A view from the field: the process of improving equitable systems leadership
Pages | 484-500 |
Published date | 09 September 2019 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0181 |
Date | 09 September 2019 |
Author | Jessica Rigby,Emily Donaldson Walsh,Shelley Boten,Allison Deno,M. Scott Harrison,Rodrick Merrell,Sarah Pritchett,Scott Seaman |
Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
A view from the field: the
process of improving equitable
systems leadership
Jessica Rigby, Emily Donaldson Walsh, Shelley Boten, Allison Deno,
M. Scott Harrison, Rodrick Merrell, Sarah Pritchett and Scott Seaman
College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Research on principal sup ervisors (PSs) is an emer ging field, and principal s upervision for
racial equity has not yet be en studied or theorized . Conducted in partnership w ith practicing distric t
leaders, the purpose of t his paper is to examine current PS leader ship in three districts at various poin ts of
engagement in equitab le leadership practice s and set forth a framework f or conceptualizing sys tems
equitable leadership practice.
Design/methodology/approach –This collaborative study emerged from an EdD cours e project in
which groups of practi tioner–scholars identi fied and collected qua litative interview, su rvey and artifact
data about problems of pr actice in their districts. U niversity researcher s supported data collecti on and
conducted analyses a cross settings, buildi ng on Ishimaru and Gallowa y’s (2014) equitable leadership
practices framework.
Findings –Equitable PS leadership practices were variable. No district engaged with “proficiency”across all
drivers of equitable leadership practice, but the district that engaged in equitable PS practices most deeply
framed the work of schooling as a race-explicit endeavor, suggesting that framing is a fundamental driver.
Research limitations/implications –This paper builds on PS and equity-focused leadership research by
adding a systems-level equity focus.
Practical implications –Findings suggest that districts should focus on equity framing as the foundation
for principal support and development.
Originality/value –This researcher/practitioner–scholar collaboration shows how practitioner–scholars
provide focus and expertise to the field unavailable to traditional researchers.
Keywords Improvement, Educational administration, Equitable leadership, Principal supervision,
School districts
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Many district offices in the USA are shifting their role from monitoring compliance
to supporting instructional improvement (Honig et al., 2010; Rigby and Hall, 2015). This
change is particularly evident in the role of the principal supervisor (PS) whose role
historically was to evaluate principals, and is changing to support principals’instructional
leadership through visiting schools, coaching, and providing other professional
development (Corcoran et al., 2013; Rigby and Hall, 2015). However, these are emerging
practices, and we know little about what PSs actually do within these broad categories of
work, or which of their actions are more likely to lead toward principal improvement as
instructional leaders (Honig, 2012).
Further, multiple measures indicate that the needs of historically marginalized students
are not met in most schools (Ladson-Billings, 2006). While there is increased research and
knowledge about how to change instruction to better meet the needs of each and every child
(Gay, 2000; Hammond, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 1995), and inchoate research on school site
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 57 No. 5, 2019
pp. 484-500
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0181
Received 27 September 2018
Revised 9 January 2019
4 March 2019
30 April 2019
Accepted 14 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
The authors would like to thank the L4L6 cohort for their support, challenge, and friendship.
The authors would also like to thank Ann Ishimaru and Anthony Craig for their thoughts and insight
on drafts of the manuscript, and the leaders in the three districts whose experiences and ideas shaped
this project.
484
JEA
57,5
culturally responsive leadership (Khalifa et al., 2016), there is no research around culturally
responsive district-level leadership. Yet, equity issues addressing race, language, culture,
ability, sexuality, and gender are increasingly a focus of practitioners, including conferences
for district leaders, district-based professional development, consulting for districts, and
school board policies. This suggests that educators leading districts want to learn to be
more equity-focused, but there has been little empirical evidence to guide their work.
We take up these issues through an analysis of principal supervision leadership actions
in a cross-case study of three districts in the Pacific Northwest. Building on a framework for
equitable leadership practice (Ishimaru and Galloway, 2014; Galloway and Ishimaru, 2015)
we ask: How do districts leverage principal supervision to improve equitable leadership
practices? What are similarities and differences across districts engaging in this work?
Our findings suggest that leaders’framing of both the disparities in school systems and the
work educators do in race-explicit, systems-responsible ways is a necessary foundation for
all equity-focused principal supervision and district leadership practices.
Relevant literature
This project sits at the intersection of two main bodies of literature: research on principal
supervision and on leadership practices focused on racial equity. We highlight systems-level
research in both of these fields. We argue that while there is research focused on how PSs
support principals as instructional leaders and what equity-focused leadership looks like at
the school level, research has not yet examined how principal supervision and other systems
leadership can support principals districtwide in equitable leadership practice.
Principal supervision
A small but foundational set of PS studies has established thatprincipal supervision matters
to instructional improvement: when PSs work in particular ways, they contribute to
principals’growth (Honig et al., 2010; Honig, 2012; Honig and Rainey, 2014). For example,
Honig (2012)found that model PSs viewedthemselves as teachers of principals, not managers.
In practice, thismeant that they engaged in teachingpractices when working withprincipals,
such as modeling debrief conversationswith teachers in real time (Honig, 2012), and creating
differentiated learning communities in which principals have opportunities to facilitate
learning for their colleagues (Honig and Rainey, 2014).
This literature has identified myriad challenges to and enablers of PSs working this way.
For example, PSs are constrained for quality time in which to work directly with principals
on instructional leadership (Casserly et al., 2013; Honig et al., 2010; Mitgang et al., 2013),
which is where PS scholars suggest PSs should spend a majority of their time (Goldring
et al., 2018; Honig et al., 2010). Typically, PSs supervise too many principals and/or spend
time in meetings at the central office not related to support for principals. Redefining the PS
role and reducing PS spans of control can start to alleviate these challenges (Corcoran et al.,
2013; Goldring et al., 2018; Honig and Rainey, 2015), as can investing in PS learning
(Honig et al., 2010) and maximizing other central office functions to support principal
supervision (Goldring et al., 2018; Honig and Rainey, 2015). This last finding is key: even the
most-talented PSs who take a teaching approach to every interaction won’t necessarily
support their principals’growth if other aspects of the school system, such as the teaching
and learning office and HR, do not also shift their work in ways that focus on supporting
instructional leadership in schools (Honig et al., 2010; Honig and Rainey, 2015). Other
scholarship on systemic reform and systems thinking supports this finding about taking a
systems approach to improvement (Hubbard et al., 2013; Senge, 2006; Shaked and Schechter,
2014). For example, Cobb et al.’s (2018) study of improving mathematics instruction at scale
found that changing the views of multiple stakeholders across the system about what
485
Improving
equitable
systems
leadership
To continue reading
Request your trial