0.1 Beyond convention, beyond critique: toward a third way of

Ncpea publications

A proposal for a third way

“We are the other, and the other is us” (Banks, 2000, p.41)

The third way I propose here is an approach that does not represent any particular ideological camp but rather attempts to integrate ideas from various perspectives into a coherent model for preparing educational leaders for equity and social justice. There is support in the literature for each of its seven components, and there is some preliminary evidence that the model as a whole has potential for fostering equity and social justice. In one study by Madhlangobe and Gordon (in press) a school administrator who was observed using all of the model’s components was successful at increasing equity and improving students’ personal, social, and academic development. In another study (Gordon&Ronder, 2009), students at the end of a principal preparation program that includes all seven components of the model displayed higher levels of cultural sensitivity than either new students in the program or practitioners who graduated from other programs. The research mentioned here, however, consists of small-scale studies within particular contexts and represents only the first, tentative steps toward determining the model’s worth. The model also is based on conversations over a number of years with practitioners, including many of my graduate students, who work every day for equity and social justice in PK-12 schools (if Lewin was correct that there is nothing so practical as a good theory, perhaps we should couple that belief to the idea that there is no theory so practical as one based on practice). My purpose in presenting the model is to generate discussion on its potential that may lead faculties in some leadership programs to develop their own versions of the model, no doubt incrementally, and to explore whether integrating the model into principal preparation makes a difference in the learning of aspiring principals.

Although the model can be applied to either a Master’s or doctoral program in educational leadership, my discussion of the model here will focus on applying it to principal preparation. Preparation programs following the model would integrate its seven components throughout the curriculum rather than addressing them by adding one or two “diversity courses.” A faculty can incorporate most or all of the components into any course in a principal preparation program, although the faculty would need to modify the program so the components were addressed on a recurring basis throughout the curriculum. Depending on the sequence of courses and nature of a particular course, a program could emphasize particular components of the model in some courses more than in others, but in the broader sense the model and its various components would need to permeate the entire program.