Final Reflection

How has your identity as a Leader for Social Justice evolved over the year?

My identity as a Leader for Social Justice has evolved over the year by valuing the strengths/assets that my students, parents, and community members bring into the school as well as being intentional to provide a voice and seat for them at the decision-making table. What I mean by “providing voice and seat” involves proactively inviting and including all school constituents on school decisions and leading a school campus by not only working with but leading with them. My leadership has evolved in that I can lean on school stakeholders to help with addressing social justice issues. In UCLA’s Ed443 (Social And Political Context of Urban Schools) course, we read the Miner’s Canary by Guinier and Torres (2003) where they mention “When a person or group possesses power in a zero-sum world, it means they gain control of a bounded ‘thing’ that is then denied to others. Power becomes necessarily something one has over either others or oneself, and thus we will refer to this zero-sum conception of power as power-over.” Power-over means leading a group or organization by use of your authority without input to alternatives in decision-making. On the contrary, power-with is a leadership approach that is inclusive of all stakeholders and according to Guinier and Torres (2003), is a collective action that is cross-racial and sustainable which ultimately depends on three key ingredients:

(1) a reconceptualization of the meta-narratives of power-over,

(2) a commitment to sharing power in generative ways, that build from

familiar settings, and that emphasize human agency within an organized

community, and

(3) a willingness to engage with internally embedded hierarchies of race and

class privilege.

The idea of power-with in transforming schools involves valuing your school constituents as equal partners in the decision-making process of school policy and practice. Power-with acknowledges the diverse school and community context and requires those in positional power to share their decision-making authority with those they lead. Power-with provides a more collaborative and deliberative approach to decision-making which can help a heterogeneous community build the consensus necessary to address divisive problems effectively.

You entered PLI with a set of leadership skills and knowledge. How has that evolved over the year?

My leadership skills and knowledge has evolved over the year by having the research and language to impact and promote positive change in school. In my Ed441A (Leadership of Core Practices: Supervision of Instruction and Student Behavior) course, I was able to create my vision for leadership and instruction.

My vision of learning and leadership to address equity which is grounded in sociocultural theory is to ensure all school stakeholders not only have an invitation to addressing school needs but can participate in the decision-making process. It isn’t enough to let the school community simply know about changes taking place at the school and expect them to show up to spaces knowing their voting power is limited to one or none as compared to the school faculty. It isn’t enough to only have morning meetings with parents during “coffee with the principal” and engage the same few parents while the remaining parents are not heard. By providing our school constituents a seat at the “voting table”, we can ensure equal representation from all school stakeholders so not one group feels marginalized.

My vision in the supervision of instruction is working with those I lead through a social justice and equity lens while utilizing a "power-with" approach working towards a common goal. Thus, my vision will be a shared vision on supervision of instruction that is long-term, sustainable, and coherent in the sense that all decisions will include members from the school community to empower and provide a voice to all school stakeholders. Supervision of instruction through a sociocultural theory lens will drive goals that improve teacher development and equitable student learning and achievement. To achieve this we can empower and provide a voice to students, parents, and faculty that would value their experience, culture, and funds of knowledge while allowing them to lead our school as an equal partner in the school decision process. The community of practice to improve teacher learning and development and provide for equitable student learning and achievement is based on a sociocultural theory - social interactions, relationships, and culturally organized activities that will shape development. I see the relationships between learning theory and power intertwined but just as those two concepts are connected they can also be disconnected. Perhaps those in power are instructing their faculty through a behaviorist lens. They are in power to do so (admin. or instructional leaders); however, it is the "how" in the way curriculum is used which can change the participation and affect the way students are taught. Thus, those in front of students have the power to lead with a different theory, a sociocultural theory, to use coherent practices based on that theory to impact student learning.

A sociocultural learning theory (SCLT) and equity vision have various facets in relation to instructional supervision. Classroom observation through SCLT would focus on dialogue and how artifacts were used to engage learners (transformative learning) versus the traditional notion of observation by utilizing a checklist or non-negotiable goal to measure performance. Teitel (2009) mentions, “the rounds process provides a key source of data and a powerful feedback loop to tell educators whether their systemic improvement efforts are actually reaching students.” He further discusses that instructional rounds as observations will not alone increase student learning but the collaborative approach used in rounds creates norms that support adult learning. The goal in rounds, as Tietel suggests, is having good instructional practices and not “isolated pockets of good teaching in the midst of mediocrity.” The math department at my school is currently using rounds to improve student learning; however, it seems we are stuck in the Observation of Practice and Debrief phase and have not advanced to the Next-Level of Work. The Next-Level of Work directs us to professional development and learning, and through a SCLT this would imply teachers are allowed time to teach one another and share artifacts that mediate understanding. DuFour and Fullan (2013) mention that schools must provide 90 minutes of collaboration time and it not be used for other purposes if we are to help all students achieve at higher levels. My vision of teacher learning and development would entail that teachers have the planning time in their schedule to engage in this type of collaborative work and to ensure the collaborative work is grounded in SCLT. Currently, the math department at my school is changing the way professional development is done and we recently had about 20 minutes of collaboration time as opposed to the usual none. Part of this change might have been my responses to the evaluation survey demanding more time to collaborate with peers. A SCLT approach would mean, according to Raphael, Vasquez, Fortune, Gavelek, & Au (2014), (1) give agency to participants, (2) be situated in actual settings and problems of practice, (3) involve participants in dialogical learning, (4) be systemic, and (5) be sustainable. Involving participants in dialogical learning is a practice my school needs which aligns to the UTLA 2019-2022 contract, “f) Be intellectually engaging and reflect the complexity of the teaching and learning processes, and g) Encourage and enable teachers to work together to provide consistent instruction and reinforce student progress.” My vision, which aligns with the UTLA contract and a SCLT, would provide continuous learning and feedback to support teacher learning where professional development would provide teachers the opportunity for collaborative work and learn through involvement along with shared dialogue on teaching practices.

What I need to remember about the implementation research when working to achieve this vision is how we apprentice new members so they learn the “shared repertoire” of our community of practice. Part of building a shared vision entails having collegial relationships so our staff, students, parents, and community members can have relational trust during social interactions so when disagreements occur, we can professionally resolve the dispute. Effective communities of practice take time and sustained interaction which is why collaboration time is essential to implement any school initiative with fidelity. SCLT aligns with my vision in that adults and students can learn and work together in a way that makes sense for them. Allowing for flexibility in grouping (ex: grade-level, content, random, choice) and providing different ways for learners to engage in discussion (ex: JamBoard, Google Slides, Padlet) thus shifting participation from always having the same people respond to allowing other members invited in that discourse to help transform the dominant narrative in education that your title or position determines your expertise. A SCLT would value all participants and the knowledge they bring which affects the different facets of supervision of instruction. Through SCLT, learning is a social construct and just as students learn from teachers and parents, teachers can also learn from students and parents as to how to best meet the student’s educational needs. Flexibility in curriculum and professional learning along with choice helps to shift participation in learning from a behaviorist approach to SCLT whereby allowing for an equitable learning environment. Rogoff (1994) states in reference to SCLT, “The adults' roles are supportive and provide leadership, rather than controlling all interactions in the classroom.” This aligns with my vision that to best support students and educators we must invite them in conversations about how they learn best and engage in conversation and practices to help support adults working with children.

How has your perspective on leadership for equity, social justice, and anti-racism, changed as a result of all the experiences you engaged in through PLI (fieldwork, courses, lectures, readings, etc.)?

My perspective on leadership for equity, social justice, and anti-racism, changed as a result of all the experiences I engaged in through PLI (fieldwork, courses, lectures, readings, etc.) in that the systems that contribute to marginalization can be disrupted. Marginalization in education has been the outcome of laws, policies, and practices that undergird achievement of Black, Latinx, LGBTQ+, English Learners, Students w/Disabilities, among other groups. Powell (2016) states:

“ ‘Othering’ is a term that not only encompasses the many expressions of

prejudice on the basis of group identities, but we argue that it provides a

clarifying frame that reveals a set of common processes and conditions that

propagate group-based inequality and marginality.

Powell describes “othering” as group-based exclusion and in the history of the United States, this took place in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) which justified racial segregation. While Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the Plessy court case, the struggle for equality in education particularly for marginalized groups such as students with disabilities is still seen today. Marginalization is the effect of structures or systems that prevent certain individuals or groups from accessing resources that yield inequitable outcomes. Guinier and Torres (2003) call attention to marginalization where they mention:

“Political race is the notion of fixing the injustices in the space we live in.

Political race uses a diagnostic function as a temperature check to see how we are

doing as a society and if that temp is low, marginalization, then we must build a

coalition - band together in solidarity in hopes to address the inequities plaguing

our fellow human brother or sister if you will.

A diagnostic function can help to illuminate the distribution of resources that are racialized. In doing so, we can help disrupt and interrogate structures that marginalize students. powell (2013) states, “Structures are not neutral, and require careful intervention and vigilant monitoring if they are to serve justice and promote inclusion.” The idea of careful monitoring requires educational leaders to focus their attention on their marginalized students and funnel resources, and develop policies and programs that help support their achievement. Guinier and Torres (2003) use a miner’s canary as a metaphor to help us understand marginalization where the distress signal of a canary alerts us of the toxicity level in mines as equivalent to the distress signal of those who are racially marginalized. The distress signal of students that are marginalized can be revealed in the achievement gap of graduation rates, college/career readiness, English and math proficiency, etc. According to Guineir and Torres (2003), to improve the lives of the canary and that of the miners we must ameliorate the air quality or as powell (2013) eloquently describes, “foster structures that support positive life outcomes untainted with racial resentment or anxiety.” As a school principal, I have the positional power to not only examine structures and practices for marginalization but I am instilled with leadership authority and capacity to disrupt practices or beliefs of inequity to promote powerful and inclusive learning for all.

What were the challenges and successes of your leadership journey?

The challenges of my leadership journey entail the power structures in a school setting that are unsupportive to the leadership of others and prevent disrupting school systems that are inequitable. For my leadership project with UCLA, my goal was to address the achievement gap for students with disabilities (SWD). In doing so, I created a leadership group with various stakeholders on campus (Assistant Principal, Resource Specialist Teacher, Special Day Program Teacher in Math, and a Math Magnet Teacher) where we developed a way to address a Problem of Practice - College/Career Readiness for Students with Disabilities compared to their non-disabled peers. Our group analyzed school data as well as qualitative data which helped to guide our work in addressing our Problem of Practice. Our team decided we would create a list of practices to support SWD, in addition to or in alignment with the IEP, that our school could adopt. One of my committee members wanted to create a discussion on the practices to determine what resonates most with the staff which we all agreed was fine. He posted the 5 Poly Practices to Support SWD on our school’s online platform (Schoology Groups) asking faculty to eliminate a practice with the idea to encourage a healthy discussion as to the justification for any practice. The 5 practices are 1) Access on assessments if appropriate/available. 2) Extra-time on assessments/assignments that is reasonable for student needs. 3) Check-Ins for Engagement 4) Check-Ins for Understanding 5) Provide either videos, notes, study guide, formula sheet access for additional support. The online responses included two teachers whose comments concerned me and made me reflect on the rule-bound bureaucracy that doesn’t always attend to humanistic concerns, let alone equity and justice as well as my inclusivity and practice. For example, the School Governance president (SGP) posted on the discussion “Where is this document coming from? Who developed it and what is its purpose?” The special education department chair mentioned:

“I agree with (SGP), looking through your documents of your meetings, I am

wondering also what is your purpose. I see you had some representatives from Special Education present, but this was not brought to the Special Education Department as a whole. We have procedures in place where we already notify general teachers of students with disabilities and we state the accommodations they have been noted in their IEP-so it is not up to an individual teacher to eliminate any that is listed.”

Ryan, J. & Rottman, C. (2009) discuss in democratic leadership and inclusive communication that “Meaningful discussion can only occur when people can effectively communicate with one another.” I followed up on my colleague’s comments and stated the purpose of our meetings. I apologized to the special education teacher for not knowing I had to present my work to them before creating an action-research project involving SWD. No reply was given from either colleague. It also seemed that the special education teachers and the assistant principal, who oversee the special education department, involved in our leadership project had voices that were of no value to the school structures in our school. Perhaps it is in that bureaucracy that prevents well-intentioned leaders to succeed in their endeavors. It would have been nice to have both SGP and the special education department chair appreciate the work we were doing to help address the equity gap on campus. In reflecting as a school leader, I too learned the importance of ensuring all school stakeholders are aware of the work going on in schools; otherwise; their voices, unintentionally, might be marginalized.

The successes of my leadership journey involve being able to work with a colleague in a coaching capacity as well as working with various school stakeholders to create an action-research project to addressing an equity gap on campus. This is a success because it validates the work needed to transform schools - being able to mentor and coach teachers while working with various school stakeholders to positively impact student outcomes.

Coaching

One of the requirements in being part of the UCLA M.Ed. program involved completion of the CAL APA and one of the components entailed coaching a colleague. I was able to facilitate and maintain a two-way conversation throughout the coaching, observation, and instructional feedback cycle by being in constant two-way dialogue with my volunteer teacher (VT) via email, phone, text, and Zoom. I was able to facilitate and maintain these conversations by focusing on the skills needed to be an equitable driven leader and effective instructional coach which meant maintaining a coaching partnership.

To facilitate and maintain a two-way conversation we jointly engaged in dialogue to understand the lesson as well as thought about Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) to meet the needs of his students. To facilitate and maintain a two-way conversation is our ongoing conversation through phone calls on lesson planning and immediately following the observation we chatted on Zoom about how the lesson went to gather some initial ideas/thoughts on strengths and areas of growth since the lesson was still fresh on his mind. It was nice to know that our focus was on the CSTP and having the levels of teacher development was another method I provided the VT to have ownership in his practice. According to Galloway and Ishimaru (2017), a leadership practice consistently described as those most likely to affect educational change towards equity is inclusive development of an equity vision (e.g., Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991; Kose, 2009; Stone-Johnson, 2014; Theoharis, 2007) and facilitating rigorous and culturally responsive teaching (e.g., Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Rigby, 2014). Being an equitable leader means providing the VT a voice to be reflective in his professional growth while meeting the needs of his students. Through reflective and facilitative questioning strategies, I was able to create a space where discussion can occur to support teacher development and this allowed my VT to assess himself at Level 3 (applying) and realizing teacher development is an ongoing process. By validating the VT efforts and the work he is doing, I was being an equity-driven leader in that I recognized his stage of professional development and willingness to grow. According to Burke, Christensen, Fessler, Mcdonnell & Price (1987) and Fessler (1992), they describe eight stages of teachers' professional development. Recognizing and respecting the stage my VT is at (competency building) has allowed me to lead with compassion and trust knowing that every teacher is at a different growth level and we are all able to improve and reach the next stage in development growth.

Working with various school stakeholders

In co-facilitating a community of practice to address an instructional problem, my success is indicated by my strengths: 1) Being attentive to the needs of my group and ensuring I lead with consensus. I made sure to do this by restating our group’s decisions to ensure the group was on board and ready to begin work. Ensuring my team’s needs were being met helped to encourage the energy of my team to be productive and positive which is mentioned in my group’s norms “be collaborative and have fun.” 2) Co-Facilitating the meeting by being in charge of the Agenda which includes the Welcome and Purpose of the meeting. My strength in this aspect is having a positive, caring, and welcoming energy which helped create a safe and caring meeting where my group was respected, valued, and comfortable.

What are the next steps in your leadership journey?

The next steps in my leadership journey are:

1. to be involved in the decision-making bodies at my school (School Site, Governance, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Committee, etc.) to help address the equity gap. In doing so, I can provide a voice for those marginalized as well as ensuring the voices of students, parents, and community members are heard and present in those meetings.

2. to assume a coordinator position and attempt to shift professional development by allowing colleagues to engage and be in conversation with one another as they are provided the opportunity to collaborate on the curriculum. My aim will be to lead with coherent practices tied to our school’s vision focusing on student achievement.

Which leadership standards, skills/or dispositions do you feel you would like more experience with and why?

The leadership disposition I would like to learn more about involves the various finances and budgets a principal is responsible for. According to the LDGP standard 3, “Leaders align fiscal and human resources and manage policies and contractual agreements that build a productive learning environment.” I would like to learn more about the compliance component of the school site council and how that relates to fiscal responsibilities for a school administrator.

Another disposition I would like to learn more about would be the compliance component for teacher evaluations. I think shadowing a principal in their evaluation of a teacher (if allowed) would provide insight to 1) how teacher evaluations are completed considering the timeframe to be in compliance with our union 2) understanding district-mandated CSTP goals for new teachers.

Lastly, I would like more experience in understanding the networks of support for school principals. I would love to learn how the local superintendent supports school leaders and their role in helping to transform schools. I am curious to know of any external obligations a school principal might have aside from the day-to-day school operations. I am wondering about the additional meetings a school principal attends and their frequency.