Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, Summer 2017, Vol. 7, No. 1: 19-38. DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A study of rural high school principals’ perceptions as social justice leaders Shelly Albritton, Ph.D. Stephanie Huffman, Ed.D. Rhonda McClellan, Ed.D. University of Central Arkansas Abstract This multisite case study explores how rural principals in high poverty schools in a Southern state that had identified themselves as social justice leaders perceived student diversity, specifically LGBTQ students, and how they sustained a socially-just school climate for all students. Using a qualitative approach lent itself to understanding the principals’ descriptions of themselves as social justice leaders in their respective school and community contexts through their conversations (Creswell, 2007; Marshall & Rossman, 2016). The investigators drew from Theoharis’ (2007, 2009) and Bishop’s (2012) studies to serve as the theoretical framework guiding this study. The results indicated that the principals in this case study struggled with recognizing LGBTQ students’ needs and well-being. The findings in this study contain implications for pre- service preparation and in-service professional development programs to draw upon social justice leadership theory and research to inform leadership practices when addressing external and internal resistance. Moreover, this study recognizes the need for leadership preparation programs to integrate critical self-consciousness (Freire, 2000) with purposeful reflection (Webster-Smith, 2011) as essential to the development of the social justice leader. Keywords: school leadership, social justice, LGBTQ students, community resistance, pre-service and in-service preparation programs T hroughout the shaping of the field of educational administration, scholars have worked to specify the roles of the campus leader. As Murphy (2002) noted, the activities of principals have been road- mapped by those investigating the assistant principal and transition to the principalship (Marshall & Hooley, 2006), roles and responsibilities (Bickmore & Bickmore, 2010), and functions of supervision (Sergiovanni, 2007). Murphy (2002) further stated that this scholarship “has two epistemological axes: Discipline-based (or technical) knowledge and practice-based knowledge, axes that are regularly portrayed as being under considerable tension” (p. 178; Hyle, Ivory, & McClellan, 2010). He pointedly remarked, “If we can just develop better theories, the educational world would be a better place, educational administration programs would be strong, and graduates would be more effective leaders” (p. 181). He cautioned, though, that academic theory removed from practice is a “bridge to nowhere” (2002, p. 181) and yet practice-knowledge should not be removed from the academic or become the ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 20 “golden standard for restructuring the profession” (p. 181). He posited that school administration should take up Kliebard’s (1995) call to draw upon Dewey’s valued dimensions. Murphy identified new perspectives of school leadership through three paradigms (with corresponding metaphors) prevalent in educational administration scholarship up to the early 2000s: social justice (the moral steward); school improvement (the educator); and democratic community (the community builder) (p. 186). Although the work of this current study did not begin with Murphy’s work in mind, the data collected begs such an introduction. Review of the Literature One only needs to spend a bit of time with practicing professionals to hear reverberating mantras: “learning for all; whatever it takes”; “if you treasure it, measure it”; and “it takes a village.” Instructional leadership has taken root in schools (Seashore Lewis, Liethwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). The principals who participated in this study are no exception to their counterparts in other states. The principal as instructional leader, more than likely representative of Murphy’s (2002) lead “educator,” demonstrates the principal’s transition from manager and disciplinarian to leaders of instruction. School leaders are encouraged and shaped by their preparation programs to become leaders of social justice, instruction, and community engagement. The newly published Professional Standards for Educational Leadership (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015) stretches practicing school leaders and preparation program faculty and students. The new standards extend the instructional leadership model with the inclusion of language of creating and sustaining school cultures that not only supports students’ instructional well-being, but also their overall physical, social, and emotional well- being. The principal’s role has been identified and described as playing the major role in developing school culture (Cubberley, 1916; Seashore Lewis, Liethwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010) and, with the assistance of other educators on campus (Neumerski, 2013) and in the district (Honig, 2012), in generating a focus on teaching and learning. Marks and Printy (2003) further stated that instructional leadership is insufficient for generating this culture and must be complemented by transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003). Furthermore, Shields (2013) reasoned that it is essential that today’s school leaders practice transformative leadership. The findings of the current study would suggest that instructional leadership should not occur without the moral guidance of transformational (Hallinger, 2003) and transformative (Shields, 2013) leadership theories and practices. The Studies’ Social Justice Theoretical Framework Social justice, most often viewed as a moral purpose undertaken by “a process built upon respect, care, recognition, and empathy” (Theoharis, 2007, p. 223) serves as our theoretical framework. Theoharis’ work defines the difference between a “good leader” and a “social justice leader” (p. 252). Important to our study, we have taken his lead that a social justice leader: ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 21 a) places value on diversity and extends cultural respect; b) ends segregation of pull-out programs; c) strengthens core teaching and curricular issues; d) embeds professional development that tries to make sense of race, class, gender, and disability; e) knows that school cannot be great until the students with the greatest struggles are given rich opportunities; f) demands that every child will be successful; g) seeks out other activist administrators who can and will sustain her or him; h) sees all data through a lens of equity; i) knows that building community and differentiation are tools to ensure that all students can achieve success; and j) becomes intertwined with the life, community, and soul of the school. (p. 252) Theoharis complemented these characteristics by demonstrating that social justice leaders faced resistance from the internal and external community, and they in turn had to become resistant to this resistance. Bishop’s (2012) investigation revealed an additional perspective of internal resistance: the need for leaders to resist their own biases. Not only did the investigators in this study use Theoharis’ theory to frame their inquiry and in the analysis of the data, but drew from Bishop’s (2012) studies to guide the initial coding and analysis of the data. Purpose of the Study & Research Questions The purpose of this study was to learn how principals (in rural, high-poverty schools, with a prevalent minority population, or who are minorities themselves), who had identified themselves as social justice leaders on a pre-screening instrument perceived student diversity, specifically in regard to LGBTQ students, and how they sustained a socially-just school climate for all students. The study also drew from Theoharis’ (2007, 2009) theoretical framework of social justice leadership, particularly his model of resistance. In addition, the study investigated how the school community, specifically in rural conservative communities, affected the principals’ perceptions of social justice and the strategies they used to meet resistance. The following questions guided the investigation: 1. How do social-justice motivated principals in rural communities describe student diversity at their schools? 2. How do they generate a school climate demonstrating a valuing of diverse student identity that is inclusive of all students, including LGBTQ? 3. What types of resistance and support have principals encountered from the community? 4. What specific strategies do principals use to overcome any perceived resistance from the communities that may affect establishing a socially-just school climate for LGBTQ students? Method of Inquiry The researchers took a qualitative multisite case study approach to generate descriptive data of how principals perceived their work toward social justice and the advocacy of all learners. Rural high school principals in a Southern state located in communities that could be identified as likely to resist social ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 22 justice leadership for all groups were the targeted population for this study. The qualitative methodology and field-based observations and interview methods produced rich, descriptive data (Creswell, 2007; Marshall & Rossman, 2106) indicating how the principals perceived themselves as social justice leaders. The researchers also examined federal and state databases to select rural schools meeting the following criteria: 1) located in high-poverty areas; 2) had low levels of education within the community; 3) located in socially conservative regions; and 4) had a prevalent presence of evangelic Protestant denominations. These data would provide a deeper understanding, appreciation, and verification of the school’s contextual setting from multiple data sources to inform the story of the school and community context that could, in turn, potentially inform the principal’s lived experiences (Creswell, 2007). The principals who were selected for the interview self-described on a pre-screening instrument as practicing 1) beliefs in fostering social justice, 2) priorities of just treatment of all students, and 3) social justice in ways that influenced the climate of their schools. Based on the data collected from the pre- screening instrument, and adhering to the study’s selection process, six principals (four males and two females) were selected for interviews. Descriptive data of the six principals presented in the following table were generated from the pre-screening survey. Table 1 Descriptive Data of Principals Selected for the Interview Race/ Age Live in Years as a Years at Principal/School Gender Range Community Principal this School Principal C/School C W/F 30-34 Yes 2 2 Principal E/School E W/F 55-59 Yes 7 3 Principal F/School F W/M 30-34 No -1 -1 Principal G/School G W/M 50-54 Yes 4 1 Principal M/School M W/M 55-59 Yes 10 7 Principal W/School W W/M 50-54 Yes 5 16 A semi-structured interview protocol guided the interview process for each principal. Stringent confidentiality measures were adhered to throughout the study. Participants were informed of their right to continue or cease their participation in the study at any point in the process. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Triangulation of the data through member checks was conducted to assure accuracy and validity (Bloomberg & Vole, 2016). Once the researchers were confident the transcripts accurately captured the principals’ perceptions, they began to code and analyze the data (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Based on her review of social justice literature, Bishop (2012) outlined the following attributes of social justice leaders: a) open-minded (Brown, 2006) – a willingness to challenge their own views, experiences and values; b) self-reflection (Marshall & Young, 2006) – a risk-taker who is willing to learn to ensure a better quality of life for everyone; c) networking (Theoharis, 2007; Karpinski & Lugg, 2006) – seeks and builds a network of support from the professional community for the purpose of leading the fight for ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 23 equality for all; d) advocacy (Shields, 2013) – demonstrates an attitude of advocacy and concern for individuals; e) visionary (Kose, 2009) – promotes a social justice vision to stakeholders; and f) change agency (Shields, 2013) – initiates changes at their schools to establish a more inclusive environment for all students. The researchers chose to use the attributes identified by Bishop (2012) as the a priori codes for the initial organizing and sorting of the data, with additional codes emerging as the transcripts were analyzed (see Table 2). Table 2 A Priori Codes and Emergent Codes A Priori Codes for Initial Analysis Emergent Codes with Further Analysis (OM) Open-minded (L) Legalities/the law (SR) Self-reflective (RP) Reactive versus proactive (N) Networking with others (CP) Community pressure-resistance (A) Advocacy (F) Faith (V) Visionaries (KC) Keeping LGBTQ in the closet (C) Change agent (SA) Student extra-curricular activities (IL) Instructional Leadership Findings To begin that discussion of our findings, a snapshot of contextual data to situate the principals’ lived experiences in their communities and school settings is provided in Table 3. Table 3 Contextual Information of the Schools Population/Income/ Religion Election Poverty* Race* Educational Attainment* Population** Trend ** School C • Population= 1,243 • White-94.6% • High school graduate or • All Evangelic • Democratic- • Median • Black/African higher-90.8% Protestant= 32.7% household Am-.1% • High school or 17,911 • Republican- income= $39,671 • Hispanic/Latino- equivalent-38.6% • Orthodox/ 64.3% • Persons below 2.8% • Some college-27.3% Catholic/ poverty level, • Others-2.5% • Associate degree-5.4% Other=3,247 2007-2011= • Bachelor degree-15.4% • Unclaimed=20,355 20.4% • Graduate/professional degree-4.1% ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 24 Table 3 continued Contextual Information of the Schools Population/Income/ Religion Election Poverty* Race* Educational Attainment* Population** Trend ** School E • Population= 4,449 • White-93.5% • High school graduate or • All Evangelic • Democratic- • Median • Black/African higher-86.8% Protestant= 39.4% household Am-.6% • High school or 9,405 • Republican- income= $30,038 • Hispanic/Latino- equivalent-27.3% • Orthodox/ 57.5% • Persons below 3.2% • Some college-26.2% Catholic/ poverty level, • Others-2.7% • Associate degree-8.1% Other=1,438 2007-2011= • Bachelor degree-14.9% • Unclaimed=16,603 17.2% • Graduate/professional degree-10.4% School F • Population= 5,980 • White-53% • High school graduate or • All Evangelic • Democratic- • Median • Black/African higher-81.1% Protestant= 44.3% household Am-44.1% • High school or 4,632 • Republican- income= $27,944 • Hispanic/Latino- equivalent-44.4% • Orthodox/ 53% • Persons below 2.2% • Some college-15.4% Catholic/ poverty level, • Others-.7% • Associate degree-7.6% Other=100 2007-2011= • Bachelor degree-10.9% • Unclaimed=3,381 16.6% • Graduate/professional degree-2.7% School G • Population= 4,090 • White-64.4% • High school graduate or • All Evangelic • Democratic- • Median • Black/African higher-82.2% Protestant= 46.9% household Am-26.8% • High school or 15,285 • Republican- income= $33,019 • Hispanic/Latino- equivalent-46.6% • Orthodox/ 50.7% • Persons below 9.1% • Some college-15.9% Catholic/ poverty level, • Others-.2% • Associate degree-7.1% Other=338 2007-2011= • Bachelor degree-9.8% • Unclaimed=7,372 20.4% • Graduate/professional degree-2.8% School M • Population= 4,671 • White-52.9% • High school graduate or • All Evangelic • Democratic- • Median • Black/African higher-77.2% Protestant= 54.9% household Am-43.8% • High school or 8,409 • Republican- income= $26,951 • Hispanic/Latino- equivalent-38.5% • Orthodox/ Catholic/ 42.7% • Persons below 2.7% • Some college-21.2% Other=116 poverty level, • Others-.6% • Associate degree-2.6% • Unclaimed= 2007-2011= • Bachelor degree-10.5% 4,483 30.9% ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 25 • Graduate/professional degree-4.5% Table 3 continued Contextual Information of the Schools Population/Income/ Religion Election Poverty* Race* Educational Attainment* Population** Trend ** School W • Population= • White-75.8% • High school graduate or • All Evangelic • Democratic- 13,734 • Black/African higher-78.3% Protestant= 36.2% • Median Am-21.9% • High school or 11,780 • Republican- household • Hispanic/Latino- equivalent-44% • Orthodox/ 61.6% income= $42,303 1.5% • Some college-15.6% Catholic/ • Persons below • Others-.8% • Associate degree-5.2% Other=350 poverty level, • Bachelor degree-9.8% • Unclaimed=5,740 2007-2011= • Graduate/professional 14.1% degree-3.7% *State and county QuickFacts; (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). **USA Counties: Religion in Arkansas; based on congregational adherents: “full members, their children, and others who regularly attend services” (Association of Religion Data Archives, 2010). **USA Counties- based on 2008 presidential elections (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a). The investigators anticipated the principals who identified themselves on the pre-screening survey as social justice leaders would embody to some degree the attributes of the a priori codes adopted for the study; however, this was not what was discovered in the initial organizing and sorting of the data. Little evidence was found of open-mindedness, self-reflection, networking with others, advocacy, visionary practices, or change agency. On the contrary, the emergent codes that surfaced indicated most of the principals’ concepts of social justice did not always include all students, more specifically LGBTQ students. In the following paragraphs, each of the four research questions and the findings is addressed. Direct quotes are provided to illustrate the complexity of, and contradictions to, the principals’ espoused views and beliefs of themselves as social justice leaders. Research Question 1: How do social-justice motivated principals in rural communities describe student diversity at their schools? When the principals were asked to describe student diversity in their schools, their responses generally mirrored the State Department of Education’s definition of diversity (e.g., race, gender, special needs, and socio-economic status). One principal responded that diversity is “every single student that walks through the door of this school – black, white, purple, etc.” Another principal offered, “Race doesn’t necessarily ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 26 enter my mind; that’s just a given.” One principal stated, “Personally, I think of, you know, maybe the learning disabled, would be one.” A few of the principals specifically mentioned English as a Second Language (ESL) students. One principal observed, “There are some cultural differences. I’m aware of that, but they are still human beings that still react to the same kind of things the same way. I don’t care if they’re black, white, brown, who they are or where they come from.” The principals’ illustrations of their views of diversity mostly revolved around racial and socio-economic diversity, with several sharing experiences of growing up poor. One principal offered, “I grew up on welfare; I know what it means, when you have to wait for the check.” Primarily, the groups mentioned by the principals were the sub-population categories that are targeted for state testing and data reporting. Even though each principal had indicated on the pre-screening survey that LGBTQ students were present in their school, five of the six principals had to be prompted in the interview about LGBTQ students in their schools. Once prompted, one principal stated, “There’s, you know, a little bit of the sexual orientation, but I don’t personally, I don’t like to classify that with diversity as far as race or other things, but it is still a diversity that you do have to deal with and be sensitive to, I do realize that.” This principal went on to say, “Our students are not just openly very much expressing their diversity in that area.” Research Question 2: How do they [the principals] generate a school climate demonstrating a valuing of diverse student identity that is inclusive of all students, including LGBTQ? An interview question directed to each principal was Who/what inspired you to be a leader for social justice? All the principals indicated they were socially-just because of their Christian faith, and also stated they were devout Christians. One principal stated, “I’m a firm believer that you try to love everybody, and my faith exhibiting Christ-like behavior is an everyday ingrained thing.” Another said, “I don’t feel like I have done anything in particular, besides being the person that God has called me to be and I don’t know how to be anything else, besides to treat people the way I would want to be treated, according to the scripture, which is love God and love your neighbor as yourself, so that’s the only thing I know to do. I’m not saying I follow that all the time like I should, but that’s my goal.” The principals were further prompted to share their views as social justice leaders for diverse students, particularly LGBTQ students. One of the principals responded by asking, “How would Jesus treat the students?” Another offered, “Who did Christ hang around with? Prostitutes… destitute people, because they were ministry opportunities for Him.” One principal responded, “Besides from, as a follower of Christ, just the fact that we are supposed to love all people and kids. In my belief system, it’s not my place to condemn nor condone. I can live with it… I’m not going to condone anybody’s behavior that’s not in good social practice.” The principals in this study also tended to equate instructional leadership with establishing a socially-just school climate. The principals spoke about modeling behavior, focusing their efforts on quality instruction for all students, setting high expectations, holding faculty and students accountable, and maintaining a safe environment. They made comments such as, “I’m the instructional leader first and foremost.” “The ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 27 focus is on a culture of respect, responsibility, and accountability.” “The leader has to be accountable and set high standards.” “The most important aspect is academic success for all students.” “I think it’s important for us to understand that we are to educate every single kid that comes through the doors.” “I see diversity as academic in nature. I would love for it to be a climate that is about learning.” “I think about just teaching tolerance with teachers and by modeling. There’s been no professional development as such.” The principals expressed a belief in “leveling the playing field.” They believed all students should be treated the same, and expressed that school policy or practice should be equally applied. The principals also shared the following beliefs: “Every kid that walks through the doors of this school has the same opportunity to get the same education.” “I have gay and I have lesbian kids, but they are all treated equally. As long as that is not taking away from someone else’s opportunity to learn, I don’t care what your practices are.” “What I think we see now, is more of a level playing field, regardless of socio-economic status, regardless of ethnicity, or whatever, it doesn’t matter, you know, but they also see me going down on the gym floor when one of my big black girls falls and breaks her leg. And loving on her and picking her up.” “I’m not going to go up and ask [about sexual orientation]. As long as they are not imposing any will or anything.” Research Question 3: What types of resistance and support have principals encountered from the community? While all the principals verbally indicated they personally had a non-issue with LGBTQ students, they also indicated some of their faculty and community would have issues with LBGTQ students being open and out. One principal observed, “This school, this community is more ingrained in tradition than in any school I’ve been in. It is entrenched.” Another principal shared the following about a new teacher in the district who left after one year: “She didn’t really fit in here, and she was actually a lesbian. She didn’t fit into the community real well because this is more of a conservative area here.” When asked about professional training in regard to sexual orientation and diversity, this principal went on to share, “I don’t know that I can focus on that because it is so few of our kids [who are LGBTQ] and they are pretty well accepted… some of the teachers are uncomfortable with it and have come to me.” All of the principals indicated there are members in their schools and communities who have strong, negative feelings in regard to LGBTQ. During the interviews, two main topics generated the most responses about community pressures both inside and outside of the school: extra-curricular activities and student discipline, particularly in regard to bullying. Two principals offered to share the following examples when being questioned about community pressures. One said, “We had [LGBTQ] students last year, and I know in our handbook, it states that no hand-holding, none whatever, and I let them hold hands. Two males can hold hands, two females can hold hands.” The other principal gave the following example, “In our handbook, when I got here, we had a policy that said no hand-holding. So I did a little bit of research and I found out that we had an issue a few years ago with lesbian students wanting to hold hands. Who cares, you know… If they want to hold hands, hold hands, you know. And that makes some teachers uncomfortable.” Both examples were offered by the two female principals. ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1 A STUDY OF RURAL HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS 28 The researchers continued to question about pressures from the community in the context of extra- curricular activities. The topic of an LGBTQ student organization on campus was discussed. One principal responded, “Hesitancy on my part. I don’t know that the community would embrace that, just, that’s just me being honest.” Another said he would be a sponsor until the students could find one “for legal reasons…supervision is a critical piece so they couldn’t do it without a sponsor.” In the context of community pressures principals might face with LGBTQ issues, the topic of same-sex couples attending prom was discussed. Most of the principals spoke about policies, rules, and dress codes. One principal anticipated, “Isolated push-back.” One said, “I don’t see how we could deny it, you know. Teachers would be uncomfortable with it.” One principal offered, “We have a rule that only couples [can go to prom], [or] you can go as a single, but if you’re a couple you have to be a boy and a girl. I think that’s going to be challenged within the next couple of years.” This principal stated he would be fine with same sex couples attending as long as they followed the rules. The investigators presented the following scenario for the principal to comment on: If a lesbian couple came to the prom and one was wearing a tuxedo and the other wore a prom dress, would that be a problem? This principal said it “wouldn’t matter as long as they followed rules and dress code.” The investigators then asked if a gay couple came to prom and one wore a tuxedo and one wore a prom dress and both were complying with the dress code, how would that be perceived? The principal paused for a bit of time, then stated, “That’s something I’d have to go talk with [the superintendent] about. I hadn’t thought about a guy in the dress thing… I can predict our teachers going nuts over something like that, not wanting it to happen or making a rule about this.” Only one principal said, “I do have gay couples coming together at the prom. I’ve had lesbian students that one will wear the, you know, pants or tux type thing and that’s absolutely fine.” Principals were asked to give examples of how they addressed a gay or lesbian student’s problems with bullying. One principal responded, “I did have a young man last semester, that was gay… and he was having some difficulty. But it was all self-imposed. Look at me, look at me, type issues. Again, this is a teachable moment piece that if you accept a lifestyle, you’re going to have to accept the ramifications of what your lifestyle is.” When probed to explain what he meant by a “teachable moment piece,” the principal shared the following conversation he had with the gay student. In it, the principal recounted a conversation he had held with a female student who had come to him regarding a similar bullying incident: Principal: And he [the gay student] came to me and he said they are bullying me, they are calling me names. I said, ok, what are they calling you? Gay Student: Well, they are calling me gay. Principal: I said, and? My first thing is, it’s the same thing as this [other] kid, a girl comes in here and says… Female Student: Oh, she called me a “ho.” Principal: Well, are you? Are you? ALBRITTON, HUFFMAN, & McCLELLAN / DOI: 10.5929/2017.7.1.1