Emerging Antiracist School Leadership: In Thought, Word, and Action

Purpose In 2021, Pseudonym Public Schools (PPS), a diverse urban district, prioritized antiracist and equity-centered educator development and capacity-building. After more than two years of professional development (PD) and coaching, school and district leaders expressed interest in the “next step” towards antiracist leadership, but most remain focused on mindset development with little active response. Antiracist leadership literature centers on shifting mindsets (e.g., Pollock, 2008) or accepting that racism is a problem in education. But what do leaders do once they have committed to antiracism? This study suggests that principals struggle with how to enact the commitments learned in PD and coaching. This study adds to the literature on how leaders operationalize (and struggle to operationalize) antiracism in schools. Perspective Diem and Welton (2020) note that much of the literature on antiracist leadership “falls short” in aiding in identification of antiracist practices, although antiracism, by its nature, must be “action-oriented” (Welton et al., 2018, p. 6). Husband (2016) proposed a broadening of the definition to include “culturally responsive” and similar pedagogical stances, which also broadens the literature base. Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis (2016) frame culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL) in four interrelated domains: critical self-reflection, educator development, inclusive environments, and family engagement. Methods and Data Sources This qualitative case study presents data from a three-year case study (Yin, 2018) of an urban American district enrolling mostly Black and Latinx students but embedded in a predominantly White city. Four underserved schools primarily received the coaching. Thus, in this study, the four school principals, as well as seven central office leaders overseeing and working with them, are the primary respondents. Our data sources for this study included over 100 hours of professional development observations, 25 hours of semi-structured interviews with school and district leaders, principal and teacher focus groups, and analysis of over 50 documents related to the partnership. We deductively coded these data using the four domains of CRSL (Khalifa et al., 2016), meeting regularly to discuss findings to come to agreement about the relevance and fit of the data analyzed. Findings Critical Self-reflection is Institutional and Individual Principals’ definitions of antiracism centered on calling out racist practices or outcomes. Yet, few district or school leaders regularly “call out” racist policies or practices. However, there is still some work to be done in naming explicitly antiracist practices, which would be aided by a district-wide definition of antiracist practices. As one leader noted, “People have read the book studies, they can quote it, but they still do practices that are the opposite of what they had read.” One district leader shared that the district book studies were outdated and expressed interest in finding the next action step. Although they embrace antiracism, there is still a need for “collegiality about what anti-racism looks like or what teaching the real truth looks like.” In other words, everyone has bought into the idea of antiracism, but some are not confident in how it should be operationalized, meaning principals must seek out additional knowledge for themselves and resources for their teachers. Culturally Responsive Development Sometimes Falls Short CRSL behaviors promoting educator development include offering culturally responsive PD, creating a CRSL team, and reforming the curriculum. Perhaps given their gaps in knowledge, principals’ approach to antiracism seemed to be largely around inclusion: making sure students have access to opportunities, regardless of race, ability, socioeconomic status, or language background. Principals encouraged teachers to have high expectations for all students and adopt a mindset that believes all students can learn. This necessitated that schools embark on the deep work of shifting teacher mindsets. However, as one principal shared, “I could not tell you exactly what I’m expected to do with my equity team...I don’t feel like I’ve been given a lot of tools.” Significance In this study, we identified actions that culturally responsive leaders can take. This study highlighted the need for differentiated PD, as leaders fall along a spectrum of comfortability with antiracism. Principals must be able to facilitate crucial conversations (despite personal levels of comfort), and are currently tasked with identifying antiracist resources. So many resources are accessible that teachers may feel overwhelmed, so a role of the leader may be to provide and unpack resources for teachers that align with the vision of the school. In a time of global socio-political-environmental violence, ensuring that principals have the tools and willingness to act as antiracist leaders is imperative for students to have equitable learning opportunities. References Diem, S., & Welton, A. D. (2020). Anti-racist educational leadership and policy: Addressing racism in public education. Routledge. Husband, T. (2016). But I don’t see color: The perils, practices, and possibilities of antiracist education. Sense Publishers. Khalifa, M.A., Gooden, M.A., & Davis, J.E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. Pollock, M. (Ed.). (2008). Everyday anti-racism: Getting real about race in schools. The New Press. Welton, A.D., Owens, D.R., & Zamani-Gallaher, E.M. (2018). Anti-racist change: A conceptual framework for educational institutions to take systemic action. Teachers College Record, 120, 1-22.