<![CDATA[AERA Division A Newsletter - DivAVision]]>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:28:14 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[People, Context, and Positionality: A Vision for Justness and Parity in the Educational Leadership Field]]>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:06:31 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/people-context-and-positionality-a-vision-for-justness-and-parity-in-the-educational-leadership-fieldPicture
Sharon D. Kruse, Washington State University Vancouver

As we head (almost) into the third decade of this century, the
educational leadership professoriate faces great opportunity
and challenge. Our opportunities lie in our communal ability to
positively affect students in this nation and beyond. Our challenges
lie in doing so. If I were to propose a vision for our field, I would
urge us to focus our attentions toward justness and parity. I
suggest we look to doing so in three arenas—the ways in
which we recruit people, the context in which we practice and study,
​and the positionality our work takes.
 
Educational leadership is work of and for people and our classrooms and publications must increasingly reflect the diversity of our regional and national contexts. I am hardly alone in calling for the recruitment of a broad and inclusive professoriate. Yet my call suggests that as we work to broaden who included in our work, we consider how doing so changes the work and the ways in which we read and interact with new ideas and ways of thinking. Inclusivity is not authentic or genuine if it asks that everyone act according to our old ways of doing and being.
 
Along with broadening who we include in our ranks, I suggest we also take on context as a contributing factor in our thinking. Increasingly, the challenges of our profession are urban and rural, national and international, and as a professional community we need to do more to learn with and from each other. Our silos need to come down.
 
Finally, the professoriate needs to intentionally surface and acknowledge our own positionality. When we fail to recognize the ways in which our own lived experiences, research methodologies, epistemological stances, and lenses of and toward our work shape our responses, we limit who is considered a legitimate participant in the conversation. In turn, our understanding is constrained in unproductive and damaging ways.
 
Clearly, there are challenges to a vision of justness and parity. Some of those lie within the academy—a discussion of the tenure process alone could animate our meetings for the next decade. Some lie outside of our campuses—clearly, the US has yet to fully engage in an honest discussion about equity. Yet, if we are to lead, it is incumbent upon us to lead in ways that are reflective of new directions. I suggest that we all share responsibility for thinking of ways to address the challenges we face. Division A can take a leading role in doing so by creating a venue within our meeting structures for civil and informed dialogue concerning these matters. More AERA sessions that ignite our thinking are needed. Increased funding so that new voices can establish themselves as strong contributors to the field might be a priority. Finally, as educational leaders we must continue to raise the questions, even when we don’t fully understand what the answer might be. 
]]><![CDATA[#DivAVisions from UCEA 2017]]>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 08:00:00 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/divavisions-from-ucea-2017In November 2017, the Division A Newsletter Team asked participants to share their #DivAVision for the future of the educational leadership professoriate. Several people shared and reflected on their visions for the field and broader impacts we want to share in our teaching, research, and service.
]]><![CDATA[Faculty of Color in Educational Leadership: leading racial justice efforts in predominantly white spaces]]>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:28:28 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/straddling-cultures-identities-and-inconsistencies-voices-of-pre-tenure-faculty-of-color-in-educational-leadershipPicture
Anjalé Welton, University of Illinois & Melissa A. Martinez, Texas State University 

The Division A Newsletter editorial team asked Welton and Martinez to reflect on their recent publication in JRLE (see title and abstract below) to consider their vision for the educational leadership professoriate. Here's what they shared:

Journal of Research on Leadership Education; Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2017

Title: Straddling Cultures, Identities, and Inconsistencies: Voices of Pre-Tenure Faculty of Color in Educational Leadership

Abstract: Drawing on the notions of biculturalism, or double consciousness, and hybridity, this qualitative study explored how 12 pre-tenure faculty of color (FOC) in the field of educational leadership working at universities in the United States negotiated their self-identified cultural identities within their predominantly White departments. Results indicated that participants were more bicultural in nature than they were in self-authoring a new hybrid identity. Nonetheless, bicultural skills equipped FOC with a better sense of how to help their departments critically examine and move beyond White-dominant notions of educational leadership preparation to more culturally responsive approaches.

Authors' DivAVision Response:

We met while pursuing our doctoral degrees at the University of Texas at Austin. Our conversations about the struggles associated with navigating within our higher education institution as females of color began then, and continued as we both began tenure-track positions within the field of educational leadership. Our article stems from the reality of our own struggles and the need to shed light on what other faculty of color, and other minoritized faculty in our field, might go through as they prepare future school leaders while working towards tenure and promotion. The specific examples shared by participants reiterate the need for greater inclusion and culturally relevant practices within our programs, classrooms, and in our interactions with faculty colleagues.  At the same time, findings highlight the strengths, abilities, and tenacity of faculty of color; the future of the educational leadership professoriate lies in our ability to draw on all of our strengths to best support our students, communities, and each other.

When we participate in Division A events we have opportunities to commiserate and network with other faculty of color; but, for many of us, when we return to our institutions we are among ‘the only’ faculty of color in our educational leadership programs and departments. Faculty of color are important to educational leadership programs because we often lead the charge in ensuring that conversations related to racial justice are embedded in the curriculum, and we also serve as a source of support for students of color who are similarly faced with being one of the ‘the only’ leaders in their schools and/or districts. Division A can foster more discussions via the newsletter and special panels and symposia at the AERA annual meeting all devoted to strategizing how to advance faculty of color in the educational leadership professoriate.  
]]><![CDATA[leading the way: active scholars committed to researching problems of practice and preparing school leaders who promote learning and social justice]]>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 06:12:16 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/leading-the-way-active-scholars-committed-to-researching-problems-of-practice-and-preparing-school-leaders-who-promote-learning-and-social-justicePicture
Don Hackmann, University of Illinois; Joel Malin, Miami University  & Martha McCarthy, Loyola Marymount University

The Division A Newsletter editorial team asked Hackmann, Malin, and McCarthy to reflect on their recent publication in JRLE (see title and abstract below) to consider their vision for the educational leadership professoriate. Here's what they shared:

Journal of Research on Leadership Education; Volume 12, Issue 2, August 2017

Title: Characteristics of Tenure-Line Faculty in Leadership Preparation Programs: An Analysis of Academic Preparation and Administrative Experience

Abstract: This study investigated the credentials of 755 tenure-line educational leadership faculty members, using data collected through an online questionnaire. Findings disclosed that research institutions were significantly more likely than doctoral or comprehensive institutions to hire faculty with a PhD from a research university and who identified research as their primary professional strength. A greater proportion of faculty in comprehensive universities had served as school administrators before entering academe than was the case for those at research universities. These findings have significant implications for the field, given that an increasing number of school leaders nationally are prepared at comprehensive institutions.

Authors' DivAVision Response:

​Our study of tenure-line educational leadership faculty disclosed significant differences in the research orientations of faculty across institution types, with faculty in research universities more likely to identify research as their primary strength and faculty in comprehensive institutions more likely to cite teaching as their greatest strength. In addition, faculty in comprehensive institutions were more likely to have school administrative experience, compared to those in research institutions. Over time, our research also has portrayed the educational leadership professoriate as fairly satisfied and complacent. Given the challenges facing universities and our field, such complacency must shift to activism to improve our nation’s schools and enhance the preparation of those who lead them. We envision an educational leadership professoriate comprised of active scholars who are equally committed to conducting research on problems of practice and preparing school leaders who are effective in promoting learning and social justice. Our field is experiencing dramatic growth of leadership preparation programs in non-research institutions, an increase in alternative preparation programs that are not based in universities, an expansion in the employment of clinical and adjunct faculty members across institution types, and an overall decline in the number of full-time faculty members in university-based leadership preparation programs. These trends raise important issues that must be addressed by our field. Division A could assist by working in partnership with the University Council for Educational Administration and the International Council of Professors of Educational Leadership to develop policies and recommendations for faculty staffing of leadership preparation programs to include such components as minimum numbers of full-time faculty; balance between tenure-line, clinical, and adjunct faculty; expectations for teaching and research responsibilities; and desired characteristics of faculty members (e.g., major field, research and teaching orientations, teaching specializations, K-12 teaching and administrative experiences). Such policies could be helpful as educational leadership faculty members advocate for additional hires within their leadership preparation programs, and when search committees subsequently develop vacancy postings, consider applicant pools, and reach hiring decisions. Such collaboration among groups involved in university leadership preparation has never been more important.

]]><![CDATA[Bridging the gap between research and practice]]>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:44:38 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/bridging-the-gap-between-research-and-practicePicture
Rosa Rivera-McCutchen
Division A Program Chair
Lehman College

In the years since I’ve joined Division A, I’ve seen a steadfast commitment to making our work relevant and significant in the daily practices of school leaders and the communities they serve. It’s our job to continue and strengthen our commitment to bridging the gaps between research and daily practice.

]]><![CDATA[REnewed commitment to social justice]]>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:28:30 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/october-13th-2017Picture
Melissa A. Martinez
Division A Equity, Inclusion, and Action Committee Chair
Texas State University

I have been reflecting on my vision for the educational leadership professoriate, and I can truly say that my vision focuses on the need for a renewed commitment to change for equity, social justice, and inclusion. Given the current political and social climate in which we live, a renewed commitment to change to combat the rise of nativism, xenophobia, and violence against those that are “different” in our schools is vital. Thus, my vision for preparing educational leaders is rooted in hope and love for change. Preparation programs and their faculty must attend to renewing and fostering these qualities in our leaders.

Hope provides a means for establishing schools, systems, policies, and practices that are equitable and empower students and families instead of marginalizing them. In the face of such an arduous task, hope is requisite to believe that this can be done. With love comes a commitment to the work and the courage to engage in continuous critical reflection of self and dialogue with others in order to create an inclusive community for all. The field of educational leadership has increasingly focused on the preparation of transformational and social justice leaders and called for addressing equity issues in our school communities, but I don’t believe the commitment is shared to the same extent by all preparation programs and the faculty who run them.  We, as faculty, cannot expect future school leaders to engage in the hard work and transformation that we are not willing to do ourselves. So my vision for preparing educational leaders begins with us as well. This is where I believe Division A can be of service and guide faculty and preparation programs in not only speaking equity, inclusion and social justice, but teaching and living it daily. I think Dr. Dantley has begun to do this in his efforts to incorporate more dialogue, interaction, and reflection within Division A meetings as they relate to where we want to go, and what we envision for our field.
]]><![CDATA[Leadership archives (Poem)]]>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:22:23 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/leadership-archives-poemPicture
Courtney Mauldin
Michigan State University 

How do we deconstruct?
When do we interrogate?
The western ways
In which
We speak
about the
Role of leader
his philosophies
Her pedagogy
We must work
Toward a literature
That goes beyond
his gaze
That centers hers/theirs/them
Dismantling the house
Without the masters’ tools
Evolving
Shaping
Sustaining
Reviving
Lost language
Lost literacies
Lost leadership
]]><![CDATA[no longer able to just stand by (Poem)]]>Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:07:15 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/no-longer-able-to-just-stand-by-poemPicture
Alounso A. Gilzene
Michigan State University

​​Time is against us, we’ve entered a new age, we are no longer able to just stand by
Time to reduce discussions and declarations of research as objective, sterile and void of emotion.
Time for old approaches, and structures that limit narratives but support oppression, to die.
Schools have been used to reinforce these structures societally and we need to challenge this notion.
 
Times are a changing and the professoriate needs to double down on a rejection of voyeurism.
We face policies and legalities that aim to strip away the individuality of oppressed students in schools
The leaders we study and train have the ability to restructure this schooling mechanism
And if we choose to study these systems then we cannot remain “Objective” and only follow the rules.
 
Times are changing, and objectivity and rule of law sometimes can teeter dangerously close to inaction.
So when we see marches for white supremacy and a lack of condemnation from government leaders
Do we continue to write about school leaders knowing full well that rule of law belongs to this faction?
Do we continue to support leadership practices and styles that submit to colonializing tools and features?
 
I hope the answer is no, because
 
Schools are changing, and while students of color have historically been denied access to capital,
We are entering an age where our nations capital is actively supporting ideas that threaten their space.
We can no longer dance around the issues as if narratives about systemic oppressional aren’t factual.
If we choose to study and work in education we need to be courageous and challenge these issues face to face.
 
We can no long just be doctors diligently digging for data to dissect by defining communities as defunct,
Delivering deficit narratives and details that destroy the dignity of demographics deemed dysfunctional.
Instead we need to be advocate academics, actively aggravating all the aggressive policies that aim to
Alienate our youth, and approach our actions, aligning them with activism always centering the wellbeing of kids
 
If we choose to work in education our research needs to expose the realities of oppression and power
Supporting strategies that protect students’ ability to learn in safe spaces while being treated with respect.
The courses we teach and the leaders we prepare must align with justice and not just lip service to the ivory tower.
Academics, focused on education, should be challenging oppressive systems, and have the ability to create an effect.
 
This work is necessary, and the lives of Black, LatinX, Indigenous, LGBTQ, ELL, Special Education etc students is dependent on it.
Because
Times are changing, and schools are changing and as academics studying education we will be forced to make a choice,
Do we stand by and just record the events as they happen, or do we actively engage, partner with schools and try to change the system we have studied for so long.
]]><![CDATA[social justice as CENTRIPETAL force]]>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 06:53:56 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/social-justice-as-centripetal-force
Picture
Kimberly Kappler Hewitt
University of North Carolina Greensboro

The image above represents my vision for the educational leadership professoriate (DivAVision).  I believe that the centripetal force for educational leadership should be social justice.  Social justice is the focusing force toward which our myriad efforts should be oriented.  This is represented in the image as the center of the whirling forces – the point from which they originate.  Each of the lines spinning outward from that center represents the different lenses and foci of our scholarly pursuits.  The points or nodes on these lines represent the different partners – academic, K-12, community-based, etc. – that make our work stronger and more relevant.  The background field of rainbow swirls represents the crucial diversity – racial, ethnic, gender, socio-economic, geographical, religious, heritage, methodological, theoretical, etc. – that contextualizes, informs, and strengthens our scholarship.  Division A can promote this vision by continuing and expanding the work of the Equity, Inclusion, and Action Committee and by further centering issues of social justice in our scholarship and conference program.  Additionally – and perhaps most importantly – we must commit to enacting social justice in our own space in academia – our departments, leadership preparation programs, mentoring of future academics, etc. and to holding ourselves accountable for doing so.  We must look inward with a ruthlessly critical eye.  We must also look outward and actively – even aggressively – partner with other entities similarly committed to social justice and together advocate beyond the professoriate for socially just schools.
]]><![CDATA[looking back to move forward]]>Thu, 06 Jul 2017 23:36:33 GMThttp://aeradivisiona.org/divavision/looking-back-to-move-forwardPicture
Katherine C. Mansfield
Virginia Commonwealth University
 
At AERA San Antonio, Division A Vice President Michael Dantley challenged us to re-envision future directions for our field. This exercise seemed especially important considering recent political shenanigans and wondering what it all means for the future. For me, the way forward involves looking back to what we’ve already learned from folks like John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Paulo Freire, and Nel Noddings. This process stimulated many more questions than answers, that’s for sure. So, in 500 words or less, I invite you to join me in making meaning of their timeless and timely lessons (and my countless questions).
 
First lesson: Relationships, relationships, relationships. Noddings’ ethic of care prioritizes relationships. And Freire reminded me that personal distance is in opposition to true learning. Also, Dewey believed that teaching and learning are social endeavors and Montessori advocated for active exploration and interaction. Like them, I believe relationships are vital, but am I demonstrating this in my actions? Do I know much about my students’ lives? Do my students know anything about me besides what’s on my CV? Do my andragogical choices model teaching and learning as a social enterprise? Are my students taking what they learn about relationships and practicing it with teachers, parents, and students?
 
Second lesson: Democracy is precious; if you don’t use it, you lose it. There has been much discussion in the public sphere about the decline in civic engagement. Dewey taught that students of all ages should be active participants in the governance of their schools. Montessori advocated for self-governance via student-initiated exploration and learning. Both understood that practicing self-governance developed creativity, reasoning, and decision making skills. I also believe democracy is precious, but am I demonstrating this in my actions? Do my andragogical choices model the importance of democracy? How do I teach my students to practice democracy in their schools? Are my students applying what they’ve learned about shared governance in their organizations, even with the youngest students?
 
Third lesson: Silence is not golden. Freire prodded me to remember that a culture of silence empowers oppression. Students need to develop a critical consciousness to combat the culture of silence that stifles them from developing a language of critique. I believe developing voice is essential, but am I demonstrating this in my actions? Do my andragogical choices model a culture of transparency rather than silence? How do I help my students develop a language of critique? How can I teach my students to pierce the culture of silence in their organizations? Do the students in their schools have a voice?
 
In sum: How might a renewed focus on relationships, democracy, and voice help us improve how we’re preparing students to be effective leaders in their organizations? Let’s continue this conversation over a $10 cup of coffee in New York. 
]]>