Reflections on leadership preparation programs and social justice. Are the power and the responsibility of the faculty all in the design?
| Published date | 02 May 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2016-0018 |
| Pages | 261-279 |
| Date | 02 May 2017 |
| Author | Izhak Berkovich |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Reflections on leadership
preparation programs
and social justice
Are the power and the responsibility
of the faculty all in the design?
Izhak Berkovich
The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Abstract
Purpose –Fundamental aspects of educational leadership preparation programs regarding social justice are
embodied in program design elements, yet the scholarly community did not adequately address these issues.
The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach –The essay suggests that organizational theories dealing with person-
environment fit can shed light on the models, possibilities, and limitations of various preparation programs.
Findings –The essay proposes a meta-conceptual framework that builds on Schneider’s attraction-selection-
attrition theory and on the socialization literature to classify leadership preparation programs by design.
In addition, the paper reflects on the implications of program design in relation to the power and the
responsibility of the faculty.
Originality/value –The essay argues that design decisions made by the faculty a priori enable and
constrain its power and responsibility. The conclusion is that design decisions should be made by faculty
with awareness of these issues.
Keywords Social activism, Leadership preparation, Social justice, Social change, Moral leadership
Paper type Conceptual paper
The notion that “with great power comes great responsibility”is presumed to have
appeared as a warning during the period of the French Revolution. Since then, this idea
found its way into popular culture, expressing the understanding that ability or desire to
bring about great change involves both an opportunity and a risk. Educational
administration literature frequently discusses school leaders in the context of social justice,
power, and responsibility; the power and responsibility of those who train school leaders,
however, has been only minimally addressed (e.g. Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy, 2005).
Scholars discussing educational leaders’orientation toward development of social justice
often seem to avoid framing these initiatives as part of a broader logic of social activism or
social change efforts. I do not consider this “black hole”in scholarly discourse to be
incidental. Critical analysis of discourse teaches us that what is being omitted is as
informative as what is being said (Garnsey and Rees, 1996); thus, I suspect that this lacuna
is intended to mask the roles intended by program developers for future school leaders.
This viewpoint has been developed in continuation of my previous work on social justice,
which aspired to broaden the understanding of the range of roles educational leaders can fill
in regard to social justice (Berkovich, 2014a). When I began this work, I focused mostly on
creating a realistic account regarding the various manifestations of social justice efforts in
education and on the manner in which they can affect a complex social system. But in the
course of the study, I came to realize that the scholarly discourse about the development of
educational leaders with regard to social justice is quite limited and concerns mainly the
specific roles of educators. I claim that understanding the ways in which educational leaders
are trained to think, speak, and act in practice can assist in revealing the underlying
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 55 No. 3, 2017
pp. 261-279
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-02-2016-0018
Received 4 February 2016
Revised 9 September 2016
Accepted 23 October 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
261
Power and the
responsibility
of the faculty
conceptions of program faculty about their own power and responsibility. I identified three
designs of leadership preparation programs with respect to social justice: traditional,
attitude development, and activist.
As a scholarof educational administration,a field that adopteda functionalistic perspective
on structures and peoples, I tend to view these ideal types as rooted in design. Therefore,
I suggest in this essay that organizational theories dealing with person-environment fit from
complementing perspectives such as Schneider’s attraction-selection-attrition theory and
socialization literature can shed light on the models, possibilities, and limitations of various
programs. I aim to expand these theories, which currently explore the issues of fit within
organizations, to include the notion of fit embedded in the design of preparation programs.
Moreover, as the title of this essay suggests, faculty is behind the design decisions.
The program faculty cannot be viewed as professi onals detached from the hegemonic order or
social injustices; on the contrary, they play an active role and position themselves and their
professional work in relation to the social situation. Their choices, whether conscious or
incidental, have implications for the power and responsibility of the faculty.
Social justice leadership preparation programs: a meta-conceptual framework
The literature offers several noteworthy frameworks specifying concrete suggestions for
social justice-oriented leadershippreparation. Among theseare the influential works of Young
and Laible (2000),Pounder et al. (2002), Brown (2004),Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005),
Capper et al. (2006), Evans (2007), McKenzie et al. (2008) and recently, Furman (2012).
For example, Brown (2004) combined theoretical perspectives, focusing on adult learning,
transformative learning, and critical social theory, with instructional focus on critical
reflection, rational discourse, and policy praxis. Following an extensive literature review,
Capper et al. (2006) suggested a framework based on a horizontal axis representing critical
consciousness, knowledge, and practical skills, and a vertical axis representing curriculum
and pedagogy. Based on practitioners’input, McKenzie et al. (2008) adopted a more
action-orientedapproach to preparation,and described a frameworkincorporating elementsof
selection of trainees, program content, and induction after graduating from the program.
Recently,Furman (2012) took a step forwardby making the concept of actionan equal partner
of reflectionin educational preparationfor social justice. Furmanrecommended that programs
develop reflection and action capabilities along five dimensions: personal, interpersonal,
communal, systemic, and ecological.
Although the frameworks described above offer insights into the “how”and “why”of
educating for social justice leadership, a broader perspective that can be used to
comprehend variance between preparation programs is still missing. The present essay
offers a meta-conceptual framework for designing leadership preparation programs aimed
at social justice and its implications. Based on the literature, I identify three program
designs with regard to social justice: traditional design, attitude development design, and
activist design. Traditional preparation programs for school leaders focus on the
development of management and leadership skills (Bush, 2008; Cuban, 1988). According to
the literature, the curriculum in these programs is often segmented into discrete subject
areas, topics such as partnerships with communities are not addressed, and programs fail to
link theory with practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). The discussion of social injustice in
traditional programs is usually marginal at best.
Scholars distinguish between two types of leadership preparation programs for social
justice: reflection-oriented and action-oriented (Furman, 2012; McKenzie et al., 2008). Thus,
such programs might be oriented toward attitude development or toward organizational
and social activism. Attitude development programs aspire to develop the students’critical
consciousness and promote a broad perspective in matters of power structures, privileges,
and inequities (Brown, 2004; Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy, 2005; Capper et al., 2006;
262
JEA
55,3
To continue reading
Request your trial