Supporting Mexican American Immigrant Students on the Border: A Case Study of Culturally Responsive Leadership in a Dual Language Elementary School

Abstract

Mexican American students constitute the largest group of Latina/os in the United States and have been subjected to a number of educational and social injustices, particularly with relation to how their cultural and linguistic assets are viewed within public schools. This qualitative case study considers culturally responsive leadership in a Mexican American immigrant community and examines two primary research questions: (a) What principal actions support creating a culturally responsive school partly through dual language education; and (b) What leadership challenges arise in the development of a more culturally responsive school?

Keywords

cultural responsiveness social justice Hispanic students urban education principals

Mexican Americans constitute the largest group of Latina/os (63%) and foreign-born population (55.2%) in the United States but continue to be subjected to injustices in educational institutions and society. Numerous studies document a deficit-thinking paradigm where Latina/o English language learners (ELLs), their culture, and language are viewed as problems rather than assets (Valencia, 1997). States, districts, and schools often fail to equitably distribute resources and learning opportunities to Latina/o ELLs, who are consequently, less likely to perform well on standardized tests, graduate from high school, attend and complete college, and access high-paying jobs (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). In response and drawing on scholarship on culturally relevant, responsive, and sustaining teaching (Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Milner, 2011; Paris, 2012), some educational leadership scholars have argued for a culturally responsive leadership in schools (Furman, 2012; Khalifa, Gooden, & Davis, 2016). Gay (2010) and other critical teacher education scholars have emphasized that culturally responsive teaching alone is insufficient without leadership and “systematic, holistic, comprehensive, and particularistic reform interventions, simultaneously” (p. xvii). The marginalization of Mexican American immigrant communities necessitates culturally responsive leadership to promote systemic and equity-oriented reform.

While principals are not superheroes who can reverse harmful federal, state, or district policies that marginalize students, they have the positional authority to disrupt, dislocate, and destabilize asymmetrical power relations and other marginalizing conditions within schools. This qualitative case study considers culturally responsive leadership in a Mexican American immigrant community and examines two primary research questions: (a) What principal actions support creating a culturally responsive school partly through dual language education; and (b) What leadership challenges arise in the development of a more culturally responsive school? Our focus on the principal is driven by an assumption that principals positively impact instruction and school culture, are knowledgeable about resources and policies, and are most capable of building school–family–community partnerships because of their positional authority and professional networks (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Green, 2015; Khalifa, 2012). We provide important historical context and framing in relation to the urban district and borderlands in which this study is situated to answer these questions and identify practical suggestions that we hope can advance the work of practitioners in immigrant communities and other urban contexts (Milner & Lomotey, 2014). In doing so, we hope this case study informs the work of principals in parallel contexts and inspires more research on principals and other school and community leaders. What follows is a discussion of culturally responsive pedagogy and dual language education within Mexican American immigrant communities. Then, we describe how culturally responsive leadership is used theoretically to frame this study. Next, we describe the study’s methods. We conclude with findings and implications for practice and research.

Mexican American ELLs and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

More than 20 years ago, Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) critically questioned traditional approaches to teaching and posed several questions: “What constitutes student success? How can academic success and cultural success complement each other . . . ? How can pedagogy promote the kind of student success that engages larger social structural issues in a critical way?” (p. 469). Ladson-Billings found culturally relevant pedagogy was tied to teachers who believed (a) all students were capable of success, (b) pedagogy was art, (c) they were members of a community, and (d) teaching was a means of giving back. Central to culturally relevant pedagogy is critical reflection, consigned in a teacher’s recognition that “they will come into contact with students whose cultural, ethnic, linguistic, racial, and social class backgrounds differ from their own . . . ” Critical reflection allows teachers to “construct pedagogical practices that have relevance and meaning to students’ social and cultural realities” (Howard, 2003, p. 195). Gay (2002) defined culturally responsive teaching as “using cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively” (p. 106). More recently, Paris (2012) called for culturally sustaining pedagogy, which “seeks to perpetuate and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling” (p. 93). Milner (2010) has called attention to “opportunity gaps” in urban education and argued that educators must reject color blindness, deficit mind-sets, and the myth of meritocracy while being mindful of cultural conflicts and the “contextual complexity” that influences one’s ability to empower students to think, learn, and challenge forces that disadvantage them and their community. Each concept is germane to the education of Mexican American students in immigrant communities and aligned to social justice calls for dual language education.

Mexican American Communities

About 46% of Latina/o children are born with at least one immigrant parent (Ackerman & Tazi, 2015), which means Mexican and Mexican American ELLs (and those who do not meet the criteria of ELL but who are still learning English) may have greater school readiness needs because of the role English plays in schools and the importance of English oral language and literacy proficiency (Barac, Bialystok, Castro, & Sanchez, 2014). Latina/o ELLs tend to enter kindergarten with gaps in reading and mathematics and continue to struggle academically on standardized testing (Han, Lee, & Waldfogel, 2012). This is more prevalent along the Texas-Mexico border, where thousands of children exposed to trauma moved across from Mexico to escape violence (Ríos, 2014). Gaps and academic failure persist because schools serving high proportions of Mexican American students are often underfunded (Alemán, 2007), but also because school assessments focus on “what [ELLs] cannot do instead of what they can do” (Ivey & Broaddus, 2007, p. 541). Low assessment scores lead to internalizing failure, low self-esteem, and feelings of self-doubt about education.

In addition, schools often fail to capitalize on strengths, resilience, and transnational capital that has allowed Mexican American students and families to survive through uncertainty, a difficult immigration process and transition, and other complex challenges (Araujo & de la Piedra, 2013). Rather than building on this capital, schools generally fail to collaborate with Mexican American immigrant communities. They do not create welcoming schools, validate Mexican American culture and linguistic heritage, or promote positive self-identity development. Educators overwhelmingly overlook these important “funds of knowledge,” which could be leveraged to increase student achievement (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Families are pushed away and positioned as outsiders, all while coping with the stress of establishing a new life away from their home country and struggling to access education, housing, and health care. Dual language education offers a culturally sustaining pedagogy, because—when effectively implemented—it offers all students inclusive access to grade-level curriculum in two languages and values the linguistic assets of Spanish-speaking families and communities.

Dual Language Education

The goal of dual language for ELLs is to be culturally sustaining, because teachers further develop students’ linguistic and cultural assets. Dual language offers an avenue for family engagement, because bilingual schools are more accessible to Spanish-speaking families. Dual language can also close achievement gaps and promote cognitive, linguistic, social, and emotional development through its core components: (a) an inclusive, socioculturally supportive environment, (b) uninterrupted development of the first language to high cognitive level, and (c) cognitively rigorous teaching (Lindholm-Leary & Hernandez, 2011). Cognitive and academic functioning is improved (Bialystok, 2007), which translates into increased test scores and rates of high school graduation and college access (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005). Generally, dual language tends to resemble two primary models: 50:50 and 90:10. In a 50:50 model, instruction is given half the day in English and half the day in Spanish through all grades (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2017). In a 90:10 model, kindergarten students receive 90% of instruction in one language and 10% in the second language, with the percentage moving to 50% in each language by fourth or fifth grade. Dual language can also be described as one-way or two-way with the basic difference being related to student composition. One-way consists of all students who are either proficient in Spanish but not English or have been exposed to both languages. Two-way models have both English speakers and non-English speakers educated together. The school at the center of this study is using a one-way, 50:50 dual language model. Schools successfully implementing dual language promote healthy multigenerational communities and utilize inclusive curriculum presenting counternarratives to dominant racial ideologies disregarding Latina/os. While dual language can be difficult to implement and should not be considered as a one-size-fits-all solution to educational inequities, it offers one potential pathway to creating more culturally responsive schools for Mexican American students and their families.

Theoretical Framework: Culturally Responsive Leadership

Different terms and frameworks have been advanced that are understanding and responsive to situations and structures disadvantaging minoritized students (e.g., anti-oppressive/racist leadership (Gooden & Dantley, 2012), multicultural leadership (Gardiner, Canfield-Davis, & Anderson, 2009), culturally proficient leadership (Gerhart, Harris, & Mixon, 2011), culturally relevant leadership (Horsford, Grosland, & Gunn, 2011), and color-conscious leadership (Mabokela & Madsen, 2005). Leadership frameworks also address a broader set of marginalizing conditions, or are intersectional and position race and culture with other identity, community, and social class issues—for example, advocacy leadership (Anderson, 2009), community-oriented leadership (DeMatthews, 2018; Khalifa, 2012), Freirean leadership (Miller, Brown, & Hopson, 2011), inclusive leadership (Ryan, 2006), social justice leadership (DeMatthews, Edwards, & Rincones, 2016; Theoharis, 2007), transformative (Shields, 2010). While we recognize the kinship between these frameworks and believe in the efficacy of each, we have concluded that culturally responsive leadership is most relevant to our study because of its unique focus and relationship with the historical, social, and political contexts in which school leadership is practiced (Johnson, 2006). Specifically, culturally responsive leadership directly relates to dual language education and school leadership focused on developing school-community capacity to address injustices confronted by immigrant communities. The context of this study of school leadership is focused specifically on how a school leader affirms Mexican American immigrant communities, responds to broad and often shifting educational and social policies that maintain larger social inequities in racially and economically segregated immigrant communities, and sustains the cultural and linguistic heritage of Mexican American students.

Researchers acknowledge principals use a repertoire of practices to indirectly raise student achievement. They influence teacher motivation and commitment, school climate and culture, and how resources and learning opportunities are distributed (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). Evolving education and social policies, student demographics, and school district contexts require principals to be responsive in the structural and sociocultural processes utilized to improve schools. Yet dominant hegemonic and racially neutral leadership responses are often detrimental to minoritized students, because they fail to acknowledge, understand, and act in response to institutional racism (Alemán, 2007; López, 2003). Racially neutral leadership practices ignore “how routine practices in schools benefit young people from dominant groups while disadvantaging those from oppressed groups” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 32). Culturally responsive principals are not neutral. They are driven by explicit values, beliefs, and commitments to serving minoritized children (Gooden, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Lomotey, 1987). They are perceptive about how teacher expectations are influenced and shaped by students’ race, language, and cultural behaviors, and act as mediators to increase teachers’ sense of responsibility for student success (Diamond, Randolph, & Spillane, 2004). Culturally responsive leaders create inclusive schools that nurture multiple identities and communities, but particularly for minoritized students and families (Gardiner & Enomoto, 2006; Khalifa, 2010).

A critical and advocacy-oriented position is fundamental to culturally responsive leadership. “Niceness” and “decorum” are rejected when it serves as a barrier to meaningful and transformative dialogue, obliges the status quo, or fails to support the development of broad-based coalitions (Alemán, 2009). Dantley and Green (2015) argued that school leaders who are critically aware and culturally responsive feel

a deeply abiding anger over the educational conditions that many of our nation’s underserved children and youth are currently experiencing. Anger must, in most cases, override privilege. Anger, not sympathy, must serve as a foundational motivation for the move toward self-reflection and self-disclosure that we believe must be integral parts of the social justice agenda in educational leadership. (p. 825)

Freire’s (2007) notion of “conscientização” is relevant because it stresses self-awareness in relation to knowledge of how the oppressed must learn about the social, political, and economic contradictions affecting their lives (Miller et al., 2011). Anger and critical reflection are motivational forces that support building school culture, curriculum, and pedagogies to respond to the changing needs of school communities (Johnson, 2006). To be clear, school improvement processes or the application of leadership are not simply about closing achievement gaps as a tradeoff for social, cultural, and political aspects of schooling. Culturally responsive leaders are courageous because, while they recognize the importance of test scores for job security and future career opportunities, they maintain a broad focus on the many purposes of education (see Labaree, 1997). Similarly, culturally responsive leaders do not shy away from challenging Eurocentric curriculum, even if it increases the likelihood of offending powerful constituents or conservative supervisors. Rather, they remain focused on providing the education and empowerment needed in their schools and communities (McCray & Beachum, 2011; Reitzug & Patterson, 1998).

In a recent literature review of 37 journal articles and eight books, Khalifa et al. (2016) examined culturally responsive school leadership and identified four major sets of behaviors: (a) critical self-reflection on leadership behaviors, (b) developing culturally responsive teachers, (c) promoting responsive and inclusive school environment, and (d) engaging students, parents, and indigenous contexts. Drawing on their synthesis and other scholars, we suggest six behaviors and activities central to culturally responsive leadership:

Recognizing one’s self is flawed, (sub)consciously bias, and multidimensional and therefore, continuously learns and reflects about one’s self, student populations, and how their actions and limitations impact others.

Cultivating capacity to create and deliver culturally responsive curriculum, assessments, and instruction to benefit, connect to, and sustain diverse student groups’ rich assets.

Uniting many communities through democratic processes with consideration of unequal power dynamics to ensure the school’s vision, culture, and decision-making processes are inclusive and value indigenous cultural and social capital.

Synthesizing multiple forms of data to collaboratively problem-pose, identify, track, understand, and address disparities within schools and surrounding communities.

Engaging as public intellectuals and activists to connect families with valuable resources and opportunities; and facilitating conversations about marginalization within schools and society.

Adapting leadership based on the structural, systemic, and evolving nature of oppression in schools, institutions, and society with consideration as to how public and private actions can build coalitions or trigger significant resistance, offend powerful colleagues or partners, and/or disrupt ongoing progress within the school community.

With this conceptualization of culturally responsive leadership in hand, we now present this study’s methods.

Method

A qualitative case study approach was used to examine one principal’s leadership over the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years (Yin, 2013). Concentrating on a single case over 2 years established a depth of interviews and observations to capture the intricacies of culturally responsive school leadership. Data in this research are drawn from a larger study of dual language education in six elementary schools. We used a purposeful sampling strategy (Creswell, 2013) to identify the school and principal using the following criterion: (a) public, urban school implementing dual language education; (b) located in a Mexican American immigrant community; and (c) school performance data that indicated the school made progress increasing student achievement. We also sought a principal committed to Mexican American students and families. In the larger study, we found Principal Leon had a reputation among district administrators and peers as a champion of dual language education, a “change agent,” and a caring and community-oriented principal. Principal Leon is a former ELL herself having immigrated from Mexico as a child and had extensive experience in bilingual education as a teacher and assistant principal. We believed Villa Elementary School and Principal Leon would provide sufficient evidence to answer our two research questions:

Research Question 1: What principal actions support creating a culturally responsive school through a dual language education reform process?

Research Question 2: What leadership challenges arise in the development of a more culturally responsive school?

Setting

In the city of El Paso, approximately 613,091 of the roughly 650,000 people (or approximately 94%) who identified themselves as Latina/o also identified as Mexican (U.S. Census, 2010). Three additional contextual features of this study are relevant to culturally responsive leadership as defined in our theoretical framework. First, Border City Public Schools (BCPS) is one of a handful of medium-sized districts located in the city of El Paso, Texas, directly across from the U.S.–Mexico border and adjacent to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. BCPS has more than 80 schools mostly serving predominately Mexican and Mexican American communities (Black, 4%; Hispanic, 84%; White, 10%; American Indian, .2%; Asian, 1.2%).¹ BCPS serves a high number of ELLs (27%) and economically disadvantaged students (70%). At Villa Elementary School (ES), 98% of students are Hispanic, 97% are economically disadvantaged, and 86% are ELLs. Approximately 95% of people in the U.S. Census tract where Villa is situated identified as Mexican/Mexican American. Second, several former BCPS district and school administrators participated in a system-wide cheating scandal, which illegally promoted, demoted, or pushed out Mexican and Mexican American ELLs. The former superintendent went to prison and some district and school administrators are awaiting federal prosecution. Third, a violent drug war in neighboring Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, created a significant humanitarian crisis driving thousands of families into El Paso. Between 2006 and 2012, approximately 120,000 people in Mexico were murdered and tens of thousands went missing; 10,000 murders were documented within Ciudad Juarez between 2008 and 2013. Many disadvantaged families moved into the community with relatives or in homeless shelters. Other families sent children to live with relatives in the United States to attend school. This context provides an important setting to examine culturally responsive leadership.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection took place over the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. The primary data source was semistructured interviews with the principal, partly because we were interested in examining principal actions and perceived challenges to culturally responsive leadership as theorized in our theoretical framework. Each interview was approximately 75 min and was conducted as conversations focused on (a) the implementation of dual language education; (b) perceptions of the challenges to school improvement; and (c) leadership actions and priorities. Additional observations and interviews were conducted with teachers and parents as part of the larger study and were used to confirm data from the principal. In total, we interviewed and observed the principal 3 times per year. Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. We analyzed data using NVivo9 software in two phases. First, data were coded associated with (a) leadership practices and dual language implementation (e.g., structures, teaching practices, planning processes); (b) leadership practices and cultural responsiveness (e.g., learning about community needs, advocating for community, fostering a welcoming/inclusive school environment); (c) emergent challenges to dual language education and culturally responsive leadership; and (d) principal perceptions of school improvement processes. Second, we reviewed codes to develop higher inference codes related to our theoretical framework to facilitate comparisons within and across different leadership actions associated with culturally responsive leadership (e.g., anger, resistance, deficit perspectives, parent struggles). Additional codes were developed inductively when certain actions, perceptions, or incidents did not fit within the categories above (Patton, 2015).

Multiple data sources were used for triangulation. We used teacher and parent interviews as well as observations of the principal to cross-check principal interview data and ensure the credibility of our interpretations (Merriam, 2009). To minimize interview bias, we recorded, transcribed, and allowed the principal to read and revise interview transcripts, which allowed us to authenticate interview data as an accurate representation of what was said (Stake, 2013). Finally, we maintained prolonged engagement at the school that allowed us to develop trust with the principal and some staff.

Findings

This findings section is organized into three sub-sections: (a) background; (b) challenges to reform; and (c) deconstructing culturally responsive leadership. The background section briefly introduces Principal Leon, Villa ES, and the implementation of dual language education. The second section focuses on challenges to dual language education and establishing a more culturally responsive school. This ordering is derived from our theoretical framework, where we highlight the importance of examining individual biases and recognizing systems of oppression as a starting point to culturally relevant leadership. Finally, we deconstruct Principal Leon’s leadership practice. In sum, Principal Leon established a dual language school focused on caring, inclusiveness, and valuing student and family assets, but continued to confront challenges. Despite these challenges, Villa outperformed similar schools and Principal Leon demonstrated a deep commitment to her community and its unique and complex needs.

Background

Principal Leon

BCPS adopted dual language education as the only bilingual education model for ELLs beginning for pre-K and first grade starting in the 2014-2015 school year. Each subsequent year, schools added one additional grade. Principal Leon, a Mexican American woman from the border region, was hired to lead Villa ES in the middle of the 2014-2015 school year after the previous principal was removed. She had extensive experience working as an assistant principal and bilingual education teacher. She believed she was the right person for Villa, noting,

I was prepared to do this. I’m an English language learner myself. I’ve taught ELLs along the border. I have a special master’s degree where we learned about linguistics, research-based instructional practices, and how to create an inclusive school. I’m where I’m supposed to be.

Villa’s rich history, connection to Mexico, and resilient Mexican American community were a source of pride for Principal Leon. Her childhood experiences and work in the borderlands made her feel like a member of the community. She was passionate about her school and during interviews, at times, she was moved to tears when sharing successes and failures. She prioritized dual language and believed public education should serve and give back to the community. Her belief in dual language was connected to her awareness of historic injustices within the community. She said, “Way back, we were included and you know what that meant? We [ELLs] sat in the back, it was sink or swim . . . That’s not inclusive.” District administrators recognized her passion and advocacy-oriented stance. The deputy superintendent was excited about her, stating, “She’s [Principal Leon] an example of the change that we need . . . She is a new breed. She has that dual [language] background and isn’t complacent.” Other participants described her as “fiery,” “passionate,” “dedicated,” “relentless,” and “direct.” She was directed to ensure parents and teachers were “buying into” dual language education and to increase student achievement. Yet her commitments to community extended well beyond academic programs.

Villa elementary school

Villa ES is a pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade elementary school founded before 1900 one block from the U.S.–Mexico border and port of entry. Villa was established as a free school to teach Mexican children English in preparation for admission to public schools. The school was recognized as the pride of the community with a catchy slogan that was visible on school walls. Principal Leon recognized the school’s importance to the community: “Villa has been here for more than a century, it’s part of this community.” Many families (identified as Hispanic in Table 1) immigrated from Mexico, although some lived in the neighborhood for generations. Businesses and residents mostly used Spanish, and the surrounding community was part of the city’s main historic area. Participants described the area as equivalent to what Harlem represents for African Americans in New York City, because many of the city’s most recognizable figures, including activists, artists, and politicians, were from the community. Murals and community art reflect Chicano power and the Mexican and Aztec history tied to the region. This part of the city has some of the highest crime levels in the city; however, parents reported feeling tied to their homes and community. Many appreciated the proximity to the international bridge and the ease of crossing to visit family and friends in Mexico. Principal Leon noted, “We have many students who probably cross over [the border] each day, there is really no school like this one.” Other families live in three of the local homeless shelters or in a large housing project. Many nonprofit organizations serve the community to offset the significant impact of poverty (average household income under $14,000 a year).

Table 1.

Villa Elementary School Demographic Information.

Demographics	Percentage of student population	State
African American	<1	12.6
Hispanic	98	52.2
White	1.8	28.5
American Indian	0	.4
Economically disadvantaged	96.6	59
At-risk	89.1	50.1
Students with disabilities	15.8	8.6
English language learners	84.8	18.3

While we do not take much stock in assessing schools with high proportions of ELLs based on test scores, Villa students have tended to outperform district and state averages in reading and mathematics, which is noteworthy due to the significantly higher rates of economically disadvantaged and ELL students. Many teachers attributed test score success to the fact that most teachers were of Mexican-decent (almost 90%), bilingual, and had more than 10 years of experience (almost 70%). Consequently, scores were a source of pride validating teacher practices (see Table 2). When dual language began in 2014-2015, some parent resistance existed, because some feared test scores would drop. One parent said, “We can teach her Spanish, she needs to learn English.” Yet, most parents interviewed were supportive of dual language because they understood the subtractive legacy of the district’s past. A Mexican American parent said,

I was an English language learner, and I lost my Spanish . . . Do you know how embarrassing it is to live [here] and not know Spanish? I can’t even talk to my grandmother anymore . . . I don’t want that for my child.

Table 2.

Percent Proficient With Other Nearby Border Elementary Schools in BCPS and Region for 2014-2015/2015-2016 School Years.

	School/district
	Villa2014-2015/2015-16	State2014-2015 /2015-2016	BCPS2014-2015/2015-2016	Elem A.2014-2015/2015-2016	Elem B.2014-2015/2015-2016	Elem C.2014-2015/2015-2016	Elem D.2014-2015/closed
Percent proficient: All grades/subjects	78% 72%	77% 75%	74% 72%	70% 73%	70% 70%	63% 71%	69%
Percent proficient: Reading	83% 75%	77% 73%	74% 70%	72% 70%	77% 67%	65% 68%	72%
Percent proficient: Mathematics	^a 73%	^a 76%	^a 75%	^a 70%	^a 69%	^a 73%	^a

Note. BCPS = Border City Public Schools.

No data reported from 2014-2015 mathematics assessment.

Some parents recognized the “economic prospects” of a bilingual child, suggesting bilingualism would help with college applications and jobs.

Dual language education

Villa implemented a 50:50 dual language model with one or two teachers providing academic content in English or Spanish for half the day. Depending on enrollment and resources, either one bilingually certified teacher taught one cohort of students in both English or Spanish or two bilingually certified teachers shared two cohorts, rotating daily. The dual language model was also a one-way model, because the overwhelming majority of students were ELLs. Principal Leon’s background in bilingual education prepared her for creating a more culturally responsive school. She said,

Dual is really hard to implement well, it takes time. There is trial and error. And for some children, it may not be 3 or 4 years until you see results, but more like 6 or 7 years . . . So, I need to be mindful of what’s going on not just here, but at [the middle school] . . . I also need to ask teachers to be patient . . . It’s the sacrifice we make.

Her comments reflected knowledge of dual language implementation, the importance of cultivating staff capacity, and demonstrating appropriate patience for equity-oriented progress.

In 2014-2015, pre-K teachers reported dual language was “hectic” and required a great deal of extra work. Principal Leon anticipated these feelings and understood dual language had two steps: developing curriculum and teacher capacity; and providing high-quality instruction in two languages in an inclusive classroom environment. She recognized inclusion and cultural responsiveness was only “symbolic at this point.” Cognitively rigorous teaching in two languages connected to the experiences of students was not consistently identified during our observations. Some dual language teachers struggled immensely and vented frustrations, claiming to be rushed into dual language without training. Principal Leon validated these concerns, but raised the point: “How much longer should we hold off change? We should have been doing this for decades.” While her remark would not resonate with certain teachers, it highlighted her activist-orientation and unapologetic nature. Principal Leon was active, participating in grade-level planning teams, co-teaching and modeling lessons, keeping an open-door policy, and focusing on teacher confidence. Thus, she utilized classroom observations, impromptu conversations, and personal assessments of planning sessions and lesson plan reviews to build relationships and assess dual language implementation. She said,

They are really struggling right now, but I think they will see when it works, it’s all worth it . . . I’m counting on the “ah-ha moment to come at some point” So, I am a cheerleader, and if cheerleading keeps them on track, then that’s what I will do.

Observations revealed teachers struggling to collaboratively lesson plan and create curriculum. Teachers struggled to maintain confidence in teaching and time management (e.g., not transitioning to opposite language on schedule). Occasionally teachers blamed themselves, but other times they talked about “students not being ready.”

Dual language required teachers in Spanish to develop or find a lot of curricular materials because few textbook companies sell appropriate resources. While teachers were stretched by extra workload, Principal Leon viewed curriculum development as a possibility for recognizing Mexican and Mexican American culture and history. She explained,

This is Texas, we are all the way out here by Mexico and New Mexico and we are on the border. There is a rich history here and if we don’t teach kids to value that history now, we may lose the chance . . . And, this is Texas like I said, so the curriculum is what it is.

Because dual language pushed teachers to curate their own curriculum, Principal Leon encouraged teachers to emphasize the border, the history of the borderlands, and other relevant cultural and historic issues. One teacher agreed, stating, “it gives us more freedom to adapt the curriculum and make it our own. It’s more meaningful, like to the students’ experiences.”

By the end of school year 2014-2015, most pre-K and first-grade dual language teachers were supportive of dual language and enjoyed planning more culturally responsive lessons. The assistant principal noted, “We had some reluctant teachers [each year], but over time, once they see that it’s working, they change. Now, they come to me and say, “it’s working, it’s working” . . . Now they’re excited about it.” One teacher commented how she was excited about starting next year. Yet, 2015-2016 would be difficult. Principal Leon summed up the upcoming challenge.

The teachers with one year who barely survived, they believe in dual, but most aren’t doing the best job. They are motivated, they see the kids improving, but pedagogically they have a lot of growing to do . . . At the same time, a whole new batch is starting and it’s going to be a tough year for them . . .

She tried to be proactive by allowing first-grade teachers to observe pre-K and kindergarten teachers in the 2014-2015 year. She also allowed first-grade teachers to attend training, visit co-planning sessions, and observe dual language schools. For teachers entering their second year of dual language, Principal Leon provided detailed feedback on instruction and monitored alignment of lessons between English and Spanish teachers. She also provided teachers with a bit more freedom with planning and running their own professional learning communities.

By 2015-2016, the pre-K and kindergarten dual language teachers reported strong bonds and new friendships. Teacher interviews revealed a sense of pride in dual language, evidenced by anecdotes of how students were completing rigorous academic work and activities in two languages. There was excitement in teachers’ voices and classroom observations. More teachers believed all students could thrive in dual language. Most second-year dual language teachers could maintain model fidelity and effectively co-plan. Parents were happy with results, as they too saw benefits of dual language education. Despite early success, problems were present.

Challenges to a Culturally Response School

Principal Leon consistently sought input to understand how her school was meeting student needs. She met with different teacher committees and grade-level teams, the school improvement team, the parent–teacher association, her leadership team, and individual teachers on a regular basis. This section describes challenges identified through her leadership practices.

Parents barely getting by

Principal Leon recognized a culturally responsive school required meaningful parent engagement, but many parents were disengaged. Parent–teacher conferences yielded about 15% of parents and teachers often did not have working phone numbers for student homes. Some families moved from homeless shelters to relatives’ homes, and back and forth over the border. While schools were not allowed to ask about parent or student immigration status, Principal Leon recognized some parents were fearful of the school. She also recognized many parents had poor schooling experiences of their own: “They attended schools here, where Mexicans were segregated or left in a sink or swim type of environment. They don’t always see the school as a welcoming place.” Principal Leon also understood parents worked multiple jobs, used mass transportation, and struggled to find time. She stated, “They don’t always have time to come in, not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t.” Yet the lack of parental engagement was demoralizing to Principal Leon and teachers. She said, “We are not all on the same page, we can’t help each other. If we know what’s going on at home, a lot of times we can help.” The lack of engagement meant parents were not learning how to fully support children, effectively communicating with teachers, or keeping open lines of communication so the school can be aware of home–community issues impacting students.

Struggling students

Principal Leon recognized a subset of students struggled because of homelife and community issues associated with poverty, transiency, immigration status, housing insecurity, and neglect. Some students were frequently tardy because of their commute from Mexico, others had been out of school for extended periods of time due to living situations and family immigration status. Some students were exposed to violence or lost family to violence. The Villa community lacks needed resources, including support from Child Protective Services which has been limited in the state of Texas (Fanning, 2016). Despite rejecting a deficit view of students, Principal Leon recognized the unique and significant challenges the Villa community presented, stating,

This place is like no other. I mean, the bridge is right here. That comes with a lot. Some of our students come to us with little academic Spanish and no English. I’m talking about a 3rd grader who cannot read or a 4th grade who can read but not understand anything he read . . . So does dual work? Of course, but the results are going to take much longer. When they can’t rely on either language as a base, that’s a problem . . . And, teachers need to know how to teach literacy in two languages.

In sum, Principal Leon and her teachers recognized that students who were years behind in their academic English and/or Spanish would struggle significantly in dual language classrooms.

Faculty also raised concerns. One teacher noted, “They are just too far behind, and we do and try everything, but I have a whole class to handle. There is only so much personal attention I can give.” Another dual language teacher added, “I think this shows that dual is maybe for everyone, but not everyone right away . . . I think sometimes there is a student who needs pull out or some type of intervention.” Other teachers recognized how students confronted a broad range of social and emotional challenges. Principal Leon noted,

Sometimes, it’s difficult to address family abuse or neglect, because if it happens in Juarez on the weekend, and then the child lives during the week in El Paso with a different parent, it becomes difficult for someone to intervene.

Her daily conversations with families, police, social services workers, and other stakeholders revealed the significant family and community trauma some students confronted. This took a physical and mental toll on Principal Leon. She questioned her focus on dual language: “Sometimes, I think who cares about dual language or academics. The social and emotional needs are so great. Some of our children have been through so much, they just need love.”

Discrimination and silence

Principal Leon recognized a culturally responsive school meant believing in students and capitalizing on their assets, but teachers and staff did not always share the same beliefs. A small group of teachers did not believe some or most of the Mexican American students could be successful in school or in dual language education. Principal Leon and her assistant principal reported teachers made statements like, “They just can’t do it” or “We are not their parents, they are the problem” as justifications for lower expectations or discrediting dual language. During interviews, some teachers shared how colleagues talked down to students and parents, instigated or bullied children they did not like, and refused to accept Spanish as a strength or asset. One teacher noted, “I think dual works fine at [upper middle-class elementary school], but not here, because we lack that support. Nobody is home to help these kiddos, nobody cares.” These statements reflect how this teacher painted the community and parents with a broad brush, rather than seeing the community’s resilience amid many difficulties. Principal Leon reported other teachers making blatant remarks about students not being “smart enough,” being “too dumb,” or “just not capable.” When she arrived, she noted teachers used terminologies like “lows” and “bubble kids” to describe students who were testing liabilities or close to passing. Characterizing students based on teacher perceptions of their ability to pass tests is symbolic of a disregard for the cultural and linguistic assets of students.

Principal Leon was assertive in these situations, as we will discuss later, but noted many teachers who disagreed with deficit perspectives kept quiet, maintained order, and failed to challenge their own colleagues. One teacher asked, “Is it my place to really say something? I mean, if someone is being mean to a student, yes, but what can you do when you hear it in passing?” Other teachers justified the remarks saying, “they are just going by the data,” meaning test scores and past performance justified a belief that certain students would fail. Principal Leon found the silence of other teachers to be a challenge to creating a culturally responsive school and highlighted a need to more actively promote a school culture that valued all students and families. She noted, “If we expect parents not to be involved and students not to perform, we are not creating an environment for success.” She added, “We all need to be on the same page, and each teacher needs to be responsible for all kids.” Principal Leon felt teachers should be part of a school culture that believed in all students and challenged bias.

Resistance to dual language

Principal Leon found most teachers supported dual language, especially when given proper supports. While she acknowledged BCPS rushed into dual language and some teachers were rightfully disgruntled, a minority of teachers rejected dual language, coached parents to opt out, refused to follow the dual language model, and declined opportunities to collaborate, co-plan, and engage in professional inquiry. One dual language teacher spoke of a colleague: “I think she sabotages things, because she just isn’t part of the team. She doesn’t want to work together, her attitude is like she’s not onboard.” Another teacher said, “I guess it’s hard for someone teaching here for 20 years one way, to be told to change. I mean, I guess it kind of makes sense.” Per teacher interviews, teachers also resisted by failing to share lesson plans with other teachers. This meant co-teachers could not coordinate lessons and special education teachers could not provide accommodations. Principal Leon said,

I know a few teachers here tell parents, ‘you can opt out’, and that makes me furious . . . Because a student is getting a C in first grade or because they are struggling a bit? What does that matter? We are talking about giving a child two languages. This is life changing . . . They don’t want to work with struggling students . . . I also tell them, it’s not about results now. It’s about how they are doing in middle school and high school, that’s when we see the benefits.

Although Principal Leon was frustrated with these teachers, she partially blamed the district. Decades of working in the district made teachers testing-oriented and promoted a viewpoint that struggling students were testing liabilities to be segregated rather than included. Principal Leon claimed some teachers “forgot why they actually teach,” insinuating they forgot about the broader social, emotional, and cultural purposes of education.

Deconstructing Culturally Responsive Leadership

Corrective reflection

A central aspect of Principal Leon’s leadership was identifying and understanding challenges confronting her school and community, managing her internal stress and biases, and ensuring her actions were aligned with her values. She understood her school and community confronted several challenges, some of which were outside of her control. She noted how the district placed pressure on her to increase student achievement, but did not provide the resources to address some of the key barriers to student achievement. The misalignment between what she believed her school and community needed and what she was provided with was a source of stress and at times causes her to experience anger and a range of negative emotions. She discussed blaming “bad teachers” and “bad parents” who did not care about students. However, as such comments surfaced, Principal Leon identified her own biases and found ways to recommit herself. She described this process:

A lot of times I leave the office close to tears . . . I think about the day and some of the things I hear teachers say, or I think about a student who is struggling and I get mad . . . I blame others and think to myself, why can’t people just do the right thing? I want to scream, like yell at them. I do the right thing, why can’t they? I know in these moments, that’s not right . . . I know most teachers and most parents really want what’s best and my job is to make their jobs easier. Not to blame them for falling short or not being able to deal with all the pressure and challenges they are dealing with.

This quote highlights the pressures of working in a marginalized community and how addressing deficit perspectives and disengaged parents can take its toll on an equity-oriented leader.

Principal Leon described how being a principal in a community along the border can be truly disheartening. She spoke about children being raped, issues of neglect and abuse, and instances when teachers bully children or instigate misconduct. The school’s assistant principal was a former counselor and noted how principals are not prepared to maintain their own wellness. She reported talking to Principal Leon about finding ways to maintain her mental health and avoid being emotionally harmed by student trauma. Principal Leon recognized her mental health was important. Her personal values and a few coping strategies helped her through difficult times. She said, “I think a lot of good people fall short because they lose sight of the goal, that’s really helping people, students, families. This is public education. Our job is to work for students and families, not test scores.” She jogs each morning to clear her mind, conducts home visits to remind herself of the real struggles families are facing, and reflects on her time as a struggling classroom teacher. She also noted that, although she was a Mexican American ELL herself, she is now a person of privilege: “I remind myself, you’re not a poor little girl anymore. I live a nice middle-class life. My kids are taken care of, we all have what we need . . . Sometimes, I forgot just how hard things can be for people.” Her ongoing reflection helped her to correct her own personal biases that emerged from the stress of her job or the disconnect she has between her privileged position in society versus the marginalized families she serves.

Values driven-fidelity to the model

Another aspect of Principal Leon’s leadership was on community needs while working toward her school’s two primary academic goals: dual language education and raising student achievement. She drew upon student data, classroom observations, grade-level team meetings, and conversations with her assistant principal, parents, social workers, counselors, and others to ensure academic goals did not minimize student social and emotional needs. She facilitated discussions with teachers about classroom challenges, used questioning to help teachers identify antecedents to misbehavior rather than place blame, and modeled a flexible and values-driven mind-set. She said, “We need to be more flexible here, because we can’t just ignore the social and emotional, we can’t just focus on dual and forget about everything else.” Addressing social and emotional concerns with finite resources meant Principal Leon was willing to make tradeoffs.

While the district expected principals to efficiently utilize resources to implement dual language and increase test scores, Principal Leon stated,

Every meeting can’t be about data, or testing, or about dual. Sometimes, in PLCs [professional learning communities], we need to think about social and emotional interventions . . . We discuss how to get parents more involved and we plan and think about what can we get from the community to help.

These values underlying Principal Leon’s statement were reflected by her assistant principal and most teachers. To meet these broader goals, she worked with central office staff, a local university, and community organizations to bring additional training on bilingual education teaching strategies, culturally responsive planning and teaching processes, social and emotional teaching strategies, and group problem-solving strategies for teachers. Principal Leon coordinated events and activities with nearby homeless shelters and sent faculty, staff, and counselors to a broad range of professional development to how to create safe, caring, and inclusive classrooms. An additional family social worker was hired and was tasked with the school’s counselor to provide counseling to families. The assistant principal was a school counselor as well. She prioritized developing partnerships with community organizations to help struggling families while trying to balance her attention on the implementation of dual language. Principal Leon, in conjunction with the school improvement team, adopted positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). She understood adopting dual language and PBIS would be difficult because it required more work for teachers, but felt it was necessary. She built a coalition of teachers to support PBIS and cultivated support. She summarized her decision: “Did I want to give teachers one more thing? No, but this isn’t about another thing to do, it’s about how we treat children . . . They need this place to be caring.”

Addressing systems of oppression

A third aspect of Principal Leon’s leadership focused on cultivating a school culture concerned with cultural, legal, economic, and educational systems of oppression operating in the school and community. She understood a principal can catalyze change, but teachers, staff, parents, and community members needed to be involved. We found Principal Leon engaging in a broad range of activities that could be associated with shaping school culture, engaging community and families, and promoting and supporting bilingual education. She visited homeless shelters in her community to speak with parents and build partnerships with community organizations, she helped parents navigate immigration processes with the nearby Mexican and U.S. Consulates, she visited family violence centers and soup kitchens within the community, and sought food donations from local businesses to help families struggling to put food on the table. While she did not burden teachers with additional work, she recognized the powerful sense of purpose community service can have for teachers. She nurtured teacher and staff leaders through these actions. She identified different organizations that could help support adult education in the community, advocated for a strong after-school program, and was an advocate for dual language among district principals.

With regard to dual language and academic achievement, Principal Leon believed bilingualism was central to addressing a racial and cultural discrimination in the borderlands. As previously noted, she spoke about how ELLs were pushed into classrooms without support or segregated into unequal programs. The context of El Paso resonated with a social justice imperative for dual language: “We live on the border in a binational community. Two languages, Spanish and English, makes sense here.” She also understood a testing culture and racial oppression still permeated in society and schools despite a change in district policies:

Getting people to buy into dual and getting more parents in, that’s something I can’t put in the budget or mandate . . . I don’t need more money, more books, more resources, or whatever . . . I need people to buy into what we are trying to do. That’s what all this work is about.

Her approach was not top-down or “take my word for it.” Instead, she believed teachers and parents would make the right decisions when they saw the evidence:

The research is there, but they [teachers] have to also see it for themselves sometimes . . . So, after year one, I showed the first-grade teachers how well dual was working in kinder . . . I did the same the following year with second-grade teachers . . . Most teachers, when they see something works, they are going to take it and use it. Good teachers are always taking ideas.

She built teachers confidence, oversaw classroom instruction, and looked for opportunities to point out how dual language was benefiting students.

With regard to addressing community concerns, Principal Leon was a visible and engaging advocate for families struggling with life circumstances. She sought to take the burden from teachers already overwhelmed with dual language, PBIS, testing pressures, and other district initiatives. She developed an interdisciplinary team of staff, partly led by her assistant principal, to ensure the school’s resources were being used to address social justice issues concerning families. The assistant principal said, “We do it all, we are here working each night working tirelessly, I can’t tell you the amount of time that goes into talking with the Consulate or helping a family find a home.” Principal Leon framed these efforts as the “principal’s burden” and believed school leaders and staff (e.g., social workers, counselors, assistant principals, office staff) should be primarily responsible for connecting families with the resources they need to be fully engaged parents actively supporting their children’s education. A teacher characterized Principal Leon as “relentless” and her assistant principal said, “she was tireless.” These attributes were visible to teachers and parents and contributed to a school culture and environment that was focused on social justice.

Tenaciousness toward resistance

A final aspect of Principal Leon’s leadership practice was her principled and unrelenting focus on meeting the diverse needs of students and families, which manifested as either (a) patience and support for struggling but dedicated teachers or (b) impatience and edginess toward teachers who maintained deficit perspectives of students and families. With regard to struggling but dedicated teachers, Principal Leon was consistently working in classrooms with teachers, helping to analyze student data and co-plan lessons, and providing professional development and one-on-one help. She talked to teachers about having patience, saying, “You don’t always see the impact of your work right away, but if you are doing the right things for kids, that long-term impact will be there.” Teachers reported how Principal Leon frequently reminded them that their job was to ensure students were going to be successful in middle school and high school, and not just on a test from year to year. She provided opportunities for experienced dual language teachers to talk with first-year dual language teachers and assured teachers to maintain their focus on what is best for children while deemphasizing test scores. Principal Leon’s relentlessness was displayed in her constant support of teachers seeking to improve their practice. Her assistant principal characterized her as a true instructional leader, “She’s always on, she’s always thinking about how to improve instruction and help teachers. She brings her passion.”

With regard to teachers with deficit perspectives of students/families or those who were coaching parents to opt out of dual, Principal Leon had far less patience and was not held back by a commitment to niceness. She refused to be silenced or polite in the wake of ideologies that marginalize Mexican American students. She provided an example of a Latina teacher who responded, “That’s their problem” when she referenced how Villa students do in middle school and high school with relation to achievement and dropout. She added, “I was trying to show teachers that we need to think about the social and emotional, and we need to make sure they have built strong biliteracy skills by the time they leave. I couldn’t believe the response.” She believed, “coddling ineffective teachers, teachers who don’t even believe in their students, with this population, it just cannot be allowed.” This meant Principal Leon was a constant presence in their classrooms, checking lesson plans, following up with parents and co-teachers, and having one-on-one meetings to discuss their future at the school, within the district, and as a teacher altogether. While she noted Villa only had a few unsalvageable teachers who refused to change their practices and/or maintained negative beliefs about Mexican American children, she believed removing them from classrooms was her duty. She noted,

I have teachers who will tell students not to try, because they can’t do things. Or, won’t differentiate instruction in any way, leaving multiple groups of students behind. And we provide professional development, we send them to workshops, we model lessons, and there is no commitment to improve . . . ? I don’t want to be some nasty principal, but I just cannot accept this. And, I will be honest, it makes me so mad and despite the progress we made, we are still dealing with this . . . For these people, my job is to get you out. I need good teachers, passionate teachers, not people who aren’t willing to work and try to give our kids, who deserve so much, a chance.

Principal Leon added that trying to remove teachers like this was tiring. This work included creating individualized professional development plans, tracking the implementation of the plans and monitoring progress, working with human resource personnel in the district, and coordinating with other teachers to provide additional support within these classrooms.

Discussion

This qualitative case study examined the leadership actions of one principal seeking to create a culturally responsive dual language school and the challenges that arise in the process. We drew upon theoretical and empirical scholarship focused on culturally relevant pedagogy, dual language education, and culturally responsive leadership to examine how a principal committed to minoritized children engaged in reflective activities, cultivated staff capacities, united communities, synthesized multiple forms of data, engaged as activists, and adapted her approaches to challenges and resistance. What we found was a principal with a deep commitment to Mexican American students and bilingualism who was driven by her awareness of past and current injustices as well as a heartfelt belief that public schools should serve their communities. Principal Leon was an active, bilingual leader who engaged with teachers in classrooms and planning sessions to ensure dual language was well-implemented and reflected important aspects of the community’s diversity. She built relationships with parents and established a network to help families deal with various legal, social, and domestic challenges. Her leadership communicated a sense of urgency and relentlessness, knowing full well many students were vulnerable and already confronting significant trauma and disruption in their lives. Interviews and observations revealed how she identified teacher resistance to dual language, discrimination and silence, struggling students, and parents barely getting by as the school’s biggest obstacles. In response to these challenges and her agenda to create a thriving dual language education school, she consistently engaged in what we call “corrective reflection,” “values-driven fidelity to the model,” “addressing systems of oppression,” and “tenaciousness toward resistance.”

While each of these findings is important to principal practice and contribute to the existing scholarship focused on culturally responsive leadership, we want to focus specifically on the importance of critical reflection and tenaciousness. When discussing her findings of excellent teachers of African American students, Ladson-Billings (1995) reported that she frequently heard, “but that’s just good teaching” (p. 159). Many of the leadership practices Principal Leon engaged in could also be described as “just good leadership.” However, like Ladson-Billings, we believe there is more to principal leadership when it comes to fostering culturally responsive schools. First, Principal Leon confronted a broad range of challenges and pressures associated with taking over a school in a dysfunctional urban district coming out of a cheating scandal that serves a high proportion of Mexican American ELLs, many of whom recently immigrated to the United States due to extreme poverty and violence in neighboring Ciudad Juarez. Her ongoing corrective reflection of her own emergent biases and how the pressures of school leadership affected her judgment was essential to her maintaining focus and not losing her moral compass or burning out. She reminded herself not to blame teachers or parents, to continually recommit herself, and to find ways to renew her sense of purpose so she could press on. Principal Leon’s reflective activities also allowed her to memorialize in her practice a sense of anger for how Mexican American students had been systematically oppressed in the borderlands and how teachers were cultivated in a system of testing and accountability that views ELLs as liabilities, but also a recognition public education and school leadership were commitments to community service because of these injustices. Her ongoing ability to be reflective allowed her to address the systems of oppression in her school and be tenacious in her daily approach. Both authors have been school administrators in urban districts and recognize the personal difficulty and stress associated with reform and remaining morally grounded in such demanding contexts.

We believe Principal Leon’s “good leadership” is represented by her technical expertise in relation to dual language education and implementation, but that she was truly a culturally responsive leader in how she tenaciously advocated to teachers that dual language provided an opportunity to recreate a curriculum reflective of Mexican American identity and the uniqueness of the borderlands. She stressed patience, professional inquiry, and collaboration rather than short-term priorities associated with testing that would not change the long-term trajectories of students. She spent countless hours working with consulates, homeless shelters, nonprofits, and other organizations to remove home and community barriers to student success. Most importantly, she rejected “niceness” and “decorum” when teachers were harsh to students or families, rejected dual language for all, or purposefully neglected their duties to be culturally responsive. Rejecting decorum and challenging deficit mind-sets demonstrates courageousness and her advocacy-oriented approach. Alemán (2009), drawing on the work of critical race scholars, argued niceness can be utilized to maintain the status quo, cover up institutional racism, and silence the experience of Latina/o communities. He recommended instead, school leaders must reject decorum and niceness when it is detrimental to institutional change. Principal Leon thoughtfully demonstrated her ability to reject niceness in the face of a small group of teachers who did not see value in Mexican American student and families. She recognized the struggles teachers confronted and how teaching can be demoralizing and thankless at times and responded with a tenacious advocacy. With these teachers, she practiced patience and committed to a set of leadership practices oriented toward cultivating success and building confidence. However, she was aware of the presence of racism and xenophobia in her school and publicly and privately rebuked teachers who sought to maintain the status quo and reject culturally responsive institutional change.

We also want to emphasize that while this study focused on principal leadership and emergent leadership challenges to dual language education, this case study is not simply about one heroic leader. Underlying each of Principal Leon’s practices were supportive teachers, parents, counselors and staff, and her assistant principal. Reflection was exercised not only by Principal Leon on her morning jogs or in lonely moments but also by listening to teachers share their challenges and their successes. Utilizing her values associated with cultural responsiveness to make decisions about how to prioritize resources or work with struggling students was not a singular decision by Principal Leon, but an outcome of collaboration with grade-level teams, proactive teachers taking matters into their own hands, and teacher volunteers and leaders willing to come in early and stay late to help students. The culture of silence with respect to a small group of teachers’ negative comments about children and families may have existed, but teachers still shared those stories in anger with the research team and were inspired when Principal Leon’s tough and advocacy-oriented stance surfaced in response. Finally, we want to highlight that the nature of Principal Leon’s corrective reflection highlighted the significant mental, physical, and emotional toll of school leadership in challenging urban districts. We cannot ignore how her commitment to addressing the broad range of equity issues in her school and community created significant personal life sacrifices and, at times, feelings of immense sadness and grief. These reflections further highlight that even tenacious, committed, well-trained, and relentless principals require a broad-based coalition to create culturally responsive schools in places where systems of oppression have long operated and have deep roots.

Implications

Principal Leon’s leadership practice offers implications for practice and research. Her leadership practice can be understood as technical, adaptive, and advocacy-oriented. Technical expertise was required to ensure teachers understood various elements of dual language education as well as change processes associated with the cultural and instructional mind-shift necessary. Adaptive actions were also necessary to problem-pose and problem-solve different emergent issues. Teachers, students, and parents were all important to creating a more culturally responsive school, but many struggled for a broad range of reasons. This required both a systems-thinking approach and a case-by-case approach to problem-solving. Finally, the school and district had maintained a culture that did not value linguistic diversity and viewed students as tests scores. Leadership was necessary to advocate for the necessity of a culturally responsive school, to point out how past injustices continued to marginalize students and families, and motivate teachers who are truly invested in helping their students and community. This suggests that principals who are culturally responsive should remain open-minded, listen to various stakeholders, and use a broad range of efforts to understand and address systemic and emergent issues in their school. They cannot pretend to be neutral in the face of oppression, ignore the need to build systems, or reject the need for flexibility and patience. This study also suggests that principals should consider ways to build community capacity to support the school as well as addressing potential community and family challenges that will surely disrupt student achievement and further complicate the job of teachers. Principal preparation programs should consider how they can provide curriculum and clinical experiences that prepare future leaders to conduct equity audits, develop school-community action plans, engage in difficult and critical discussions with teachers (un)consciously holding deficit views of certain communities, and maintain wellness in difficult leadership conditions.

Future research might investigate culturally responsive leadership in different contexts, adapting different models and approaches to instruction and community engagement, and how principal experience and background impacts leadership practice. Research utilizing different methodologies, including longitudinal studies, are also necessary given the time required to transform a school and how sociocultural processes influence school culture, disrupt deficit thinking, and cultivate inclusive and inquiry-oriented environments that can be transformative for teachers, students, and families. Finally, future research should investigate the role of different formal and informal leaders with respects to culturally responsive leadership. What role can families, parent organizations, and community organizations play in leading culturally responsive school reforms? How can principals, assistant principals, teachers, counselors, and curriculum experts collaborate to build critical consciousness with students? How might adult education be utilized to drive or support culturally responsive school reform efforts? What community-based organizations can further support the establishment of culturally responsive environments for children? These questions and others can make important theoretical and practical contributions for researchers, faculty, principals, teachers, and districts interested in culturally responsive schools.

Footnotes

Author’s note

David E. DeMatthews is now affiliated to University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

David E. DeMatthews is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at El Paso in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations. He has worked with urban districts as a high school teacher, middle school administrator, and district administrator. His research interests include K-12 school leadership, urban education, special education, dual language education, and social justice.

Elena Izquierdo is an associate professor of Teacher Education at the University of Texas at El Paso. Her research interests focus on biliteracy, dual language, and transforming schools/districts for English language learner (ELL) success. She works with many teachers, principals, administrators, and school board members in shaping the schooling trajectory of ELLs.

References

Ackerman

D. J.

Tazi

(2015). Enhancing young Hispanic dual language learners’ achievement: Exploring strategies and addressing challenges. ETS Research Report Series, 2015, 1-39.

Alemán

Jr. (2007). Situating Texas school finance policy in a CRT framework: How “substantially equal” yields racial inequity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 525-558.

Alemán

Jr. (2009). Through the prism of critical race theory: Niceness and Latina/o leadership in the politics of education. Journal of Latinos and Education, 8, 290-311.

Anderson

G. L.

(2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Araujo

de la Piedra

M. T.

(2013). Violence on the US–Mexico border and the capital students use in response. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 263-278.

Barac

Bialystok

Castro

D. C.

Sanchez

(2014). The cognitive development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 699-714.

Bialystok

(2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language learning, 57(s1), 45-77.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dantley

M. E.

Green

T. L.

(2015). Problematizing notions of leadership for social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 25, 820-837.

10.

DeMatthews

D. E.

(2018). Community engaged leadership for social justice: A critical approach in urban schools. New York: Routledge.

11.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Edwards

D. B.

Rincones

(2016). Social justice leadership and community engagement: A successful case from Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52, 754-792.

12.

DeMatthews

D.E.

Izquierdo

(2018). The role of principals in developing dual language education: Implications for social justice leadership and preparation. Journal of Latinos and Education, 17, 53-70.

13.

DeMatthews

D.E.

Mawhinney

H.B.

(2014). Social justice and inclusion: Exploring challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 844-881.

14.

Diamond

J. B.

Randolph

Spillane

J. P.

(2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75-98.

15.

Fanning

(2016, April 15). Kids are dying on CPS’ watch. Texas Standard. Retrieved from http://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-is-all-talk-and-no-action-in-fixing-a-woefully-underfunded-cps/

16.

Freire

(2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group: New York, NY.

17.

Furman

(2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 191-229.

18.

Gándara

P. C.

Contreras

(2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Gardiner

M. E.

Canfield-Davis

Anderson

K. L.

(2009). Urban school principals and the “no child left behind act.” The Urban Review, 41, 141-160.

20.

Gardiner

M. E.

Enomoto

E. K.

(2006). Urban school principals and their role as multicultural leaders. Urban Education, 41, 560-584.

21.

Gay

(2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106-116.

22.

Gay

(2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

23.

Genesee

Lindholm-Leary

Saunders

Christian

(2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363-385.

24.

Gerhart

L. G.

Harris

Mixon

(2011). Beliefs and effective practices of successful principals in high schools with a Hispanic population of at least 30%. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 266-280.

25.

Gooden

M. A.

(2005). The role of an African American principal in an urban information technology high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 630-650.

26.

Gooden

M. A.

Dantley

(2012). Centering race in a framework for leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7, 237-253.

27.

Green

T. L.

(2015). Leading for urban school reform and community development. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 679-711.

28.

Han

W. J.

Lee

Waldfogel

(2012). School readiness among children of immigrants in the US: Evidence from a large national birth cohort study. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 771-782.

29.

Horsford

Grosland

Gunn

K. M.

(2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional: Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 582-602.

30.

Howard

T. C.

(2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory Into Practice, 42, 195-202.

31.

Ivey

Broaddus

(2007). A formative experiment investigating literacy engagement among adolescent Latina/o students just beginning to read, write, and speak English. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 512-545.

32.

Johnson

(2006). “Making her community a better place to live”: Culturally responsive urban school leadership in historical context. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 19-36.

33.

Khalifa

M.A.

(2010). Validating social and cultural capital of hyperghettoized at-risk students. Education and Urban Society, 45, 620-646.

34.

Khalifa

M. A.

(2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 424-467.

35.

Khalifa

M. A.

Gooden

M. A.

Davis

J. E.

(2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1272-1311.

36.

Labaree

D. F.

(1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39-81.

37.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

38.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28, 27-42.

39.

Lindholm-Leary

Hernández

(2011). Achievement and language proficiency of Latino students in dual language programmes: Native English speakers, fluent English/previous ELLs, and current ELLs. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32, 531-545.

40.

Lomotey

(1987). Black principals for Black students: Some preliminary observations. Urban Education, 22, 173-181.

41.

López

G. R.

(2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 68-94.

42.

Mabokela

R. O.

Madsen

J. A.

(2005). “Color-blind” and “color-conscious” leadership: A case study of desegregated suburban schools in the USA. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 187-206.

43.

McCray

C. R.

Beachum

F. D.

(2011). Culturally relevant leadership for the enhancement of teaching and learning in urban schools. In Townsend

MacBeth

(Ed.), International handbook of leadership for learning (pp. 487-501). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

44.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative Research: a guide to design and interpretation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

45.

Miller

P. M.

Brown

Hopson

(2011). Centering love, hope, and trust in the community: Transformative urban leadership informed by Paulo Freire. Urban Education, 46, 1078-1099.

46.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

47.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. Urban Review, 43, 66-89.

48.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47, 556-561. doi:10.1177/0042085912447516

49.

Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.). (2014). Handbook of urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.

50.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141.

51.

Paris

(2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93-97.

52.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and methods: Integrating theory and practice. London: Sage.

53.

Reitzug

U. C.

Patterson

(1998). “I’m not going to lose you!” Empowerment through caring in an urban principal’s practice with students. Urban Education, 33, 150-181.

54.

Ríos

(2014). Security issues and immigration flows: Drug-violence refugees, the new Mexican immigrants. Latin American Research Review, 49(3), 1-33.

55.

Ryan

(2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 3-17.

56.

Shields

C. M.

(2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 558-589.

57.

Stake

R. E.

(2013). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

58.

Theoharis

(2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221-258.

59.

U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Quick facts: El Paso county. Washington, D.C.: Author.

60.

Valencia

(Ed.). (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (The Stanford Series on Education and Public Policy). London, England: Falmer.

61.

Villegas

A. M.

Lucas

(2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20-32.

62.

Yin

R. K.

(2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.