University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

(USC Thesis Other)

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1
The Attributes of Effective Equity-Focused Elementary School Principals
Courtney Glass
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Courtney Glass 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Courtney Glass certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Franklin
Rudolph Crew
David Cash, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

Abstract
This study used the theoretical framework of critical race theory to study the practices of
equity-focused elementary school principals. The study surveyed and interviewed seven
principals in Los Angeles County. The purpose of the was to discover how principals help close
the learning gap for marginalized students. The study used the following four research questions
as a guide:
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their effectiveness
as an equity-focused leader?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating an
equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to student
success?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive
school environment?
The study found that there were some clear practices for the principals at the school site and also
for the district leadership supporting the principals. A principal must understand their own
positionality and how they fit into the school they lead, which means knowing and understanding
the students and families in the population they serve. Any leader, despite their own positionality,
has the opportunity to have a positive impact on the learning of Black, Hispanic, low
socioeconomic status, English learner, and students with IEPs if they have the proper training
and support.
Keywords: marginalized students, equity, equity-focused, positionality
4

Dedication
To my amazing wife, I could not have achieved this without your love and support. The three
years were remarkable, and I only survived, even flourished, with you at my side the whole way.
To my children. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
5

Acknowledgements
Thank you to all of the professors who showed care and compassion throughout the
process. Parts of this journey were difficult, and I would not have succeeded without the support
of each of you in class. The readings, the lectures, the Zoom opportunities, and more were made
possible because of your dedication and hard work on my behalf.
Thank you to the seven principals who took the time to sit and share their practices. The
work that a principal does is sometimes thankless and often goes unnoticed, but it is invaluable
to the young people who are walking through the doors of your institutions.
Finally, thank you to my thematic dissertation team. This process was never easy and not
always fun, but I am glad that I was able to go through it with you and I know that you made it
better than it otherwise would have been.
6

Preface
Some chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as such.
While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a collaborative
effort reflects real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing highly skilled
practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School and the USC
Rossier School of Education permitted our inquiry team to carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with three other doctoral candidates:
Charlene Saenz, Erika Moreno, and Eduardo Zaldivar. We engaged in a study dedicated to
advancing educational equity through effective school principal leadership. The study requires an
analysis of qualitative data gathered from effective school principals whose leadership led to
improved educational outcomes for students of color. To add to this study’s validity, we
triangulated our data to identify the attributes associated with such principals and provide
strategies deemed effective that future school leaders can enact to improve student outcomes.
7

Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgements vi
Preface vii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 6
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 6
Organization of the Study 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 9
Levels of Systemic Inequity 10
Critical Race Theory in Education 19
Leadership 21
The Role of the Elementary School Principal In Equitable Education 28
Conclusion 40
Chapter Three: Methodology 43
Purpose of the Study 43
Research Questions 43
8

Selection of the Population 44
Design Summary 45
Data Collection 47
Data Analysis 49
Trustworthiness and Credibility 49
Validity and Reliability 50
Researcher Positionality 50
Summary 50
Chapter Four: Results 52
Participants 52
Results Research Question 1 54
Results Research Question 2 60
Results for Research Question 3 66
Results for Research Question 4 70
Summary 73
Chapter Five: Discussion 76
Findings 77
Limitations 81
Implications for Practice 81
Future Research 83
Conclusions 84
Introduction 93
Closing 96
9

10

List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria 45
Table 2: Interview Participants 52
Table 3: School Demographics of Interview Participants 53
11

List of Figures
Figure 1: Visual Conceptual Framework 41
12

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In the twelfth annual report of the secretary of the board (1848, as cited in the National
Archives and Records Administration, 2009), Horace Mann states, “Education, then, beyond all
other divides of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of men - the balance wheel of
the social machinery” (p. 59). However, almost 2 centuries later, schools in the United States are
still inequitable, as evidenced by the following statistics. In 2011–2012, only 57% of Black
students had access to the full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness.
Moreover, Black and Latino students represent 38% of students in schools that offer Advanced
Placement (AP) courses (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014a).
Research has also shown evidence of systemic bias in teachers’ expectations for Black
students, and non-Black teachers have lower expectations of Black students than Black teachers
(United Negro College Fund, 2023). Furthermore, Black students spend less time in the
classroom due to disciplinary issues, which further hinders their access to a quality education.
According to a 2016 U.S. Department of Education report, in 2011–2012, only 10% of public
school principals were Black, compared to 80% White. Black male teachers constitute only 2%
of the teaching workforce. Regarding accessibility to educational resources, students of color are
often concentrated in schools with fewer resources. They often learn in schools with high
turnover rates, less qualified teachers, teachers with lower salaries, and novice teachers
(Spatig-Amerikaner, 2012). Additionally, they are nearly three times as likely to be suspended
without educational services as White students (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil
Rights, 2014b; U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
Scholars argue that educational leaders might transform leadership and improve
outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse learners by adding multiple perspectives and

2
equity-based leadership approaches to status quo leadership practices, such as managerial,
instructional, transformational, or transactional (Santamaría, 2014). Considering this research,
Santamaría (2014) asserted that equity-focused school leadership, inclusive of culturally
responsive leadership, actively and persistently pursues achievement equity while supporting
teaching practices that incorporate culture to teach and empower children.
Background of the Problem
School discipline disproportionately targets students of color, and those who are
suspended are less likely to graduate and more likely to enter the juvenile justice system than
those who are not (Radd et al., 2021, p. 3). Additionally, compared to their White peers, students
of color underperform in standardized tests that are permeated with biases and push them toward
the margin (Turner, 2020). The disproportionality of students of color is maintained by the settler
colonial curricular project, deculturalization, and the sustainment of the dominant culture in
schools, as evidenced by the research presented in the following sections.
Educational structures of power sustain practices of deculturalization and policies
grounded in a settler colonial mindset to maintain Whiteness at the center as the superior race.
“The historical work of curriculum scholars … demonstrate that from its inception and to the
present day, the project of schooling in the [United States] and Canada has been a White
supremacist project” (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 75). Tuck and
Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) presented findings ingrained in the untold stories of people of
color and erased from the U.S. curriculum known as the settler colonial curricular project of
replacement, which aims to vanish Indigenous peoples and replace them with settlers who see
themselves as the rightful claimants to land. Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) stated that
the field of curriculum studies has played a significant role in maintaining settler colonialism.

3
Spring (2016) compared the Roman Empire and White Supremacy. The worldview
during this post-Republican period viewed Rome as the perfect civitas or political order, and any
person who lived outside of Rome was seen as less human, similar to the continued oppression
minority groups experience in the United States. America’s colonization was made possible by
the deculturalization of Indigenous people, stripping them of their culture and language and
forcing them to assimilate into the dominant White culture through genocide, denial of
education, and curriculum.
The deculturalization practices Spring (2016) described remain in schools today, reflected
in the school culture and climate as students of color are expected to conform to ideals grounded
in settler colonialism. “To some students, school culture is liberating and validating, while to
others it teaches them to ‘melt’ into what is deemed as ‘American’ and abandon their home
culture, resulting in deculturalization” (Fraise & Brooks, 2015, p. 11). Additionally, Smith et al.
(2007, as cited in Lewis et al., 2019) asserted that “an unsupportive campus climate can
negatively influence the academic performance and psychological well-being of students of
color” (p. 2). This research further demonstrates the importance of establishing an inclusive
campus culture that is representative of students so that high schools may become sacred places
for students of color.
This study sought to provide insight into effective school leadership practices that
advance educational equity for students of color and reject the notion of school leaders who fail
to address racism and instead focus on color-blind managerialism, leading to the perpetuation of
educational inequities for students of color (Turner, 2020).

4
Statement of the Problem
Historically marginalized student groups continue to underperform their white
counterparts in standardized academic metrics, are overrepresented in suspension rates, and are
over-identified in special education (Martin et al., 2017). An inequitable distribution of resources
has further widened the opportunity gap for marginalized students, creating unfair and
exclusionary practices. Ladson-Billings’ (2006) educational debt examines how students of color
have systematically suffered through inequitable policies and practices. This is especially true for
historically marginalized students from underrepresented groups because they are expected to
check their cultures at the school or classroom door and learn according to European American
norms.
Smith (2005) studied the factors contributing to marginalized students’ underachievement
and offered practices of culturally proficient school leaders to build a positive school culture to
improve these students’ academic achievement. Smith noted that culturally competent leaders
adapt to diversity by examining policies, procedures, and programs for subtle practices of
discrimination. They value diversity by creating an inclusive environment and encouraging
various perspectives in the school’s decision-making processes (Smith, 2005). They
institutionalize cultural knowledge by providing training about diversity and incorporating
cultural knowledge into the organization (Smith, 2005). The author explained that these actions
reduce student discipline problems and dropout rates and increase school leaders’ ability to foster
mutual trust and respect (Smith, 2005).
Purpose of the Study
I understand that school leadership is a crucial component of education reform; as such, I
sought to study equity-focused leaders’ effective practices. Teachers leave preparation programs

5
unprepared to implement instructional practices that lead to an inclusive and representative
classroom. The role of the high school principal is to create an inclusive school culture, lead
staff, maintain the safety of all, and, most importantly, provide advantages to students that will
help them advance beyond their dreams. The purpose of the study was to identify the practices
that equity-focused high school principals enacted to create an inclusive environment.
Research Questions
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
“Educational equity means that each child receives what they need to develop to their full
academic and social potential” (National Equity Project, n.d.). This study sought to identify the
attributes equity-focused high school leaders possess to cultivate an inclusive school
environment that sets marginalized students up for success. Student success is defined through
data on school culture, climate, and student achievement. Through a critical race theoretical lens
and an equity-focused school leadership framework, this study examined the systems that
hinder/limit principals in creating an equity-focused campus and how their positionality inhibits
or enhances their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders. Critical race theory “challenges the
dominant discourse on race and racism as it relates to education by examining how educational

6
theory and practice are used to subordinate certain racial and ethnic groups” (Solórzano & Yosso,
2001, p. 2). Additionally, equity-focused leadership cultivates an inclusive environment wherein
all stakeholders feel they are valued, cared for, and seen. It also distributes resources equitably
and considers the impact on historically marginalized groups prior to making decisions
(Butterfoss, 2021). The participants’ equity-focused actions were determined by compiling their
narratives via surveys and interviews on their positionality and professional experience, school
data on culture and climate, student achievement data, and, when adequate, observations of
equity practices.
Significance of the Study
This study aimed to impart an enhanced understanding of the high school principal’s role,
identify the attributes that enable them to lead schools focused on equity, and identify effective
strategies future principals can employ to achieve equitable student outcomes.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study was limited to high school principals in Southern California, and their
self-reported personal narratives and identification as equity-focused leaders. Survey and
interview questions related to equity-focused school leadership were limited to the relevance of
the research participants’ positionality and professional experiences. This study was delimited to
a specific number of high school principals in a particular geographic region.
Definition of Terms
Critical race theory: Solórzano and Yosso (2001) asserted that critical race theory
“challenges the dominant discourse on race and racism as it relates to education by examining
how educational theory and practice are used to subordinate certain racial and ethnic groups” (p.
2).

7
Deculturalization: “a conscious attempt to replace one culture and language with another
that is considered ‘superior’” (Spring, 2016, p. 1).
Educational equity: “Educational equity means that each child receives what they need to
develop to their full academic and social potential” (National Equity Project, n.d.). Equity in
schools is achieved by raising the performance of all students and eliminating the predictability
and disproportionality of student outcomes based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class,
housing patterns, gender, home language, nation of origin, special needs, and other student
characteristics (Roegman et al., 2019).
Educational partners: In California, educational partners are referred to as “teachers,
principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the LEA, parents, and
pupils” (California Department of Education, 2023, p. 2).
Equity-focused leadership: “Cultivates an inclusive environment where all educational
partners feel valued, cared for, and seen; distributes resources equitably; and considers the
impact of their decisions on historically marginalized groups” (Butterfoss, 2021, para. 5).
Epistemology: “An epistemology is a ‘system of knowing’ that has both an internal logic
and external validity” (Ladson-Billings, 2000, p. 257, as cited in Douglas and Nganga, 2013, p.
68).
Inclusion: “An environment that offers affirmation, celebration, and appreciation of
different approaches, styles, perspectives, and experiences, thus allowing all individuals to
express their whole selves (and all their identities) and to demonstrate their strengths and
capacity” (American Psychological Association, 2021, p. 12).

8
Interest convergence: “critical race theory theorists believe that to increase the speed of
social justice one must find the place where the change being sought out is aligned to the
interests of Whites, a notion deemed as ‘interest convergence’’ (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 7).
Marginalized students: “Students of color, economically disadvantaged students, English
learners, and students with disabilities” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 92).
Positionality: “How one is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of
gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors” (Villaverde
2008, as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 60)
Settler colonialism: “The specific formation of colonialism in which the colonizer comes
to stay, making the sovereign, and the arbiter of citizenship, civility, and knowing” (Tuck &
Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 75).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study,
introducing its purpose and the background of the problem. It includes definitions of terms used
in this study. Chapter 2 presents a literature review in the areas of critical race theory,
positionality, equity-focused school leadership, and components of an inclusive environment.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology, sample and population selection, survey and interview
questions, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 is a report of the research findings.
Chapter 5 consists of a summary of findings, implications for practice, conclusions, and
recommendations. References and appendices are included in the back matter of this document.

9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This review will explore how educational structures of power sustain practices of
deculturalization and policies grounded in a colonial mindset to maintain Whiteness as the
dominant race in public schooling and maintain students of color in the margin. There will be an
intentional focus on highlighting the various systemic levels of inequity permeating our
educational system and ever-present in school curriculum, culturally responsive pedagogy, and
school leadership practices. “The historical work of curriculum scholars … demonstrate that
from its inception and to the present day, the project of schooling in the [United States] and
Canada has been a White supremacist project” (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 75).
These structures will be viewed and analyzed through the lens of critical race theory.
Furthermore, parallels will be drawn between structures of power and the intentional
exclusion of the narratives of students of color in school culture, climate, and instruction.
Research will also demonstrate the benefits of culturally responsive pedagogy for increasing the
achievement of students of color. This concept emerges from Ladson-Billings’ culturally relevant
pedagogy, which centers students’ culture in teaching practices (Byrd, 2016). Byrd (2016) found
that “the promotion of cultural competence is positively associated with academic outcomes” (p.
5). Considering the positive effects of culturally relevant pedagogy, I will examine the literature
associated with implementing culturally responsive leadership practices and their effects on the
academic achievement of students of color. It is important to note that while I did not explicitly
research a school board’s effects on principals, I recognize the importance of its role as it relates
to district policy development and oversight, as well as its indirect impact on principals through
the superintendent. Lastly, I will complete the chapter by presenting this study’s conceptual
framework.

10
Levels of Systemic Inequity
Radd et al. (2021) described three areas of systemic inequity. The structure of the system
has built in inequities. “Inequity is also structural, meaning that the way our system of schooling,
and our entire society for that matter, are built and organized predictably lead to the types of
disparate outcomes that exist today” (Radd et al., 2021, p. 12). The systems within the institution
create inequities that make it difficult for anyone to succeed. “Inequity is institutional, the laws,
rules, processes, and organizations we use to engage in schooling and other aspects of our lives
all work to continue historical and current patterns of inequity” (Radd et al., 2021, p. 13). The
unconscious biases that inarguably everyone carries; “these kinds of unconscious biases
contribute to negative judgment, exclusion, and discrimination” (Radd et al., 2021, p. 14). These
create the individual and interpersonal systems that people bring into the systems.
Historical
Singh (2019) drew attention to the elimination of Indigenous people as a contribution to
the building of America and the construction of the settler mindset, which Singh contended
remains at America’s core. The author stated that settler colonialism is a structure and not an
event: “From its inauguration, then, American freedom was founded on this unrelenting vision of
a frontier populated by unjust enemies” (Singh, 2019, p. 2). Singh argued that the stories of
America’s founding portray Indigenous people as unjust enemies, justifying their forced and
violent subjugation and eliminating the notion of settler decolonization from the narrative. This
depiction of history fails to acknowledge the narrative’s decolonization as a means to sustain
society’s dominant culture. The narratives that erase deculturization and genocide are justified
due to the pursuit of a capitalist America, are interwoven throughout the school curriculum, and
thus, sustain the settler-colonial mindset. The settler mindset allows systems to maintain a

11
structure that benefits those who built it. This line of argument maintains that the dominant
culture sets the tone for society, which transcends into the manner in which public schools
operate.
Spring (2016) added to the argument of an inequitable society and school system by
comparing the Roman Empire and White Supremacy in the United States. The researcher draws
a parallel from the view of any person who lived outside of Rome as less human and the
continued oppression minority groups experience in the United States (Spring, 2016). As
previously mentioned, the colonization of America occurred through Indigenous people’s
deculturalization. Spring (2016) cited a historical belief that remains evident, as reflected in
school curricula and many educators’ resistance to including marginalized students’ stories:
Believing that Anglo-American culture was the superior culture and the only culture that
would support republican and democratic institutions, educators forbade the speaking of
non-English language, particularly Spanish and Native American tongues, and forced
students to learn an Anglo-American centered curriculum (Spring, 2016, p. 6).
Spring declared that the common-school movement of the 1830s and 1840s was partly an
attempt to halt the drift toward a multicultural society. This was a result of the perceived threat of
the freeing of enslaved African Americans and Native Americans on the dominant culture’s
ideals concurrent with early efforts to deculturalize Native Americans (Spring, 2016, pp. 6–7).
Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) discussed the untold stories of students of color,
which have been erased from the U.S. curriculum, known as the settler-colonial curricular
project of replacement that aims to vanish Indigenous peoples and replace them with settlers who
see themselves as the rightful claimants to land. Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández stated that the
field of curriculum studies has played a significant role in maintaining settler colonialism.

12
Curriculum scholars intentionally developed replacement narratives to cover the truths of the
United States. The authors outlined how the project of replacement remains and asserted that it is
ever-present in the space held for White scholars and the dismissal of scholars of color because
they are perceived to be stuck in a past that has been abandoned by White scholars, ultimately
maintaining a settler-colonial curriculum (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013).
Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) presented interventions to interrupt the
settler-colonial mindset and reshape curricula. The first intervention is the browning of
curriculum studies, “a move that deliberately seeks to uncover and highlight the myriad of
complicated ways in which White supremacy and colonization constantly manifest themselves in
curriculum scholarship” (p. 83). The practice of browning brings attention to practices of White
supremacy and inserts itself into the academic space for narratives that have been replaced or
forgotten (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). The second intervention is remetriation, “the
work of community members and scholars in curriculum studies who directly address the
complicity of curriculum in the maintenance of settler colonialism” (Tuck &
Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 84). Remetriation involves a different approach to research that
relies on the invisible narratives of the colonized and the centering of collective knowledge
gained by the marginalized, a source of knowledge that academia would otherwise not recognize.
This approach leads to rejecting narratives and theories used to center the dominant group and is
an opportunity to rewrite stories, knowledge, and research to deconstruct the settler narrative
(Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013).
From its onset to the present day, “the project of schooling in the [United States] … has
been a White supremacist project” (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 75). Moreover, “the
field of curriculum studies has played a significant role in the maintenance of settler colonialism”

13
(Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 76). The goal of curricula has always been to
assimilate the non-White student into the dominant culture to create the ideal human being via a
repressive, revisionist, and White-washed curriculum (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p.
75). Anyone wishing to challenge this is accused of focusing too heavily on identity politics or
race/color in society.
Structural
Kendi (2019) stated, “The lack of resources [in our schools with high populations of
students of color] leads directly to diminished opportunities for learning” (p. 103). The author
added that it is not necessarily an achievement gap occurring but an opportunity gap, a racial
problem affecting communities of color (p. 52). These assertions support the argument that in the
context of the educational system’ structure, students of color are at a disadvantage and lack
opportunities compared to their White counterparts.
As Luke Wood et al. (2021) observed, one element that further displays inequities in the
educational system is suspension rates. Suspensions are higher than average for African
American students, evidencing a hegemonic culture that suspends students of color in
disproportionate numbers (Luke Wood et al., 2021). They also contribute to social and
educational inequities. The authors asserted that the statewide average for suspension for all
students in California public schools was 3.5% in 2018–2019; however, the rate for Black
children/youth is 9.1% (Luke Wood et al., 2021). Per the California School Dashboard, the
suspension rate for African American/ Black children in 2021–2022 was 7.9%, compared to
3.1% overall. Despite the decrease, the dashboard categorizes this rate as a high-status level. This
study and current data substantiate disproportionate suspension rates based on race.

14
Smith (2005) examined the factors contributing to the underachievement of students of
color and proposed culturally proficient practices to build a positive school culture and enhance
these students’ academic achievement. Smith noted that culturally competent examine policies,
procedures, and programs for subtle discriminatory practices. They create an inclusive
environment and encourage a variety of perspectives in decision-making. Also, they
institutionalize cultural knowledge via diversity training and incorporating cultural knowledge
into the organization. The author explained that these actions reduce student discipline problems
and dropout rates, as well as increase school leaders’ ability to foster mutual trust and respect
(Smith, 2005). Structurally speaking, Smith contended that culturally competent leadership is
conducive to a more inclusive school culture.
Teachers are required to complete coursework and student teaching with a master teacher
guiding them. Administrators are required to take additional coursework or show proficiency on
an assessment. Both preparation programs require additional coursework after starting the
profession. Teacher preparation programs are central to addressing the school system’s diverse
student population. Woo (2020) found that teaching preparation programs do not do enough to
prepare teachers to teach. Students’ diversity is vast, their experiences are real, and teachers are
not prepared to face those realities honestly and head-on. The author presents a plan universities
or school districts can follow to augment teachers’ preparation to confront students’ diversity.
This plan includes a revamped curriculum with a course focused on diversity and equity and
ensuring that history and social studies teachers understand how to teach difficult concepts like
slavery and racism (Woo, 2020).

15
Institutional
Gillborn (2013) pointed to how institutional policy embeds White supremacy to maintain
a hegemonic society. A case study to support this point is an Arizona law prohibiting certain
courses and classes from being taught in public schools or public charters. Classes that were
prohibited were perceived to promote resentment toward a race or class of people based on
historical actions, classes designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group, and classes
that advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals (Arizona State
Legislature, 2012, as cited in Gillborn, 2013). This law exemplifies the maintenance of a
dominant class and culture, and threats to the status quo will elicit a reaction to maintain it.
These laws were enacted to ensure that the education system continues to teach the same
information in the same ways.
Historically marginalized student groups underperform in standardized academic metrics
compared to their White counterparts, are overrepresented in suspension rates, and are
over-identified in special education (Martin et al., 2017). Martin et al. (2017) found that
culturally relevant pedagogy and culturally responsive teaching (CRRE) are not working. Martin
et al. noted that the ideas are good, but their implementation has not worked. The education
system does not allow some highly trained and effective teachers to make a difference. Martin et
al. (2017) acknowledged the work of Gay and Ladson-Billings and described that the CRRE they
call for is important and that we need to train teachers in that manner. There is a call for a radical
change to the entire system if there is going to be real change. Radical change needs to take place
for well-trained teachers to begin to make a difference in students’ lives; until that happens,
trained teachers cannot truly make a difference, and racism will continue (Martin et al., 2017).

16
Picower (2009) argued that the mistreatment of people of color began on the continent of
Africa, continued across the Middle Passage, and found a home in the American educational
system. Whites and Blacks have a painful relationship rooted in exploitation. Human life was
exchanged for raw materials during the Middle Passage, painting a picture of how Blacks were
valued. The over-disciplining of Black boys is an extension of the thoughts and behaviors
exhibited during the slave trade (Picower, 2009). This hierarchical relationship of Whites and
Blacks (Picower, 2009), where Blacks are beholden and subservient to Whites, entered the
classroom and learning environment as an unnatural replication of how the relationship started.
The most common ethnicity of teachers in the United States is White (68.8%), followed
by Hispanic or Latinx (12.9%) and Black or African American (10.1%; Zippia Careers, 2023).
Many students will graduate from high school having been taught only by White teachers
(Jordon-Irvine, 2003, as cited in Picower, 2009). This trend is not projected to change, as “80%
to 93% of all students currently in teacher education programs are White females”
(Cochran-Smith 2004, as cited in Picower, 2009, p. 197). As of 2021–2022, the make-up of
teacher education program completers, as reported by the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (2021), is 35% White and 73% female. Unpacking racial privilege, bias, and
stereotypes develops a greater capacity for White teachers to empathize and identify with
students of color (Picower, 2009).
Redding (2019) presented a considerable amount of research on the positive educational
experiences of students of color assigned to teachers of the same race or ethnicity, as displayed in
the social and academic context. “With a same-race teacher a student may experience higher
expectations, a more supportive relationship, culturally relevant instruction, or role-modeling, all
of which can improve their academic and non-academic performance in school” (Redding, 2019,

17
p. 2). Additionally, Redding highlighted the over-representation of White teachers as it pertains
to students of color taught by a teacher of color. Approximately only 20% of Black and Latinx
students were taught by a same-race or same-ethnicity teacher, as reported on the 2013 National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Research also indicates that Black and Latinx students were
perceived differently in relation to behaviors. Co-racial and co-ethnic teachers perceived these
groups’ students to be less disruptive and argumentative than White teachers, ultimately reducing
the number of office referrals submitted for these students (Redding, 2019). Redding’s argument
proposes an avenue to increase the academic success of students of color.
An additional study conducted in Florida schools by Sawchuk (2015) found that Black
and low-performing pupils benefited academically from being taught by a teacher of their race.
The academic benefits of Black and Asian high school students were evidenced by an increase in
test scores from three to five percent. However, there was an exception to this growth pattern
relative to Hispanic students and a negative correlation to being matched with a Hispanic teacher.
Researchers attributed this finding to the array of diversity in that population. Ultimately,
Sawchuk proposed that students who see themselves in their teachers have improved chances of
succeeding.
Individual/Interpersonal
When centering the gender discrimination women of color experience, it is necessary to
recognize and explicitly name intersectionality, which Crenshaw (2017, as cited in Duckworth,
2021) described as “a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it
locks and intersects. It is the acknowledgement that everyone has their own unique experiences
of discrimination and privilege” ( para. 4). Failing to recognize a person’s identity through
race, gender, language, age, or education significantly impacts their perceived abilities to rise in a

18
system constructed to maintain White male superiority, effectively conforming to and sustaining
systems intended to oppress marginalized groups (Crenshaw, 2017, as cited in Andersen, 2017).
This practice is traced back to the deculturalization of Native Americans, a people whose cultural
hierarchy did not align with nor appeal to European norms (Spring, 2016).
Positionality is “how one is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of
gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors” (Villaverde
2008, as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 60). In recognizing the factors that inform our
identity and how that may play out in our practice, “we are better able to embrace elements of
critical pedagogy and radical love in our praxis” (Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 61). Recognizing
that our positionality plays a role in how we navigate society is vital to understanding an
individual’s role in the education system to be in a better position to improve it.
Del Carmen Salazar (2013) revealed five key tenets as requisites for the pursuit of one’s
full humanity through a humanizing pedagogy: (a) the full development of the person is essential
for humanization, (b) to deny someone else’s humanization is also to deny one’s own, (c) the
journey for humanization is an individual and collective endeavor toward critical consciousness,
(d) critical reflection and action can transform structures that impede our own and others’
humanness, thus facilitating liberation for all, and (e) educators are responsible for promoting a
more fully human world through their pedagogical principles and practices (p. 128). According
to Freire (1970, as cited in del Carmen Salazar, 2013), teachers who enact humanizing pedagogy
engage in a quest for “mutual humanization” (p. 127) with their students. Such practices seek to
augment the experience of students of color and all individual students in the educational system.

19
Critical Race Theory in Education
Critical Race Theory speaks to the history of the education system and the perspective
that the system is not made for all students to succeed.
Background and Definition
Bell (1980) examined the notion of interest divergence in relation to school segregation,
arguing that the convergence of the interests of the races (Whites and Blacks) led to the Brown
decision. In other words, because Whites found it to be beneficial for themselves to desegregate
schools, it became a reality for Blacks. The benefits of this court ruling for Whites, as Bell
outlined, were providing immediate credibility to America’s struggle with communist countries,
offering much-needed reassurance to American Blacks, and Whites realizing that the South could
become the sunbelt of America (Bell, 1980). The concept of interest convergence only reaffirms
Whites’ dominance in America, as does the historical evidence of the continuous oppression of
marginalized groups, and this is the basis for critical race theory (CRT) in education.
Critical race theory states that the curriculum is developed to continue the dominance of
the White race. In other words, the curriculum is “designed to maintain a White supremacist
master script” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18). This master scripting “legitimizes the dominant,
white, upper-class, male voicings as the ‘standard’ knowledge that students need to know” by
silencing the voices of others (Swartz, 1992, as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18). Thus, the
whitewashing of Black history fits the narrative of the dominant group under the guise of
diversity and multiculturalism. An example is the telling of Rosa Parks’s actions as due to
tiredness and not activism.

20
Politics/Implementation of CRT in Education
Ladson-Billings and Tate (2006) argued that the cause of the poverty experienced by
African American children, along with the condition of their schools and schooling, is
institutional and structural racism; specifically, it relates to the property issue. Curriculum, for
example, represents a form of intellectual property that defines the opportunity to learn for
students of color. Schools that serve poor students of color are unlikely to have the resources that
schools serving White students have. The authors offer storytelling as a “kind of medicine to heal
the wounds of pain caused by [this] racial oppression” (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006, p. 21).
López (2003) argued that future leaders cannot be adequately prepared to achieve the
goals of establishing institutions of hope and social change if institutions avoid exposing them to
issues of race, racism, and racial politics and demonstrate to them how these issues still permeate
the education landscape. School leaders must be aware of intersectionality and the effects of
racism to foster a climate of tolerance and understanding. López proclaims that this preparation
and awareness are essential to developing antiracist educational leaders.
Solórzano and Yosso (2001) asserted that CRT in education is a “framework or set of
basic insight, perspectives, methods, and pedagogy that seeks to identify, analyze, and transform
those structural and cultural aspects of education” that maintain the status quo in and out of
schools (p. 25). When marginalized students underperform as a result of receiving instruction via
a curriculum aimed at the dominant group, they are seen through a deficit lens and, as such, do
not get access to the same rigorous and enriched curriculum as their white counterparts. Schools
that serve poor students of color are unlikely to have the resources that White students have at
their disposal. To counter this, one of the tenets of CRT speaks to centering experiential

21
knowledge through counternarratives to move away from deficit forms of instruction and
curriculum and toward focusing on the experiences of students of color as strengths.
CRT and Student Well-Being
Brown (2003) asserted that “racial stratification produces mental health problems to the
extent [that] it generates stressful circumstances and cognitive states conducive to emotional
distress” (p. 295). Furthermore, this study discusses how “structurally produced mental health”
(p. 299), as a result of racial stratification, has been neglected in discussions about mental health
and race, so there are limitations to how well-established coping mechanisms can address this
type of mental health issue. The author suggests further investigation on the experiential meaning
of being Black or White in the United States to “fully characterize the empirical relationship
between race and mental health” (p. 299).
Additionally, McGee and Stovall (2015) looked at a longitudinal study that followed 489
African American young people in rural Georgia for over 15 years and found that a subgroup of
children suffered from tremendous internal pressure to succeed despite being identified as
resilient. These students endured daily blatant racism and discrimination, which caused them to
compromise on their sleep, exercise, and other aspects of self-care and resulted in the wear and
tear associated with disproportionately high rates of health problems.
Leadership
The principal has the opportunity to influence the institution and to make change within
so that all students can have a chance to grow and succeed. An equity-focused leader can have a
positive effect or hinder the growth of the people in the organization.

22
Leading Organizational Change
When leading for organizational change, navigating the complexities of educational
leadership demands a multifaceted approach that emphasizes collaboration, emotional
intelligence, and adaptive strategies. This section explores how empowering others paves the
way for collective success. Strong school climates are achievable through shared leadership and
consistent expectations. Deep collaboration, trust, and commitment are foundational to
organizational transformation. Additionally, research finds that emotional intelligence is
indispensable in effective leadership, political astuteness may assist in navigating adaptive
challenges, and dysfunctions in a team hinder collective progress.
Achor (2018) noted that “when we are brave enough to expand power to others, suddenly
we find that a huge weight is lifted off our shoulders, increasing our power to lift even heavier
loads” (p. 114). We must celebrate the small wins, utilize vivid direction, and help to find the
meaning in our work (Achor, 2018). Achor's message is that leadership and relationships are
vital, and working as a collective rather than an individual will yield the most success in
leadership. Working together will lead to larger success, while working alone results in smaller
success (Achor, 2018).
Allensworth and Hart (2018) stated that principals influence students through the learning
environment or climate that they set. Additionally, principals foster a strong school climate by
allowing teachers to take leadership roles. Specifically, they allow teachers to meet for a specific
purpose, collaborate, and find solutions (Allensworth & Hart, 2018). Additionally, teachers
continually assess student learning by looking at multiple data points or a variety of assessments,
and schoolwide strategies are consistent and universal for all students in need (Allensworth &

23
Hart, 2018). Lastly, adults at schools value high and consistent expectations for behavior and
academics, which improve student achievement (Allensworth & Hart, 2018).
Fullan and Quinn (2016) stated that “deep collaborative work requires new ways of
working together [at both a district and school level], trust, shared leadership, sustained focus,
and a commitment to collaborative inquiry” (p. 66). Collaborative inquiry enables everyone to be
a part of the conversation on integrating equitable classroom practices. It also furthers an honest
conversation on racial disparities and inequitable practices without placing blame. Through these
collective efforts, education systems can better address equity issues and create an environment
where every student has an opportunity to thrive. For change to happen in any organization, the
leader needs to be the one to see what change needs to occur and then create the policy,
atmosphere, and focus to create change and accomplish the goal. According to Fullan (2020),
“Leaders in a culture of change cultivate a larger worldview” (p. 5). That larger worldview will
allow the leader to see where and how the organization needs to change and then work with the
individuals to make that change happen. Fullan outlines the strategies and situations for a leader
to create change in the organization, leading at a time when everything is changing faster than it
ever has in more complex ways than ever before.
Goleman (2004/2011) presented five skills of emotional intelligence: self-regulation,
self-awareness, motivation, empathy, and social skills. The author defined each of these skills as
follows:
● Self-regulation: “the ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods”
(Goleman, 2004/2011, para. 21).
● Self-awareness: “the ability to recognize and understand your moods, emotions, and
drives, as well as their effect on others” (Goleman, 2004/2011, para. 18).

24
● Motivation: “a passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status”
(Goleman, 2004/2011, para. 21).
● Empathy: “the ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people”
(Goleman, 2004/2011, para. 21).
● Social skill: “proficiency in managing relationships and building networks”
(Goleman, 2004/2011, para. 21).
He further asserted that there is a direct correlation between effective performance and emotional
intelligence. “As leaders it is important to be self-aware; to know your strengths, weaknesses,
drives, values, and impact on others” (Goleman, 2004/2011, para. 2). Goleman (2004/2011)
conducted a study that indicated that 90% of the difference between star performers and average
leaders was attributed to emotional intelligence. The author defined each skill further in context
and concluded that these five skills are necessary to serve as a strong leader, as these skills
“enable the best leaders to maximize their own and their follower’s performance” (Goleman,
2004/2011, para. 1). Goleman determined that emotional intelligence can be learned through a
commitment to develop as an emotionally intelligent leader and the positive outcomes attained.
Heifetz et al. (2009) described acting politically as a practice of adaptive leadership.
Acting politically in a leadership role involves a nuanced approach that encompasses
understanding one’s authority boundaries, educational partner interests, and organizational power
dynamics. It also considers the need to form alliances, diffuse opposition, and embrace
dissenting voices to navigate adaptive challenges. This type of leadership is guided by six
essential guidelines: (a) expanding informal authority by leveraging relationships, (b) seeking out
allies to sustain initiatives and protect the leader’s stance, (c) maintaining close connections with
opposition forces, (d) closely observing how senior authority figures react in both public and

25
private settings, as well as how they utilize their political capital, (e) taking responsibility for the
consequences of their decisions, reinforcing accountability, and (f) safeguarding and engaging
dissenting voices by valuing their insights, without necessarily endorsing their perspective,
ultimately promoting a more adaptive and inclusive leadership approach (Heifetz et al., 2009).
To achieve teamwork, Lencioni (2002) argued that leaders must avoid dangerous pitfalls
identified as the five dysfunctions of a team: an absence of trust, a fear of conflict, the lack of
commitment, the avoidance of accountability, and the inattention to results. Lencioni asserted
that these dysfunctions derail the work. Therefore, leaders must regularly check in and assess the
team’s susceptibility to these dysfunctions to ensure they can move forward collectively and
safely. The author offered strategies such as cascading messaging to ensure cohesion among a
team, which includes an agreement related to what needs to be communicated regarding key
decisions to ensure a uniform message is conveyed to others (Lencioni, 2002). Lencioni further
emphasized the essential role of the leader and stated that leaders must demonstrate vulnerability,
model appropriate conflict behavior, push for closure around issues, establish shared
accountability, and, most importantly, be selfless and objective. Achieving teamwork “ultimately
comes down to practicing a small set of principals over a long period of time … and by
acknowledging our imperfections,” teams who can commit to doing so are most effective
(Lencioni, 2002, p. 220).
Expanding on the importance of leadership in advancing equity efforts in educational
settings, it is essential to delve into Northouse and Lee’s (2022) insights on authentic and servant
leadership. Northouse characterized authentic leadership as embodying genuineness,
transparency, moral grounding, responsiveness to people’s needs and values, and realness.
Notably, authentic leaders do not operate in isolation; they instead engage in a reciprocal

26
relationship with their followers. This dynamic interaction means that leaders influence and are
influenced by their followers. Authentic leadership builds trust and fosters meaningful
relationships with educational partners, ultimately creating a conducive environment for
advancing equity initiatives (Northouse & Lee, 2022).
Furthermore, Northouse and Lee (2022) described a servant leader as one who must “put
followers first” (p. 76), empower them, and help them develop their full potential. This approach
is particularly relevant in education, where the growth and development of students, teachers,
and all educational partners are paramount. Servant leaders cultivate an atmosphere of support
and collaboration. In the context of equity and leading for organizational change, servant
leadership aligns with the goal of creating an inclusive, equitable education system by
prioritizing the needs and growth of every member of the educational community.
Schein (2010) discussed a process for changing an organization’s culture and the
principles that must be taken into account if a leader wants to make positive and lasting change.
Schein discussed the change process in three steps. First, the leader must bring the people
through the process of “unfreezing” or “creating a motivation for change” (Schein, 2010, p. 301).
This takes time and can be uncomfortable, but it is a necessary first step in changing culture. For
this process to be successful, the leader must create a safe place for the people to decide to
change and follow the leader into an unknown future. Next, the leader must teach the new skill,
restructure the people, or create a new goal. Once unfrozen, the people will need a new direction
and a vehicle to go in that direction. The leader needs to fill this cognitive void with those new
ideas with “cognitive restructuring” (Schein, 2010, p. 308). The new learning must then be
ingrained in the organization, or the people must be refrozen into the new habits and culture. If
the leader does not develop trust and a shared vision in the organization so people understand the

27
goals and direction, then the change will not happen, and the leader will have no one following
them. Schein reiterated that changing culture in an organization can never truly be about
changing culture. The leader must focus on concrete aspects of the organization to change, and
through the process of changing many concrete things, the organizational culture will change.
Westover (2020) stated that district leadership is “the most critical factor to advancing
progress and sustaining improvement efforts” (pp. 7-8). Therefore, if a district explicitly states
that achieving equity for all is the district’s goal, then all systems should support and align with
this goal (locally and globally). Moreover, to achieve coherence among a district’s schools,
Westover offered the concept of leading from the middle, deconstructing the leadership
hierarchy, and establishing a leadership huddle. The huddle is an opportunity for linear
collaboration among district officials, teachers, and site administrative leaders to promote
transformational change. Additionally, Westover defined collaborative inquiry as the process that
achieves the greatest impact on professional learning. It engages teams in job-embedded
learning, defining indicators of success, and constructing goals collectively. Westover concludes
that building staff capacity, tapping into their collective wisdom, and transforming systems will
lead to culture change and sustainability to improve outcomes for student learning.
Elementary School Leadership
The impact of elementary school principals on students and schools is a significant area
of study, as evidenced by research conducted by Grissom, Egalite, & Lindsay (2021). Their
comprehensive analysis, encompassing data from over 22,000 principals across four states
including two urban school districts, highlight the substantial influences principals wield.
Grissom et al. found that simply replacing a below-average elementary school principal with an
above-average one, as defined by effectiveness, is projected to result in remarkable educational

28
gains. Specifically, this change can lead to an additional 2.9 months of math learning and 2.7
months of reading instruction annually for students within that school (Grissom et al., 2021).
Furthermore, this study underscores the evolving landscape of school leadership.
Notably, women are increasingly assuming leadership roles in elementary schools, with 68% of
such schools being led by women in 2016 (Grissom et al., 2021). These women leaders tend to
oversee schools with higher percentages of students of color and slightly larger shares of
low-income students, reflecting their presence in high-poverty schools. However, despite these
shifts, Grissom et al. (2021) assert that the racial and ethnic diversity of principals has only
experienced marginal changes since the 1980s. This data suggests that investing in the
improvement of elementary principals is a highly effective strategy for enhancing student
achievement. The implications of this study point to several critical considerations. First and
foremost, the study underscores the importance of principals developing an equity-focused
perspective. The study highlights the need for ongoing research on the principalship to equip
school leaders with the skills and knowledge necessary to effectively serve a diverse and
evolving student population (Grissom et al., 2021). I would also argue that women and minority
leaders need increased mentorship opportunities.
The Role of the Elementary School Principal in Equitable Education
The principal can have a positive effect on a school campus in many different ways.
Curriculum, pedagogy, and a focus on equity for all students are some of the ways that a
principal can affect student achievement on their campus.
Abolitionist Teaching and Curriculum Diversification
The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum is intended to serve as a framework for
school districts as they develop and implement ethnic studies courses. California Assembly Bill

29
101 requires that all districts implement an ethnic studies course by the 2025–2026 school year,
and the class of 2030 must have completed this course to graduate. This can be achieved by
integrating the ethnic studies curriculum throughout course content or as a stand-alone course.
Furthermore, districts must gather input from educational partners to inform the selection of
curriculum. The model curriculum developed by the state’s board of education is a step toward
rectifying the omission of the experiences and cultures of California’s communities. Ethnic
studies courses address institutionalized systems of advantage, the causes of racism, and other
forms of bigotry in our culture and governmental policies (California Department of Education,
2021, p. 5). Most importantly, the teaching of this curriculum leads to an increased sense of
belonging, improved attendance, and reduced stereotype threat. It acts as an aid in the
social-emotional wellness of students (California Department of Education, 2021, p. 10). The
imposition of this requirement in schools across the state is an explicit attempt to provide
counternarratives of Black, Indigenous, and people of color and move these stories and history
toward the center of our curriculum.
Abolitionist teaching (Love, 2019) is another way to counter the monovocal account.
Abolitionist teaching is not just about “tearing down old structures and ways of thinking;” It is
also about
new ways to reach children trying to recover from the educational survival complex, new
ways to show dark children they are loved in this world, and new ways to establish an
educational system that works for everyone, especially those who are put at the edges of
the classroom and society. (Love, 2019, pp. 88–89).
Love discussed the educational survival complex built on the suffering of students of color. Love
(2019) asserted that children of color were never educated to thrive, only to survive. Abolitionist

30
teaching, freedom dreaming, and Black joy are about taking action against injustice and
centering our students of color and their experiences. It is about creating spaces of understanding
and affirmation. It is how we connect with our students.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Ladson-Billings’ (1995) work on culturally relevant teaching informs educators on
designing curriculum and instructional practices that authentically connect to students’ cultural
identities and practices. Accordingly, culturally relevant pedagogy rests on three criteria: (a)
students must experience academic success; (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural
competence; and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge
the status quo of the current social order (p. 160). This pedagogy acknowledges that the
traditional educational setting is centered in Whiteness, that most of the students are not White,
and, therefore, will not necessarily succeed without adjustments by the teacher to create a place
for success for all.
Furthermore, Boske (2009) presented evidence of the need to increase awareness of
cultural competence and decision-making among school leaders so they may better understand
how their current leadership practices promote equity and justice. This is done through an
examination of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA, 2009) standards,
which state that “creating global perspectives within school communities are critical to solving
contemporary societal issues, encouraging academic excellence, and preparing children for a
world-class workforce” (p. 117). The AASA standards call for leaders to diversify curricula and
empower others through multicultural understanding. Ninety percent of American school leaders
identify as White, and the make-up of the schools they serve is increasingly diverse. Boske
(2009) emphasized the social responsibilities placed on schools as the central institutions that

31
help students develop identity, promote racial interactions, transmit racial knowledge, and
affirm/challenge racial attitudes and meaning.
Recognizing the effects of school leadership on advancing educational equity, Boske
(2009) conducted a quantitative study that anonymously surveyed 1,087 American school leaders
regarding school leadership standards. Participants ranked the least important diversity elements
in the national leadership standards. They also completed the Diversity Action Survey, a 12-item
four-point Likert scale survey that identified school leaders’ action steps and their experiences in
school leadership preparedness programs. The findings indicated that although school leaders
recognize the demographic changes in their schools (increase of minority students and English
learners in their schools), the standards they ranked as most important to advancing educational
equity did not align with demographic changes. This finding, therefore, led to an assumption that
school leaders sustain a colorblind environment and overlook the power they hold to enact
change and promote excellence among minority students. Boske (2009) asserted that “school
leaders must be equipped with the ability to create long-standing systemic change that promotes
educational equity encompasses fiscal, administrative, programmatic, and additional roadblocks”
(p. 124). Boske further recommended that this can be achieved intentionally through leadership
preparedness programs.
Fraise and Brooks (2015) argued that “school culture” is a contrived and only partially
useful construct that should be rejected, as it has traditionally led to inequitable dynamics that
privilege an abstract dominant culture while marginalizing others (p. 8). Additionally, they
present the idea of building culture collectively with students to allow them to identify what is
most important to them as opposed to assimilating to a pre-established school culture constructed
by someone else. This work can be done by implementing culturally relevant pedagogy, the

32
application of which is key to effective teaching and establishing a school culture and climate.
“To some students, school culture is liberating and validating, while to others it teaches them to
‘melt’ into what is deemed as ‘American’ and abandon their home culture, resulting in
deculturalization” (Fraise & Brooks, 2015, p. 11). Fraise and Brooks identified three pillars of
culturally relevant pedagogy: success can occur inside and outside the classroom (relevant
academic skills for societal success), self-reflection, and a constructivist approach. Applying
these pillars requires educators to look inward to better understand themselves, their cultural
values, knowledge, and implicit biases before they can learn this information about their students
and engage in the co-construction of the educational experience.
Additionally, Khalifa et al. (2016) defined culturally relevant teaching as the centering of
students’ cultural norms and beings, proclivities, languages, understandings, interests, families,
and spaces. The author emphasized the need to continuously offer culturally relevant teaching
practices via ongoing professional learning opportunities as site leaders’ expectations and
consistent practice. Khalifa also highlighted the impact of a school principal who applies
culturally responsive leadership as it relates to school curriculum, culture, policy and structure,
and teacher efficacy. The term “responsive” implies that there is action to address students’ needs
and ensure they are reflected in the school context. The author presented research that asserts the
influence of a school principal with regard to “serving as an instructional leader and articulating
a vision that supports the development and sustaining of culturally responsive teaching in
school” (Khalifa et al., 2016, p. 1281). Such culturally responsive leadership practices may lead
to a welcoming and inclusive school climate for students and staff (Khalifa et al., 2016).

33
Educational Equity and Equity-Focused School Leadership
As the National Equity Project (n.d.) defined, educational equity ensures that each child
receives the resources to realize their academic and social potential. However, a concerning issue
emerges as school discipline disproportionately targets students of color, which becomes more
evident when noting that suspended students from these demographics are less likely to graduate
and more likely to enter the juvenile justice system than their white counterparts (Radd et al.,
2021). As Roegman et al. (2019) found, establishing equity within requires a comprehensive
approach that involves elevating all students’ performance and eliminating the predictability and
disproportionality of student outcomes based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, housing
patterns, gender, home language, nation of origin, special needs, and other characteristics. With
the growing number of marginalized students in educational institutions, Grissom et al. (2021)
asserted that principals must adopt an equity lens, further emphasizing the necessity for a
deliberate focus on equitable practices.
Grissom and Bartanen (2019) conducted research on educational equity and
equity-focused leadership by investigating principal turnover and effectiveness. The authors
identified key traits associated with effective principals, including proactively monitoring student
academic achievement, effective communication of a coherent school vision, and establishing
high teaching standards. Grissom and Bartanen’s findings further indicated that addressing
principal quality could enhance equity in education. Specifically, they called for prioritizing the
recruitment or placement of highly effective principals in economically disadvantaged schools.
Interestingly, the authors found that highly effective principals exhibited a propensity to leave
school positions and transition to central office roles. It is important to note that the study’s

34
limitations include a lack of extensive exploration into principal effectiveness across different
U.S. regions.
Santamaría (2014) emphasized that culturally responsive leadership actively seeks to
achieve equity while integrating cultural elements into teaching practices to empower children.
Through a qualitative study, the author examines how leaders of color in the K–16 educational
system address social justice and equity challenges, proposing that their own reflective and
critical engagement adds a valuable multicultural dimension to their leadership practice (McGee
Banks, 2001, as cited in Santamaría, 2014). By expanding traditional leadership approaches with
equity-based strategies, educational leaders can potentially transform their practices to benefit
culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Santamaría (2014) indicated that leaders of color
see students differently, recognize the obstacles students of color face in education, bring
different knowledge based on their lived experiences, and examine how their racialized
experiences impact their leadership practice to lead with compassion. Consequently, Santamaría
identified nine applied critical leadership (ACL) characteristics aligned to culturally responsive
leadership practices that incorporate CRT and center marginalized groups:
● ACL Characteristic 1: Critical conversations - the willingness to initiate and engage
in critical conversations with individuals and groups in formal or informal settings,
even when the topic was not popular in the whole group (p. 367).
● ACL Characteristic 2: Critical race theory lens - the intentional application of a CRT
lens to consider multiple perspectives of critical issues (p. 368).
● ACL Characteristic 3: Group Consensus - using consensus building as the preferred
strategy for decision making (p. 369).

35
● ACL Characteristic 4: Stereotype Threat - being conscious of stereotype threat and
working to dispel it (p. 370).
● ACL Characteristic 5: Academic Discourse - making empirical contributions to add
authentic research-based information to academic discourse regarding underserved
groups (p. 371).
● ACL Characteristic 6: Honoring Constituents - honoring all members of the learning
community (staff, parents, and community members) through intentional outreach to
gather input among these stakeholder groups (p. 372).
● ACL Characteristic 7: Leading by Example - leading purposely to meet unresolved
educational challenges and “give back” to marginalized communities (p. 373).
● ACL Characteristic 8: Trust with Mainstream - the need to win the trust of individuals
in the mainstream (i.e., educational partners), as well as the need to prove themselves
qualified and worthy of leadership roles (p. 374).
● ACL Characteristic 9: Servant to Leadership - feeling called to lead to serve the
greater good (p. 375).
The conceptual framework for culturally proficient practices (Franco et al., 2011) further
identifies two tools: barriers to cultural proficiency and the guiding principles (e.g., core values)
of cultural proficiency. Between these two tools is the zone of ethical tension, a pivot point
where an educator chooses between identifying as a victim of social forces or believing in their
capacity to be effective in cross-cultural interactions. This informs unhealthy versus healthy
practices, which inform the five essential elements of cultural competence: assessing cultural
knowledge, valuing diversity, managing the dynamics of difference, adapting to diversity, and

36
instituting cultural knowledge. This framework views diversity as an asset, crafting educational
opportunities for educational leaders and the students/communities they serve.
Radd et al. (2021) asserted that educational change requires a systemic and
transformative approach. By systemic, the authors recognize that the issues originate within the
established system, with inequities being both symptoms and outcomes. Transformative signifies
the need to adopt new ways of thinking and acting to disrupt entrenched historical patterns in the
system and bring about significant change. The authors encourage educational leaders to
consider how the scope of systemic inequity spans historical, structural, institutional, and
individual/interpersonal levels. The authors ultimately offer five practices for equity-focused
school leadership:
● Practice I: Prioritizing Equity Leadership
● Practice II: Preparing for Equity
● Practice III: Developing Equity Leadership Teams
● Practice IV: Building Equity-Focused Systems
● Practice V: Sustaining Equity.
Through these practices, educational leaders adopt a transformational approach, prepare for the
ongoing emotional and intellectual work of equity leadership, form a leadership team focused on
transformative systems change and composed of similarly committed individuals, identify the
needs and plan for systemic change, and prepare for the long haul (Radd et al., 2021).
Freedom Dreaming and Hope in Education
The educational debt, as Ladson-Billings (2006) described, requires an investment in
marginalized students by making the inequities in the educational system a social responsibility
and priority. There is urgency in envisioning education in ways that create equitable conditions

37
and diversify current relationships. Creating a shared future requires looking at education’s role
in broadening imaginative horizons, utilizing it as a catalyst for societal change, prioritizing it for
the betterment of all students, and embracing it as a means to nurture human values (De Oliveira,
2012). De Oliveira (2012) offered the metaphor of children being thrown into a river with a
strong current and the four tasks needed to save them: (a) rescuing children in the water (the
most immediate task); (b) stopping boats from throwing children in the water; (c) going to the
boat crew’s villages to understand why this is happening in the first place, and (d) collecting the
bodies of those who have died to honor and remember them (p. 24). Through this metaphor, the
author identified the root of othering students of color by going up the river so that emergency
strategies down the river can be better informed and work can proceed toward a more equitable
future.
Additionally, Duncan-Andrade (2009) spoke to Socratic hope, which requires educators
and students to examine their lives and actions to pave a path toward justice. Effective
educational leaders do so by “treating the righteous indignation in young people as a strength
rather than something deserving of punishment” (Duncan-Andrade, 2009, p. 188). Educators
who practice Socratic hope strive to humanize students, develop trusting relationships with them,
and connect to the collective by struggling alongside one another. This solidarity is the essential
ingredient in radical healing (Ginwright, 2009, as cited in Duncan-Andrade, 2009). López (2003)
proposed the need to develop educational leaders with an antiracist perspective capable of
envisioning diverse opportunities, particularly for students of color. The author further stated that
new leaders will require new tools, mindsets, and dispositions compared to what leadership
programs typically teach. Engaging in an open and truthful dialogue about our educational

38
system calls for candid and constructive conversations at the school level, fostering mutual
understanding and paving the way for equity-focused leadership.
There are many paths to a liberating education. Muhammad (2020) sought to restore
equity and excellence in classrooms through a historically responsive literacy framework
authored by people of color and designed for children of color. Muhammad’s four-layered
historically responsive literacy framework includes identity development, skill development,
intellectual development, and criticality. Drawn from cognitive and sociocultural literacy
research, these four pursuits are deemed essential for students to achieve personal and academic
success. Muhammad added joy to the framework, although most curricular lessons do not
incorporate student joy. Muhammad’s framework is rooted in identity and urges educational
leaders to challenge standards and practices that do not align with students’ most pressing needs.
Student Achievement
Bloom and Owens (2013) conducted a study based on the premise that school principals
and their leadership behaviors improve urban schools. The researchers asked the following
questions: Over which factors do principals at high achieving schools perceive they have the
greatest influence? Over which factors do principals at high-achieving schools perceive they
have the least influence? Over which factors do principals at low-achieving schools perceive
they have the greatest influence? Over which factors do principals at low-achieving schools
perceive they have the least influence? Bloom and Owens (2013) found four categories of
principal influences at their school with the most frequent outcomes. The first related to the
influence principals have on selecting their teaching staff. About 68% of principals indicated
they had a major influence on hiring/dismissing teachers at their schools. The remaining 32%
indicated that they had some influence.

39
The second factor was related to principals’ influence on curriculum issues at the school
(Bloom & Owens, 2013). This area also yielded a result of 68% of principals stating they had
major influence, and 32% had some influence. The third category of principal influences was
discipline policies, where 82% indicated a major influence on the policies. The final category
indicated that 43% of principals had a major influence on funding issues at their school, 54% had
some influence, and 3% said they had no influence. Once the data were disaggregated to
decipher between high- and low-achieving schools, Bloom and Owens (2013) found differences
in the four major categories of principals’ perceptions of influence. Principals from
high-achieving schools are perceived to have more influence on hiring and dismissing teaching
staff and curriculum issues, such as course offerings and curriculum guidelines. Principals from
low-achieving schools indicated more influence on school funding.
Moreover, Gordon and Hart (2022) conducted a mixed-methods study on the link
between leadership and student learning. The authors compared the strategies used by principals
whom teachers rated as strong instructional leaders but who had varying success in improving
student achievement. The authors conducted case studies in 12 schools in high-poverty areas in
Chicago, Illinois, six with higher achievement scores and six with stagnant or declining student
achievement. Specific findings in the study indicated four major leadership practices and
behaviors that separate principals of improving schools from contrast schools. First, leaders of
improving schools set ambitious school visions with corresponding goals, carried out through a
collective effort. Second, they empower teachers to create supports and structures to meet school
goals. Third, they monitor student progress and offer support that is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Lastly, they build strong relationships focused on trust. At Oak School, for example, the principal
set up supports and structures for students to address the vision of college readiness, whereas a

40
contrast school had not set up clear goals or structural support systems to meet the school’s
vision. This was also the case with structured time to collaborate. Improving schools established
time to collaborate focused on sharing data and observing each other’s classrooms. There was
also a shared sense of ownership for improvement. In the case of contrast schools that did have
planning time, leaders did not provide clear direction or specificity to address goals with their
staff. A limitation of the study is that principals, in contrast schools, had less tenure than those in
improving schools, and principals at the elementary level had more tenure than those at the high
school (Gordon & Hart, 2022). A second limitation is that interviews were conducted over a
school year (Gordon & Hart, 2022).
Conclusion
Aligned with the themes identified in the literature review, I developed the conceptual
framework in Figure 1. To unpack the development of this conceptual framework, I will now
describe its various elements and their correlation to the literature. I assert that systemic
inequities are embedded across structural and institutionalized levels, such as within local and
state systems, policies, and districts, that directly influence a principal’s leadership (Radd et al.,
2021, p. 10). In turn, a principal’s leadership affects student outcomes and a school’s culture and
climate. Khalifa et al. (2016) highlighted the positive impact of culturally responsive leadership
practices as they relate to school curriculum, culture, policy and structure, and teacher efficacy.
Additionally related to an inclusive school environment, research has asserted that “an
unsupportive campus climate can negatively influence the academic performance and
psychological well-being of students of color” (Smith et al., 2007, as cited in Lewis et al., 2019,
p. 2).

41
Figure 1
Visual Conceptual Framework
The structural and institutional factors that act as barriers to enacting equity leadership
include the inequitable distribution of resources related to school facilities, funding, and their
negative impact on student achievement (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Second is the continual
resistance experienced by principals striving to disrupt inequitable systems and policies, defined
as interest convergence 1 by Ladson-Billings (1998). Thirdly, there is a lack of coherence across
the district and district leadership support (Westover, 2020).
1 “Critical race theory theorists believe that to increase the speed of social justice one must find
the place where the change being sought out is aligned to the interests of Whites, a notion
deemed as “interest convergence”‘ (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p.7).

42
Individual and interpersonal factors must also be considered, as Fullan and Quinn (2016)
stated that the leader must serve as the connector, activate others to engage and co-conspire in
the work, provide a focused direction, and actively participate as a learner. Goleman’s
(2004/2011) research indicates that effective leaders possess the five skills associated with
emotional intelligence (self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill).
Principals must examine how their lived experiences shaped their worldviews, their
positionality, and whether they desire to enact social justice and “fight for the moral purpose of
education” (Boske, 2009, p. 124).
Furthermore, I conclude that “racism is ingrained in society and thus in education”
(Milner, 2007, p. 390). The researchers presented in this chapter argue that the racial
stratification of students has a significant impact on their ability to achieve academically,
socially, and emotionally. Therefore, principals must diversify staff so that students may see
themselves represented in staff members who support them, provide professional learning in
culturally relevant pedagogy, and model their conviction to advance all students’ educational
outcomes. Thus, principals must also be afforded opportunities to build capacity to serve as
equity warriors, both through administrative credential programs and in their local contexts as
practitioners. The next chapter describes the methods I utilized to conduct this study.

43
Chapter Three: Methodology
Historically marginalized students underperform their white counterparts in standardized
academic metrics, are overrepresented in suspension rates, and are over-identified in special
education (Martin et al., 2017). An inequitable distribution of resources has further widened the
opportunity gap for marginalized students, creating unfair and exclusionary practices (Kendi,
2019). Ladson-Billings’ (2006) educational debt examines how students of color have
systematically suffered through inequitable policies and practices. In our experience as
educators, we find that this is especially true for historically marginalized students from
underrepresented groups.
Purpose of the Study
Because school leadership is central to education reform, this study examined
equity-focused leaders’ effective practices. The principal’s role is to create an inclusive school
culture that ensures that the teachers and staff are equity-focused. The purpose of the study was
to identify what practices equity-focused principals have implemented to create an inclusive
environment.
Research Questions
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?

44
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
Selection of the Population
I surveyed and interviewed high school principals to better understand how educational
leaders promote equity and inclusivity in their schools and districts. This knowledge will support
more principals in improving the effectiveness of the professional development and support they
receive so that they can transfer it to their staff to develop a more equitable school environment.
Participants consisted of high school principals currently serving for at least 2 years in
California public schools in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties. I invited 20
principals to complete the survey. The survey responses then helped identify 10 interviewees.
The survey and interview participants served in public school districts with a marginalized
student population (inclusive of at least one of the following student subgroups: Black,
Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners, and students with
disabilities) that is reflective of the county’s demographic population (at minimum) as published
by USAFacts (2023). Table 1 displays the survey and interview criteria.

45
Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria
Survey Interview
Years of high school principal experience:
2 years or more at their respective
school site
Years of high school principal experience:
2 years or more at their respective
school site
Serving a marginalized student population
(inclusive of at least one of the
following student subgroups: Black,
Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically
disadvantaged, English learners, and
students with disabilities) that is
reflective of the county’s demographic
population (at minimum) as published
by USAFacts (2023).
Serving a marginalized student population
(inclusive of at least one of the
following student subgroups: Black,
Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically
disadvantaged, English learners, and
students with disabilities) that is
reflective of the county’s demographic
population (at minimum) as published
by USAFacts (2023).
Serving in California Serving in California
Attributes of an equity-focused leader as
identified through the survey
To conduct this study, I started with convenience sampling to identify 20 key participants
(10 high school principals) who might identify as equity-focused principals from various public
school districts. Since this study centered on equity-focused high school principals, regardless of
race or color, the survey respondents represented varied racial/ethnic backgrounds and had two
or more years of experience at a California public school with a marginalized student population.
The interviewees were selected based on their survey responses, where I identified that they had
attributes of an equity-focused leader, as Radd et al. (2021) defined.
Design Summary

46
For this study, it was important to conduct qualitative research so that I could interact
with the participants face-to-face, interpret how their positionality influenced their identities as
equity-focused leaders, determine how equity-focused leadership contributes to student success,
and identify specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive school environment (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Methodology
The methodology included qualitative data from a survey and interviews with high school
principals in Southern California public schools. The survey provided more detailed information
on the participants’ equity-focused practices at their school sites. The survey informed whom I
would need to interview. When developing the interview protocol, I used a semistructured
approach to utilize questions with some flexibility, depending on how the interviewees
responded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview data address Research Question 1 (RQ1).
Both the interview and survey data address Research Questions 2, 3, and 4 (RQ2, RQ3, and
RQ4).
Survey
The qualitative data for this study came from a 13-question survey (Appendix A). The
survey questions elicited information to answer RQs 1 and 2. Only one survey question was
closed-ended, and the remaining nine were open-ended. All used standard language and lacked
biased words or phrases (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018). Part 1 of the survey centered on
principal experience and training, and Part 2 focused on demographic items. Of the nine
closed-ended questions, one was a yes/no question, four were multiple-choice, and the other four
were Likert-scale. Four school leaders field-tested and reviewed the survey to support content

47
validity. The survey provided a numerical description of site leaders’ beliefs on equity-focused
leadership (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).

48
Qualitative Instrument
I used semistructured interviews to collect qualitative data. With multiple researchers in
this study, I decided on an interview protocol consisting of 14 questions (Appendix B).
Additional probing questions were included in Questions 8 and 14 for clarification purposes
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I wrote the interview questions to gather information on RQs 3 and
4. Additionally, I utilized Patton’s (2002) matrix of question options: behaviors/experiences,
opinions/values, feelings/emotions, knowledge, sensory, and background to support the
development of questions. I field-tested the interview protocol with four school leaders to
support content validity. I used face-to-face interviews to complement the survey data. To
preserve data for analysis, I audio-recorded the interviews, simultaneously taking written notes to
highlight what the interviewees said (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection
To ensure an adequate pool of interviewees, I administered a preliminary survey to 10
high school principals via convenience sampling (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The purpose of
the survey was to identify principals who embodied the attributes associated with equity-focused
leaders (Appendix A). Additionally, I examined school and district documents on student
achievement data relative to RQ 1 (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These documents are the school
accountability report card, the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, the
California School Dashboard, and documentation of school demographics. These data were
obtained from the participants’ districts, publicly available state information, and student
information databases. All student data excluded identifying information, apart from students’
ethnic backgrounds, for data analysis.

49
The survey results and the data enabled me to establish a purposeful sample for
interviews. The group consisted of five high school principals with equity-focused attributes, as
evidenced by their survey results (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). I served as the primary
instrument for developing interview questions in accordance with Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016)
semistructured interview approach, which provides the interviewer the flexibility to respond to
the “emerging worldview of the respondent … and to new ideas on the topic” (p. 111).
Interviews assisted me in describing the facts and characteristics of the phenomena or the
relationship between equity-focused leadership practices and historically marginalized students’
achievement and the attributes associated with an inclusive school environment (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 5).
Ethics must also be considered when conducting interviews, as consent, risk, and the
researcher’s positionality in relation to the participants must also be carefully evaluated.
According to Agee (2009), “The researcher must be reflective about how the questions will
affect participants’ lives and how the questions will position the researcher in relation to
participants” (p. 439). Therefore, I have considered the ethical issues that may arise in this study
and must ensure that the benefits of the research outweigh the risks and follow the five basic
principles of ethics as outlined by Glesne (2011). Interviewees’ identities remained confidential,
and they could opt out of the study at any time. I obtained informed consent for recording, and
participants reviewed their interview transcripts to confirm their responses. Interview transcript
confirmation was a form member checking to ensure the conclusions drawn from their responses
were accurate, adding validity to the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246).

50
Data Analysis
This study employed a qualitative methods approach. Interview questions were directly
linked to the RQs. In addition, a qualitative survey allowed for the identification of interviewees.
The survey aligned with the RQs. The RQs guided the data analysis.
Subsequent to data collection, I wrote extensive analyses of the findings from each data
source. I used the surveys to discover the type of interviewee I sought by coding interview
questions. I used the interviews to extrapolate the correlation of the findings to the RQs. I then
juxtaposed the findings with prior research. Specifically, I determined parallels or links between
our findings and CRT, the overarching research theory utilized in the study. I used member
checks after the interviews to ensure respondent validity in the data analysis (Maxwell, 2013, p.
126). I also examined student achievement data in the analysis. I ensured that the participants’
confidentiality was maintained throughout the data analysis.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
Maxwell (2013) asserted that researchers must be aware of personal motives, as these
could influence the conclusions drawn from the research and create a flawed or biased study.
Therefore, engaging in reflective exercises that help to uncover these biases and the underlying
assumptions I hold was critical to this study’s validity. Furthermore, designing an interview
guide aligned to the structure of the interview (standardized, semistructured, unstructured) along
with preparing good interview questions “couched in familiar language” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 117) is vital to producing credible findings. To collect rich data, as Maxwell (2013)
outlined, I recorded interviews verbatim, transcribed them, and took highly descriptive notes
during the interviews. I also sought variation in our sample population regarding site leaders with
varying positionalities and the types of schools they lead to ensure credibility (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).

51
Validity and Reliability
To increase reliability, I field-tested the survey and interview questions with people in
roles similar to the participants. To promote external reliability, I was transparent with all
participants, communicating what I was looking for and studying in the process.
Researcher Positionality
I am a heterosexual, conservative, white male. I have been in education for 26 years, and
I have been a school or district-level administrator for 13 of those years. I was trained during a
time when race and racism were not talked about and often made people uncomfortable. Today, I
am a principal at a school in a district that is made up of fewer than 3% White students. I have
been trained in MTSS, PBIS, and implicit bias, but none of the trainers have been willing to have
the difficult conversations about the success of White and Asian students while students of color
and students of low socioeconomic status continue to struggle and not find success. Throughout
the research, I have had to be careful when discussing equity and equity practices with others, as
people sometimes feel there is a right or wrong answer to some of the questions. Ensuring
participants of the process and the intent of our research and making sure they understand who I
am was important to ensuring the credibility of the results.
Summary
This study used a qualitative methods approach. I collected data through interviews with
and surveys of high school principals in Southern California public schools. The data were
analyzed to address the following RQs:
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?

52
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
Chapter 4 presents the findings. A discussion and recommendations based on the results follow
in Chapter 5.

53
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of the study was to identify equity-focused principals’ practices for creating
an inclusive school culture where teachers and staff are equity-focused. Leader C stated that
equity means “every student has what they need to be successful, regardless of where they come
from and who they are.”
Participants
The participants were elementary school principals in Los Angeles County. They came
from seven schools in five districts, and their tenure as leaders at their schools ranged from 6 to
16 years.
Table 2
Interview Participants
Pseudonym Position in the district
Leader A Elementary principal of 16 years in a suburban elementary
school
Leader B Elementary principal of 9 years in a rural elementary school
Leader C Elementary principal of 6 years in a suburban elementary school
Leader D Elementary principal of 7 years in a suburban elementary school
Leader E Elementary principal of 7 years in a suburban elementary school
Leader F Elementary principal of 7 years in a suburban elementary school
Leader G Elementary principal of 13 years in a suburban elementary
school

54
Table 3
School Demographics of Interview Participants
Pseudonym Hispanic/
Latinx
Black Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Students with
disabilities
Leader A 67.7% 0.9% 58.2% 20.6%
Leader B 50.0% 39.3% 95.4% 19.0%
Leader C 69.5% 2.4% 58.5% 8.9%
Leader D 47.6% 4.4% 36.3% 13.5%
Leader E 24.5% 0.2% 39.7% 6.8%
Leader F 69.8% 6% 57% 16.1%
Leader G 89.9% 0.3% 76.4% 11.2%
This qualitative study used a survey and semi-structured interviews to collect data. I
examined school and district documents that provided student achievement data relative to RQ 3
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These documents include school demographics, culture, and climate
data, the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), the California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and the California School Dashboard. All student data
excludes identifying information, apart from ethnic background, for data analysis. This chapter
shares the results for each research question based on the themes that emerged from the data
analysis.
The results are presented below and organized by research question. Using the lens of
critical race theory, this study examined the practices and systems that support and/or hinder the

55
work of a principal as they enact different equity-focused and inclusive practices. The four
research questions guiding and organizing this chapter are as follows:
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their effectiveness
as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating an
equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to student
success?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive
school environment?
Results Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked which factors of positionality the participants believe inhibit
and enhance their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders. All stated that they believe that one’s
positionality affects how one operates as an equity-focused leader. However, all stated that their
positionality will neither hinder nor enhance their effectiveness. They see positionality as
something that shaped who they are, and they need to understand how others see them. Leader E
spoke about how others’ perceptions of a person can be significantly different from the reality of
who that person is.
All seven leaders spoke of how they have to take the time to get to know the students and
the families at their different schools and allow the students and families to get to know them as
people. Leader E spoke about getting to know a student who was sleeping in class when he was
present, which was rare, but the student was on the street every night looking for food for his
little sister and himself: “I’m like, “Oh my god.” Doing my little math worksheet. That’s the last

56
thing. We have bigger problems.” The skin color of the leader and the young man were very
different, but the student learned that he could trust the principal and go to the school for help
and support during this difficult time. Leader E said, “He didn’t see me as a White man or even a
White teacher. He saw me as someone who cared and was paying attention. That’s all that
mattered.” Leader C stated, “It’s important to understand your background and how it impacts
the way that you see the world and how it impacts the way others see you.”
None of the leaders discussed how their positionality would harm or inhibit their leading
for equity. Leader D said, “All those aspects of who I am are important, but they do not get in the
way of the work that I do.” Leader G said, “I am of mixed race, but that doesn’t matter. It
changes my experience but does not affect the experience of my students unless I let it.” Leader
B said,
Who I am, who my parents are … that shapes me and who I am, but that is the only way
it affects my campus. I have to understand who I am and how I am seen on campus in
order to do a good job.
Their ethnicity and gender did not affect their ability to lead for equity. However, their gender
and ethnicity gave them a starting place of understanding and learning to provide all students
with an opportunity to succeed. Five leaders identify as White, and five of the seven leaders
identify as female. However, all stated in different ways that the understanding of who they are
and what their positionality means makes them an understanding and equitable leader.
The aspects of their positionality, race, gender, and sexuality do not hinder their equity
work. Leader F stated, “Talking about how who you are makes you who you are.” Leader D said,
“I think it’s more of the experiences that I’ve had and the people that I’ve worked with. It’s
what’s really shaped my path and who I am as a leader.” On the contrary, understanding their

57
positionality allows them to better grasp who they are and who their students are in relation to
them. Leader E talked about growing up, “School was one-third White, one-third Hispanic, and
one-third Black, and I didn’t see the differences. I played sports with all of them, worked with all
of them, and listened to all of the music. It is who I am.”
Factors of Positionality That Enhance Effectiveness as an Equity-Focused Leader
The research showed that there is no one factor of positionality that had an effect, but all
factors of positionality for the leader, staff, and community are very important.
Understanding One’s Own Positionality
Each leader discussed their positionality in a way that shows an understanding that every
aspect of who they are as a leader can inhibit or enhance their effectiveness in implementing
equity-focused practices. Leader E spoke about his positionality in a way that showed an
understanding of who he is and how he fits within the system: “I am a White male, and the
system is meant for me, but my job is to help kids that do not look like me be successful in the
system.” When he works with teachers and other staff at the school, Leader E tries to get them to
understand that every aspect of who we are as people is part of the experience. No matter how
much a teacher may say they “do not see color,” that is the problem. He discussed how he talks
to his teachers. He described education as a game and how he, as a “straight White male, [has] a
better chance to win the game. There is no guarantee, but I just have a better chance.” Leader E
said,
Even though I know I’m White, when people look at me, and then they view me as just a
White male that is probably stuffy and conservative. And so, in saying that, I’ve always
had that lens. But as I have gotten older, as I’ve gotten older, it has become more

58
apparent my advantages that I have, that I’ve had, that I didn’t necessarily realize at the
time.
Leader F said, “I didn’t know I was poor growing up because my parents didn’t allow
[my siblings and me] to be affected by a lack of anything. That is what I want every student to
feel at this school.” Leader B said, “My skin color matches some but is very different from
others, and that is ok. It is not about skin color in order to learn how to read.” Leader D said, “It
is important to know who I am and how I am viewed, but those things will not get in the way of
student success. I just need to be aware and working within the system at my school.”
All seven leaders identified in the survey and the interview that equity means giving
students what they need. Leader G said it is important to identify and even name the different
students, who they are, and their different positionalities to be specific and effective with school
practices. Leader G stated, “I tell the students who I am.” The role of the leader is to know the
students and families at the school, provide for their needs, and make sure that the families know
them and feel they can approach them. Leader G said, “I do believe that kids can be successful
no matter what.” Leader G said, “Treating kids fairly is important, but you can’t treat them all the
same. Every student has to be addressed on an individual basis.” Leader A said, “It doesn’t
matter where they come from. I treat every student the same, with respect and opportunity.”
Talking about his positionality, Leader C discussed opportunities that everyone has, no matter
who they are: “The color of my skin doesn’t prevent a student from growing, maturing, and
learning. Every child has the opportunity to grow into a polite, respectful, and learned young
person. My positionality has nothing to do with that.”

59
Understanding the Positionality of Others
Leader F spoke of a student with specific needs both at home and in the classroom: “This
young lady was having anxiety just going to class, but general education was the right place for
her.” These needs had nothing to do with her gender or skin color, but they did have to do with
socioeconomic status and learning abilities. To provide this student and family with the
appropriate setting at school and appropriate support and services at home, the Leader had to get
to know the student and her family. “I spent every morning with the student and the mom in
order to help the student be comfortable in class and the mom to be ok with her in there.” Leader
F spoke about how growing up poor might have allowed her to have a better understanding and
insight into the family’s needs and how to support them. Leader F stated that the families “have
to know I am listening.” The family has to believe that the principal and the school are listening
and responding to their specific needs.
Understanding that each student has different needs is key to being equity-focused. Each
student has different basic needs. Leader G talked about how “every student must be addressed
on an individual basis.” Leader G spoke about the discipline procedures at the school site and
how each incident would need to be handled specifically and possibly differently from others.
Leader C also spoke about discipline policies and how “not every student receives the same
consequence for the same action.” Leader C concluded,
I don’t want to lower expectations on anyone because of the background that they come
from. I sort of look at it like the rising tide raises all ships, right? And no matter who our
kids are and where they come from. My goal is to help them to be an excellent student.
To be a scholar and to grow into, like I said, a young man or young lady of character.

60
Leader G talked about needing to get to know the families to understand “what they are coming
in with and what they are lacking.” Then, the leader needs to be able to respond in different
situations. Leader D talked about different situations and different families “that all require a
different approach.”
Factors of Positionality That Inhibit Effectiveness as an Equity-Focused Leader
The leaders all said that the different aspects of their positionality do not affect their
equity work. However, they all said their teachers did not always see equity in the same way as
they do. Understanding positionality is key to implementing equity practices at a school site. If
the teachers do not understand positionality and its power, they will not understand the need to
implement new and different practices. Leader E said,
I have told my teachers, trying to instill this in them, that it’s about the game, is that it is
easier for you [White teachers] to win the game. The game is set up already easier for you
to win. [It] doesn’t mean you will win. It doesn’t mean it’s not going to be hard for you,
but there are more advantages set up for you to win the game than it is for other people,
for women, for people of color, for people of different identities. You know, to be a
straight White male, the game is … It’s easier for me.
All seven leaders expressed that veteran teachers, “well-tenured and well-established,” as
Leader C described them, are the most salient inhibitors to equity work. The leaders described
these teachers as not always following the principal’s lead for different reasons, including “that is
not fair.” Each leader had a different way of working with these teachers, but three did note that
the majority of their teachers are middle class and White, and the students who struggle are
neither of those things. As Leader B put it, “Most of my teachers are middle-class teachers who
have never had to experience the things our kids deal with.” Leader E said working with the

61
teachers is “the key to getting anything done.” The teachers are in the classroom and work
directly with students and families, and it is essential to bring them along in inclusive and
equity-focused practices.
Discussion Research Question 1
The seven leaders discussed how important it is to understand positionality. They all said
that understanding their positionality and how the students, staff, and community view them is
very important. None mentioned a particular aspect of positionality or trait that is more important
for enhancing equity-focused work. Goleman (2004/2011) stated that leaders need to be
self-aware, know their strengths and weaknesses, and understand their effect on others.
Understanding one’s positionality is essential to doing equity-focused work for students and their
families.
The interviewees spoke of needing to understand how they differed from the people they
regularly work with. Those differences do not enhance or inhibit their equity-focused work, but
if the principal does not have a firm grasp of who they are and how they are viewed, then the
different traits can begin to inhibit the work. Leader E stated that understanding how his students
and their families view him allowed him to communicate better with them and work with them in
order for students to find success. This same understanding has allowed Leader F to work with
the staff at the school to practice with greater equity in the classroom.
A leader who understands positionality understands what the students may need, what
resources are available to them, and what school personnel can best provide that support.
Results Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked what political systems hinder/limit the participants from
creating an equity-focused campus. The responses from all seven principals had similarities as

62
they discussed the systems in which they operate. Most said the system was more of a hindrance
than a support. Leader B said they are expected to just run the school: “I have managed
construction at three different sites for the last 9 years. They see me as a manager.” The school’s
larger organization does not value the principal as an instructional leader but, rather, as a building
leader with other areas of focus.
In addition to the system that the school operates in, there are the teachers who work at
the school. Each of the seven leaders discussed the different ways the teaching staff can impede
equity-focused practices. Leader C said, “I have an experienced veteran staff, and sometimes
they are less willing to change their classroom practices.” Veteran teachers who do not want to
do anything different are often the ones who do not allow a principal to make significant
changes. Leader F stated, “My staff can be difficult to move to make change. They think what
they are doing is best and don’t always see a need to make changes.” Leader E spoke about how
when he wanted to do something, he clarified for his staff that participation was optional, but
those who participated in the new work would receive the support for that work: “I amplified the
positive energy, focusing on the teachers who were willing to get on board with my ideas.”
District Systems: Supportive District Office Personnel
Leader E stated that the best thing the district personnel could do was to stay out of the
way. Leader E spoke about doing equity-focused work on campus without involving district
office personnel, and as long as there were no issues or problems, the district office stayed out of
the way for the work: “As long as no one is complaining or getting hurt, then the district would
leave me alone.” “Not everyone sees things the same way I do,” said Leader E about the district
office personnel. Leaders D and F both spoke about recent changes in district-level leadership
and how that changed the work they did at their schools. Leader F said, “They don’t care what

63
we do, but I have to constantly watch my back.” When they felt supported by their leaders, they
could “challenge their staff to make changes and do things differently in the classroom to create
a more equitable school site and make a difference for students and families,” according to
Leader D, but when they did not have the support, they felt they had to focus on other things
“just to put out fires.”
The survey respondents saw their own equity practices reflected most clearly in their
disciplinary practices. The educational institution has many rules and regulations when it comes
to discipline. However, this is where principals have the most power to enact policies and
practices. Leader F said, “Not every student gets the same consequence.” Leader D said, “Some
students receive different consequences for similar actions.” Leader B said, “You cannot treat the
kid who sleeps in his own family home the same way you treat the kid who slept in the car last
night.” Leader D talked about different consequences: “A punishment for one student might
make sense, but it may not work for the next student who does the same thing.”
Leader E stated that “not everyone shares the same definition of what equity is.” Leader
E talked about some district support staff that “let [him] do the work with [his] team.” District
office personnel have to understand their leaders and know how to support them. Like a principal
has to know and understand the students and families, district leaders must understand each
school’s principal and staff.
There is also a lack of training on equity practices. Districts are not preparing the leaders
or the teachers to do equity-focused work. Only one interviewee mentioned attending training
largely on her own and not sponsored or encouraged by the district. Leader F said, “I would love
more training. Me and my staff all need equity training.” The participants seek to be more
equity-focused in their work. All seven leaders wanted more training for themselves, their

64
teachers, and their staff. Leader A expressed, “I have not received any training on any equity
work in all my time as a principal.” Leader F stated that she does “not know if proper training
exists.” A school district must prepare for every possible situation to prepare teachers and school
staff for the different situations they may face, yet this training does not exist, according to the
interviewees. Leader C stated, “There are lots of trainings. Equity is the big thing right now, but
the training might not actually prepare me or my teachers.” The participants understand the need
for training in equity-focused strategies and practices, but they do not see training that truly
prepares their teams, “The training just needs to be so specific and precise,” stated Leader E,
“that I don’t know if it is out there.”
State Systems: State Finances Support Equity Work
The participants felt the largest influence from the state in the budget and largely felt that
their budgets support equity-focused work. “We have plenty of financial resources for the equity
work,” stated Leader A. Leader B said, “There is no shortage of funding, but other
resources—human capital mostly—can be scarce at times.” The requirement of spending
supplemental and concentration funds as laid out in the local control accountability plan (LCAP)
at the district level and in the single plan for student achievement (SPSA) at the school site level
allows principals to spend their site budgets doing equity-focused work. Leader C said, “I create
my SPSA to start the year, and I have plenty of funds to implement the programs that the
students need. I follow the plan throughout the year, and students show success.” As long as
district oversight did not limit the principals, they felt largely supported by the budget. Leader F
said, “The district supports the plan, and the state funds it, and for the most part, we can use it to
support equity work.” Leader G said, “The SPSA allows me to have a clear plan of how to do
different things at my school for all students to have success.”

65
“The state of California gets it,” stated Leader A. There is an acknowledgement and
understanding that the state sends money and support to the right places for students and families
who need extra support. Leader F talked about COVID, school closures, and what that did for
families and education. Leader F stated, “COVID is by far the hardest challenge in 25-plus
years.” However, Leaders D and F talked about how the state responded to COVID with plenty
of resources to combat the situations of inequity. “We have lots of funding right now. We have
everything we need to support learning when it comes to funding and material resources,” said
Leader F. Leader C said, “Some families do not have proper systems in place” to deal with
virtual learning and COVID shutdowns. Leader C talked about the financial support that the state
gave and stated, “California gets it. They know where to put the money.”
Federal Systems: Laws Around Special Education Are Limiting
Special education was a focus that four of the seven leaders brought up as an area where
they felt they could not implement equity-focused practices. The federal rules and regulations
regarding special education students limit what the leader can do at the school site, Leader D
stated, “I want to do lots of things, but the restrictions are too much.” Leader B stated, “IEPs can
be limiting. Students may appear to need certain learning supports, but then we cannot do other
things to support those students.” When asked about equity-focused practices, two of the leaders
centered the work they had done around special education students. Leader E said, “All means
all! Every student will participate in all school events.” Leader D had a similar sentiment: “Every
class would do the different activities so that all students would participate.” Both shared that
special education students’ academic achievement and attendance were significantly lower. “We
tried to work around this but kept getting stuck,” said Leader E. They were limited by laws and
regulations when they tried different practices in the classroom or the school. Leader D stated,

66
“We did the best we could, but the rules with IEPs can be so tough.” Leader F said, “Our special
education students oftentimes need the most resources, and even if we have those resources, we
cannot help the students.”
Inclusion of all students means all students are involved in everything. Leader E
described a conversation with teachers about how all students would be involved in schoolwide
events. “The teachers were certainly not excited, and some were actually fearful” about how the
events would go with all students involved. When asked to describe an environment where
students feel included, Leader D also discussed including special education students in all events.
Leader D talked specifically about students “doing all things with their grade-level peers” despite
academic or physical abilities that may cause them to be less successful. When it comes to
teaching, there are some limitations because of requirements, but leaders feel they have the
flexibility to include all students in different activities and events.
Federal Funding Supports Equity-Focused Work
All seven leaders had been at schools that received federal funding through Title I.
Although the districts did have slightly more control over these funds than the ones received
from the state, interviewees expressed that the parameters for spending Title I federal funds were
not limiting. Leader G stated, “I love my Title 1 funds. I get to do so much with that money!” In
fact, like with the state funds, the principals felt that the requirements for spending Title I funds
made it easier to spend them on equity-focused work. “I have funding for any and all programs I
can staff,” stated Leader A. Leader F discussed that there is money to do different things, but
“the money is not the issue. We need staff and energy and time to make these things happen.”
Leader F discussed the different funds available and the many programs offered but stated that
there are not enough people to do the work. “We were not fully staffed all year and for the last

67
few years,” she stated. “There are not enough people to do the work that needs to be done.”
Leader B said, “I have the funds for Title I and Title III, but I do not have students or staff who
can give the time and energy needed for the work.”
Discussion for Research Question 2
The interview data show that the main limitations to equity-focused work are the ones
closest to the leader. District office personnel can be supportive of the principal and allow the
principal to implement equity-focused practices, or they can have expectations that do not allow
a principal to do such work. Each leader discussed how district office personnel can desire to
implement policies or practices that can derail the work that the leader wants to do. Leaders D
and F said that when district leadership changed, the work at the school site became very
different. Without support in curriculum, instruction, and working with families, both leaders
said all equity-focused work was put to the side in order to survive. Support from immediate
supervisors and district personnel is foundational in implementing equity-focused practices.
The other limitation is the teaching staff. All seven leaders discussed veteran teachers and
a strong teacher union that would allow teachers to refuse to make changes. Leader C talked
about the veteran staff at the school as the main limitation in doing equity-focused work. Leader
C said some teachers could outright refuse to change classroom practices. Leader E mentioned
similar teachers and said he would work with those willing and ready to do equity-focused work.
Leader E talked about multiple occasions where some staff would refuse to make a change or
argue vehemently about a proposed change and how he would choose to work with those who
did not argue.
Ultimately, the people closest to the school site have the largest effect on leaders trying to
implement change and do things differently for marginalized students.

68
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked how the participants believe equity-focused leadership
contributes to student success. Equity-focused leaders should have a deep understanding of their
students and what they need. Every interviewee stated that equity means giving students what
they need to be successful. Leader F said it means “giving every student what they need.” Leader
C focused on the outcome and said that equity means “every student has the chance to live up to
their full potential academically and beyond academics.” Each understands that every student has
different needs and requires different support to succeed. Leader G said that giving every student
what he or she may need is important and hard. Leader G mentioned that other parents might
complain that their child “is not getting the same things,” but Leader G was adamant in stating
that the school sometimes has to give different opportunities to different students based on who
they are and what they need: “every child will need something different from their classmates
and getting them these things is what equity is.” Leader B lives by the motto, “Literacy for all.
That is my goal and mission every day.”
All of the leaders spoke about the data they use to determine student success. The leaders
discussed that the state uses testing, which includes math and English language arts data, to
measure students’ success. Leader B stated, “The dashboard doesn’t always measure the work
we are doing.” The leaders also mentioned other California School Dashboard data, such as
attendance, suspension rates, and English learner progress. Leader D said, “It is important that
we measure success in the same way the state does. But not just with those data points.” Each
leader indicated that these data points were valid and important for measuring student growth
and success. However, none said these were the primary data points they focused on when
looking at equity and implementing their different practices and policies. Leader F said, “I pay

69
attention to the dashboard, but it is not the main data I use to plan my programs and budget. It is
just part of the data picture and sometimes not a large part.”
All seven leaders discussed survey data and anecdotal data that they use to measure the
success of implementing their different strategies. They all said that the California School
Dashboard data was important, but it was not the main measuring tool to determine if they were
doing what they set out to do. Five used different surveys or staff interviews to understand how
implementation was progressing. Leader D said, “I give a staff survey at the end of the school
year and give people an opportunity to meet with me to discuss anything they want.” Five
leaders mentioned formal and informal parent surveys that would give the proper feedback to tell
if the leader was achieving the goals he/she set out to achieve. Leader F said,
Open house and back-to-school night are great, but parents need other ways to give
feedback. I use surveys and other materials to get feedback from community members
and families. I also open my calendar for meetings so people know they can come talk to
me anytime.
Leader C said, “The district does some surveys, but I like to give my own to make sure I get my
questions answered.” Leader E said, “My surveys are what I hear in the car line. I am out there
every day, and I have the chance to hear from many parents, intentionally and not, about what is
going well and what needs to be improved at the school.”
Formal Data to Measure Implementation of Equity-Focused Practices
All seven leaders spoke about the California Dashboard as a data point; however, they
were all skeptical that those measures would truly show the implementation of equity-focused
practices. Leader B was frustrated: “Our students do not do well on the state tests. Their success
and the work we are doing does not show in that data.” Leader D said, “The dashboard data is

70
very important, and our students do well for the most part, but that data is not always the best
data, especially for our lower achieving students.” All seven leaders stated that the measures on
the California School Dashboard are relevant and important but might not be able to truly
measure the equity-focused work. Leader E said, “The state is better now than it used to be with
measuring the entire student and measuring different work that the school is doing for students
and families, but it still puts too much weight on one test [CAASPP math and ELA].” Leader D
mentioned how important the Dashboard data is and how, ultimately, that should be how
equity-focused practices are measured, but right now, the system is not ready to measure that
growth and that work: “We have students who we are happy just to have them show up and that
is success, not how they do in math or English class.” Leader B spoke about the dashboard data
for her school and stated that the data does not reflect the work she is doing. Leader B has a
motto of reading for all that is not reflected in the data. She stated that she still has work to do for
the dashboard to reflect the data. “This can be frustrating as the Dashboard is what gets printed in
the newspaper, but we know we are doing good work,” Leader A said, “The data is important to
many people, myself included, but it is part of the story, not the whole story.”
All seven leaders talked about how the Dashboard is part of the system that is not
working for marginalized students, but it is the system under which they operate and the measure
used. Leader E said, “The state has to make sure that students are learning, but maybe they need
to change the way we measure that learning.” Leader B hopes her Black and Hispanic students
will be successful on the dashboard one day, but there is “no chance for them to show success or
even growth” at the moment. Leader B stated that having the dashboard data be so prominent
and important to some is very frustrating and can be detrimental to equity-focused work. Leader
F said, “I talk to people. Parents, teachers, even students at lunch. That is much better data than

71
the grade the state may give us.” Leader D said, “We are BLUE. We have been blue from the
beginning, and that is amazing, but the blue does not tell you the story of the 30% of the school
that continues to not meet the standard.”
Leader E said that the data used to know if the equity-focused work was being done well
is “anecdotal and qualitative. … The California Dashboard data is important and tells part of the
story, but it is not the whole story.” All seven leaders said the data they gather to measure the
work they do can be difficult to describe and even harder to quantify. Leader B described
multiple instances where the “data said one thing, but I knew that was not the full story, and that
is why I don’t rely on the state or even the district for all the data information.” Leader A said,
“We talk about the Dashboard once, and then we focus on the learning, but it is not the center of
everything all year like it used to be.”
Discussion for Research Question 3
All seven leaders believe that the practices they initiated for equity-focused work affected
student learning. That is why they made changes for students to achieve at a higher level.
However, they all spoke about how the current system uses data that will not show the effects of
their work. Each leader believes that their work at their schools is providing students with a
better learning environment and a more equitable educational experience. Leader G was specific
when discussing the data and stating that each student is different and has different needs. The
big-picture data the state analyzes will not tell the story of equity on campus.
Results for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked how the participants believe they enact specific strategies to
cultivate an inclusive school environment. Regarding the degree of equity reflected in these
practices, the survey data showed that the principals saw the most equity in disciplinary

72
practices. They saw their ideas of equity the least in parent involvement. The survey also showed
lower scores in student involvement, access to higher-level courses, and professional
development. When asked in the interview about specific practices, two leaders specified that
when they started at the schools, there were practices that did not include all students. Leader D
said, “Some students were left out of grade-level and schoolwide activities and events.” Both of
these principals began including all students in all school events and activities.

73
Specific Activities for Specific Students
Leader G discussed using supplemental funding to provide different activities and
opportunities for students designated for the funding. Those students would not normally have
access to these opportunities, which fits this leader’s definition of equity. She said, “Not every
student comes to school with the same experiences, and these funds and programs are a way to
bring everyone to the same point.” Leader G funds programs beyond the regular school day,
before and after school, and on Saturdays. These programs are by invitation only and are created
for students who are not showing success. Leader G said, “Some students just need something
different.”
Both Leader E and Leader G use funds to bring in programs to support learning. Leader E
brought in computer coding for the students and offered coding programs after school for them.
“All students need to be introduced to these important skills and talents that they may be able to
use later in life,” is how Leader E talked about bringing coding to every class at his school.
Leader G talked about the arts and using funds to connect students to the arts both on and off
campus, allowing students who do not have the opportunity to do things with family to see things
and do things for the first time. Leader G talked about using funds to send students to different
programs and performances: “Some students have never been to the theater or heard live music.
These activities allow all students to have access to the same experiences.”
Leader F also talked about offering programs for specific students: “Some students come
in with a wealth of experiences and family support, and others do not. It is my job, the job of the
school, to provide the support where it is needed.” Leader D said some teachers and parents did
not like that some activities “are not designed for everyone.” This contrasts with the idea of all
students involved in all activities, but Leader D said that every event, activity, and child needs to

74
be looked at to determine what makes sense for them. Leader D stated, “It is the job of the
school, me as the principal, the teachers, and all staff, to get to know the students and families
and offer them what they need to be successful.”
Including All Students in All School Activities
All seven leaders discussed how school programs and offerings must be available to all
students. Students should not be excluded from different events or programs because they do not
qualify for any reason. Leader E had to convince his staff to allow all students to participate in all
events, “They [some newly included students] might look different and experience the event
differently, but every student should have that chance.” Leader E specifically spoke about
including students with IEPs in schoolwide events. He shared a story about students being left
out of participating and watching the entire school do different things: “I hated seeing students
watching the parade instead of walking in it.” Some students would not be able to participate
well or very successfully, but there is no reason to exclude them. Leader D also mentioned
including all students in schoolwide events: “Students [participate] with their peers and
grade-level cohort, not as a special class.” Leader A said, “Some of the students with IEPs are
medically fragile, so it can be difficult to include them, but there is no question: if a child can
participate, then they are invited and encouraged to participate.” Leader B said, “Every student is
going to read. That is the focus in everything we do, so every student is included in every event
working towards that literacy goal.”
Leader B talked about including all students in celebrations at her school. She does not
highlight one group or another but celebrates all. When parents are invited to campus, they are
all invited to join what the school is doing. Leader B justified not celebrating holidays and
people groups: “No one group of students or families should be celebrated above another. …

75
Everyone can be celebrated every day at school. School is not a place to set any one group or
person above another.”
Discussion for Research Question 4
The two themes seem contradictory. However, the details show that they actually go
together. Spending money on specific students to participate in specific events can seem very
exclusionary. However, these activities are for those students who do not have the opportunity to
do that with their families. The idea behind these funds and spending them this way is to create
adequacy, bringing all students to an even level. The students who are not invited do not need to
go with the school because they have already done similar things with their families. The priority
in using these funds for these leaders is to provide adequacy for all students.
The idea of including all students in all activities was common among all seven leaders.
The first step in equity-focused practices is ensuring that all students can participate in all school
activities. Celebrations, athletics, academics, and arts can all have activities that include all
students. Not all students will want to participate, and not all students will flourish the same way
as their peers, but there is no reason a student would be excluded from what the whole school is
doing.
Summary
Positionality
The most important aspect of equity-focused work is understanding who you are as a
leader and understanding who you are working with. The leaders did not identify a specific trait
or characteristic that was more important than another, but they said that understanding who they
are and how their staff, students, and community view them is what is important about
positionality. Leader E stated, “I was the first White male that they had interactions with. For

76
some, I was the only male that they had in their lives.” This was an important perspective to
understand. What would have hindered the equity-focused work would have been not
understanding one’s positionality or not taking it into account when leading.
System Support
A supportive district staff is integral to the success of an equity-focused principal. When
the district office personnel are supportive, a leader can do the hard work at the school site. If the
district office support staff is not supportive or does not understand the school, the culture, and
the families, then that team can be very unsupportive and even hinder the work at the school site.
Student Success
Leaders know that their work has a large effect on student success. For many of those
successes, you have to hear personal stories. Leader E discussed a student named Brad, who was
working just to ensure his little sister had food to eat, and Leader F spoke of Alicia, a young lady
who was scared to go to class. These students would not show up as blue on the California
School Dashboard or be seen as a success in the eyes of many, but the leaders know that their
work on campus was good and benefited these students. The leaders used anecdotal data to show
that the work they are doing makes a difference for students and the school as a whole.
Specific Activities
The leaders all talked about creating different programs at their schools and using their
funding differently. Each leader said that the requirements for much of the funding allow them to
create unique opportunities for students with the highest need. These experiences allow those
students to reach a level of adequacy. Leader G discussed working with parents and stated that
one told her, “You can’t give some other kid more than you give mine.” This is a battle that an
equity-focused leader will face as they work to give every student the same opportunities.

77
Schoolwide activities must be truly schoolwide. No student should be excluded from
something because of their ability, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Leader B stated that equity
is about “respecting our kids and respecting who they are regardless of color.” Everyone can
participate in every parade, dance, or assembly, and participation will not be limited in any way.

78
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter Five summarizes findings as related to implications for equity-focused practice
within the elementary educational community. This chapter discusses key research findings to
inform elementary school principals and district leaders about implementing and supporting
equity-focused work in schools. Additionally, the context of this study forms the basis for
recommendations for future research.
This study focused on the actions and practices of principals at elementary schools where
some student groups were not performing as well as others and how the principals worked to
close that achievement gap. Some of the student groups were Black, Hispanic, low
socioeconomic/homeless, English learners, students with IEPs, and others, depending on the
leader and the school site. Roegman et al. (2020) stated that schools need to take an
equity-focused approach that involves elevating the performance of all students and eliminating
the predictability and disproportionality of student outcomes based on race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic class, housing patterns, gender, home language, nation of origin, special needs,
and other characteristics. The purpose of this study was to better understand the practices that an
equity-focused principal makes on campus to make a difference for those marginalized students.
The following questions guided this research:
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?

79
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
This qualitative study used a survey and semi-structured interview approach to collect
data from participants. I also examined school and district documents that provided student
achievement data relative to RQ 3 (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These documents include school
demographics, culture and climate data, the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), the
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), and the California
School Dashboard.
Findings
Study findings suggest that the school principal, the educational leader, can have a large
influence on equity-focused work. Findings suggest that a principal who understands the
students, families, and specific needs can make a difference in all students’ educational
experiences, specifically those who have historically been unsuccessful. With staff and district
support, the leader can enact practices to make a real difference. Several themes emerged related
to the study’s four research questions. This section presents a summary and discussion of the
study’s findings in relationship to literature and current practice.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked what factors of positionality the participants believe inhibit
and enhance their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders. Qualitative data related to research
question number one produced two findings. The first and most important finding is that the
positionality of the leader does not matter. Differences in race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality,
political leanings, or other characteristics do not affect the leader and the equity-focused work
with the caveat that the leader understands who they are and all the traits of their positionality.

80
The second finding is that the leader must understand the positionality of the students and
families in order to do equity-focused work.
Douglas and Nganga (2013) discuss the importance of understanding one’s positionality
to navigate society (p. 61). The role of the principal is to do more than just navigate society. It is
to create a society in a school where all students can be successful. All seven interviewees spoke
about embracing who they are as leaders and creating a school where all students can succeed.
Achor stated that it takes bravery to be a part of change on a campus (Achor, 2018). This bravery
happens when we know who we are and what we need to do as leaders.
In addition to having a deep understanding of themselves, the leader must understand the
students and families: who they are and what they need. To enact equity-focused practices, the
leader must know the students’ needs and the staff’s abilities to provide the right support for
those students. Boske (2009) found there is a need to train leaders to understand the society and
the culture to ensure schools have systems for all students to succeed.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked what political systems hinder/limit the participants from
creating an equity-focused campus. Principal interviews and survey data related to research
question two produced two findings. The first finding is that most political systems have little to
no effect on equity-focused work. The system that can have the highest effect is the local school
district, which can hinder or support this work. The second finding is that local, state, and federal
funding supports equity-focused work.
All seven interviewees discussed the importance of having support from the district office
personnel. They discussed the need for support for staff/personnel, materials, and programs that
meet the needs of the students and families. District office personnel who take action to support

81
the principal are seen as the most effective. All seven interviewees also stated that state and
federal systems do not hinder the work on their campuses. Those are too far removed to affect
the regular work on the campus. Westover (2020) argued that district leadership is “the most
critical factor to advancing progress and sustaining improvement efforts” (pp. 7–8).
State and federal systems fund school sites to create programs and support for specific
students: English learners, foster youth, low-income, and at-risk students. The interviewees felt
that the state and federal government resources were ample, especially with COVID relief funds,
to provide for these students. The requirements for spending this money did not hinder setting up
programs for these students.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked how the participants believe equity-focused leadership
contributes to student success. Interviews and survey data analysis revealed that the participants
believe that their work does indeed have a positive impact on student achievement. Although the
principals all emphasized using qualitative and anecdotal data to determine their effectiveness,
the practices they enacted influenced student achievement. Grissom et al. (2021) conducted a
large study and found that the principal has a direct effect on student achievement.
The work of the principal, putting in programs and support for specific students, has a
positive effect on academic achievement. Westover talks about how the principal and leadership
work to create change and have the most effect on student success, Westover (2020). Grissom et
al. (2021) discussed that the principal is the key to creating an environment for success.
Although the official California School Dashboard may not show success data for marginalized
students, the principals have a positive effect on student achievement.

82
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked how the participants believe they enact specific strategies to
cultivate an inclusive school environment. Two findings emerged from the data analysis for the
final research question. The first is that all students must be included in all school programs and
events. The final finding is that the principal needs to implement programs that provide specific
support for specific students for all to succeed.
First, a principal must ensure that all students are permitted and encouraged to participate
in all school events and activities. Leader E described parades, and Leader C described dances
and events that every student should be a part of. The school need not worry about how things
look with all students participating and things not appearing perfect. It is more important for
opportunities to be made available to the students. This is the idea of inclusion, where every
student can participate regardless of race, income, academic ability, or any other characteristic or
trait.
The second finding seems to contradict the first, but it does not. It is the job of the
principal to create opportunities at and through the school for specific students to have specific
support. Much of the funding referred to in the findings pertaining to Research Question 2
requires a school to create specific programs for specific students. This funding is meant to
create adequacy or give every student a level playing field. As Leader F discussed taking
students to the theater, only some would be invited because many already would have that
experience. Other programs are offered before or after school, and certain students are invited to
these because they do not have these experiences and opportunities outside of school. The
principal’s job is to know the students and families and provide these opportunities.

83
Limitations
The largest limitation is the participants. These are seven people in Los Angeles County.
Countless other leaders in other counties and states could have other thoughts about these
questions, leading to different findings. The participants self-reported the data. The data they use
to confirm their equity-focused work is anecdotal and qualitative from informal means of
collection. Both the lack of variety in the participants and what they stated can be considered
limitations.
As the researcher, I did what I could to find principals who had data that showed they
were having a positive effect on the achievement of marginalized students, but this data can be
hard to find, and the data that can be easily found does not always tell the story of what a
principal is doing or the effect they are having.
Implications for Practice
The study examined equity-focused principals’ practices and the work they do for
historically marginalized and underachieving students. The study findings have themes and ideas
that leaders and district support staff can use to help other principals make a difference on
elementary campuses for these students.
The first implication is that the district office personnel have a major role in supporting
the equity-focused practices at the schools. Principals need supportive district staff to have the
personnel and resources at the school site to implement the different programs. The findings
show that principals appreciate the funding and parameters from the state and federal
government, but the district office personnel can support or hinder equity work in a major way.
District office leaders need to work with each school site leader to ensure they have access to
what they need to implement programs for students in need. District office personnel need to

84
support principals by working closely with them. The findings show that it is very important for
the principal to know the community and the families to provide the correct programs so that all
students can grow and learn. They must develop the school budget with different programs to
support students in need. In addition, principals need training to be able to understand who the
students and families are and what needs they may have. Principals lack training, and it is the
responsibility of the district to provide and support the principals in that training.
The second implication is that principals make a difference in the learning opportunities
for all students. Principals enact practices that can create better learning environments for student
success. Principals need to be trained and learn the different programs to implement for student
success. The principal brings in the correct support for the students and their learning by
understanding themselves and how they fit into the school. The findings show that the
positionality of the leader does not have an effect either way, but the leader must understand who
they are and how they fit in the school community. The leader must also know the community.
Understanding the community will better prepare the leader to provide programs that fit and will
be successful.
The third implication is that the school needs to be a safe place for all students to learn,
grow, and develop as “quality young men and women,” as Leader D stated. The principal must
ensure that every student has every opportunity available to them so that they can overcome
historical or cultural academic challenges and succeed in the education system. The findings
show that the leader must balance opening up activities to all students because no one should be
left out of an opportunity and ensuring specific opportunities for specific students. Not every
child and family are the same, and it is the leader’s job, with the school team, to get to know the
students and offer the programs, opportunities, and support they need to succeed.

85
Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) proposed 10 practices for an equity-focused principal:
constructing and enacting an equity vision, supervising for equitable teaching and learning,
developing organizational leadership for equity, fostering an equitable school culture, allocating
resources, hiring and placing personnel, collaborating with families and communities, engaging
in self-reflection and growth for equity, modeling, and influencing the sociopolitical context. To
enact these practices, leaders need a deep understanding of who they are as leaders and of their
educational partners: students, staff, district office superiors, families, community, and others.
Ishimaru and Galloway focused on how to enact these practices successfully. However, all of this
work hinges on the leader being ready to do the hard work of equity.
Future Research
Although this research found that principals must know themselves and understand their
communities, certain practices will work for many schools and students. What are the specific
programs or systems that principals use for student success, and how are these programs found
and implemented? Using more disaggregated data, one can find schools where students are
showing success on the standard data measures and then research what is causing that success.
Plenty of data shows the principal has a positive effect, but there can be more and more research
into how and why the principal can have that effect.
In addition, there needs to be more research about what training is effective for a
principal to work with the staff and the community on understanding positionality and the needs
that can arise based on positionality. The research here shows the importance of the principal
understanding their positionality and the positionality of the students, families, and staff, but
there needs to be more training on what to do with that information. Understanding that there is a

86
difference is not enough. Knowing how to embrace that difference and work through and with
that difference is important to equity-focused work.
Conclusions
This study found different practices a school leader must enact to create a campus where
every student can learn. Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) presented 10 practices for the principal to
enact, but these were not found in this study. The findings for Research Questions 1 and 4
indicate that every school and every child needs different programs and support to succeed. The
most important practice for a leader is to first know who they are as a person and a leader and,
most importantly, how the community of students and families, teachers and staff, and others see
them. If this understanding is genuine, then the leader can look at the list of things to do to
implement the correct programs at the correct times to help support learning for all students.
There is no list of practices because the findings state that the list will be different for every
leader at every school site, but the principal needs to take the time to understand how to make the
right list for the school.

87
References
Achor, S. (2018). Big potential: How transforming the pursuit of success raises our achievement,
happiness, and well-being. Currency.
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 22(4), 431–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
Allensworth, E. M., & Hart, H. (2018). How do principals influence student achievement?
University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.
Andersen, K. (2017, May 17). Kimberle Crenshaw at Ted + Animation [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRci2V8PxW4
Bell, D. A., Jr. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest convergence dilemma.
Harvard Law Review, 93, 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
Bloom, C. M., & Owens, E. W. (2013). Principals’ perception of influence on factors affecting
student achievement in low- and high-achieving urban high schools. Education and
Urban Society, 45(2), 208–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511406916
Boske, C. (2009). Children’s spirit: Leadership standards and chief school executives.
International Journal of Educational Management, 23(2), 115–128.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540910933486
Brown, T. (2003). Critical race theory speaks to the sociology of mental health: Mental Health
problems produced by racial stratification. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3),
292–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519780
California Department of Education. (2021). Ethnic studies model curriculum. California State
Board of Education. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/esmc.asp

88
del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). Chapter 4. A humanizing pedagogy reinventing the principles
and practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in
Education, 37(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12464032
De Oliveira, V. (2012). Education, knowledge, and the righting of wrongs. Other Education,
1(1), 19–31.
Douglas, T.-R., & Nganga, C. (2013). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. The International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 5(1), 58–82.
Duckworth, S. (2021). Intersectionality [JPG image]. Pinterest.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/823314375621586549/
Duncan-Andrade, J. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in concrete.
Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181–194.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.2.nu3436017730384w
Fraise, N. J., & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for
school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1),
6–21. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i1.983
Franco, C. S., Ott, M. G., & Robles, D. P. (2011). A culturally proficient society begins in school:
Leadership for equity. Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.

89
Gillborn, D. (2013). The policy of inequity: Using CRT to unmask white supremacy in education
policy. In M. Lynn & D. D. Dixon (Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education
(pp. 129–139). Routledge.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Goleman, D. (2011). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2004/01/what-makes-a-leader (Original work published 2004).
Gordon, M. F., & Hart, H. (2022). How strong principals succeed: Improving student
achievement in high-poverty urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration,
60(3), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2021-0063
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and
schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Review Press.
Ishimaru, A., & Galloway, M. K. (2014). Beyond individual effectiveness: Conceptualizing
organizational leadership for equity. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13, 93–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.890733
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. Bodley Head.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675

90
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 11(1),
7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt. Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory–What it is not. In M. Lynn & D. D. Dixon
(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 34–47). Routledge.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, J. A., Mendenhall, R., Ojiemwen, A., Thomas, M., Riopelle, C., Harwood, S. A., &
Browne Huntt, M. (2021). Racial microaggressions and sense of belonging at a
historically White university. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(8), 1049–1071.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859613
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
López, G. P. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68–94.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239761
Love, B. (2019). We want to do more than thrive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Luke Wood, J., Harris, F., Howard, T., Qas, J. M., Essien, I., King, T., & Escanuela, V. (2021).
Suspending our future.
http://bmmcoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SuspendingOurFuture-6-1.pdf

91
Martin, F., Pirbhai-Illich, F., & Pete, S. (2017). Culturally responsive pedagogy: working
towards decolonization, indigeneity, and interculturalism. Palgrave Macmillan.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
McGee, E. O., & Stovall, D. (2015). Reimagining critical race theory in education: Mental
health, healing, and the pathway to liberatory praxis. Educational Theory, 65(5),
491–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12129
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey.
Milner, H. R., IV. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers
seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471
Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically
responsive literacy. Scholastic Teaching Resources.
National Equity Project. (n.d.). Educational equity definition.
https://www.nationalequityproject.org/education-equity-definition
Northouse, P. G., & Lee, M. (2022). Leadership case studies in education. Sage.
Patel, L. (2016). Pedagogies of Resistance and Survivance: Learning as Marronage. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 49(4), 397–401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1227585
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475

92
Radd, S. I., Generett, G. G., Gooden, M. A., & Theoharris, G. (2021). Five practices for
equity-focused school leadership. ASCD.
Redding, C. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student–teacher racial/ethnic
matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral
outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2018). Designing quality survey questions (1st ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Roegman, R., Allen, D., Leverett, L., Thompson, S., & Hatch, T. (2019). Equity visits: A new
approach to supporting equity-focused school and district leadership. Corwin.
Santamaría, L. J. (2014). Critical change for the greater good: Multicultural perceptions in
educational leadership toward social justice and equity. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 50(3), 347–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13505287
Sawchuk, S. (2015). Students’ scores found to rise when teachers look like them; Representation
in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Education
Week, 34(24), 5.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Singh, N. (2019, November 26). The pervasive power of the settler mindset. Boston Review, 1–8.
Smith, C. A. (2005). School factors that contribute to the underachievement of students of color
and what culturally competent school leaders can do. Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 17, 21–32.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a
critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2–8.

93
Spatig-Amerikaner, A. (2012). Unequal education: Federal loophole enables lower spending on
students of color. Center for American Progress.
https://cdn.uncf.org/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/UnequalEduation.pdf
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652368
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89.
Turner, E. O. (2020). Suddenly diverse: How school districts manage race and inequality.
University of Chicago Press.
United Negro College Fund. (2023). K–12 disparity facts and statistics.
https://uncf.org/pages/k-12-disparity-facts-and-stats
USAFacts. (2023). Los Angeles County, CA population by year, race, & more. USAFacts.
Retrieved August 31, 2023, from
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/our-changin
g-population/state/california/county/los-angeles-county/
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce.
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workfor
ce.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014a). Civil rights data collection data
snapshot: College and career readiness (Issue Brief No. 3).
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014b). Civil rights data collection data
snapshot: School discipline (Issue Brief No. 1).

94
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014c). Civil rights data collection data
snapshot: Teacher equity (Issue Brief No. 4).
Westover, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin.
Woo, E. (2020). A reckoning with racism starts with learning the unvarnished truth—and
toll—of slavery. USC Rossier Magazine Fall/Winter 2020, 34–39.

95
Appendix A: Survey Protocol
The following sections present the survey protocol used in this study.
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine what practices equity-focused principals enact
at their school sites. According to researcher Butterfoss (2021), an equity-focused leader
cultivates an inclusive environment where all educational partners feel valued, cared for, and
seen; distributes resources equitably; and considers the impact of their decisions on historically
marginalized groups (marginalized groups and communities experience discrimination and
exclusion -social, political, and economic because of unequal power relationships across
economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions).
This survey is part of a larger effort to better understand how educational leaders promote
equity and inclusivity in their schools and districts. Your participation in this survey is
completely voluntary and you may choose to stop at any time without penalty. Your responses
will be used to inform future research on equity-focused leadership in education and may be
shared with other researchers, educators, and policymakers. Depending on your responses, I may
follow up with an interview. I want to reassure you that your name or anything that can identify
you in this study will be confidential. Moreover, all responses will remain confidential. The
results of this study may be used to inform professional development opportunities for educators
and educational leaders. If after submitting your survey you would like to withdraw your survey
responses from this study, you may do so by emailing (insert researcher’s email here). If you do
withdraw your responses your data will be safely discarded. Your participation in this survey is
greatly appreciated and will help contribute to a better understanding of how we can create a
more equitable and inclusive school community.

96
Table A1
Survey Items and Conceptual Framwork Alignment
Q Survey questions Response choices The concept(s) from the
conceptual framework it
addresses and what level
of measurement is being
used.
Principal experience and training (7 close-ended and 1 open-ended)
Q1 Prior to this school year, how
many years did you serve as the
principal of this school?
Please do not include any years
you served as assistant principal.
Count part of a year as a full year.
Write ’0’ if this is your first year
serving as principal of THIS
school.
0–1
2–4
5–7
8+
CF: individual/
interpersonal
Level of measurement:
ordinal
Q2 Prior to this school year, how
many years did you serve as the
principal of any other school?
Please do not include any years
you served as assistant principal.
Count part of a year as a full year.
Write ’0’ if it was your first year
serving as principal of any other
school.
0–1
2–4
5–7
8+
CF: individual/
interpersonal
Level of measurement:
ordinal
Q3 How do you define educational
equity?
Open-ended Q CF: individual/
interpersonal
Level of measurement:
Q4 To what degree is your definition
of educational equity reflected in
your school’s:
Curriculum
Student involvement (culture)
Disciplinary practices (climate)
Parent involvement
Sliding scale 1-10 CF: institutional/
structural
Level of measurement:
interval

97
Q Survey questions Response choices The concept(s) from the
conceptual framework it
addresses and what level
of measurement is being
used.
Access to higher level courses
Professional development
Q5 To what degree do the staff at
your school enhance/limit the
practices to address inequity?
Significantly
enhance,
enhance, limit,
significantly
limit
CF: institutional
Level of measurement:
interval
Q6 To what degree do the people
who work around you in your
district enhance/limit the
practices to support equity ?
Significantly
enhance,
enhance, limit,
significantly
limit
CF: institutional
Level of measurement:
interval
Q7 Have you received any training to
help you implement
equity-centered practices?
Yes/No CF: Institutional
Level of measurement:
nominal/categorical
Q8 To what degree does your district
encourage you to attend
professional development
intended to promote equity
practices?
Strongly
encourage
Encourage
Somewhat
encourage
Does not
encourage
CF: institutional
Level of measurement:
interval
Demographic items (2)
Q9 Which of the following options
best describe how you identify
your race and/or ethnicity?
(Select all that apply)
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
African
American/Blac
k
Hispanic
CF: individual/
interpersonal
Level of measurement:
nominal/categorical

98
Q Survey questions Response choices The concept(s) from the
conceptual framework it
addresses and what level
of measurement is being
used.
White
Prefer to
self-describe
_________
Q10 How do you identify? Female
Male
Nonbinary
Prefer to self
describe
________
CF: individual/
interpersonal
Level of measurement:
nominal/categorical
Q11 Name (first & last)
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended Q11
Q12 Name of school
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended Q12
Q13 Current position
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended Q13
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses will help us better
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses will help us better
understand the practices of equity-focused leaders and how they are promoting inclusivity and
equity in their schools and districts. We appreciate your insights and your dedication to creating a
more equitable and inclusive educational system.
If you have any questions or concerns about this survey, please feel free to contact us at
(insert email here). Once again, thank you for your participation and your valuable contributions
to this research.

99

100
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
The following sections present the interview protocol used in this study.
Opening/Introduction
The purpose of this study is to determine what practices equity-focused principals enact
at their school sites. According to researcher Butterfoss (2021), an equity-focused leader
cultivates an inclusive environment where all educational partners feel valued, cared for, and
seen; distributes resources equitably; and considers the impact of their decisions on historically
marginalized groups. Marginalized groups and communities experience discrimination and
exclusion (social, political, and economic) because of unequal power relationships across
economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions.
I want to reassure you that I won’t use your name or anything that can identify you in this
study. All quotes will remain anonymous unless you consent to providing identifying
information. If you share anything with me that should not be included in this study, please let
me know. Also, please remember that there are no right or wrong answers. Do you have any
questions at this point?
To ensure I can accurately capture our conversation, I would like to record it. Only the
members of my thematic dissertation group will have access to your recording. If you would like
anything off the record, I can turn off the recorder until you indicate to turn it back on. Do I have
your permission to record this interview?
Interview Questions (With Transitions)
Background Questions
First, I would like to ask you some questions about your journey as an educational leader.

101
1. How long have you been a principal at [school]? (CF: individual/interpersonal, Q
Type: Patton, background/demographics)
a) Why did you choose to work at this school? (Q Type: Patton,
background/demographics)
b) When did you realize that you wanted to become a principal? (Q Type: Patton,
background/demographics)
c) What do you hope to accomplish as principal? (Q type: Patton,
background/demographics)
2. Thinking about yourself, what would you say is your best quality/trait/attribute? (CF:
individual/interpersonal, Q Type: Patton opinions/beliefs)
3. Some would say that one’s positionality (social factors, culture, language, ethnicity,
gender, and race) shapes their leadership style. Have any of these elements influenced
you, and if so, how? (CF: individual/interpersonal, Q type: Strauss et al., as cited in
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, devil’s advocate)
Equity-Focused Leadership Identity Questions
I would like to hear more about your leadership identity.
4. Tell me about your leadership style. How would you describe yourself as a leader?
(CF: individual/interpersonal, Q type: Patton, opinions/beliefs)
5. What or who has influenced you the most as a principal? (CF:
individual/interpersonal, Q type: Patton, behaviors/experiences)
6. To what extent have you faced challenges (on the campus and off the campus), if any,
that have hindered your work as an educational leader? (CF: structural/institutional, Q
type: Patton, behaviors/experiences)

102
Now, I would like to get your perspective on equity and how it may influence your
leadership.
7. What does equity mean to you? (CF: individual/interpersonal, Q type: Patton,
knowledge, opinions/beliefs)
8. What type of training have you received regarding equity as a principal, if any? (CF:
structural/institutional, CF: individual/interpersonal, Q type: Patton, experiences,
knowledge). Probing question if they have received training: How has that training
influenced your leadership?
9. What equity training would you envision for yourself? (CF: individual/interpersonal,
Q type: Strauss et al., as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, ideal position)
10. What has gotten in your way of leading for equity? (CF: structural/institutional, Q
Type: Patton, behaviors/experiences)
Learning Condition Questions
With equity in mind, these next questions will speak to how equity is applied at your
school site.
11. Can you give me an example of how you have created an environment that allows
students to feel included on your campus? (CF: structural/institutional, Q type:
Patton, sensory, behavior/experience, knowledge)
12. Tell me how you have created staff buy-in for equity work on campus. (CF:
structural/institutional, (CF: individual/interpersonal, Q type: Patton,
behavior/experiences, knowledge). Probing question: How have you worked with
staff who are resistant to equity initiatives on campus? (Q type: Patton,
behavior/experiences)

103
13. What role do you believe other educational partners (i.e., parents, community members)
play, if any, in advancing equity on your campus? (CF: structural/institutional, Q type:
Patton, opinions/beliefs)
14. How do you measure the impact of your equity-focused leadership? (CF:
structural/institutional, Q Type: Patton, opinions/beliefs, knowledge) Probing question:
What data do you use, if any, to determine the impact of your equity-focused leadership
practices?
Closing
Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down and converse with me. Is there
anything that I didn’t ask you that I should have?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study uses the theoretical framework of Critical Race Theory to study the practices of equity-focused principals in elementary school. The study surveyed and interviewed seven principals in Los Angeles county. The purpose of the study is to discover what principals are doing to help close the learning gap for marginalized students. The study used the following four research questions as a guide for the study.

What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their effectiveness as an equity-focused leader?
What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating an equity-focused campus?
How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to student success?
How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive school environment?

The study found that there were some clear practices for the principals at the school site and also for the district leadership supporting the principals. A principal must understand their own positionality and how they fit into the school which they are leading which means knowing and understanding the students and families in the population they serve. Any leader, despite their own positionality, has the opportunity to have a positive impact on the learning of Black, Hispanic, Low Socio-Economic, English Learner, and students with IEPs if they have the proper training and support.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

The positionality and power dynamics of high school math departments

PDF

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities

PDF

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Are students better off? An analysis of administrators’ commitment to serving transitional kindergarten students in multilingually diverse communities in Central Coast California

PDF

The importance of Black and Latino teachers in BIPOC student achievement and the importance of continuous teacher professional development for BIPOC student achievement

PDF

White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support

PDF

Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century

PDF

Why I can't see myself in school? Hiring and retaining ethnically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

Why can’t I see myself in my school? Hiring and retaining ethnically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Glass, Courtney (author)

Core Title The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/12/2024

Defense Date 03/22/2024

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

Tag achievement gap,CRT,education debt,equity-focused,marginalized students,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), Franklin, Gregory (committee member)

Creator Email cglass@usc.edu,courtneybglass@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113871420

Unique identifier UC113871420

Identifier etd-GlassCourt-12802.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GlassCourt-12802

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Glass, Courtney

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240412-usctheses-batch-1139 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu