Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
(USC Thesis Other)
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Attributes of Effective Equity-Focused High School Principals
Charlene Saenz
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 Charlene Saenz 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Charlene Saenz certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rudolph Crew
Gregory Franklin
David Cash, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
This dissertation researches the practices enacted by equity-focused high school principals and
their effectiveness. Utilizing a critical race theoretical lens and an equity-focused school
leadership framework, this study examined the systems and structures that hinder/limit a
principal’s ability to create an equity-focused campus. The study’s methodology consists of a
qualitative design, which included the administration of a survey and interviews of high school
principals serving in Southern California public schools. The study’s research questions inquired
about the factors of a principal’s positionality, political systems that hinder/limit a principals’
ability to lead for equity, principals’ beliefs on equity-focused leadership, and the specific
strategies enacted to cultivate an inclusive school environment. This study concludes with
evidence-based recommendations of leadership practices enacted by high school principals to
create an inclusive school environment and advance educational outcomes for marginalized
students.
Keywords: Positionality, equity-focused leadership, inclusion, marginalized students, educational
partners
v
Dedication
To my children, Bella and Amon, thank you for being my biggest cheerleaders and for
reminding mommy that she is capable of achieving her dreams. May my journey serve as a
reminder that you, too, can achieve your dreams and that through God we can do all things; I
love you 3000. A mis padres les agradezco de todo corazón todo el apoyo y amor que me han
brindado siempre. No pudiera cumplir mis sueños sin estar ustedes a mi lado, sirviendo más que
abuelos a mis hijos, y respaldándome por este camino, los amo más allá del sol. To my sister, my
best friend, and fellow mujer poderosa, thank you for always being there for me and for building
me up when I need it most. A mis abuelas, las adoro; su fuerza y ejemplo estará siempre en mi
mente y las llevo en mi corazón diariamente. Yo sé que me están celebrando desde el cielo. To
my husband, my anchor, and my safe place, thank you for your endless support and love; I am
forever yours.
vi
Acknowledgements
This work is a reflection of my passion and commitment to ensuring that all students
have the ability to achieve their dreams. I am extremely grateful to the Chaffey Joint Union High
School District Board of Trustees: Sue Ovitt, Art Bustamonte, Gil Zendejas, Don English, and
Cary Willborn for their belief in me and ongoing support. It is an honor to serve under your
leadership and unwavering commitment to students. To my mentor and exemplary leader,
Superintendent, Dr. Mat Holton, thank you for continued guidance, support, and encouragement,
you, sir, serve as an inspiration to us all.
To Cabinet thank you for supporting me on my journey and for cheering me on along the
way, your support means more than you’ll ever know. To the members of my Chaffey family
who have checked in on me, consistently reminded me to celebrate the small and big wins, and
supported me along my journey, thank you – your actions have made a world of difference.
To the crew that got me through; my thematic dissertation group, thank you for working
from your heart, allowing me to lean on you, and for our many check-ins to ensure we remained
ahead of the game. We did it!
vii
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:
Courtney Glass, 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.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
Preface........................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
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 High School Principals in Equitable Education.............................................28
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................40
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................43
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................43
Research Questions............................................................................................................43
ix
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 ............................................................................................................................51
Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................52
Participants.........................................................................................................................52
Results for Research Question 1 ........................................................................................57
Results Research Question 2..............................................................................................60
Results Research Question 3..............................................................................................67
Results Research Question 4..............................................................................................70
Study Results Summary.....................................................................................................76
Chapter Five: Discussion ...................................................................................................78
Findings..............................................................................................................................79
Limitations.........................................................................................................................86
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................87
Future Research .................................................................................................................88
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................89
References......................................................................................................................................90
Appendix A: Survey Protocol........................................................................................................99
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................103
Interview Questions (With Transitions)...........................................................................103
x
Closing .............................................................................................................................106
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria 45
Table 2: Participants 53
Table 3: School Demographics Overview 54
Table 4: School Performance Overview 55
Table 5: Survey Question 4 56
Table 6: Results From Survey 1 61
Table 7: Results From Survey 2 71
Table 8: Comparison of LEAD Tool Equitable Leadership Practices and Themes That
Emerged Regarding Equitable Leadership Practices 80
Table A1 Survey Items and Conceptual Framework Alignment 100
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Visual Conceptual Framework 41
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 (SpatigAmerikaner, 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 GaztambideFernández (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 selfreported 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) describes four levels of systemic inequity, wherein the structure of the
system has built in inequities: historical, structural, institutional, and individual/ interpersonal.
The historical level has roots in centuries of human experience, which “inform what [we] think,
how [we] feel, and how [we] react” (Radd et al., 2021, p. 11). The structural level encompasses
“the way [in which] 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). Additionally, inequity is institutional, where “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). Lastly, the individual and interpersonal
levels consist of 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).
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
11
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
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
12
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.
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 settlercolonial 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).
13
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”
(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
14
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.
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 overidentified in special education (Martin et al., 2017). Martin et al. (2107) 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” (CochranSmith 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. 1). 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 I 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 (CRT) speaks to the history of the education system and the
perspective that the system is not created for all students to succeed. This section will delve into
its background and definition, politics/implementation of CRT in education, and the impact CRT
has on student well-being.
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
20
diversity and multiculturalism. An example is the telling of Rosa Parks’s actions as due to
tiredness and not activism.
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
21
their disposal. To counter this, one of the tenets of CRT speaks to centering experiential
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
Grissom et al. (2021) centers the significant impact of a principal and their ability to
influence their school and foster change to promote student growth and success. Furthermore,
researcher Butterfoss (2021) asserts that 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 conducted a
study that indicated that 90% of the difference between star performers and average leaders was
attributed to emotional intelligence (2004/2011). 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 (2004/2011) 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
25
opposition forces, (d) closely observing how senior authority figures react in both public and
private settings, as well as how they utilize their political capital, I 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.
26
Notably, authentic leaders do not operate in isolation; they instead engage in a reciprocal
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
27
the leader does not develop trust and a shared vision in the organization so people understand the
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.
Secondary School Leadership
The secondary principal’s role and impact on student achievement plays a pivotal role in
secondary schools. One specific example of a principal’s practice is time spent coaching teachers
that yielded positive student outcomes (Grissom et al., 2021). The authors also assert that in the
process of discovering principal behaviors and practices, “informal classroom walkthroughs …
negatively predicted achievement growth” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 73). The authors concluded
28
that principals might conduct such informal walkthroughs at the high school level to augment
visibility. Nonetheless, a principal’s effect on student achievement is significantly greater than
that of a teacher (Grissom et al., 2021). The researchers further asserted that the context of
school leadership has changed significantly, which warrants “an updated review of the principal
impact literature and a summary of the contemporary skills, behaviors, and practices associated
with student success” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 28). While there is a notable increase in women
principals of 29% as compared to 1988, the gender gap remains, and women are overrepresented
in highest poverty schools (Grissom et al., 2021).
Grissom et al.’s (2021) primary point is that a principal’s behavior related to educating
teachers on marginalized students’ experiences is coupled with training them to support these
students. Along the same lines, Grissom et al. pointed to the need to explore principal behaviors
from an equity perspective, specifically how these impact specific student groups. This assertion
supports the aims of this study.
The Role of High School Principals in Equitable Education
A principal’s ability to advance equity on campus is affirmed by the many researchers
presented throughout this section. Curriculum, pedagogy, and a focus on achieving equity for all
students are just some of the ways that a principal can affect student achievement on their
campus. This section will present research that highlights the effectiveness of a principal related
to cultivating an equitable educational environment.
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
101 requires that all districts implement an ethnic studies course by the 2025–2026 school year,
29
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 socialemotional 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
teaching, freedom dreaming, and Black joy are about taking action against injustice and
30
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 equityfocused 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
(2014) 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 highachieving 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 lowachieving 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,
40
whereas a 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).
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
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
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 equityfocused 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
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,
46
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 closedended 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 validity.
The survey provided a numerical description of site leaders’ beliefs on equity-focused leadership
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
47
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.
48
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).
49
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).
50
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
As the primary research instrument, I interpreted the information collected. Therefore, I
stated my positionality, as it could have shown up in this study through the biases and worldview
I hold shaped by my lived experiences. Moreover, as Maxwell (2013) stated, if I do not describe
my positionality and name the possible negative consequences of its influence, it could distort
the data analysis and threaten the study’s validity.
I currently serve as an assistant superintendent of personnel. The power dynamic between
my professional role and that of the interviewees may have been a limitation in the interviews if
disclosed, as it could have influenced the interviewees’ answers. Milner (2007) noted that “issues
of power are understood to be relational, and researchers understand the tensions inherent in their
own interests and power in relation to the people and communities under study” (p. 395).
Considering this circumstance, I sought research participants outside of the Inland Empire to
further distance myself, help build trust, and strengthen the study’s validity. Additionally, my
positionality affected how I interpreted the data, as I viewed them through the lens of a firstgeneration college student who desperately wanted someone to invest their time to help her
pursue college and a Latina who feels she has had to work twice as hard to achieve her goals in a
male-dominated profession.
51
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?
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.
52
Chapter Four: Results
This study aimed to identify the practices equity-focused high school principals enacted
to create an inclusive environment for all students on their campuses. The study also sought to
identify the attributes of equity-focused high school leaders to cultivate an inclusive school
environment that sets marginalized students up for success. Furthermore, this study attempted to
identify equity-focused leaders aligned with Butterfoss’s (2021) definition of an equity-focused
leader. Butterfoss asserted that an equity-focused leader cultivates an inclusive environment,
distributes resources equitably, and considers historically marginalized groups in their decisions.
Participants
The participants are California high school principals with 2 or more years of experience
serving as principals at their sites. They also serve a marginalized student population consisting
of at least one of the following student subgroups: Black, Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically
disadvantaged, English learners, and students with disabilities. The participants currently serve in
Orange, San Bernardino, or Riverside County. This study consisted of participants completing a
confidential survey and a follow-up interview. All county demographic data were collected via
USAFacts, although only data for 2022 were available. Los Angeles County serves a
marginalized population of 7.9% Black (non-Hispanic) and 49% Hispanic/Latino.
The following data were utilized, in part, to select the interviewees identified in Table 2.
Twelve individuals responded to the survey, and five were interviewed. I took a semistructured
approach to the interviews, which afforded me some flexibility to ask a follow-up or clarifying
question if needed. All interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom. All data related to student
populations came from the California School Dashboard as of 2023.
53
Table 2
Participants
Pseudonym Gender Race/
ethnicity
Years at
current site
County Interviewed
Principal 1 (P1)
Principal 2 (P2)
Principal 3 (P3)
Principal 4 (P4)
Principal 5 (P5)
Principal 6 (P6)
Principal 7 (P7)
Principal 8 (P8)
Principal 9 (P9)
Principal 10 (P10)
Principal 11 (P11)
Principal 12 (P12)
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
White
Hispanic
White
White
Hispanic
White
Hispanic
White
White
Hispanic
Hispanic
White
5–7
5–7
8+
5–7
5–7
2–4
2–4
2–4
2–4
5–7
2–4
5–7
San Bernardino
Orange
Orange
San Bernardino
Los Angeles
Orange
Los Angeles
Orange
Orange
Riverside
Riverside
San Bernardino
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Orange County serves a marginalized population that is 1.8% Black (non-Hispanic) and
34% Hispanic/Latino. Principal Interview Participant 2 (P2) serves a marginalized student
population that is 1% African American, 67% Hispanic, 64.5% socioeconomically
disadvantaged, 12% students with disabilities, and 14.3% English learners. Principal Interview
Participant 3 (P3) serves a marginalized population that is 1% African American, 29.2%
Hispanic, 38.4% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 6.8% of students with disabilities, and 4.5%
English learners. Principal Interview Participant (P6) serves in an alternative high school with a
marginalized population of 0.9% African American, 55.1% Hispanic, 76.9% socioeconomically
disadvantaged, 8.4% students with disabilities, and 20.2% English learners.
Riverside County serves a marginalized population of 6.3% Black (non-Hispanic) and
52% Hispanic/Latino. Principal Interview Participant 10 (P10) serves a marginalized population
54
that is 5.1% African American, 91% Hispanic, 96.7% socioeconomically disadvantaged, 16.8%
students with disabilities, and 29.8% English learners.
San Bernardino County serves a marginalized population that is 8% Black (nonHispanic) and 56.2% Hispanic/Latino. Principal Interview Participant 12 (P12) serves a
marginalized population of 13.7% African American, 52.3% Hispanic, 48.7% socioeconomically
disadvantaged, 13.7% students with disabilities, and 4.3% English learners. Tables 3 and 4
present the interviewees’ schools’ demographics and 2023 California School Dashboard data.
Table 3
School Demographics Overview
Student groups Race/Ethnicity
Enrollment English
learners
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Students with
disabilities
African
American
Hispanic
P2 1880 14.3% 64.5% 12% 1% 67%
P3 2584 4.5% 38.4% 6.8% 1% 29.2%
P6 321 20.2% 76.9% 8.4% 0.9% 55.1%
P10 2243 29.8% 96.7% 16.8% 5.1% 91%
P12 3596 4.3% 48.7% 13.7% 13.7% 52.3%
55
Table 4
School Performance Overview
Academic performance Academic
engagement
Condition
and climate
English
language arts
(SBAC)
Mathematics
(SBAC)
English learner Graduation rate Suspension
rate
P2 41.1 points
above standard
(+14.4 points)
57.6 points
below
standard
(+14.6 points)
55.1% making
progress
(maintained
1.1%)
96.2%
(maintained 0.9%)
4.4%
suspended
(maintained
0.2%)
P3 110.3 points
above standard
(+8.7 points)
80 points
above
standard (+5.5
points)
46.3% making
progress
(-6.3%)
93.5%
(-3.8%)
1.3%
suspended
(maintained
0.2%)
P6 110.8 points
below standard
(-14.3 points)
191.3 points
below
standard
(maintained
0.2 points)
39.7% making
progress
(maintained
1.1%)
54.9%
(-23.2%)
6.2%
suspended
(+1.4%)
P10 52.2 points
below standard
(+25.9 points)
172.7 points
below
standard
(maintained
-2.3 points)
34.3% making
progress
(-10.6%)
91.2%
(-3.6%)
6%
suspended
(-1.1%)
P12 64.1 points
above standard
(maintained .6
points)
24.1 points
above
standard (+5.1
points)
53.7% making
progress
(maintained
1.8%)
94.5%
(maintained
-0.8%)
3.8%
suspended
(-0.7%)
As stated previously, the county demographic data were a metric utilized to select
interviewees alongside study participants’ survey responses. The survey responses allowed me to
identify principals with attributes of an equity-focused leader, as Grissom et al. (2021) and Radd
et al. (2021) defined. Radd et al. asserted that educational change requires a systemic and
transformative approach and offer five practices for equity-focused school leadership:
prioritizing equity leadership, preparing for equity, developing equity leadership teams, building
56
equity-focused systems, and sustaining equity. These practices were evaluated, in part, by survey
question four (Table 5). I also selected interviewees based on their willingness to participate.
However, despite efforts to interview more than five principals, five of the eight responded to the
interview request.
Table 5
Survey Question 4
Question Response options
To what degree is your definition of educational equity
reflected in your
school’s:
Curriculum
Student involvement (culture)
Disciplinary practices (climate)
Parent involvement
Access to higher level courses
Professional development
Sliding scale 1–10: 1 = slightly
reflected and 10 = highly
reflected
57
The following sections present this study’s results organized by RQ. For each question, I
present the results in themes, followed by a summary. The end of the chapter presents a
comprehensive summary of the study’s overall results. The RQs 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 for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 (RQ1) asked which factors of positionality the participants believed
inhibit and enhance their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders. Positionality is defined as “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). Recognizing our positionality plays a role in how we navigate our society,
and it is vital to understand our individual roles in the education system so that we can be in a
better position to improve it. The interviews revealed a theme of a correlation between the
principals’ positionality and their leadership style and identity.
58
Positionality and Leadership Style
All interviewees described how their positionality influences their leadership styles and
identities. P10 reflected on how his cultural upbringing and background shaped his collaborative
leadership style and ability to connect with diverse communities. P10 described his student
experience as a socioeconomically disadvantaged English learner who grew up in a single-parent
household. He stated that this experience required him to learn to navigate the school system,
which created a sense of resolve and resiliency. Furthermore, he stated,
You get mature, and you realize that these are the lessons and the things that made you
who you were. … My upbringing really taught me about living in a different world where
it was more White than Hispanic, and I had to learn how to play the game to be
successful.
P10 emphasized that he has learned to adjust his personality based on the population served and
to be aware of how others may view him. He also expressed gratitude for his upbringing and
experiences, as he believes they enable him to connect with diverse communities.
P12 described his experiences traveling abroad as broadening his perspectives and
allowing him to “walk in the shoes of individuals that, quite frankly, I wouldn’t have had the
opportunity to do if I hadn’t lived abroad.” He further shared that those experiences “shaped kind
of how I view and approach the various demographics on our campus in trying to ensure that
students feel heard, and their voices are part of our school.” P12 believes these experiences
taught him to listen, learn, and then act when striving to serve as an effective school leader.
P6 acknowledged her positionality as a White woman in education and recognized the
need to be conscientious of it to better serve students. She stated,
59
My ethnicity is not reflective of our student population, and so then, it’s about getting to
know these kids and their needs, and trying to be really conscious of doing everything I
can to understand their needs, understand where they’re coming from, and trying to find
the best ways to create a school environment that best fits their needs, and it never looks
the same.
P6 further stated that this influences her servant-based leadership style, prioritizing relationshipbuilding and intentional decision-making to achieve school goals.
P2 stated that she believed that positionality should influence her as a leader: “You have
to understand who you are. In order to help support others, you have to know that you have a lot
to offer. Right?” She further reflected on the intersectionality of her gender and race and her
experiences as the only Latina principal in the district. She is open with staff and students about
her experiences, including her first-generation college student experience, and leads with it. She
shared the internal conflict she confronted when deciding to own her positionality: “To me, I
used to not do that as much because I felt like it was arrogance, right, but I have completely
changed my perspective on that piece. Because you have to use your positionality for good.”
Additionally, she shared that she has observed how sharing her background and experiences can
be empowering for young girls and people (parents and staff) with similar backgrounds. P2 leads
with her identity as a Latina and uses her positionality to advocate for marginalized students.
P3 shared his reflection on his somewhat privileged upbringing as a middle-class White
male and how it shaped his understanding of education and opportunity. He also stated that he
recognizes that he may not understand or
60
totally grasp all the really difficult parts of people who have less opportunity than [he],
but [he] can try to understand it and can try to help people have more opportunity and
really use education to their advantage and make it work for them.
P3 stated that his positionality influenced his leadership style, which focused on setting high
expectations for staff, being collaborative, and acknowledging the established staff at his school.
Summary of RQ 1 Results
The interview results collected in relation to RQ 1 demonstrate how the participants view
themselves and how their leadership style and identities reflect their lived experiences. Boske
(2009) argued that principals must examine how their lived experiences have shaped their
worldview, the positionality they hold, and whether they possess a desire to enact social justice
and “fight for the moral purpose of education” (p. 124). I believe each interviewee spoke
honestly about the implications of their positionality on themselves and others. The interviewees
who identify as White also owned their privilege, attempted to identify blind spots in relation to
non-Whites, and communicated their passion for providing opportunities to all students.
Results Research Question 2
Research Question 2 (RQ2) asked what political systems hinder/limit the participants
from creating an equity-focused campus. Ladson-Billings (2006) and Westover (2020) asserted
that the inequities that permeate our nation’s educational system are grounded in the institutional
and structural factors that act as barriers to enacting equity-focused leadership. Ladson-Billings
described the inequity of resources and current school funding structures as educational debt.
Moreover, Westover (2020) argued that district leadership is “the most critical factor to
advancing progress and sustaining improvement efforts” (pp. 7–8). Therefore, coherence across
the district and district leadership support is key to leading for equity (Westover, 2020). The data
61
related to RQ2 were principally derived from the survey and interviews. Table 6 presents the
survey data. The themes that emerged from the data analysis are the internal and external
challenges principals face in promoting equity and the impact of district support.
Table 6
Results From Survey 1
Principal Degree to which the
people who work around
you in your district
enhance/limit the
practices to support
equity?
Received training to
help implement equitycentered practices?
Degree to which your
district encourages PD
to promote equity
practices
P1 Enhance Yes Encourage
P2* Enhance No Does not encourage
P3* Enhance Yes Encourage
P4 Significantly enhance Yes Strongly encourage
P5 Enhance Yes Somewhat encourage
P6* Enhance Yes Encourage
P7 Enhance Yes Strongly encourage
P8 Significantly enhance Yes Encourage
P9 Enhance Yes Encourage
P10* Significantly enhance Yes Strongly encourage
P11 Enhance No Encourage
P12* Enhance Yes Strongly encourage
Average Enhance Yes Encourage
Note. *Principals interviewed
62
Internal/External Challenges
When asked about the challenges P10 confronts in leading for equity, he highlighted
adults’ egos and politics. He stated that “the world has become a little bit different, and the
selective use of wanting to argue about things that don’t necessarily have to be an issue rather
than trying to do what’s right for kids” hinders his ability to lead for equity. “People who just
want to have a political argument is kind of frustrating because I waste more time being political,
rather than take action and utilizing my time more wisely to handle the things that shouldn’t take
me that long to deal with.” However, he expressed that he believes it is important to still engage
in a conversation and be genuine and understanding of other points of view, without judgment,
as he believes “it allows you to identify some wiggle room where you can you still connect and
work with them to promote equity.”
P12 identified political strife and the pandemic as the challenges he confronts when
leading for equity. P12 reflected upon his 1st year as a high school principal during the 2019–
2020 school year. He shared his experience of leading in a time when the world was navigating a
pandemic: “I tell you, one of the things that I wasn’t prepared for, and I think some of it was a
result of the pandemic, the political strife that takes place on our campus.” “I feel sometimes
we’re at the front line of some of those political debates … kind of take us away from educating
students, and we’re dealing with stuff on the outside.” To maintain his focus on equity, he
utilizes an individual approach by following up with staff members and parents who express
concerns. He listens, attempts to learn, and then acts.
P2 shared an example of resistance from teachers on implementing accommodations for
students with disabilities while highlighting the challenge of balancing individualized support
with fairness for all students. She spoke about needing to create a familial environment for her
63
staff, students, parents, and herself: “I need to be in an environment that’s going to nurture
reflection and improvement and honest conversations. This also must be in place with district
leadership.” She also shared how she sometimes must “hide equity initiatives” to reduce
potential resistance from staff and those who she would consider to be “the loudest voices” with
a small following:
That has been, I think, my biggest struggle as a leader because then it ties you. Like, you
can’t really implement these great ideas, especially when I’m trying to stay true to my
belief that it needs to come from them. It can’t just be something that I come out and say,
“We’re going to just do this because.”
She must also consider, “Is it going to happen? Is it going to stay there past, you know, me? Is it
going to be sustainable? If not, then what am I having them work so hard for, right?”
She also expressed the internal conflicts she confronts about the best way to lead
initiatives on campus that promote equity because she wants to wait and wants staff to see it. She
wants the “big Jedi mind trick” to happen, but it doesn’t, so she hides the “equity” term and just
does what is right. She shared an example of increasing access to honors courses by utilizing her
positionality to advocate for migrant students and having conversations with staff. Lastly, P2
emphasized a principal knowing the history of the campus and the staff to lead effectively.
P6 lamented external pressures and shifting public perception in public education. She
stated, “There are so many challenges in public education. Where do you start?” She believes
that principals spend too much time on administrative tasks related to operations and procedures
rather than in classrooms and student intervention meetings. She also stated that “more than
anything, if we had a way as a system to minimize all of the outside pressures and the things that
interfere,” then it would allow her to lead:
64
It is also just a little bit sad kind of the public shift in sentiment toward public schools
because sometimes you’re fighting that battle of public perception and social media and,
you know, other truths getting out there that aren’t the truth of … what’s going on. So,
there’s, there’s a lot, but I would say, if we could have more space to just focus on what
we’re here to focus on, it would be really helpful.
In light of the challenges faced, P6 stated that addressing resistance to equity initiatives
requires individual conversations and open dialogue, recognizing that each person brings their
experiences and perspectives to the conversation:
We still all have biases that we’re not aware of, or that creep up when we don’t even
realize. It doesn’t make you overtly sexist, or racist, or any of those things. It just means
that we’re all programmed by the society we grow up in, and the things that we see, and
the things that we’re exposed to. So, the more we talk about this, the more, like,
deprogramming we do for ourselves.
P3 shared the challenges of maintaining a work-life balance and the importance of
shifting mindset. He shared, “I don’t let things become a hindrance.” He looks for a way to make
things work: “I try to find ways to win, always try to find ways to make things work, and get us
where we need to be. I don’t want to accept that we’re going to lose.” He further highlighted
shifting mindsets, such as moving away from a culture of exclusivity and toward a focus on
student learning and growth for all students. He recognized “it sounds crazy,” but he attributes
his ability to lead for equity to his winner mindset.
District Support
The interviewees indicated a response of “enhance” to the survey question on the degree
to which the people who work in their districts enhance or limit practices to support equity. They
65
also emphasized receiving district support and guidance in cultivating an inclusive environment
and striving for equity. P2 expressed frustration about the lack of support from her previous
superintendent and overall district support. She believes she could have been further ahead in her
leadership and direction with her staff if she had received the support: “I think we underestimate
the impact that the district can have, right, if there is no district vision that focuses on that, I can’t
pull from anywhere. So, I’m having to do this on my own.” She highlighted the importance of a
district vision in leading for equity, as a lack of vision can hinder their ability to effectively
support new teachers and build a culture of equity. Moreover, she expressed a desire for
culturally relevant teaching and a deeper understanding of its impact on Hispanic families.
Despite P3 and P2 serving in the same district, P3 shared a very different perspective on
his district’s support. He shared that he has had some informal training over the years and
believes that his ability to lead for equity is instinctual. He also shared that his district offers
support by sending teachers to conferences. P6 shared that her district offered intentional
diversity, equity, and inclusion training, which was impactful and specific: “We started with the
administrators, and then throughout the school year, we had the trainers actually come to our site
to meet individually with our staff.” She also acknowledged the need for sustainability with
training initiatives, citing the need for ongoing conversations and professional development to
address biases and promote inclusivity. Therefore, P6 desires more resources, including trained
professionals, to address diverse students’ needs on her campus for sustainable change.
P10 has received training on equity through the district’s annual equity conference and
through the collaborative relationship and support afforded to him by the district’s Director of
Equity. He also shared that the district modeling equity and inclusivity as a priority is key, such
as with the district’s promotion of cultural celebrations of students, such as with an upcoming
66
Black History Month celebration. The autonomy the district provides him to hire administrative
staff also allows him to diversify his administrative team and call people in with differing
perspectives for his own growth.
P12 stated that the diversity, equity, and inclusion training offered by the district was
very worthwhile. He further stated that the training offered by the district “enables us to have
conversations about equity. … It also requires for me to look within to be mindful of the biases I
may have, to do a better job at identifying where there are inequities on our campus.” He further
elaborated that he believed training is necessary as they require him “to reflect more and dig
deeper into some of the inequities that are certainly happening underneath the current, so to
speak, that otherwise may be missed.”
Summary of RQ 2 Results
The results of RQ2 indicate that the nation’s political climate influences school campuses
and poses challenges for principals to lead site equity initiatives. This was affirmed by
principals’ responses to leading for equity while avoiding using the “equity” term to further
avoid resistance from educational partners and maintain the focus on what students need.
Honig (2014) asserted that district leaders play an essential role in bridging and buffering
practices to advance schools, so they must avoid falling into a monolithic state of the status quo.
Therefore, to advance educational equity initiatives in schools, the interviewees articulated that
they need district support in the form of their site equity work aligning to the district’s vision of
equity, followed by district staff training, including principals building capacity to evaluate the
systems and structures in place to begin to lead toward student-centered change.
67
Results Research Question 3
Research Question 3 (RQ3) asked how participants believed that equity-focused
leadership contributes to student success. All interviewees indicated that they believe that equityfocused leadership transcends beyond their seats as principals as they strive to build capacity
among their staff to promote equity across their campuses. They focus on building relationships
and trust and engaging in collaborative efforts with staff to attempt to transform programs and
improve student outcomes. Fullan and Quinn (2016) stated that “deep collaborative work
requires new ways of working together, trust, shared leadership, sustained focus, and a
commitment to collaborative inquiry” (p. 66). The participants’ definitions of educational equity,
collected via the survey administered and interviews conducted, have led to the identification of
a theme of action enacted through relationships and trust.
A Call to Action
These principals’ experiences and convictions demonstrate that their commitment to
advance their individual definitions of equity acts as their driving force and their call to serve as
equity-focused leaders. P3 identifies educational equity as “helping every student have
opportunity and access to high-level education. It also means that for some historically
marginalized groups, there needs to be more focus on ways to mitigate obstacles that impede
their way forward.” P3 aims to ensure that all students are aware of their options and have access
to resources for their goals. One way he achieves this is by building capacity among teachers to
teach diverse learners by promoting professional development and adopting instructional
programs that help teachers adapt their instruction and contribute to student success. He enacts
equity-focused leadership by addressing inequities in current systems in place by gathering data
and building consensus among staff, highlighting the need to adapt to student needs. P3 believes
68
that “no matter who you are, where you come from, or where your background is, we try to put
students in a position and build them up and fill the gaps in knowledge.” He also emphasizes
leading by example, expecting honesty from others, and looking at the data using formative
instructional assessments “to bring kids to where they need to be.”
P12 believes that taking the time to listen, learn, and then act allows him to build trust
and relationships, ultimately allowing him to influence people [staff] to engage in leading for
equity. He defines educational equity as “each and every student has access to the resources and
educational opportunities they need to learn and thrive academically.” He mentioned that equity
requires an environment where students feel included, and he does this by meeting with cultural
clubs and expecting all clubs and their leaders to participate in a schoolwide unity week. He also
expressed hope that his equity-focused leadership will “increase opportunities for students to
reach their academic and outside of the realm of academic goals.”
P6 stated, “What we do in our classrooms is probably the most important thing that we
do. And so, one of my primary jobs is supporting teachers so that they can be great for our
students.” P6 defines educational equity as “meeting students where they are and providing them
with the support to succeed.” She believes measuring the impact of equity-focused leadership is
crucial, and culture shift on campus is a key indicator of success. “I think that how we feel as
adults impacts everything, and it impacts the students.” With this idea in mind, she prioritizes
getting teachers the resources they need to be effective and providing meaningful professional
development that will contribute to a positive campus culture. She works with staff to gain their
trust and ensure they can intervene with what a student needs, whether it is mental health, socialemotional, or instructional support, to ensure that students are recognized as having different
needs.
69
P10 believes that being present is important to building connections and advancing equity
on campus. He recognizes that parents and community members are central to this effort. He
stated that despite his efforts, it often feels like he is “spinning [his] wheels. Ultimately, [his]
goal is to create positive experiences for students.” He defines educational equity as “equal
access, agency, inclusivity, a safe environment, and creating opportunities for students to be
successful.” He is committed to working with teachers to create environments where students
can thrive and believes he can do so by engaging with staff “as human beings.”
P2 believes that her leadership is aimed at fostering a sense of belonging among her team,
which she believes leads to increased productivity and a willingness to support each other. She
identified equity as a “non-negotiable” and is willing to engage in courageous conversations with
staff about what students need. She believes her ability to empower teachers through continuous
communication and follow-through will lead to increased motivation and transformative change
within her school. She defines educational equity as
When you identify the needs of your students, looking at data inclusive of demographic
data, and adapt your school site system to address their needs. Also, the intentionality in
how you structure your on-campus programs and pathways based on student needs and
demographics.
She also argues that equity begins in the classroom and in the flexibility she has to
construct a master schedule and manage a school budget. This allows her to build a structure to
create a very inclusive environment for students and staff intended to be supportive of teachers’
ideas and put students’ needs first.
70
Summary of RQ 3 Results
Throughout the interview responses, there was a theme of teachers’ impact on classroom
instruction, shared leadership, and expectations. Westover (2020) asserted that people can lead
from any seat, a concept evident in the leadership of the principals’ interviews as they called
upon site leaders (defined as department chairs and teacher leaders) to lead for equity and
promote student success. A few principals also shared that their commitment to student success
for all students was articulated and carried out in their actions to staff. Many mentioned that it
was a non-negotiable, which required trust and relationships to engage in individual
conversations with staff, the very people who shared the responsibility of removing barriers for
students. Therefore, when principals prioritized budling capacity with staff and investing in the
resources needed to empower staff, they did so without hesitation. The principals undeniably
asserted that equity-focused leadership must permeate the campus, beginning with themselves,
their staff, and the structures and systems established to positively contribute to student success.
Results Research Question 4
Research Question 4 (RQ4) asked how the participants believe they enact specific
strategies to cultivate an inclusive school environment. Khalifa et al. (2016) highlighted the
positive impact of the school principal employing culturally responsive leadership practices as it
relates to school curriculum, culture, policy and structure, and teacher efficacy. Despite the
varying degrees that principals’ definition of educational equity (as identified in the previous
section) is reflected on their campus, they all described their efforts to cultivate an inclusive
school environment. They outlined specific strategies to address teacher efficacy, evaluate policy
and structures, promote a culture of belonging, and adapt instructional and curriculum to meet
diverse learners’ needs. Information was gathered through principals’ survey responses (Table 7)
71
and interview responses. Two themes emerged related to RQ4: the specific strategies enacted to
cultivate an inclusive environment and how they measured the effectiveness of their efforts.
Table 7
Results From Survey 2
Degree to which educational equity is reflected in
Curriculum Student
involvement
(culture)
Disciplinary
practices
(climate)
Parent
involvement
Access to
higher
level
courses
Professional
development
P1 7 9 7 7 8 7
P2 8 7 7 9 10 9
P3 9 8 8 8 8 8
P4 9 8 8 6 10 9
P5 9 10 10 7 10 9
P6 9 7 10 4 9 10
P7 7 8 8 7 9 8
P8 9 9 9 8 9 8
P9 7 8 9 6 8 9
P10 5 6 7 8 9 9
P11 4 7 6 4 8 7
P12 7 9 7 7 7 7
Average 7.36 7.93 8.07 6.36 8.36 8.43
72
Cultivating an Inclusive Environment
P3 stated that his school has over 100 clubs that students can join and the resources to
accommodate all student learners. He believes he is creating an inclusive school environment by
placing the best teachers with the students who need them most. For example, “Our best English
teacher is teaching English language development [courses]. … We are also giving kids
opportunities to take higher level courses when maybe they didn’t think it would work.” He
advocates for “pushing kids to realize their potential” and strongly believes that he will
accomplish his goal by offering pre-AP courses taught by highly effective teachers. He wants
students to know that they are capable regardless of their background.
P12 attempts to establish an inclusive environment by meeting student club leaders and
promoting cultural clubs such as a Black student union and Latino clubs. He wants “students to
have somewhat of a relationship with [him], to where they feel comfortable to have
conversations about cultivating inclusivity through clubs.” He also highlighted an additional club
solely established intended to unite all clubs and their annual school initiative of a unity week as
an example of their work: “Unity week is about promoting each other, their cultural backgrounds
and identities and is an opportunity for teachers to join in and work with our students to ensure
that their voices are being heard.” He also shared strategies for building buy-in for equity work
on campus with staff by being intentional about allocating time in staff meetings for equity
discussions and meeting with resistant staff members individually. He also highlighted his site’s
equity team, which is comprised of staff members who share the responsibility of working
toward equity for all and holding him accountable. They, too, are afforded time to speak at staff
and school leadership meetings.
73
P6 described creating an inclusive school environment by providing resources for
students, including hiring a full-time case manager to support students until age 24. She
emphasized creating an inclusive environment on campus where students feel valued and
connected. To achieve this, she hosts in-person new student orientation sessions so that students
and their families can begin to form connections with her as the principal and school support
staff. She partners with outside organizations to fill the gaps for students, such as by acquiring
additional therapy services for her socioeconomically disadvantaged student population, which
makes up 76.9% of the total student population. She established a student leadership class to
provide students with an opportunity to provide input regarding school culture and climate. She
continuously offers professional development to teachers to equip them to teach diverse learners
such as English Learners. Related to classroom instruction and student learning, she stated, “It’s
not enough just for them to get the credits. They need to be learning. We need to be intentional
about it. This is where we run into equity issues, when our kids are getting less than other kids”,
in terms of their learning experiences.
P10 provided an example of how he cultivates an inclusive environment on his campus.
He described an alternative to a suspension program that provides social-emotional support to
students, reducing the need for suspension. He believes some of his students “do not have the
family background where they can sit down and actually help them process what they did wrong,
or what they should be doing differently.” He describes this program as “a game changer”
because it allows him to have a teacher helping students with replacement behaviors and
processing what they did wrong. In this program’s 1st year, he saw the largest decrease in
suspension rates he had ever seen in its first year of implementation and then shared that he had
minimal gains after that. Nevertheless, he believes that continually reduced suspension rates are
74
a positive. A decline of 1.1% in his school’s suspension rate was reported on the 2023 California
School Dashboard.
P2 stated that “accountability is a big thing.” She has been explicit about her expectations
and directive of continuously celebrating all students. To accomplish her expectations, she began
writing a weekly newsletter to celebrate the students and what they were doing, which is not a
district trend or expectation of all schools. She believes “all students should feel included and
safe at their school site, including the LGBTQ population.” Therefore, her school no longer
utilizes the gendered terms “king” and “queen” for homecoming and prom celebrations.
Additionally, she requires all teachers to provide a second roster to all substitutes that identify
students’ preferred names and pronouns. She provides space and encourages the creativity of her
teachers, which she believes has allowed her teachers to feel “comfortable enough to just ensure
that our students are feeling safe and heard throughout the campus.” She stated that this work
“will definitely be a highlight of her principalship.”
Indicators of Equity-Focused Leadership Effectiveness
Although many interviewees make conscious efforts to cultivate inclusive environments,
none knew whether their efforts were effective and could not provide clear indicators of success.
P3 stated, “I just, I think seeing really is believing. If everybody is showing growth, if
everybody’s moving forward, everybody is expanding their potential and are ready and prepared
for that next phase.” He also monitors AP course enrollment to ensure it is proportional to the
students served, reviews student grades at each grading period, and analyzes student survey data.
He stated that “those are the things that we can grab and constantly monitor.” He also shared that
being self-reflective about who is doing what and where they are is critical to determining
effectiveness.
75
P12 appeared confused when asked to identify how he measures the effectiveness of his
equity-focused leadership. He replied, “Well, that’s a good question.” He cited two surveys as a
key tool to measure his impact: a staff principal’s survey, which includes a specific question on
equity, and a school climate survey administered by his site equity team. He said, “Those are two
things that we do to attempt to determine and gauge where we’re at.”
P6 highlighted the challenges of analyzing data when students are transient, as it can be
difficult to measure longitudinal impact. She shared that, as school staff, they have discussed
challenges with measuring student well-being and campus culture, although they utilize a student
survey and professional development surveys for staff. P10 could not identify a specific metric
for measuring the impact of their equity-focused leadership but shared that he relies on the
California Healthy Kids Survey administered in Grades 9 and 11 to provide insight into their
school’s progress. He also closely monitors student suspension rates to determine if the
alternative suspension program is effective in keeping students in school.
Lastly, P2 stated, “I don’t know. There’s no real way.” However, she believes she can utilize
school attendance rates, grade data, student enrollment in higher-level courses (AP/honors
courses), the expansion of teaching teams for intervention courses, intervention course offerings,
and the overall staff climate measured by whether equity initiatives pass. Additionally, she
shared that she has data-driven conversations, and by looking “at all of those data points, and
celebrating them enough, that’s where she would see the improvement at some point.” She
believes “all of it is working together, and our kids are doing much better.”
Summary of RQ 4 Results
Principals expressed that they believe that they enact strategies to cultivate an inclusive
school environment, and they provided specific examples of such strategies. However, despite
76
their average responses to the survey questions on the degree to which educational equity is
reflected in multiple facets of their campuses, they could not provide an example of how each is
achieved (Table 7). Furthermore, regarding how they measure their equity-focused leadership’s
effectiveness, many had difficulty providing specific data points and relied on previously utilized
metrics and their ability to gauge school culture and climate as indicators of effectiveness.
Study Results Summary
This study’s results present a shared conviction among all interviewees to be selfreflective, collaborative, accountable, and determined to ensure all students graduate high school
equipped to succeed in their post-secondary goals. Research Question 1 intended to understand
the implications of positionality from the lens of high school principals. The interview results
indicated that all interviewees were cognizant of their positionality and how it influences their
ability to lead. Those who identify as White believed that their privilege and positionality did not
inhibit their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders, as this required them to be even more aware
and willing to learn from other experiences and avoid color blindness. The principals who
identify as Hispanic expressed pride in their ethnic and cultural background and believed it
enhanced their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders because they relate to students who face
similar tribulations or hold the same cultural values and traditions. However, some expressed
that their positionality could inhibit their leadership depending on their setting, populations
served, and community makeup, and they had to rely on learning how to “play the game.”
Research Question 2 highlighted the impact of the current political climate, district
support, and staff members who oppose equity initiatives as political systems and factors that
hinder or limit a principal’s ability to create an equity-focused campus. Grissom et al. (2021)
argued that a principal’s effect on student achievement is significantly greater than that of a
77
teacher. Therefore, when principals, such as those interviewed for this study, feel that they lack
district support, they report that it limits their ability to lead for equity.
Regarding RQ3, principals asserted that they believe their equity-focused leadership
contributes to student success in various forms, such as through their servant leadership practices
of putting their followers first (Northouse, 2022). Additionally, their intentional efforts to allow
others to lead allow for shared leadership opportunities for staff and build the capacity of site
leaders to promote collective ownership. Grissom et al. (2021) noted that a principal’s practice of
coaching teachers yields positive student outcomes. Some principals reported that their explicit
statements to staff and their actions regarding equity allowed them to establish their priorities.
However, their actions often met resistance from educational partners, including staff, which
required that they rely on the relationships and trust they had built with staff to engage in an
individual conversation through a humanizing pedagogical approach (del Carmen Salazar, 2013).
Through their efforts to stand firm in their disposition and their commitment to achieving equity
when facing equity resistors, they can begin to evaluate inequities in school systems and
structures to advocate for change.
Despite the efforts and beliefs outlined by each interviewee, they appeared challenged by
the request to provide specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive environment at their sites
relative to RQ4. The most common strategies mentioned were clubs, collaborative opportunities
for students and staff to provide input on school culture and climate, and student access to higher
level courses. However, when asked how they measure their effectiveness as s equity-focused
leaders and their strategies to cultivate and inclusive environment, many could not identify data
points utilized to measure their impact. The next chapter provides implications for practice and
recommendations for future research.
78
Chapter Five: Discussion
This chapter summarizes the findings of a study centered on the implications of equityfocused leadership. It discusses key research findings to equip current and aspiring high school
principal practitioners with the tools to promote inclusive school environments and advance
educational outcomes for all students. Additionally, the chapter discusses recommendations for
future research related to this study.
This study focused on the underperformance of students of color on standardized tests
compared to their White peers (Turner, 2020). It also centers the marginalization of students of
color as reflected in the educational structures that sustain practices of deculturalization and a
settler colonial mindset, as evidenced by the “White Supremacist Project” (Tuck & GaztambideFernández, 2013). Furthermore, this study utilized a CRT lens, which is intended to “challenge
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”
(Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, p. 2). Ultimately, this study aimed to identify the practices equityfocused high school principals enacted and the attributes they possess to create an inclusive
environment for all students on their campuses. 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 qualitative design consisting of a survey and interview. I
applied convenience sampling to administer a survey to 12 current California high school
principals who had worked at their schools for 2 years or more and served a marginalized student
population. I then utilized the survey to identify potential interviewees. The criteria for
interviewees were that of the survey; however, I used their responses to Survey Questions 3 and
4 (Appendix A) to select interviewees. I conducted semistructured interviews with five of the 12
respondents. I confronted significant challenges in recruiting interviewees, as many survey
respondents were unwilling to be interviewed. Therefore, I interviewed five principals, one of
whom currently serves at a continuation high school (P6). This topic will be discussed further as
a limitation of this study later in this chapter.
Findings
Study findings suggest a correlation between a principal’s positionality and leadership
style. Also, trust and relationships are essential to leading for equity, and shared leadership
promotes staff buy-in. The findings suggest that district support of equity initiatives is critical to
serve as an anchor for the work principals are expected to enact, and they outline specific
strategies principals implement to foster an inclusive school environment. Lastly, the findings
reveal the absence of equity-focused leadership metrics, which do not act as deterrents but cause
some uncertainty related to the ability to determine effectiveness. Six themes emerged related to
the study’s four RQs. This section presents a summary and discussion of the findings in
relationship to extant literature and current practice. Furthermore, Table 8 demonstrates
similarities between this study’s findings and Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) work.
80
Table 8
Comparison of LEAD Tool Equitable Leadership Practices and Themes That Emerged
Regarding Equitable Leadership Practices
Key equitable leadership practices Themes
Construct and enact an equity vision.
Supervise for improvement of equitable
instruction.
Develop organizational leadership for equity.
Foster an equitable school culture.
Allocate resources.
Hire and place personnel.
Collaborate with families and communities.
Engage in self-reflection and growth for
equity.
Model ethical and equitable behavior.
Influence the sociopolitical context.
Examining positionality and leadership style
Navigating internal and external barriers
Building trust and relationships with school
staff
Allowing others to lead
Aligning site work with the district vision
Gaps in measuring equity-focused leadership
Research Question 1
Qualitative data related to RQ1 produced one finding regarding the correlation between a
principal’s positionality and leadership style. Interview responses demonstrated that principals
were aware of their positionality and how it hinders or limits their ability to lead for equity. They
emphasized self-reflection and the need to examine the educational partners served. Based on
those served, the principals stated that they would often need to adjust their leadership approach.
The exercise of self-examination is key for leaders to recognize how their positionality impacts
their leadership practices. This assertion is further supported by the work of researchers Ishimaru
and Galloway (2014):
To lead for equity, individuals must deeply examine their own identities, their own biases
and assumptions, their values, and their positions on racism, classism, sexism,
81
homophobia, religion, age, ableism and language of origin, and how these impact their
leadership practice. (p. 118)
Coupled with descriptions of their positionality, many principals described their
leadership styles as influenced by the factors associated with their positionality, such as their
cultural upbringing, race, ethnicity, and gender. They stated that they prioritize a servant-based
leadership approach and collaboration due to their lived experiences and those of marginalized
students. Northouse and Lee (2022) described servant leadership as “putting followers first” (p.
76). Servant leaders also strive to cultivate an atmosphere of collaboration and create an
inclusive equitable education system (Northouse, 2022). Goleman (2004/2011) noted the
importance of emotional intelligence related to effective leadership, particularly self-awareness
and a leader’s ability to recognize how their identity impacts their leadership.
Finally, del Carmen Salazar (2013) described tenets of humanizing pedagogy, which
centers all humanity. All interviewees described this approach as utilized when confronting
internal and external challenges. The fourth and fifth tenets of humanizing pedagogy directly
align with the beliefs held by the principal participants and further demonstrate the need for
principals to enact these tenets to serve as equity-focused leaders. Del Carmen Salazar (2013)
described the fourth and fifth tenets of humanizing pedagogy as “(4) critical reflection and action
can transform structures that impede our own and others’ humanness, thus facilitating liberation
for all, and (5) educators are responsible for promoting a more fully human world through their
pedagogical principles and practices” (p. 128).
The literature cited throughout this section supports the assertion that a principal’s
positionality correlates to their leadership style and approach, and through self-reflecting on their
positionality, they can confidently identify their leadership style and lead for equity with
82
conviction. Boske (2009) argued that principals must examine their positionality and whether
they possess a desire to enact social justice and “fight for the moral purpose of education” (p.
124), while Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) asserted that this examination is necessary and
impacts a leader’s practice.
Research Question 2
The survey and interview data produced two findings. The first emerged from internal
challenges in the form of resistant staff and limited resources. The interviewees did equity work
without calling it “equity” to minimize staff resistance. This approach further demonstrates the
notion of interest convergence and a settler colonial mindset in the educational system. LadsonBillings (1998) stated 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” (p. 7). Furthermore,
educational structures of power perpetuate practices of deculturalization and policies grounded in
a settler colonial mindset to maintain Whiteness at the center as the superior race. Hence, the
interviewees feel they need to mask their equity work as something other than equity.
Many principals also indicated that they needed additional funding to increase staffing
and provide students with the instructional and social-emotional support they need. They also
shared that increasing funding resources would allow them to provide ongoing professional
learning opportunities to all staff, including administrators, to examine their biases and
instructional practices. Ladson-Billings (2006) highlighted the disparities in school funding
through her work to identify educational debt and present the gaps in funding structures that
primarily affect marginalized students. Despite the principals’ efforts to provide and encourage
professional learning opportunities to staff, many felt discouraged by the lack of training
opportunities and district support, which led to the second finding related to RQ2.
83
The second finding emerged as principals described external challenges, which consisted
of the nation’s political climate and its infiltration into schools, reinforcing the need for district
support. “When leaders go public with their convictions, leadership becomes political” (Ishimaru
& Galloway, 2014, p. 119). District support is critical to stand firm in its conviction to achieve
equity for all students so that they all feel seen, valued, and heard. It also provides coherence
across the district, outlining the priorities for staff and constituents. It is also critical for leaders
to communicate and exemplify their values and non-negotiables. Ishimaru and Galloway (2014)
asserted,
Leaders for equity must go public with their convictions and translate them into action,
making clear to their communities that they stand for democratic and caring school
cultures; culturally responsive, rigorous, and socially just curriculum; equitable
resources; and deep and authentic parent and community partnerships. (p. 118)
This finding reinforces the idea that structural and institutional factors act as barriers to
advancing equity-focused leadership, as presented in this study’s conceptual framework (Radd et
al., 2021).
Honig and Rainey (2020) argued that direct central office support is essential to a
principal’s ability to lead toward improved student outcomes. Honig and Rainey asserted that
superintendents who focus on principals’ growth as instructional leaders are leading against the
typical business-as-usual district office approach. They stated that in doing so, “principal
supervisors” are
(a) teaching principals how to engage in a relatively recent and fundamental shift in their
own role to center their leadership on high-quality classroom teaching and learning, (b)
supporting principals’ instructional leadership growth in ways that their central office has
84
not traditionally emphasized, and (c) doing so in a role that principals and other
throughout their system have counted on for other things. (Honig & Rainey, p. 6)
These actions will turn central offices into “engines of educational equity” (Honig & Rainey,
2020, p. 7) and further equip principals for this work. The concept of improving instructional
practice to ensure equity for all is related to learning experiences and academic outcomes and
will be discussed further relative to RQ3, as principals consistently identified classroom
instruction as a focal point of their equity-focused leadership.
Research Question 3
Based on the educational equity definitions provided in the survey and interview
responses, one finding emerged relative to RQ3. The participants built trust and relationships
with educational partners, specifically staff, and provided space for shared leadership and
decision-making. Smith (2005) declared that culturally competent leaders adapt to diversity by
examining policies, procedures, and programs for discrimination. They create an inclusive
environment and encourage a variety of perspectives in decision-making, and they
institutionalize cultural knowledge by providing training about diversity and incorporating
cultural knowledge into the organization (Smith, 2005).
The interviewees described the value of building trust and relationships with staff as it
allows them to engage in reflective conversations about advancing equity efforts on campus and
reexamine their biases and beliefs. Through the relationships and trust, principals asserted they
could work with resistant staff and parents as they attempted to lead equity initiatives or enact
strategies and practices that led to an inclusive school environment. Additionally, they
emphasized allowing staff to lead others. They called fellow site leaders to work collaboratively
to implement change, lead initiatives, or develop a course of action to promote an inclusive
85
school environment and work toward equity. Principals recognized that leading for equity
requires collaboration and the empowerment of others to serve as co-conspirators and lead
alongside them. This collaborative approach is powerful, as Fullan and Quinn (2016) stated that
a leader must serve as the connector, activate others to engage and co-conspire in the work,
provide direction, and participate as an active learner. Additionally, Westover (2020) concluded
that building capacity among staff, tapping into their collective wisdom, and transforming
systems will lead to culture change and sustainability to improve outcomes for student learning.
Research Question 4
The data produced two findings. The first is that of strategies enacted. Ishimaru and
Galloway (2014) stated, “The principal plays a key role in building an inclusive school culture
by fostering collaboration, trust, and learning as well as climate of high expectations for both the
adults and the students in the school” (p. 114). Principals identified strategies that included
hosting events and activities that celebrated students’ diverse cultural backgrounds, collaborating
with student leaders and staff to promote such activities and school initiatives, developing new
programs to support particular groups of students, increasing staff resources to address students’
diverse needs, and adopting nonbinary language throughout the campus. Principals attributed
their inclusive efforts to collaborating with site leaders, emphasizing trust and relationships with
staff and students, as noted in the findings pertaining to RQ3. Fullan and Quinn (2016) asserted
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).
The second finding highlighted the absence of metrics to measure whether efforts to build
inclusive school environments and lead for equity were effective. According to interview results,
86
principals reported utilizing surveys administered to students such as the California Healthy Kids
Survey, student enrollment data in advanced placement and honors courses disaggregated by
ethnic background, and site-based surveys as metrics. However, many also expressed being
challenged by the question because they were unsure about how they could measure their
effectiveness and expressed a need to be able to do so. Grissom et al. (2021) found that a
principal’s effect on student achievement is significantly greater than that of a teacher.
Therefore, it is imperative that principals determine the effectiveness of their equity efforts to
inform their leadership as they work to improve students’ educational outcomes. In closing,
Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) “identify several gaps in the field’s understanding and assessment
of strategies for educational leadership for equity, that we hope future research …will address”
(p. 107).
Limitations
The limitations of this study reside in the generalizability of the results, as this study
heavily relied on self-reported qualitative data. I did not triangulate the data to affirm findings
and assert participants’ effectiveness due, in part, to the inability to gather student and
educational partner survey data. To overcome this concern of generalizability, I secured
credibility through the literature reviewed along with the student performance growth reported
on the 2023 California School Dashboard (Tables 3 and 4). It is important to note that the
dashboard’s data collection was suspended beginning in the 2019–2020 school year due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The dashboard’s performance levels were modified in the 2021–2022
school year before its original metrics were reinstated in the 2022–2023 term. Additionally, the
results are not generalizable due to the small sample despite my best efforts to recruit 20 survey
87
respondents and 10 interviewees. Nevertheless, the principals selected for this study served
Grades 9–12 and met all study participant criteria.
Implications for Practice
This study intended to identify the attributes associated with effective equity-focused
principals to offer practices for building an inclusive school environment and improved academic
outcomes for all students. Study findings identified themes related to leadership practices. The
first implication asserted is the importance of principals examining their positionality and its
possible implications on their leadership. The research further asserts this concept and
emphasizes the need for principals to be reflective in their practice and self-aware of their biases
and assumptions. Meeting this need requires creating psychologically safe spaces for principals
and site leaders to engage in this reflective work. It also illustrates the need to provide implicit
bias training for principals and site leaders.
The second implication demonstrates the value of building relationships and trust with
staff to advance equity efforts. This foundational tenet is key to collaborative inquiry and staff
empowerment to serve as champions for equity alongside their principal. As the participants
noted, this can be achieved by having individual conversations with staff and being visible on
campus. A third implication for practice is achieving coherence across a district. Doing so will
create a consistent message about the organization’s values and expectations surrounding equity
and reinforce equity-focused principals’ work. The fourth implication is the importance of
calling in students and staff to offer input and lead efforts to establish an inclusive school
environment. The recurring themes in the interviewees' strategies were shared leadership and
collaboration with educational partners. The final implication for practice is the need to identify
88
an evaluative or self-assessment tool for an equity-focused principal to assess their leadership
practices to determine effectiveness.
Future Research
The literature review highlighted a need to identify effective strategies to improve
outcomes for marginalized students. The strategies enacted must also be affirmed through
triangulation with educational partner survey data. Further research must also be conducted
regarding Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) 10 key equitable leadership practices to determine if
they advance educational equity.
There must also be additional research related to gaps in the evaluation of equity-focused
leadership, specifically to measure the effectiveness of the strategies enacted and principals’
leadership practices. Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) “three drivers of equitable leadership
practice” can be utilized as a self-assessment tool for principals (p. 103). The drivers act as
“indicators of more equitable leadership practice and outcomes for students “and have identified
“qualitatively the different actions that leaders may take, depending upon where their practice
lies along each continuum from little to no equitable practice to exemplary equitable practice”
(Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014, p. 101).
Lastly, research on the effects of external factors, such as the political climate and
parents, on a school board and its schools is important, as these are directly related to advancing
or disrupting a district’s equity work. The school board is a crucial factor to consider related to a
principal’s ability to examine policies and procedures to identify inequities and disrupt the status
quo aligned with the work of culturally responsive leaders, as Khalifa et al. (2016) described.
89
Conclusion
This study reinforced the notion of a principal’s significant impact on their campus, as
asserted by the many researchers cited throughout this study. However, through this study, it has
become evident that the advancement of educational outcomes for all students cannot be
achieved by one individual. Rather, it requires the collective efforts of many campus leaders.
“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” (Achor, 2018, p. 114).
The lifting up and centering of students who have traditionally and historically been
marginalized requires co-conspirators and allies. This study has reemphasized the demand to
empower others and call them into this work. Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) stated that
“Ongoing collaborative processes are woven into the equity work, and a distributed or shared
leadership approach is enacted through the practices and supported by structures and policies that
enable authentic engagement by multiple organizational leaders” (p. 105). This study offers
practitioners additional strategies to cultivate an inclusive school environment and insight into
the attributes possessed by equity-focused principals whose conviction is anchored in ensuring
all students are equipped to achieve their dreams.
90
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.
American Psychological Association. (2021). Equity, diversity, and inclusion framework.
https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/equity-division-inclusionframework.pdf
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
91
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
Butterfoss, J. K., & &. (2021, November 2). Equity-focused leadership: What does it look like in
action?: New leaders. New Leaders. Retrieved November 24, 2022, from
https://www.newleaders.org/blog/equity-focused-leadership-what-does-it-look-like-inaction
Byrd, C. M. (2016). Does Culturally Relevant Teaching Work? An Examination from Student
Perspectives. SAGE Open, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016660744
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2021). State trends.
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/reports/data/state-trends
California Department of Education. (2021). Ethnic studies model curriculum. California State
Board of Education. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/esmc.asp
California Department of Education. (2023). Local control and accountability plan (LCAP).
https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
Careers, Z. (2023, July 21). Teacher demographics and statistics [2024]: Number of teachers in
the US. https://www.zippia.com/teacher-jobs/demographics/
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.
92
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.
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).
93
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., & Bartanen, B. (2019). Principal effectiveness and principal turnover. Education
Finance and Policy, 14(3), 355–382. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00256
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.
Honig, M. I. (2014). Beyond the policy memo: Designing to strengthen the practice of district
central office leadership for instructional improvement at scale. National Society for the
Study of Education, 112(2), 256–273.
Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2020). Supervising principals for instructional leadership.
Harvard Education 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
Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L.B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (6th ed.). Sage.
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
94
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
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., & Tate, W. F. (2006). Toward a critical race theory of education. In A. D.
Dixson & C. K. Rousseau (Eds.), Critical race theory in education: All God’s children
got a song (pp. 11–30.) 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. (2019). 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
95
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/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/SuspendingOurFuture-6-1.pdf
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 Archives and Records Administration (2009). Twelfth Annual Report of the Board of
Education. University of Pittsburgh Library System.
https://ia801307.us.archive.org/17/items/annualreportofde18471848mass/annualreportofd
e18471848mass.pdf
96
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.
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
Radd, S. I., Generett, G. G., Gooden, M. A., & Theoharris, G. (2021). Five practices for equityfocused 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.
97
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.
Spatig-Amerikaner, A. (2012). Unequal education: Federal loophole enables lower spending on
students of color. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.uncf.org/wpcontent/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/k12-disparity-facts-and-stats
USAFacts. (2023). Los Angeles County, CA population by year, race, & more.
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/ourchanging-population/state/california/county/los-angeles-county/
98
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-diversityworkforce.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).
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.
99
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 unless
you consent to providing identifying information. The results of this study may be used to inform
professional development opportunities for educators and educational leaders. Your participation
in this survey is greatly appreciated and will help contribute to a better understanding of how the
collective we can create a more equitable and inclusive school community.
100
Table A1
Survey Items and Conceptual Framework Alignment
Q Survey questions Response choices
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 1st year serving as principal of
this school.
0–1
2–4
5–7
8+
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 1st year serving as principal of
any other school.
0–1
2–4
5–7
8+
Q3 How do you define educational equity? Open-ended Q
Q4 To what degree is your definition of educational equity
reflected in your school’s:
Curriculum
Student involvement (culture)
Disciplinary practices (climate)
Parent involvement
Access to higher level courses
Professional development
Sliding scale 1–10:
1 = slightly reflected and 10 =
highly reflected
Q5 To what degree do the staff at your school
enhance/limit the practices to address inequity?
Significantly enhance,
enhance, limit, significantly
limit
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
Q7 Have you received any training to help you implement
equity-centered practices?
Yes/No
Q8 To what degree does your district encourage you to
attend professional development intended to
promote equity practices?
Strongly encourage
Encourage
Somewhat encourage
101
Q Survey questions Response choices
Does not encourage
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/Black
Hispanic
White
Prefer to self-describe _____
Q10 How do you identify? Female
Male
Nonbinary
Prefer to self-describe _____
Q11 Name (first & last)
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended
Q12 Name of school
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended
Q13 Current position
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses will help me better
understand the practices of equity-focused leaders and how they are promoting inclusivity and
equity in their schools and districts. I appreciate your insights and your dedication to creating a
more equitable and inclusive educational system.
102
If you have any questions or concerns about this survey, please feel free to contact me at [insert
contact]. Once again, thank you for your participation and your valuable contributions to this
research.
103
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.
104
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)
105
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)
106
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)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary 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
Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows
PDF
The positionality and power dynamics of high school math departments
PDF
The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts
PDF
Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development
PDF
Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities
PDF
A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day
PDF
Teachers' perspectives on the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom: a gap analysis
PDF
An examination into leadership strategies that stop perpetuating the equity gap of historically marginalized students in high schools
PDF
The importance of the implementation process to achieve equity in the classroom through culturally relevant pedagogy
PDF
White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support
PDF
What can districts do to retain high school assistant principals?
PDF
Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model
PDF
Elementary school principals' impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California
PDF
Are students better off? An analysis of administrators’ commitment to serving transitional kindergarten students in multilingually diverse communities in Central Coast California
PDF
What can districts do to retain their high school principals?
Asset Metadata
Creator
Saenz, Charlene Jennifer
(author)
Core Title
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2024-05
Publication Date
04/11/2024
Defense Date
03/22/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
educational partners,equity-focused leadership,inclusion,marginalized students,OAI-PMH Harvest,positionality
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
cjsaenz09@apu.edu,saenzcha@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113871425
Unique identifier
UC113871425
Identifier
etd-SaenzCharl-12797.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SaenzCharl-12797
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Saenz, Charlene Jennifer
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
Tags
educational partners
equity-focused leadership
inclusion
marginalized students
positionality