We are grateful for Ann Ishimaru’s thoughtful piece “Possible futures: Youth, families, and communities as educational leaders.” As scholars who have similarly studied civic engagement and equity-oriented reforms in education around the country, we welcome efforts to “reimagine the relationship between families and schools of the future” and are inspired by the idea of “rethinking what we mean by leadership in public education.”
Much of what Ishimaru describes in her essay resonates with our research. We, too, have seen bright spots — places where students, families and community organizations deeply engage with schools as partners. Yet, we have often seen the opposite, as well. For example, in our research into “stakeholder” input into district budget plans, which is mandated by to California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), we have observed numerous occasions in which well-meaning administrators (many of whom explicitly support parent and community engagement) fail to attract widespread participation, particularly from lower income and Black and Brown families.
Unfortunately, many district leaders are quick to blame the community: In a survey we administered to superintendents, 91% of those who reported poor or average community engagement attributed it to a lack of stakeholder interest. Yet, according to a statewide poll, 60% of all California voters, and 78% of voters with children, wanted to be involved in setting school and district goals and/or deciding how to allocate resources. Not only does this suggest a major disconnect between the views of superintendents and the views of their shareholders, but it suggests that the community remains a largely untapped resource for educational leadership.
Further, when parents and family members from historically marginalized groups do seek to provide input, their voices are often ignored or drowned out by more affluent (often white) parents pushing for their children to have greater access to AP classes, gifted programs, and other opportunities. As we’ve found, unless district administrators have maintained genuine partnerships with community-based organizations, they tend to have limited capacity to engage a diverse group of students, families, and other local stakeholders in meaningful and equitable ways.
In our recent research examining district responses to the pandemic and renewed national attention to racial injustice in multiple states, we’ve seen similar patterns. While some district administrators have partnered with parents and community members to advance structural changes, many others have taken steps that seem merely symbolic. Just as Ishimaru has seen efforts to hire (but not genuinely empower) district equity officers, we’ve seen districts pass resolutions affirming that Black Lives Matter, and perhaps calling for the formation of equity committees, but taking no meaningful steps to respond to community needs and concerns. While these initial actions could evolve into something more concrete, we’re skeptical that this will happen, given the powerful forces that protect the status quo. Further, we’ve observed that many district administrators have only a limited understanding of local racial dynamics. And while they can hire an equity officer or external consultants to help them build bridges, core district staff will still need to build their own capacity, as Ishimaru notes, to tap into the full wealth of knowledge and expertise that exists in their communities.
But how do we realize this vision of equitable, community-engaged leadership? Building on Ishimaru’s ideas, we argue that this will require serious efforts to undo longstanding district norms and practices, strengthen administrators’ capacity to work in partnership with community members, and build trust with wary stakeholders.
Organizational un-learning
Ishimaru suggests that educators need time and new organizational routines to develop equitable community partnerships. We believe leaders will also have to unlearn racist and classist organizational norms and practices, as well as individual mindsets that privilege whiteness and standardized English. For instance, in our LCFF research, we found that district leaders tended to misinterpret and dismiss input from Black and Brown community members, often telling them that they should be more “organized” and already “have a plan” to present when they come to meetings — expectations aligned with white cultural assumptions about how input should be shared and how advocacy should proceed (expectations that stakeholders do not necessarily share). We fear that unless district leaders understand how their familiar organizational routines, approaches to running meetings, and conversational norms can cause them to misinterpret their Black and Brown stakeholders, it will be impossible to achieve the paradigm shift Ishimaru that envisions.
As a first step, district leaders might consider conducting an equity audit of their current community engagement practices. Equity audits allow administrators to employ reflection, data collection, and analysis to illuminate patterns of inequity, and they can help them develop new community partnership routines shaped by unbiased or culturally relevant views of parents, youth, and communities.
Building leadership capacity for equitable partnerships
Professional associations, states, and universities each have a role to play in preparing educational leaders to work in solidarity with Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color. It is past time to embed cultural competency in training and certification programs — as we’ve tried to do at the Rossier School of Education, where we’ve revised our Ed.D. courses to better center issues of power and race and align with models of culturally responsive leadership. For instance, in the policy course we recently taught together, we engaged educators in discussing texts on critical policy analysis and anti-racism (such as this one, for example), encouraging them to question their own assumptions about what it means to teach and lead schools in ways that are fair to all students. Similarly, education associations might consider providing ongoing professional development focusing on how to partner effectively with diverse communities. Lastly, states might consider including cultural competency training as part of their leadership certification requirements.
Developing community trust
Our research has shown time and time again that unless they trust school and district administrators, parents and community members tend to disengage. In our California research, we found that among voters who said they were not interested in engaging with their school districts, more than a third cited a distrust that education leaders would value or use their input. Black and Brown communities, in particular, have many historical reasons to distrust their schools and be skeptical of new efforts to build partnerships. One Black mother we interviewed recently explained that she was wary about the educational system’s capacity to provide culturally affirming instruction for her child. She told us, “I wouldn’t want to leave it in their hands, because I know that they wouldn’t get it right.” In short, many district leaders will need to work hard to develop trust with their local communities, and they will have to be prepared for it to be a long-term process.
They will also have to understand that they represent a system that has a long history of supporting racial inequality, and that their own predecessors in district leadership may have abused their power and authority, making decisions that favored some parts of the community and disadvantaged others. As researchers have found, acknowledging the history of racism in public institutions is a key step in the effort to disrupt it. Further, our research shows that trust grows when leaders and communities engage in joint work and experience what Karl Weick calls “small wins” — concrete accomplishments of moderate importance, such as collaboratively hosting an event or completing a project. It may take many cycles of “small wins” to develop into a trusting partnership, however, and leaders will have to be patient.
Broadening and diversifying the umbrella of leadership
Cutting across all this work is the recognition that, as Ishimaru argues, many kinds of people are equipped to contribute to school and district leadership. Notably, we cannot ignore the role of school board members. As officials ostensibly elected to represent the community, board members also need training and support to realize this vision of community-engaged leadership. (Of course, there are also many other pressing problems that school boards will need to tackle, from increasing voter turnout to encouraging greater civility in meetings.) Yet, we also need to invest in diversifying the pipeline that produces school board members and district superintendents. In our work, most of the districts that have made the most progress at deep, equitable community engagement and partnerships had Black or Brown leaders at the helm. One superintendent we interviewed repeatedly connected his racial identity with his ability to build trust and engage his diverse community. “I’m proud to show up, and as a Latino leader,” he said, “they see me as the superintendent.”
In sum, we join Ishimaru in her call to action and welcome opportunities to further advance these ideas.
This article is an invited response to “Youth, families, and communities as educational leaders” by Ann M. Ishimaru, part of Kappan‘s Reimagining American Education: Possible Futures series, sponsored by the Spencer Foundation.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Eupha Jeanne Daramola
Eupha Jeanne Daramola is a doctoral candidate at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Julie Marsh
Julie Marsh is a professor of education policy at the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California in Los Angeles. She is the author of Challenging the One Best System.
