Beyond convention, beyond critique: toward a third way of preparing  (Page 4/13)

There are, of course, other cultural groups that should be included in the work for equity and social justice—students with disabilities, students belonging to minority religions, and so on. In the final analysis, justice for all of these groups benefits all of humanity. In the words of John Rawls (1963), “if men [and women] did not do what justice requires…They would be incapable of feeling resentment and indignation, and they would be without ties of friendship and mutual trust. They would lack certain elements of humanity” (p. 281). Equity and social justices, then, are educational goals tied directly to the growth and development of all students and, ultimately, our society at large.

Making equity and social justice a reality for all is a daunting task that will require a transformation of school culture and, toward that end, the transformation of principal preparation programs. Brown (2004) asserted, “If future educational leaders are to foster successful, equitable, and socially responsible learning and accountability practices for all students, then substantive changes in educational leadership preparation and professional development programs are required” (p. 80). In the discussion of the conventional approach to educational leadership preparation that follows I will attempt to show that the conventional approach is not capable of bringing about the transformation required to develop leadership for equity and social justice.

The conventional approach

The conventional approach is synonymous with what Angus (1996) and Waite (2002) most often call the mainstream approach, although both authors sometimes use the term conventional in describing it. Angus considers the main features of the conventional approach to be “the rational model, positivistic methodology, and the dominance of administrative-technical concerns” (p. 980). Functionalist and interpretive views are considered by Angus to be variations of the conventional approach. The conventional view historically has dominated principal preparation and practice (Angus, 1996; English, 2003; Rusch, 2004; Theorharis, 2010). The conventional approach to research on educational leadership has produced an extensive science of administration (knowledge base) to guide leadership preparation and practice that opponents of the conventional approach object to:

• The “knowledge base” and theories which have produced it have not produced leaders, have not improved the nation’s schools, nor are they likely to do so. They have replaced vision with technique, moral purpose and heroism with taxonomies of behaviors and skills and lately “best practices” which are grounded on the assumption that there is one best method for discerning the answers that are “out there.” (English, 2003, p. 30)

The conventional approach has three general characteristics that cut across leadership preparation and practice: external control, technical rationality, and maintenance of the status quo—all addressed in Angus’s (1996) critique of the conventional approach. The following discussion describes the three characteristics, and shows how they work against equity and social justice.