Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
(USC Thesis Other)
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Attributes of Effective Equity-Focused High School Principals
Eduardo Zaldivar
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 Eduardo Zaldivar 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Eduardo Zaldivar certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Franklin
Rudolph Crew
David Cash, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
The study sought to understand how high school principals’ attributes and practices make their
schools equitable and successful for all students. Findings from the study augment the
understanding of equity-focused practices for school site and district administrators. The equityfocused practices the leaders in the study use could be applied to other settings to benefit diverse
student populations’ success. The participants were from a school district in Southern California.
The study confirmed that principal leadership is central to establishing an equity-focused high
school campus. The study highlighted principals employing equity-driven practices to help
students feel included. One evident practice is using diverse literature to be more representative
of students. A focus on the engagement of parents of historically marginalized students was also
key in creating an equity-focused school. Study findings also suggest that principals benefit from
undergoing professional development on equity to enhance their understanding of advancing
equity on their school campus. When using graduation rate as a major achievement metric, four
out of five of the leaders’ schools in the study demonstrated graduation rates well above the state
average for African American, Hispanic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students, a
finding that could be correlated, at least in part, to those leaders’ equity-focused practices.
v
Dedication
To my wife and four children, Sienna, Max, Luke, and Cruz, I could not have achieved this
without your love and support. To my parents, whose guidance from above was omnipresent and
particularly my mother for steering me to value the acquisition of knowledge.
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. David Cash, Dr. Gregory Franklin,
and Dr. Rudolph Crew for their pivotal guidance throughout the process. I would also like to
thank Superintendent Dr. Mathew Holton for his unwavering support of my pursuit of this
endeavor. I am also abundantly grateful to my thematic dissertation group members who played
such an instrumental role in fostering a healthy environment to dialogue, question, and learn.
I do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose. No financial support was involved in
this study for participant recruitment and data collection. Correspondence concerning this study
should be addressed to Eduardo Zaldivar, email: ezaldiva@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, Erika Moreno, and Charlene Saenz. 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.................................................................................................9
Critical Race Theory in Education.....................................................................................18
Leadership..........................................................................................................................21
The Role of High School Principals in Equitable Education.............................................28
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................39
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................43
Research Questions............................................................................................................43
Selection of the Population ................................................................................................44
ix
Design Summary................................................................................................................46
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................47
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................49
Trustworthiness and Credibility.........................................................................................49
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................50
Researcher Positionality.....................................................................................................50
Summary............................................................................................................................51
Participants.........................................................................................................................53
Results................................................................................................................................55
Survey Results ...................................................................................................................55
Results Research Question 1..............................................................................................59
Discussion Research Question 1........................................................................................63
Results Research Question 2..............................................................................................63
Discussion Research Question 2........................................................................................68
Results Research Question 3..............................................................................................69
Discussion Research Question 3........................................................................................77
Results Research Question 4..............................................................................................78
Discussion Research Question 4........................................................................................83
Summary............................................................................................................................84
Findings..............................................................................................................................88
Limitations.........................................................................................................................94
Implications for Practice ....................................................................................................95
Conclusions........................................................................................................................99
References....................................................................................................................................100
Appendix A: Survey Protocol......................................................................................................109
x
Introduction......................................................................................................................109
Closing .............................................................................................................................112
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................113
Opening/Introduction.......................................................................................................113
Interview Questions (With Transitions)...........................................................................113
Closing .............................................................................................................................116
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria 45
Table 2: Participants 54
Table 3: Survey Results Part 1 57
Table 4: Survey Results, Part 2 58
Table 5: School Performance Overview 73
Table 6: Graduation Rate by School Leader and State by Demographic Groups 78
Table A1: Survey Items and Conceptual Framework Alignment 110
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Visual Conceptual Framework 40
Figure 2: Survey Question 7: Enhancement/Limitation of Practices to Support Equity 69
Figure 3: Survey Question 8: Training Received 84
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
In the twelfth annual report of the secretary of the board (1848, as cited in the National
Archives and Records Administration, 2009), Horace Mann states, “Education, then, beyond all
other divides of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of men - the balance wheel of
the social machinery” (p. 59). However, almost 2 centuries later, schools in the United States are
still inequitable, as evidenced by the following statistics. In 2011–2012, only 57% of Black
students had access to the full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness.
Moreover, Black and Latino students represent 38% of students in schools that offer Advanced
Placement (AP) courses (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2014a).
Research has also shown evidence of systemic bias in teachers’ expectations for Black
students, and non-Black teachers have lower expectations of Black students than Black teachers
(United Negro College Fund, 2023). Furthermore, Black students spend less time in the
classroom due to disciplinary issues, which further hinders their access to a quality education.
According to a 2016 U.S. Department of Education report, in 2011–2012, only 10% of public
school principals were Black, compared to 80% White. Black male teachers constitute only 2%
of the teaching workforce. Regarding accessibility to educational resources, students of color are
often concentrated in schools with fewer resources. They often learn in schools with high
turnover rates, less qualified teachers, teachers with lower salaries, and novice teachers (SpatigAmerikaner, 2012). Additionally, they are nearly three times as likely to be suspended without
educational services as White students (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights,
2014b; U.S. Department of Education, 2016).
Scholars argue that educational leaders might transform leadership and improve
outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse learners by adding multiple perspectives and
2
equity-based leadership approaches to status quo leadership practices, such as managerial,
instructional, transformational, or transactional (Santamaría, 2014). Considering this research,
Santamaría (2014) asserted that equity-focused school leadership, inclusive of culturally
responsive leadership, actively and persistently pursues achievement equity while supporting
teaching practices that incorporate culture to teach and empower children.
Background of the Problem
School discipline disproportionately targets students of color, and those who are
suspended are less likely to graduate and more likely to enter the juvenile justice system than
those who are not (Radd et al., 2021, p. 3). Additionally, compared to their White peers, students
of color underperform in standardized tests that are permeated with biases and push them toward
the margin (Turner, 2020). The disproportionality of students of color is maintained by the settler
colonial curricular project, deculturalization, and the sustainment of the dominant culture in
schools, as evidenced by the research presented in the following sections.
Educational structures of power sustain practices of deculturalization and policies
grounded in a settler colonial mindset to maintain Whiteness at the center as the superior race.
“The historical work of curriculum scholars … demonstrate that from its inception and to the
present day, the project of schooling in the [United States] and Canada has been a White
supremacist project” (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 75). Tuck and GaztambideFernández (2013) presented findings ingrained in the untold stories of people of color and erased
from the U.S. curriculum known as the settler colonial curricular project of replacement, which
aims to vanish Indigenous peoples and replace them with settlers who see themselves as the
rightful claimants to land. Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) stated that the field of
curriculum studies has played a significant role in maintaining settler colonialism.
3
Spring (2016) compared the Roman Empire and White Supremacy. The worldview
during this post-Republican period viewed Rome as the perfect civitas or political order, and any
person who lived outside of Rome was seen as less human, similar to the continued oppression
minority groups experience in the United States. America’s colonization was made possible by
the deculturalization of Indigenous people, stripping them of their culture and language and
forcing them to assimilate into the dominant White culture through genocide, denial of
education, and curriculum.
The deculturalization practices Spring (2016) described remain in schools today,
reflected in the school culture and climate as students of color are expected to conform to ideals
grounded in settler colonialism. “To some students, school culture is liberating and validating,
while to others it teaches them to ‘melt’ into what is deemed as ‘American’ and abandon their
home culture, resulting in deculturalization” (Fraise & Brooks, 2015, p. 11). Additionally, Smith
et al. (2007, as cited in Lewis et al., 2019) asserted that “an unsupportive campus climate can
negatively influence the academic performance and psychological well-being of students of
color” (p. 2). This research further demonstrates the importance of establishing an inclusive
campus culture that is representative of students so that high schools may become sacred places
for students of color.
This study sought to provide insight into effective school leadership practices that
advance educational equity for students of color and reject the notion of school leaders who fail
to address racism and instead focus on color-blind managerialism, leading to the perpetuation of
educational inequities for students of color (Turner, 2020).
4
Statement of the Problem
Historically marginalized student groups continue to underperform their white
counterparts in standardized academic metrics, are overrepresented in suspension rates, and are
over-identified in special education (Martin et al., 2017). An inequitable distribution of resources
has further widened the opportunity gap for marginalized students, creating unfair and
exclusionary practices. Ladson-Billings’ (2006) educational debt examines how students of color
have systematically suffered through inequitable policies and practices. This is especially true for
historically marginalized students from underrepresented groups because they are expected to
check their cultures at the school or classroom door and learn according to European American
norms.
Smith (2005) studied the factors contributing to marginalized students’ underachievement
and offered practices of culturally proficient school leaders to build a positive school culture to
improve these students’ academic achievement. Smith noted that culturally competent leaders
adapt to diversity by examining policies, procedures, and programs for subtle practices of
discrimination. They value diversity by creating an inclusive environment and encouraging
various perspectives in the school’s decision-making processes (Smith, 2005). They
institutionalize cultural knowledge by providing training about diversity and incorporating
cultural knowledge into the organization (Smith, 2005). The author explained that these actions
reduce student discipline problems and dropout rates and increase school leaders’ ability to foster
mutual trust and respect (Smith, 2005).
Purpose of the Study
I understand that school leadership is a crucial component of education reform; as such, I
sought to study equity-focused leaders’ effective practices. Teachers leave preparation programs
5
unprepared to implement instructional practices that lead to an inclusive and representative
classroom. The role of the high school principal is to create an inclusive school culture, lead
staff, maintain the safety of all, and, most importantly, provide advantages to students that will
help them advance beyond their dreams. The purpose of the study was to identify the practices
that equity-focused high school principals enacted to create an inclusive environment.
Research Questions
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
“Educational equity means that each child receives what they need to develop to their full
academic and social potential” (National Equity Project, n.d.). This study sought to identify the
attributes equity-focused high school leaders possess to cultivate an inclusive school
environment that sets marginalized students up for success. Student success is defined through
data on school culture, climate, and student achievement. Through a critical race theoretical lens
and an equity-focused school leadership framework, this study examined the systems that
hinder/limit principals in creating an equity-focused campus and how their positionality inhibits
or enhances their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders. Critical race theory “challenges the
dominant discourse on race and racism as it relates to education by examining how educational
6
theory and practice are used to subordinate certain racial and ethnic groups” (Solórzano &
Yosso, 2001, p. 2). Additionally, equity-focused leadership cultivates an inclusive environment
wherein all stakeholders feel they are valued, cared for, and seen. It also distributes resources
equitably and considers the impact on historically marginalized groups prior to making decisions
(Butterfoss, 2021). The participants’ equity-focused actions were determined by compiling their
narratives via surveys and interviews on their positionality and professional experience, school
data on culture and climate, student achievement data, and, when adequate, observations of
equity practices.
Significance of the Study
This study aimed to impart an enhanced understanding of the high school principal’s role,
identify the attributes that enable them to lead schools focused on equity, and identify effective
strategies future principals can employ to achieve equitable student outcomes.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study was limited to high school principals in Southern California, and their selfreported personal narratives and identification as equity-focused leaders. Survey and interview
questions related to equity-focused school leadership were limited to the relevance of the
research participants’ positionality and professional experiences. This study was delimited to a
specific number of high school principals in a particular geographic region.
Definition of Terms
Critical race theory: Solórzano and Yosso (2001) asserted that critical race theory
“challenges the dominant discourse on race and racism as it relates to education by examining
how educational theory and practice are used to subordinate certain racial and ethnic groups” (p.
2).
7
Deculturalization: “a conscious attempt to replace one culture and language with another
that is considered ‘superior’” (Spring, 2016, p. 1).
Educational equity: “Educational equity means that each child receives what they need to
develop to their full academic and social potential” (National Equity Project, n.d.). Equity in
schools is achieved by raising the performance of all students and eliminating the predictability
and disproportionality of student outcomes based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class,
housing patterns, gender, home language, nation of origin, special needs, and other student
characteristics (Roegman et al., 2019).
Educational partners: In California, [educational partners] are referred to as “teachers,
principals, administrators, other school personnel, local bargaining units of the LEA, parents, and
pupils” (California Department of Education, 2023, p. 2).
Equity-focused leadership: “Cultivates an inclusive environment where all educational
partners feel valued, cared for, and seen; distributes resources equitably; and considers the
impact of their decisions on historically marginalized groups” (Butterfoss, 2021, para. 5).
Epistemology: “An epistemology is a ‘system of knowing’ that has both an internal logic
and external validity” (Ladson-Billings, 2000, p. 257, as cited in Douglas and Nganga, 2013, p.
68).
Inclusion: “An environment that offers affirmation, celebration, and appreciation of
different approaches, styles, perspectives, and experiences, thus allowing all individuals to
express their whole selves (and all their identities) and to demonstrate their strengths and
capacity” (American Psychological Association, 2021, p. 12).
8
Interest convergence: “critical race theory theorists believe that to increase the speed of
social justice one must find the place where the change being sought out is aligned to the
interests of Whites, a notion deemed as ‘interest convergence’’ (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 7).
Marginalized students: “Students of color, economically disadvantaged students, English
learners, and students with disabilities” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 92).
Positionality: “How one is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of
gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors” (Villaverde
2008, as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 60)
Settler colonialism: “The specific formation of colonialism in which the colonizer comes
to stay, making the sovereign, and the arbiter of citizenship, civility, and knowing” (Tuck &
Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 75).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study,
introducing its purpose and the background of the problem. It includes definitions of terms used
in this study. Chapter 2 presents a literature review in the areas of critical race theory,
positionality, equity-focused school leadership, and components of an inclusive environment.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology, sample and population selection, survey and interview
questions, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 is a report of the research findings.
Chapter 5 consists of a summary of findings, implications for practice, conclusions, and
recommendations. References and appendices are included in the back matter of this document.
9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The role of the high school principal is one of the most influential roles on a high school
campus and in the community. High school principals work with a variety of educational
partners, from teachers and support staff to students, parents, and community members. In
addition, high school principals must meet the expectations of their superintendent and the
district office. They are uniquely positioned to lead and promote equity in their sphere of
influence, thus making a high school principal uniquely positioned to highly impact students’
educational experience and outcomes.
It is vital to investigate the attributes that principals possess and the strategies they utilize
to make their schools equitable and successful for all students. This chapter will consist of a
review of the literature that is relevant to equity and equity minded high school principals. The
literature review will also delineate works related to the factors that may yield equitable practices
and positive student outcomes at the high school level.
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
10
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
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
11
deculturalization. Spring (2016) cited a historical belief that remains evident, as reflected in
school curricula and many educators’ resistance to including marginalized students’ stories:
Believing that Anglo-American culture was the superior culture and the only culture that
would support republican and democratic institutions, educators forbade the speaking of
non-English language, particularly Spanish and Native American tongues, and forced
students to learn an Anglo-American centered curriculum (Spring, 2016, p. 6).
Spring declared that the common-school movement of the 1830s and 1840s was partly an
attempt to halt the drift toward a multicultural society. This was a result of the perceived threat of
the freeing of enslaved African Americans and Native Americans on the dominant culture’s
ideals concurrent with early efforts to deculturalize Native Americans (Spring, 2016, pp. 6–7).
Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández (2013) discussed the untold stories of students of color,
which have been erased from the U.S. curriculum, known as the settler-colonial curricular
project of replacement that aims to vanish Indigenous peoples and replace them with settlers who
see themselves as the rightful claimants to land. Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernández stated that the
field of curriculum studies has played a significant role in maintaining settler colonialism.
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
12
in which White supremacy and colonization constantly manifest themselves in curriculum
scholarship” (p. 83). The practice of browning brings attention to practices of White supremacy
and inserts itself into the academic space for narratives that have been replaced or forgotten
(Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). The second intervention is remetriation, “the work of
community members and scholars in curriculum studies who directly address the complicity of
curriculum in the maintenance of settler colonialism” (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p.
84). Remetriation involves a different approach to research that relies on the invisible narratives
of the colonized and the centering of collective knowledge gained by the marginalized, a source
of knowledge that academia would otherwise not recognize. This approach leads to rejecting
narratives and theories used to center the dominant group and is an opportunity to rewrite stories,
knowledge, and research to deconstruct the settler narrative (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández,
2013).
From its onset to the present day, “the project of schooling in the [United States] … has
been a White supremacist project” (Tuck & Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013, p. 75). Moreover, “the
field of curriculum studies has played a significant role in the maintenance of settler colonialism”
(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
13
added that it is not necessarily an achievement gap occurring but an opportunity gap, a racial
problem affecting communities of color (p. 52). These assertions support the argument that in the
context of the educational system’ structure, students of color are at a disadvantage and lack
opportunities compared to their White counterparts.
As Luke Wood et al. (2021) observed, one element that further displays inequities in the
educational system is suspension rates. Suspensions are higher than average for African
American students, evidencing a hegemonic culture that suspends students of color in
disproportionate numbers (Luke Wood et al., 2021). They also contribute to social and
educational inequities. The authors asserted that the statewide average for suspension for all
students in California public schools was 3.5% in 2018–2019; however, the rate for Black
children/youth is 9.1% (Luke Wood et al., 2021). Per the California School Dashboard, the
suspension rate for African American/ Black children in 2021–2022 was 7.9%, compared to
3.1% overall. Despite the decrease, the dashboard categorizes this rate as a high-status level. This
study and current data substantiate disproportionate suspension rates based on race.
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
14
(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).
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.
15
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).
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).
16
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,
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.
17
The academic benefits of Black and Asian high school students were evidenced by an increase in
test scores from three to five percent. However, there was an exception to this growth pattern
relative to Hispanic students and a negative correlation to being matched with a Hispanic
teacher. Researchers attributed this finding to the array of diversity in that population.
Ultimately, Sawchuk proposed that students who see themselves in their teachers have improved
chances of succeeding.
Individual/Interpersonal
When centering the gender discrimination women of color experience, it is necessary to
recognize and explicitly name intersectionality, which Crenshaw (2017, as cited in Duckworth,
2021) described as “a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it
locks and intersects. It is the acknowledgement that everyone has their own unique experiences
of discrimination and privilege” (para.4). Failing to recognize a person’s identity through race,
gender, language, age, or education significantly impacts their perceived abilities to rise in a
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
18
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.
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,
19
offering much-needed reassurance to American Blacks, and Whites realizing that the South
could become the sunbelt of America (Bell, 1980). The concept of interest convergence only
reaffirms Whites’ dominance in America, as does the historical evidence of the continuous
oppression of marginalized groups, and this is the basis for critical race theory (CRT) in
education.
Critical race theory states that the curriculum is developed to continue the dominance of
the White race. In other words, the curriculum is “designed to maintain a White supremacist
master script” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18). This master scripting “legitimizes the dominant,
white, upper-class, male voicings as the ‘standard’ knowledge that students need to know” by
silencing the voices of others (Swartz, 1992, as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18). Thus, the
whitewashing of Black history fits the narrative of the dominant group under the guise of
diversity and multiculturalism. An example is the telling of Rosa Parks’s actions as due to
tiredness and not activism.
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
20
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
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).
21
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.
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
22
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 &
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
23
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).
Motivation: “a passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status” (Goleman,
2004/2011, para. 21).
Empathy: “the ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people” (Goleman,
2004/2011, para. 21).
Social skill: “proficiency in managing relationships and building networks” (Goleman,
2004/2011, para. 21).
He further asserted that there is a direct correlation between effective performance and emotional
intelligence. “As leaders it is important to be self-aware; to know your strengths, weaknesses,
drives, values, and impact on others” (Goleman, 2004/2011, para. 2). Goleman conducted a
study that indicated that 90% of the difference between star performers and average leaders was
attributed to emotional intelligence (2004/2011). The author defined each skill further in context
and concluded that these five skills are necessary to serve as a strong leader, as these skills
“enable the best leaders to maximize their own and their follower’s performance” (Goleman,
2004/2011, para. 1). Goleman (2004/2011) determined that emotional intelligence can be learned
24
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
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,
25
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
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.
26
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
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
27
learning, defining indicators of success, and constructing goals collectively. Westover concludes
that building staff capacity, tapping into their collective wisdom, and transforming systems will
lead to culture change and sustainability to improve outcomes for student learning.
Secondary School Leadership
The secondary principal’s role and impact on student achievement plays a pivotal role in
secondary schools. One specific example of a principal’s practice is time spent coaching teachers
that yielded positive student outcomes (Grissom et al., 2021). The authors also assert that in the
process of discovering principal behaviors and practices, “informal classroom walkthroughs …
negatively predicted achievement growth” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 73). The authors concluded
that principals might conduct such informal walkthroughs at the high school level to augment
visibility. Nonetheless, a principal’s effect on student achievement is significantly greater than
that of a teacher (Grissom et al., 2021). The researchers further asserted that the context of
school leadership has changed significantly, which warrants “an updated review of the principal
impact literature and a summary of the contemporary skills, behaviors, and practices associated
with student success” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 28). While there is a notable increase in women
principals of 29% as compared to 1988, the gender gap remains, and women are overrepresented
in highest poverty schools (Grissom et al., 2021).
Grissom et al.’s (2021) primary point is that a principal’s behavior related to educating
teachers on marginalized students’ experiences is coupled with training them to support these
students. Along the same lines, Grissom et al. pointed to the need to explore principal behaviors
from an equity perspective, specifically how these impact specific student groups. This assertion
supports the aims of this study.
28
The Role of High School Principals in Equitable Education
A principal’s ability to advance equity on campus is affirmed by the many researchers
presented throughout this section. Curriculum, pedagogy, and a focus on achieving equity for all
students are just some of the ways that a principal can affect student achievement on their
campus. This section will present research that highlights the effectiveness of a principal related
to cultivating an equitable educational environment.
Abolitionist Teaching and Curriculum Diversification
The California Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum is intended to serve as a framework for
school districts as they develop and implement ethnic studies courses. California Assembly Bill
101 requires that all districts implement an ethnic studies course by the 2025–2026 school year,
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.
29
Abolitionist teaching (Love, 2019) is another way to counter the monovocal account.
Abolitionist teaching is not just about “tearing down old structures and ways of thinking;” It is
also about
new ways to reach children trying to recover from the educational survival complex, new
ways to show dark children they are loved in this world, and new ways to establish an
educational system that works for everyone, especially those who are put at the edges of
the classroom and society. (Love, 2019, pp. 88–89).
Love discussed the educational survival complex built on the suffering of students of color. Love
(2019) asserted that children of color were never educated to thrive, only to survive. Abolitionist
teaching, freedom dreaming, and Black joy are about taking action against injustice and
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.
30
Furthermore, Boske (2009) presented evidence of the need to increase awareness of
cultural competence and decision-making among school leaders so they may better understand
how their current leadership practices promote equity and justice. This is done through an
examination of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA, 2009) standards,
which state that “creating global perspectives within school communities are critical to solving
contemporary societal issues, encouraging academic excellence, and preparing children for a
world-class workforce” (p. 117). The AASA standards call for leaders to diversify curricula and
empower others through multicultural understanding. Ninety percent of American school leaders
identify as White, and the make-up of the schools they serve is increasingly diverse. Boske
(2009) emphasized the social responsibilities placed on schools as the central institutions that
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
31
leaders must be equipped with the ability to create long-standing systemic change that promotes
educational equity encompasses fiscal, administrative, programmatic, and additional roadblocks”
(p. 124). Boske further recommended that this can be achieved intentionally through leadership
preparedness programs.
Fraise and Brooks (2015) argued that “school culture” is a contrived and only partially
useful construct that should be rejected, as it has traditionally led to inequitable dynamics that
privilege an abstract dominant culture while marginalizing others (p. 8). Additionally, they
present the idea of building culture collectively with students to allow them to identify what is
most important to them as opposed to assimilating to a pre-established school culture constructed
by someone else. This work can be done by implementing culturally relevant pedagogy, the
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
32
consistent practice. Khalifa also highlighted the impact of a school principal who applies
culturally responsive leadership as it relates to school curriculum, culture, policy and structure,
and teacher efficacy. The term “responsive” implies that there is action to address students’
needs and ensure they are reflected in the school context. The author presented research that
asserts the influence of a school principal with regard to “serving as an instructional leader and
articulating a vision that supports the development and sustaining of culturally responsive
teaching in school” (Khalifa et al., 2016, p. 1281). Such culturally responsive leadership
practices may lead to a welcoming and inclusive school climate for students and staff (Khalifa et
al., 2016).
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.
33
Grissom and Bartanen (2019) conducted research on educational equity and equityfocused leadership by investigating principal turnover and effectiveness. The authors identified
key traits associated with effective principals, including proactively monitoring student academic
achievement, effective communication of a coherent school vision, and establishing high
teaching standards. Grissom and Bartanen’s findings further indicated that addressing principal
quality could enhance equity in education. Specifically, they called for prioritizing the
recruitment or placement of highly effective principals in economically disadvantaged schools.
Interestingly, the authors found that highly effective principals exhibited a propensity to leave
school positions and transition to central office roles. It is important to note that the study’s
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
34
(2014) identified nine applied critical leadership (ACL) characteristics aligned to culturally
responsive leadership practices that incorporate CRT and center marginalized groups:
● ACL Characteristic 1: Critical conversations - the willingness to initiate and engage
in critical conversations with individuals and groups in formal or informal settings,
even when the topic was not popular in the whole group (p. 367).
● ACL Characteristic 2: Critical race theory lens - the intentional application of a CRT
lens to consider multiple perspectives of critical issues (p. 368).
● ACL Characteristic 3: Group Consensus - using consensus building as the preferred
strategy for decision making (p. 369).
● 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).
35
● ACL Characteristic 9: Servant to Leadership - feeling called to lead to serve the
greater good (p. 375).
The conceptual framework for culturally proficient practices (Franco et al., 2011) further
identifies two tools: barriers to cultural proficiency and the guiding principles (e.g., core values)
of cultural proficiency. Between these two tools is the zone of ethical tension, a pivot point
where an educator chooses between identifying as a victim of social forces or believing in their
capacity to be effective in cross-cultural interactions. This informs unhealthy versus healthy
practices, which inform the five essential elements of cultural competence: assessing cultural
knowledge, valuing diversity, managing the dynamics of difference, adapting to diversity, and
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
36
● Practice V: Sustaining Equity.
Through these practices, educational leaders adopt a transformational approach, prepare for the
ongoing emotional and intellectual work of equity leadership, form a leadership team focused on
transformative systems change and composed of similarly committed individuals, identify the
needs and plan for systemic change, and prepare for the long haul (Radd et al., 2021).
Freedom Dreaming and Hope in Education
The educational debt, as Ladson-Billings (2006) described, requires an investment in
marginalized students by making the inequities in the educational system a social responsibility
and priority. There is urgency in envisioning education in ways that create equitable conditions
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
37
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
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
38
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.
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
39
Chicago, Illinois, six with higher achievement scores and six with stagnant or declining student
achievement. Specific findings in the study indicated four major leadership practices and
behaviors that separate principals of improving schools from contrast schools. First, leaders of
improving schools set ambitious school visions with corresponding goals, carried out through a
collective effort. Second, they empower teachers to create supports and structures to meet school
goals. Third, they monitor student progress and offer support that is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Lastly, they build strong relationships focused on trust. At Oak School, for example, the
principal set up supports and structures for students to address the vision of college readiness,
whereas a contrast school had not set up clear goals or structural support systems to meet the
school’s vision. This was also the case with structured time to collaborate. Improving schools
established time to collaborate focused on sharing data and observing each other’s classrooms.
There was also a shared sense of ownership for improvement. In the case of contrast schools that
did have planning time, leaders did not provide clear direction or specificity to address goals
with their staff. A limitation of the study is that principals, in contrast schools, had less tenure
than those in improving schools, and principals at the elementary level had more tenure than
those at the high school (Gordon & Hart, 2022). A second limitation is that interviews were
conducted over a school year (Gordon & Hart, 2022).
Conclusion
Aligned with the themes identified in the literature review, I developed the conceptual
framework in Figure 1. To unpack the development of this conceptual framework, I will now
describe its various elements and their correlation to the literature. I assert that systemic
inequities are embedded across structural and institutionalized levels, such as within local and
state systems, policies, and districts, that directly influence a principal’s leadership (Radd et al.,
40
2021, p. 10). In turn, a principal’s leadership affects student outcomes and a school’s culture and
climate. Khalifa et al. (2016) highlighted the positive impact of culturally responsive leadership
practices as they relate to school curriculum, culture, policy and structure, and teacher efficacy.
Additionally related to an inclusive school environment, research has asserted that “an
unsupportive campus climate can negatively influence the academic performance and
psychological well-being of students of color” (Smith et al., 2007, as cited in Lewis et al., 2019,
p. 2).
Figure 1
Visual Conceptual Framework
41
The structural and institutional factors that act as barriers to enacting equity leadership
include the inequitable distribution of resources related to school facilities, funding, and their
negative impact on student achievement (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Second is the continual
resistance experienced by principals striving to disrupt inequitable systems and policies, defined
as interest convergence 1
by Ladson-Billings (1998). Thirdly, there is a lack of coherence across
the district and district leadership support (Westover, 2020).
Individual and interpersonal factors must also be considered, as Fullan and Quinn (2016)
stated that the leader must serve as the connector, activate others to engage and co-conspire in
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
1
“Critical race theory theorists believe that to increase the speed of social justice one must find
the place where the change being sought out is aligned to the interests of Whites, a notion
deemed as “interest convergence”‘ (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p.7).
42
equity warriors, both through administrative credential programs and in their local contexts as
practitioners. The next chapter describes the methods I utilized to conduct this study.
43
Chapter Three: Methodology
Historically marginalized students underperform their white counterparts in standardized
academic metrics, are overrepresented in suspension rates, and are over-identified in special
education (Martin et al., 2017). An inequitable distribution of resources has further widened the
opportunity gap for marginalized students, creating unfair and exclusionary practices (Kendi,
2019). Ladson-Billings’ (2006) educational debt examines how students of color have
systematically suffered through inequitable policies and practices. In our experience as
educators, we find that this is especially true for historically marginalized students from
underrepresented groups.
Purpose of the Study
Because school leadership is central to education reform, this study examined equityfocused leaders’ effective practices. The principal’s role is to create an inclusive school culture
that ensures that the teachers and staff are equity-focused. The purpose of the study was to
identify what practices equity-focused principals have implemented to create an inclusive
environment.
Research Questions
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?
44
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
Selection of the Population
I surveyed and interviewed high school principals to better understand how educational
leaders promote equity and inclusivity in their schools and districts. This knowledge will support
more principals in improving the effectiveness of the professional development and support they
receive so that they can transfer it to their staff to develop a more equitable school environment.
Participants consisted of high school principals currently serving for at least 2 years in
San Bernardino County. I invited 10 principals to complete the survey. The survey responses
then helped identify 5 interviewees. The survey and interview participants served in public
schools with a marginalized student population (inclusive of at least one of the following student
subgroups: Black, Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners, and
students with disabilities) that is reflective of the county’s demographic population (at minimum)
as published by USAFacts (2023). Table 1 displays the survey and interview criteria.
45
Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria
Survey Interview
Years of high school principal experience: 2
years or more at their respective school site
Years of high school principal experience: 2
years or more at their respective school site
Serving a marginalized student population
(inclusive of at least one of the following
student subgroups: Black, Hispanic/Latino,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, English
learners, and students with disabilities) that
is reflective of the county’s demographic
population (at minimum) as published by
USAFacts (2023).
Serving a marginalized student population
(inclusive of at least one of the following
student subgroups: Black, Hispanic/Latino,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, English
learners, and students with disabilities) that
is reflective of the county’s demographic
population (at minimum) as published by
USAFacts (2023).
Serving in California Serving in California
Attributes of an equity-focused leader as
identified through the survey
To conduct this study, I asked the Superintendent of the Chaffey Joint Union High
School District for permission to distribute the survey to principals in the district. To conduct this
study, I started with convenience sampling to identify 10 key participants (10 high school
principals) who might identify as equity-focused principals from various public school districts.
Since the focus is on equity-focused principals, regardless of race or color, the survey
participants represented varied racial/ethnic backgrounds and had two or more years of
experience at a California public school 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.org (2023). The interview
46
participants were selected based on their survey responses, where I identified that these
principals had attributes of an equity-focused leader, as defined by Radd et al. (2021).
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,
and identify specific strategies to cultivate an inclusive school environment (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Methodology
The methodology included qualitative data from a survey and interviews with high school
principals in Southern California public schools. The survey provided more detailed information
on the participants’ equity-focused practices at their school sites. The survey informed whom I
would need to interview. When developing the interview protocol, I used a semistructured
approach to utilize questions with some flexibility, depending on how the interviewees
responded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview data address Research Question 1 (RQ1).
Both the interview and survey data address Research Questions 2, 3, and 4 (RQ2, RQ3, and
RQ4).
Survey
The qualitative data for this study came from a 13-question survey (Appendix A). The
survey questions elicited information to answer RQs 1 and 2. Only one survey question was
closed-ended, and the remaining nine were open-ended. All used standard language and lacked
biased words or phrases (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2018). Part 1 of the survey centered on
principal experience and training, and Part 2 focused on demographic items. Of the nine closed-
47
ended questions, one was a yes/no question, four were multiple-choice, and the other four were
Likert-scale. Four school leaders field-tested and reviewed the survey to support content validity.
The survey provided a numerical description of site leaders’ beliefs on equity-focused leadership
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Qualitative Instrument
I used semistructured interviews to collect qualitative data. With multiple researchers in
this study, I decided on an interview protocol consisting of 14 questions (Appendix B).
Additional probing questions were included in Questions 8 and 14 for clarification purposes
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I wrote the interview questions to gather information on RQs 3 and
4. Additionally, I utilized Patton’s (2002) matrix of question options: behaviors/experiences,
opinions/values, feelings/emotions, knowledge, sensory, and background to support the
development of questions. I field-tested The interview protocol with four school leaders to
support content validity. I used face-to-face interviews to complement the survey data. To
preserve data for analysis, I audio-recorded the interviews, simultaneously taking written notes to
highlight what the interviewees said (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection
To ensure an adequate pool of interviewees, I administered a preliminary survey to 10
high school principals via convenience sampling (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The purpose of
the survey was to identify principals who embodied the attributes associated with equity-focused
leaders (Appendix A). Additionally, I examined school and district documents on student
achievement data relative to RQ 1 (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These documents are the school
accountability report card, the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, the
California School Dashboard, and documentation of school demographics. These data were
48
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 high school principals with equity-focused attributes, as
evidenced by their survey results (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). I served as the primary
instrument for developing interview questions in accordance with Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016)
semistructured interview approach, which provides the interviewer the flexibility to respond to
the “emerging worldview of the respondent … and to new ideas on the topic” (p. 111).
Interviews assisted me in describing the facts and characteristics of the phenomena or the
relationship between equity-focused leadership practices and historically marginalized students’
achievement and the attributes associated with an inclusive school environment (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 5).
Ethics must also be considered when conducting interviews, as consent, risk, and the
researcher’s positionality in relation to the participants must also be carefully evaluated.
According to Agee (2009), “The researcher must be reflective about how the questions will
affect participants’ lives and how the questions will position the researcher in relation to
participants” (p. 439). Therefore, I have considered the ethical issues that may arise in this study
and must ensure that the benefits of the research outweigh the risks and follow the five basic
principles of ethics as outlined by Glesne (2011). Interviewees’ identities remained confidential,
and they could opt out of the study at any time. I obtained informed consent for recording, and
participants reviewed their interview transcripts to confirm their responses. Interview transcript
49
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).
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
50
during the interviews. I also sought variation in our sample population regarding site leaders with
varying positionalities and the types of schools they lead to ensure credibility (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
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
Throughout the research process I must be extremely careful and cognizant of my
positionality. I hold a position in the district office, but just two years ago I was a high school
principal and a middle school principal prior to that. I have served in schools with a majority of
students of color and also in schools in which students of color comprised a minority of the
student population. I unquestionably have biased thoughts about equity and inclusive strategies
and this could impact my research. I am also a person of color, a child immigrant, an English
learner, who grew up economically disadvantaged. The aforementioned characteristics would
make me a marginalized student as defined by Grissom et al., (2021). The first step to addressing
existing biases is to acknowledge and identify my bias and secondly, to monitor it, both will be
vital in the research process (Merriam and Tisdell (2016). I will conduct member checks in the
process to increase validity and reliability thus ensuring that interviews are accurate and in line
with what the interviewee has shared. Allowing participants to review the interview notes for
accuracy will be a strategy that will diminish existing bias.
51
Summary
This study used a qualitative methods approach. I collected data through interviews with
and surveys of high school principals in Southern California public schools. The data were
analyzed to address the following RQs:
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
Chapter 4 presents the findings. A discussion and recommendations based on the results follow
in Chapter 5.
52
Chapter Four: Results
The study sought to understand how high school principals’ attributes and strategies
make their schools equitable and successful for all students. The principal shapes a school’s
culture and influences its direction as well as students’ high school experience. This study
employed a CRT perspective and equity-focused school leadership framework (Ishimaru &
Galloway, 2014), specifically the 10 key equitable leadership practices. Several of the
participants used these practices. The following sections will discuss the study’s results,
including participants’ personal experiences and survey responses. To add context, the 10 key
leadership practices or high-leverage equitable leadership practices are constructing and enacting
an equity vision, supervising for improvement of equitable instruction, developing organizational
leadership for equity, fostering an equitable school culture, allocating resources, hiring and
placing personnel, collaborating with families and communities, engaging in self-reflection and
growth for equity, modeling ethical and equitable behavior, influencing the sociopolitical context
(Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014). These practices are designed to mitigate disparities for nondominant students (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014).
Additionally, three participants mentioned the creation of equity teams or equity
committees, which is one of the five equity-focused school leadership practices that Radd et al.
(2021) referenced. Other participants demonstrated evidence of prioritizing equity leadership
practices, which is also one of Radd et al.’s five equity-focused practices. The authors offered a
framework that outlines five meta-practices for equity-focused school leadership that strives to
help build equity-focused systems:
● Practice I - Prioritizing Equity Leadership
● Practice II - Preparing for Equity
53
● Practice III - Developing Equity Leadership Teams
● Practice IV - Building Equity-Focused Systems
● Practice V - Sustaining Equity.
As will be exhibited in the practice of creating an equity team, the participants employed two of
the five practices offered by Radd et al. (2021): prioritizing equity leadership and developing
equity leadership teams.
Participants
The participants were high school principals in the Chaffey Joint Union High School
District (CJUHSD) in Southern California. The CJUHSD serves the cities of Ontario, Montclair,
Rancho Cucamonga, and portions of Fontana, Upland, Chino, and Mount Baldy. With
approximately 23,000 students, the district is the second-largest high school district in California.
It has eight comprehensive high schools, a continuation high school, an online high school, a
community day school, an adult school, and alternative programs. According to the California
Department of Education, as of the 2022–23 school year, the CJUHSD’s demographics are as
follows: 65.3% Hispanic/Latino, 13.4% White, 7.3% Black/African American, 7.1% Asian,
2.2% Filipino, 2.5% Two or more races, 0.3% American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.4% Native
Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander and 0.8% not reported. In addition, 55.2% of students are
socioeconomically disadvantaged, 8% are English learners, and .5% are foster youth. The study
used a semi-structured interview approach to collect data from participants.
This study also utilized an anonymous survey sent to all CJUHSD principals. The
purpose of the survey was to triangulate the research findings and to seek clarity in secondary
principals’ perceptions and actions to create a school environment that is inclusive and equity-
54
focused. The survey was sent to all qualifying school district principals and had a response rate
of 77%. Table 2 presents the interviewees identified by pseudonyms.
Table 2
Participants
Pseudonym Gender Race/
Ethnicity
Years at
current site
County Interviewed
Leader A Male White 2–4 San Bernardino Yes
Leader B Female Hispanic 5–7 San Bernardino Yes
Leader C Male White 2–4 San Bernardino Yes
Leader D Male White 2–4 San Bernardino Yes
Leader E Male White 8+ San Bernardino Yes
Leader F Female Hispanic 5–7 San Bernardino No
Leader G Prefer to selfdescribe, not
stated
Black 5–7 San Bernardino No
55
The study entailed permission from the CJUHSD superintendent to send the survey to the
nine principals who qualified for the study based on a minimum of 2 years serving at their
school. Seven responded to the survey, and five were interviewed. Three of the survey
respondents indicated they had served 2 to 4 years as principals of their schools, another three
served 5 to 7 years, and one served 8 or more years. The five interviewees were selected based
on their willingness and availability to be interviewed, their survey responses, and their schools’
profiles, specifically focusing on schools with a marginalized student enrollment of at least 10%.
Results
The study’s results are discussed below and arranged by research question. The findings
outline the challenges and opportunities related to each question. The following sections also
present a summary of the results per research question. The chapter concludes with a summary of
the overall findings. The research questions guiding and organizing this chapter are as follows:
1. What factors of positionality do principals believe inhibit and enhance their
effectiveness as equity-focused leaders?
2. What political systems (i.e., district, state, federal) hinder/limit principals in creating
an equity-focused campus?
3. How, if at all, do principals believe that equity-focused leadership contributes to
student success?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
Survey Results
Participants also took a survey that provided insight into the degree to which they
perceive educational equity to be present in different arenas in their high schools. The survey
56
results indicating principals’ definition of educational equity showed that three out of five who
completed this portion were in line with the Equity Project’s (n.d.) definition of “educational
equity,” which states that each child receives what they need to develop to their full academic
and social potential. The three respondents who were most in line with the operative definition
were Leaders C, D, and E. Leader C stated, “Educational equity refers to the principle of
ensuring that all students have access to the resources, support, and opportunities they need to
succeed in school.” Leader D said, “Each student receives what they need to be successful
regardless of race, culture, or demographic.” Leader E defined “educational equity” as “ensuring
all students are provided with the tools and support to achieve.”
Leader A responded to the question by stating that educational equity is “equal access to
all students no matter race, gender, or socioeconomic status.” The final respondent, Leader B,
responded to the question stating that educational equity is “creating an inclusive environment
where individuals of diverse backgrounds can thrive. It involves evaluating policies and practices
to ensure that there are access points to all the resources of the school for all people.”
When asked about the degree to which educational equity is found in a variety of areas
(Table 3), out of 10 possible points, an average of 6.7 respondents believed their schools’
curricula reflected educational equity. Regarding the degree to which educational equity is found
in student involvement/culture at the school, the average was 6.42. Educational equity in
disciplinary practices averaged 6.14. As far as educational equity in terms of access to higherlevel courses, the average score was 7.66, which is the second-highest average of all the
questions. The highest average score was 7.83, and it was in response to the question related to
the degree to which professional development reflects educational equity. All survey respondents
indicated that school staff and educational partners enhanced practices to address inequities.
57
Lastly, all except one indicated that they received training to implement equity-centered
practices.
Table 3
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
Leader A 10 8 7 9 10 10
Leader B 6 5 5 6 6 7
Leader C 8 9 7 7 7 7
Leader D 7 6 7 3 8 10
Leader F 5 5 6 4 8 4
Leader G 5 4 5 - - -
Average 6.71 6.42 6.14 6.0 7.66 7.83
Note. Empty cells indicate that the respondent did not provide a response.
58
One major conclusion that can be drawn from the survey (Table 4) is the number of
principals who indicated they received training to implement equity-centered practices. As stated
previously, of the seven respondents, six indicated they received such training. This finding
could correlate to the response of professional development being scored high in the survey by
principals. Later sections of this chapter will discuss training to implement equity-centered
practices and professional development for educational equity.
Table 4
Survey Results, Part 2
Principal Degree to which
school staff
enhance/limit
practices to
address inequity
Degree to which
other ed partners
enhance/limit
practices to
address inequity
Received training
to help implement
equity-centered
practices?
Degree to which
your district
encourages PD to
promote equity
practices
Leader A* Enhance Significantly
enhance
Yes Strongly
Encourage
Leader B* Enhance Enhance Yes Somewhat
Encourage
Leader C* Enhance Enhance Yes Encourage
Leader D* Enhance Significantly
enhance
Yes Strongly
Encourage
Leader E* Enhance Enhance Yes Encourage
Leader F Limit Limit Yes Encourage
Leader G Limit Enhance No Encourage
Average Enhance Enhance Yes Encourage
Note. *Principal selected for interview.
59
Results Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked what factors of positionality principals believed inhibit and
enhance their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders.
Opportunity: Positionality Matters in Seeking Equity for All Students
The interview responses provided insight into the role that positionality plays in
inhibiting and enhancing secondary principals’ efforts to be effective equity-focused leaders. The
operating definition of positionality in this study 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 & Nanga, 2013, p.60). 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 &
Nganga, 2013, p. 61). One common theme was principals’ desire to relate to students; all
respondents mentioned that hardships in their upbringing provided them with a greater ability to
relate to historically marginalized students.
For instance, Leader A relayed an upbringing in foster care and having a desire to be a
principal who can relate to marginalized students, like he was. Specifically, Leader A said,
I grew up in foster care. I grew up in a group home. So, that upbringing definitely drives
me to understand our students. We have a high foster youth, McKinney Vento,
population. And I talked to them. I talked about 150 of our kids. And I told [them] I was
in their spot. I was in their position. I know where they’re coming from. I want them to
know my door is always open. But I also want them to understand where I come from.
Leader B indicated that her ethnic background and religious schooling were factors in
ensuring that marginalized students were heard and seen:
60
As a Latina, I think I am always seeking out marginalized groups, wondering how they’re
experiencing high school, wondering if they feel heard and seen. And I think those
wonderings often lead to conversations that I have with my colleagues, changes in our
practices, a willingness to collaborate to improve us in those areas. So, absolutely. I also
think that my experience going to an all-girls Catholic high school [leads me to feel] like
I have a moral obligation to do right by kids and families. And I think that does come,
you know, from that Catholic education.
Leader C also had an aspect of his upbringing that positioned him to relate to a variety of
cultures, languages, and income levels, having grown up with many low-income students. He
relayed his experiences as follows:
I grew up in South Ontario. I had a very diverse friend group. You know, middle- to lowmiddle-class was where I kind of grew up. And, you know, through the various
experiences both in the home and outside of the home, and whether it be school clubs [or]
athletics, I was able to interact with a variety of cultures and ethnic groups, which I think
influenced me significantly in how I lead. I was able to live outside of the country right
after high school. Essentially, that was a huge eye-opener, living in another country.
Being exposed to that culture and language certainly has broadened my perspectives on
things and has allowed me to gain a deeper level of empathy and has certainly expanded
my worldview.
Leader D expressed his experience as a youth as follows:
I was blessed. You know, I grew up in [a] somewhat rough neighborhood in Pomona,
but, you know, at the same token, I never had a want, right? Like, I never realized one,
you know. My dad, he owned a business. I started working when I was, like, 14 for the
61
business. I had a crappy job. You know, I just throw porta potties, and so, no pun
intended, or maybe pun intended, right? And so, those types of experiences taught me the
value of hard work, right? And it also taught me that if I want to rise above, then I would
have to work.
The interviewees recognized their positionality’s role in navigating society, and they
noted that understanding an individual’s role in the education system enables them to improve it.
Leader E also shared his challenges as a youth: “I came home to trauma every day. The school
provided me with a safe haven. I always felt safe at school. I knew there’s reliable adults. I knew
that there was a community that cared for me.” Leader E focused on making the school a
community where all students feel accepted and cared for.
The overall message was that principals interviewed could identify a hardship or
challenge in their upbringing and made it a point to seek equitable solutions and outcomes for
historically marginalized students. Based on the participants’ statements, they identified an
experience in their upbringing or background that made them feel marginalized, thereby
improving their ability to relate to marginalized students.
Opportunity and Challenge: The Discussion of Race
No participants explicitly indicated that their positionality hindered their ability to lead
their schools. They minimally mentioned the topic of race as it relates to positionality. When
referenced, Leader E used race in the context of how being perceived at school: “We didn’t have
a lot of money, but we were a Caucasian family. So, people viewed us as, you know, we were
well off.” In this instance, Leader E is race-conscious and understands that his skin color was
perceived as a benefit. Isimaru and Galloway (2014) lend support to this story, noting that raceconscious, culturally responsive leaders are beneficial to future leaders.
62
Leader D highlighted race at high school in the context of opportunities and resources at
home. Specifically, Leader D recounted,
Our school first opened in 2002. It was 66 to 60% predominantly White and very affluent
families. Here in 2023, you know, about to move into 2024, we are 31% White, you
know, with our Hispanic population being our dominant population, and we’re still
achieving very, very highly, but we’re still leaving behind those kids that are not, you
know, that don’t have the resources at home. … And so, what I hope to accomplish is to
be able to provide those students with the opportunities that all the affluent students here
in our area have and provide them with the same opportunities to springboard past. They
have to be bigger and better than what they are here at society presently.
Leader B also discussed race in relation to positionality, specifically mentioning actively
seeking a specific student group:
I think I am always seeking out maybe marginalized groups, wondering how they’re
experiencing high school, wondering if they feel heard and seen. And I think those
wonderings often lead to conversations that I have with my colleagues, changes in our
practices, and a willingness to collaborate to improve us in those areas.
Leader B actively considered race in the process of ensuring students were valued and, as stated,
“seen” at the high school she leads. Leader B’s curiosity about marginalized students led to
conversations with colleagues and teachers that brought equity to the forefront. In addition to
race, Leader B discussed gender as a point of focus. Leader B recounted her experience as
follows: “I also think that my experience going to an all-girls Catholic High School, being
equity-focused, bringing opportunities to groups who do not typically take advantage of them,
bringing marginalized groups to those things available to them.” Leader B used gender as
63
another aspect of her positionality that allowed her to be a more equitable leader, thereby
focusing attention on students who are in greater need.
Discussion Research Question 1
The discussion of race as it relates to positionality is an important point to highlight. Two
leaders noted race differently. Leader E was more specific in acknowledging that race in his
upbringing was perceived to be “well off” or privileged. In comparison, Leader D acknowledged
race in a schoolwide context and how demographics have shifted since the school opened over
20 years ago. The other three leaders did not mention race in the context of positionality. In this
instance, an opportunity exists, as two leaders spoke about race as a factor in the process of
reaching equity, which would help in the discussion of race with students, staff, and educational
partners. The three other leaders did not mention race as it related to positionality, which could
be a challenge because race is a topic many are not comfortable discussing and could hinder the
process of acknowledging that race matters in the school system.
Results Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked what political systems hinder/limit principals from creating an
equity-focused campus.
Challenge: Politics on Campus Hinder Educational Process
Principals mentioned the political issues in society as a barrier to carrying out their work
as equitable leaders. In the context of this study, politics or societal politics refers to discussions
that take place outside of the school site. According to at least two principals, since 2020, those
debates, disagreements, and discussions have been brought to their campuses, per leaders C and
A. For instance, Leader C emphasized that since 2020, schools have been in the middle of
political discourse.: “Since 2020, schools have been kind of at the forefront of some of the
64
political discourse and disagreements. So then, how do we deal with that?” Leader C perceived
political discourse and disagreements to be a hindrance to running a school and focusing on
equity:
You’re dealing with some, certainly, some racial strife that came out of 2020 as well.
Again, young kids are influenced by all of those things. You gotta lead through it, you
know. And consequently, schools became kind of frontlines for some of these political
issues where in years past, and it wasn’t really the schools [that] were significantly
impacted, I guess, in terms of the political nonsense that was happening.
Leader A had similar thoughts, mentioning the pandemic’s effects on operations at the
high school. Leader A remarked, “After the pandemic and some of the social issues we’re
dealing with, even now, in our community. We’re seeing some things we haven’t seen in 20
years.” Although a hindrance, Leader A found a positive aspect of social disruption being
brought onto campus, as the feedback from some parents indicated students felt comfortable
bringing issues to the campus. Social disruptions, in this case, consisted of increased altercations
among students. Leader A specifically stated the following:
[Events that are] just socially happening in the community and altercations and
disagreements are brought on campus. The one positive you can take from that that I hear
from parents is [that] it’s brought on campus because they feel secure [and] that we’re
going to try to do something about it, you know. We’re going to try to help their student,
and … they feel their students [are] safer handling some of these social issues on campus
[than] they would be off campus. But it doesn’t always help us. It hinders us and what we
want to do and where we want to go.
65
Leader B mentioned a systemic barrier pertinent to female school administrators,
especially at the high school level. She indicated that her background as a female of Latino/a
background placed her in an isolated environment, as she was one of very few female Latino/a
administrators when she commenced her career. She indicated,
I think initially, it was [that] you felt lonely. I felt lonely. I remember my first position as
an administrator in this district. I landed at the campus with another female administrator.
She was one of only three or four at the time.
Leader B also indicated that things have improved since then. Leader B referenced the high
school administrative system as not being inclusive of female Latino/a administrators, yet
indicated that the district is growing more diverse:
I felt so lucky to be a 1st-year administrator and have another woman on the team. You
know, just standing around talking. I didn’t really know a lot about sports. They’re just,
they’re just subtle, subtle ways that we communicate that can be isolating. Anyway, I
think that would be the one, and I see that changing for the better in our district. But I
would say that was something initially that I felt just a little isolated and not always
certain if I was being seen or understood or expressing myself in the right way for this
organization. I think, more and more, we’re growing diverse in terms of, you know,
ethnicity, cultural background, and gender.
As quoted above, Leader B, when first hired as an administrator, felt lonely as one of very few
female administrators, yet things are improving.
Opportunity: Societal Issues and Opportunities for Enhancement of Equity
Although a couple of the leaders mentioned that post-pandemic life brought about more
challenges to campus, equity work has been a focal point for several leaders. Such situations
66
allowed some participants to advance more focused equity work. Although political discussions
in local communities and society as a whole have been brought to high school campuses, those
topics paved the way for discussions about equity among three of the five interviewees.
Leader A established an equity committee that is open to everyone who wants to join.
Leader A said this forum allows one to have “intentional conversations” about equity on campus.
Leader A also shared that the equity committee developed an equity survey distributed to staff:
“We did actually have a staff survey at the end of last year that was equity-focused and received
feedback from them, and we continue to use that feedback to kind of drive that equity
committee.”
When discussing equity training and learning, Leader A indicated that the equity
committee has been conducive to listening to staff’s diverse perspectives. He indicated the
following:
The biggest thing I think, I would say, is not so much training, but really listening to our
staff. I mean, we have an equity committee that we work with, you know, on our staff,
and just hearing from them, hearing their views on it, and everyone has a different
perspective, a different lens they went through, that would be my biggest learning.
Leader A also stated that analyzing discipline data by demographic group is a practice at his
school.
Additionally, Leader B has created practices to expand student voices on campus.
Specifically, Leader B stated that she “brought together all of our leadership groups on about a
monthly basis to hear from them.” An effort has also been made to bring in different groups
other than the traditional student body representatives, as Leader B discussed:
67
Sometimes, we rely exclusively on ASB or exclusively on Renaissance, but bringing in
some of our other clubs like [the] Black Student Union [BSU], like Young Black
Scholars, like in JROTC. Now, you’re really going to get a cross-section of students and
kind of hear what they think is important.
This type of effort has been made to listen to a variety of voices on campus, and Leader B
indicated that this has been critical. Allensworth and Hart (2018) noted that principals influence
students through the learning environment or climate they set, which is the case at Leader B’s
school.
Leader C, like Leader A, established an equity team. Per Leader C, it has been active in
staff meetings and with leadership group discussions on diversity, equity, and inclusion. A book
club is also active among staff. Leader C recounted experiences related to these activities:
So, we’ve done book reads as a leadership group, department chair group, on particular
equity. We’ve started on the topic of book reading. We’ve started going through our
equity team, kind of a book reading club, where we open it up to staff, and …purchase a
book, and we read it together as a staff. Not an entire staff, right? But those are the ones
that want to. We’ll get the book, and we’ll read it together, and we’ll meet once a month
to talk about it.
Leader E also referenced an equity team on his campus as a forum to discuss educational
equity. The team created a list of terms to better understand the vocabulary around equity. He
stated,
I think, probably, the best thing I’ve done is allow our site equity team to lead and for me
to be an active participant in the group. What we realized was [that] if I try and take the
68
lead on this, it’s going to be seen as another top-down thing. Plus, I was so overwhelmed
with initiatives. So, finding the right leaders to lead our staff.
Leader E also mentioned learning equity terminology with the equity team:
I think one of the things that helped us was that our staff had a hard time with
terminology. And, you know, because there’s a lot of vocabulary around this topic. So,
creating a new glossary is what we did right at the very beginning and sharing that
because a lot of people did not understand what these words actually meant.
Further evidence of an equity lens applied on campuses is the participants’ data analysis.
For instance, Leader B mentioned asking more equity-targeted questions to bring about
information to advance and improve educational opportunities for historically marginalized
students. Leader B mentioned some questions: “What hand do we play in AP/honors enrollment?
What do the conversations with potential AP/honors students look like? What are the enrollment
trends of students who have not historically had access to AP/Honors courses?” Although Leader
B indicated these questions are not necessarily new, the educational system’s current state has
been more conducive to, as Leader B stated, “pushing these conversations or at least keeping
them at the forefront.”
Discussion Research Question 2
The participants indicated a change on school campuses after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although they described political issues coming to campus more vociferously in recent years,
they also said that equity is a focal point and has been advanced. Although society’s discussions
have spilled into schools more prominently, making for some challenging situations, they created
an opportunity to enact equity work at the high school level (Figure 2).
69
Figure 2
Survey Question 7: Enhancement/Limitation of Practices to Support Equity
Results Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked how principals believed that equity-focused leadership
contributes to student success.
Opportunity: Advancing Equity for Student Success
Several interviewees named specific initiatives that have advanced equity to enhance
student success at their school sites. In the CJUHSD, formal student feedback indicates that
students want literature in their English classes that represents them culturally and ethnically.
Leader A specifically mentioned that the diverse literature program created a culture and a
platform that sets students up for success. Leader A indicated that, as it relates to the district’s
diverse literature program, “We’ve done a lot in English on creating literature, opportunities,
70
exposing our students to literature that looks like them and that is part of their culture.”
Furthermore, Leader A discussed initiatives that help African American students feel valued,
such as taking students to a historically Black colleges and universities fair. Leader A stated,
“We’re making sure we not just provide the opportunity, but actually physically bringing kids to
that opportunity. And hopefully, that makes them feel included.”
Leader E also mentioned this diverse literature program, although his experience was
slightly different. Leader E indicated that the English staff was reluctant to implement diverse
literature, “not because they were anti-equity but were afraid to deal with the backlash from the
parents. … They did not want books with racial conflict.” Leader E stated that he helped teachers
overcome this trepidation by reassuring them that the school administrators, particularly the
assistant superintendent of instruction and himself, would support them should conflict arise.
After reassuring staff, they implemented diverse literature and ultimately supported student
success. In addition, Leader E worked with his school’s African American Parent Advisory
Committee (AAPAC). The AAPAC is also working closely with the BSU to ensure that student
voices are heard on campus. Student fairs, allowing and encouraging students to express their
culture on campus, are encouraged, which is another aspect that contributes to student success.
Khalifa (2016) highlighted the impact of culturally responsive leadership practices on school
curriculum, culture, policy and structure, and teacher efficacy. The term “responsive” implies
taking action to address students’ needs and ensure the school’s context reflects these. The
diverse literature initiative and the AAPAC appear to be practices that lead to the development of
a welcoming and inclusive school climate for students, staff, and parents to improve educational
outcomes for students of color. Leader E presented an example of fostering an inclusive
71
environment by providing African American students and parents a voice that allowed them to
become more active on campus:
With our AAPAC group, you know, we have built up where we have a strong parent
group, but we actually now have our BSU and our AAPAC parents joining together for
meetings once a month, allowing the kids to have a voice in what activities they have and
they want to see happen on campus and allowing the parents to hear from the kids
because the parents sometimes want to drive the students’ ship. And, really, the kids are
saying we don’t want that activity. We would rather have this. So, you’re empowering
parents and kids to make the decisions, whether it’s a school site or just simply reacting,
like giving them access to buses, field trips, speakers, small amounts of funding for
things. It has allowed them to become more active on campus.
Leader E’s school had an overall graduation rate that indicates positive results for
historically marginalized students as well. Although historically marginalized students are still
underperforming compared to their White peers at that school, comparatively speaking, those
groups are significantly above the state’s average. Growth is particularly evident among African
American, Hispanic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students (SED) students. The
school’s African American, White, Hispanic, and SED also have graduation rates over 90%.
Ultimately, based on leaders A and E’s responses, incorporating diverse literature into
English courses, one could infer that it may yield improved student success. Specifically, Leader
A’s Hispanic and SED students demonstrate higher graduation rates than the state average for
these groups. Leader E’s school has African American, Hispanic, historically marginalized, and
SED students demonstrating higher graduation rates than the state average. Furthermore, for
72
Leader E’s school, the African American demographic group has seen marked improvement in
graduation rates from 86% in 2019 to 91.2% in 2023.
Leader C mentioned that incorporating parents in the process helps students feel included
and aids in students’ success. For instance, Leader C referenced the African American Advisory
Committee (AAPAC) as having helped organize and participate in “Black to School Night.” The
event hosts Black families and students for a special back-to-school night to enhance that
community’s engagement. A possible conclusion is that healthy communication and
collaboration between Leader C’s school, students, and parents is evidenced in the California
Dashboard, where suspension rates for African American students are the lowest among schools
in the study. Table 5 substantiates this finding, indicating a much lower suspension rate than
other schools in the study. The table illustrates success points based on graduation rates from the
California School Dashboard.
7
3
Table 5
School Performance Overview
Academic performance Academic
engagement
Conditions and
climate
College/
Career
English language arts
(SBAC)
Mathematics
(SBAC)
English learner Graduation
rate
Suspension rate
(at least 1 day)
Leader A 20.9 points above
standard (maintained
2 points)
91.1 points
below
standard
(declined -1.2
points)
44.6% making
progress
(increased
4.6%)
90.9%
graduated
(declined
2.5%)
8.4% suspended
(increased
1.1%)
39.7% prepared
Leader B 4.4 points below
standard (declined
9.1 points)
110.4 points
below
standard
(increased 8.4
points)
33.8%
making progress
(increased
9.7%)
83.9 %
graduated
(maintained
-0.3%)
8.7% suspended
(increased
1.6%)
32.3% prepared
Leader C 64.1 points above
standard (maintained
0.6 points)
24.1 points
below
standard
(increased 5.1
points)
53.7%
making progress
(maintained
1.8%)
94.5 %
graduated
(maintained
-0.8%)
3.8% suspended
(declined 0.7%)
58.5% prepared
Leader D 85.3 points above
standard (maintained
-2.8 points)
1.2 points below
standard and
(declined 7.1
points)
54.5%
making progress
(increased
18.4%)
95.3%
graduated
(maintained
-0.6%)
4.3% suspended
(increased
0.8%)
65.6% prepared
7
4
Academic performance Academic
engagement
Conditions and
climate
College/
Career
English language arts
(SBAC)
Mathematics
(SBAC)
English learner Graduation
rate
Suspension rate
(at least 1 day)
Leader E 77.9 points above
standard (increased
17.8 points)
32.9 points
below
standard
(increased 22
points)
38%
making progress
(increased
7.6%)
93.8%
graduated
(increased
1%)
5.7% suspended
(maintained
0%)
55.9% prepared
Leader F 234.5 points below
standard (declined
34.1 points)
278 points
below
standard
(declined 10.1
points)
47.5%
making progress
(increased
18.3%)
60.9 %
graduated
(declined
15.6%)
11% suspended
(increased
1.1%)
2.1% prepared
Leader G - - - - - -
Note. Empty cells indicate data were not available. The table reflects 2023 data gathered from the California School Dashboard. To
maintain anonymity, neither schools’ names nor the exact dashboard site are presented.
75
Leader C has also established an equity team at the high school. The equity team has
coordinated activities to make students feel included on campus:
A couple years ago, we created our equity team. … The equity team has done a great job
at promoting these ideas on campus. We’ve allowed the equity team to present on various
staff meetings. And within our leadership group, we’ve discussed equity and diversity
and inclusion.
The equity team placed inclusion at the forefront of discussions, given that Leader C stated that
they have presented at staff meetings and met with teacher leadership groups. Radd et al. (2021)
asserted that educational change requires a systemic and transformative approach. Being
transformative signifies adopting new ways of thinking and acting to disrupt entrenched
historical patterns to bring about significant change. As evidenced in creating an equity team of
staff members, the leaders in this study employed two of the five equity-focused school
leadership practices offered by Generett et al. (2021): prioritizing equity leadership and
developing equity leadership teams.
Challenge: Staff Resistance to Equity Initiatives
The interviewees used several examples as evidence to advance equity and students’
success. However, challenges were also perceivable. Leader B shared situations in which staff
members resisted equity initiatives. Leader B discussed validating staff members who were
against a particular initiative while asking them to learn more about the topic at hand. Leader B
used the following example when dealing with resistant staff members:
I think the best thing I do is invite them to be a critical eye. … Using that approach, I
think about 50/50. You know, when I know that a staff member is not interested or
maybe even has some political views to the contrary, what I’ve tried to do is say, “You
76
know, that opinion is so valuable. It’s so valuable and can shape this initiative. What I’m
challenging you to do is to learn more about this thing that you say you don’t believe in.
You know, if you’re gonna stand by that, then really learn it, and then tell me that it’s not
going to work.”
Leader B invited staff to learn and be a part of the discussion, and thus, as she noted, “about
50/50” of resistant staff came to be understanding of an equity initiative.
Leader C also mentioned resistant staff members who inhibited equity initiatives. He
indicated,
To deal with that is to begin with conversations. In some cases, I meet people out there in
their own space. So, I go to their classroom [and] talk to them. And, in some cases,
people really can respond and, in some cases, you know, I mean, frankly, sometimes it’s
… what you need to do.
Leader C, like Leader B, used individual conversations to challenge staff members to
understand equity initiatives. Leaders B and C use Achor’s (2018) underlying message that
asserts that leadership and relationships are vital and working as a collective will yield the most
success in leadership.
Leader A mentioned “some resistance” but had seen it through anonymous surveys. Staff
have not openly or publicly been resistant to equity initiatives. Leader A did not indicate any
staff member openly stating opposition. He indicated continuing to be intentional about equity
conversations. Leader D also noted resistance and indicated that with “those individuals, … the
beliefs that are so ingrained in them, you just call them out, you know, and I’ve just been very
direct and pointed with them.”
77
Discussion Research Question 3
Based on the interviews, equity-focused leadership contributes to student success. They
mentioned several leadership initiatives, such as diversifying literature in English classes. This
action is a form of giving a voice to students who have traditionally been silenced in the
classroom. An equity team is another action that places equity at the forefront among staff
members to see student success through an equity lens. Lastly, Leader C mentioned actively
involving the teacher leadership group in book reads focused on equity. Although the
interviewees mentioned several examples of equity-focused leadership, they also noted a major
challenge. Staff members who do not see the need for these initiatives continue to be a barrier to
achieving equity for all students, and the participants demonstrated a need for honest
conversations to invite staff members to buy in. Data to measure the division and its impact on
campus were not gathered in this study.
The achievement data from the 2023 California School Dashboard (Table 5), specifically
that in English language arts (ELA), math, and English learner (EL) progress, the overall trends
at the participants’ schools are mixed in terms of discovering consistent data points that could
link equity driven practices and student success. Some leaders’ schools increased performance in
one area while decreasing it in other areas.
On the other hand, graduation rates, or what the California School Dashboard calls
academic engagement, across leaders’ schools demonstrate a promising outlook. Table 6 shows
graduation rates among the participants’ schools disaggregated by demographic group. Based on
2023 data, Leaders C, D, and E’s schools demonstrate a higher graduation rate compared to the
state for African American students.
78
Table 6
Graduation Rate by School Leader and State by Demographic Groups
AA
2019
AA
2023
HSP
2019
HSP
2023
SED
2019
SED
2023
WH
2019
WH
2023
Overall
school
23
State - 78.5 - 84.2 - 83.7 - 89.8 86.4
Leader A 77.8 - 93.3 91% 91.8 91.10 NR 80 90.9
Leader B 86.7 79.2 83 83.6 82.5 83.6 78.4 96.3 83.9
Leader C 92.9 92.5 95 95.3 95.1 93.5 95.2 96.2 94.5
Leader D 98.2 97.6 93.3 95.1 94.1 93.6 95.2 95 95.3
Leader E 86 91.2 93.8 93.6 92 92.8 92 94.4 93.8
Note. Empty cells indicate data were not available. The data used in this table came from the
California School Dashboard. To preserve anonymity, pseudonyms take the place of
interviewees’ names, and neither their schools nor the exact dashboard site are presented.
Abbreviations: AA = African American, HSP = Hispanic, SED = socioeconomically
disadvantaged, WH = White.
Results Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked how principals believed they enact specific strategies to
cultivate an inclusive school environment.
Opportunity: Strategies Enacted by Leaders to Cultivate an Inclusive Environment
Leader A addressed strategies to cultivate an inclusive environment. For instance, Leader
A indicated that discussing equity and inclusion of students on campus is “part of my staff
meeting. Every staff meeting, we talk about equity and inclusion. We do something. We do some
type of conversation, maybe give some quotes, some data on some things.” In addition to
79
discussing inclusion at staff meetings, Leader A uses teacher leadership meetings as an
opportunity to dialogue about student discipline as it relates to race and ethnicity. Leader A
related the following regarding leadership meetings:
Every leadership meeting, we look at discipline, but we break it down by race [and]
ethnicity, and we look at that as well as gender, looking at our discipline data. So, being
intentional about those things, I think, helps with the staff that may be a little resistant to
it and keep energy in the forefront.
Looking at student discipline by ethnicity is one major practice to identify which students
are disproportionately subjected to more discipline than other groups. This practice is likely to
encourage teaching staff to reflect on reasons certain students are sent to the discipline office
more often than others. Leader B mentioned her African American students feeling excluded as
her school’s majority is Latinx, and activities have historically been targeted to that group.
Leader B has targeted African American parents and invited them to participate in parent classes.
A focus on ensuring guest speakers represent all students has also been a focal point. Leader B
indicated that “it’s important” to pay attention to groups that have not focused on at that school.
As previously mentioned, at Leader A’s school, the leaders examine discipline data by race,
ethnicity, and gender. Leader A expects teacher leaders to continually assess student learning via
multiple data points or a variety of assessments so that schoolwide strategies use an equity lens
and are consistent and universal for all students in need (Allensworth & Hart, 2018).
Leader C related specific strategies that highlighted advisory councils. In this case, the
advisory council consisted of African American parents, as previously mentioned. According to
Leader C,
80
[The council supports] a variety of endeavors, but they helped us on the Black-to-school
night to help us when we do certain celebrations during the month of February. And
they’re an integral part in the planning and carrying out of those things on our campus.
Black-to-school night is a back-to-school night focused on African American students and
parents at Leader C’s school. Another example of a strategy used in this context is Leader C’s
practice of discussing performance data in parent advisory meetings, such as AAPAC and the
English Learner Advisory Committee. Leader C indicated that this has facilitated relationships
with parents:
What’s been great for me, though, is [that] it’s allowed me to build relationships with
those particular parents. And in such a way that they know where I stand and what I
believe in, so when … things may happen on campus, that could be perceived in a
negative way. I have some of those relationships. I can draw on that help.
Leader C has capitalized on building relationships with parents through the parent committees,
particularly those committees that serve historically marginalized populations. Leader C
employed one of Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) high-leverage equitable leadership practices of
engaging and collaborating with families and the community.
Leader D offered the need for proper training in equity as a practice to implement
inclusionary practices. Leader D stated that CJUHSD offered formal training on inclusionary
practices through the University of Southern California (USC). Leader D’s remarks were candid:
I was fortunate that our district provided a number of our principals and staff members
with equity training through USC. And it was a very positive experience because, one,
you know, like, I lived, you know, even though I grew up in a rough area, you know, I’ve
never walked the plight of a lot of my students that I’m trying to support.
81
Leader D attributed the training to help in the process of students and staff with the goal of
“opening their eyes to the experiences that other people have. And so it really creates a
compassionate student. And, … hopefully, it opens the eyes of the staff as well.”
Leader E employed an inclusive strategy with families of African American students with
“tremendous success.” Leader E changed the format of AAPAC meetings by inviting students
and their families. The school also offers childcare and dinner to attendees:
We started inviting the whole family plus their students. We started feeding them. We
started having childcare for them. And so, it’s like, bring your family. I don’t care if your
kids are crying through the whole thing, or kids yelling at your mom, [or] “I need help
with my Chromebook.” That shifted our family connection, feeding people, which kind
of made me laugh because I’m like, I always feed people now. We got [food] for every
AAPAC meeting now. So, they know they’re gonna get a nice dinner. They’re gonna get
a decent dinner with us. They get to hang out with the principal.
Leader E highlighted the inclusive practice of meeting and eating together while helping African
American parents and their students feel supported, heard, and a part of the school community.
As Santamaria (2014) proposed, there are nine applied critical leadership (ACL)
characteristics aligned with culturally responsive leadership practices that incorporate CRT and
center marginalized groups. One of those is ACL Characteristic 2, which calls for applying CRT
to consider important issues from multiple perspectives (Santamaria, 2014, p. 368). Based on the
examples provided, Leaders A, B, C, D, and E employed a CRT lens to advance equity at their
schools. Additionally, through their practices, they were intentional about applying ACL
Characteristic 6, which is honoring all members of the learning community through intentional
outreach to gather input among these stakeholder groups (Santamaria, 2014, p. 372).
82
Challenge/Opportunity: Equity Training
Proper training in equity as a practice to be able to implement inclusionary practices can
be a challenge and an opportunity. Diversity, equity, and inclusion training (DEI) was beneficial
to Leaders C and D. However, training is not available to all leaders and staff members. As a
result of the DEI training at USC, Leader D indicated that the training empowered him:
[It] empowered me to really have the hard discussions…it enabled me to have those
tough conversations and feel competent, and going into those situations and talk about,
you know, things that are difficult and be able to do it from a from a productive
standpoint, to be able to go to a person and say, this is what is happening, this is how this
person is feeling.
Despite the productive outcome, Leader D mentioned that training is expensive, and although it
was beneficial, the price of training must not be ignored. Leader D indicated that the training
made him want to know more about implementing equitable practices and that although he does
not know it all, he is now “constantly looking at, you know, restorative approaches, now
restorative practices, I’m looking at different ways for reaching students, you know, looking at
different ways for absenteeism, looking at different ways for discipline.” This situation is an
example of how inclusive strategies can be enhanced by training school leaders.
Leader C added a different perspective on equity training
I get value from book studies or book reviews. So, do I need to be in another class? I
don’t know. But perhaps you set up a cohort of administrators or principals and we’re
going to read a book and have discussions based on the book.
Leader C holds a doctorate in educational administration, alluding to the fact that classes are not
his first choice.
83
Discussion Research Question 4
Leader A’s approach to employing strategies to cultivate an inclusive environment is part
of the school’s normal practices, making it a part of the school culture. Leader E’s practice of
inviting parents to the school and providing childcare and food changed the school’s approach to
parent advisory meetings. Both strategies to include more students were effective.
A lack of training is a challenge, and the cost of training could be a barrier for many
school districts and educational institutions. It is also an opportunity, as evidenced by Leader D’s
comments regarding having no previous experience in equity training or DEI. Leader D indicated
feeling empowered to have conversations with staff members and see data and student
achievement outcomes from a different perspective. Leader D was inspired, and when
referencing the DEI training, he said, “It really only made me dangerous and so dangerous in the
sense that, you know, now I am wanting to know more.” Leader D is “trying to take a nontraditional approach of what’s been past practices and start really questioning … why certain
things are the way things are done. The why … why have things consistently gone this route.”
Based on this experience, Leader D engaged in self-reflection and growth for equity, which is a
high-leverage equitable leadership practice (Ishimaru & Galloway, 2014). However, training’s
impact on the professional development budget means superintendents and leaders of
educational organizations must be strategic in planning DEI training for school leaders and staff.
Ultimately, a lack of equity training is both a challenge and an opportunity. As evidenced in
Figure 3, based on a survey of principals in the CJUHSD, most have received some training to
help them implement equity-centered practices.
84
Figure 3
Survey Question 8: Training Received
Summary
As referenced earlier, to add additional context and clarity to the findings, the 10
equitable leadership practices Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) proposed were evident in several of
the practices discussed in this chapter. For example, the findings suggest that in the principals’
quest to relate to all students, all mentioned that hardships in their upbringing provided a greater
ability to relate to historically marginalized students. The interviewees recognized their
positionality’s role in navigating society and noted that understanding an individual’s role in the
education system enables them to improve it. Based on the interviews, all principals had an
understanding that helped build an inclusive and accepting culture, which is consistent with
Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) research; the principal plays a key role in building an inclusive
school culture by fostering collaboration, trust, and learning.
85
Another finding was that all participants did not explicitly indicate that their positionality
hindered their ability to lead their schools. One minimally mentioned topic related to
positionality was race. The principal who explicitly mentioned it did so in terms of how the
world perceived their status or position in society based on their race. Another leader mentioned
gender roles and being a minority in the group of mostly male high school administrators.
Another leader mentioned gender and race as part of positionality. Although less than half of the
leaders mentioned race, mentioning it is in line with Isimaru and Galloway’s (2014) assertion
that developing race-conscious, culturally responsive leaders is a potentially useful tool in the
formation of future educational leaders.
Regarding political systems, the participants apply an equity lens by analyzing
achievement and discipline data as they seek to improve educational opportunities for
historically marginalized students. Although questions about the need to improve the educational
system for marginalized students are not necessarily new, the study revealed that the current
political climate has placed equity at the forefront of conversations with staff and educational
partners. At least three leaders (Leaders A, C, and E) mentioned the creation of equity teams or
equity committees to facilitate equity discussions. In line with the literature, such conversations
are imperative in the process, as substantiated by Santamaria (2014 ) and ACL Characteristic 1
regarding critical conversations and 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).
The third research question focused on whether principals believe that equity-focused
leadership contributes to student success. One major finding was that several leaders established
and mentioned the creation of equity teams on campus. The equity teams were able to dialogue
and implement changes to the way they viewed discipline and achievement data. Such practices
86
are supported by Radd et al. (2021), who asserted that educational change requires a systemic
and transformative approach. As evidenced in the practice of creating an equity team of staff
members, the leaders in the study have employed two of the five equity-focused school
leadership practices offered by Generett et al. (2021): prioritizing equity leadership and
developing equity leadership teams. Furthermore, data from the California School Dashboard
revealed that graduation rates in all but one leaders’ school are much higher than the state
averages for African American, Hispanic, and SED students, signaling a possible correlation
between leaders’ equitable leadership practices and graduation rates.
The study results provided insight into principals’ beliefs on enacting specific strategies
to cultivate an inclusive school environment. The most significant finding in question four
revolved around equity training. Equity training experienced by the interviewees was key in their
ability to understand equity and apply it to the school they lead. There is a clear desire to learn
more about equitable practices and how those practices improve the school environment to make
it more inclusive. The topic of building capacity around equity is in line with an enhanced need
for principals and educators to grow in this area. As substantiated by Ishimaru and Galloway
(2014), equitable leadership practices are “at least in part, related to limited educator capacity
around how to move beyond positive intent and heart-felt commitment to collective
understanding about equitable practice and substantive changes to policies and practices that produce or exacerbate disparities in schools (p. 120). Based on the participants’ experiences,
increasing leaders’ capacity around diversity, equity, and inclusion will help them lead more
equitable schools. The following chapter provides implications for practice and
recommendations for future research.
87
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter Five summarizes the findings and associates them with implications for practice
in the K–12 education system. The chapter discusses essential findings to inform current and
future educational leaders of the attributes and practices of effective equity-focused high school
principals. Moreover, the chapter presents suggestions for future research on the subject of this
study.
The principal’s role is to create a school culture that is inclusive and ensures that the
teachers and staff focus on every student’s success. The purpose of the study was to identify
what practices equity-focused principals have implemented to create an inclusive environment.
The goal of making every student feel valued and included at their school is imperative to
educating the whole child. 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?
4. How, if at all, do principals believe they enact specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment?
The study used qualitative methods to interact with the participants face-to-face, interpret
how their positionality influenced their identity as equity-focused leaders, determine how equityfocused leadership contributes to student success, and identify specific strategies to cultivate an
inclusive school environment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The methodology included qualitative
88
data from open-ended interview questions that were obtained from high school principals in
Southern California public schools. It involved five school leaders, all of whom were principals
of comprehensive high schools in the same Southern California high school district.
The survey provided more detailed information on equity-focused practices that
principals employed at their school sites. The survey helped to identify whom I would need to
interview. I developed a semi-structured interview protocol to be able to utilize questions with
some flexibility depending on how the interviewees responded (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
survey responses addressed Research Questions 1 and 2, and the interviews addressed Research
Questions 3 and 4.
Findings
This section presents a summary and discussion of the study’s findings in relationship to
literature and current practice. The findings suggest that positionality matters to the secondary
high school principal in relation to their ability to relate to all students. A theme found in the
process is that all principals had an understanding that played a large role in their effort to build
an inclusive and accepting school culture. Another theme in the study is that the analysis of
student data based on demographic breakdown is a practice to establish an equity lens.
Additionally, an additional theme discovered was that principals established equity teams or
committees to discuss equity issues with school staff. The infusion of diverse literature in the
curriculum also emerged as a theme and an equity initiative. Moreover, another theme was that
equity training was evident in their professional development history. Lastly, most participants
lead schools whose graduation rates are significantly higher than the state of California’s average
for African American, Hispanic, and SED students, which could be correlated, at least in part, to
practices the participants enacted.
89
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked what factors of positionality principals believed inhibit and
enhance their effectiveness as equity-focused leaders. Study findings suggest that positionality,
or “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, p.60 ), matters when serving as a school leader, specifically for the
participants. One common theme was a desire to relate to students. All interviewees mentioned
hardships in their upbringing that provided them with a greater ability to relate to historically
marginalized students. For instance, Leader A said, “I grew up in foster care. I grew up in a
group home. So, that upbringing definitely drives me to understand our students, as we have a
high foster youth, McKinney Vento population.” Leader C added, “I grew up in South Ontario. I
had a very diverse friend group. You know, middle- to low-middle-class was where I kind of
grew up.”
In addition, a second finding was that race as it relates to positionality was not overly
discussed; however, when mentioned, it emerged as an aspect that augmented the understanding
of the principal’s positionality. In line with the literature, Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) asserted
that race-conscious, culturally responsive leaders are beneficial to future leaders.
Interviews shed light on the discussion of race and gender, at least by the only female
interviewed. It must be noted that the participants mentioned gender as another aspect of
positionality that allows a principal to be a more equitable leader and focus attention on students
who are in greater need. Specifically, Leader B indicated that she often thinks about how
marginalized students experience school.
90
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked what political systems hinder/limit principals from creating an
equity-focused campus. A few specific practices surfaced in answer to this question: equity
committees, disaggregating student data by demographic group, and providing students a voice
on campus. Survey data resulted in survey respondents having a favorable perspective of people
who work around them and the degree to which their surrounding partners enhanced practices to
support equity.
Although survey data indicated a positive outlook on staff enhancing the principals’
ability to create an equity-focused campus, Leader B, a female, mentioned the high school
system of male-dominated administration and the challenge that came with that early in her
career. Leader B indicated her background as a female and of Latino/a background placed her in
an isolated environment as she was one of very few female Latino/a administrators when she
commenced her career.
Also, principals stated that equity has been a focal point on their campuses, and one
finding was the existence of equity teams or committees. Leaders A, C, and E established an
equity team or committee on their campuses. Per Leader C, the equity team has been active in
staff meetings and with the leadership group, where they discussed equity and inclusion. A
similar role is played in Leader A’s school. Leader E and his equity team established common
terminology to help the school better understand discussions around equity.
A second practice is the analysis of student data by demographic group. Leader A’s
school analyzes discipline data by demographic group. Leader B also mentioned looking at
enrollment in AP classes as a point of analysis to address inequities. Equity teams facilitate
discussions of, for instance, disaggregated data on discipline.
91
Such practices that lead staff members to engage in conversations with an equity team are
in line with literature from the five practices for equity-focused school leadership (Radd et al.,
2021). Radd et al. (2021) offered a framework that outlines five meta-practices for equityfocused school leadership that strives to help build equity-focused systems, and Practice III is
developing equity leadership teams.
Lastly, a practice that Leader B employed is providing a forum to a variety of student
groups, with a particular focus on those who are not typically represented. Groups like Young
Black Scholars are an example of efforts to amplify student voices, which has been critical to
advancing equity. The influence a principal has with actions such as allowing for student voices
to be validated is in line with literature by Allensworth and Hart (2018), who believe that
principals influence students through the learning environment or climate they set, which in the
case of Leader B’s school, the practice of providing a forum for a wide range of student voices to
be heard advances equity and creates a more inclusive school environment.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked how principals believed that equity-focused leadership
contributes to student success. The study yielded several findings that suggest equity-focused
leadership contributes to student success. First, several principals mentioned a diverse literature
program. Secondly, including parents in the educational process, especially those of historically
marginalized students, seemed to be an effective practice that leads to student success.
Additionally, “book reads” led staff to a greater understanding of equity. A final discovery in this
area is that graduation rates at four principals’ schools yield a promising outlook for African
American, Hispanic, and SED students, thus serving as a marker for student success. Four
leaders’ schools have significantly higher graduation rates than the state average.
92
The study found that several principals implemented a diverse literature program. The
program consists of expanding literature options for students in English classes to better
represent the school’s students. This initiative is in line with literature, specifically research by
Khalifa (2016) highlighting the impact of culturally responsive leadership practices on school
curriculum, culture, policy, structure, and teacher efficacy. The term “responsive” implies
addressing students’ needs and ensuring the school context reflects these (Khalifa, 2016). The
diverse literature initiative employed by Leaders A, C, and E is an attempt to make the
curriculum more inclusive in hopes that it will lead to greater student engagement and student
success.
Another action is the deliberate effort to incorporate parents whose students are
considered historically marginalized, specifically African American parents. A prime example of
this is that Leader C mentioned that incorporating parents in the process helps students feel
included and aids students’ success. For instance, Leader C referenced the African American
Advisory Committee (AAPAC) as having helped organize and participate in “Black-to-School
Night.” The event hosts Black families and students for a special back-to-school night to enhance
that community of parents’ engagement. Leader E also invites parents and students to join the
AAPAC committee, where they discuss student events and listen to student and parent voices.
Such actions are supported by literature, as 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). Providing students and parents a voice
is a form of empowerment in the process of addressing inequities.
An additional finding is book reads, as Leader C mentioned. The book reads involved
staff gathering to read equity-focused books and a teacher leadership group discussing the books
93
once a month. This is in line with the point Grissom et al. (2021) made in that a principal’s
behavior relates to educating teachers on marginalized students’ experiences coupled with
training teachers to support marginalized students. This could serve as an example of equityfocused leadership that contributes to student success, particularly when looking at Leader C’s
graduation rate.
Finally, the results demonstrated that graduation rates across four leaders’ schools
compared to the state average demonstrate a promising outlook. Graduation rates among the
interviewees’ schools, disaggregated by demographic group, indicate an above-average
graduation rate. Leaders C, D, and E’s schools demonstrate a much higher graduation rate
compared to the state for African American students (Table 6).
The diverse literature initiative and the AAPAC appear to be practices that lead to
improved educational outcomes for students of color. The book reads at Leader C’s school
increase the understanding of equity in the education system and could also help with student
success. In all, graduation rates higher than the state average could correlate with equity-focused
initiatives and student success.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked how principals believed they enact specific strategies to
cultivate an inclusive school environment. The data analysis revealed two major findings. First,
the principals in the study employed strategies to cultivate an inclusive and inviting environment.
Second, equity training surfaced as a common theme that principals had in common in the
CJUHSD. Leader A cultivated an inclusive environment as part of the school’s normal practices.
Leader Es invited parents to the school for the AAPAC, providing childcare and food. Leader E
also extended the invitation to students. Both strategies were effective. Leader C also employed
94
specific strategies that highlighted advisory meetings. In Leader C’s case, the AAPAC
coordinates celebrations during February and back-to-school activities for African American
students. When gathering, Leader C also indicated that parent advisory meetings involve
discussions on performance data.
In line with the literature, both principals build relationships with parents through the
parent committees, particularly those committees that serve historically marginalized
populations. The principals employed one of Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) high-leverage
equitable leadership practices of engaging and collaborating with families and the community.
This practice is one of 10 practices that make use of the Equity Assessment and Development
(LEAD) Tool, a set of rubrics to help K–12 educational practitioners see what equitable
leadership might look like on a continuum from little to exemplary practice (Ishimaru &
Galloway, 2014).
A second finding pertains to equity training for principals in the study and those who
took the survey. Based on a survey of principals in the CJUHSD, most have received training to
help them implement equity-centered practices. In addition, those interviewed also indicated
having undertaken equity training. As mentioned in Chapter Four, Leader D reflected on his
professional development experience in equity training and utilized self-reflection and growth
for equity, which is one of the high-leverage equitable leadership practices, as asserted by
Ishimaru and Galloway (2014).
Limitations
The study’s limitations lie in three areas. The first is generalizability, given the small
sample and the source being one Southern California school district. The second area is internal
validity, given the reliance on self-reported data. The third area is the limitation of me as a
95
researcher and the bias I bring to the study given that I was previously a school principal in the
district examined here. However, I acknowledged, identified, and monitored my bias in the
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The study consisted of interviews and a survey, all of which come from a small number
of high school principals, and self-reporting limits respondent validity. Triangulation assisted in
responding to the limitations on validity. The small sample limits generalizability, but
generalization was not the goal of the study. Rather, the aim was to discover attributes and
practices related to equity through a qualitative research approach. Qualitative research tends not
to involve a large sample and aggregated data (Maxwell, 2013). This study’s findings may not
apply to a broader educational context, but they offer examples of practices that may be applied
to other high school settings.
Implications for Practice
This study explored high school principals’ equity-focused attributes and practices.
Findings augment the understanding of equity-focused practices for school site and district
administrators. The equity-focused practices the leaders in the study use could be applied to
other settings to benefit diverse student populations’ success.
One implication for practice is related to principals’ positionality. All were proud of their
upbringing and their life stories. Interestingly, they connected their upbringing to their ability to
better relate to their students. One way to expand on the desire to relate to students is to meet
with students and share their stories, as Leader A did. This allows students to see a principal’s
humanity and will enhance relationship-building between the principal and students.
Another implication for practice is principals’ understanding of equity and the value of
undergoing professional development that addresses educational equity. The leaders in the study
96
indicated that they received some equity training. The study suggests that understanding equity
issues improves a principal’s actions to make their campus more inclusive and equitable. Given
such practices, establishing formal professional development programs or opportunities to learn
about equity issues would be valuable for school district leaders to enhance their understanding
of equity issues and improve their ability to lead.
Additionally, another important implication for practice is providing students with a
forum to be heard. Leader B mentioned reaching out to students who are not normally heard on
campus or who are historically marginalized. Practitioners created platforms for students’ voices
to be heard and valued. Along with providing students a voice, several principals discussed the
implementation of a diverse literature program. Schools and school districts should reflect on
literature read in English classes and consider surveying students on the type of literature they
want to read. It could yield students sharing that they want to see themselves in the literature,
which would lead to historically marginalized students seeing themselves in literature in their
English courses.
Furthermore, another implication for practice is the use of equity teams. Leaders who
mentioned using them appeared to have meaningful conversations with staff about equity and
student success. Such conversations were applied to student achievement data, seemingly
making it more relevant and impactful to the high school campus. For instance, a couple of
leaders used the equity team to share student achievement information with the school staff.
Assembling equity teams is conducive to the analysis of student data by demographic group,
which several leaders mentioned doing. They analyzed data by demographic group, especially
looking at historically marginalized groups, to gain a clear metric to focus on. As referenced
earlier, four leaders’ schools had significantly higher graduation rates for African American,
97
Hispanic/Latino, and SED students than the state average. To continue to expand the
conversation revolving around equity, one finding that could be an implication for practice is to
conduct “book reads” with staff members. One leader mentioned reading a book and discussing
it with staff that chose to do so, which could be an avenue to discuss equity on a high school
campus.
Along with equity teams, an additional area of focus and room for improvement and an
implication for practice is gender among high school administrators. Leader B specifically
mentioned the male-dominated administrative ranks in the school district. Although she
mentioned improved conditions, hiring more female administrators continues to be a focus, and
school districts should hire more females for administrative positions.
Another implication for practice is the engagement of parents whose students are
considered historically marginalized. Specifically, a viable strategy for practice is engaging
African American parents in the school community to make them feel more connected to their
children’s educational process. Leader C mentioned a prime example of incorporating parents in
the educational process to help parents and students feel included and aid in students’ success.
Engaging historically marginalized parent groups is a practice that, when done properly, seems
to improve student success.
Future Research
The study and the literature review leave room for discovery and investigation in future
research. Although the study shed light on several equity-focused practices that could be
implemented elsewhere, a measurement of the effectiveness of such practices would be useful.
Secondly, division on high school campuses among staff due to divergent views on equity is also
a topic worthy of further discovery.
98
Research on the use of rubrics for equity practices is necessary to measure their
effectiveness on high school campuses. Specifically, the 10 key equitable leadership practices are
worthy of further research. The rubric developed by Ishimaru and Galloway (2014) could be
transformational if used regularly. Although the participants specifically employed two of the 10
practices, it may behoove school district leaders to use the tool to guide school principals’
equity-focused initiatives and practices. A study of that process would be fruitful. Additionally,
the school district in which this study took place would benefit from a study of the
implementation of the practices offered by Ishimaru and Galloway (2014):
● constructing and enacting an equity vision
● supervising for improvement of equitable instruction
● developing organizational leadership for equity
● fostering an equitable school culture
● allocating resources
● hiring and placing personnel
● collaborating with families and communities
● engaging in self-reflection and growth for equity
● modeling ethical and equitable behavior
● influencing the sociopolitical context
Another area that is worthy of further exploration is the division among staff that results
from equity discussions. Although a couple of participants mentioned “resistant staff,” delving
into such resistance is a valid topic for further study. Data to measure this division and its effect
on campuses were not gathered in this study but are worthy of research. This division could be
more common than perceived to be. Moreover, equity conversations are often associated with
99
perceived political stances, and some perceive professional development on equity to be
politically charged. Hence, a valid investigation would be worthwhile.
Conclusions
The study confirmed that principal leadership is central to establishing an equity-focused
high school campus. The study highlighted principals employing equity-driven practices to help
students feel included. One evident practice is using diverse literature to be more representative
of students. A focus on the engagement of parents of historically marginalized students was also
key in creating an equity-focused school. Study findings also suggest that principals benefit from
undergoing professional development on equity to enhance their understanding of advancing
equity on their school campus. When using graduation rate as a major achievement metric, four
out of five of the leaders’ schools in the study demonstrated graduation rates well above the state
average for African American, Hispanic, and SED students, a finding that could be correlated, at
least in part, to those leaders’ equity-focused practices.
100
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
101
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.
102
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).
103
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
104
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. (2013). Critical race theory–What it is not. In M. Lynn & D. D. Dixon
(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 34–47). Routledge.
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.
105
López, G. P. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68–94.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239761
Love, B. (2019). We want to do more than thrive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Luke Wood, J., Harris, F., Howard, T., Qas, J. M., Essien, I., King, T., & Escanuela, V. (2021).
Suspending our future. http://bmmcoalition.com/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.
106
https://ia801307.us.archive.org/17/items/annualreportofde18471848mass/annualreportofd
e18471848mass.pdf
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.
107
Santamaría, L. J. (2014). Critical change for the greater good: Multicultural perceptions in
educational leadership toward social justice and equity. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 50(3), 347–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13505287
Sawchuk, S. (2015). Students’ scores found to rise when teachers look like them; Representation
in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Education
Week, 34(24), 5.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Singh, N. (2019, November 26). The pervasive power of the settler mindset. Boston Review, 1–8.
Smith, C. A. (2005). School factors that contribute to the underachievement of students of color
and what culturally competent school leaders can do. Educational Leadership and
Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 17, 21–32.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a
critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2–8.
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.
108
United Negro College Fund. (2023). K–12 disparity facts and statistics. https://uncf.org/pages/k12-disparity-facts-and-stats
USAFacts. (2023). Los Angeles County, CA population by year, race, & more.
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-demographics/ourchanging-population/state/california/county/los-angeles-county/
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.
109
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 (Table A1) 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 we can create a more equitable and inclusive school community.
110
Table A1
Survey Items and Conceptual Framework Alignment
Q Survey questions Response choices
Principal experience and training (7 close-ended and 1 open-ended)
Q1 Prior to this school year, how many years did you serve
as the principal of this school?
Please do not include any years you served as assistant
principal.
Count part of a year as a full year.
Write “0” if this is your 1st year serving as principal of
this school.
0–1
2–4
5–7
8+
Q2 Prior to this school year, how many years did you serve
as the principal of any other school?
Please do not include any years you served as assistant
principal. Count part of a year as a full year.
Write “0” if it was your 1st year serving as principal of
any other school.
0–1
2–4
5–7
8+
Q3 How do you define educational equity? Open-ended Q
Q4 To what degree is your definition of educational equity
reflected in your school’s:
Curriculum
Student involvement (culture)
Disciplinary practices (climate)
Parent involvement
Access to higher level courses
Professional development
Sliding scale 1–10:
1 = slightly reflected and 10
= highly reflected
Q5 To what degree do the staff at your school enhance/limit
the practices to address inequity?
Significantly enhance,
enhance, limit, significantly
limit
Q6 To what degree do the people who work around you in
your district enhance/limit the practices to support
equity?
Significantly enhance,
enhance, limit, significantly
limit
Q7 Have you received any training to help you implement
equity-centered practices?
Yes/No
Q8 To what degree does your district encourage you to
attend professional development intended to promote
equity practices?
Strongly encourage
Encourage
Somewhat encourage
111
Q Survey questions Response choices
Does not encourage
Demographic items (2)
Q9 Which of the following options best describe how you
identify your race and/or ethnicity? (Select all that apply)
American Indian/Alaskan
Native Asian/Pacific
Islander
African American/Black
Hispanic
White
Prefer to self-describe
_____
Q10 How do you identify? Female
Male
Nonbinary
Prefer to self-describe
_____
Q11 Name (first & last)
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended
Q12 Name of school
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended
Q13 Current position
Required for follow-up interview
Open-ended
112
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.
113
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.
114
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)
115
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)
116
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 equityfocused leadership practices?
Closing
Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down and converse with me. Is there
anything that I didn’t ask you that I should have?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals
PDF
The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals
PDF
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
PDF
How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership
PDF
How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership
PDF
The positionality and power dynamics of high school math departments
PDF
White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support
PDF
Why can’t I see myself in my 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
PDF
Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners
PDF
Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools
PDF
The importance of the implementation process to achieve equity in the classroom through culturally relevant pedagogy
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Stories of persistence: illuminating the experiences of California Latina K–12 leaders: a retention and career development model
PDF
Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities
PDF
A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success
PDF
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
PDF
Culturally responsive principal leadership and its influence on teachers in urban settings.
PDF
What can districts do to retain their high school principals?
PDF
School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals
Asset Metadata
Creator
Zaldivar, Eduardo
(author)
Core Title
The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2024-05
Publication Date
04/17/2024
Defense Date
03/22/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
equity,high school principals,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Cash, David (
committee chair
), Crew, Rudolph (
committee member
), Franklin, Gregory (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ezaldiva@usc.edu,zaldivar.e@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113880190
Unique identifier
UC113880190
Identifier
etd-ZaldivarEd-12832.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ZaldivarEd-12832
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Zaldivar, Eduardo
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
Tags
equity
high school principals