0.1 Johnson, j., shope, s., & Roush, j. (july 2009). toward a  (Page 2/8)

More generally, the practical utility of the culture of poverty approach is limited because it essentializes the communities and the constituents with whom educational leaders work (i.e., the approach purports to comprehend the essence of an individual or community on the basis of a single identifying characteristic, poverty). In such a model, to know that an individual or a community is economically disadvantaged is enough to claim an understanding of the knowledge bases, resident capacities, and core beliefs of that individual or community. Of note with regard to the project, this kind of essentializing gains particularly strong grounding when applied to rural contexts, as the notion that all rural areas are the same is an idea that persists in America today (Brown&Swanson, 2003; Johnson&Strange, 2007).

In contrast to existing approaches, the model we suggest seeks to be socially and culturally responsive while acknowledging key structural influences that impact rural schools and communities in Central Appalachia. The model is organized around three key areas of understanding for educational leaders: knowledge, place, and people (see Figure 1).

We argue that the development of leaders who can move forward educational goals while contributing to sustaining and revitalizing rural communities requires both intellectual and emotional engagement. Central to engagement is the consideration of power, and we ground our approach in critical understandings of the power dynamics that have shaped contemporary Appalachia. Power has been deployed throughout the region to neglect and exploit human and natural resources of the region, creating and maintaining poverty that is both intense and enduring. Understanding such dynamics, we contend, is a necessary precursor to effective leadership in this context—educational or otherwise.

Knowledge

Critical theorists assert that Knowledge (i.e., knowledge with a capital “K”—the information and skills deemed important and appropriate by recognized experts and authorities) represents a source of power and has historically been deployed as a means of marginalizing certain groups (see e.g., Apple, 1999, 2002; Fraser, 1997; Giroux, 1997, 2001). Attentive to this critical reading of knowledge and power, the model we propose consciously and deliberately acknowledges the worth of information and skills not typically associated with schooling. Specifically, the model construes Knowledge as comprising both (1) an academic component (i.e., traditional knowledge such as that defined by official curricula and assessed as part of educational accountability systems) and (2) a contextual component (i.e., knowledge that is closely connected to place and culture and is learned informally through interactions with others, particularly interactions that occur outside of the formal schooling process). Combining these two components, we propose here a third construct termed systemic knowledge to describe an integrative knowledge that honors both academic and contextual forms of knowledge, thereby catalyzing the individual strengths of each (cf. Geertz, 1973; Jackson, 1996; Williams, 1958/2001). The result is a kind of Deweyian knowledge that reflects common experiences and shared commitments, thereby resonating with learners.