University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

(USC Thesis Other)

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content The Attributes of Effective Equity-Focused Elementary School Principals
Erika Patricia Moreno
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 Erika Patricia Moreno 2024
All Rights Reserved

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

iv
Abstract
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, 2017). The purpose of the study is to identify what practices equityfocused principals have implemented to create an inclusive environment. The methodology for
this study included data from a survey and from open-ended interview questions that were
obtained from elementary school principals in Southern California public schools serving 2+
years at their current site. About 50 principals were invited to complete the survey. Survey
responses then helped determine which 5 principals were to be interviewed. Study findings
suggest that principals recognize the significant impact their personal backgrounds have had on
their practice as equity-focused leaders. Additionally, principals identified key attributes - such
as fostering collaboration, building trusting relationships with educational partners, and
transparency - that significantly enhances their ability to create inclusive school environments.
Findings underscore the critical role of elementary school principals in cultivating inclusive
school environments through collaborative partnerships, strategic training and professional
development, ongoing reflection, and the implementation of equitable schoolwide initiatives that
best meet the needs of their respective learning communities.
Keywords: critical race theory, educational equity, educational partners, equity-focused
leadership, inclusion, positionality.

v
Dedication
Para mi mami, who always wanted me to be a doctora. Le dedico este título, que significa todo
sus sacrificios, apoyo, y amor. ¡Gracias por todo, mami! Sin Ud, nada de esto sería posible.
To my husband, who always believed that this was going to be a possibility, even when I did not.
Your support was relentless, and I am beyond appreciative. Thank you for always taking care of
me and our little family. I love you.
To my beloved nieces, nephew, and godchildren. I dedicate this to you. Despite the challenges
we face in a world that is not meant for us, always remember that our strength lies in
perseverance. I promise to be your biggest cheerleader, supporting and encouraging you every
step of the way. Keep shining brightly babies, for the world awaits your brilliance.
And lastly, to my friends. I appreciate the words of encouragement, venting sessions, and
support. I’m back!

vi
Acknowledgements
This dissertation could not have been possible without the love, support, and
encouragement from my professional village. Foremost, I have benefited greatly from the
mentoring of Caprice Wade, Juan Reyes, Dr. Faye Peitzman, and Dr. Letitia Johnson-Davis,
whose guidance and wisdom have been instrumental in shaping my professional growth.
Additionally, I extend my sincere appreciation to my dissertation chair Dr. David Cash, and
esteemed committee members Dr. Rudolph Crew and Dr. Gregory Franklin for their invaluable
feedback and expertise.
The successful completion of this research endeavor owes much to the collaboration and
assistance of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals who generously shared
their insights and expertise. Their contributions enriched the depth and breadth of this study.
Furthermore, I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to my thematic group for
their unwavering support and enthusiasm throughout this journey. Their camaraderie and
understanding provided a source of motivation during challenging times.
As an assistant principal committed to fostering inclusive environments for students
living outside of the margins, this dissertation not only represents a scholarly pursuit but also a
testament to my dedication to advancing equity at our school sites.
For inquiries or further discussion regarding this research, please contact me at
epmoreno@usc.edu.

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, Charlene Saenz, 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.....................................................................................18
Leadership..........................................................................................................................20
The Role of Elementary School Principals in Equitable Education ..................................27
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................38
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................42
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................42
Research Questions............................................................................................................42

ix
Selection of the Population ................................................................................................43
Design Summary................................................................................................................44
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................46
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................48
Trustworthiness and Credibility.........................................................................................48
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................49
Researcher Positionality.....................................................................................................49
Summary ............................................................................................................................50
Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................51
Participants.........................................................................................................................51
Results for Research Question 1 ........................................................................................56
Results Research Question 2..............................................................................................59
Results Research Question 3..............................................................................................66
Results Research Question 4..............................................................................................69
Study Results Summary.....................................................................................................75
Chapter Five: Discussion ...................................................................................................77
Findings..............................................................................................................................78
Limitations.........................................................................................................................85
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................86
Future Research .................................................................................................................87
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................88
References......................................................................................................................................89
Appendix A: Survey Protocol........................................................................................................98
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................102
Interview Questions (With Transitions)...........................................................................102

x
Closing .............................................................................................................................105

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria 44
Table 2: Participants 52
Table 3: School Demographics Overview 53
Table 4: School Performance Overview 54
Table 5: Survey Question 4 55
Table 6: Results From Survey 1 60
Table 7: Results From Survey 2 70
Table 8: Comparison of LEAD Tool Equitable Leadership Practices and Themes That
Emerged Regarding Equitable Leadership Practices 79
Table A1 Survey Items and Conceptual Framework Alignment 99

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Visual Conceptual Framework 40

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 elementary 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 elementary 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 elementary 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., para. 1). This study sought to
identify the attributes equity-focused elementary 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

6
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” (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 elementary 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 elementary school principals in Southern California, and their
self-reported personal narratives and identification as equity-focused leaders. Survey and
interview questions related to equity-focused school leadership were limited to the relevance of
the research participants’ positionality and professional experiences. This study was delimited to
a specific number of elementary 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

7
how educational theory and practice are used to subordinate certain racial and ethnic groups” (p.
2).
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) describe 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. (2017) found that culturally
relevant pedagogy and culturally responsive teaching (CRRE) are not working. Martin et al.
noted that the ideas are good, but their implementation has not worked. The education system
does not allow some highly trained and effective teachers to make a difference. Martin et al.
(2017) acknowledged the work of Gay and Ladson-Billings and described that the CRRE they
call for is important and that we need to train teachers in that manner. There is a call for a radical
change to the entire system if there is going to be real change. Radical change needs to take place
for well-trained teachers to begin to make a difference in students’ lives; until that happens,
trained teachers cannot truly make a difference, and racism will continue (Martin et al., 2017).

16
Picower (2009) argued that the mistreatment of people of color began on the continent of
Africa, continued across the Middle Passage, and found a home in the American educational
system. Whites and Blacks have a painful relationship rooted in exploitation. Human life was
exchanged for raw materials during the Middle Passage, painting a picture of how Blacks were
valued. The over-disciplining of Black boys is an extension of the thoughts and behaviors
exhibited during the slave trade (Picower, 2009). This hierarchical relationship of Whites and
Blacks (Picower, 2009), where Blacks are beholden and subservient to Whites, entered the
classroom and learning environment as an unnatural replication of how the relationship started.
The most common ethnicity of teachers in the United States is White (68.8%), followed
by Hispanic or Latinx (12.9%) and Black or African American (10.1%; Zippia Careers, 2023).
Many students will graduate from high school having been taught only by White teachers
(Jordon-Irvine, 2003, as cited in Picower, 2009). This trend is not projected to change, as “80%
to 93% of all students currently in teacher education programs are White females” (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 students were evidenced by an increase in test scores
from three to five percent. However, there was an exception to this growth pattern relative to
Hispanic students and a negative correlation to being matched with a Hispanic teacher.
Researchers attributed this finding to the array of diversity in that population. Ultimately,
Sawchuk proposed that students who see themselves in their teachers have improved chances of
succeeding.
Individual/Interpersonal
When centering the gender discrimination women of color experience, it is necessary to
recognize and explicitly name intersectionality, which Crenshaw (2017, as cited in Duckworth,
2021) described as “a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it
locks and intersects. It is the acknowledgement that everyone has their own unique experiences
of discrimination and privilege” (para. 4). Failing to recognize a person’s identity through race,
gender, language, age, or education significantly impacts their perceived abilities to rise in a

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

19
Critical Race Theory in Education
Critical Race Theory (CRT) speaks to the history of the education system and the
perspective that the system is not made 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 in education.
Critical race theory states that the curriculum is developed to continue the dominance of
the White race. In other words, the curriculum is “designed to maintain a White supremacist
master script” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18). This master scripting “legitimizes the dominant,
white, upper-class, male voicings as the ‘standard’ knowledge that students need to know” by
silencing the voices of others (Swartz, 1992, as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18). Thus, the
whitewashing of Black history fits the narrative of the dominant group under the guise of
diversity and multiculturalism. An example is the telling of Rosa Parks’s actions as due to
tiredness and not activism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29
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,
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

30
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
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

31
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
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

32
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
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

33
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).
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.

34
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
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).

35
• ACL Characteristic 3: Group Consensus - using consensus building as the preferred
strategy for decision making (p. 369).
• 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

36
knowledge, valuing diversity, managing the dynamics of difference, adapting to diversity, and
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

37
and priority. There is urgency in envisioning education in ways that create equitable conditions
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
Chapter 2 has provided a comprehensive overview of the literature surrounding the
complex issue of educational equity and the role of elementary school leadership in fostering
inclusive environments. I have explored the multifaceted nature of systemic inequity, examining
historical, structural, institutional, and interpersonal dimensions that persist within our
educational system. Critical Race Theory has emerged as a critical framework for understanding
the ways in which curricula and policies have perpetuated racial disparities in education.
Moreover, I have delved in the essential components of equity-focused leadership, emphasizing
the needs for transformative practices at various levels of the educational system. As I move
forward in this study, it is clear that the challenges are substantial, but the potential for positive
change is equally significant. The research presented in this chapter underscores the urgency of
addressing systemic inequities in education and highlights the pivotal role that educational
leaders play in this endeavor.

41
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). Consequently, a principal’s leadership significantly impacts student outcomes as
well as the overall culture and climate of the school. Khalifa (2016) accentuates the constructive
influence of school principals who implement culturally responsive leadership practices, notably
in relation to school curriculum, culture, policies, organizational structure, and teacher efficacy.
Furthermore, research underscores the pivotal role of cultivating an inclusive school
environment, as an unsupportive campus climate can detrimentally affect the academic
performance and psychological well-being of students of color (Smith et al., 2007, as cited in
Lewis et al., 2019).

42
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 by Ladson-Billings (1998). Thirdly, there is a lack of coherence across
the district and district leadership support (Westover, 2020).

43
Individual and interpersonal factors must also be considered, as Fullan and Quinn (2016)
stated that the leader must serve as the connector, activate others to engage and co-conspire in
the work, provide a focused direction, and actively participate as a learner. Goleman’s
(2004/2011) research indicates that effective leaders possess the five skills associated with
emotional intelligence (self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill).
Principals must examine how their lived experiences shaped their worldviews, their
positionality, and whether they desire to enact social justice and “fight for the moral purpose of
education” (Boske, 2009, p. 124).
Furthermore, I conclude that “racism is ingrained in society and thus in education”
(Milner, 2007, p. 390). The researchers presented in this chapter argue that the racial
stratification of students has a significant impact on their ability to achieve academically,
socially, and emotionally. Therefore, principals must diversify staff so that students may see
themselves represented in staff members who support them, provide professional learning in
culturally relevant pedagogy, and model their conviction to advance all students’ educational
outcomes. Thus, principals must also be afforded opportunities to build capacity to serve as
equity warriors, both through administrative credential programs and in their local contexts as
practitioners. The next chapter describes the methods I utilized to conduct this study.

44
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?

45
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 elementary 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 elementarty 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 9
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.

46
Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria
Survey Interview
Years of elementary school principal
experience: 2 years or more at their
respective school site
Years of elementary 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
who might identify as equity-focused principals from various public school districts. Since this
study centered on equity-focused elementary 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,

47
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 elementary
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).
Qualitative Instrument

48
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 20
elementary 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.
The survey results and the data enabled me to establish a purposeful sample for
interviews. The group consisted of five elementary school principals with equity-focused

49
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 was also considered when conducting interviews, as consent, risk, and the
researcher’s positionality in relation to the participants was also 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 were given the option to review their interview transcripts to confirm their
responses. Interview transcript confirmation was a form member checking to ensure the
conclusions drawn from their responses were accurate, adding validity to the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 246).

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

51
varying positionalities and the types of schools they lead to ensure credibility (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
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
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, p. 10 as cited in Douglas and Nanga, 2013). I am a Latina with a hyphenated identity.
Being Salvadoran-American means that I am ni de aqui, ni de alla (neither from here, nor there).
This chasm in my identity has been quite the reality check for me, especially in navigating the
educational sphere. Patel (2016) presents two sides of a coin that “learning and education have
come to occupy in societies that stratify well-being for some and risk for others” (p. 398). I
followed the academic route, hoping that it would offer opportunities beyond what my parents,
who both had little to no formal education in their home country, had as immigrants in the
United States. Duncan-Andrade (2009) describes the false hope I experienced as hokey hope –
“an individualistic up-by-your-bootstraps hyperbole” that suggests if I just “work[ed] hard,
pay[ed] attention, and play[ed] by the rules,” I would then live out the American dream.
However, despite looking good on paper, life circumstances as determined by the
intersectionality of my gender, ethnicity, class, language, and culture did not actualize these
opportunities as readily as I would have imagined. I now know that this hope never
acknowledged the pain and trauma I experienced growing up. Unfortunately for me, academic

52
climate and social emotional learning weren’t valued when I was growing up. My goal as a
researcher is to engage in reflection and representation, and shift the self to the system (Milner,
2007) by using what I am passionate about in the advancement of knowledge (Maxwell, 2013).
Summary
This study used a qualitative methods approach. I collected data through interviews with
and surveys of elementary 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.

53
Chapter Four: Research Findings
“Educational equity means that each child receives what they need to develop to their
full academic and social potential” (National Equity Project, n.d., para. 1). The purpose of this
study was to identify how equity-focused school leaders’ attributes help them to cultivate an
inclusive school environment that sets underserved students up for success, utilizing a critical
race theory (CRT) and equity-focused leadership lens. Critical race theory seeks to challenge
prevailing notions of race and racism in education, and equity-focused leadership aims to
create inclusive environments, distribute resources equitably, and, ultimately, consider
marginalized students’ needs.
Participants
This study asked seven superintendents and assistant superintendents of education
services for permission to distribute a 13-question survey to their elementary school principals.
Of the seven districts, I received responses from nine principals representing five of the seven
districts. These nine respondents represented four counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San
Bernardino, and Riverside. They had an average of 5.67 years of experience at their school sites
and about 5.67 years of experience at other sites for an average of 8+ total years as principals.
Six self-identified as female, and three self-identified as male. Five self-identified as Hispanic,
and the remaining four self-identified as White. However, the five selected to be interviewed
were a White female, a White male, two Hispanic females, and a Hispanic male. They were
selected based on their survey responses, school profiles as outlined on the California School
Dashboard, and their availability to be interviewed. All participants work at public K–5
elementary schools in Southern California. Four work at sites with enrollment between 500 and

54
750 students, while one has an enrollment of 250 to 499. The following sections provide more
information on individual principals and their schools.
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)
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Female
White
White
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
Hispanic
White
White
8+
5–7
2–4
2–4
2–4
2–4
5–7
8+
5–7
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Orange
Orange
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No

55
This qualitative study used a survey and semi-structured interviews to collect data. Nine
principals were surveyed, of whom five were interviewed. I also examined school and district
documents that provided student achievement data relative to RQ 3 (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
These documents include school demographics, culture and climate data, the School
Accountability Report Card (SARC), the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CASPP), and the California School Dashboard. This data came from the participants’
districts, publicly available state information, and student information databases. All student data
excluded identifying information except for ethnic background for data analysis. This chapter
shares the results for each research question based on the themes that emerged from the data
analysis.
Using a CRT 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. The
four research questions that guided this study were 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?

56
Results: Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was as follows: What factors of positionality do principals believe
inhibit or enhance their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders? The purpose of this question
was to understand how a principal’s background, experiences, and beliefs shape their identity as
an educational leader and influence their ability to promote and implement equity initiatives at
their schools.
Positionality
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, p. 10, as cited in Douglas & Nanga, 2013). In recognizing the factors that
inform our own 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 & Nanga, 2013,
p. 61). Recognizing positionality plays a role in how we navigate our society, it is vital to
understand an individual’s role in the education system to be in a better position to improve it.
P1 identified a “love of people” as her best quality, which speaks to a central aspect of
her leadership style: building connections with staff, students, and the broader school
community. In terms of positionality, P1’s response reveals a deep connection to the community
she serves, specifying that they “are third generation in this immediate community.” She
attended elementary, middle, and high school in the district she serves and completed her student
teaching there. Her father served as a police officer in the same city. The sense of belonging and
a desire to give back to the same community where her roots are embedded is evident in her
statement, “I think that our family is deeply rooted in the community, and that has probably

57
impacted me and my desire to give back to this same community.” P1 finds that her positionality
enhances her effectiveness as an equity-focused leader.
P2 traces his desire to be an educational leader to “principals who didn’t have a lot of
training and had forgotten what it was like to be in the classroom.” As such, he attributes his
greatest trait to his “ability to authentically listen and frantically get to know [his] staff, students,
and families.” As for his positionality, his journey as an educational leader working in “tough
neighborhoods,” a dual language school, and a Title I school has given him the “skills to be
where [he is] at and be successful where [he is] at.” It has also given him “a broader perspective
to understand the different cultures that come together and make it as strong as it is, and build
upon those strengths.” P2 claims that although positionality is a new term for him, it “really
informs who you are as a leader.” He stated, “It’s also about how you use your positionality, I
think. If you listen to people, and if you can absorb it, and make it a part of who you are.”
As a first-generation Latina, P4 reflects back on her negative experience as a student and,
as a result, seeks to do right by her students and staff as an educational leader. When her mother
immigrated to the United States, language and culture were not valued the way they are now. As
such, her family very much assimilated into American culture, adopting English as their primary
language at home. Despite this, she grew up in “a very diverse neighborhood, with over 47
languages spoken at [her] high school, which ultimately shaped [her] views on diversity and
acceptance.” Her upbringing influenced her commitment to “giving students what they need to
pursue their interests, voice, and choice in their learning,” and it is what she has “advocated for
[her] entire teaching career.”
P6 was heavily influenced by her mother, who “instilled an excellent work ethic” in her
and her sister. Her mother always spoke about being “a good person and always doing what is

58
best for people,” which, to P6, makes a great leader. She feels that the mindset, “always do
what’s right, always be good, and try to do your best,” is what has influenced her as a human
being. Additionally, growing up with a single mother made her appreciate and encourage
vulnerability: “You have to acknowledge when you have done something wrong, let them know
that you are human. … You’re always going to try your best and, you know, give 110% of
yourself.” The power lies in acknowledging those mistakes, apologizing for them, learning from
them, and moving forward. To her, this is what makes an effective leader.
P7 identified commitment as his best attribute, particularly in ensuring that “students
have the necessary opportunities to be successful.” He grew up in a community very much like
the community he currently serves, “economically disadvantaged, low SES, and limited in
resources,” so he felt right at home. This is what connected him to his school, recognizing that
without this connection, making changes at his school would prove challenging: “If I am able to
connect with them, my ideas, the mission of the school, the direction of the school, they’ll be
able to help us.” Consequently, P7 finds that he is the right fit for his school community.
Leadership Attributes
There is a fine line between theoretical frameworks on equity-focused leadership and
praxis, specifically navigating positionality, the specific needs at school sites, and the
sociopolitical landscape that influences the work that educational leaders do. It takes a certain
personality to lead a successful school site. This study aimed to identify attributes equity-focused
leaders need to effectively lead at their sites.
P1 operates toward consensus, claiming that buy-in from all educational partners is
essential. “Change is hard, and there is resistance if a leader moves too quickly, so building
consensus [and]hearing all opinions is important to the change process.” Most important is

59
establishing a culture where everyone feels valued or heard. To bring people together, P2
employs an organic proactive approach, ensuring that he is in front of the issues and that both
staff and parents comprehend the why behind initiatives. Through intentional leadership and
open, transparent communication, even skeptical parents have transitioned into a more
supportive stance, recognizing the value of their school’s mission. This approach aligns with
P2’s leadership style, characterized by being proactive, intentional, and authentic. P4 described
her leadership style as fluid. Although she leans toward a servant leadership style, she is also
grounded on the fact that a big portion of her job is compliance. As much as she would like to
serve her community, she often finds that the compliance piece gets in the way. P6 described
herself as “a leader that leads by example, not just by her words.” Decisions she has made have
been tied back to authentic listening and open communication with educational partners, as well
as putting her students’ needs above all else. Similar to P4, P7 does not attribute his leadership
identity to one particular style. Naming transformational leadership, distributive leadership, and
servant leadership as influences, P7 prefers commitment and collaboration.
Discussion: Research Question 1
“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). Santamaría (2014) further
indicated that leaders of color see students differently, recognize the obstacles students of color
face in education, bring a different set of knowledge based on their own lived experiences, and
examine how their racialized experiences impact their leadership practice to lead with
compassion. Failing to recognize a person’s identity through race, gender, language, age, or
education significantly impacts their perceived abilities to rise in a system constructed to
maintain White male superiority, effectively conforming to and sustaining systems intended to

60
oppress marginalized groups. An individual’s background and lived experience matter, and that
experience is very much related to their identity in our country. As such, this thematic group
chose to include positionality in determining if it enhanced or hindered a principal’s
effectiveness as an equity-focused leader. The narratives provided by the five principals indicate
that a leader’s background very much influences who they are as a leader, and for the most part,
it enhances their effectiveness as an equity-focused leader.
Results: Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was as follows: What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal)
hinder/limit principals in creating an equity-focused campus? The purpose of this question was
to understand the obstacles and challenges that principals face in establishing an equity-focused
school. By addressing this research question, the intention is to gain insights into the historical,
structural/institutional, and interpersonal factors that may impede equitable and inclusive school
environments. Identifying these systems also allows for a more nuanced understanding of the
complexities involved in fostering equity in schools, as well as identifying ways to overcome
these challenges.
Survey data suggests that three principals (P3, P4, and P6) felt that their site staff limited
their practices to address inequity. P5 felt that educational partners limit practices to address
inequity. Additionally, P6 suggested that she had not received training to help implement equitycentered practices and indicated that her district somewhat encouraged professional development
to promote equity practices. Similar to Research Question 2, it is imperative to delve deeper into
the specific systems hindering/limiting principals in creating an equity-focused campus,
specifically as it relates to P6.

61
In her interview, P1 detailed the loss of 16 teachers due to budgetary cuts, a factor out of
her control, and how this challenge caused disruptions to her learning community and unsettled
families that were attached to the school.
One specific challenge that comes to mind in a time where class size reduction was being
eliminated because of budgeting. For example, we were moving from 20:1 staffing ratio
to 27:1, and in that time, I lost 16 teachers, 16 new teachers that I had hired during the
tenure over a 2–3 year period. And this created a huge disruption in our community.
Ultimately, “the parent community … rallied and wanted to form a charter school to separate
from [their] school district to be able to operate like [they] had prior to the budgetary
constraints.” This narrative illustrates how external factors beyond the principal’s locus of
control can hinder the continuity of an equity-focused approach at the school.
P2 spoke about the challenge posed by the pandemic on students’ readiness. The
pandemic caused a shift in students as they reentered school, particularly for the younger
students who demonstrated difficulty with the school’s structured schedules and routines: “We
were getting more and more … ‘free range children’ who don’t have any idea of what a schedule
is, and no one’s ever really taught them, though.” This shift necessitated a reevaluation of
educational approaches using a trauma-informed lens. Instead of having students adapt to the
school format, P2 looked at how the school could adapt to his students’ needs:
It’s going to take time to rewire students and help them understand the format of school,
and so we’re going to have to go through some traumatic kind of times where we’ve got
to work with them in love and get to them to understand that … we’re working together.

62
The movement toward trauma-informed practices reflects a response to broader societal
challenges that hinder equity-focused efforts, requiring a more thoughtful and intentional
approach to address students’ needs post-pandemic.
P4 felt “fortunate that [her district] really strives to be at the forefront of equity, when
[they are] looking at policy, … at textbooks, … budget, and how we allocate resources.” She
further states that in the last 5 years, “with the LCAP, listening sessions, and the direction that
[they] have had from [their] superintendent, deputies, school board, everything has been really
focused on equity.” However, P4 did name personal challenges as a hindrance, noting that
“sometimes outside of my school leadership, … talking to friends or family, there is a lot of
closed-mindedness that I have to balance personal relationships with my true feelings.” She
credits the current political climate to this closed-mindedness, which has exacerbated people’s
views on education, opening the doors for the public to opine on educational policies. However,
as a “school leader, [she] is able to do the work that [she] knows needs to be done to ensure that
[they] have equity for our students in our community.” This situation speaks to a broader
sociopolitical context that educational leaders have to navigate, highlighting the need for
interpersonal skills to effectively communicate with diverse perspectives regarding equitable
practices.
P6, as detailed in the survey results, revealed many challenges that hinder equity work at
her site, primarily centered around rebuilding trust and addressing the aftermath of the previous
administration’s impact on the school community. For the purposes of confidentiality, direct
quotes regarding the “turmoil” this school experienced will not be added. P6 recognized that
“building trusting relationships and effective communication” was going to be at the forefront of
her leadership. Her “goal was to receive 80% or higher with [her] stakeholders [on district

63
surveys] when it came to trust, and I’ve reached that goal, compared to where the previous
administration was.” Listening to teachers’ concerns and actively working to understand the
historical context under which she is now operating ensured a collaborative and empathetic
leadership approach: “There was a lack of communication from the previous administration, and
there was a lack of decision-making.” Additionally, she faced the challenge of an enrollment
decline, which necessitated efforts to rebuild the school’s image and regain the trust of families:
“Going on Year 4, our enrollment has now increased by 100 students. We’re starting to get our
parents back, our communities back, because they’re starting to hear it, see all the great things
that are happening at our school.” P6’s situation speaks to the historical and structural factors
that may hinder a principal’s work on equity.
Lastly, P7 underscored the significant impact of “culture or the environment” as factors
that “can hold you back.” By culture, he does not mean “ethnic-related culture, but school
culture.” He specifically details that there are “aspects that [he has] not been able to touch on
because [of] the predominant culture.” This response emphasizes understanding and navigating
cultural dynamics to effectively address equity-related initiatives.
Discussion: Research Question 2
In addressing Research Question Two, which explores the political systems hindering
principals in creating an equity-focused school environment, the findings from the survey and
principal narratives revealed challenges rooted in historical, structural/institutional, and
interpersonal factors. The survey data highlighted that several principals perceived limitations in
addressing inequity, with P6 standing out due to a lack of training on behalf of her district and
receiving some pushback from her staff. These narratives provide a comprehensive
understanding of the intricate barriers principals encounter in fostering equitable and inclusive

64
school environments, specifically as it relates to how external factors, broader societal
challenges, interpersonal skills, and cultural dynamics can hinder the continuity of an equityfocused approach at the school.
Results: Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was as follows: How, if at all, do principals believe that equityfocused leadership contributes to student success? The purpose of this research question was to
identify how such leadership practices contribute to positive academic and social outcomes for
students. Student outcomes based on school demographics, culture and climate data, the SARC,
the CASPP, and the California School Dashboard can be found in Table 3, as well as discussions
on how principals believed their leadership contributed to student success. Per data on the 2023
CA Dashboard, when looking at positive gains in academic performance, three principals scored
above standard in English Language Arts (as measured by student performance on either the
Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment or the California Alternative Assessment, which is
taken by students in grades 3-5 at the elementary level) by an average of 45 points. The same
three principles scored above standard in mathematics by an average of 40 points. The two
principals with the highest percentage of students who identified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged and the highest percentage of Hispanic students scored an average of 49.8 points
below standard in English language arts and 67.8 points below standards in mathematics.

Table 3
School Demographics Overview
Student groups Race/Ethnicity
Enrollment English learners Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
Students with
disabilities
African
American
Hispanic
P1 500–749 6.7% 12.2% 14.9% 1.1% 17.9%
P2 500–749 14.6% 27.1% 14% 1.3% 44.5%
P4 250–499 38% 75.8% 26.1% 0.5% 88.3%
P6 500–749 13.4% 24.2% 5.9% 2.3% 32.9%
P7 500–749 49.7% 95.5% 12.7% 2% 93.5%
65

Table 4
School Performance Overview
Academic performance Academic
engagement
Conditions and
climate
English language arts
(SBAC)
mathematics (SBAC) English learner Chronic
absenteeism
Suspension rate (at
least 1 day)
P1 59.6 points above
standard (+5.1
points)
56.8 points above
standard (+11.5
points)
57.7% making progress
(-9%)
15.2%
chronically
absent
(+4.8%)
.5% suspended
(maintained
0.1%)
P2 20.5 points above
standard (-3 points)
10.9 points above
standard (+6.4
points)
57.5% making progress
(-2.8%)
18.2%
chronically
absent
(+4.9%)
0% suspended
(maintained 0%)
P4 61.6 points below
standard (+20.2
points)
80.6 points below
standard (+14.6)
50.8% making progress
(-12.9%)
32.4%
chronically
absent (-
8.7%)
1.3% suspended
(+0.3%)
P6 54.7 points above
standard (-3.5
points)
52 points above
standard (+11 points)
71.4% making progress
(+13.3%)
13%
chronically
absent
(-3.4%)
0% suspended
(maintained 0%)
P7 38 points below
standard (maintained
-.6 points)
55 points below
standard (+15.1)
44.8% making progress
(+2.4%)
37.1%
chronically
absent (-
8.6%)
.3% suspended
(maintained
0.1%)
66

Table 5
Data Comparison of State School Performance Overview by Subgroups
Academic performance Academic
engagement
Conditions &
climate
ELA math English learner
progress toward
proficiency
Chronic
absenteeism
Suspension rate
(at least 1 day)
Overall state performance 13.6 points
below standard
(maintained -
1.4 points)
49.1 points below
standard
(maintained 2.6
points)
48.7% making
progress
(maintained -
1.6%)
24.3%
chronically
absent
(declined
5.7%)
3.5% suspended
(increased
0.4%)
White 20.1% 20.8 points
above standard
(maintained -
1.2 points)
11.1 points below
standard
(maintained 2.3
points)
Medium: 53.2%
prepared
18.5%
chronically
absent
(declined
3.5%)
2.9% suspended
(maintained
0.2%)
Asian 9.5% 61.8 points
above standard
(maintained -
1.2 points)
50.8 points above
standard
(maintained 2.3
points)
Very high: 75.8%
Prepared
10.1%
chronically
absent
(declined
1.4%)
1.1% suspended
(maintained
0.2%)
African Americans 4.7% 59.6 points
below standard
(maintained -2
points)
104.5 points below
standard
(maintained 2.6
points)
Low: 25.1%
prepared
36.4%
chronically
absent
(declined
6.5%)
8.8% suspended
(increased
0.9%)
67

Academic performance Academic
engagement
Conditions &
climate
ELA math English learner
progress toward
proficiency
Chronic
absenteeism
Suspension rate
(at least 1 day)
Hispanic 56.1% 40.2 points
below standard
(maintained -
1.7 points)
80.8 points below
standard
(maintained 2.6
points)
Medium: 35.5%
prepared
28.4%
chronically
absent
(declined
7.4%)
3.8% suspended
(increased
0.5%)
English learners 19% 67.7 points
below standard
(declined 6.5
points)
93.4 points below
standard
(maintained -1.4
points)
Low: 15.3%
prepared
26.3%
chronically
absent
(declined
7.3%)
3.7% suspended
(increased
0.5%)
Socioeconomically
disadvantaged
61.5% 42.6 points
below standard
(maintained -
1.2 points)
80.8 points below
standard
(increased 3.2
points)
Medium: 35.4%
prepared
29.9%
chronically
absent
(declined
7.5%)
4.5% suspended
(increased
0.5%)
68

69
When looking at state data in comparison, 61.5% of the student population for the state of
California is considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 19% are classified as English
learners. Racially, the student demographics across the state consist of 56.1% Hispanic, 20.1%
White, 9.5% Asian, and 4.7% African American. When looking at overall academic
performance, the state is 13.6 points below standard in ELA (maintained -1.4 points from the
previous year), 49.1 points below standard in math (maintained 2.6 points), and 48.7% of
English learners are making progress toward proficiency (maintained at -1.6%). Data
disaggregated by subgroups can be found in Table 4, which shows a discrepancy between the
different subgroups across academic performance, academic engagement, and conditions and
climate.
P1 has over 8 years of tenure at her current site. While the overall percentages of English
learners, students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, African American students,
and Hispanic students are low at a school site of 500 to 749 students, equity-focused leadership
remains essential to address these students’ needs. High performance in both ELA and math
proficiency, with scores significantly above the standard for Hispanic students (28.1 points in
ELA and 23.1 points in math) and English learners (1.5 points in ELA and 30.9 in math),
suggests that equity-focused leadership may contribute to an inclusive learning environment that
supports success across various demographics. Although these scores are to be celebrated, they
do not compare to the 62 points above standard in ELA and the 51.9 points above standard in
math for their White counterparts. Additionally, students identified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged did not fare as well, falling 8.6 points below standard in ELA (increased by 8.8
points) and 7.4 points in math (increased by 20.1 points). Due to the low number of African
American students, information on their performance is not publicly available. The positive

70
trends in ELA and math proficiency overall, with increases of 5.1 and 11.5 points, respectively,
suggest that effective strategies are in place. Moreover, the maintenance of a low suspension rate
in 2023 (0.5%) aligns with equity-focused practices, emphasizing fair and supportive
disciplinary measures. In summary, P1’s school demonstrates strong academic performance, but
the 9% decline in English learner progress and the increase in chronic absenteeism for Hispanic
students (24.6%), students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (30.8%), and English
learners (15.6%) versus their White counterparts (14%), is where equity-focused initiatives may
sustain and improve student success.
P2 has 5 to 7 years of experience at his school site, which has a diverse student
population and an enrollment between 500 and 749. The overall positive performance in ELA
(20.5 points above standard) and math proficiency (10.9 points above standard), as well as
improvement in math proficiency, may suggest that current equity-focused initiatives are
improving academic outcomes. However, when examining the performance level of Hispanic
students, English learners, and students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, the data
show that they are underperforming compared to overall scores. Hispanic students scored 6.1
points below standard in ELA (a decline of 14.2 points) and 13.7 points below standard in math
(an increase of 7.4 points), while the socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroup scored 13.9
points below standard in ELA (a decline of 17.1 points) and 23.4 points below standard in math
(maintained at -1.8 points). The English learner group scored 1.6 points below standard in ELA
(a decline of 13.9 points) and 0.5 points below standard in math (an increase of 10.7 points). The
same is noted for these three subgroups as it relates to chronic absenteeism: Hispanic (24.4%),
socioeconomically disadvantaged (21.1%), and English learner (14.9%). Monitoring ELA and
math proficiency for these student subgroups and the chronically absent percentage are areas

71
where equity-focused leadership improves student success, specifically ensuring that all students
have equal access to and engagement in educational opportunities. Conversely, the maintenance
of a 0% suspension rate is positive and aligns with equity-focused practices promoting fair and
unbiased disciplinary approaches.
P4 has 2 to 4 years of tenure at her current school, serving a diverse and economically
challenged student body. P4’s school serves a smaller population compared to the other
principals (250-499 students) but has a significant percentage of English learners (38%), students
identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (75.8%), and Hispanic students (88.3%). The
school faces further challenges in academic performance, with overall ELA and math proficiency
scores falling way below standard at 61.6 and 80.6 points, respectively. This is further reflected
in proficiency scores for Hispanic students (65.9 points below standard in ELA and 85 points
below standard in math), English learners (83.1 points below standard in ELA and 100.1 points
below standard in math), and socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups (63.6 points below
standard in ELA and 84.7 points below standard in math). The discipline data also shows a slight
increase in the overall suspension rate to 1.3%, with Hispanic students having a suspension rate
of 1.5%, English learners having a suspension rate of 1.7%, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged subgroups having a suspension rate of 1.7%. Understanding the reasons behind
these rates and implementing targeted equity-focused interventions may be necessary to maintain
a positive and inclusive school environment. On a positive note, there has been a slight decline in
chronic absenteeism across all subgroups. Further insights into specific equity initiatives and
ongoing efforts would provide a more comprehensive understanding of P4’s impact on student
achievement.

72
P6 has 2 to 4 years of tenure at her school site. Her school serves 500-749 students with a
diverse composition, including 32.9% Hispanic students, 13.4% English learners, and 24.2%
students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Overall, ELA proficiency remains high
at 54.7 points above the standard despite its slight decrease of 3.5 points. Notably, there are
increases in ELA proficiency for Hispanic students (24.6 points above the standard), English
learners (37.8 points above standard), and socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups (41
points above the standard), indicating a positive impact of equity-focused strategies. The same
can be said about math proficiency, which increased overall by 11 points, with significant
improvements in proficiency for Hispanic (14.1 points above standard), English learners (48.2
points above standard), and socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups (33.69 points above
standard).
Of note is the significant increase in English learner progress percentage to 71.4%,
reflecting the positive impact of equity-focused efforts on the academic achievement of this
subgroup. Also of note is that this school had the lowest percentage of students identified with a
disability at 5.9%, compared to an average of 14.72% across all five principals. The maintenance
of a 0% suspension rate aligns with equity-focused practices, emphasizing that fair and
supportive disciplinary measures contribute to an inclusive school environment. In summary,
P6’s school demonstrated strong academic performance, with ongoing efforts to address equityrelated factors. The positive trends in ELA and math proficiency across subgroups, English
learner progress, and the reduction in chronic absenteeism are making a meaningful contribution
to student success.
Lastly, P7 has 5 to 7 years of tenure at his current site. The school also has an enrollment
of 500 to 749 students with a diverse composition, including 93.5% Hispanic students, 49.7%

73
English learners, and 95.5% students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. The overall
ELA proficiency remains a challenge, with a maintenance of 38 points below the standard.
However, the slight decline in proficiency for students identified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged may indicate a need for targeted equity interventions in ELA. In contrast, there is
a positive trend in math proficiency, with an increase of 15.1 points overall. Notably,
improvements are observed for Hispanic students, socioeconomically disadvantaged students,
and English learners, reflecting the potential impact of equity-focused initiatives, such as a “math
and coffee with the principal” monthly meeting P7 started to encourage ways to incorporate math
at home. Equity-focused initiatives are further reflected in the modest increase (2.4%) in English
learner progress to 44.8%. However, further progress may be needed to enhance English
learners’ success. The significant decrease of 8.6% in the overall chronic absenteeism rate to
37.1% is a positive development, indicating successful efforts to reduce absenteeism. This
positive trend is consistent among all subgroups, aligning with equity-focused goals of ensuring
that all students have equal access to and engagement in educational opportunities. The same can
be said for the maintenance of a 0.3% suspension rate in 2023.
Discussion: Research Question 3
Analyzing the academic profiles of these five principals’ schools sheds light on the
nuanced relationship between equity-focused leadership and student success. Through a
thorough examination of demographic data, academic performance metrics, and key culture and
climate indicators such as attendance and discipline, Research Question Three explored how the
implementation of equity-focused leadership contributes to student success. Suspension rates are
one area where inequities are most prevalent, considering that suspensions are higher than the
average for students of color, particularly African American students. This is further evidence of

74
a hegemonic culture that suspends students of color in disproportionate numbers, as observed in
the Luke Wood et al.’s (2021) study. However, a highlight from studying these five principals
and their schools is that this disproportionality was not evident in the data pulled from the CA
Dashboard in these past 2 years. Only one principal’s data demonstrated a suspension rate above
1% (with an increase of .3% from the previous year), whereas two principals maintained their
rates below .5%, and two maintained their rates at 0%. While it is unclear whether this decrease
in suspension rates is a result of Senate Bill 419, permanently banning willful defiance
suspensions in grades TK to 5, or if this is the result of our principal’s equity work (or a
combination of both), it is refreshing to a witness the turning of the tide. During a period when
students have already experienced a loss of instructional time due to a global pandemic, now is
not the time for exclusionary discipline, especially for students of color.

75
Table 6
Survey Results, Part 1
Degree to which educational equity is reflected in
Curriculum Student
involvement
(culture)
Disciplinary
practices
(climate)
Parent
involvement
Access to
higherlevel
courses
Professional
development
P1 10 10 10 1 n/a n/a
P2 9 9 10 9 8 8
P3 9 10 9 8 3 8
P4 6 7 7 6 7 7
P5 6 10 8 10 1 8
P6 8 8 9 8 8 9
P7 7 8 8 6 9 9
P8 9 8 8 7 7 8
P9 9 9 7 9 6 8
Average 8.11 8.78 8.44 8.11 6.13 8.13

76
Table 7
Survey Results, Part 2
Degree to which educational equity is reflected
Degree to which
school staff
enhance/limit
practices to
address equity
Degree to which
other partners
enhance/limit
practices to
address equity
Received
training to help
implement
equity-centered
practices
Degree to which
your district
encourages PD
to promote
equity practices
P1 Enhance Significantly
enhance
Yes Encourage
P2 Significantly
enhance
Significantly
enhance
Yes Strongly
encourage
P3 Limit Enhance Yes Strongly
encourage
P4 Limit Significantly
enhance
Yes Strongly
encourage
P5 Enhance Limit Yes Somewhat
encourage
P6 Limit Enhance No Somewhat
encourage
P7 Enhance Enhance Yes Strongly
encourage
P8 Significantly
enhance
Significantly
enhance
Yes Strongly
encourage
P9 Enhance Enhance Yes Strongly
encourage
Average Enhance Enhance/
Significantly
enhance
Yes Strongly
encourage

77
While some schools demonstrated strength in their overall academic performance, a few
schools grappled with persistent disparities. The findings of this research question reinforce
targeted equity initiatives to ensure that all students, regardless of their racial identities and
socioeconomic standing, have equal access to educational opportunities and support systems,
thereby fostering an inclusive and successful learning environment. Given that the African
American population was so small at these five schools, information on their performance is not
publicly available in an effort to preserve their identity.
Results: Research Question 4
Research Question 4 was as follows: How, if at all, do principals believe they enact
specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive school environment? The purpose of this question was
to gain insight into the deliberate measures and approaches undertaken by principals to create
inclusive school environments at their sites.
All nine principals provided a variation of the National Equity Project’s (n.d.) definition
of educational equity, which is that each student receives what they need to develop to their full
academic and social potential. In 67% of survey responses to the question about how respondents
define educational equity, the term most frequently used to define educational equity was
“access.” Table 5 outlines responses to the survey, specifically to what degree is their definition
of educational equity reflected in their school’s curriculum, student involvement (culture),
disciplinary practices (climate), parent involvement, access to higher level courses, and
professional development. With the exception of access to higher courses, the average score
across all domains was 8.31, meaning that the principal’s definition of educational equity was
positively reflected in five out of six domains. The ambiguity of the question about the degree to
which their definition of educational equity reflected in their school’s access to higher courses

78
appears to not have been suitable for elementary schools, averaging a degree of 6.1, with one
principal abstaining from answering this question. Furthermore, none of the principals
interviewed provided further insight into their interpretation of what “higher courses” meant to
them. As such, I focused on the other areas when computing the average. However, for
transparency purposes, the average score across all domains, including “access to higher
courses,” is 7.95, still indicating a positive reflection of principals’ definition of educational
equity across all six domains.
With the exception of three participants, most principals felt that their site staff either
enhances or significantly enhances their practice to address inequity, suggesting a generally
supportive and collaborative school culture where staff actively contributes to fostering equity.
Eight principals felt that other educational partners who work around them in their district
(students, parents, community members, and district administrators) either enhance or
significantly enhance their practices to address inequity, indicating a recognition of the broader
school community’s involvement in creating an inclusive school environment. Eight principals
have received training to help implement equity-centered practices (either via their own learning
or district-provided professional development), demonstrating a commitment to professional
growth and the acquisition of skills to promote equity in the school setting. Additionally, seven
principals report that their districts either encourage or strongly encourage them to attend
professional development intended to promote equity practices. This reflects a district-level
commitment to fostering a culture of equity and providing support for principals in their
professional development endeavors.
Overall, survey results indicate a generally supportive environment in schools and
districts regarding equity practices, which can also be an indicator as to why principals may have

79
been inclined to take this survey. With that being said, there is a need to examine the specific
actions and strategies elementary principals are implementing to cultivate inclusive
environments. Through their firsthand accounts, I gained a richer understanding of the practical
measures taken by these principals to address inequity and promote inclusivity at their schools.
The information gleaned from the interviews will be examined via the three themes that
emerged: involvement of educational partners, training and professional development, and
schoolwide initiatives to create inclusive environments. This focused exploration aims to further
answer Research Question 4: How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to
cultivate an inclusive school environment?
Involvement of Educational Partners
P1 spoke about the challenges of bringing in new district diversity, equity, and inclusion
(DEI) initiatives when “working with a very experienced staff [who believes that] there may not
be a rationale to change if students are performing well and there are minimal behavior issues.”
Despite this mindset, P1 understands the importance of equity work at her site and “the rationale
sometimes has to be based … on our data, and where we need to go,” specifically when looking
at the 9% decline in English learner progress and the increase in chronic absenteeism for
Hispanic students (24.6%), students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (30.8%), and
English learners (15.6%) versus their White counterparts (14%). As a result, P1 decided that the
best approach would be to keep decisions data-based and outlined a strategic initiative where
these data were used to assess the need at the site level: “Teams every year create goals, and one
of our goals at the admin level is to look at DEI from an administrative lens and what work we
need to do at the site level. … When teams create goals, there’s accountability to them.” P1 did

80
specify that this is a work in progress but has started to see a shift in educational partner
involvement.
P2 emphasized the instrumental role his educational partners play, particularly the
families on the English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC). This committee, consisting of
parents and staff, is an example of ensuring educational partners understand and support
initiatives implemented at the school. P2 consistently brings
staff together … to explain the whys of what we are doing, and nobody argues about
it because it’s what our [School Plan for Student Achievement] calls for, and it’s what
our students need, and it’s data that’s unique to us.
This holistic data is what is known as street data: humanizing pieces of student information that
tell a story versus focusing solely on standardized data (Safir & Dugan, 2021).
Unlike P1 and 2, P4 grapples with the challenges of fostering collaboration and
transparency with her educational partners, compared to her previous site. She attributes this to
her short tenure, where she is still working on building relationships at her school. In her efforts
to address this challenge, she emphasized sharing critical information: “I think that it’s been my
leadership challenge to … be transparent with the teachers … [during] meetings, professional
development, staff meetings … I share the information with them.” The overall reception has
been positive, with some staff expressing surprise at the unprecedented transparency regarding
budget details and decision rationale. To enhance communication, P4 leans on the strategic
support of her site’s instructional coaches and assistant principal to create buy-in with teachers:
“I have to do a lot of coaching of my [instructional] coaches so that they can go in with teachers
and have those conversations.” By holding weekly meetings with her educational partners, where
concerns and/or questions are addressed, and discussions on the overall direction of the school

81
are had, this approach has fostered open communication. P4 credits this approach to her ongoing
efforts to cultivate relationships with her staff.
P6 offers a unique perspective in that her current school site faced significant turmoil
with the removal of the previous principal and assistant principal due to community
dissatisfaction. The subsequent administrative team, with P6 as a new assistant principal at the
time, made it their “goal and [their] responsibility … to rebuild trust. [And inform their
community] that [they] were there to do what’s best for kids and settle the dust.” This presented
P6 with a leadership challenge at the onset of her journey at this site. Additionally, the school
board has created inequities by passing initiatives that target certain student populations. To
navigate this, P6 uses surveys to make informed decisions for her site:
Through my surveys, I’ve realized what my community wants and what my teachers
want. And so, like my teachers, they want a leader that is a good listener. My parents
want a leader that they can trust, that really values their concerns. So, that’s played a
factor in the decisions that I make.
As such, P6 does everything possible to ensure that her educational partners feel heard, valued,
and supported to garner trust. While working collaboratively with staff and parents is crucial, P6
is also committed to prioritizing the well-being of students, expressing a clear stance that despite
potential disagreements or challenges, decisions will consistently prioritize what is best for
students. This unwavering commitment to prioritizing students’ needs is what has solidified the
relationship between P6 and the students, staff, and community members of her school site.
Lastly, P7 highlighted the transformation in staff attitudes toward parental involvement
over the past 2 years. He credited the district’s efforts in staff development meetings and his own
initiatives to raising awareness about biases and fostering a more informed and empathetic

82
approach. P7 shared a significant shift in perspective, recounting a statement made after offering
Coffee and math with the Principal sessions with parents.
When I opened that particular opportunity, the teachers, when they saw that parents were
coming, they were starting to give me ideas as to how to help the community. And I will
never forget this particular statement: “Well, teach them English.” That’s what these
individuals said, “Teach them English, so they can help us.” And you know, … I also
went through that, too. To learn a second language, it takes easily 5 to 7 years. … To me,
that showed biases and prejudices because all my teachers know that it takes a long time.
But they were no longer thinking about the facts. They were thinking about how they felt
unsupported. Therefore, they were criticizing. They were not speaking on facts.
Despite this incident, P7 details that “stuff like this doesn’t come up anymore. Why? Because I
had to do better in informing my staff.” P7 also emphasized the need for better communication
and informed decision-making, contributing to improved staff understanding and a reduction in
biased comments.
Training and Professional Development
P1 detailed her district’s concentrated efforts over the last 5 years to build capacity in
DEI by partnering with an external organization. Her district focused on intrinsic bias and data
analysis to identify gaps in academic success, but at her site, “[they] were focused primarily on
student engagement, so [the organization] provided some data and feedback on that topic, and
then a professional development was customized based on results from walkthroughs at [their]
site.” The district’s “lofty goal” in addressing DEI extended to
hiring practices, to doing walkthroughs on campuses and seeing what our students see,
what our families see. Are they well represented in the library selections that we have in

83
our classrooms? Are the photos that we have on our Instagram posts … reflective of the
diversity of our learning communities?
P1 felt that much of what came out of this analysis was not just theoretical but translated into
actionable goals in her district.
P2 stated that his staff received a year-long professional development on traumainformed practices from district counselors in collaboration with the central office. The goal was
to “make sure everybody has something in their toolbox for trauma-informed practices, … tools
on how to be consistent and love kids through the trauma that they’re going through.” P2 views
this initiative to foster inclusivity and understanding by changing perceptions of the “bad kid”
and instead promoting equitable treatment and support. P2’s school actively participates in and
benefits from this broader district initiative.
P4 acknowledges the ongoing efforts in professional development, particularly in shifting
toward learner-centered education “because it’s not only student-focused. It’s focused on all the
learners in our organization. Even as adults, we’re learners.” While the training is gradually
being introduced, the groundwork and mindset shift for effective implementation are currently
underway:
It’s coming in chunks. … However, I will say a lot of the work is being done at the
higher levels right now for us as leaders. It hasn’t gone down to the classroom, to the
teacher level, although, we sprinkle it, we have not provided any of that PD for our staff.
… And, I think that sometimes that hinders us as a school site because we have to do a lot
of background and understanding.
P4 feels as though her district has been steadily laying the foundation and cultivating a mindset
conducive to the intended training objectives, but because it is not at the teacher level yet,

84
when decisions are made, [she] understands the rationale for the decisions, [but her] staff
doesn’t, and so [she has] to explain [it] to them … [because] they don’t have that lens
themselves. … And so, [she is] constantly trying to share that education so that the lens is
broad, and they can really look at things from different angles.
P6 works in a district that has lately been in the media for inequitable practices. As a
result, P6 noted a lack of district-provided training on equity:
Our district has not given us any training on equity. All of my education on equity has
been through my doctoral program at [state university], so everything, all assignments,
had to have a piece of equitable, just, inclusive education. We had to have that in
everything and thinking about that and in our roles as educators.
Additionally, P6 felt as though she had to find her own professional development: “I’m also
taking a course through [the Association of California School Administrators], which is an
instructional and curriculum course on equitable education.” This statement is evidence of P6
recognizing personal responsibility for ongoing growth as an educational leader.
P7 provided insights into his engagement with equity through an 18-month professional
development series led by a state university: “I was lucky to be invited by my assistant
superintendent recommended by his assistant superintendent.” In fact, a group of principals and
the assistant superintendent of education services have enlisted in this endeavor together.
Through this learning series, P7 has acknowledged that “the educational culture was designed to
serve a privileged few and derail the opportunity for others so that the status quo continues.”
Although he wished he could have received this training 10 years ago, P7 claims that this
comprehensive learning series on equity will provide him with an approach to learning about this
critical aspect of leadership.

85
Schoolwide Initiatives for Inclusivity and Equity
P1 highlighted a comprehensive approach to inclusivity through their school’s use of the
positive behavior intervention and supports (PBIS) framework. This framework
standardized and incentivized student behavior” and “[incentivized] the good choices, to
how we discipline all students to make sure that it is fair. And … we have rewards that
our students earn, and we celebrate their successes at our flag assemblies. And then, in
terms of redirection of students. … We’ve identified minor behaviors and major
behaviors.
Beyond PBIS, P1 mentioned having “a student council, a peer mediation group [for] students
that want to provide service and are trained in conflict resolution, a friendship club, and three
autism special day classes on [their] campus, where [they] have established peer groups [via the
Friendship Foundation] that meet together and do crafts and social things together.”
Additionally, the school’s dedication to the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) has ensured
a range of academic and behavioral support. District-wide training on trauma-informed strategies
underscored a commitment to understanding and responding to students who may have
experienced trauma, reinforcing the school’s holistic approach to inclusivity. The maintenance of
a low suspension rate in 2023 (0.5%, per the 2023 CA Dashboard) also aligns with equityfocused practices, emphasizing fair and supportive disciplinary measures.
P2’s approach to schoolwide initiatives for inclusivity at his site is centered on creating a
positive school culture and social-emotional environment. “It’s not just a data piece, but the
social-emotional component. We’ve really focused on bringing a positive classroom
environment, a positive school culture.” P2 emphasized that his school has transformed into a
place where the community actively wants to be, which marks a shift from previous enrollment

86
trends. His approach was multifaceted: maintaining a vibrant online presence, an intentional
development in relationships between staff and students: “fostering skills with them, so that
together, they know how to address [their] issues,” creating a welcoming school office, using
trauma-informed and restorative practices with staff and students, and implementing the
provision of tools and budgetary support to ensure the sustainability of these impactful practices.
P4 underscores her school’s commitment to inclusivity, particularly for the deaf and
hard-of-hearing student population, by implementing a range of initiatives. These initiatives
extend across various departments, ensuring that “at least one person [in each department] is
fluent in American Sign Language, and the rest of us are learning.” The school hosts “parent
meetings specifically for the deaf and hard of hearing [community],” supported by “three
interpreters on site.” They also have
accommodations throughout the school for [their] deaf and hard of hearing … [like]
marquees, flashing lights, different things like that, that we’ve incorporated to make sure
that it’s equitable for all our English-speaking, our deaf and hard of hearing, Spanishspeaking, we have Vietnamese, [and] Farsi on campus. All of our mailings, parent
notices, we send it all out in multiple languages.
P4 emphasizes the use of technology, such as Zoom and ParentSquare, to facilitate wider access
and engagement for educational partners, aligning with the school’s overarching goal of creating
an inclusive environment through communication, a vital component in bringing equitable
practices to the school.
P6 discussed several initiatives to promote inclusivity at her school despite recent
controversy regarding inequitable practices. She highlighted the increased Mandarin-speaking
population to 14%,

87
which allowed [them] to hire a Mandarin-speaking clerk in the office … [giving them] a
great opportunity to speak to our Mandarin-speaking parents, to have them attend events,
… and I’m having [the clerk] personally call all of our parents that are Mandarinspeaking, to let them know what’s happening at the school.
Additionally, she emphasized the presence of an MTSS counselor with a designated classroom
for students seeking support, ultimately creating a “safe space for students to go to if they need to
speak to somebody.” This has been a point of contention for the board, where certain buzzwords
are flagged, so P6 has found creative ways to maintain the space for students while calling it
something else: “Again, it’s about playing the game and knowing how to do it.” Lastly, P6
stressed her and her assistant principal’s visibility and accessibility, making an effort to know
and interact with a significant percentage of students, fostering a sense of safety and openness for
all.
P7 has implemented several initiatives for inclusivity at his school site. For example,
there is a dedicated space for furthering their work on implicit biases during their professional
development meetings:
Those strange comments that were accepted in the past, that ostracized or marginalized or
stigmatized [our parents] like “the parents of these kids, they don’t care.” We don’t know
why we had those impressions, perhaps we didn’t see enough support from the
community. But now, we are more open to the possibility that they may not be able to
help us, or they have two jobs, or they just don’t know how to help us. We need to do
better, informing them, you know, giving them ideas on how they can help us.
Additionally, the special education team provides insights into their work at every meeting,
offering a glimpse into the lives of students who may be judged without understanding their

88
stories. Another impactful initiative is the implementation of morning circles (a form of
restorative practices), providing students with a dedicated platform to check in with their
teachers and students on a daily basis. Lastly, P7 has ensured that the growing student population
who speak a Mayan dialect is validated by supporting them in their language. These initiatives
foster understanding, reduce judgment, and promote a more informed and inclusive school
environment.
Discussion: Research Question 4
In summary, each principal highlighted the distinct challenges and strategies they
employed with their educational partners in promoting equity initiatives. P1 strategically
collaborated with her staff to navigate the introduction of DEI initiatives, effectively fostering
accountability. P2 underscored the importance of educational partners in decision-making by
promoting transparency, aligning decisions with their SPSA, and using data in a humanizing
way. P4 also emphasized transparency as she navigates building relationships with her
educational partners. P6 credited trust and prioritizing students with helping to engage her
educational partners, and P7 attributed district-led staff development and initiatives promoting
understanding and empathy to the shift in staff attitudes toward parent engagement. These
diverse experiences emphasize fostering collaboration, relationship-building, trust, and
transparency in educational settings, acknowledging the nuances and leadership attributes that
drive equity initiatives effectively.
Principal responses on training and professional development illustrate the diverse
approaches to equity-focused support. For the most part, four of the five principals interviewed
emphasized broader district-led initiatives to challenge biases and promote equitable support,
such as DEI, trauma-informed practices, student-centered education, and acknowledging the

89
historical aspect of educational culture. Only one principal faced challenges in a district
grappling with inequity, leading her to pursue personal and professional development via
external programs. Smith (2005) declares that culturally competent leaders institutionalize
cultural knowledge by providing training about diversity and incorporating cultural knowledge
into the organization. The author explained that these actions lead to the ability of school leaders
to foster mutual trust and respect.
Equity-focused leadership is multifaceted in its enactment but, ultimately, reflects a
commitment to creating diverse, equitable, and inclusive school environments. Each principal
interview showcased their approach and strategies to address the inequities at their sites, focusing
on the PBIS framework, utilizing trauma-informed and restorative practices, accommodating
diverse student populations, prioritizing students in all decision-making, creating a welcoming
space for all students, and promoting understanding and tolerance of the student body and
surrounding community. Through these initiatives, principals actively contribute to dismantling
barriers to education and fostering a sense of belonging for all students, which may not always
be captured in satellite data: an aggregate of test scores for an entire school or district (Safir &
Dugan, 2021). According to Friere (1970, as cited in Del Carmen, 2013), educators who enact
humanizing pedagogy engage in a quest for “mutual humanization” (p. 56, as cited in Del
Carmen, 2013, p. 127) with their students. Such practices seek to augment the experience of
students of color and all individual students in the educational system.
Summary
Research Question 1 focused on the factors of positionality that principals believe inhibit
or enhance their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders. The narratives provided by the five
principals indicate that a leader’s background very much influences who they are as a leader, and

90
for the most part, it enhances their effectiveness as an equity-focused leader. Principals spoke
about family, their upbringing, their racial backgrounds, being first-generation, and how
opportunities (or lack thereof) granted to them as students in a public school system influenced
their decision to become equity-focused leaders. Principals also spoke about attributes that they
believed enhanced their work as educational leaders. Common themes were operating toward a
consensus, transparency, open communication, intentionality, authenticity, flexibility,
commitment, and collaboration.
Research Question 2 focused on the political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) that
hinder/limit principals in creating an equity-focused campus. The findings from the survey and
principal narratives revealed challenges rooted in historical, structural/institutional, and
interpersonal factors. The narratives provided via the interviews detailed a comprehensive
understanding of the intricate barriers principals encounter in fostering equitable and inclusive
school environments, specifically as it relates to how external factors, broader societal
challenges, interpersonal skills, and cultural dynamics can hinder the continuity of an equityfocused approach at the school.
Research Question 3 inquired about how principals believe that equity-focused leadership
contributes to student success. Analyzing the academic profiles of these five principals’ schools
sheds light on the nuanced relationship between equity-focused leadership and student success.
While some schools demonstrated strength in overall academic performance, a few grappled
with persistent disparities. The findings of this research question reinforced the ongoing
importance of targeted equity initiatives to ensure that all students, regardless of their racial
identities and socioeconomic standing, have equal access to educational opportunities and
support systems, thereby fostering an inclusive and successful learning environment.

91
Furthermore, it also spoke to the importance of analyzing all data, not just what is obtained
through standardized testing. All principals discussed informal data collection to assess student
success, consisting of observations and school surveys, which leads to Research Question 4.
Research Question Four focused on how principals believe they enact specific strategies
to cultivate an inclusive school environment. All nine principals surveyed provided a variation of
the National Equity Project’s (n.d.) definition of educational equity, which is that each student
receives what they need to develop to their full academic and social potential. In 67% of survey
responses to the question of how respondents define educational equity, the term most frequently
used to define educational equity was “access.” Each principal highlighted the distinct challenges
and strategies they employed with their educational partners in promoting equity initiatives,
showcasing their approach and strategies to address the inequities at their sites, focusing on the
PBIS framework, utilizing trauma-informed and restorative practices, accommodating diverse
student populations, prioritizing students in all decision-making, creating a welcoming space for
all students, and promoting understanding and tolerance of the student body and surrounding
community. Through these initiatives, principals actively contribute to dismantling barriers to
education and fostering a sense of belonging for all students, which may not always be captured
in the aggregate of test scores for an entire school or district (Safir & Dugan, 2021). Their
diverse experiences emphasized fostering collaboration, relationship-building, trust, and
transparency in educational settings, acknowledging the nuances and leadership attributes that
drive equity initiatives effectively. The next chapter provides implications for practice and
recommendations for future research.

92
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter Five summarizes the findings related to implications for practice within the
educational community. Key research findings are discussed to inform current and future leaders
of the equity-focused leadership practices necessary for creating inclusive school environments.
Additionally, the chapter presents recommendations for future research in the context of this
study.
This study focused on the challenges faced by historically marginalized student groups,
who continue to underperform their white counterparts in standardized academic metrics, are
overrepresented in suspension rates, and are over-identified in special education (Martin, 2017).
An inequitable distribution of resources has further widened the opportunity gap for
marginalized students, creating unfair and exclusionary practices (Kendi, 2019). In education,
CRT aids in identifying and transforming structural and cultural aspects that perpetuate
inequities (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). It advocates for counternarratives to center experiential
knowledge and address these disparities. Consequently, the principal’s role is to create an
inclusive school culture where students feel validated and affirmed and teachers and staff are
equity-focused. The purpose of the study was to find what practices equity-focused principals
implement to create this environment. 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?

93
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
For this study, it was important to conduct qualitative research so that our thematic group
could interact with the principals face-to-face, interpret how the participants’ positionality
influenced their identity as an equity-focused leader, determine how equity-focused leadership
contributes to student success, and identify specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive school
environment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The methodology included survey and interview data
obtained from elementary school principals in Southern California public schools. The survey
provided more detailed information on equity-focused practices that principals were taking at
their school sites. Survey data informed which principals I would need to follow up with for an
interview.
Findings
Study findings suggest that principals recognize their personal backgrounds’ significant
impact on their practice as equity-focused leaders. Their narratives reveal a strong connection
between their backgrounds, positionality, and previous educational experience, which shaped
their commitment to equity-focused leadership. Additionally, principals identified key attributes,
such as fostering collaboration, building trusting relationships with educational partners, and
transparency, that significantly enhance their ability to create inclusive school environments.
However, challenges stemming from historical, institutional, and interpersonal factors have
hindered their efforts. Nevertheless, principals remain steadfast in fostering student success
through targeted equity initiatives, emphasizing the importance of analyzing diverse data sources
beyond standardized testing. Their strategies include implementing frameworks like PBIS,
incorporating trauma-informed and restorative practices, and prioritizing student involvement in
decision-making processes. By prioritizing equity and fostering a sense of belonging for all

94
students, these principals have played a vital role in dismantling barriers to education and
promoting environments where all feel included.
Research Question 1
Qualitative data related to Research Question 1 produced three findings aligned with the
work of Ishimaru and Galloway (2014), which established ten “high leverage” equitable
leadership practices (Table 8) and Goleman’s (2004/2011) five skills of emotional intelligence.
Principals’ personal backgrounds and experiences strongly influence their leadership style and
ability to promote equity at their schools.
Table 8
Comparison of LEAD Tool Equitable Leadership Practices and Practices that Emerged
Regarding Equitable Leadership Practices
LEAD tool 10 key equitable leadership
practices
Practices that emerged from interviews on
equitable leadership practices
Construct and enact an equity vision.
Supervising 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.
Fostering an equitable school culture
Relationship-building and collaboration with
educational partners
Reflecting on one’s positionality
Actively employing emotional intelligence
skills
Exploring data in a holistic and humanizing
way
Model ethical and equitable behavior.
Influence the sociopolitical context.

95
Interview responses from principals found that positionality positively enhanced
leadership practice, particularly when reflecting on their backgrounds, leadership journeys, and
the growth they experienced (Lead Tool 8: Engaging in self-reflection and growth for equity;
Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014). P1, for example, attributes her deep connection to the community
she serves to her family’s multi-generational ties: “Our family is deeply rooted in the
community, and that has probably impacted me and my desire to give back to this same
community.” Similarly, P2’s journey as an educational leader working in “tough
neighborhoods,” a dual language school, and a Title I school has given him the “skills to be
where [he is] at and be successful where [he is] at,” enabling him to understand and build on the
strengths of the diverse cultures in his school community.
P4’s upbringing influenced her commitment to “giving students what they need to pursue
their interests, voice, and choice in their learning,” and it is what she has “advocated for [her]
entire teaching career.” P6 was heavily influenced by her single mother, which made her
appreciate and encourage vulnerability: “You have to acknowledge when you have done
something wrong, let them know that you are human. … You’re always going to try your best
and, you know, give 110% of yourself.” These narratives suggest that principals’ positionality
enhances their ability to connect with and serve their school communities.
A second finding that emerged in relation to Research Question 1 speaks to the
connection between leadership attributes and emotional intelligence, as outlined by Goleman
(2004/2011). Self-awareness, motivation, empathy, and social skill were very much evident in
principals’ narratives. For instance, P1 identified a “love of people” as her best quality, which
speaks to a central aspect of her leadership style: building connections with staff, students, and
the broader school community. Additionally, P1 established a culture where everyone feels

96
valued or heard, reflecting a high level of social skill and empathy. P2 attributes his greatest trait
to his “ability to authentically listen and frantically get to know [his] staff, students, and
families,” demonstrating self-awareness and motivation to authentically connect with staff and
students. P4 spoke about her approach to servant leadership while focusing on compliance,
indicating a balance between empathy and accountability. P7 discussed relationships and
collaboration, indicating a high level of empathy and social skill. These examples demonstrate
how principals’ emotional intelligence shapes their leadership practice and enhances their ability
to foster an inclusive school climate.
Lastly, a third finding that emerged pertaining to Research Question 1 is collaboration
and commitment in fostering an equitable school environment (Lead Tool 7: Collaborating with
families and communities, and Lead Tool 4: Fostering an equitable school culture; Ishimaru &
Galloway, 2014) as cornerstones of equity-focused leadership, particularly in promoting equity
and creating inclusive school cultures. P2’s emphasis on building trusting relationships and
fostering open communication reflects a collaborative leadership style rooted in empathy and
authenticity. P4’s upbringing influenced her commitment to “giving students what they need to
pursue their interests, voice, and choice in their learning,” and it is what she has “advocated for
[her] entire teaching career.” Similarly, P7 identified commitment as his best attribute,
particularly in ensuring that “students have the necessary opportunities to be successful.” These
findings suggest that principals who prioritize collaboration and commitment are better able to
lead efforts that promote equity and inclusivity at their schools.
Research Question 2
Qualitative data related to Research Question 2 produced two findings. These narratives
provide a comprehensive understanding of the intricate barriers principals encounter in fostering

97
equitable and inclusive school environments, specifically as it relates to how broader societal
challenges (inclusive of historical and institutional factors) and interpersonal dynamics can
hinder the continuity of an equity-focused approach at the school.
One finding that emerged from Research Question 2 relates to the broader societal
challenges principals face that hinder their ability to create an equity-focused campus. P1
discussed the impact budgetary cuts had on staffing ratios, leading to disruptions within the
learning community. Similarly, P2 highlighted the challenges posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, particularly when addressing the youngest students’ readiness skills. These situations
exemplify the detrimental impact of unequal resource allocation (especially as a result of a global
pandemic) on student achievement, serving as a barrier to effective equity-focused leadership
(Ladson-Billings, 2006). P1 also spoke about another challenge she experienced: “Students
associating with another gender at the elementary level is a really touchy subject.” Children’s
privacy is a difficult topic, sparking debate on how educational leaders facilitate a safe space for
students. P6 spoke more about how a national conservative movement targeting DEI initiatives
prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to sue her district for inequitable practices. This created
a culture of fear, and the fact is that “when it’s all about playing the game, you don’t use the
word ‘equity.’” She stated,
You don’t have to use the word “equity” to make sure that we give our students a highquality education. … You can still provide opportunities for all of our students to ensure
that they have all that is necessary for them to be successful. Would I probably [go] out
and ask to put it in our budget for me to get professional development for equity?
Probably not, no, I wouldn’t do that. But to ensure that … I can do my best to make sure
my students have what they need, there’s other ways to do it. And that’s what we have to

98
do as administrators, or you just have to know what is the best way to go around some of
these obstacles.
These examples illustrate how broader societal challenges require adaptive and responsive
leadership strategies from educational leaders.
The second finding pertaining to Research Question 2 relates to an educational leader’s
interpersonal dynamics when addressing hindrances that impact creating an equity-focused
campus, specifically navigating challenges that require educational leaders to address trust
issues, relationship-building, and school culture. P4 discussed the importance of transparency
with teachers to build trust. She stated that she had a “[teacher] say [that] in their 23 years [at the
school site], [they] never had anyone share the budget with [them] or tell [them] why decisions
are made.” By actively listening to teachers’ concerns and building capacity, P4 adopted a
collaborative and empathetic leadership approach. Similarly, P6 faced challenges related to
rebuilding trust due to a negative experience with a previous administration and addressing an
enrollment decline, requiring efforts to regain the trust of families and rebuild the school’s
image. P7 also had to work with his school’s culture to address his students’ needs effectively.
Interestingly, none of these principals spoke to outside support to address these challenges.
Despite hindrances that principals may have experienced as a result of political systems,
all discussed the effective collaborative efforts they partook in to engage all educational partners.
This requires a level of teamwork, and to achieve teamwork, Lencioni (2002) argued that leaders
must avoid dangerous pitfalls that he identifies 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. In his work, Lencioni (2002) asserted that dysfunctions derail the work.
Therefore, leaders must regularly check in and assess the team’s susceptibility to these

99
dysfunctions to ensure they can move forward collectively and safely. It is evident that these
principals identified the dysfunctions of their school teams and collaborated on a resolution.
Research Question 3
Data from the 2023 CA Dashboard and principal interviews related to Research Question
2 produced a single finding: standardized test scores and state metrics alone do not paint a
comprehensive picture of student success, particularly for marginalized populations.
According to Bloom and Owens’ (2013), effective on-site educational leadership
significantly enhances urban schools, with principal influence on student success falling into four
categories: teaching staff selection, curriculum, discipline policies, and funding. Survey
responses from the five principals, as indicated in Table 5, illustrate the alignment between their
definition of educational equity and their influence on multiple school factors. P1 claimed that
the degree to which her definition of educational equity, “each child receives what they need to
develop to their full academic and social potential,” is reflected in the curriculum, student
involvement, disciplinary practices, and parent involvement, is a 10 all across, the highest degree
possible. P2 indicated that the degree to which his definition of educational equity, “all students
receiving the access and support necessary to successfully achieve at or above grade level in an
environment that is positive, supportive and is conducive to learning,” is reflected in curriculum,
student involvement, and parent involvement as a 9, disciplinary practices as a 10, and access to
higher level courses and professional development as an 8. P4’s scores were slightly lower,
indicating that the degree to which her definition of educational equity, “we design personalized
learning experiences for students, so we can meet them where they are, rather than subscribing to
the one-size-fits-all model,” is reflected in curriculum and parent involvement as a 6, while
student involvement, disciplinary practices, access to higher level courses, and professional

100
development as a 7. P6 indicated that the degree to which her definition of educational equity,
“ensuring all students have an equal access to a high-quality education,” is reflected in
curriculum, student involvement, parent involvement, and access to higher level courses as an 8,
while disciplinary practices and professional development as a 9. Lastly, P7 indicated that the
degree to which his definition of educational equity, “providing equitable access to quality
education to all students,” is reflected in curriculum as a 7, student involvement and disciplinary
practices as an 8, parent involvement as a 6, and access to higher level courses and professional
development as a 9. From these self-assessment scores, we can assert that principals have
varying degrees of alignment between their definition of educational equity and the
implementation of key aspects of school leadership. These scores also highlight ongoing
reflection and refinement of leadership strategies to ensure that they fully support the goal of
engaging in equity-focused leadership.
All five principals emphasized using qualitative data to measure the impact of equityfocused leadership, noting that such data are not always publicly available. P1 spoke to
“constantly [being] open and evolving, as [they] think about [climate] surveys and how parents
are feeling connected, to how students … feel about their relationships, if they feel that they have
an adult that they can go to.” P2 highlighted that “it’s not just about the data piece, but the socialemotional component.” P4 surveys parents and staff, and she uses culture and climate and safety
data to make schoolwide decisions. P4 noted that these interview questions “helped [her] reflect
upon [her] practice … because [she does not] always take the time to … specifically reflect [on
her leadership].” P6 noted that her district distributes culture and climate surveys on equity and
discipline, and mentioned scoring 80% to 90%, which indicates to her “that what [they are]
doing is working, because when [educational partners] trust, then they know that we are treating

101
everyone with respect or being equal. And it positively affects our students.” P7 spoke about
surveys and observations, specifically how “there are questions in there that tell me a story about
how we are more sensitive to students’ needs.” Based on these opinions, P7 believes that they are
moving in the right direction:
We were the lowest-performing school in the entire district. Now, we are leading the way
in the middle area. … We’re going in the right direction, and we are leading the way in
the valley area, as well as number six in the entire district.
Despite this improvement, P7 noted that it is important to look beyond state measures to
measure impact. The anecdotes these principals provided underscore the multifaceted nature of
equity-focused leadership assessment, moving beyond state measures to comprehensively
measure the impact, especially on marginalized student populations, remains a critical
consideration for advancing equity in education.
Safir and Dugan’s (2021) concept of street data emphasizes the need to redefine how we
measure student success. While standardized test scores provide data on student achievement
compared to their peers, they do not give the full picture of who students are and what measures
educational leaders put in place to improve school culture and climate. For example, P4’s school,
which serves a predominantly Hispanic population with a high percentage of students who are
economically challenged, struggles with low proficiency scores. Yet, P4 underscores her
school’s commitment to inclusivity, particularly for the diverse student population, by
implementing initiatives that improve communication with the school community. She further
discussed the importance of transparency with teachers to build trust. She stated that she had a
“[teacher] say [that] in their 23 years [at the school site], [they] never had anyone share the
budget with [them] or tell [them] why decisions are made.” By actively listening to teachers’

102
concerns and building capacity, P4 has adopted a collaborative and empathetic leadership
approach. These are all foundational pieces that will eventually lead to student success, but this
discrepancy highlights the inherent limitations of relying solely on traditional metrics to gauge
student success.
Research Question 4
Qualitative data related to Research Question 4 produced three findings: involvement of
educational partners, training and professional development, and schoolwide initiatives to create
inclusive and equitable environments.
The first finding that emerged relates to collaborative efforts with educational partners.
All five principals emphasized the importance of collaboration with their educational partners in
promoting equity initiatives at their school sites. P1 navigated challenges with an experienced
staff by emphasizing data-driven decisions and fostering accountability through strategic
initiatives. She also operated toward consensus because “hearing all opinions is important to the
change process.” Similarly, P2 highlighted the instrumental role of partnerships, specifically with
the families on the ELAC, in ensuring alignment with school initiatives and promoting
understanding through humanizing data. P4 prioritized transparency through open
communication and relationship-building. P6 highlighted trust-building with her educational
partners, leveraging surveys and personal interactions to inform decision-making and promoting
inclusivity. Lastly, P7 navigated biases on parental involvement through critical dialogue with
his teaching staff, emphasizing empathy when engaging the school community. These examples
underscore the importance of collaboration, relationship-building, and trust in driving equity
initiatives at their school sites. Santamaría (2014) identified nine applied critical leadership

103
(ACL) characteristics aligned to culturally responsive leadership practices that incorporate CRT
and center marginalized groups, four of which apply to this finding:
● 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 3: Group Consensus - using consensus building as the preferred
strategy for decision making (p. 369).
● 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 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).
The second finding relates to a commitment to ongoing training and professional
development. All five principals demonstrated a commitment to ongoing training and
professional development, both for themselves and their staff. P1 highlighted district-led
initiatives focused on DEI, which translated into actionable goals and strategies at the school
level. P2 spoke to the significance that training on trauma-informed practices had on fostering
inclusivity and support for all students. P4 acknowledged ongoing efforts in her district’s
initiative to shift toward learner-centered education and transparency in decision-making at the
school level. P6 pursued professional development to address the gaps in district-provided equity
training, reflecting a proactive approach to refining her equity leadership skills. Finally, P7 is
engaging in an 18-month professional development series on equity, emphasizing understanding

104
historical inequities and their impact on current educational policies. These examples illustrate
the principals’ commitment to acquiring the knowledge and skills to advance equity at their
school sites. 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
part of the conversation on how to best integrate equitable practices in classrooms. It also
furthers an honest conversation on racial disparities and inequitable practices without placing
blame.
The third finding that emerged relates to the implementation of schoolwide initiatives for
inclusivity and equity. Findings suggest that all five principals employed schoolwide initiatives
to foster inclusivity and equity to address their diverse student populations’ needs. P1 highlighted
using the PBIS framework, student council, and peer mediation groups to promote positive
behavior and support students’ social-emotional well-being. P2 emphasized creating a positive
school culture through relationship-building and trauma-informed practices. P4 implemented
various initiatives to support her diverse student groups to increase belongingness and
communication. P6 focused on engaging her Mandarin-speaking community through dedicated
personnel and communication channels. P7 implemented morning circles and initiatives to
address implicit biases, fostering understanding and promoting inclusivity. These examples
demonstrate the principals’ commitment to creating environments that prioritize students’
diverse needs and promote a sense of belonging and support. Studies have found that “racial
stratification produces mental health problems [in students] to the extent [that] it generates
stressful circumstances and cognitive states conducive to emotional distress” (Brown, 2003, p.
295). Abolitionist teaching (Love, 2019) is a way to authentically connect with students’

105
identities and counter this emotional distress. Abolitionist teaching is 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). Boske (2009) further presented evidence that asserts the need to increase the
awareness of cultural competence and decision-making among school leaders so they may better
understand how their current leadership practices promote equity and justice.
Limitations
Several limitations can be identified in this study. For one, this study only included nine
principals from elementary schools across five districts in Southern California, of which only
five principals were interviewed. This limits the generalizability of the findings, as the
experiences and perspectives of these principals may not represent those principals in other
educational settings or regions. Secondly, the data relied heavily on self-reporting via surveys
and interviews, which may have introduced bias. Principals may have provided responses that
they perceived as socially desirable or aligned with the expectations of an equity-focused leader
rather than reflecting on their actual practice. As a result, it was difficult to ascertain the
effectiveness of their approach without corroborating data, which led to the next limitation. This
study focused primarily on principals’ perceptions of their own practices and attributes for
promoting inclusivity without necessarily capturing the perspectives of other educational
partners, namely teachers, students, or parents/guardians. Triangulating data from multiple
sources could have strengthened the internal validity of the findings, corroborating them and
reducing the potential bias introduced by self-reporting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally,
the study’s findings may be limited by the time frame in which data were collected (inclusive of

106
California School Dashboard data and interview data), particularly referencing the effects of a
global pandemic and the shifts in ideology surrounding the evolving political landscape and
societal movements occurring since 2020.
Implications for Practice
This study examined how equity-focused school leaders’ attributes help to cultivate an
inclusive school environment that sets underserved students up for success. Study findings
established themes that inform educational practitioners at the site level and provide valuable
insights for elementary school principals regarding the enactment of equity-focused leadership.
Specifically, regarding the scope of the study and resulting thematic findings, implications for
leadership practices and leadership attributes were established.
The first implication for practice by equity-focused elementary school principals
emphasizes fostering collaborative partnerships with various educational partners, including
students, staff, parents/guardians, community members, and district administrators. Study
findings suggest that relationship-building, trust, and transparency in educational settings create
buy-in and ensure that diverse perspectives and needs inform equity initiatives. In fostering
collaborative partnerships, principals can leverage four of Santamaría’s (2014) ACL
characteristics: initiate critical conversations to address inequities (ACL 1), facilitate group
consensus-building processes to ensure diverse voices are heard (ACL 3), honor all members of
the learning community by valuing their input (ACL 6), and building trust with mainstream
educational partners (ACL 8).
The second implication for practice by equity-focused elementary school principals
(and their districts) is an investment in ongoing professional development. This study
highlighted professional development opportunities focused on equity-centered practices. This

107
includes training in trauma-informed practices, restorative practices as alternatives to
discipline, culturally responsive teaching, implicit bias, and inclusive leadership approaches.
Schools can effectively begin to address inequities and create inclusive environments by
providing educational leaders with the relevant skills and knowledge.
The last implication for practice by equity-focused elementary school principals
addresses continued reflection and adaptation. The participants reflected on their positionality
and how that influenced and informed their educational leadership journey. This reflection
also guided the strategic implementation of inclusive initiatives at their school sites. Principals
should be given the opportunity to engage in ongoing reflection on their leadership practices,
particularly in response to changing contexts and priorities. This may include regularly
assessing the effectiveness of equity initiatives, soliciting feedback from educational partners,
and making the necessary adjustments. By maintaining a continuous improvement cycle,
principals at the elementary level can ensure that their schools remain responsive to the
evolving needs of their students and learning communities.
Future Research
Considering the findings and limitations of this study, several recommendations for
future research emerged. First, employing additional methodologies, like observations and
surveys/interviews of varied educational partner voices, could provide more objective insights
into the principals’ approaches. Additionally, identifying and incorporating humanizing pieces of
student information that provide a narrative, versus focusing solely on standardized data, to
measure effective attributes of equity-focused leaders would aid this study. Lastly, examining the
influence of broader sociopolitical contexts, including the current dilemma school boards face
with DEI, CRT, and social movements like Black Lives Matter, on leadership practices and

108
school climates could shed light on external factors shaping educational equity initiatives. Given
this study’s findings, approaching this study using a culturally responsive school leadership
(CSRL) framework (either in addition to or instead of employing a CRT framework) may better
define equity-focused leadership, specifically as it relates to its four strands: developing critical
consciousness, ensuring inclusive school environments, providing culturally responsive
instructional leadership, and enacting culturally responsive leadership engagement in community
contexts (Khalifa et al., 2016). Future research on these topics should address the gaps to
advance our understanding of equity-focused leadership in practice and its implications for
promoting inclusive school cultures.
Conclusions
This study provides insight into the multifaceted nature of equity-focused leadership in an
elementary school setting. Findings underscore the role of elementary school principals in
cultivating inclusive school environments through collaborative partnerships, strategic training
and professional development, ongoing reflection, and the implementation of equitable
schoolwide initiatives that best meet their learning communities’ needs. However, limitations
exist, including potential biases introduced by self-reporting measures and a focus primarily on
principals’ perceptions. Future research should explore the effectiveness of equity-focused
leadership practices and attributes using diverse methodologies to capture perspectives from
various educational partners and employ a culturally responsive school leadership approach.
These insights offer valuable implications for practitioners seeking to enhance equity and
inclusivity at their schools.

109
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
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
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

110
Boske, C. (2009). Children’s spirit: Leadership standards and chief school executives.
International Journal of Educational Management, 23(2), 115–128.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540910933486
Brown, T. (2003). Critical race theory speaks to the sociology of mental health: Mental Health
problems produced by racial stratification. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3),
292–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519780
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.

111
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).

112
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

113
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

114
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

115
National Equity Project. (n.d.). Educational equity definition.
https://www.nationalequityproject.org/education-equity-definition
Northouse, P. G., & Lee, M. (2022). Leadership case studies in education. Sage.
Patel, L. (2016). Pedagogies of Resistance and Survivance: Learning as Marronage. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 49(4), 397–401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1227585
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475
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

116
Sawchuk, S. (2015). Students’ scores found to rise when teachers look like them; Representation
in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Education
Week, 34(24), 5.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Singh, N. (2019, November 26). The pervasive power of the settler mindset. Boston Review, 1–8.
Smith, C. A. (2005). School factors that contribute to the underachievement of students of color
and what culturally competent school leaders can do. Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 17, 21–32.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a
critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2–8.
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

117
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/
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.

118
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.

119
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

120
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
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

121
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.
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.

122
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.

123
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)

124
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)

125
13. What role do you believe other educational partners (i.e., parents, community
members) play, if any, in advancing equity on your campus? (CF: structural/institutional,
Q type: Patton, opinions/beliefs)
14. How do you measure the impact of your equity-focused leadership? (CF:
structural/institutional, Q Type: Patton, opinions/beliefs, knowledge) Probing question:
What data do you use, if any, to determine the impact of your equity-focused leadership
practices?
Closing
Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down and converse with me. Is there anything that I
didn’t ask you that I should have?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract 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, 2017). The purpose of the study is to identify what practices equity-focused principals have implemented to create an inclusive environment. The methodology for this study included data from a survey and from open-ended interview questions that were obtained from elementary school principals in Southern California public schools serving 2+ years at their current site. About 50 principals were invited to complete the survey. Survey responses then helped determine which 5 principals were to be interviewed. Study findings suggest that principals recognize the significant impact their personal backgrounds have had on their practice as equity-focused leaders. Additionally, principals identified key attributes - such as fostering collaboration, building trusting relationships with educational partners, and transparency - that significantly enhances their ability to create inclusive school environments. Findings underscore the critical role of elementary school principals in cultivating inclusive school environments through collaborative partnerships, strategic training and professional development, ongoing reflection, and the implementation of equitable schoolwide initiatives that best meet the needs of their respective learning communities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary 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

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

PDF

Equity and access: meeting the needs of diverse learners with UDL in elementary general education

PDF

The positionality and power dynamics of high school math departments

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

The importance of the implementation process to achieve equity in the classroom through culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A comparative case study on the impact of Black male teachers on implementing inclusive and antiracist practices in elementary-middle education

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

PDF

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Moreno, Erika Patricia (author)

Core Title The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/17/2024

Defense Date 03/22/2024

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

Tag critical race theory,educational equity,educational partners,equity-focused leadership,inclusion,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 epmoreno@usc.edu,moreno_ep@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113880104

Unique identifier UC113880104

Identifier etd-MorenoErik-12831.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-MorenoErik-12831

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Moreno, Erika Patricia

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240418-usctheses-batch-1142 (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