The Courage to Lead: An Equity Agenda

While many aspects of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law are controversial, no serious observer of public education in the United States would take issue with the fact that many children are being left behind in our schools. And it is a commonly accepted fact that upon disaggregating whatever data we choose to use as measurement, poor children and children of color are disproportionately represented in the "left behind" group. In our current educational lexicon, this of course is referred to as the "achievement gap" – a gap that unfortunately divides this nation's children along the lines of race and class.

I find it perplexing that this gap in opportunity and achievement along the lines of race and class is so stark given the stated values and beliefs of most educational leaders I've encountered. While hardly an exercise in qualitative research, my own anecdotal information from interactions with hundreds of teacher leaders, principals, district office leaders and superintendents from around the country, strongly suggests that most educational leaders in our schools and school systems embrace a commitment to social justice and equity for all students, and care deeply about the social, emotional and academic success of all of their students.

Whether the policies and practices employed in NCLB are best suited to the challenge of closing the achievement gap is the subject for another article, but what is very much to the point for our purpose here is that by passing the legislation by an overwhelming majority, political leaders on both sides of the aisle have embraced a commitment to educational equity. In short, there appears to be a growing and widespread commitment among educators and political leaders to close the gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers, and to close the gap between the rhetoric of all students learning at high levels and the reality in so many of our schools. If this is so, there is an important question we need to face:

If the values and beliefs of our educational leaders embrace a mission of social justice and equity for all students, why is it that the policies, practices and structures in our schools and school systems so often perpetuate inequities based on race and class?

Hefeitz (1994) defines leadership as mobilizing action to close the gap between the values we hold as leaders and the reality we face. It is in the spirit of this leadership definition that I will first attempt to illuminate the underlying structures that have rendered the vast majority of educational leaders impotent in terms of mobilizing action to close the gap between the values they (say that they) hold, and the reality they face. Second, I will address the issue of the achievement gap in terms of these underlying structures and make an argument for why educators need to embrace the "achievement gap" challenge.

The Hard Wiring of Inequities

It seems to me that our broader social, political, and economic systems are "hard wired" to perpetuate inequities based on race and class, and it is within these system structures that "equity minded" teacher leaders, principals and central office leaders find themselves struggling to achieve social justice and equity. As part of my personal journey, let me mention a few experiences and observations I've made along the way that reinforce this notion of "hard wired systems."

First, as a white middle-aged male with a comfortable income, I am acutely aware of my "white privilege" (McIntosh, 1996) as well as my economic privilege. One does not need a life altering epiphany to develop this awareness – it is omnipresent if one opens his or her eyes. From travel on airplanes to hotels to restaurants to shopping centers, as I have developed an "appearance of respectability," over the years, I have noticed an improvement in the way I am greeted and treated – and afforded a variety of "perks" not often provided to the less fortunate. In the great food chain of privilege in our country, I am clearly in the upper quartile.

I watch the morning news on CNN on a regular basis. At 9:30 a.m. (EST) CNN shows pictures of the "opening bell" for both the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ. Most days, a group is invited to ring the opening bell – most typically that group is from some major corporation, however once in awhile the person(s) ringing the bell include celebrities and other contemporary heroes. Understanding that the ringers of the opening bell represent the economic power of our country, over the last year I decided to keep my own data on who was invited to ring the opening bell. 1 After keeping data for about one year, here is what I found:

"Ringers" of the opening bell	White Men	White Women	Men of Color	Women of Color
Number	1009	284	18	7
Percent of total	76.5%	21.5%	1.5%	.5%

These numbers hardly represent the pluralistic society we, as a country, like to present to the rest of the world. What a poignant and disturbing example of how our economic system perpetuates inequities based on race and gender. We know all too well that where there is economic power, there is political power. The deeply "hard wired" systems and structures which serve to perpetuate these inequities must be illuminated if we, as educational leaders, are to be successful with our agenda of social justice and equity.

As I've confronted my own privileged place in society, I've also reflected on my work as a principal, central office director and assistant superintendent. I would like to think that I was able to create a system of equity in the face of broader economic, political and social systems that perpetuate inequity based on race and class. In fact, I believe I had some success in this quest. However I am also faced with the painful reality that I, as an equity minded leader, found myself in situations where inequities were perpetuated. Unfortunately, there are many examples I can cite, but I offer one that is particularly telling.

I was an assistant superintendent in a suburban school system that was growing rapidly for a period of 6-8 years in the 1990's. Opening new schools and changing enrollment boundaries was an intermittent part of my job responsibilities. We had the usual enrollment/boundary committee of parents and patrons and a criteria for attendance that included "maintaining enrollment diversity." The harsh reality, however, was that whenever we attempted to move "those apartment kids" into a new attendance area with single homes (the majority of whom were white and economically privileged,) the single home parents would rise up and cite a host of reasons why this was not in the best interest of their "neighborhood" school. In short the ugly face of racism and classism surfaced with regularity.

I wish it weren't so, but we often ended up capitulating to the unrelenting force of the privileged parents. Of course, we had our reasons. Not wanting to confront the fact that we may have "sold out" our core values, we talked about the importance of maintaining public support that was needed to pass key funding measures. It was the white privileged parents of course who could generate the financial and political support necessary to run our campaigns. The pragmatics of leadership suggested that sometimes we must be willing to lose a battle in the fight to win a war. In fact, given the public support we maintained over that period of time, that school district does have wonderful new facilities for most of its students – including the most disadvantaged. So these issues are truly complex but I can't help wondering these many years later if I (and we) could have done more in the name of the values we held as leaders.

The unfortunate reality we face as educational leaders is that despite our deep commitment to social justice and equity, our current school system is simply a manifestation of the deeper hard wiring of our social, political and economic systems. The voice of privilege still holds sway over the policies, practices, and structures ostensibly aimed at "educating all students well." It is the voice of privilege that makes the "equality" argument, e.g., each student is equal and so deserving of an equal share of funding, opportunities, etc., knowing full well they have the political means to "work" the system on behalf of their children. Worse yet, the hardwiring works in more subtle, and almost subconscious ways so that those making the "equality" argument are not even aware of the privilege they enjoy and use to their advantage on a regular basis. However we know that there is nothing more discriminatory than treating unequals as equal (Smith, 2001.) Yet we continue on with policies and practices that are so often antithetical to our deeper values. It seems that values driven leadership alone is no match for the voice of privilege. I've seen too many "values driven" leaders rendered impotent in their quest for social justice and equity.

Taking on the Challenge of the Achievement Gap

It is perhaps, with this sense of leadership impotence in mind, that I have encountered a number of practitioners and scholars who object to the use of the phrase, "closing the achievement gap," fearing that we will put too much responsibility in the laps of educators for a condition that has its genesis deeply embedded in the social, political, cultural and economic fabric of our country. According to their argument, without first addressing these deeply embedded issues as a nation, the failure to close the achievement gap will be seen solely as a failure of the educators, rather than the sum total of our political, social and economic institutions.

It is shameful that as a nation, we have not harnessed our social and political democracy to address the savage inequalities (Kozol,1991) present throughout our society, particularly as they relate to children. At the same time I believe the greatest leverage for closing the achievement gap lies in the exercise of leadership at the school and school district level. Beginning with the late Ron Edmonds work on effective schools (1981), and continuing with several keys studies of teacher quality (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Haycock, 1998), there is ample research evidence to suggest that educators do indeed possess the locus of control to affect dramatically the achievement of all students.

There is increasing evidence that certain school district design principles (all within the leadership purview of school district leaders) can improve achievement for all students. Those design principles include systems where there is an effort-based concept of intelligence; a focus on classroom instruction throughout the district; a culture emphasizing continuous learning and two-way accountability; continuing professional development for all staff; and, coherence in standards, curriculum assessment and professional development (Resnick and Glennan Jr., 2002.) While educational leaders need to better leverage their existing locus of control, they also don't need to bear the full responsibility for closing the gap. In fact the broader inequities based on race and class manifest in our social, political and economic systems demand reaching outside of our ranks in order to create a system of equity and quality for all. As educational leaders we have the ability to take several important actions in this regard.

By illuminating the "gap" and being honest about its root causes – namely issues of racism and classism – we take the first step in the change cycle of creating an urgency of awareness, an urgency for new knowledge, skills and tools, and ultimately an urgency for action. We must not be afraid to name and engage these inequities! We must have the leadership courage to put issues of race and class based inequity "on the table." This can be done through the artful and willful use of disaggregated student performance and opportunity to learn data. The courage to lead an aggressive agenda of social justice and equity requires leaders to engage their respective school communities around the "brutal facts" of student performance.

Recognizing the intractable nature of the achievement gap, we must also mobilize the community, particularly the part of the community that has suffered at the hands of these inequities for so many years. Forming community based coalitions, including the historically disenfranchised members of our community, is essential if we are to confront the "voice of privilege" that serves to influence our current educational policies, practices and structures. We must develop a different mental model for school reform that is as much about social movement as it is organizational change. Again, there are positive examples of this kind of mobilization from which to draw upon (Heckman, 1996; Oakes, 2000).

Of course this is all easier said than done. Nevertheless, as educational leaders, we have the ability to exercise our leadership will in different and more powerful ways. Make no mistake, as my previous examples demonstrate, it will require more than just having the "right" leadership values and beliefs. In addition to a strong set of core values, it will require extraordinary courage, including very different conceptions of leadership along with the knowledge, skills, and tools necessary to deliver this leadership. Yet this leadership capacity can and must be developed if we have any chance of creating a system of high quality and equity for all.

The programs and technical assistance provided by the Center for Educational Leadership (CEL) are designed solely to provide this kind of leadership support. And we are beginning to see the results of our efforts. So I am not without hope, for I know that the knowledge to lead more effectively can be developed. Leadership will is more problematic for it requires the courage to put oneself at risk. Courage cannot be taught – it emanates from deeply held core values. However leadership courage can be nurtured. The theory of action guiding the CEL agenda is to combine the two – courage and new knowledge. For we know, if we fail to take meaningful action, the achievement gap will further divide our nation, leaving as its legacy a permanent underclass with no meaningful stake in the citizenry or the economy.

Notes

1 You'll note I've simply grouped the data by white men, white women, men of color and women of color. I am comfortable in my ability to discern the difference between "white and color" and "men and women" over the television set. To try and make a further discernment in terms of type of race and ethnicity would be irresponsible in our multi-racial and ethnic society.

References

Darling-Hammond, Linda (2000). How Teacher Education Matters. Journal of Teacher Education.

Edmonds, Ronald R (1981) Making Public Schools Effective. Social Policy. v12 n2.

Haycock, Kati (1998) Good Teaching Matters: How Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close the Gap. Thinking K-16.

Heckman, Paul (1996) The Courage to Change: Stories from successful school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Heifetz, Ronald (1999). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kozol, Jonathan (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.

McIntosh, Peggy (1996). "White Privilege, Color and Crime: A Personal Account." Images of Color, Images of Crime. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

Oakes, Jeannie, Karen Hunter Quartz, Steve Ryan, Martin Lipton. (2000) Becoming Good American Schools: The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform. San Francisco, CA: The Jossey-Bass Education Series.

Resnick, Lauren; Glennan, Jr., Thomas. (2002) "Leadership for Learning: A Theory of Action for Urban School Districts." School Districts and Instructional Renewal, Hightower, et.al., eds. New York: Teachers College Press .

Smith, Eric (2001). The Equity Plus II Project: A Seamless Framework for Addressing the Needs of Targeted Schools. Charlotte-Mcklenburg, NC: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

About the author

Dr. Stephen Fink serves as Co-Director for the Center for Educational Leadership, University of Washington. He is an Affiliate Associate Professor in the College of Education, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. He also continues to serve as a senior consultant for the Panasonic Foundation. He can be reached at finks@u.washington.edu.

For permission to redistribute, please go to:
New Horizons for Learning Copyright and Permission Information