Loading...
NCEE NISL (PIL 2023 VERSION)
Course Three • Unit 10

Unit 10: Culturally Responsive Leadership for Equity

10.0.1 Background and Rationale

Student learning, with the goal of making students fully prepared for careers and college without remediation, is the core business of schools. A blueprint for achieving that goal is laid out in NCEE’s Blueprint for a High-Performing Education System. See the following on p. 6 of the NCEE Blueprint:

Every child should have the opportunity to achieve at high levels. This is not only a moral imperative but is essential to economic success and societal well-being. In order to select high-performing systems to benchmark, NCEE uses a set of quantitative measures of equity. These measures include: 

  • the gap in performance between the highest and lowest achieving students;
  • the percentage of students from the lowest quartile of socioeconomic status who perform at the highest levels of achievement;
  • the variance in academic performance explained by socioeconomic status;
  • the percentage of low-performing students; 
  • the performance of students who are from diverse racial and/or ethnic backgrounds; 
  • the performance of students who are not native speakers of the language of instruction;
  • the gap in performance by gender; and
  • the variation in performance within schools and among schools. 

NCEE relies on these quantitative measures in our benchmarking methodology. But we do not mean to imply that they capture all of the complexity associated with equity. Achieving equity is no easy task in a system like the one in the United States. We have done very little to organize our schools and support our teachers to alleviate the enormous problems concentrated poverty causes for our students: toxic stress and a lack of consistent access to food, shelter, and safety. These problems are compounded by low expectations for poor students, as well as culturally and linguistically diverse students. Further, systemic inequality, inherent bias in curricula, and the enduring racism in this country combined make it enormously difficult for our most disadvantaged students to have a foundation of security and wellbeing that enables them to succeed in school. In order to build and sustain equity, educators will need the skills and understanding needed to recognize the assets all students bring to the classroom as well as the conditions that deny some students access to the educational opportunities enjoyed by other students. 

Ensuring equity is in everyone’s best interest. When society is equitable, democratic institutions are strong and economies flourish. When pervasive inequity festers and class mobility becomes impossible, social, economic, and political systems begin to unravel. Achieving an equitable public-school system is in the best interest of all our students, and indeed, our economy and our entire society.

In this unit, participants will

  • critically self-reflect through the lens of an autoethnography (a cultural autobiography); 
  • examine the research around learning through the leadership behaviors described in the Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) framework developed by Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis;
  • apply the CRSL framework to a case study (Montgomery County Public Schools); and
  • continue action learning planning with a consideration of how the action learning team embodies these same CRSL behaviors.
10.0.2 Key Concepts
  • Culturally responsive school leadership is necessary to ensure that all students leave the K–12 system College and Career Ready.
  • Through an analysis of the research literature on leadership as well as culturally responsive pedagogy, Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis identified four strands of culturally responsive school leadership behaviors:
    • Critically self-reflects on leadership behaviors
    • Develops culturally responsive teachers
    • Promotes culturally responsive/inclusive school environment
    • Engages students, parents, and indigenous context
  • Among other behaviors, leaders who are critically self-reflective
    • are committed to continuous learning of cultural knowledge and contexts;
    • display a critical consciousness on practice in and out of school, and display self-reflection;
    • use parent/community voices to measure cultural responsiveness in schools;
    • use equity audits to measure student inclusiveness, policy, and practice;
    • lead for social justice and inclusion.
  • A key lesson from the study of Montgomery County Public School initiatives under Jerry Weast is that “leading for equity matters.” (Leading for Equity, p. 141). Further, breaking the link between race, ethnicity, and student outcomes is difficult without confronting the effect that beliefs about race and ethnicity have on student learning (Leading for Equity, p. 139).
  • Action learning is a group problem-solving process that focuses on individual, team, and organizational learning. The urgent and important “problem” serves as an impetus to build learning capabilities. And since learning is integrated within the inquiry process, it contributes to more effective problem solving and decision making.
  • Effective questioning is one of the primary reasons that action learning is a unique approach to problem solving. It enables members to understand, clarify, and explore new and innovative approaches to problem solving, while generating ideas for strategic actions and potential pathways to solutions. Questioning in action learning improves listening skills and builds teamwork, which together serve as the foundation for individual, team, and organizational learning.
10.0.3 Performance Objectives
  • Recognize the distinction between equity and equality, and the role equity plays in promoting high achievement for all students
  • Describe the Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) framework developed by Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis
  • Relate the CRSL framework to the research base on learning explored throughout the NISL curriculum
  • Use the CRSL framework to guide the work of the action learning team in order to create and sustain a just, fair, and caring community as part of the ongoing endeavor to realize the goal of high achievement by every student
10.0.4 Participant Pre-Work

It is important to complete the pre-work prior to the beginning of the section in which the pre-work will be used (noted in parentheses) in order to participate fully. Be prepared to spend about 2–3 hours total on pre-work.

Pre-work that is available digitally can be accessed by clicking on the hyperlinks below or in the appropriate menus in the Unit Library to the right. Pre-work that is not available digitally will have been provided in the materials you received before the start of the NISL program.

Please note: Where complete professional books are provided electronically, the books are for the registered participants’ individual use only and may not be downloaded, printed, or shared in any way. Access to the digital version of the text, along with any individual annotations made by the registered participant, will be available across any device used to log into the NCEE Portal.

10.0.5 Materials
General
  • NISL materials
  • Journal
  • Laptop or tablet with wireless Internet capabilities
Readings and Case Studies (Inclusive of Pre-Work)
Handouts
Videos
Websites
10.0.6 Course Structure

After a reflection on Unit 9, the unit continues with an overview of the framework developed by Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis on the behaviors of culturally responsive school leaders. The first major segment is focused on critical self-reflection. 

The unit continues with a deep dive into each of the four strands of the framework, making connections from each strand back to the NISL curriculum and then to action learning plans.

Participants then apply the strands of the framework to a case study (Montgomery County Public Schools) before making connections to their own action learning. 

10.0.7 Annotated Agenda
  Agenda Item Purpose
 10.1

Reflection and Overview

Reflection on Unit 9 and preview of Unit 10

60 minutes • Individual and group reflection

 Reflect on action learning teams and connect the team’s work to culturally responsive leadership as a way to strengthen effectiveness. 
10.2

The Culturally Responsive School Leadership Framework

A deep dive into the CRSL Framework with links to the entire NISL program and research base

240 minutes • Group activity

Understand the Culturally Responsive School Leadership Framework developed by Khalifa et al. and use it to critically examine a Theory of Change through the lens of equity and make changes as needed to reflect the goal of equity.
10.3

Culturally Responsive School Leadership: A Deeper Dive

The behaviors of culturally responsive school leaders

60 minutes • Group activity

 Consider the four strands of Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) as defined by Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis in light of the Applied Critical Leadership practices of Santamaria and Santamaria. 
10.4

Critical Self-Reflection on Leadership Behaviors

Autoethnography

120 minutes • Reflection and group discussion

 Expand equity perspectives through critical self-reflection by probing the qualitative results of your autoethnography (in solo reflective fashion) to determine areas of strength and vulnerability.
10.5

Revisiting Montgomery County Public Schools

A look at MCPS approach to designing new systems and structures for change and creating an equity-focused culture.

120 minutes • Case study

 Analyze the case of Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland) through the lenses of the four strands of the CRSL behaviors.

 
10.6 

Revisiting the Action Learning Process

Continuation of the inquiry process supporting action learning

120 minutes • Individual activity and reflection

Distinguish the difference between the role of the facilitator and the coach in action learning. Examine the role of the action learning facilitator in managing the meeting. 

Explore the implications of skills development on individual and group learning and team effectiveness.

Examine the role of effective questioning within the action learning process.

 
10.0.8 For Further Study
Readings
  • Badaracco, Jr., Joseph L. 1997. Defining Moments: When Managers Must Choose Between Right and Right. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Fullan, Michael G. 2003. The Moral Imperative of School Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Gardiner, Mary E. and Penny L. Tenuto. 2015. “Reflections of Practicing School Principals on Ethical Leadership and Decision-Making: Confronting Social Injustice.” The Journal of Values-Based Leadership 8(2), Article 6. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol8/iss2/6.
  • Gladwell, Malcolm G. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  • Goodlad, John. 2006. What Schools Are For. Signature ed. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International.
  • Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1970. “The Moral Atmosphere of the School.” In The Unstudied Curriculum: Its Impact on Children, edited by N. V. Overly. Washington, D.C.: A.S.C.D.
  • Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 2006. “From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools.” Educational Researcher Oct 2006; 35(7): 3–12.
  • Levine, Arthur, and Laura Scheiber. 2010. Unequal Fortunes: Snapshots from the South Bronx. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Magdaleno, Kenneth. “Ensuring Social Justice and a Diverse and Equitable Leadership.” Leadership. 45(3). January/February 2016.
  • Mahoney, Dan. 2006. Ethics and the School Administrator: Balancing Today’s Complex Issues. Rowman and Littlefield Education.
  • Noll, James. 2010. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues. McGraw-Hill.
  • Piaget, Jean. 1997. The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: Simon and Schuster. (Originally published in 1932.)
  • Senge, Peter M., et al. 2000. Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education. New York: Doubleday.
  • Smith, LaDay. “Being a Culturally Proficient Leader is not an Option.” Leadership. 45(3). January/February 2016.
Websites
10.0.9 References
  • Childress, Stacey M., Denis P. Doyle, David A. Thomas, and David Gergen (Foreword). 2009. Leading for Equity: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Montgomery County Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  • Khalifa, Muhammad A., Mark Anthony Gooden, and James Earl Davis. 2016. “Culturally Responsive School Leadership: A Synthesis of the Literature.” Review of Educational Research. Vol. XX, No. X, pp.1-40.
  • NCEE (National Center on Education and the Economy). 2021. NCEE’s Blueprint for a High-Performing Education System. Washington, DC: NCEE.
  • Santamaria, Lorri J., and Andres P. Santamaria. 2015. “Counteracting Educational Injustice with Applied Critical Leadership: Culturally Responsive Practices Promoting Sustainable Change.” International Journal of Multicultural Education, Vol 17, No. (1), pp. 22–41.
  • World Institute for Action Learning (WIAL). March 1, 2017. “Introduction to Action Learning.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGLqdGwOZQo