Theory Into Practice, 53:158–164, 2014
          Copyright © The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University
          ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online
          DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2014.885814
          Colleen A. Capper
          Michelle D. Young
          Ironies and Limitations of
          Educational Leadership for
          Social Justice: A Call to Social
          Justice Educators
          In this article that reviews this special issue, we     we discuss each issue separately, these concep-
          identify 5 ironies and limitations of educational       tions are interrelated and intersecting. We con-
          leadership for social justice: (a) the meaning of       clude witha call to educators for social justice to
          inclusive practice, (b) the intersection of identity    change their work in several fundamental ways.
          and difference, (c) the emphasis given to student
          achievement, (d) the lack of policy and practice
          coherence, and (e) the separation of superheroes
          from critical collaborative leadership. Although
                                                                          HAT DOES IT MEAN TO practice socially
                                                                  Wjust educational leadership? The editors
          Colleen A. Capper is a professor in the Department      of this special issue take the position that socially
          of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the    just educational leadership must be inclusive. Op-
          University of Wisconsin-Madison and Michelle D.         erating from that value, we identify 5 ironies and
          Youngis a professor in the Curry School of Education    limitations of educational leadership for social
          at the University of Virginia.                          justice and draw on examples from this special
             Correspondence should be addressed to Colleen
          A. Capper, Professor, School of Education, Educa-       issue to illustrate our points: (a) the meaning of
          tional Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of    inclusive practice, (b) the intersection of identity
          Wisconsin-Madison, 270h Education Building, 1000        and difference, (c) the emphasis given to student
          Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail: capper@         achievement, (d) the lack of policy and prac-
          education.wisc.edu.                                     tice coherence, and (e) the separation of super-
          158
              Capper and Young                                          Ironies and Limitations of Educational Leadership
              heroes from critical collaborative leadership. Al-     to-interventionapproaches—mandated by federal
              though we discuss each issue separately, these         policy as a means of preventing the overidenti-
              conceptions are interrelated and intersecting. We      fication of students for special education—often
              conclude witha call to educators for social justice    remove students from general education classes,
              to change their work in several fundamental            thus increasing segregation, typically along race
              ways.                                                  and class lines (Orosco & Klinger, 2010).
                                                                        Importantly, stories of success in closing
                                                                     achievement gaps between different student pop-
                            Inclusion/Integration                    ulations are often told with little or no ex-
                                                                     plicit consideration given to inclusion or inte-
                  In this article, we use the terms inclusion        gration (Chenoweth, 2007, 2009; Chenoweth &
              and integration interchangeably, building on the       Theokas, 2011; Education Trust, 2013). Only a
              definitions in this special issue. Theoharis and        few scholars draw a direct connection between
              Causton (this issue) define inclusion as “students      the inclusion/integration of all students (beyond
              with disabilities being educated in the general        disability and race) and academic achievement
              education classroom and having full access to          (Capper & Frattura, 2008; Frattura & Capper,
              the general education curriculum, instruction,and      2007; McKenzie et al., 2008; Theoharis, 2009).
              peers with needed supports” (p. 83). Horsford             One irony of the scholarship of inclusive
              defines integration based on Olgetree’s (2004)          practices is relying on metaphors that may be
              concept of moving beyond “mixing bodies” to            exclusionary to describe these practices. For ex-
              “creating a new community founded on a new             ample, Ashby, Burns, and Royle draw on a het-
              form of respect and tolerance” (p. 301) and Dr.        eronormative metaphor (i.e., marriage) to ground
              Martin Luther King, Jr.’s definition of integration     their inclusion work. They frame the inclusion of
              as “genuine, intergroup, interpersonal doing” and      students labeled with disabilities as a marriage
              “the ultimate goal of our national community”          between general and special education and simi-
              (1962/1968, p. 118).                                   larly characterize the collaborative work between
                  Ironically, the concept of inclusion is not cen-   general and special educators. Their articulation
              tral in the educational leadership for social justice  of marriage relies upon examples of heterosexual
              discourse; rather, it remains marginalized, ill de-    marriage relationships.In so doing, these authors,
              fined, and undebated. Furthermore, it is typically      regardless of intent, perpetuate heteronormativity,
              applied only to students labeled with disabilities.    heterosexism, and the marginalization of LGBT
              Scholars have yet to explore the similarities and      individuals. In short, the inclusion/integration
              differences in the inclusion/integration of stu-       literature and practice can ironically exclude
              dents of color, students who are linguistically di-    students yet remains uncontested in educational
              verse; students labeled with a disability; students    leadership for social justice.
              from low-income families, including those who
              experience homelessness; and students who are
              lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).                  The Intersection of Identities
                  Despite research showing the benefits of inte-                       and Differences
              gration, the push to segregate students continues.
              Examples extend from court directives requiring           Ameta-analysis of the educational leadership
              districts to dismantle integration plans based         for social justice literature would reveal some
              on race (Enyia, 2010) to parental pressure to          disappointing patterns. One would find much
              create separate tracks for students labeled gifted     literature that focuses on specific student groups,
              (Worthy, 2010). Schools catering to a particu-         such as race and social class (O’Malley &
              lar population, such as alternative schools for        Capper, 2012); limited literature that discusses
              academically underachieving learners, continue         the implications of social justice leadership for
              to proliferate (Foley & Pang, 2006). Response-         LGBT identity or students from low-income
                                                                                                                   159
          Inclusive Schooling and Leadership for Social Justice
          homes, including homeless students and individ-         leaders for social justice must consider how and
          uals with disabilities (Capper & Green, 2013;           to what extent promising practices in one area of
          Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006; O’Malley,         diversity/difference might address the full range
          2013); and a paucity of literature that examines        of student differences and their intersections.
          the intersection of more than one student identity
          group(e.g., gender and homelessness, LGBT and
          race).                                                                    Achievement
             The articles in this issue reveal such pat-
          terns. For example, Theoharis and Causton focus            The field of educational leadership for social
          on ways to include students with disabilities.          justice is significantly divided around the issue
          López and Iribarren describe a tripartite con-          of achievement. McKenzie and colleagues (2008)
          ceptual framework for addressing the needs of           argued that achievement matters and should be
          linguistically diverse students. Yet, students have     a core goal in socially just schools. Furman
          multiple and intersecting identities and effec-         and Gruenwald (2004) however, believed that
          tive practices for one area of difference can           academic achievement is overemphasized to the
          often be applied to other student differences.          detriment of other benefits of schooling, and
          For example, López and Iribarren could discuss          Shields (2013) decentered the role of achieve-
          how their framework for linguistically diverse          ment in the work of transformational leaders.
          students could apply to students labeled with           Other social justice scholars have argued that the
          disabilities who struggle with language or for          perseveration on high-stakes achievement testing
          students of color and other cultural differences.       and resulting prescriptions for teacher practice
          Along similar lines, Horsford’s argument that           not only undermine teacher professionalism, but
          educators become racially literate, might explain       they also impede social justice work (Anderson,
          how her four stages (i.e., racial literacy, realism,    2009; Kumashiro, 2012). On rare occasion (e.g.,
          reconstruction, and reconciliation) might unfold        the Miller, Pavlakis, Lac, and Hoffman piece
          for other areas of difference and identity, such as     in this special issue), scholars take a both/and
          ability, religion, sexuality, and gender.               approach.
             We do not argue that educators should never             Theoharis and Causton are clear that when
          think about the needs of particular student differ-     students with disabilities are included, they learn
          ences or the implications of specific student iden-      and achieve at higher levels. Several articles in
          tities for social justice leadership practice; how-     this issue, however, do not address achievement
          ever, we do assert that more workto extend think-       in their description of inclusive, social justice
          ing across student differences and their intersect-     practices. Ashby, Burns, and Royle, for example,
          ing identities is needed. Consider the following        describe how one school district implemented
          questions: What if educators are racially literate      a federal Reading First program. Through this
          (Horsford), but illiterate with sexuality, social       work, the school decreased the number of stu-
          class, gender, disability, religion (Marshall, this     dents labeled with disabilities; however, the au-
          issue), and their intersections? If an educational      thors did not report the results of the school’s
          leader is literate in one area, is that enough?         efforts to improve reading achievement. Simi-
          According to Hernandez and Fraynd’s article in          larly, although research has found that LGBT
          this special issue, it is not. These authors point      students who feel safer in school have higher
          out that youth of color perceived to be LGBT are        grade point averages and higher educational as-
          more likely to commit suicide than White youth          pirations compared to LGBT students who ex-
          perceived to be LGBT; thus, knowing only about          perience more victimization (Kosciw, Greytak,
          race or LGBT identity would not be enough to            Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012), Hernan-
          understand the pervasive homophobia in commu-           dezandFraynddonotaddressthisintheirarticle.
          nities of color (Ward, 2005), or White racism              Similarly, in their review of one state’s ini-
          in the LGBT community (Han, 2007). In sum,              tiatives to address achievement gaps and the
          160
              Capper and Young                                          Ironies and Limitations of Educational Leadership
              overrepresentation of students of color in special        Although all the articles in this special issue
              education, López and Iribarren do not reveal that,     describe, in detail, promising and proven prac-
              for some of the programs, student achievement          tices for high-achieving, socially just, inclusive
              is not a measurable goal. Specifically, Culturally      schools, they also illustrate the challenges facing
              Responsive Education for All: Training and En-         educators dealing with the plethora of equity
              hancement (CREATE) is a 3- to 5-year statewide         initiatives and policies thrown at them from the
              initiative designed to “close achievement gaps         local, state, and federal levels and from social
              between students from diverse backgrounds and          justice scholars. More specifically, the special
              to eliminate race and ethnicity as predictors of       issue does not address how educators should co-
              special education referrals” (Hoogstra, Tanyu,         alesce and implement all the suggested practices,
              Tucker, & Loignon,2011,p. 1). However, student         including the eight steps to inclusive schools
              achievement neither is a measurable goal nor is it     that Theoharis and Causton describe, along with
              identified as an outcome in the 125-page external       the four initiatives addressed in the López and
              evaluation of the initiative.                          Iribarren article for students who are linguisti-
                  Illustrating the possibilities of embracing high   cally diverse, in addition to the four strategies
              expectations whilerecognizingthat students must        for welcoming and including LGBT students as
              be supported to reach such expectations, Miller        suggested by Hernandez and Fraynd, sugges-
              and his colleagues describe a social justice leader    tions for addressing religious diversity in schools
              with “unwavering faith in students’ abilities” to      (Marshall), how to engage the community (Miller
              academically excel, coupled with both a recog-         et al.), how to act as boundary spanners (Scanlan
              nition that differences in students’ home and          and Tichy), and move through the four steps to-
              neighborhood environments have tangible im-            ward racial reconciliation as suggested by Hors-
              plications, as well as “a constant commitment          ford while engaged in all this work. Not only are
              to ‘meeting them [students] where they were’”          educators called on to make sense of, and then
              (p. 136). In sum, in the current educational policy    to implement, these multiple practices, which
              context that emphasizes student learning and           would be quite difficult to do, these practices are
              achievement, scholars and educators for social         at times in conflict with each other as related
              justice send mixed messages on the role that           to inclusive practices, to what extent and how
              student learning and achievement should play in        they address different identities, and the role that
              this work.                                             achievement plays within them. These multiple
                                                                     equity policies and initiatives require educators
                                                                     to become policy fluent, according to Miller and
                  Equity Policy and Practice Incoherence             colleagues, and to retrofit and shape initiatives,
                                                                     policies, and practices to their inclusive setting
                  A fourth irony and limitation of educational       and student needs.
              leadership for social justice practice is the lack        Additionally, most federal, state, and local
              of policy and practice coherence to address in-        equity initiatives, as exemplified in the López
              equities. This lack of coherence can be quite          and Iribarren article, do not pivot on inclusive/
              challenging for educators attempting to meet the       integrative practices. Thus, educators for social
              needs of their school communities. Two aspects         justice are faced with a similar challenge as the
              that contribute to this lack of coherence are the      educators in the Ashby, Burns, and Royle article
              sheer number of uncoordinated, and sometimes           on inclusive literacy. These authors describe how
              contradictory, federal and state policies and ini-     one predominantly White school district lever-
              tiatives, and a lack of policy fluency experienced      aged a federal reading policy that typically per-
              by most educators, as suggested by Miller et al.       petuates student segregation, to further inclusive
              Also contributing to this incoherence is the lack      practice for students with disabilities, improve
              of attention to inclusion/integration in these poli-   reading achievement, and lower special education
              cies and initiatives.                                  identification. To accomplish this, the school—
                                                                                                                   161