutions
Implement
Solutions
Evaluate
Outcomes
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 57
and will include a pilot program serving a cohort of 12th grade students, with the goal of them
taking justice-oriented action by May 2018.
Assumed Performance-Based Influences
A systematic problem-solving process, like a gap analysis, prevents one from
misdiagnosing the cause of an organizational problem (Clark & Estes, 2008). A process for
validating assumed causes ensures the solutions developed as a result are aligned with actual, not
merely perceived, organizational needs (Rueda, 2011). A thorough set of assumed needs can be
identified through a combination of (a) informal scanning interviews with organizational
stakeholders; (b) application of learning, motivational, and organizational culture theory; (c) a
review of the literature on approaches to promoting student engagement with social justice
problems. The following section reviews assumed needs of the performance gap based on
preliminary interviews. Chapter Two reviewed assumed needs identified through application of
learning, motivation and organizational theory, as well as potential causes emerging from a
review of the literature on promoting student engagement with and action on social issues. Needs
identified through all three approaches are summarized in Tables 3, 4, and 5.
Preliminary scanning data includes assumed knowledge, motivational and organizational
causes identified through informal interviews and observations at the school.
Knowledge and Skills
Teachers and the administration consistently speak to the importance of not only
educating students about social justice issues but also to promoting student action based on what
they learn. Documents provided to the researcher by the principal include guidance to students
on the intent and process of grade-level trips to learn about social justice issues and develop an
action plan to address them. These documents generally ask students to identify existing
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 58
organizations working to address the issue; develop a proposed policy change that would
positively impact the issue; and create an awareness campaign to generate local community
knowledge of the issue. Teachers may assume these activities constitute justice-oriented action.
However, the identification of a potential action, by proposing a policy change, for example, is
different from students executing the action. Teachers may lack knowledge of both what
constitutes justice-oriented action and how to support students in taking justice-oriented action.
As detailed in the Organizational Context and Performance Need section of Chapter One, the
school is focused almost exclusively on social justice education, potentially leaving teachers
without knowledge of social innovation processes that could aid students in moving from
identification to execution of a solution.
Table 3
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Needs, Sources of Identification, and Validation Methods

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers need to
understand the definition
of social justice as the
equitable distribution of
resources among and
recognition of social
groups (Factual)
Literature
Review
Survey
item
(open-
ended)

How would you define social justice?

Teachers need to
understand the definition
of social innovation as a
process for solving a
social problem, which can
be implemented and
scaled to benefit society
(Factual)
Literature
Review
Survey
item
(open-
ended)

How would you define social
innovation?

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 59
Table 3, continued

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers need to
understand the definition
of justice-oriented action
in contrast to responsible
and participatory action.
(Factual)
Literature
Review
Survey
item
(multiple-
choice)

Which of the following would you
consider to be justice-oriented action?
Check all that apply:
i. Students donate food to a food bank.
ii. Students organize a food drive for a
food bank.
iii. Students identify a policy change
that would enable more people to afford
food without accessing a food bank.
iv. Students advocate for policy that
would enable more people to afford
food without accessing a food bank.
v. Students develop a job training
program that enables people to gain
employment such that they can better
afford food.
Teachers need to
understand the concept of
structural oppression as
the domination of a
group(s) over another
group(s) at the individual,
institutional and societal
or cultural level, and the
dynamic interplay
between them.
(Conceptual)
Literature
Review
Interview What does structural oppression mean
to you?

Prompts:
a. Can you give me an example of
structural oppression at the individual
level?
b. Can you give me an example of
structural oppression at the institutional
level?
c. Can you give me an example of
structural oppression at the cultural or
societal level?
Teachers need to
understand their students’
relationship to structural
oppression. (Conceptual)
Literature
Review
Interview a. In what ways may your students be
challenged by structural oppression?

b. How might that impact their ability to
learn about social justice issues and take
justice-oriented action?
Teachers need to
understand how their own
internalized oppression
impacts their
understanding of the
issues students will be
engaging. (Conceptual)
Literature
Review
Interview a. In what ways are you personally
challenged by structural oppression?

b. How do you think that impacts your
ability to teach students who are facing
different types of oppression than you
are?
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 60
Table 3, continued

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers need to
understand the difference
between charity and
change-driven community
engagement programs.
(Conceptual)
Literature
Review
Interview Can you describe any community
engagement programs your school
offers that enable students to engage in
social change work?
Teachers need to
understand the degree to
which different
approaches to student
engagement with social
issues, such as critical
service learning, youth
organizing, social
entrepreneurship and
design thinking, promote
justice-oriented action.
(Conceptual)
Literature
Review
Interview a. What other types of school-based
programs are you familiar with, which
give students the opportunity to take
justice-oriented action?

b. Can you describe them?

Teachers need to
understand that education
for social justice and
social innovation share
the common goal of
promoting student justice-
oriented action, yet offer
different processes for
achieving that goal.
(Conceptual)
Scanning
Interviews
Interviews In what ways do you think the purpose
of education for social justice and social
innovation are similar and different?

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 61
Table 3, continued

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers need to
understand education for
social justice and social
innovation share common
aspirational process
objectives aligned with
promoting student justice-
oriented action.
(Conceptual)

Scanning
Interviews
Survey (4-
point
Likert type:
Strongly
agree,
disagree,
agree,
strongly
agree)

a. A social justice approach to school-
based community engagement with
social issues, such as critical service
learning or youth organizing, aims to:
i. Facilitate student understanding of a
problem’s structural root causes
ii. Develop student empathy for the
stakeholder group or service recipient
iii. Develop an intervention with the
stakeholder group
iv. Ensure the stakeholder benefit from
community engagement equals or
exceeds the student benefit
v. Generate student understanding of a
school-based project's systemic context
vi. Develop student understanding of
and facility with means to effect
systemic change

b. A social innovation approach to
community-based engagement with
social issues, such as social
entrepreneurship or design thinking,
aims to:
(Repeat Likert type questions i – vi)
Teachers need to
understand that, relative
to promoting justice-
oriented action, education
for social justice offers a
relative strength in
generating understanding
of systemic oppression,
while education for social
innovation offers a
relative strength in
generating understanding
of social change
processes. (Conceptual)
Scanning
interviews
Interview If you were to compare education for
social justice and social innovation
relative to the goal of promoting student
justice-oriented action, what do you
think their respective strengths and
weaknesses might be?
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 62
Table 3, continued

Motivation
If teachers feel they are already generating student justice-oriented action, they may feel
implementing the new program is not worth their time or effort. If, on the other hand, teachers
Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers need to
understand how to teach
social justice issues,
including establishing
democratic norms of
discussion and helping
students understand:
terms, the historical
genesis of a concept;
contemporary
manifestations of the
issue and its intersection
with other forms of
oppression; and their own
relationship to the issue.
(Procedural)
Literature
Review
Interview Can you walk me through the steps you
would take in teaching students about a
social justice issue?
Teachers need to
understand how to use
social justice and social
innovation processes to
promote student justice-
oriented action.
(Procedural)
Scanning
Interviews
Interview Can you walk me through how you
would help students take action to
address a social justice issue?
Teachers need to be able
to assess and change their
approach to promoting
student justice-oriented
action based on insight
into the state of student
ability to take justice-
oriented action.
(Metacognitive)
Learning
Theory
Interview How would you assess your success at
promoting student justice-oriented
action? What incremental indicators of
progress would you look for?
Teachers need to know
how to assess and develop
their own critical
consciousness.
(Metacognitive)
Literature
Review
Interview Can you describe a time when your
understanding of structural oppression
changed as a result of interaction with
students?
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 63
recognize they are not promoting student justice-oriented action, they may feel ill-equipped to
achieve the goal. They may also feel social injustice is too entrenched for students to effect
change even over the long-term.
Table 4
Summary of Assumed Motivation Needs, Sources of Identification, and Validation Methods

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers may lack
motivation to implement
the program if they do not
identify with, and
therefore value, the task
of teaching and promoting
justice-oriented action.
(Intrinsic Task Value)
Learning
theory
Interview

Why did you become a teacher?

Probing question:
How do you define success as a
teacher?

Teachers need to believe
the cost, in terms of time
or resources that could be
used otherwise, is worth
the benefit of
implementing a new
program. (Cost-Benefit
Task Value)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type:
Strongly
disagree,
disagree,
agree,
strongly
agree)
I believe reforming our community
engagement approach to result in
greater justice-oriented action should be
a priority for my school.
Teachers need to believe
in the instrumental value
of integrating social
justice and social
innovation approaches
relative to promoting
justice-oriented action.
(Instrumental Task Value)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
a. I believe education for social justice
is a critical component of promoting
student justice-oriented action.

b. I believe education for social
innovation is a critical component of
promoting student justice-oriented
action.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 64
Table 4, continued

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers may be
concerned that future
employers, who do not
prioritize student justice-
oriented action, will
assume their experience
teaching at a school that
does indicates the
teacher’s values will
conflict with the
prospective employer’s.
(Instrumental Task Value)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)

a. I believe working at a school that
prioritizes student justice-oriented
action will help my career.

b. I believe working at a school that
prioritizes student justice-oriented
action will hurt my career.
Teachers may feel unable
to generate student
creativity, as required by
design thinking. (Self-
Efficacy)
Learning
Theory;
Literature
Review
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
I feel confident in my ability to help
students apply creativity in addressing
social problems.
Teachers may feel unable
to generate student
analytic critique of
structural oppression, as
required by social justice
education. (Self-Efficacy)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
I feel confident in my ability to help
students apply analytic skills in
addressing social problems.

Teachers may attribute
students’ relative state of
critical consciousness to
external structural factors
that inhibit student
perception of injustice.
(Attribution)
Learning
Theory;
Literature
Review
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
I feel confident in my ability to generate
student understanding of their
relationship to structural oppression.
Teachers need to believe
they can impact student
commitment to pursue
justice-oriented action
over the long-term.
(Attribution)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)

a. The curriculum and pedagogy of
secondary school education
significantly impacts the degree to
which students perceive the world as
just.

b. The curriculum and pedagogy of
secondary school education can
significantly impact whether students
pursue social change as adults.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 65
Table 4, continued

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers need to believe
implementing the model
will result in student
justice-oriented action.
(Expectancy Outcome)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
I believe integrating education for social
justice and social innovation will result
in greater student justice-oriented
action.
Teachers may be
unmotivated to facilitate
justice-oriented action
because their success in
doing so relative to other
teachers is not easily
determined. (Goal
Orientation)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)

It is important for me to know how
successful I am in generating student
justice-oriented action in comparison to
other teachers at my school.
Teachers need to feel
what constitutes student
justice-oriented action is
well defined. (Goals)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)

What constitutes justice-oriented action
is clear to me.
Teachers need to feel
what constitutes progress
towards the goal of
generating student justice-
oriented action is well
defined. (Goals)

Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)

I have clear understanding of how to
assess progress towards the goal of
generating student justice-oriented
action.
Teachers may be reluctant
to implement the program
innovation because they
perceive it as conflicting
with predominant state
and national level
opposition to promoting
student critical thinking
about social issues.
(Goals)
Literature
Review
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
a. The goal of promoting student
justice-oriented action is consistent with
predominant statewide attitudes towards
the purpose of education.

b. It is important that my school’s
approach to social justice education
reflect predominant statewide attitudes
towards educating students on social
issues.

c. The goal of promoting student
justice-oriented action is consistent with
predominant national attitudes towards
the purpose of education.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 66
Table 4, continued

Organizational
The project-based nature of student engagement, which requires student deliverables at
the conclusion of each term, may prevent teachers from helping students understand projects in
the context of developing and pursuing a long-term plan for promoting social change. The
administration may also have established the goal of facilitating student identification of policy
changes and public awareness activities, which falls short of, but does not conflict with, the goal
to generate student action based on those proposals.

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
d. It is important that my school’s
approach to social justice education
reflect predominant national attitudes
towards educating students on social
issues.
Teachers may feel
negative about the
assertion they have not
adequately promoted
student justice-oriented
action. (Affect)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
Interview
I am already adequately promoting
student justice-oriented action.

How do you feel about the assumption
that you are not already promoting
student justice-oriented action
adequately?
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 67
Table 5
Summary of Assumed Organizational Needs, Sources of Identification, and Validation Methods

Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
Teachers may feel
resistant to the change
required of implementing
a new model. (Cultural
Model)
Learning
Theory
Interview Do you have any concerns about
changing your approach to social
justice education?

Teachers may feel
implementing the new
model detracts from and
therefore conflicts with
student academic goals.
(Cultural Setting)

Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
scale)

Document
Analysis
Focusing on promoting student justice-
oriented action may detract from my
ability to help students achieve
academic goals.

Do documents make clear how
academic and justice-oriented action
goals are complementary?
Teachers may feel the
school incentivizes
performance to a greater
degree in areas other than
student justice-oriented
action. (Cultural Setting)

Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)

Document
Analysis
a. My school has provided clear metrics
by which teacher performance is
assessed.

b. My school assesses teacher
performance in part based on whether
teachers succeed at promoting student
justice-oriented action.

Does school’s teacher
evaluation/assessment system
incorporate justice-oriented action?
Teachers need to feel
their school will provide
adequate resources to
implement the program
innovation effectively.
(Cultural Setting)
Learning
Theory
Survey
(open-
ended)
a. What resources do you think will be
required to promote justice-oriented
action?

b. Which of these resources do you feel
confident your school will adequately
provide and which may it not?
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 68
Table 5, continued
Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
The school need to
recognize promoting
student justice-oriented
action as a key goal.
(Cultural Setting)
Learning
Theory
Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)
Document
Analysis

My school has established promoting
justice-oriented action as a critical goal.

a. Do mission-related documents
identify promoting justice-oriented
action as a critical goal?

b. Do documents explaining approach
to community engagement describe
programs reflecting:
i. Responsible citizenship
ii. Participatory citizenship
ii. Justice-oriented citizenship
The school may
mischaracterize a charity-
driven approach to
community engagement
as a change approach.
(Cultural Setting)

Literature
Review
Document
Analysis
Do documents describing charity-based
community engagement characterize it
as change-oriented?

The school need to
prioritize education for
social justice. (Cultural
Setting)

Document
Analysis

Survey (4
pt. Likert
type)

Do overview/mission-related
documents reference the school having
a social justice purpose?

My school prioritizes education for
social justice.
The school may conceive
of social justice
differently than the
program innovation
contemplates. (Cultural
Setting)

Document
Analysis
a. If documents reference a social
justice program, does it reflect the
following definitional concepts:
i. The equitable distribution of
resources among social groups
If yes, are resources defined in terms of
ii. Socioeconomic conditions; and
iii. Equitable distribution of recognition
and/or respect

b. If materials reference a social justice
program, do they reference the role of
education in helping students to
i. Understand structural oppression
ii. Critique structural oppression
iii. Mitigate structural oppression
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 69
Table 5, continued

Participating Stakeholders
The sample for the study is a purposeful, complete sample of the entire non-student
population employed by ISA that has an impact on the incidence of student justice-oriented
action. This includes all of ISA’s 21 teachers, the service learning coordinator, the professional
development coordinator, the principal and assistant principal.
Teachers are the key stakeholder group for the study as they are responsible for
developing and implementing opportunities for student education on and engagement with social
justice issues. All ISA teachers are active in social justice education at ISA; this includes
English, math, science and social studies teachers. Teachers from each of these disciplines
collaborate through grade-level teams to generate interdisciplinary project-based learning
opportunities on social justice issues. All 21 of ISA’s teachers are, therefore, included in the
sample.
In addition to social justice coursework, students have a 120-hour service program
requirement, which may include volunteerism, community service, and service learning
activities. ISA’s service requirement provides additional opportunity to promote student justice-
oriented action but only if appropriately contextualized. As detailed in Chapter Two, community
service and service learning expose students to symptoms of social injustice; but, alone, they
may neither generate student understanding of the systemic causes of the need for service nor
Assumed Need Source Instrument Validation Question
The school may define
social innovation
differently than the
program innovation
contemplates. (Cultural
Setting)
Learning
Theory
Document
Analysis

If documents reference social
innovation, does description reflect the
following definitional components:
i. A process for solving a social
problem; and
ii. A process for scaling a solution
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 70
promote student action based on that understanding. The service learning coordinator is therefore
included in the sample.
The professional development coordinator supports teacher candidates pursuing teacher
certification through Trinity University, who are placed at ISA for a residency training program.
Many of ISA’s teachers, and the school principal, were trained through Trinity’s residency
program at ISA. The professional development coordinator also provides administrative support
at the school, including participation in and assistance with the grade-level social justice project
trips. The professional development coordinator is therefore included in the sample.
Finally, the principal and assistant principal of ISA are the sole administrators at the
school. For teachers to succeed in generating student justice-oriented action, the principal and
assistant principal must lead, participate in, or support the development of a strategy to train
teachers and the service learning coordinator in integrating relevant theory and practice. They
must also support teachers as they implement changes in practice to result in greater student
justice-oriented action. The principal and assistant principal are therefore included in the sample
as well.
Data Collection
Approval for data collection was obtained from the University of Southern California
Internal Review Board and the North East Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas.
Reflecting the research window dictated by the district, data collection was initiated in October
2017. Qualitative data collection is particularly relevant to the study questions as their analysis is
intended to generate understanding of how the sample conceives of justice-oriented action, that
is, what justice-oriented action means to the research subjects. All data collection was conducted
with the intent of understanding the knowledge, motivational, and organizational gap related to
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 71
generating student justice-oriented action. Three complementary methods of data collection were
used to triangulate findings. These included surveys, interviews and document analysis. Survey
and interview content was expected to be similar, with respective data used to confirm findings.
Survey. Survey data was requested from the entire sample of 25. Surveys were
completed online by eight faculty between October 18, 2017, and December 19, 2016.
Stakeholders were free to conduct the survey at any time between October 14, 2016, and
December 21, 2016. The survey was administered online anonymously to encourage participants
to be forthcoming regarding the knowledge, motivational, and organization gaps related to
promoting student justice-oriented action. Because of the small sample, demographic
information was not collected, as it was in interviews, because it could make participants readily
identifiable. Survey responses were stored on a password-protected laptop, with a backup stored
on an external hard drive stored in a locked drawer. The survey instrument consisted of 31
questions. Knowledge questions consisted of open-ended, multiple-choice, and Likert-type
items. Motivational questions consisted entirely of Likert-type items. Organizational questions
consisted primarily of Likert-type items and limited open-ended questions. A single survey
instrument was used and is included in Appendix B.
Interviews. Everyone in the 25-person sample was invited to be interviewed. Interviews
were conducted between October 14, 2016, and January 19, 2017, onsite at the school, and were
scheduled to accommodate stakeholder availability. Interviews included two focus groups
totaling nine individuals, and four individual interviews (Table 6).
Table 6
Interview Data Collection Schedule
Instrument Respondent Affiliation Date
Interview Principal 10/14/16
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 72
Focus Group 10
th
grade team (four teachers and one teaching intern) 11/1/16
Interview 11
th
grade team leader 12/8/16
Interview Professional development coordinator 12/13/16
Focus Group Ninth grade team (four teachers) 12/19/16
Interview Dean of social studies and English, and 12
th
grade teacher 1/19/17

Both focus groups and the first two individual interviews used the semi-structured protocol with
14 questions included in Appendix A, while the last two interviews included additional questions
to generate data on three new needs that emerged from earlier interviews. Probing follow-up
questions were used as necessary to generate more data that may yield insight into the study
questions. In addition to questions regarding the knowledge, motivational and organizational
needs related to generating student justice-oriented action, demographic information was
collected on the number of years participants have taught at the school and subject matter taught.
Interviews were recorded and transcribed to allow for coding.
Table 7
New Needs Emergent From Data
Teachers need to believe secondary school students are developmentally capable of
pursuing justice-oriented action.
Motivation
(Attribution)
The school needs to orient new teachers consistently into the school’s social justice
tradition.
Organization
(Cultural Setting)
The school needs to make clear to faculty how the work of grade-level teams is
cohesively leveraged to promote student justice-oriented action.
Organization
(Cultural Setting)

Document analysis. Document analysis was conducted on January 21, 2017, after
interview and survey data collection, to enable triangulation of results. Analysis was conducted
of the school’s public written descriptions of student engagement with social issues and outside
communities. This included website material providing an overview of the school, its history,
and mission; website material on school curriculum; website material detailing desired student
performance outcomes, including subject-specific academic outcomes and non-academic
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 73
outcomes relative to “habits of mind” and student interactions with the community and broader
society; a graduate profile; website material describing the school’s service program, including
mission, philosophy and requirements; and guidance to students on the intent and process of
grade-level trips to learn about social justice issues and develop an action plan to address them.
The document analysis guide is included in Appendix C.
Validation of the Performance Need
Table 3 contains a summary of assumed knowledge needs, sources of identification, and
validation methods. Table 4 contains a summary of assumed motivational needs, sources of
identification, and validation methods. Table 5 contains a summary of assumed organizational
needs, sources of identification, and validation methods.
Trustworthiness of Data
Trustworthiness of data was promoted through triangulation of methods, using surveys,
interviews and document analysis. Data points were compared and contrasted for instances of
convergence. Member checks were conducted on interviews to confirm the accuracy of data
collected. Survey data was collected anonymously and kept confidential to promote the
likelihood of stakeholders responding honestly and thoroughly (Merriam, 2009). While survey
items were not based on existing valid and reliable instruments, validity and reliability specific to
qualitative inquiry was established through a transparent analysis of the degree to which the
study’s findings reflect the data collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Role of the Investigator
The role of the investigator in this study was to conduct a problem-solving analysis that
will support implementation of an innovative model for promoting student justice-oriented
action. The investigator has no professional or personal relationship to the ISA. The investigator
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 74
made clear stakeholder participation in data collection was voluntary. All surveys were
completed anonymously, without requiring demographic information that could unintentionally
identify individuals. The investigator asked each faculty member interviewed if he or she wanted
interview data to be cited without reference to identifiable information; for example, interview
data could be cited without reference to subject matter taught or tenure as a teacher. No
interviewee declined to be audiotaped or to provide identifiable information. However, the
researcher chose not to include identifiable information in the discussion of findings except as
necessary to understand the implications of interview responses, such as when participants
shared their perspective on how grade-level social justice education might build upon itself to
generate a justice orientation over the course of a student’s 4 years in high school.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was triangulated through a combination of survey, interview, and document
analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted upon completion of survey data
collection. Given the limited sample size of 25, data is reported in frequencies. Interviews were
transcribed and coded for themes related to knowledge, motivation and organizational needs.
Documents were analyzed to complement survey and interview data, enabling a rich description
of stakeholder needs and assets relative to implementing the new program.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 75
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations that may impact the results and implications of the study
are reviewed in this section. Limitations relate to factors beyond the investigator’s control and
delimitations to choices made by the investigator impacting the study’s generalizability.
Limitations
Chapter One argues the need for education that generates students, and ultimately
graduates, committed to and capable of pursuing social justice. This study makes the theoretical
assumption that secondary school education can have an impact on students’ longer-term
inclinations. It assumes education influences the nature of goals students establish and their
capacity to pursue them. Literature informing this assumption is limited beyond the theoretical.
Longitudinal studies on the impact of social justice education on professional choices are rare,
and literature on the long-term impact of K-12 social innovation education may be nonexistent.
Furthermore, the program innovation, while based on elements of social justice and social
innovation education in practice, reflects a theoretical integration of their respective strengths.
The impact of the proposed program, both short and long-term, is untested. Verifying that the
program innovation results in greater justice-oriented action requires implementation and
evaluation of the program.
Delimitations
The study is a descriptive analysis of the needs and assets of one institution looking to
implement a program innovation. The results are, therefore, not generalizable beyond the school
site. However, the program innovation and related needs analysis may be of interest to those
seeking to promote student justice-oriented action, particularly after the program has been
implemented and evaluated for impact.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 76
The stakeholder group for data analysis is limited to adults at the school responsible for
educating students: all teachers, the service learning coordinator, the professional development
coordinator, principal and assistance principal. However, a complete gap analysis would also
include students, deriving knowledge, motivational and organizational needs and assets relative
to increasing justice-oriented action in part directly from their perspective. It would also include
district personnel, the school board, parents, and others outside of the school that may have an
impact on the knowledge, motivational and organizational factors necessary to increasing student
justice-oriented action.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 77
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter presents the results and findings of data collection to determine the degree to
which each of the assumed needs identified in Chapter Three are present in the context of ISA.
The presentation of findings is organized by the program innovation’s three content categories:
social justice education, social innovation education, and justice-oriented action, as delineated in
Appendix D. Scanning interviews and a previous study of the school (Quinn, 2015) indicated the
school and its faculty would evidence strong understanding and support for social justice
education, whereas the Quinn (2015) study suggested students may not be engaged in justice-
oriented action. Scanning interviews also revealed the desire to learn more about social
innovation education but limited faculty exposure to it. Thus, it was assumed needs related to
social justice education were considerably less likely to be present than those related to social
innovation and justice-oriented action, and that findings could therefore be grouped thematically
according to these three categories. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational findings are
furthermore grouped thematically within each of the three content categories to generate insight
into how knowledge, motivation and organizational needs interact to generate strengths and
weaknesses related to program implementation.
Data is presented first as it relates to social justice education-related needs; then social
innovation education needs; and last, justice-oriented action-related needs, or, needs related to
integrating education for social justice and social innovation. Each section concludes with a
synthesis of results and findings that summarizes knowledge, motivation and organizational
needs validated, partially validated and not validated related to the content category. The chapter
concludes with a summary of thematic findings, which will inform solutions identified in
Chapter Five.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 78
Needs were determined valid if data from more than 30% of interview or survey
respondents indicated an area in need of support. Because successful implementation of the
program innovation requires all stakeholders to have related knowledge and motivational
attributes, needs were designated partially valid if even one respondent confirmed the need.
Analyzing these outliers yielded insight into why knowledge and motivation is not consistent,
which has implications for implementation strategy. Needs were also designated partially valid
where data collection from one instrument validated a need but from another did not. If data
collection from one instrument indicated partial validity but data from another did not validate
the need, the need was determined not valid.
Social Justice Education Results and Findings
Because ISA is recognized nationally as a best practice school in social justice education
(Quinn, 2015), assumed needs related to the program innovation’s social justice education
component were originally assumed assets; that is, prior to data collection, it was assumed the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors necessary to support social justice education
would be found present. In the first interview, however, it was discovered that 11 of the school’s
25 faculty, five of them teachers, were new to ISA for the 2016-2017 school year. In this context,
one could anticipate inconsistent understanding and commitment to social justice education
absent intentional orientation and induction of new faculty to the school’s social justice tradition.
Data confirmed faculty have a strong understanding of social justice concepts, and
experienced teachers at ISA have a strong understanding of how to educate students on social
justice issues. However, new teachers may struggle in this area given no formal orientation to
ISA’s social justice tradition. A new related organizational need related to acclimating faculty
was therefore added. Furthermore, across all teachers there was inconsistent understanding of the
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 79
role action plays in social justice education. All faculty perceived social justice education as a
priority for ISA. Document analysis revealed public materials do not reference a social justice
mission, though do not preclude it.
Faculty Exhibited Consistent Understanding of Social Justice Concepts
Faculty exhibited a factual understanding of social justice through responses to the open-
ended survey question, “How would you define social justice,” with all eight respondents
referencing the equitable distribution of resources and/or recognition among groups.

Figure 2. Survey responses to “How would you define social justice?”
All interview respondents indicated conceptual understanding of structural oppression,
citing its manifestation at the individual, institutional, and/or cultural level. Several teachers
emphasized its historical dimension, with one teacher suggesting structural oppression is
“systemic and has its roots in historical oppression,” another describing it as “things that have
stemmed from historical oppression, hegemony.” One teacher said he had “never thought of that
exact term before,” but still exhibited strong conceptual understanding, providing the example of
“institutional racism,” which he defined as “people that perhaps make callous or poor choices
because they are following the institutional path of least resistance.” He furthermore described
the intersectionality of structural oppression between “classism and racism,” observing “what’s
interesting is once you go down that path, usually it becomes how everything is connected.”
Recognition
1/8
Resources
1/8
Social justice is the equal distribution of:

Resources &
Recognition
6/8
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 80
All interview respondents also demonstrated a conceptual understanding of their
students’ relationship to structural oppression, as well as their own, and how it might impact
their teaching. One teacher observed, “If we’re not careful at ISA, you’ll fall into the same habits
of just assuming that a student’s behavior represents what you think it represents instead of really
coming to understand their motivations and intentions.” Respondents also indicated the
metacognitive recognition of instances where interaction with students shaped their conception
of structural oppression. One teacher recounted teaching a student who as a freshman was
homeless and failing school, yet grew to exhibit significant leadership qualities as a senior. From
this experience her teacher concluded, it is critical to understand student “stories” to provide
individualized support and to recognize that students can overcome their circumstances.
Faculty also acknowledged the challenge of educating students on social justice issues
who have not experienced structural oppression. One teacher gave the example of leading a class
discussion on civil rights issues with a student whose parents are active in Black Lives Matter
and another whose father is a police officer. The teacher had to be cognizant of how both were
feeling, creating a safe and constructive environment for diverging perspectives, “So that at the
end day, these two radically different people who look at the world differently and have
completely different views on social justice…can have a meaningful conversation and learn from
each other.” As a result of students coming from “different realities,” this teacher worked to be
“more mindful in every class discussion…[for a conservative] viewpoint that a kid might feel
uncomfortable expressing,” eliciting discussion by playing devil’s advocate with liberal and
conservative students alike.
Faculty associate structural oppression with public schooling and work to overcome
it. In discussing the types of structural oppression students face, respondents frequently cited its
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 81
manifestation in American public schooling, providing examples at the individual, institutional,
and cultural level, and how they interact. One teacher observed,
I feel like in some ways there's structural oppression in the stories that we tell as a school
system and what success looks like and what a successful student looks like … [which
are] unidimensional stories about what a student can or should look like in the classroom.
One participant discussed the intersection of physical, institutional and cultural
manifestation of structural oppression, or “structural constraints,” as he called them. Through the
example of where students live, he described how geography results in both physical barriers to
education, as the school district does not provide transportation, and cultural: “There is the de
facto kind of structural component that keeps students from being mobile … certain cultural
groups, minority groups living in certain spots in the city based on cultural norms that developed
over time.” In turn, “in some areas, students from different groups are encouraged into one
track.”
When asked about the impact of structural oppression on their students, faculty focused
on ways in which ISA attempts to overcome the limiting structures of traditional public
schooling. One participant characterized this dynamic and result as, “The structures that create
and preserve [the ISA] philosophy.” Beginning with the school being a magnet within a large
comprehensive high school, the principal described efforts to preserve a distinct ISA cultural and
academic experience for students, while not isolating them from the comprehensive high school
community. ISA students participate in the high school’s sports teams, for example, and the ISA
principal communicates and collaborates regularly with the comprehensive high school principal.
Faculty spoke of the importance of modeling for students: “Valuing voices … starts at the
faculty level,” said one teacher. Faculty are encouraged to collaborate through interdisciplinary
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 82
grade-level teams, in which a science teacher’s perspective on social justice education is as
important as a social studies teacher’s. Within the classroom, students facing structural
oppression outside of ISA are encouraged to become leaders within ISA through opportunities to
lead discussions on social justice issues with which they have personal experience. Above all,
“the culture is one of inclusivity,” as one teacher observed.
Faculty also described efforts to ensure all students are supported individually in
academic growth. When students enter the school, “one of the challenges at ISA is trying to
create some sort of leveling…so they don’t feel a sense of academic isolation,” said one teacher.
Faculty insist on “high expectations for all,” requiring students to progress through “redo and
iteration.” Multiple teachers recounted efforts to engage students who came to ISA alienated
from education, but left enthusiastic about their education, even if not academically outstanding.
The principal also spoke of an exercise the previous summer to support all students, “the extreme
user” through the school’s physical plant, by creating a safe space for “students who have
difficulty, a space where we could create a meaningful environment for them.”
Experienced Faculty Have Strong Understanding of how to Educate Students on Social
Justice Issues, but New Teachers May Struggle
Nearly all interview respondents, with the exception of one, indicated procedural
knowledge of how to teach students about social justice issues. Several teachers discussed how
their purposefully inclusive interactions with other teachers, particularly through grade-level
teams, are structured in a manner that models the democratic norms of social justice instruction
within their classrooms. The teacher who did not evidence social justice procedural knowledge
expressed frustration at being unable to relate her own experiences with structural oppression to
those of students constructively:
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 83
In this education system, it makes me feel like I need to tell students that, if you can work
hard, you can do what you want to do. But these kids don’t believe me even though I’ve
come from their place. I don’t know how to get that across to them. That has been my
struggle this year.
This exception among interview respondents is instructive because the teacher was the only first-
year faculty member who participated in focus groups or individual interviews.
Survey data confirmed varied facility with educating students on social justice issues.
Two of eight survey respondents indicated they did not feel confident in their ability to help
students understand their relationship to structural oppression or to apply analytic skills to
addressing social problems, in answering “disagree” to related Likert-type confidence questions.
Because of survey anonymity, it is not possible to know whether these respondents were new to
the school or to teaching. Though six of eight felt confident in their ability, as stated above, it is
important to consider the needs of even one respondent lacking confidence to ensure successful
program implementation.
Faculty Have Inconsistent Understanding of Best Practice in Social Justice Action
When asked to compare the strengths of education for social justice to social innovation
relative to the goal of promoting justice-oriented action, all interview respondents accurately
framed social justice education as foundational to effective social change. One teacher described
education for social justice as, “Helping kids think and talk about what’s right and wrong and all
the areas in between and how historically that’s happened and how it’s happening now.”
However, when asked through an open-ended interview question about the purpose of education
for social justice in comparison to social innovation, respondents indicated an understanding of
social justice not necessarily including action. As discussed in Chapter Two, education for social
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 84
justice not only aims to enable student understanding and critique of internalized and external
oppression, but also to mitigate that oppression (Adams et. al., 2016). The role of action is
important to a complete conceptual understanding of social justice education, and specifically,
action that is executed in a way that reflects the democratic and empowering principles apparent
in the structure of ISA and its classrooms.
The inconsistent understanding of action in the social justice tradition revealed through
interviews is apparent in survey responses as well. As shown in Figure 2, all survey respondents
indicated a social justice approach to school-based community engagement should foster student
understanding of a social problem’s structural nature, but just five of eight believed the
intervention should be developed with the community and only three of eight felt the community
should benefit more than the student from the exercise. As discussed in Chapter Two, absent a
concerted effort to meet both of these process objectives, the relationship between student and
community risks being a subjugating one (Bortolin, 2011; Eyler & Giles, 1999; King, 2004;
Sandy & Holland, 2006), contrary to the principles of social justice. Only three of eight
respondents understood all six process objectives to be aligned with the aims of social justice
approaches. The significance of this finding to implementation of the program innovation is
discussed in greater detail in the justice-oriented action section of this chapter.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 85

Figure 3. Survey responses to, “A Social Justice Approach to School-Based Community
Engagement with Social Issues Aims to do which of the Following?”
Though Faculty Perceive Education for Social Justice as a Priority, There is no Formal
Effort to Orient New Faculty to the School’s Social Justice Tradition
All survey respondents agreed secondary education impacts student perception of
injustice and that ISA prioritizes education for social justice. However, several respondents
mentioned a lack of formal orientation to ISA’s social justice tradition, the implications of which
were evident in the response of the one new teacher who participated in an interview. In fact,
teachers at ISA are not formally trained in social justice education; rather the integration of
social justice curriculum and pedagogy evolved over time, hence a new organizational need
emergent from the data to train new faculty in social justice education.
One veteran teacher observed, “There’s not a formal structure for helping new colleagues
know there is a formal or explicit approach to social justice…They find out about those things as
Facilitate student
understanding of a
problem's structural
root cause
Develop student
empathy for the
stakeholder group or
service recipient
Develop an
intervention with the
stakeholder group
Ensure the
stakeholder beneGit
from community
engagement equals or
exceeds the student
Generate student
understanding of a
school-based project's
systemic context
Develop student
understandin of and
facility with means to
effect systemic
change
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 86
we go.” The principal, himself new in the role though not to ISA, acknowledged, “I don’t think
we have a good system for it.” Several teachers mentioned an explicit focus on social justice
during the faculty summer retreat a year prior to the influx of new faculty. That year, faculty
went to the border of Mexico and Texas to explore the social justice issues associated with
borderlands. In contrast, the most recent summer retreat introduced faculty to the design thinking
process, which they used to create a physical space to support disengaged students. While one
could infer social justice implications of such an exercise, no such connection was explicitly
made at the retreat.
Nor do ISA’s organizational documents articulate a social justice objective in the terms
the program innovation contemplates, including its mission statement and aspirational graduate
profile performance outcomes. ISA’s mission statement calls for students to become “change
agents” but does not state to what end. It asks, “students and teachers … to improve … the local
and global community” but does not elaborate on the nature of what should be improved; there is
no acknowledgement of inequity locally or globally.
Synthesis of Social Justice Education Results and Findings
Data indicate faculty have strong factual, conceptual and metacognitive knowledge of
education for social justice. The only knowledge need present was procedural, with just one
respondent indicating a lack of understanding about how to teach social justice issues. This
respondent was the only first-year teacher included in interviews and is indicative of the need to
orient new teachers to ISA’s social justice tradition. Faculty also showed high degrees of
motivation for social justice education. All believe secondary school education can impact
student perception of injustice but a small number of faculty do lack confidence in their ability to
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 87
help students apply analytic skills and develop the critical consciousness necessary to pursue
social change.
A new assumed organizational need emerged related to orienting teachers consistently. In
addition, the organization’s mission statement does not reflect the school’s commitment to
education for social justice, despite 100% of survey respondents believing ISA prioritizes it. In
so far as mission statement and graduate profile documents reference ISA students taking action,
it is not done in reference to righting inequity, which indicates the school may conceive of social
justice differently than the program innovation contemplates. A summary of validated and
partially validated needs, and needs not validated related to social justice education is included in
Appendix E.
Social Innovation Education Results and Findings
Given the adoption of education for social innovation at the secondary school level is still
rare, it was assumed, and confirmed, faculty have limited knowledge of social innovation
education. While they do not perceive it as an ISA priority, document analysis suggests the
school values principles of creative problem-solving in concert with social innovation. However,
some faculty lack confidence in their ability to help students apply creativity to solving social
problems.
Faculty Have Inconsistent Understanding of Social Innovation and do not Perceive it as a
School Priority
Half of respondents to an open-ended survey question on the definition of social
innovation referenced developing a new intervention to address a social problem, such as “Social
innovation might be the creation by an individual, or group, a system or organization that results
in creating access to resources, economic opportunity, or some other area of life or society to
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 88
which access has been withheld.” Others associated social innovation with business processes or
acknowledged being unfamiliar with the term. One respondent defined social innovation in
reference to social justice: “Social innovation seeks to promote social justice by having great
minds collaborate to develop solutions. Just as products and technologies require innovation to
come into being, social justice also needs innovators to become reality.”
Two-thirds of respondents to an open-ended interview question on the purpose of
education for social innovation in contrast to education for social justice acknowledged not
understanding the definition of social innovation. The remaining third differentiated between
social justice education as the process of understanding social problems and social innovation as
acting to solve them. As one teacher described it, “It seems like there's almost a temporal
limitation…like social justice is more historical and maybe the present and then social
innovation is more like future-oriented and that it's creating change…” Teachers making this
distinction see social justice education as an analytic exercise where social innovation implies
application:
Education, in some ways, insinuates that it's academic, it's theoretical, it's learned in a
capsule. Like, if it's a project-based learning experience, right? There might be some
realism to it, but it might not be fully transferable into action. Whereas social innovation
to me implies that there is something that is being created. There is some movement.
There is some organization, some institution, or some system that's being created that
works to overcome an injustice, or creates social change.
These faculty members correctly identify the relative strengths of education for social justice and
social innovation in practice. However, they did not reference both having common aspirational
objectives, despite what may be differing strengths in practice. Responses to a multiple-choice
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 89
survey question on the objectives of social innovation education confirm inconsistent
understanding of best practice in education for social innovation (Figure 4). Only half of
respondents consider facilitating student understanding of a problem’s structural causes a social
innovation objective, when it is actually foundational to aspirational process objectives of design
thinking and social entrepreneurship activity as detailed in Chapter Two; so, too, is empathy with
the stakeholder group or service recipient, particularly in design thinking. Only two of eight
respondents understood all of the six process objectives to be aligned with the aims of social
innovation approaches.

Figure 4. Survey responses to, “A Social Innovation Approach to School-Based Community
Engagement with Social Issues Aims to do which of the Following?”
Facilitate student
understanding of a
problem's structural root
causes
Develop student empathy
for the stakeholder group
or service recipient
Develop an intervention
with the stakeholder
group
Ensure the stakeholder
beneGit from community
engagement equals or
exceeds the student
beneGit
Generate student
understanding of a school-
based project's systemic
context
Develop student
understanding of and
facility with means to
effect systemic change
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 90
Five of eight respondents to a Likert-type survey question disagreed with the statement
that ISA prioritizes education for social innovation. This survey finding is confirmed by
document analysis, as mission and graduate profile outcome documents do not reference social
innovation.
While the School Appreciates Creative Problem-Solving, Some Faculty Lack Confidence in
Helping Students Apply Creativity to Social Problems
Though the school’s public documents do not reference social innovation, its description
of the ISA graduate profile does call for an application of creativity in alignment with social
innovation: “[Graduates should be] creative in their approach to solving problems; rely on a wide
array of background knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines and creatively combine that
knowledge to generate new and productive outcomes.” The act of collaborative ideation among
diverse parties reflects a core principal of social innovation. However, there is no mention of the
“problems” graduates should solve being social or structural in nature. In addition, three out of
eight survey respondents disagreed with the statement “I feel confident in my ability to help
students apply creativity in addressing social problems.”
Synthesis of Social Innovation Results and Findings
All assumed social innovation needs were present. While a minority of faculty members
demonstrated an understanding of education for social innovation, over 30% of respondents
indicated they were not familiar with the definition of social innovation, its relative strengths and
objectives. Some faculty also did not feel confident in their ability to help students apply creative
skills to solving social problems. While organizational documents reflected principles of social
innovation, they did not reference the term social innovation explicitly. A summary of validated,
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 91
and partially validated needs, and needs not validated related to social innovation education is
included in Appendix F.
Justice-Oriented Action Results and Findings
Given the lack of understanding about the action-based component of social justice
education, as well as inconsistent knowledge of education for social innovation, one could
anticipate limited understanding of how the two approaches might be integrated and leveraged to
increase justice-oriented action. Indeed, all assumed knowledge needs related to justice-oriented
action were found present. However, survey data reveal faculty are positively motivated to
increase justice-oriented action and believe implementing the program innovation will do so.
Furthermore, faculty perceive the school as supportive of such an effort, though document
analysis belies ISA prioritizing justice-oriented action.
Some Faculty Lack Understanding of What Constitutes Justice-oriented Action and the
Distinction Between Charity and Change
Three assumed needs relate to faculty understanding of what constitutes justice-oriented
action. As detailed in Chapter Two, responsible and participatory activities may be considered
charitable in nature, whereas justice-oriented activity is change-driven, aiming to address the
structural causes of social problems. In response to a multiple-choice survey question asking
respondents to characterize different activities as reflecting one of these three types of action,
five out of eight labeled examples of responsible and participatory actions as justice-oriented.
These included students donating food to a food bank (responsible) and organizing a food drive
(participatory). In response to an interview question asking for examples of community
engagement ISA offers that enable students to engage in social change work, five out of six
faculty offered programs reflecting both charity and change, from the school’s 120-hour service
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 92
requirement and a global day of volunteerism to a “Make a Difference” project, wherein students
make a recommendation for change, though do not necessarily act on it. Similarly, when asked
through an interview question about other types of programs that might give students the
opportunity to take justice-oriented action, faculty described students developing
recommendations for justice-oriented action after analyzing a community-based social problem,
but did not describe students executing those actions. For example, seniors develop policy
recommendations pursuant to supporting the “SA 2020” plan. SA 2020 identifies goals for the
school’s surrounding city of San Antonio and its residents in 11 focus areas, such as education
and health. However, students stop short of taking action based on their recommendations.
One organizational need and motivational need related to what constitutes justice-
oriented action were also found present. Three out of eight respondents to a Likert-type survey
question disagreed with the statement, “What constitutes justice-oriented action is clear to me.”
ISA’s mission statement references students as global citizens, but does not reflect a justice-
oriented citizenship, only a responsible and participatory citizenship: Students are promoted as
“conscientious citizens” (responsible) “who actively participate in their local and global
communities” (participatory). Participatory and responsible activity do not preclude a justice-
orientation, and can even be conceived on a continuum. If responsible and participatory activity
are intentionally structured for critical reflection, they can foster foundational elements of a
justice-oriented mindset, such as empathy, critical consciousness, and a commitment to
community-based action. Indeed, several attributes promoted in ISA’s mission statement reflect
those foundational to a justice orientation, such as “[seeking] to understand the opinions,
viewpoints and philosophies of others,” though an action-oriented end is not made explicit.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 93
Faculty have Incomplete Knowledge of how Social Justice and Innovation Education can
be Leveraged to Promote Justice-oriented Action
As detailed in the social justice and social innovation sections of this chapter, faculty
largely did not associate the six aspirational process objectives shared by both approaches with
either education for social justice (Figure 3) or social innovation (Figure 4). In fact, only one out
of eight respondents understood all of the six process objectives to be aligned with the aims of
both education for social justice and social innovation approaches to social change action.
Also, as detailed in the social justice section of this chapter, four of six interview
respondents correctly understood the strength of social justice education in contrast to social
innovation as generating understanding of the structural nature of social problems. However, the
other two respondents acknowledged having no factual knowledge of social innovation,
precluding them from understanding its relative strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, only
two respondents evidenced depth of understanding in social innovation processes, one in social
entrepreneurship and the other design thinking.
Nearly all Faculty Recognize Current Student Justice-oriented Action as Inadequate and
Support Increasing it
Seven out of eight survey respondents agreed that increasing justice orientation action
should be a priority for the school, and six of eight did not believe they were adequately
promoting justice-oriented action. This finding is supported by responses to the interview
question, “How do you feel about the assumption that you are not already promoting student
justice-oriented action adequately?” All expressed interest in exploring how to increase justice-
oriented action, thus indicating the affect motivation necessary to supporting program
implementation. As an example, one teacher responded, “I’m excited to think about…how do
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 94
you get kids to be making things that go out into the world and change them beyond just talking
about things that would do that.” The principal acknowledged anxiety over the realization that
ISA was not promoting action as much as it could and believes, “If we’re not creating those
opportunities for kids, then we’re failing our mission.” He furthermore suggested justice-oriented
action “is a good next step; that’s the place you push, that’s the place you evolve a school of this
kind, not just from the theoretical but to the action.”
In response to the question, “Do you have any concerns about changing your approach to
social justice?” all faculty again expressed support of increasing justice-oriented action, with
some also sharing structural challenges. For example, one teacher observed:
We claim that creating awareness is taking action…but I also think taking action is a step
beyond that. I think that as a school it’s difficult for us to do that, and I think that’s a
reflection of society.
The principal spoke to the organizational challenge and opportunity associated with
contemplating the program innovation in the context of assimilating 11 new faculty members,
stating,
There are questions about why this or why that, so you find yourself reflecting on the
why, which is really important for an institution…we assume the mission is happening
[but] when do we take stock of why and how it's happening? So that's actually been really
good but it's been really hard, too.
While faculty reflected on the challenges of increasing justice-oriented action, they did not
express resistance to it, indicating a cultural model conducive to program implementation.
Faculty Believe Implementing the Program Innovation Will Result in Greater Justice-
oriented Action
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 95
All survey respondents agreed with five Likert-type statements intended to gauge
whether faculty believe implementing the program innovation will increase justice-oriented
action over the long-term. These statements are summarized here:
• The curriculum and pedagogy of secondary school students significantly impacts the
degree to which students perceive the world as just and pursue social change as adults;
• Social justice and social innovation are critical components of promoting justice-oriented
action; and,
• Integrating education for social justice and social innovation will result in greater justice-
oriented action.
Faculty Expressed Limited Concern with the Program Innovation’s Divergence from
Cultural Norms
Though a majority of survey respondents believed justice-oriented action is inconsistent
with predominant statewide attitudes towards the purpose of education, a majority also did not
believe it was important that ISA’s approach to social justice education reflect predominant
statewide attitudes towards educating students on social issues. In interviews, one teacher
expressed both support for exploring the program innovation and recognition of its contrast to
institutional and cultural norms:
Seeing students come in, and they've got their minds made up because they've grown up
in a world where everybody is making up their mind for them, the idea of moving into
action is really interesting…[but] I see it as more controversial. The take action piece for
me…brings on a layer of, “oh, my gosh, should we be encouraging students to take that
kind of space?”
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 96
Another teacher shared that he “reveled” in the ability to teach about controversial issues at ISA,
finding previous schools too conservative for social justice education. A majority of survey
respondents, six of eight, also felt working at a school that prioritizes student justice-oriented
action will help their career (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Survey responses indicating low degree of faculty concern with deviating from state
norms on justice-oriented education.
While no teacher said he or she became a teacher to promote justice-oriented action, all
responses to the interview question, “Why did you become a teacher and how do you define
success?” reflected elements foundational to or in concert with a justice orientation, such as
generating compassionate students who understand themselves and the world in which they live.
One teacher expressed success in terms of social and emotional wellbeing. The response most
reflecting intrinsic identification with the program innovation’s aims was this teacher’s
statement: “Part of what I want to do with teaching is to help kids find their voice and see what
they can do with their voice and the change they can make with the words they have and their
truth.” However, because no teacher articulated success specifically as generating students who
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Justice oriented
action is
consistent with
statewide
attitudes
It is important
ISA's approach
reGlect statewide
attitudes
Working at a
social justice
school will help
my career
Stongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 97
are social change agents, or committed and prepared to pursuing social change, the related
assumed intrinsic task value motivational need is deemed partially present.
Faculty Have a Mixed Perception of Justice-Oriented Action’s Developmental
Appropriateness
Several faculty wondered if promoting student justice-oriented action was appropriate at
all grade levels in high school, leading to a new motivational attribution need, deemed partially
present at ISA, related to teachers believing secondary school students are developmentally
capable of pursuing justice-oriented action. Because teachers discussed developmental
appropriateness in reference to current grade-level activity, related findings are prefaced with
basic background on grade-level activity.
Each grade participates in a class trip followed by a presentation of findings and related
recommendations to the school community, which is also open to the surrounding San Antonio
community. Freshman students travel to Heifer Ranch in Arkansas, where they learn about issues
of poverty and environmental sustainability though simulated experiences. They present on a
related issue at a school-based Advocacy Fair open to the public at the end of year. Sophomores
travel to the Jemez Pueblo, a federally recognized tribe in New Mexico. Students then research a
culture in jeopardy, developing and delivering an argument for its preservation at the Advocacy
Fair. Juniors travel to Alabama to learn about the civil rights movement, and its relationship to
historical and contemporary manifestations of discrimination, developing recommendations to
address the latter. Seniors identify a policy challenge in San Antonio and travel to Washington
D.C. to learn about the issue in national and international context. They then develop a policy
recommendation and a public awareness plan, presenting both at the school’s Advocacy Fair.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 98
One ninth grade teacher suggested “it’s hard with freshmen” to promote justice-oriented
action because they come to ISA as “concrete thinkers.” Another suggested it is only at the end
of freshman year that some students evidence an open-mindedness foundational to adopting a
justice orientation:
We had one student who said that he came to ISA very closed-minded, and his brain was
in a box, and now he’s able to see other people’s points of view and be more open to
hearing other people’s ideas even if they don’t mesh with his.
Teachers similarly suggested age is a constraint to justice-oriented action at the tenth grade level.
While the tenth grade trip’s intent is to expose students to the concepts of acculturation and
assimilation, some tenth grade teachers considered the more fundamental objective as exposing
students to geographical difference: Traveling out of state is itself a new and important
experience for some tenth grade students, one teacher observed. From one tenth grade teacher’s
perspective, “the seeds are planted” for justice-oriented action in tenth grade but “there’s a limit
to what high school students can do right now.”
An eleventh grade teacher similarly suggested, “I think we’ve laid the groundwork and
the seeds are planted intellectually that maybe when they’re in college potentially, or first
version of their career, that those seeds will be potentially harvested.” He did think there was
room for improvement at ISA related to student action: When asked for his perspective on
Quinn’s (2015) conclusion that ISA students were primarily engaged in participatory community
service more than action addressing the root causes of problems, he responded:
I think it’s a fair criticism. I think it’s proof that we need to not become complacent in
what we do and keep thinking about ways that, intellectually, students can identify root
cause, and I think that’s a life skill.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 99
This teacher emphasized the intellectual exercise of root cause analysis more than action
resulting from it.
In contrast, the social studies dean, who works closely with the twelfth grade teacher
team, believes without the incorporation of a social justice action, “there really isn’t a
meaningful end-product” to the senior-year experience. Currently, seniors share their policy
recommendation with the policymakers they consulted in researching their respective issue.
However, the dean acknowledged, “In terms of people saying … I would like to use you as
students as an ally to kind of advocate for this policy, that’s never happened … I would like it to
happen.” He continued, “Our goal for how to redesign senior year is that it becomes this service
learning experience and they get involved with issues.” Though he was the only senior team
member interviewed, he believes “everybody wants students to get out and be more active in the
community and to really pursue change in the areas they’re passionate about.”
Faculty Perceive Competing and Complementary Demands
Seven of eight survey respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement,
“Focusing on promoting student justice-oriented action may detract from my ability to help
students achieve academic goals.” However, both the lead junior year teacher and social studies
dean who, again, is a twelfth grade teacher, expressed concern about adding a justice-oriented
action expectation to what are already challenging academic demands. The junior year teacher
was particularly concerned about the demands of not only meeting state standards, but also the
heavy Advanced Placement load juniors at ISA assume. The twelfth grade teacher further
enumerated several existing requirements and voluntary activities ISA has established, including:
• A 120-hour service requirement over a student’s 4 years
• A required internship senior year
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 100
• The largest student run Model UN conference in the world
• A graduate portfolio project presentation
As the social studies dean observed, “You just keep stacking all of those traditions and
expectations and it makes doing the very substantial social justice work, the take action piece,
more and more difficult.”
At the same time, he recognized the opportunity to incorporate justice-oriented action
into existing requirements, particularly the internship; though he cautioned, not all students
indicate a passion for social justice, and the intent of ISA’s internship requirement is for students
to gain experience with issues of interest. The dean recounted a previous attempt to incorporate
action into the senior-year experience, but student perception of it as an additional rather than
integrated requirement undermined the effort. Another veteran ISA teacher said, “There’s never
a school that adopts programs wholesale. It’s more like you look for best practices and then add
them on” perhaps indicative of a history at ISA of adopting new practices without necessarily
discarding others.
The evolution of ISA’s organizing frameworks. Veteran ISA teachers referenced a
consistent history of adopting new external frameworks, such as the school’s participation in the
Coalition for Essential Schools, the Asia Society’s International Studies Schools Network
(ISSN), and the adoption of Oxfam’s global citizenship framework. A review of organizational
documents, as well as interview data with longstanding faculty, indicate ISA has a tradition of
school design and redesign to reflect and incorporate visionary pedagogical approaches since its
founding in 1994. ISA originated from a white paper by Thomas Sergiovanni on developing
small community-driven schools. At the time, Sergiovanni was a professor at Trinity University,
which to this day has partnered with ISA as a residency lab school for its teacher candidates,
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 101
many of whom become teachers at ISA upon graduating. The school was originally part of the
Coalition of Essential Schools and still is, though not as active as it once was. The external
context of globalization, specifically the execution of NAFTA, was also reflected in the school’s
original design as a Spanish bilingual school and was the impetus behind the school’s name, the
ISA.
The school evolved from a Latin America-centric conception of international to a global
one as the school struggled to find bilingual teachers and students requested language instruction
opportunities beyond Spanish. As ISA incorporated project-based learning and pedagogy
centered on real-world problem-solving, the issues students tackled were by extension global,
and the nature of those problems tended towards the justice-oriented. As one faculty member put
it, “We started looking around us for authentic themes or curriculum for kids to gnaw on,
and…social justice issues kind of just percolated to the top.” Grade-level teams looking to
implement project- or problem-based curriculum collaboratively gravitated to social justice
challenges, both global and domestic.
Long-time faculty recalled ISA implementing a graduate profile based on Oxfam’s global
citizenship framework. As they explained it, Oxfam offers ten tenets of global citizenship,
including understanding social injustice and taking action to redress it. However, ISA’s
promotion of itself as an Oxfam global citizenship school was relatively short-lived as faculty
recognized they were not necessarily implementing a curriculum that would allow students to
fulfill all tenets. One teacher said she still introduces students to the Oxfam definition of global
citizenship, suggesting, “We still certainly use the phrase global citizen all the time, and the
mindset of being a person that’s looking at those aspects of being a global citizen is still a heavy,
heavy part of what drives experiences at ISA.” It is important to note this teacher’s use of the
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 102
word “mindset” in characterizing ISA’s promotion of global citizenship. Faculty generate student
understanding of the structural nature of oppression, and an understanding of how to address it
through awareness and advocacy. In so doing, students develop a justice-oriented mindset, even
if they have limited experience in justice-oriented action.
ISA later became the model school for the Asia Society’s ISSN, founded in 2007. ISSN
provides curricular resources and professional development to a network of schools that use a
four-part framework to assess students’ global competence in various subject disciplines. These
include:
• Investigating the world, through systematic inquiry and research
• Recognizing and respecting the perspectives of others
• Compelling and culturally competent communication
• Taking action to impact the world
The Asia Society suggests taking action to make a difference in the world can range from
humanitarian advocacy to developing a new business product (Asia Society, 2017). In the
context of voicing support for exploring the program innovation, one teacher observed, of the
four pillars, the “taking action” piece is the most challenging for teachers to implement.
Senior portfolio presentations. Seniors have long made portfolio presentations of their
growth at ISA. These presentations are currently structured to address ISSN’s four global
competence pillars. One faculty member suggested that, while tying portfolio presentations to
ISSN’s framework has made them more substantive, the presentation’s forward-looking portion
could be improved upon: “Their next steps are generally, ‘I’m going to Texas A&M next year’…
but I’m wondering if there is something in that piece in that portfolio presentation that is more
intentional” as it relates to the grade-level projects, because “during those presentations, they talk
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 103
about some of the work that they’ve done around those projects … [which is] really fascinating.”
She furthermore spoke of “iterations” to the senior portfolio presentation, characterizing the
current ISSN framework as “The iteration we’re in now.” “Every year it’s … gotten better” she
observed, suggesting that evolution of the senior portfolio presentation is expected.
Distinguishing between global competence and global citizenship frameworks. The
difference between global competence, which the ISSN framework is oriented around, and
global citizenship, of which the Oxfam framework is indicative, has important implications for
ISA’s implementation of the program innovation. Whereas global competence reflects a mindset,
global citizenship implies some action based on that mindset. While ISSN’s graduate profile
includes an action-oriented pillar, the Asia Society’s framework and the professional
development they provide is expressly intended to promote global competence, as opposed to
citizenship.
Consider Reimer’s (2000) three-dimensional “global competence” framework for
understanding the skills and attitudes students need to engage in a globalized world, which is
representative of the field. Reimer’s first proposed dimension is an affective one: Students
should have a positive attitude towards cultural difference and human rights. The second, an
academic dimension: They should be able to communicate in different languages and be
knowledgeable of world affairs. Third, is an active dimension: Students should be equipped to
apply their knowledge and disposition to solve real-world problems. Note, in equipping students
to address real-world problems, Reimer’s global competence framework allows for but does not
necessarily presuppose experience with taking action.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 104
Marais and Ogden (2011) suggest global competence is a component of global
citizenship. They argue global competence, together with social responsibility and global civic
engagement, enable global citizenship. Their model is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Global citizenship conceptual model (Marais & Ogden, 2011).
As described above, ISA’s mission statement articulates a commitment to global
citizenship, calling on “all members of the school community” to question “what it means to be
acting at one’s fullest potential as a … global citizen.” However, ISA’s graduate profile,
reflecting the Asia Society’s ISSN framework, is intended to promote global competence. As is
evident in Marais and Ogden’s conceptual model, global competence and global citizenship are
not mutually exclusive, but ISA needs to ensure it is not conceiving of, or promoting, the two
interchangeably. Furthermore, if ISA seeks to implement the program innovation, it is important
the school define the type of global citizenship it seeks to promote as justice-oriented.
In sum, both competing and complementary demands to the program innovation were
found present at ISA, thus partially validating the assumption that implementing the program
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 105
innovation may conflict with the school’s cultural setting by detracting from existing academic
goals.
Faculty Have Inconsistent Understanding of Continuity Between Grades in Promoting a
Justice Orientation
Several ninth and tenth grade teachers wondered if seniors were not, in fact, engaging in
justice-oriented activity through their Washington D.C. trip and public policy project, leading to
another new partially validated need related to the organization’s cultural setting: The school
needs to make clear how grade-level education is integrated and leveraged for justice orientation.
One teacher suggested the curriculum of each grade may emphasize one of the four ISSN pillars,
with seniors potentially focusing on action. When asked whether this complementary emphasis
between grades has been formally articulated, multiple teachers said the connection is “informal”
and did not necessarily emerge intentionally: “I would say it naturally started happening that
way,” said one teacher.
The twelfth grade and eleventh grade teachers referenced the work of ninth and tenth
grade teachers as foundational to a justice orientation in developing empathetic, collaborative
students open to the perspective and experiences of others. An eleventh grade teacher
characterized this earlier instruction as “good scaffolding” to the work of juniors, which is “more
surgical” in its analysis of social justice issues.
The coordinator of professional development, who has been engaged with the school in
various roles from its start, observed,
Where we are is that just recently we’ve started thinking about, “So we have these great
trips, and we know that we have this social justice seed in them. So how do we more
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 106
closely connect them, so the kids are drawing the thread all the way from freshman year
to senior year, in a more deliberate way?”
She further elaborated on the framework ISA is using to increase cohesion between grade levels:
ISA is “trying to align the central questions” driving grade-level instruction, she observed, and
referenced ISA’s use of Wiggins and McTighe’s (2011)’s approach to instructional unit design.
In contrast to instructional units intended to impart content knowledge, the Wiggins and
McTighe framework aims to enable students to apply the unit’s content and connect it to other
content; this, they argue, is true understanding. Units are organized around helping students
theorize “essential questions” (p. 15) that can drive and organize long-term inquiry and
reflection. In using the Wiggins and McTighe framework, ISA’s approach to instructional design
is conducive to the long-term nature of justice-oriented pursuits, as well as an effort to build a
student’s justice orientation over the course of 4-years through complementary curricular
questions.
Faculty Believe Additional Resources are Required to Implement the Program Innovation
and Have Mixed Confidence in the School Providing for Them
Data from two open-ended survey questions partially validated the assumed
organizational need related to resources: Teachers need to feel their school will provide adequate
resources to implement the program innovation effectively. Required resources identified by
faculty are summarized in Figure 7.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 107

Figure 7. Resources necessary to promote justice-oriented action.
No survey respondent suggested the school would not be able to provide for these resources,
though two out of seven respondents said they were “unsure” which resources the school would
adequately provide for and which they would not. Two faculty expressed concern about the
existing requirement for students to fund their own class trips. However, in interviews faculty
mentioned that students hold fundraisers to cover the expenses of students who cannot afford the
cost of class trips, so no one is excluded. All three who mentioned the need for connections to
experts and community groups in survey responses wrote their school could build on existing
relationships. Similarly, both respondents who noted time as a needed resource expressed
confidence in the school’s ability to provide it; however, one offered the following caveat:
My school does a great job at providing whatever teachers ask for. We have been given
both time and training in the past, and it's probably time to do that again because of staff
turnover!
Multiple faculty members emphasized the challenge of adequate time, with one lamenting:
“There are so many things out there we could utilize that we’re not because of time, because
Curriculum
Connections w/
experts,
community groups
Training Time
Funding for School
Trips
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 108
we’re exhausted doing the things we’re doing.” Another experienced teacher in an interview
explained the constant metacognitive analysis and support of student growth can be so
emotionally draining that teacher support is an important resource need: “Everyone talks about
supporting students constantly. Sometimes it's like, ‘Well, maybe we should ask the question
how do we support teachers a little bit more too?’” One teacher explained how these various
resource constraints conflate to make the program innovation’s action component particularly
challenging:
Frankly, that’s the hardest thing to figure out in a school: How do we make kids take
action, or help kids take action, when we have these limits…time, space, money, and
resources?
Assessing Teacher Impact on Justice-oriented Action is Important to Faculty but not Well
Understood or Executed
All survey respondents to a Likert-type question agreed ISA provides clear metrics by
which to assess student performance. However, seven of eight disagreed the assessment is in part
based on teacher success at promoting justice-oriented action. A document analysis review of the
state’s teacher assessment framework, which ISA uses, reveals it indeed does not assess teacher
performance in promoting justice-oriented action. As previously mentioned, document analysis
also reveals that mission-related documents do not articulate a commitment to justice-oriented
action so much as responsible and participatory, this despite seven out of eight survey
respondents agreeing the school has established promoting justice-oriented action as a critical
goal.
Half of survey respondents agreed it is important to understand their success at
generating student justice-oriented action in comparison to other teachers. However, data from
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 109
interview questions confirm teachers lack metacognitive knowledge of how to assess and alter
their approach to promoting justice-oriented action. Nine out of 13 interview respondents to the
question, “How would you assess your success at promoting student justice-oriented action”
suggested the actions of alumni are the barometer of success. Faculty cited anecdotal evidence of
individual alumni they knew to be engaged in justice-oriented activity, though no formal
assessment has been conducted. When probed in follow-up by the question, “What incremental
indicators of progress would you look for?” seven of thirteen suggested ISA generates the type
of “mindset” foundational to a justice orientation, which teachers describe as “empathetic” and
“compassionate,” with “self-understanding.” Evidence offered of this metacognitive capacity
foundational to a justice orientation was again anecdotal, with one experienced teacher
acknowledging:
Maybe that’s where some of the formal training is helpful and we lack. Because it’s so
hard for me to be, like, what are moments where I can gauge change that go beyond
anecdotal…One of the ideas I’ve struggled with [is] the idea that if a student opinion runs
counter my own, or what one might predict you would come to after having gone through
the curriculum, does that mean they didn’t get it?
The teacher went on to provide examples of lessons on classism and racism, where students
failed to embrace a structural understanding of inequity, asking “Does that mean they haven’t
grown in capacity in terms of social justice?” This veteran teacher was responding to the
frustration of a first-year colleague disappointed in her inability to help students critically reflect
on a politically salient issue; she contemplated, “I wish we could interview them as a senior and
ask, have their minds changed after hearing from multiple people…and hearing all of this
research?”
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 110
Synthesis of Justice-Oriented Action Results and Findings
Seven of eight factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive knowledge needs
related to justice-oriented action were found present and the remaining partially present. Faculty
do not consistently understand the definition of justice-oriented action, how to integrate
education for social justice and social innovation to increase justice-oriented action, or how to
assess their success at promoting it. While faculty understood the strength of social justice in
generating understanding of systemic oppression, inconsistent understanding about social
innovation precludes knowledge of its relative strength.
Five of thirteen assumed motivation needs related to justice-oriented action were not
found present, indicating confidence that the program innovation could increase justice-oriented
action. Five of the thirteen assumed motivational needs were partially present, with two of eight
respondents partially confirming the need and one of eight partially confirming two. These are
weak validations, but important to recognizing that motivation to implement the program is not
uniform. One of eight survey respondents indicated reluctance to implement the program
because of conflict with state opposition to promoting student critical thinking of social issues,
and one respondent did not affirm the cost-benefit of implementing the program relative to other
priorities. Two of eight survey respondents did not believe promoting justice-oriented action
would help them with future employment. The other two partially present motivational needs
were determined as such through interviews. These include a new need emergent from
interviews related to concern about developmental appropriateness of students pursuing justice-
oriented action. It also includes the intrinsic task value need that teachers identify with justice-
oriented action. While most faculty did not indicate they define success by whether students take
action, all of them conceived of success in a complimentary way. Three motivation needs were
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 111
found present: Faculty did not feel they understood what constitutes justice-oriented action, nor
how to assess their success at promoting it, including but not limited to in comparison to other
teachers.
One of seven organizational needs related to justice-oriented action was found present.
Though faculty evidenced awareness of practical challenges to increasing justice-oriented action,
none voiced resistance to exploring how to do so. Two assumed organizational needs were
validated through document analysis. First, the school’s mission-related documents call for
students to become change agents, but describe only responsible and participatory action, which
can be characterized as charitable, rather than change-driven. Second, though seven of eight
survey respondents agreed the school prioritizes justice-oriented action, seven of eight also
believed the school does not assess teachers on their promotion of justice-oriented action.
Document analysis confirms this finding, as the school used the state-approved teacher
evaluation system, which omits such criteria. Four assumed organizational needs were partially
present. Seven of eight survey respondents did not believe the program innovation would detract
from academic goals. However, some respondents supportive of increasing justice-oriented
action nevertheless discussed challenges associated with assuming a new objective on top of
demanding academic goals and extracurricular priorities. At the same time, these faculty
surfaced requirements that could be viewed as complementary to the goals of justice-oriented
action. While seven of eight survey respondents believe the school recognizes justice-oriented
action as a key goal, mission and graduate profile documents do not. Faculty also identified
several types of resources necessary to implement the program innovation, such as time and
professional development. None suggested the school could or would not provide them, but
faculty demonstrated mixed levels of confidence in the school doing so. Finally, there is mixed
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 112
understanding among teachers of how the work of grade-level teams is cohesively leveraged to
promote student justice-oriented action. A summary of validated and partially validated needs,
and needs not validated related to justice-oriented action is included in Appendix G.
Summary of Results and Findings
This chapter elaborated 16 key thematic findings, which in total cover 23 validated needs,
12 partially validated needs, and 11 needs not validated. Two of these key findings included no
validated or partially validated needs, as summarized in Table 8. A list of needs not validated and
their corresponding thematic finding is included in Appendix H.
Table 8
Thematic Findings from Needs not Validated
Faculty exhibited consistent understanding of social justice concepts
Faculty believe implementing the program innovation will result in greater justice-oriented
action

The remaining thematic findings are summarized in Table 9. A list of thematic findings and their
corresponding validated and partially needs, and needs not validated, is included in Appendix I.
Table 9
Thematic Findings From Validated and Partially Validated Needs
Experienced faculty have strong understanding of how to educate students on social justice
issues, but new teachers may struggle.
Faculty have inconsistent understanding of best practice in social justice action.
Though faculty perceive education for social justice as a priority, there is no formal effort to
orient new faculty to the school’s social justice tradition.
Faculty have inconsistent understanding of social innovation and do not perceive it as a
school priority.
While the school appreciates creative problem-solving, some faculty lack confidence in
helping students apply creativity to social problems.
Some faculty lack understanding about what constitutes justice-oriented action and the
distinction between charity and change.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 113
Table 9, continued
Faculty demonstrate incomplete knowledge about how social justice and social innovation
education can be leveraged to promote justice-oriented action.
Nearly all faculty recognize current student justice-oriented action as inadequate and exhibit
support for increasing it.
Faculty expressed limited concern with the program innovation’s divergence from cultural
norms.
Faculty exhibited mixed perception of the program innovation’s developmental
appropriateness.
Faculty have inconsistent understanding of continuity between grades in promoting a justice
orientation.
Faculty identified potential competing and complementary demands.
Faculty believe additional resources are required to implement the program innovation and
have mixed confidence in the school providing for them.
Assessing teacher impact on justice-oriented action is important to faculty but not well
understood or executed.

These thematic findings will inform proposed solutions in Chapter Five, together with relevant
research and an analysis of what is organizationally feasible and when.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 114
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This chapter begins with a summary of thematic findings and their solutions, followed by
an implementation plan that addresses the research-based rationale for each proposed solution
and action steps for its implementation. Rather than present the rationale for proposed solutions
followed by an implementation plan, the two discussions are integrated to reflect the literature
finding implementation suffers when related considerations are not adequately integrated into
solution development (Alkhater, 2016; Honig, 2006; Fowler, 2013; Spillane, Reiser & Reimer,
2002; Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977). An evaluation of implementation is then detailed, followed by
a discussion of future research needs, and a conclusion to the study.
Solutions and Implementation
Chapter Four elaborated 16 thematic findings, which in total cover 23 validated and 12
partially validated, and 11 needs not validated. Two of these thematic findings included no
validated or partially validated needs. They are faculty exhibited consistent understanding of
social justice concepts and teachers believe implementing the program innovation will result in
greater justice-oriented action. These findings are strong indicators of faculty motivation and
foundational knowledge conducive to the program innovation’s successful implementation.
Fourteen findings require a solution. Proposed solutions fall into three categories. The
first is professional development on the program innovation, its theoretical framework and
component parts, the second is curricular and communicative integration of the program
innovation, and the third is evaluation of the faculty’s impact on student and alumni justice-
oriented action. Table 10 summarizes solutions for each of the 14 findings. Some solutions
address multiple findings, and one finding has multiple solutions. Table 10 lists each solution
once and the findings each addresses.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 115
Table 10
Key Findings and Proposed Solutions
Finding Solution Solution Category
Experienced faculty evidenced
strong understanding of
education for social justice,
but new teachers may lack
understanding of how to teach
social justice issues.

Faculty do not consistently
consider action an essential
element of social justice
education.

Though faculty perceive
education for social justice as
a priority, there is no formal
effort to orient new faculty to
the school’s social justice
tradition.
Level-set knowledge of social
justice education among all
faculty, including the role of
action.

Professional
Development
Faculty have inconsistent
understanding of social
innovation and do not perceive
it as a school priority.

While the school appreciates
creative problem-solving,
some faculty lack confidence
in applying creativity to social
problems.
Generate stakeholder factual,
conceptual, and process
knowledge related to social
innovation, including creative
process associated with design
thinking.

Professional
Development
Some faculty lack
understanding about what
constitutes justice-oriented
action, and the distinction
between charity and change.

Generate stakeholder
understanding of the difference
between responsible,
participatory, and justice-
oriented citizenship, and their
implications for charity versus
change.
Professional
Development

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 116
Table 10, continued
Finding Solution Solution Category
Faculty demonstrate incomplete
knowledge about how social
justice and social innovation
education can be leveraged to
promote justice-oriented action.

Generate stakeholder
understanding of the relative
process strengths of social
justice and social innovation
education relative to the goal
of justice-oriented action.
Professional
Development
Though faculty perceive
education for social justice as a
priority, there is no formal
effort to orient new faculty to
the school’s social justice
tradition.

Experienced faculty evidenced
strong understanding of
education for social justice, but
new teachers may lack
understanding of how to teach
social justice issues.

Faculty have inconsistent
understanding of social
innovation and do not perceive
it as a school priority.
Develop faculty orientation on
the school’s social justice
tradition and justice-oriented
objectives.

Professional
Development/ Program
Integration
Faculty have inconsistent
understanding of social
innovation and do not perceive
it as a school priority.

Faculty do not consistently
consider action an essential
element of social justice
education.

Though faculty perceive
education for social justice as a
priority, there is no formal
effort to orient new faculty to
the school’s social justice
tradition.

Some faculty lack
understanding about what
constitutes justice-oriented
Revise internal documents to
reflect a justice oriented
objective.

Program Integration
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 117
action, and the distinction
between charity and change.
Table 10 continued
Finding Solution Solution Category
Nearly all faculty recognize
current student justice-oriented
action as inadequate and
support increasing it.
Incorporate background on
school’s social justice tradition
and justice-oriented objectives
into interview process.
Program Integration
Faculty expressed mild concern
with program innovation’s
divergence from state cultural
norms.

Faculty identified potential
competing and complementary
demands.
Revise public facing
documents to incorporate a
justice-oriented objective to
the extent deemed practicable.

Program Integration
Faculty exhibited mixed
perception of the program
innovation’s developmental
appropriateness.
Assess grade-level social
justice education relative to the
program innovation’s process
objectives.
Program Integration
Faculty have inconsistent
understanding of continuity
between grades in promoting a
justice orientation.

Identify how social justice
education over the course of 4
years could be better integrated
to increase justice-oriented
action by graduation.
Program Integration
Faculty identified potential
competing and complementary
demands.

Identify where justice-oriented
action could satisfy academic
and non-academic
requirements, such as
community service and
internship requirements.
Program Integration
Faculty believe additional
resources are required to
implement the program
innovation and have mixed
confidence in the school
providing for them.
Identify additional resources
necessary to implement the
program innovation and how
to provide for them.
Program Integration
Assessing teacher impact on
justice-oriented action is
important to faculty but not well
understood or executed.

Develop and implement
student justice orientation
assessment for faculty use.

Evaluate incidence and type of
alumni justice-oriented action
at 10 years, and the degree to
which it was informed by the
ISA experience.
Evaluation
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 118
As detailed below, in addition to data collection, proposed solutions and action steps
reflect literature reviewed in Chapter Two, research literature specific to thematic findings and
solutions, and implementation considerations. Because human capital considerations are relevant
to all proposed solutions, relevant organizational context is reviewed preceding an overview of
the implementation plan, which is followed by a detailed discussion of action steps.
Organizational and Human Capital Background
ISA had a new principal for the 2016-2017 school year who previously served as a
teacher at the school for several years. As described in Chapter Four, he believes incorporating a
program to promote student action on social justice issues is the right next step in ISA’s
evolution. He is both concerned about implementing a new program in the context of acclimating
several new faculty, 11 out of 25, but also recognizes it presents an opportunity and reason to
evaluate the school’s mission and the degree to which ISA is fulfilling it. Similarly, the school’s
social studies dean, who provides significant support to the senior team, suggested that senior
staff turnover presents a need to re-envision the senior year, such that students are supported in
taking social justice action.
Highly collaborative, inclusive interdisciplinary grade-level teams plan curriculum, and
discuss and address student performance collectively. The school has an inclusive decision-
making structure, wherein the principal solicits and encourages grade-level team autonomy and
collaborative planning among all teachers. In addition to faculty-wide meetings and in-service
professional development training days throughout the school year, all faculty participate in an
August retreat.
As detailed below, it is proposed that grade-level teams implement grade-level justice-
oriented programming, while a faculty work group comprised of representatives from each grade
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 119
level lead efforts to integrate and leverage grade-level activity to maximize growth in student
justice orientation over a student’s 4 years.
Overview of Implementation Plan
The researcher proposes presenting the findings of the study to faculty at an August 2017
retreat, and conducting a training workshop of justice-oriented education at the retreat. The
researcher proposes conducting a second training in the fall on social justice education. A
midyear training would be conducted on social innovation education and the integration of it
with social justice education to maximize justice-oriented action. Through grade-level teams and
the faculty work group, faculty would integrate elements of education for social justice and
innovation pursuant to achieving the program innovation’s process objectives. The senior-year
team would incorporate an optional youth organizing project into the spring semester for a pilot
cohort of seniors.
The researcher proposes working with faculty at midyear to codify developmentally
appropriate indicators of justice orientation at each grade level to support integration and
leveraging of grade-level justice-oriented education. From these indicators, the researcher would
develop an observational tool to assess students’ justice orientation for use by faculty in the
spring. At the end of the year, the researcher would evaluate which faculty used which social
justice and innovation program approaches, why, and what the results were. This evaluation,
together with faculty assessment of student justice orientation, would inform program iteration in
year two.
Proposed Solution One: Generate Understanding of the Program Innovation Through
Professional Development
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 120
Professional development to improve faculty factual, procedural and metacognitive
knowledge, as defined by Krathwohl (2002), will be designed to reflect Merrill’s (2002)
professional development design principles. To maximize impact on practice, Merrill
recommends professional development attendant to five “instructional phases” (p. 44). The first
is engaging in real-world problem-solving. Rather than asking learners to complete discrete tasks
related to a problem, Merrill recommends beginning instruction by presenting a problem in full,
which could entail the trainer conducting a worked example, and reviewing multiple examples
growing in complexity. Doing so ensures tasks associated with problem-solving are properly
contextualized from the start.
Merrill’s second instructional design principle is to activate existing knowledge related to
the problem. He suggests providing trainees with an opportunity to demonstrate what they know
relative to the problem, thus activating a knowledge base from which the trainer can build. The
third principle is to demonstrate new knowledge to the trainee, which should be done through
comparison of multiple worked examples using multiple forms of media. In the fourth phase, the
learner should apply new knowledge to a real-world problem, again, facilitating multiple
opportunities for application. The final phase is integration into practice, wherein the trainee
adapts and implements the training content into everyday activity. To facilitate integration,
Merrill recommends providing trainees with opportunities to discuss and reflect on the training
and its application.
The following sections address the types of knowledge professional development should
generate based on thematic findings, action steps related to implementing each component of the
training, as well as timing and human resource needs. The researcher will lead four professional
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 121
development sessions between August 2017 and August 2018. Grade-level teams and a multi-
grade faculty work group will lead implementation.
Generate stakeholder understanding of the difference between responsible,
participatory, and justice-oriented citizenship, and their implications for charity versus
change. Understanding what constitutes justice-oriented action, and the distinction between
charity and change, is foundational to identifying how to increase justice-oriented action. For the
most part, stakeholders exhibited familiarity with responsible and participatory action more than
justice-oriented action. Several faculty offered examples of charitable activity when asked for
examples of social change. Current student exercises structured to identify justice-oriented action
related to a social justice issue stop short of encouraging students to execute the action.
At the August 2017 retreat, the researcher will brief faculty on the study’s findings and
the proposed implementation plan through August 2018. The researcher will then facilitate a
training on justice-oriented citizenship. Reflecting Merrill’s (2002) instructional design
principles, action steps to implement the training include
1. Present real-world examples of structural oppression faced by students reflecting
ISA’s demographics.
2. Elicit faculty input on the types of action student might take to address the problem.
3. Introduce faculty to the Westheimer and Kahne (2004) framework for differentiating
between types of citizenship education and their implications for charitable versus
change-oriented activity.
a. Expose faculty to real-world examples of students engaged in each type of
citizenship action.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 122
4. Facilitate faculty analysis of ISA’s existing community engagement programs and the
degree to which they are justice-oriented or could be altered to be justice-oriented.
5. Reflect on the type of citizenship action ISA community engagement programs will
yield, and consider promising practice in designing justice-oriented action. (Research
will facilitate initial discussion at August 2017 retreat and the faculty work group and
grade-level teams will continue reflection throughout the 2017-2018 school year).
Level-set knowledge of social justice education among all faculty, including the role
of action. As discussed in Chapter Four, while experienced ISA teachers exhibited a high
degree of knowledge related to educating students on social issues, new teachers may struggle.
ISA’s teachers were not formally trained in social justice education; rather, social justice practice
evolved organically based on teacher interest. Among all faculty, there was inconsistent
understanding of the role of action in education for social justice. In addition, even experienced
teachers struggled with how to engage students who do not have personal experience with
structural oppression.
During a fall in-service day, the researcher will facilitate a training on social justice
education, engaging faculty members experienced in social justice education to lead components
of the training. Action steps to implement the training include
1. Present case studies of structural oppression evident in education context. Sensoy and
DiAngelo (2012) and Gorski and Pothini (2014) offer case studies, discussion questions
and activities related to key concepts in social justice education.
2. Elicit faculty examples of how they structure classroom discussion of social issues in a
manner reflecting social justice process principles.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 123
3. Educate faculty in predominant factual, conceptual and process-related understanding of
optimal education for social justice as indicated by the literature, drawing from curricular
materials on core social justice concepts available through Adams et. al. (2016).
a. Expose faculty to examples of social justice education leading to action, including
youth organizing and participatory action research, such as the Social Justice
Education Project (Cammarota & Romero, 2009).
4. Facilitate faculty discussion of social justice case study related to a past senior-year
policy project, eliciting feedback on dynamics of structural oppression evident in the case
study, how they might be addressed within the classroom, and opportunities for related
student action.
5. Elicit real-world examples of ISA teachers challenged to educate students on social
justice issues, and discussion of how faculty have tried to engage such students in the
past.
6. Present concept of transformative learning phases (Mezirow, 1991) and examples of
activities to help generate critical consciousness (Mezirow & Associates, 1990).
7. Facilitate discussion of strategies to engage all students in social justice education.
8. Reflect on approaches to educating students on social justice issues. (Researcher
facilitates initial reflection at fall in-service training, continuing through faculty work
group and grade-level teams throughout the 2017-2018 school year).
Generate stakeholder factual, conceptual, and process knowledge related to social
innovation, including creative process associated with design thinking. Faculty exhibited
limited understanding of social innovation processes, with one teacher familiar with social
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 124
entrepreneurship. Though faculty engaged in design thinking to create a space for disengaged
students in an August 2016 retreat, they did not readily associate it with social innovation.
The researcher will facilitate a training on social innovation at a midyear professional
development in-service day. Training action steps include
1. Present a social innovation case study, drawing examples from Martin and Osberg
(2015).
2. Elicit faculty knowledge examples of social innovation, both at ISA and in broader
society.
3. Educate faculty on social innovation theory (Christensen et al., 2006), the process of
facilitating student design thinking (Spencer & Juliani, 2016) and exercises to
generate creative confidence (Kelly & Kelly, 2013). Address relationship between
design thinking and systemic change, presenting social entrepreneurship theory
(Martin & Osberg) and examples of social entrepreneurship education programs
(Academic Study Associates Summerfuel, 2015).
4. Facilitate discussion of opportunities for faculty to integrate social innovation projects
into education on social justice issues.
5. Reflect on opportunities to incorporate social innovation education and action.
(Faculty work group and grade-level teams through remainder of 2017-2018 school
year).
Generate stakeholder understanding of the relative process strengths of social
justice and social innovation education relative to the goal of justice-oriented action.
Among faculty familiar with social innovation, they correctly understand social justice education
as providing foundational understanding of the structural nature of social problems, while social
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 125
innovation is “about taking action.” However, as explained in Chapter Two and summarized in
Table 2, despite different emphases in practice, education for social justice and innovation share
aspirational process objectives related to understanding and acting on social problems, which
allows for processes associated with both to be integrated and leveraged to increase justice
action.
At the midyear professional development training, following the training on social
innovation, the research will facilitate training on the relative strengths of social justice and
social innovation education. Action steps include
1. Provide faculty with example of structural oppression and how it might be addressed
through a combination of education for social justice and social innovation.
2. Elicit discussion of how a manifestation of structural oppression taught at ISA could be
addressed by a combination of education for social justice and innovation.
3. Educate faculty on the program innovation model outlined in Chapter Two and
summarized in Table 2.
4. Continue facilitated discussion of ISA example in action step two, eliciting application of
program innovation components to the example of structural oppression.
5. Grade-level teams continue reflection on application of program innovation components
to their grade-level social justice projects. (2017-2018 school year).
Develop faculty orientation on the school’s social justice tradition and justice-
oriented objectives. Currently there is no formal orientation for faculty on ISA’s social justice
tradition. Rather, faculty are assimilated through interaction with veteran faculty on grade-level
teams. Assimilation into the school’s social justice tradition and introduction to justice-oriented
objectives will begin with the presentation of research findings and training in justice-oriented
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 126
action at the August 2017 retreat. Orientation developed for succeeding school years should be
developed by faculty leadership in the spring of 2018 after ISA has completed the program
integration tasks.
Proposed Solution Two: Identify how the Goal of Promoting Student Justice-oriented
Action can be Coherently Integrated into Existing Requirements Across a Student’s Four
Years
Faculty had an informal and inconsistent understanding of how their grade-level work
integrated with that of other grades to promote a justice orientation. While the senior faculty
interviewed considered it important to integrate a justice-oriented action project into senior year,
seniors are confronted with several competing priorities, some of which appear conducive to
justice-oriented action, including an internship and service learning requirement, in addition to a
public policy research project.
At the August retreat, grade-level teams will begin analysis of their existing social justice
projects to determine alignment with a justice orientation, and the faculty work group will begin
the process of assessing curriculum scope and sequence to improve cohesion between grade
levels to increase justice-oriented action. Through the 2017-2018 school year, the researcher will
facilitate connections between the senior team and potential university partners in youth
organizing and participatory action research, as well as connections to secondary school social
innovation and social justice education practitioners.
Assess grade-level social justice education relative to the program innovation’s
process objectives. While freshman and sophomore teachers expressed concern over whether
justice-oriented action was developmentally appropriate for their students, they consistently
spoke to the importance of generating students evidencing what could be considered elements of
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 127
a justice-oriented mindset, including empathetic, collaborative, critical, and metacognitive
thinkers. Junior teachers explicitly focus on teaching students about American social justice
history and its connection to contemporary social problems, and senior teachers facilitate student
development of a public policy recommendation related to an area of student interest, which can
include a social justice issue.
Action steps related to assessing developmentally appropriate grade-level justice-oriented
education include
1. Develop list of characteristics each grade level currently promotes reflecting the program
innovation process objectives, and which process objectives not currently reflected are
developmentally appropriate for each grade level to promote. (Grade-level teams,
initiated at August 2017 retreat and continued through fall 2017; researcher codifies at
midyear).
a. If necessary to eliciting developmentally appropriate characteristics of student
justice orientation at each grade level, the researcher will conduct cognitive task
analysis, using a critical decision method procedure (Crandall, Klein & Hoffman,
2006), which entails successive and varied interviews of experts to elucidate
decision-making processes. In this case, the researcher would interview faculty
adept in social justice education to understand how they determine students have
progressed in their justice orientation.
Identify how social justice education over the course of 4 years could be better
integrated to increase justice-oriented action by graduation. Teachers suggested there was an
implicit understanding of how their work in grade-level teams complemented the work of other
grade-level teams relative to generating justice-oriented students. However, no faculty suggested
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 128
the link between grades was intentionally designed to build a student’s capacity and commitment
to take justice-oriented action over the course of their high school career. Some, believe it is time
to make the relationship between grade levels clearer, as one interview participant asked, “How
do we more closely connect them, so the kids are drawing the thread all the way from freshman
year to senior year, in a more deliberate way?” She also referenced ISA’s use of the Wiggins and
McTighe (2011) framework of instructional design, and the school’s effort to better coordinate
curriculum scope and sequence based on alignment of areas of inquiry emphasized at each grade
level.
Action steps related to better integrating social justice education to increase justice-
oriented action over a student’s 4 years include
1. Using Wiggins and McTighe (2011) framework, identify or develop essential
questions related to fostering a justice orientation at each grade level, which build
upon each other over a student’s 4 years to maximize a justice orientation. (Grade-
level teams and faculty work group, fall 2017)
Identify where justice-oriented action could satisfy academic and non-academic
requirements, such as community service and internship requirements. While faculty
supported integrating the program innovation, some expressed concern over competing demands.
As reviewed in Chapter Four, the senior teaching team had attempted to integrate social justice
action previously, but found the competing demands of senior year un-conducive. These include
a heavy AP load, an internship and community service requirement, and end-of-year portfolio
presentations to parents. The social studies dean furthermore suggested that not all seniors are
interested in social justice issues, which made requiring justice-oriented action all the more
challenging. One faculty member suggested that preparation for competitive colleges weighs
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 129
heavily as a demand. He suggested that while families are attracted to ISA for its unique
approach in global education, they foremost expect traditional schooling structures with GPA-
boosting opportunities.
Action steps related to integrating justice-oriented action into existing projects include
1. Identify how existing senior-year internship and public policy project could be met
through an elective justice-oriented action project. Focus on the integration of a youth
organizing project given they most align with the program innovation’s process
objectives, as detailed Table 2 (Senior team, initiated at August 2017 retreat and
continued through fall 2017, with support of the researcher)
2. Identify how seniors interested in justice-oriented action can address in their senior
portfolio presentation how an ISA education has facilitated their capacity and
commitment to pursue justice-oriented action. (Senior team and faculty work group,
2017-2018 school year)
Revise external documents to the extent practicable to reflect a justice-oriented
objective. While faculty support the program innovation, they recognize it conflicts with broader
norms. Some teachers recognized the promotion of social justice action as “controversial.”
Though all faculty exhibited an understanding of social justice in concert with that contemplated
by the program innovation, public document analysis did not. As stated in Chapter Four, the
school’s mission statement, for instance, calls for students and teachers to take action to improve
the world, but does not address to what end; there is no mention of equity. Being a public school
may inhibit the school’s articulation of commitment to changing the system in which it is
situated. Despite this challenge, it is important for ISA to ensure consistency in mission-related
discourse. As Foucault (1990) theorized, discourse both reflects and constitutes reality.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 130
Maintaining justice-oriented objectives while not articulating them can only undermine a shared
understanding and embodiment of a justice-oriented mission among faculty and students.
1. Identify the extent to which it is feasible to incorporate a justice
oriented objective into the school’s mission statement and other public facing
documents. (Principal, 2017-2018 school year)
a. To the extent it is not, ensure public facing documents do not preclude a
justice-oriented objective.
Revise internal guiding documents to reflect a justice-oriented objective. As
explained in Chapter Four, current internal guiding documents, including the ISSN graduate
profile and grade-level objectives, do not preclude a justice-oriented objective, but they do not
articulate one. Such documents serve to market the school to parents and students, providing
them and faculty, both current and prospective, with a consistent understanding of the school’s
culture and objectives. ISA is transparent in making these internal documents available online. It
is not only undesirable, but as a public school impractical, to keep internal documents private.
1. Identify which internal guiding documents, including the ISSN graduate profile and
grade-level objectives, could be revised to reflected a justice-oriented citizenship
objective. (Principal, 2017-2018 school year)
a. To the extent it is not practical, ensure internal documents do not preclude a
justice-oriented objective.
Incorporate background on school’s social justice tradition and justice-oriented
objectives into interview process. Data revealed near unanimous faculty support for increasing
justice-oriented action. Revising the faculty interview process to reflect the school’s social
justice objectives will ensure all applicants have a clear understanding of ISA’s commitment to
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 131
social justice education, which will increase the likelihood that future hires will be committed to
the same.
1. Identify opportunities to assess prospective faculty knowledge and commitment to
justice-oriented principles, which could include a critical incident analysis. Gorski
and Pothini (2013) provide a framework for assessing what Swalwell (2011) labels
“equity literacy” (p. 11) based on analysis of a case study. Equity literacy includes
indicators of a teacher’s facility with recognizing and responding to bias in the
classroom, as well as strategies for redressing structural inequity with implications for
the classroom. (Principal, spring 2018)
Identify additional resources necessary to implement the program innovation and
how to provide for them. Faculty identified time, connections to experts and curriculum, and
training as the primary resources necessary to implement the program innovation. Action steps
related to ensuring adequate resources include
1. Facilitate training, both as scheduled and on-demand throughout the year on justice-
oriented action theory and practice. (Researcher, 2017-2018 school year)
2. Provide faculty with curricular resources, identified in Chapter Two. (Researcher,
initiated at August 2017 retreat and throughout 2017-2018 school year)
3. Facilitate connections to educators who have implemented justice-oriented action
programs, and those using social justice and social innovation elements. (Researcher,
2017-2018 school year)
4. Identify how to incorporate discussion of program development and implementation
into existing grade-level team meetings and professional development days.
(Principal, grade-level teams, initiated at August 2017 retreat, through fall 2017)
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 132
Proposed Solution Three: Develop Evaluation of Faculty Impact on Current Student
Justice Orientation and Justice-oriented Action, as well as Alumni Justice-oriented Action
When asked for indicators of success as teachers, most teachers identified indicators
congruent with a justice orientation. These included student dispositions, such as empathy, open-
mindedness, and the ability to explore social issues critically. Some teachers acknowledged
struggling to know if they had succeeded at educating students on social justice issues when
students do not evidence belief in the structural nature of social problems.
Develop and implement student justice orientation assessment for faculty use.
Pursuant to leveraging grade-level social justice education to increase justice-oriented action
over a student’s 4 years, it is important for grade-level teams to understand the degree to which
they are increasing student justice orientation relative to what they deem developmentally
appropriate.
Social justice education assessments. There are several existing instruments that may be
informative to ISA developing its own. In their study of service learning efficacy, Eyler and
Giles (1999, pp. 225-270) used a survey and interview protocol before and after a service
learning experience to assess shifts in relative understanding of the structural nature of social
problems. They include the instruments and a coding book to identify where students fall on a
range related to metrics such as “problem locus”; that is, in response to a given social problem,
do students locate the genesis of the problem with the affected individual or with a system. Other
metrics include “causal complexity” and “solution complexity,” assessing for the degree to
which students understand the intersectional nature of structural causes and identify near term
direct interventions with the need for longer-term systemic changes. Eyler and Giles also
assessed the type of action students took and changes in career aspirations as a result.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 133
Westheimer and Kahne (2004) assessed student justice orientation similarly, interviewing both
students and teachers, coding for perception of individual versus structural causes in response to
a critical incident.
Transformative learning assessments. Mezirow’s (1991) framework of transformative
learning and evaluation thereof is also particularly relevant to the task of justice-oriented
education. Transformative learning is the process of shifting frame of reference, or worldview,
based on metacognitive awareness of hegemonic structures. As Kegan (2000) observes, Piaget’s
(1954) distinction between assimilative and accommodative processes is apparent in
transformational learning theory. In assimilative processes, the learner integrates new
experiences into his or her existing worldview; in the accommodative, the learner changes
perspective from the exposure.
Mezirow (1991, p. 218) proposes readiness indicators for transformative learning. The
least ready are what he labels “conventional learners,” those whose perspective reflects the
dominant cultural paradigm. Following are “threshold learners,” who have experienced a
“disorienting dilemma,” that is, an experience that conflicts with one’s worldview. The most
ready are “emancipated learners,” who are already engaged in self-examination and are
metacognitively aware of the impacts cultural structures have on expectations and actions.
Cranton and Hogan (2012) suggest various methods for assessing transformative
learning, including through observation, self-evaluation and interviews. They also recommend
narrative analysis. As referenced in Chapter Four, in response to interview questions on how
structural oppression affects their teaching, multiple teachers spoke to the importance of listening
to student “stories” as an indication not only of the structural challenges students face, but of the
degree to which students understand their structural challenges as such. One teacher spoke of
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 134
helping students to call out and challenge the “unidimensional stories about what a student can or
should look like in the classroom.” Cranton and Hogan also suggest metaphor analysis to assess
critical consciousness.
Action steps related to developing and implementing an assessment of student justice
orientation include
1. Codify developmentally appropriate indicators of justice orientation for use in faculty
observational assessment of student justice orientation (Researcher, at midyear 2017)
2. Explore existing social justice assessment instruments for correspondence with faculty-
identified indicators of justice orientation. Identify which if any of these instruments or
frameworks should be used in assessment of student justice orientation. (Faculty work
group and researcher, fall 2017)
3. Faculty assess student justice orientation against developmentally appropriate indicators.
(Spring 2018)
Evaluate incidence and type of alumni justice-oriented action at 10 years, and the
degree to which it was informed by the ISA experience. In response to the question of how
faculty assess success at helping students take justice-oriented action, most offered anecdotal
stories of alumni active in social justice work. However, there has been no formal effort to
evaluate the incidence and type of alumni justice-oriented action.
Action steps related to evaluating alumni action include
1. Establish baseline for future alumni justice orientation assessment by evaluating
incidence and type of alumni justice-oriented action at 10 years, and to what degree and
in what ways alumni feel ISA helped facilitate their capacity and commitment to pursue
social change. (Researcher, spring 2018 at 10-year alumni reunion)
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 135
a. Provide the school with an alumni assessment instrument they can use in
subsequent years.
Evaluation
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level framework for evaluation will be used to
assess implementation. The primary instruments for evaluation are the researcher’s observation
of faculty at the August 2017 training, a survey administered to all faculty after the August 2017
training, and interviews with the faculty work group and the 12th grade faculty team at midyear
and year’s end.
Level 1: Reaction
The first of four levels in Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) model of evaluation,
reaction, is intended to assess trainee opinion of the training and trainer. As the authors explain,
trainee reaction indicates relative receptivity and motivation to learning the training material;
thus, reaction is foundational to a trainee’s success, beginning with openness to learning the
training content. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick recommend evaluating reaction in a manner that
elicits honest response from all participants directly after a training, through tools such as rating
sheets and Likert-type survey questions. Accordingly, the researcher proposes to administer an
anonymous survey at the conclusion of the August, fall, and midyear training workshops, which
asks participants to rate the trainer overall and specific to each of several content sessions.
Reaction will also be assessed throughout the trainings through observation of faculty
participation rates and engagement levels.
A midyear faculty workgroup interview will include assessment of reaction to their
planning process as an indication of motivation to continue leadership of the initiative. Twelfth
grade faculty team reaction to their preparation for implementing the pilot program innovation in
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 136
the spring will also be assessed at midyear. At year’s end, the reaction of all faculty to
implementation will be assessed as an indicator of motivation to continue and expand the
program innovation in year two. Parent and community stakeholder reaction to the pilot will also
be assessed at year’s end through an optional survey administered after senior presentations.
Senior reaction, that is, relative levels of enthusiasm for having participated in the pilot, will be
assessed through observation of senior presentations. Faculty reaction to the baseline evaluation
of alumni justice-oriented activity will be assessed at year’s end as well, for further indication of
faculty motivation to increase justice-oriented action. Throughout, indicators of motivation will
be compared to those assessed through dissertation research, which provides baseline data for
most motivational indicators assessed through reaction-level evaluation.
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s second level of evaluation, learning, aims to assess changes
in knowledge, and commitment to and confidence in achieving the training’s aims. The
researcher will use relevant data from dissertation interviews with and surveys of faculty as a
baseline from which to assess learning. Confidence and commitment will be assessed through
rating and Likert-type survey questions, the results of which will provide the researcher with
insight into areas in need of further clarification and training.
To avoid the perception of being tested, the researcher will assess increased knowledge at
trainings through observation of faculty. Merrill’s (2002) principles of instruction are conducive
to observational methods. Learning will be gauged through faculty application of new
knowledge provided by the trainer, reflecting Merrill’s fourth and third instructional phase
respectively. Merrill’s second phase, activating existing knowledge, will yield insight into
trainees’ frames of reference on justice-oriented education. As Honig (2006) and Yanow (2000)
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 137
explain, policy implementation that does not take into account the implementer’s frame of
reference is unlikely to achieve intended aims. Accordingly, Yanow (2000) calls for identifying
different “interpretive communities” (p. 21) in relation to a policy, that is, understanding the
meaning of a policy to different stakeholder groups. Yanow (2000), furthermore, offers a basic
framework for policy discourse analysis to understanding the frame of reference reflected.
Through observation, the researcher will also assess the transformative learning readiness
of faculty, indicators of which are described in this chapter’s solutions and implementation
section. Because justice-oriented action does not reflect the dominant education paradigm, in
most environments, trainer identification of trainee frame of reference would be particularly
important. Were faculty to hold a contradictory worldview, one that did not recognize the role of
structural oppression, professional development would need to facilitate a shift in frame. Because
transformational learning theory reflects principles of social justice education, it is a fitting
framework for evaluating the frame of reference elicited through activation of prior knowledge.
Data analysis reveals ISA faculty perspective strongly reflects a social justice approach to
education, with individual faculty members exhibiting the traits of emancipated learners.
However, given the high number of faculty new to ISA in the 2016-2017 school year, and the
potential for hiring new faculty prior to the August retreat, assessment of transformative learning
readiness would be important to informing the training at hand and support provided afterwards.
Faculty work group learning as a result of supporting their colleagues will be assessed at
midyear, as will their learning generated through the process of planning for pilot
implementation, to inform additional support provided and coordinated by the researcher. At
year-end, faculty work group and senior team learning will be assessed to determine confidence
and commitment to continue and expand the program, and to identify areas in need of additional
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 138
training. Learning from the alumni evaluation will also be assessed as an indication of the degree
to which faculty understand how the program innovation could lead to greater justice-oriented
alumni activity in the future.
Level 3: Behavior
Assessment of behavioral change as a result of training is the third level of evaluation in
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s model. Just as positive reaction to a training predisposes trainees
to learning, adequate learning is a precondition of behavioral change. While reaction and
learning should be assessed directly following a training, behavior change can only be assessed
after time. Behavior change as a result of the trainings will be assessed through a midyear and
end-of-year interview with the faculty group charged with designing and leading implementation
of curricular and programmatic changes to increase justice-oriented action. Behavioral indicators
relate to whether faculty are integrating the content learned during the trainings into their
practice. Accordingly, the 12th grade faculty will be interviewed at the end of the year to
understand how they have incorporated training content into the senior pilot project design. The
researcher will also interview the faculty work group midyear and end-of-year to determine the
degree to which faculty have and are working to implement conceptual and procedural elements
of the program innovation. While on this and other metrics of faculty behavior it would be useful
to interview all faculty, the researcher proposes to interview the faculty work group, asking
members to reflect on the practice of faculty at each grade level, and the faculty as a whole, to
minimize intrusion by the researcher.
Level 4: Results
The fourth level of evaluation in Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s model is results. The
primary result the researcher-facilitated trainings and program innovation seek to achieve is
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 139
increasing student justice-oriented action. The incidence and type of student justice-oriented
action will be assessed at year’s end through interview of the faculty work group and the senior
team. Faculty will assess the relative justice orientation of students at each grade level in the
spring with a tool developed at midyear. These results should then inform curricular reform the
following year, and serve as a baseline for comparison in subsequent years.
Ten-year alumni justice-oriented activity will also be assessed by the researcher at the
end of the 2017-2018 school year during an alumni reunion to serve as a baseline for future
assessment of long-term results from the program innovation. The relative justice-orientation of
alumni activity will be assessed according to the degree to which it is structured to solve the root
cause of social problems. From a social justice perspective, structural oppression occurs at the
individual, institutional, and societal level (Adams, et al., 2016); thus manifestations of
structural oppression at each level should be addressed to maximize social change. Similarly,
Martin and Osberg (2015) note that structural change efforts are maximized through direct
programmatic intervention complemented by advocacy for related policy reform. Combined,
programmatic and policy approaches can address structural oppression at multiple levels.
For example, in the case of an alumnus working to improve the academic performance of
low-income students, he might be engaged in a direct intervention to improve the performance of
a group of low-income students within a school. In the context of Westheimer and Kahne’s
(2004) citizenship framework, were this alumnus’ engagement limited to volunteering as a tutor,
for example, such activity would reflect participatory activity, where his organization of the
intervention would reflect responsible engagement. To enhance the justice orientation of his
engagement, he could complement the direct programmatic intervention with an effort to scale
the intervention across his district through reallocation of resources. He could also advocate at
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 140
the state level, through lobbying and a public awareness campaign, for additional policy actions
to increase educational equity, in so doing addressing societal and institutional barriers to low-
income student success.
To understand the relative justice orientation of alumni activity, the researcher will assess
how alumni are addressing the cause of structural oppression in its various and intersecting
manifestations. The researcher will, furthermore, interview alumni for insight into the strengths
and weaknesses of their preparation to engage in justice-oriented activity long-term, which can
further inform design and implementation of justice-oriented programming at the school. The
assessment instrument will be developed in collaboration with ISA, as well as the methodology
for implementing it.
Developmental evaluation approach. To evaluate behavior change and results, a
developmental approach to evaluation will be used. Developmental evaluation (Patton, 2011)
does not assess implementation against a predetermined strategy, but rather, allows for flexibility
in implementation responsive to context. The intent of the program innovation is not for faculty
to adopt all social justice approaches and all social innovation approaches to social-issue
engagement, but rather, for faculty to adopt elements of each approach pursuant to increasing the
justice orientation of students. A developmental evaluation allows for assessing why faculty
chose which approaches pursuant to implementing the program innovation and achieving its
process objectives. It is particularly well suited to implementation of a program innovation in
allowing for and encouraging iteration to achieve the process objectives through evaluation of
which approaches were more or less successful and under what conditions. The researcher will
provide the school with a developmental evaluation of implementation at their August 2018
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 141
retreat. It, together with the faculty assessment of grade-level student justice orientation, can be
used to iterate on program implementation in the 2018-2019 school year.
Future Research
As discussed in the limitations section of Chapter Three, the proposed program
innovation is grounded in the literature, but untested in implementation. The program innovation
does not presuppose which social justice and social innovation approaches schools should adopt,
rather only that they offer respective strengths. As referenced above, at the end of year one
implementation, the researcher will assess which approaches resonated with and were
implemented by teachers to enhance student justice orientation and increase justice-oriented
action. As faculty grow more adept at implementing action-oriented programming and assessing
student justice orientation, they will be better able to leverage different approaches for a justice-
oriented end. There is a need for continued developmental research on how social justice and
innovation approaches can be integrated to increase justice-oriented action, particularly as
faculty become more skilled in implementing respective approaches.
Research on how these two approaches can be integrated could be especially important to
making social innovation education more impactful. As discussed in Chapter Two, design
thinking, in particular, adheres to principles of empathetic intervention and root cause analysis,
but in practice, may result in a product or service intervention without a long-term plan for
leveraging it to address systemic challenges. Schools may increasingly look to adopt social
innovation approaches to community engagement because the discourse associated with it may
be deemed less confrontational than that of social justice. Whereas social justice implicates
structural inequity, be it cultural or institutional, the discourse of social innovation evokes
changing something outmoded without necessarily faulting what it looks to change. It is
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 142
important for schools to recognize the limitations of social innovation approaches absent
grounding in social justice education, or risk replicating the negative aspects of community
service absent critical reflection. Future research on the relative justice-oriented impacts of social
innovation programs would be important to enabling educators to understand the strengths and
limitations of such programs, and how social justice approaches could complement them. Such
research would not just inform secondary school community engagement programming, but
higher education as well. As noted in Chapter Two, most social entrepreneurship programs,
including in higher education, focus primarily on the mechanics of developing a social
enterprise, with potentially inadequate grounding in social justice education to effect justice-
oriented change.
Most students at ISA have personal experience with structural oppression related to race,
class, or gender. As detailed in Chapter Four, ISA teachers struggle with educating students on
social justice issues who do not have that shared experience. Such students may have affiliations
that are negatively implicated in the oppression of others. Future research is needed on how to
engage these more privileged students effectively. Future research is also needed on how to
engage educators of privileged students in justice-oriented education who may disavow or be
unfamiliar with concepts of structural oppression. Finally, research is also needed on strategies to
engage policy makers who approve curriculum standards that fail to acknowledge the
intersectional, historical, and structural nature of inequity, which might include youth organizing
for curricular standards revision, among other strategies.
Conclusion
A study of ISA as a best practice in social justice education (Quinn, 2015) found that,
while the school’s pedagogical and curricular approach to education reflected social justice
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 143
principles, ISA students were engaged in participatory and responsible action more than justice-
oriented action, as differentiated by Westheimer and Kahne (2004). Quinn (2015) noted she did
not have the data to identify why this was the case, but concluded it was important for schools
like ISA committed to social justice to consider what appropriate student action looks like.
The purpose of the study was to identify why students were not engaged in justice-
oriented action and solutions for how they could be. The study explored these questions through
a gap analysis framework, which identified the teacher knowledge and motivation needs, and
school organizational needs necessary to increase student justice-oriented action. Needs were
identified through a review of the literature related to justice-oriented education, as well as the
general literature on learning and organizational theory.
The literature review on school-based approaches to promoting student action on social
issues revealed two predominant types of programs: one social justice and the other social
innovation. It was found that social justice education excels at generating student understanding
of the structural nature of social problems, whereas the strength of social innovation is in helping
students conceptualize social change action over the long-term. The literature, furthermore,
revealed that while each approach offered different strengths in practice, in theory, both aspire to
shared objectives for school-based projects, which are: empathy and collaboration with the
stakeholder group or service recipient; understanding of a problem’s structural root causes and
facility with effecting systemic change; and school-based projects that both generate
understanding of broader systemic context and benefit the stakeholder more than the student.
Because social justice and innovation approaches are aspirationally aligned, a program
innovation was proposed that integrates both approaches to maximize justice-oriented action.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 144
Data collected through faculty surveys and interviews, as well as through document
review, found ISA faculty have strong knowledge of how to educate students on social justice
issues and are highly motivated to increase justice-oriented action. They were less familiar,
however, with approaches to facilitating student justice-oriented action. Interviews also revealed
that, while faculty question whether justice-oriented action is developmentally appropriate at 9th
and 10th grade levels, all faculty believe these younger students develop justice-oriented skills of
empathy, collaboration and critical thinking foundational to potential action in 11th and 12th
grade. Public facing document analysis showed that organizational messaging does not explicitly
embrace a justice-oriented objective, though does not preclude it.
Proposed solutions included professional development on the program innovation and its
conceptual and procedural components; opportunities for integrating the program innovation at
each grade level, with a pilot cohort of seniors taking action in year one; and the development
and implementation of evaluation tools faculty can use in assessing student justice orientation
and alumni justice-oriented action as a result of their ISA education.
While delimitations of the study prevent results from being generalizable, there are
several important implications for those looking to educate students who are both committed and
capable of pursuing social change, as students and over the long-term. Few schools focus on
generating justice-oriented citizens, fewer still in a manner that aligns scope and sequence at
each grade level to maximize justice orientation. Social justice educators could learn from ISA’s
codification of developmentally appropriate indicators of a justice orientation over a student’s 4
years in high school. While there is much literature on how to educate students on social justice
issues, and sample social justice curriculum at the secondary school level, none of the literature
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 145
the researcher has reviewed differentiates social justice education scope and sequence over
multiple years, and in respect to adolescent development.
The application of a gap analysis to increase student justice-oriented action also has
significant implications for schools committed to generating social change agents. While many
schools espouse a public purpose or a commitment to public service, many fall short, failing to
educate students on the structural nature of social problems, and relying on responsible and
participatory community engagement with inadequate critical reflection. The gap analysis
framework articulated in this study is a useful tool in assessing the relative justice orientation of
a school, its curriculum and pedagogy.
The comparative analysis of education for social justice and social innovation in the
study’s literature review also has broader implications for understanding the strengths and
limitations of various school-based approaches to engaging with social problems. These include
opportunities to improve the impact of social innovation education and sharpen the use of social
innovation theory to achieve social change. Quinn (2015) equates justice-oriented action with
“disruptive” action (p. 60), reflecting a common incomplete understanding of the application of
disruptive innovation theory (Bower & Christensen, 1995) to social problems. As reviewed in
Chapter Two, Christensen clarified, in Christensen et al. (2006), that executing a disruptive
intervention to address a social problem is insufficient to solving that problem. It requires
leveraging the intervention to intentionally effect systemic change. In contrast, disruptive
innovation in business may lead to social change, but it is not the intent; it is a byproduct.
Christensen et al. thus recommended renaming disruptive action “catalytic innovation” (p. 96) in
the context of social change. Too many well intentioned social interventions, be they related to
education or other issues, do not achieve significant and sustained impact because of failure to
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 146
appreciate the intervention’s systemic context and to intentionally pursue related structural
change. The promise of the program innovation articulated in this study, and its implementation
at ISA, is to generate a model approach for enabling students to take immediate action while
preparing them for long-term pursuit of social change.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 147
References
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., Goodman, D. J., & Joshi, K. Y. (Eds.). (2016). Teaching for diversity
and social justice (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Addams, J. (1899). The subtle problems of charity. Atlantic Monthly, 163–178. Retrieved from
http://www.unz.org/Pub/AtlanticMonthly-1899feb-00163
Alkhater, L. R. M. (2016). Qatar’s Borrowed K-12 Education Reform in Context. In M. E. Tok,
L. Alkhater & L. A. Pal (Eds.). Policy-making in a transformative state (pp. 97–130).
London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Allio, L. (2014). Design thinking for public service excellence. Singapore: UNDP Global Centre
for Public Service Excellence.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Ayers, W., Hunt, J. A., & Quinn, T. (1998). Teaching for social justice. A democracy and
education reader. New York, NY: New Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the
question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.
Bloom, P. N., & Dees, G. (2008). Cultivate your ecosystem. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
6(1), 47–53.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 148
Bortolin, K. (2011). Serving ourselves: How the discourse on community engagement privileges
the university over the community. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,
18(1), 49–58.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In John Richardson (Ed.). Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241– 258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard
Business Review, 73(1), 43-53.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1977). Schooling in capitalist America. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 8(1), 31–35.
Butin, D. W. (2007). Justice-learning: Service-learning as justice-oriented education. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(2), 177–183.
Calvert, V. (2011). Service learning to social entrepreneurship: A continuum of action learning.
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11(2), 118.
Cammarota, J. (2007). A social justice approach to achievement: Guiding Latina/o students
toward educational attainment with a challenging, socially relevant curriculum. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(1), 87–96.
Cammarota, J. (2008). The cultural organizing of youth ethnographers: Formalizing a praxis ‐
based pedagogy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39(1), 45–58.
Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. F. (2009). A social justice epistemology and pedagogy for
Latina/o students: Transforming public education with participatory action research. New
Directions for Youth Development, 123, 53–65.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 149
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Christens, B. D., & Kirshner, B. (2011). Taking stock of youth organizing: An interdisciplinary
perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134, 27–41.
Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive innovation
for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94.
Cipolle, S. B. (2010). Service-learning and social justice: Engaging students in social change.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Colby, A., Erlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Preparing
America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Crandall, B., Klein, G. A., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner's guide to
cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cranton, P. & Hogan, C. (2012). Evaluating transformative learning. In E.W. Taylor & P.
Cranton (Eds.). The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 520–535). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Day, D. (1952). The long loneliness. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Daynes, G. and Longo, N. (2004). Jane Addams and the origins of service learning practice in
the United States. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 5–13.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Durham, NC: Center for the
Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 150
Dees, J. G. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem-solving, and the future of social
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 321–334.
Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2008). Youth-led community organizing: Theory and action. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. (2013). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A
focus on self-regulated learning. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Densmore, K. (2000). Service learning and multicultural education: Suspect or transformative?
In C. R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multicultural education in
colleges and universities (pp. 45–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. In The school and society and the curriculum and the
child. (1990). Chicago. IL: The University of Chicago.
Dewey, J. (1908). Ethics. The middle works of John Dewey, Vol. 5, Jo Ann Boyston, Ed. (1978).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Duncan, G. D. & Murnane, R. (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity: Rising inequality, schools
and children’s life chances. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Elmes, M. B., Jiusto, S., Whiteman, G., Hersh, R., & Guthey, G. T. (2012). Teaching social
entrepreneurship and innovation from the perspective of place and place making.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 533–554.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi‐level model of culture: from the micro level of the
individual to the macro level of a global culture. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 583–598.
Erikson, E. (1968). Youth: Identity and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
Eyler, J. & Giles, E. & Astin, A. (1999). Where's the learning in service-learning. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley and Sons.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 151
Ferlazzo, L., & Mcgarvey, C. (2005). Teaching Is Organizing (or Should Be). SOCIAL POLICY,
35(4), 53.
Fowler, F.C. (2013) Policy Studies for Educational Leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Person/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum
International.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Giles E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The theoretical roots of service-learning in John Dewey: Toward a
theory of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1(1), 77–
85.
Gorski, P. C., & Pothini, S. G. (2013). Case studies on diversity and social justice education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Gorski, P. C., Zenkov, K., Osei-Kofi, N., & Sapp, J. (Eds.). (2013). Cultivating social justice
teachers. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York:
International.
Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise of a
social justice approach. Social Justice, 29(4), 82–95.
Hanushek, E.A., & Woessmann, L. (2015). The knowledge capital of nations: Education and the
economics of growth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Honig, M. (2006). New Directions in Education Policy Implementation. Albany, NY: SUNY.

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 152
IDEO (2012). Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit. Retrieved from
http://designthinkingforeducators.com/:IDEO LLC.
Kegan, R. (1983). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (2000). What “Form” Transforms? A Constructive-Developmental Approach to
Transformative Learning. In Mezirow, J. & Associates, Learning as Transformation:
Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us
all. Crown Business.
King, J. T. (2004). Service-learning as a site for critical pedagogy: A case of collaboration,
caring, and defamiliarization across borders. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(3),
121–137.
Kirk, M. Hickel, J., & Brewer, J. (2015, September 28). Using design thinking to eradicate
poverty creation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from
http://ssir.org/articles/entry/using_design_thinking_to_eradicate_poverty_creation
Kirshner, B., & Geil, K. (2010). “I'm about to really bring it!” Access points between youth
activists and adult community leaders. Children Youth and Environments, 20(2), 1–24.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Labaree, D. F. (2010). Someone has to fail: The zero-sum game of public schooling. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Labaree, D. (2014). Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of
education. Teachers College Record, 116(9), 1–14
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 153
Light, P. C. (2010). Driving social change: How to solve the world's toughest problems.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Litzky, B. E., Godshalk, V. M., & Walton-Bongers, C. (2009). Social entrepreneurship and
community leadership: A service-learning model for management education. Journal of
Management Education, 34(1), 142-162.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28–39.
Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2015). Getting beyond better: How social entrepreneurship works.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Mezirow, J. and Associates (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to
transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service-learning.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32.
Mortan, K. and Saltmarsh, J. (1997). Addams, Day, and Dewey: The emergence of community
service in American culture. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(10),
137–149.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 154
Mitchell, T. D. (2007). Critical service-learning as social justice education: A case study of the
citizen scholars program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 101–112.
Mitchell, T. D. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to
differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–
65.
Mitchell, T. D. (2010). Challenges and possibilities: Linking social justice and service-learning.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 17(1), 94–97.
Mulgan, G. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated.
London: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance
innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K. & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford
Social Innovation Review 6(4), 34–43.
Picketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Quinn, B. P. (2015). International School of the Americas: Social Emotional Learning and
Social Justice Education for the 21st Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for
Opportunity Policy in Education.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 155
Reimers, F. (2010). Educating for global competency. In J.E. Cohen & M.E. Malin (Eds.),
International Perspectives on the Goals of Universal Basic and Secondary Education
(pp. 183–202). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Community service and higher learning: Explorations of the caring self.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rosenberger, C. (2000). Beyond empathy: Developing critical consciousness through service
learning. In C. R. O’Grady (Ed.), Integrating service learning and multi-cultural
education in colleges and universities (pp. 23–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sandy, M., & Holland, B. A. (2006). Different worlds and common ground: Community partner
perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 13(1), 33–43.
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Seider, S. (2008). “Bad things could happen:” How fear impedes social responsibility in
privileged adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(6), 647–666.
Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2015). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in
social justice education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: Theoretical antecedents and empirical
analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418–434.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 156
Skinner, R. & Chapman, C. (1999). Service learning and community service in K-12 public
schools. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Spencer, J. & Juliani, A.J. (2016). Launch: Using design thinking to boost creativity and bring
out the maker in every student. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting.
Spillane, J.P., Reiser, B.J. & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing
and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–
431.
Spring, J. (2015). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stanley, W. B. (1992). Curriculum for utopia: Social reconstruction and critical pedagogy in the
postmodern era. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Swalwell, K. M. (2013). Educating activist allies. New York: Routledge.
Taylor, J. (2002). Metaphors we serve by: Investigating the conceptual metaphors framing
national and community service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 9(1), 45–57.
Temin, P. (2017). The vanishing class: Prejudice and power in a dual economy. Cambridge,
MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing.
Weatherley, R. & Lipsky, M. (Summer 1977). Street level bureaucrats and institutional
innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2),
171–197.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 157
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Westheimer, J. & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for
democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
Westheimer, J. & Kahne, J. (2007). Introduction. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40, 97–100.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-
quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Worsham, E. L. (2012). Reflections and insights on teaching social entrepreneurship: An
interview with Greg Dees. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 442–
452.
Yanow, D. (1999). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Yunus, M. (2007). Banker to the poor. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 158
Appendix A
Semi-Structured Teacher Interview Protocol

Number of years interviewee has been employed by the school:
Subject matter currently taught:

1. What does structural oppression mean to you?

Probing questions
a. Can you give me an example of structural oppression at the individual level?
b. Can you give me an example of structural oppression at the institutional level?
c. Can you give me an example of structural oppression at the cultural or societal
level?

2. In what ways may your students be challenged by structural oppression?

2a. How might that impact their ability to learn about social justice issues and take
justice-oriented action?

3. In what ways are you personally challenged by structural oppression?

3a. How do you think that impacts your ability to teach students who are facing
different types of oppression than you are?

4. Can you describe any community engagement programs your school offers that enable
students to engage in social change work?

5. What other types of school-based programs are you familiar with, which give students the
opportunity to take justice-oriented action?

5a. Can you describe them?

6. In what ways do you think the purpose of education for social justice and social
innovation are similar and different?

7. If you were to compare education for social justice and social innovation relative to the
goal of promoting student justice-oriented action, what do you think their respective
strengths and weaknesses might be?

8. Can you walk me through the steps you would take in teaching students about a social
justice issue?

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 159
9. Can you walk me through how you would help students take action to address a social
justice issue?

10. How would you assess your success at promoting student justice-oriented action?

10a. What incremental indicators of progress would you look for?

11. Can you describe a time when your understanding of structural oppression changed as a
result of interaction with students?

12. Why did you become a teacher?

Probing question
How do you define success as a teacher?

13. How do you feel about the assumption that you are not already promoting student justice-
oriented action adequately?

14. Do you have any concerns about changing your approach to social justice education?

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 160
Appendix B
Teacher Survey
1. How would you define social justice?

2. How would you define social innovation?

3. Which of the following would you consider to be justice-oriented action? Please check
(√) all that apply:

( ) Students donate food to a food bank.
( ) Students organize a food drive for a food bank.
( ) Students identify a policy change that would enable more people to afford food
without accessing a food bank.
( ) Students advocate for policy that would enable more people to afford food
without accessing a food bank.
( ) Students develop a job training program that enables people to gain employment
such that they can better afford food.

4. A social justice approach to school-based community engagement with social issues,
such as critical service learning or youth organizing, aims to do which of the following?
Please check (√) all that apply:

( ) Facilitate student understanding of a problem’s structural root causes
( ) Develop student empathy for the stakeholder group or service recipient
( ) Develop an intervention with the stakeholder group
( ) Ensure the stakeholder benefit from community engagement equals or exceeds the
student benefit
( ) Generate student understanding of a school-based project's systemic context
( ) Develop student understanding of and facility with means to effect systemic
change

5. A social innovation approach to community-based engagement with social issues, such as
social entrepreneurship or design thinking, aims to do which of the following? Please
check (√) all that apply:

( ) Facilitate student understanding of a problem’s structural root causes
( ) Develop student empathy for the stakeholder group or service recipient
( ) Develop an intervention with the stakeholder group
( ) Ensure the stakeholder benefit from community engagement equals or exceeds the
student benefit
( ) Generate student understanding of a school-based project's systemic context
( ) Develop student understanding of and facility with means to effect systemic
change

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 161
6. I believe reforming our community engagement approach to result in greater justice-
oriented action should be a priority for my school. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. I believe education for social justice is a critical component of promoting student justice-
oriented action. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. I believe education for social innovation is a critical component of promoting student
justice-oriented action. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

9. I feel confident in my ability to help students apply creativity in addressing social
problems. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. I feel confident in my ability to help students apply analytic skills in addressing social
problems. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

11. I feel confident in my ability to generate student understanding of their relationship to
structural oppression. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. The curriculum and pedagogy of secondary school education significantly impacts the
degree to which students perceive the world as just. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

13. The curriculum and pedagogy of secondary school education can significantly impact
whether students pursue social change as adults. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

14. I believe integrating education for social justice and social innovation will result in
greater student justice-oriented action. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 162
15. It is important for me to know how successful I am in generating student justice-oriented
action in comparison to other teachers at my school. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

16. What constitutes justice-oriented action is clear to me. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

17. I have clear understanding of how to assess progress towards the goal of generating
student justice-oriented action. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

18. I am already adequately promoting student justice-oriented action. Please circle one of
the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

19. The goal of promoting student justice-oriented action is consistent with predominant
statewide attitudes towards the purpose of education. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

20. It is important that my school’s approach to social justice education reflect predominant
statewide attitudes towards educating students on social issues. Please circle one of the
following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

21. The goal of promoting student justice-oriented action is consistent with predominant
national attitudes towards the purpose of education. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

22. It is important that my school’s approach to social justice education reflect predominant
national attitudes towards educating students on social issues. Please circle one of the
following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

23. I believe working at a school that prioritizes student justice-oriented action will help my
career. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 163

24. I believe working at a school that prioritizes student justice-oriented action will hurt my
career. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

25. Focusing on promoting student justice-oriented action may detract from my ability to
help students achieve academic goals. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

26. My school has provided clear metrics by which teacher performance is assessed.
Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

27. My school assesses teacher performance in part based on whether teachers succeed at
promoting student justice-oriented action. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

28. What resources do you think will be required to promote justice-oriented action?

31a. Which of these resources do you feel confident your school will adequately
provide and which may it not?

29. My school has established promoting justice-oriented action as a critical goal. Please
circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

30. My school prioritizes education for social justice. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

31. My school prioritizes education for social innovation. Please circle one of the following:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 164
Appendix C
Document Analysis Checklist

Documents for Analysis

• Website material providing an overview of the school, its history, and mission
• Website material on school curriculum
• Website material detailing desired student performance outcomes, including subject
specific academic outcomes and non-academic outcomes relative to “habits of mind” and
student interactions with the community and broader society
• Website material describing the school’s service program, including mission, philosophy
and requirements
• Guidance to students on the intent and process of grade-level trips to learn about social
justice issues and develop an action plan to address them, provided to the researcher by
the principal

Document Analysis Guide

For all questions answered affirmatively, explain why.

1. Do documents make clear how academic and justice-oriented action goals are
complementary?

2. Does school’s teacher evaluation/assessment system incorporate justice-oriented action?

3. Do mission related documents identify promoting justice-oriented action as a critical goal?

4. Do documents explaining approach to community engagement describe programs reflecting:

i. Responsible citizenship
ii. Participatory citizenship
iii. Justice-oriented citizenship

5. Do documents describing charity-based community engagement characterize it as change-
oriented?

6. Do overview/mission related documents reference the school having a social justice
purpose?

6a. If documents reference a social justice program, does it reflect the following definitional
concepts:

i. The equitable distribution of resources among social groups
If yes, are resources defined in terms of:
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 165
ii. Socioeconomic conditions; and
iii. Equitable distribution of recognition and/or respect

6b. If documents reference a social justice program, do they reference the role of education
in helping students to:

i. Understand structural oppression
ii. Critique structural oppression
iii. Mitigate structural oppression

7. Do documents reference the school having a social innovation purpose?

7a. If documents reference social innovation, does description reflect the following
definitional components:

i. A process for solving a social problem; and
ii. A process for scaling a solution

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 166
Appendix D
Assumed Need and Corresponding Content Category

Assumed Need Content
Category
Teachers need to understand the definition of social justice as the equitable distribution
of resources among and recognition of social groups (Factual Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand the concept of structural oppression as the domination of a
group(s) over another group(s) at the individual, institutional and societal or cultural
level, and the dynamic interplay between them. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand their students’ relationship to structural oppression.
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand how their own internalized oppression impacts their
understanding of the issues students will be engaging. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand that education for social justice and social innovation share
the common goal of promoting student justice-oriented action, yet offer different
processes for achieving that goal. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand education for social justice and social innovation share
common aspirational process objectives aligned with promoting student justice-oriented
action. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand that, relative to promoting justice-oriented action, education
for social justice offers a relative strength in generating understanding of systemic
oppression, while education for social innovation offers a relative strength in generating
understanding of social change processes. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand how to teach social justice issues, including establishing
democratic norms of discussion and helping students understand: terms, the historical
genesis of a concept; contemporary manifestations of the issue and its intersection with
other forms of oppression; and their own relationship to the issue. (Procedural
Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers need to know how to assess and develop their own critical consciousness.
(Metacognitive Knowledge)
Social Justice
Teachers may feel unable to generate student analytic critique of structural oppression, as
required by social justice education. (Self-Efficacy Motivation)
Social Justice
Teachers may attribute students’ relative state of critical consciousness to external
structural factors that inhibit student perception of injustice. (Attribution Motivation)
Social Justice
Teachers need to believe they can impact student commitment to pursue justice-oriented
action over the long-term. (Attribution Motivation)
Social Justice
The school needs to prioritize education for social justice. (Cultural Setting Organization) Social Justice
The school may conceive of social justice differently than the program innovation
contemplates. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Social Justice
The school needs to orient new teachers consistently into the school’s social justice
tradition (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Social Justice
Teachers need to understand the definition of social innovation as a process for solving a
social problem, which can be implemented and scaled to benefit society (Factual
Knowledge)
Social
Innovation
Teachers need to understand that education for social justice and social innovation share
the common goal of promoting student justice-oriented action, yet offer different
processes for achieving that goal. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Social
Innovation
Teachers need to understand education for social justice and social innovation share
common aspirational process objectives aligned with promoting student justice-oriented
action. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Social
Innovation
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 167
Teachers may feel unable to generate student creativity, as required by design thinking.
(Self-Efficacy Motivation)
Social
Innovation
The school needs to prioritize education for social innovation.
(Cultural Setting, Organization)
Social
Innovation
The school may define social innovation differently than the program innovation
contemplates. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Social
Innovation
Teachers need to understand the definition of justice-oriented action in contrast to
responsible and participatory action. (Factual Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to understand the difference between charity and change-driven community
engagement programs. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to understand the degree to which different approaches to student
engagement with social issues, such as critical service learning, youth organizing, social
entrepreneurship and design thinking, promote justice-oriented action. (Conceptual
Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to understand that, relative to promoting justice-oriented action, education
for social justice offers a relative strength in generating understanding of systemic
oppression, while education for social innovation offers a relative strength in generating
understanding of social change processes. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to understand that education for social justice and social innovation share
the common goal of promoting student justice-oriented action, yet offer different
processes for achieving that goal. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to understand education for social justice and social innovation share
common aspirational process objectives aligned with promoting student justice-oriented
action. (Conceptual Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to understand how to use social justice and social innovation processes to
promote student justice-oriented action. (Procedural Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to be able to assess and change their approach to promoting student justice-
oriented action based on insight into the state of student ability to take justice-oriented
action. (Metacognitive Knowledge)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to believe the cost, in terms of time or resources that could be used
otherwise, is worth the benefit of implementing a new program. (Cost-Benefit Task Value
Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to believe in the instrumental value of integrating social justice and social
innovation approaches relative to promoting justice-oriented action. (Instrumental Task
Value Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may be concerned that future employers, who do not prioritize student justice-
oriented action, will assume their experience teaching at a school that does indicates the
teacher’s values will conflict with the prospective employer’s. (Instrumental Task Value
Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to believe in the instrumental value of integrating social justice and social
innovation approaches relative to promoting justice-oriented action. (Instrumental Task
Value Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may lack motivation to implement the program if they do not identify with, and
therefore value, the task of teaching and promoting justice-oriented action. (Intrinsic Task
Value Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to believe they can impact student commitment to pursue justice-oriented
action over the long-term. (Attribution Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to believe implementing the model will result in student justice-oriented
action. (Expectancy Outcome Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 168

Teachers may be unmotivated to facilitate justice-oriented action because their success in
doing so relative to other teachers is not easily determined. (Goal Orientation Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to feel what constitutes student justice-oriented action is well defined.
(Goals Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to feel what constitutes progress towards the goal of generating student
justice-oriented action is well defined. (Goals Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may be reluctant to implement the program innovation because they perceive it
as conflicting with predominant state and national level opposition to promoting student
critical thinking about social issues. (Goals Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may feel negative about the assertion they have not adequately promoted student
justice-oriented action. (Affect Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to believe secondary school students are developmentally capable of
pursuing justice-oriented action
(Attribution Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to believe they can impact student commitment to pursue justice-oriented
action over the long-term. (Attribution Motivation)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may feel resistant to the change required of implementing a new model.
(Cultural Model, Organization)
Justice-
oriented
Action
The school may mischaracterize a charity-driven approach to community engagement as a
change approach. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may feel implementing the new model detracts from and therefore conflicts with
student academic goals. (Cultural Setting, Organization)

Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may feel implementing the new model detracts from and therefore conflicts with
student academic goals. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers may feel the school incentivizes performance to a greater degree in areas other
than student justice-oriented action. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Justice-
oriented
Action
Teachers need to feel their school will provide adequate resources to implement the
program innovation effectively. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Justice-
oriented
Action
The school needs to recognize promoting student justice-oriented action as a key goal.
(Cultural Setting, Organization)
Justice-
oriented
Action
The school needs to make clear to faculty how the work of grade-level teams is cohesively
leveraged to promote student justice-oriented action. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Justice-
oriented
Action
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 169
Appendix E
Validated, Partially Validated, and not Validated Social Justice Education Needs

Assumed Need Instrument Validated Partially
Validated
Not
Validated
New
Need
Definition of social justice (Factual
Knowledge)
Survey X
Concept of structural oppression
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview X
Students’ relationship to structural
oppression (Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview X
Internalized oppression impacts teaching
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview X
Social justice and innovation have
common goal (Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview X
Social justice and innovation share process
objectives (Conceptual Knowledge)
Survey X
Social justice strength in generating
understanding of systemic oppression
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview X
How to teach social justice issues
(Procedural Knowledge)
Interview X
Develop their own critical consciousness
as teachers (Metacognitive Knowledge)
Interview X
Help students analyze structural
oppression (Self-Efficacy Motivation)
Survey X
Help students understand relationship to
structural oppression (Attribution
Motivation)
Survey X
Belief they can impact student
commitment to justice-oriented action
long-term (Attribution Motivation)
Survey X
School prioritizes education for social
justice (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Document
Survey
X
School conceives of social justice
differently than the program innovation
(Cultural Setting, Organization)
Document X
School orients new teachers into social
justice tradition (Cultural Setting,
Organization)
Interview X
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 170
Appendix F
Validated, Partially Validated, and not Validated Social Innovation Education Needs

Assumed Need Instrument Validated Partially
Validated
Not
Validated
New
Need
Definition of social innovation (Factual
Knowledge)
Survey X
Social justice and innovation share goal
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview X
Social justice and innovation share process
objectives (Conceptual Knowledge)
Survey X
Teachers feel unable to apply creativity to
social problems (Self-Efficacy Motivation)
Survey X
School prioritizes social innovation (Cultural
Setting Organization)
Document

X
School defines social innovation differently
(Cultural Setting Organization)
Document

X
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 171
Appendix G
Validated, Partially Validated, and not Validated Justice-oriented Action Needs
Assumed Need Instrument Validated Partially
Validated
Not
Validated
New
Need
Definition of justice-oriented (Factual
Knowledge)
Survey
X

Difference between charity and change
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview
X

Degree to which different approaches
promote justice-oriented action.
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview
X

Education for social justice strength in
understanding systemic oppression, social
innovation in social change processes.
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Interview
X

Education for social justice and innovation
share common goal (Conceptual
Knowledge)
Interview
X

Education for social justice and innovation
share common process objectives
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Survey
X

How to use social justice and innovation to
promote justice-oriented action.
(Procedural Knowledge)
Interview
X

Able to assess and change approach to
promoting justice-oriented action
(Metacognitive Knowledge)
Interview
X

Believe the cost is worth the benefit (Cost-
Benefit Task Value Motivation)
Survey
X

Believe in value of integrating social
justice and innovation (Instrumental Task
Value Motivation)
Survey
X

Teachers do not identify with promoting
justice-oriented action. (Intrinsic Task
Value Motivation)
Interview
X

Believe they can impact student
commitment to justice-oriented action
long-term. (Attribution Motivation)
Survey
X

Implementing the model will result in
justice-oriented action. (Expectancy
Outcome Motivation)
Survey
X

Teacher success in promoting justice
orientation relative to other teachers not
easily determined. (Goal Orientation
Motivation)
Survey
Document X

What constitutes student justice-oriented
action is well defined. (Goals Motivation)
Survey
X

What constitutes progress towards justice-
oriented action well defined. (Goals
Motivation)
Survey
X

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 172

Reluctant because program conflicts with
state opposition to critical thinking about
social issues. (Goals Motivation)
Survey
X

Feel negative about assertion they have not
promoted justice-oriented action. (Affect
Motivation)
Survey
Interview X

Believe secondary school students
developmentally capable of justice-oriented
action. (Attribution Motivation)
Survey

X
Believe integrating social justice and
innovation will increase justice-oriented
action. (Instrumental Task Value
Motivation)
Survey
X

Concerned future employers will assume
teacher’s values conflict (Instrumental
Task Value Motivation)
Survey
X

Resistant to the change (Cultural Model,
Organization)
Interview
X

School mischaracterizes charity as change
(Cultural Setting, Organization)
Document
X

Implementing the new model detracts from
academic goals. (Cultural Setting,
Organization)
Survey
Interview

X

School incentivizes performance more in
other areas (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Survey
Document
X

School will provide adequate resources
(Cultural Setting, Organization)
Survey

X

School recognizes promoting justice-
oriented action as key goal (Cultural
Setting, Organization)
Survey
X

School makes clear how grade levels
leveraged to promote justice-oriented
action. (Cultural Setting, Organization)
Interview

X
EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 173
Appendix H
Thematic Findings and Corresponding Needs not Validated
Thematic Finding Not Validated
Faculty exhibited consistent understanding of
social justice concepts
Definition of social justice (Factual)
Concept of structural oppression (Conceptual)
Understanding students’ relationship to structural oppression
(Conceptual)
Impact of internalized oppression on teaching students facing
oppression (Conceptual)
Developing critical consciousness as a teacher
(Metacognitive)
Teachers believe implementing the program
innovation will result in greater justice-oriented
action
Believe they can impact student commitment to justice-
oriented action long-term. (Attribution Motivation)
Believe implementing the model will result in justice-oriented
action. (Expectancy Outcome Motivation)
Believe in value of integrating social justice and innovation
(Instrumental Task Value Motivation)

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 174
Appendix I
Thematic Findings and Corresponding Validated, Partially validated and not Validated Needs
Thematic Finding Validated Partially Validated Not Validated
Experienced faculty have
strong understanding of
how to educate students
on social justice issues,
but new teachers may
struggle.
Teaching social justice issues
(Procedural Knowledge)

Ability to generate student
critique of structural oppression
(Self-Efficacy Motivation)
Helping students understand
relationship to structural
oppression (Attribution
Motivation)
Faculty have inconsistent
understanding of best
practice in social justice
action.
Social justice and
innovation have common
process objectives
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Social justice strength
in generating
understanding
systemic oppression
(Conceptual
Knowledge)
Social justice and
innovation have common
goal with different
processes (Conceptual
Knowledge)
Though faculty perceive
education for social
justice as a priority, there
is no formal effort to
orient new faculty to the
school’s social justice
tradition.
Orient teachers into the
school’s social justice
tradition (Cultural Setting
Organization)
School prioritizes education
for social justice. (Cultural
Setting)
Belief they can impact
student commitment to
pursue justice-oriented
action long-term.
(Attribution
Motivation)
School conceives of
social justice differently
than the program
innovation (Cultural
Setting)
Faculty have inconsistent
understanding of social
innovation and do not
perceive it as a school
priority.
Definition of social
innovation (Factual
Knowledge)

Social justice and
innovation share the
common goal
(Conceptual Knowledge)
Social justice and
innovation share
common process
objectives (Conceptual
Knowledge)
School prioritizes social
innovation.
(Cultural Setting,
Organization)
While the school
appreciates creative
problem-solving, faculty
lack confidence in
helping students apply
creativity to social
Teachers feel unable to
generate student creativity
(Self-Efficacy
Motivation)
School defines social
innovation differently
(Cultural Setting,
Organization)

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 175
problems.
Faculty lack
understanding about
what constitutes justice-
oriented action and the
distinction between
charity and change.
Definition of justice-
oriented action (Factual
Knowledge)

Difference between
charity and change
(Conceptual Knowledge)
How different approaches
promote justice-oriented
action (Conceptual
Knowledge)
Student justice-oriented
action is well defined
(Goals Motivation)
School mischaracterizes
charity as change
(Cultural Setting,
Organization)
Faculty demonstrate
incomplete knowledge
about how social justice
and social innovation
education can be
leveraged to promote
justice-oriented action.
Social justice and
innovation share common
goal (Conceptual
Knowledge)
Social justice strength in
understanding systemic
oppression, social innovation
in understanding social change
processes. (Conceptual
Knowledge)

Social justice and
innovation share common
process objectives
(Conceptual Knowledge)
How to use social justice
and innovation to promote
justice-oriented action.
(Procedural Knowledge)
Nearly all faculty
recognize current student
justice-oriented action as
inadequate and exhibit
support for increasing it.
Believe the cost is worth
benefit (Cost-Benefit Task
Value Motivation)
Feel negative about
assertion they have not
promoted action.
(Affect Motivation)
Resistant to change
(Cultural Model,
Organization)
Faculty expressed
limited concern with the
program innovation’s
divergence from cultural
norms.
Reluctant because program
innovation conflicts with state
attitudes (Goals Motivation)

Do not identify with teaching
for justice-oriented action.
(Intrinsic Task Value
Motivation)
Concerned future employers
will assume their values
conflict (Instrumental Task
Value Motivation)
Faculty exhibited mixed
perception of the
program innovation’s
developmental
appropriateness.
Teachers need to believe
secondary school students are
developmentally capable of
pursuing justice-oriented
action. (Attribution

EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INNOVATION 176
Motivation)
Faculty have inconsistent
understanding of
continuity between
grades in promoting a
justice orientation.
School makes clear how
grade-level education is
integrated and leveraged for
justice orientation. (Cultural
Setting, Organization)

Faculty identified
potential competing and
complementary
demands.
Implementing the model
detracts from academic goals.
(Cultural Setting,
Organization)

Faculty believe
additional resources are
required to implement
the program innovation
and have mixed
confidence in the school
providing for them.
School will provide adequate
resources (Cultural Setting,
Organization)

Assessing teacher impact
on justice-oriented action
is important to faculty
but not well understood
or executed.
School incentivizes
performance more in
other areas (Cultural
Setting, Organization)

School recognizes
promoting justice-
oriented action as a key
goal. (Cultural Setting)
Teacher success
promoting justice-
oriented action compared
to others not easily
determined. (Goal
Orientation Motivation)
Able to assess and change
approach to promoting
justice-oriented action
(Metacognitive
knowledge)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify the faculty knowledge, motivational and organizational needs associated with increasing student justice-oriented action at the International School of the Americas (ISA), a nationally recognized leader in social justice education. While students at ISA are highly educated on social justice issues, they are infrequently taking justice-oriented action, defined as action that addresses the root causes of social problems. A review of the literature revealed two predominant approaches to promoting student social action, one a social justice approach and the other a social innovation approach. The literature further indicated that both share common objectives related to social change but exhibit different strengths in practice. Social justice education excels at generating student understanding of the structural nature of social problems, whereas social innovation helps students conceive of social change action over the long-term. A program innovation was proposed integrating the respective strengths of each approach to maximize justice-oriented action. Data were collected through document analysis, faculty surveys, and interviews to identify needs and assets related to implementing the program innovation. Findings indicate that faculty have strong understanding of social justice concepts and are highly motivated to increase justice-oriented action. However, they lack knowledge of how to assess improvement in student justice orientation and in how to help students take action. Three categories of solutions are proposed: professional development, integration of the program innovation, and evaluation instrument development. The study concludes with an implementation and evaluation plan to support faculty in piloting and iterating on approaches to increasing justice-oriented action over the course of a student’s high school career.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Systemic multilayered assessment of global awareness in undergraduate students: an innovation study

PDF

An innovation study: designing a social entrepreneurship coaching model for entrepreneurs

PDF

Creating "excellent" learning experiences: a gap analysis of a university extension program

PDF

Increasing faculty engagement in entrepreneurial behavior to advance regional economic development: an innovation study

PDF

Improving math achievement among fourth graders at Al-Corniche Primary For Girls: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at an East Asian university: a gap analysis

PDF

The impact of elementary school leadership on student achievement: a gap analysis

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

Increasing English performance in Chinese schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Innovative parental involvement: Utilizing information and communication technologies to increase parental involvement

PDF

The importance of being a global citizen: creating and implementing a global curriculum for the Cutting Edge Youth Summit

PDF

Linking shared governance and strategic planning processes: an innovation study

PDF

Increasing parent involvement in social-emotional learning workshops in high school using the gap analysis approach

PDF

Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

PDF

Leadership for K-12 STEM integration: how superintendents champion the advancement of effective integrated STEM education within their districts

PDF

Improving educational attainment at a bridge program in Saudi Arabia: a gap analysis

PDF

Deepening awareness: the integration of mindfulness practices in United States high schools

PDF

A curriculum to integrate social justice anchors standards into K–5 curriculum

PDF

Increasing partnerships between education and industry in the United Arab Emirates: a gap analysis

PDF

Implementing field-based online graduate professional programs: a promising practice study

Asset Metadata

Creator Badgett, Alison (author)

Core Title Integrating education for social justice and social innovation: a gap analysis of a high school program innovation to increase justice-oriented action

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 01/31/2018

Defense Date 07/31/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag justice-oriented education,OAI-PMH Harvest,social innovation education,social justice education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Filback, Robert (committee chair)

Creator Email alisonbadgett@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-420619

Unique identifier UC11263185

Identifier etd-BadgettAli-5664.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-420619 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BadgettAli-5664.pdf

Dmrecord 420619

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Badgett, Alison

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA