Leading Through Change and Challenge: A Critical Inclusive Praxis Framework

Abstract

This article presents Critical Inclusive Praxis, a conceptual framework designed to support the development of inclusive, democratic, and socially just school cultures. It emphasizes the essential role of principals in transforming schools through reflective and dialogical action that addresses equity and diversity. In today’s complex educational landscape, the framework calls for intentional, justice-driven leadership. Grounded in critical pedagogy and inclusive education theory, this conceptual paper draws on a broad review of literature on school culture, change, leadership, inclusion, and challenges within the school community to develop a five-element model for inclusive school leadership. Each element captures a distinct aspect of leadership while collectively promoting equity-focused, socially conscious, and action-oriented practices. The Critical Inclusive Praxis framework illustrates how principals who engage in ongoing critical reflection and collaboration can better meet the diverse needs of their communities. It offers both a theoretical foundation and practical guidance for school leaders committed to fostering inclusive environments through shared leadership, culturally responsive strategies, and transformative engagement with staff, students, and families.

Keywords

inclusive education school leadership social justice critical inclusive praxis equity democratic schooling

Teachers, support staff, and students who do not identify with the dominant group or who express divergent perspectives are often marginalized within school cultures that privilege consensus, compliance, and stability over critical dialogue and difference (Janice, 2011; Pratiwi & Wening, 2024; Priyanto & Wening, 2024). These dynamics are frequently produced through what Janis (2011) defines as groupthink, a mode of collective decision-making in which the desire for cohesion and harmony suppresses dissent, critical reflection, and alternative viewpoints. In school contexts, groupthink can emerge through hierarchical leadership structures, accountability pressures, and normative expectations that reward conformity while discouraging questioning or critique (See Janis, 2011). As a result, educators and students who challenge dominant norms or raise concerns related to equity, inclusion, or pedagogy may experience their professional and educational trajectories as silencing, disconnected, and alienating (Pratiwi & Wening, 2024; Priyanto & Wening, 2024). Such cultures of enforced conformity often struggle to respond meaningfully to internal tensions and external social or academic challenges, opting instead to minimize or ignore them (Janis, 2011). Leaders working within these environments frequently lack the critical awareness and relational skills required to interrupt groupthink and its exclusionary effects. Without a school culture grounded in reflection, dialogue, and responsiveness, leadership responses remain superficial and insufficient to address the complex realities facing contemporary schools.

Therefore, schools falter not because of a lack of effort but because leadership reinforces groupthink rather than actively working to prevent it (Pratiwi & Wening, 2024; Priyanto & Wening, 2024). Research (e.g., Fuller et al., 2017) has established that principals exert the most significant influence on school culture within the building, and that their impact on student learning is second only to classroom instruction. This central positioning makes principals uniquely powerful agents in shaping inclusive, democratic, and socially just school environment. This paper argues that the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework offers school leaders a comprehensive and actionable approach for transforming school culture. Critical Inclusive Praxis equips principals with tools for reflective, critical, and dialogical engagement, enabling them to confront systemic issues and foster inclusive school environments. Thus, cultivating a genuinely inclusive and reflective school culture requires intentional efforts to dismantle groupthink, amplify diverse voices, and develop leadership practices that address complex and evolving challenges.

The purpose of this article is to examine how school principals can adopt and adapt the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework to foster and sustain an inclusive school culture that resists groupthink, embraces complexity and dissenting voices, and supports diversity and positive change. The article explores the five interconnected elements of Critical Inclusive Praxis: culture, change, leadership, inclusion, and challenge, and illustrates how they collectively support the creation of socially just and democratic schools. Inclusion is defined in this article as embracing, accommodating, welcoming, and celebrating diversity in the school and school community (Ainscow et al., 2006; Kugelmass, 2004; Ryan, 2003; Sailor, 2002). It involves collaborating with the teachers, support staff, students, and the school community towards just and democratic schooling. According to Roache and Marshall (2022), Shields (2022), and Theoharis and Scanlan (2015), school leadership for equity and diversity requires a bold vision, significant knowledge, and skills, as well as the working together of many people. Shields (2022) and Theoharis and Scanlan (2015) explain that school leadership is key in creating more inclusive schools and that principals’ practice is an essential mechanism through which socially just schooling is enacted. As such, socially just schooling is evident when educational prospects abound for all students, when ambitious academic goals are held and met by all students, when all students and families are made to feel welcome in the school community, when students are equitably distributed across all groupings in the school, and when one aspect of identity does not directly correlate with undesirable aspects of schooling (Roache & Marshall, 2022; Shields, 2022; Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015). This vision of schooling reflects a deep commitment to equity, where inclusion is not merely an initiative but a foundational principle that shapes every facet of the educational experience.

The Critical Inclusive Praxis Framework

Critical Inclusive Praxis integrates the principles of critical pedagogy into the praxis of inclusive education emphasizing the transformation of schooling to serve socially marginalized and economically excluded students. Darder et al. (2009), Giroux (2009), and McLaren (2009) describe critical pedagogy as a commitment to liberating oppressed learners through education that fosters reflection, critical thinking, and action toward a more democratic and equitable society. At its core, critical pedagogy seeks to use education as a tool for social justice (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). Praxis, as defined by Darder et al. (2009), is the synthesis of theory and practice – beginning with an idea or lived experience, followed by reflection, which leads to informed, purposeful action. It is through this ongoing cycle of critical reflection and action that educators can meaningfully transform human experience and dismantle oppressive structures in schools (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009).

For school leaders, this means that democratic and equitable education cannot be achieved without deep engagement in reflective, critical, and dialogical action (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009). Critical Inclusive Praxis equips principals with the mindset and tools to build school cultures rooted in justice and the common good. By embracing this framework, principals can work collaboratively with their school communities to foster inclusive environments and ensure equitable learning opportunities for all students.

Figure 1 illustrates the workings of the Critical Inclusive Praxis. To cultivate a school culture that embraces diversity and supports change, the principal engages in ongoing reflective, critical, and dialogical action. A Critical Inclusive Praxis involves informed understanding and collaborative practices that not only foster inclusive school environments but also advance the broader goal of a more just society. This framework calls on principals to recognize and respond to challenges within the school and community. By activating its principles, school leaders are empowered to think, reflect, and act in ways that promote democratic and equitable education. To that end, Critical Inclusive Praxis equips principals to lead transformative efforts that sustain socially just schooling and serve the common good.

Figure 1.

Critical Inclusive Praxis: This Venn diagram represents the conceptual framework

The Praxis

A school leader requires a Critical Inclusive Praxis to sustain a strong school culture that embraces diversity, particularly during periods of change and challenge. Principals need to recognize and acknowledge challenges emerging within the school, the broader community, and the policy environment shaping educational practice (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; Osiname, 2018). This includes making visible the ways in which government policies, accountability pressures, and social conditions affect teaching, learning, and relationships (Egalite et al., 2017; Fuller et al., 2017; Williams & Welsh, 2017). At this stage, the principal helps teachers, staff, and families collectively name and understand these challenges, laying the groundwork for shared responsibility (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). Moreover, central to this work is the cultivation of trust and relational care. Principals need to intentionally nurture and inspire others by attending to concerns, valuing diverse perspectives, and building relationships grounded in openness, empathy, and respect (Roache & Marshall, 2022; Shields, 2022; Wasserman et al., 2006). Once problem areas are identified and a collaborative, caring culture is established, the principal facilitates the co-construction of an action plan through sustained dialogue and inclusive participation (Harris & Lambert, 2003; Osiname, 2018; Shields, 2022; Spillane, 2005). As the plan is implemented over time, the principal leads ongoing reflection and assessment to evaluate its effectiveness and make necessary adjustments (Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; Osiname, 2018). Through this continuous cycle of action and reflection, the principal enacts transformative leadership grounded in critical, reflective, and dialogical practice (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; Osiname, 2018).

The next sections address the five researched elements of a Critical Inclusive Praxis: culture, change, leadership, inclusion, and challenge. Overlapping the five elements in the conceptual framework provides an understanding of how the school principal can build and sustain an inclusive school culture during times of change and challenge. The conceptual framework leads to a deeper understanding of how the school principal can transform the school through reflective, critical, and dialogical action, thereby fostering a more democratic school community for students, families, educators, and the broader community, particularly those historically marginalized within schooling structures.

Culture

The concept of culture is widely used by scholars and practitioners to describe the values, beliefs, and practices that shape organizational life. In education, foundational work by Schein (2010), Deal and Peterson (1990), Barth (2002), and Sergiovanni (1991, 1992, 2000, 2007) has been particularly influential. Schein (2010) defines culture as a pattern of basic assumptions developed by a group as it learns to navigate challenges; assumptions that become accepted ways of thinking, feeling, and acting, and are passed down to new members. He emphasizes that culture consists of deep, stable social meanings that guide behavior over time. Deal and Peterson (1990) describe culture as an omnipresent phenomenon shaped through daily interactions, forming a taken-for-granted flow of beliefs and assumptions that shape meaning and behavior. Similarly, Barth (2002) views culture as a socially transmitted pattern of thinking and acting that frames how people interpret and respond to experience. Within schools, culture is expressed through deeply embedded norms, rituals, values, and expectations that operate across interconnected subcultures (Barth, 2002; Prosser, 1999).

Leading School Culture in an Era of Accountability and Reform

Understanding school culture is essential for meaningful and sustained change, particularly in contemporary policy contexts marked by heightened accountability demands (Constantinides, 2022; Dulude & Milley, 2021; Leithwood, 2001; Peterson & Deal, 2009; Schein, 2010). Since the implementation of accountability reforms such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), school culture has become increasingly shaped by data use, subgroup performance monitoring, and external evaluations of effectiveness (Fuller et al., 2017; Herman et al., 2017; Portz & Beauchamp, 2022). While these policies have drawn much-needed attention to inequities in student outcomes, particularly for historically marginalized groups, they have also introduced new tensions within school cultures (Egalite et al., 2017; Horsford et al., 2017; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Williams & Welsh, 2017). To develop school communities that are characterized by equity, principals balance pressures to raise measurable achievement with commitments to inclusion, belonging, and holistic student development (Egalite et al., 2017; Herman et al., 2017; Horsford et al., 2017; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Williams & Welsh, 2017; Young et al., 2017). Research suggests that when accountability is narrowly interpreted, it can reinforce deficit thinking, intensify surveillance, and shape cultural norms that prioritize compliance over care, and performance over participation (Horsford et al., 2017; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024).

School leaders play a central role in shaping, sustaining, and transforming school culture (Barth, 2002; Deal & Peterson, 1990; Schein, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1991, 1992, 2007). Through everyday decisions, symbolic actions, and responses to policy demands, principals signal what is valued, who belongs, and how success is defined (Fuller et al., 2017). In accountability driven contexts, leaders’ interpretations of policy profoundly influence whether data are used as tools for inclusion and support, or as mechanisms that unintentionally marginalize students identified as “underperforming.” (Egalite et al., 2017; Horsford et al., 2017; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024) Thus, culture is shaped internally and negotiated at the intersection of local values and external policy measures (Horsford et al., 2017; Young et al., 2017).

School Culture as Guided by Critical Inclusive Praxis

The concept of culture is foundational to the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework, which views school culture not as a static set of norms and traditions, but as a dynamic and contested space shaped by power, policy, and social contexts (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009). While traditional theories emphasize the depth and persistence of culture, Critical Inclusive Praxis extends this work by explicitly attending to how accountability systems and subgroup monitoring influence cultural norms and leadership decision-making (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009). Through reflective, critical, and dialogical action, principals are called to interrogate how policy mandates interact with local practices and to resist cultural patterns that equate equity with compliance or reduce students to data points (Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). By engaging culture as a site of critical action, leaders can leverage accountability requirements as opportunities for collective reflection, inclusive problem-solving, and culturally responsive practice (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009). In this way, school culture becomes a powerful lever for advancing equity, belonging, and democratic engagement despite, and sometimes in response to, the constraints of contemporary accountability regimes.

Change

Change is a constant feature of organizational life and has become embedded in the daily realities of schools (Evans, 1996; Kin & Kareem, 2015; Peterson & Deal, 1998). Scholars agree that change affects all organizations, regardless of size or purpose. Hanson (1996) defines organizational change as the process of altering behavior, structures, or practices to implement innovation. Kin and Kareem (2015) frame it as a transition from a current state to a desired future, aimed at improving productivity and efficiency. Evans (1996) emphasizes the dismantling of existing routines to introduce new practices, while Fullan (1999) stresses that for change to be effective, it should be meaningful to those enacting it. Though often met with resistance due to loss, confusion, or fear, change remains essential for continuous improvement (Atasoy, 2020; Fullan, 1999).

Schools function as both structured entities and evolving processes, shaped by the interactions, experiences, and histories of their members (Calabrese, 2002). As school cultures become deeply embedded over time, initiating meaningful change grows increasingly complex. Fullan (1991) and Borwick (2013) describe school change as a gradual, evolutionary process that requires a dedicated change agent to facilitate inclusive dialogue and collaboratively build the necessary scaffolding for progress. Transforming school culture, therefore, involves more than surface-level adjustments—it demands the intentional replacement of harmful norms with practices rooted in collaboration and inclusion (Barth, 2002; Hargreaves, 1997). Fullan and Hargreaves (2013) emphasize that sustainable change is closely tied to teacher development, which entails shifts in curriculum, instructional strategies, and underlying beliefs. Barth (2002) and Fullan (2007) note that authentic cultural transformation originates from within the school, positioning principals as central figures in leading and sustaining change.

Leading Educational Change in an Era of Accountability and Reform

In contemporary contexts, however, efforts to change school culture are deeply shaped by accountability pressures, particularly following the implementation of the ESSA (Egalite et al., 2017; Fuller et al., 2017; Williams & Welsh, 2017). ESSA intensified requirements for disaggregated data and subgroup monitoring, compelling principals to attend more explicitly to the academic performance of historically marginalized students, including students with disabilities, English language learners, and racially minoritized students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016; DeMatthews, 2018; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024). While these policy shifts have created opportunities to surface inequities previously obscured by aggregate data, they have also intensified tensions between accountability mandates and inclusive school practices (Fuller et al., 2017; Herman et al., 2017; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Portz & Beauchamp, 2022). Principals are often required to balance equity-oriented goals with performance expectations tied to standardized assessments, improvement plans, and external evaluations, which can narrow the scope of change initiatives and constrain professional judgment (Au, 2016; Lipman, 2011).

As a result, school leaders may experience change not only as a moral or relational endeavor but also as a compliance-driven process shaped by surveillance and risk management (Culver, 2025; Prasky, 2025). Research suggests that accountability regimes can unintentionally promote strategic responses that prioritize institutional metrics over inclusive practices, particularly when leaders fear sanctions or reputational damage (Daly et al., 2011; Pagès et al., 2024). This policy context complicates principals’ efforts to lead culturally responsive and inclusive change, even when they are personally committed to equity. Understanding change in schools therefore requires attention to the broader accountability environment in which principals operate and the structural constraints that shape their decision-making.

Furthermore, school reform requires intentional leadership (Sergiovanni, 1991). While change efforts may begin with teachers, principals often initiate and sustain them (Fuller et al., 2017). They are responsible for mobilizing efforts, guiding the search for solutions, and embedding new practices within the school’s identity (Calabrese, 2002). Calabrese proposes three leadership principles for managing change: creating a supportive environment, engaging stakeholders, and re-educating the school community. Similarly, Fullan (2004) identifies five core components of leadership for change: moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation, and coherence making. Leaders who consistently apply these principles, anchored in hope and purpose, are better equipped to lead through complexity. Fullan warns against blind groupthink and emphasizes the need for critical engagement within leadership teams.

Zimmerman (2006) and Calabrese (2002) add that successful leaders understand the change process personally and organizationally. Furthermore, principals, who model risk-taking, continuous learning, and vulnerability can encourage staff to do the same. Zimmerman (2006) asserts that self-awareness; knowing one’s strengths and limitations, is critical to leading meaningful change. By embodying lifelong learning and modeling reflective practice, school leaders can effectively guide their communities through transformation (Fullan, 2007).

Educational Change as Guided by Critical Inclusive Praxis

The concept of change is integral to the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework, which views transformation not as a technical adjustment but as a reflective, equity-driven process situated within contemporary accountability contexts (Giroux, 2009). In the ESSA era, school change is increasingly shaped by policy demands that require principals to attend closely to disaggregated data, subgroup performance, and persistent inequities among historically marginalized students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024). While ESSA has intensified accountability pressures, it has also created conditions that compel school leaders to confront inequitable outcomes that were previously ignored or obscured (Fuller et al., 2017; Horsford et al., 2017; Williams & Welsh, 2017).

Within this framework, change is anchored in the recognition that schools are dynamic spaces shaped by power, identity, social context, and policy constraints (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009). Rather than responding to ESSA driven accountability through compliance oriented or deficit-based practices, Critical Inclusive Praxis calls on school leaders to engage in sustained, dialogical action that critically interrogates how policies, data, and accountability systems shape decision-making and inclusion (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). This approach supports principals in navigating the tension between accountability and equity by prioritizing reflective leadership, collaborative sensemaking, and ethical responsibility toward marginalized subgroups (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009).

Change, from this perspective, becomes both systemic and participatory, grounded in collaboration, informed by diverse lived experiences, and responsive to subgroup needs without reducing students to performance metrics. (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). As such, by linking change to moral purpose and inclusive practice in an accountability driven environment, the framework reframes school reform as a transformative pursuit of justice and belonging, positioning principals as facilitators of deep cultural change rather than managers of policy compliance (Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009).

Furthermore, a lack of growth mindset can undermine efforts to build an inclusive school culture, particularly during periods of change (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015; Wasserman et al., 2006). To that end, principals play a critical role in cultivating a growth mindset among teachers, staff, students, parents, and the wider community by fostering caring relationships grounded in dialogue and supportive action (Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; Guidera, 2014). A growth mindset reflects the belief that abilities and practices can be developed through effort, learning, and collaboration (Sousa, 2024). School principals can enhance teacher transitions by offering concrete supports that enable teachers to adapt instructional methods and strategies to meet diverse learner needs (Guidera, 2014; Zhang & He, 2024). These supports include sustained professional learning (Harris & Jones, 2019), relational trust (Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021), and structures for ongoing dialogue, such as collaborative meetings, reflective inquiry groups, and two-way communication with families and community members (Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; Henriksen & Paulsen, 2021; Klein, 2017). For example, Harris and Jones (2019) document how sustained, job embedded professional learning communities enabled teachers to collectively interpret reform mandates, adapt them to their local contexts, and assume shared responsibility for instructional improvement. The authors’ findings indicate that when professional learning is sustained and inquiry-based rather than episodic, teachers are more likely to implement meaningful pedagogical changes that extend beyond compliance-driven adjustments.

Similarly, Edwards-Groves and Grootenboer (2021) show how relational trust, cultivated through structured dialogue and shared decision making, supported teachers in taking instructional risks during periods of reform. The authors expound that teachers reported greater willingness to experiment with new practices when school leaders created protected spaces for collaborative reflection and normalized uncertainty as part of the change process. These examples illustrate how professional learning and relational trust operate as support and enabling conditions that position teachers as active agents of change with the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework. As such, dialogic practices, informed by critical and democratic traditions, create spaces for shared problem-solving, collective meaning-making, and critical reflection, thereby supporting teachers and students in navigating change and advancing inclusive practice (Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009).

Leadership

Leadership is widely discussed yet often misunderstood. As Burns (1995) noted, it is one of the most examined yet least understood phenomena. Despite numerous definitions, scholars agree that leadership remains conceptually elusive (Bass, 1995; Beatty, 2013; Burns, 1995; Gardner, 1990; Genza, 2021; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995; Wilson, 2023). This complexity arises from the multiple dimensions through which leadership is framed ranging from influence and persuasion to power dynamics and shared values. Hughes et al. (1995) define leadership as a social process that mobilizes a group toward shared goals, involving dynamic interaction beyond formal authority. Similarly, Ogawa and Bossert (1995) emphasize leadership as an organizational quality that shapes patterns of interaction. Gardner (1990) underscores leadership’s foundation in persuasion and values, aligning group objectives with shared aspirations. These perspectives frame leadership as a distributed, interactive, and value-driven function.

In schools, leadership is a critical driver of success. Leithwood and Riehl (2003) define school leadership as the collaborative work of directing and influencing people toward school goals. Gurr et al. (2006) stress that leadership is an evolving, context-responsive process, often shared across individuals (Davies, 2005). Rather than residing in one person, leadership involves setting direction, inspiring others, and fostering environments where all members can thrive.

Leithwood and Riehl (2003) highlight three core leadership practices: setting direction, developing people, and building the organization. Effective leaders establish shared visions, cultivate capacity, and nurture collaborative cultures, turning schools into professional learning communities that align individual and collective growth.

Leadership Models as Pathways to Equity and Inclusion

Leadership models offer varied pathways to equity and inclusion. Transformational leadership emphasizes personal commitment and organizational growth through shared goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Bogler (2001) describes transformational leaders as inspiring followers toward justice, equity, and moral purpose. Moral leadership, likewise, centers ethical values and emphasizes democratic relationships and inclusivity (Bush et al., 2003; Starratt, 2005). Servant leadership focuses on serving others first, fostering ethical, purpose-driven communities (Greenleaf, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1992, 2007). Leaders practicing this model derive legitimacy from advancing shared ideals and empowering individuals to define and pursue their own goals. Shared leadership redistributes leadership responsibilities across staff, empowering collaboration, inclusive decision-making, and school-wide improvement (Harris & Lambert, 2003; Spillane, 2005). This approach builds collective efficacy, enriches professional expertise, and improves student learning outcomes (Harris & Lambert, 2003).

Transformative leadership, as defined by Shields (2022), places equity, justice, and democracy at the center. It promotes hope, activism, and moral courage, challenging inequitable practices and building inclusive school cultures (Caldwell et al., 2012). Inclusive leadership aligns closely with this model, emphasizing collective, participatory practices that foster dialogue and democratic engagement (Ryan, 2003). These models reveal the complexity and power of school leadership. Effective principals integrate transformational, moral, servant, shared, and transformative approaches to cultivate inclusive, just, and collaborative school communities. Each model provides strategies to advance equity, foster growth, and create educational environments where all members can thrive.

Leadership as Guided by Critical Inclusive Praxis

Leadership is a central pillar of the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework, as it empowers school principals to act as catalysts for equitable, inclusive, and democratic change (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009). Effective leadership, rooted in reflection, critical inquiry, and dialogical action, enables principals to recognize systemic inequities and respond through purposeful, values-driven practices (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; Shields, 2022). Within this framework, leadership transcends positional authority; it becomes a collaborative, relational process grounded in moral purpose, shared responsibility, and a commitment to social justice (Greenleaf, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1992, 2007; Shields, 2022). By drawing on models such as transformational, moral, servant, and transformative leadership, school leaders mobilize collective efforts to build inclusive school cultures that challenge exclusionary norms and foster belonging for all students and stakeholders. In doing so, leadership becomes both the driver and the embodiment of Critical Inclusive Praxis.

In addition, it is important to note that these leadership models offer complementary pathways for advancing equity and inclusion within schools. Transformational leadership supports Critical Inclusive Praxis by fostering shared purpose, moral commitment, and collective motivation toward inclusive goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Moral and servant leadership further strengthen Critical Inclusive Praxis by centering ethical responsibility, care, and democratic relationships, ensuring that decisions prioritize dignity, justice, and the well-being of all members of the school community (Greenleaf, 1995; Sergiovanni, 2007; Starratt, 2005). Shared leadership aligns closely with Critical Inclusive Praxis through its emphasis on dialogue, collaboration, and distributed responsibility, creating structures that amplify diverse voices and build collective efficacy (Harris & Lambert, 2003; Spillane, 2005).

Transformative leadership most explicitly underpins Critical Inclusive Praxis, as it foregrounds equity, justice, and critical consciousness, challenging structural inequities and mobilizing schools toward democratic change (Shields, 2022). While these approaches may differ in emphasis, they are not contradictory; rather, Critical Inclusive Praxis integrates their strengths. Principals enact Critical Inclusive Praxis by combining moral purpose, relational care, shared decision-making, and critical action to cultivate inclusive, participatory, and socially just school cultures.

Inclusion

Meaningfully educating a diverse population has long been a central challenge in public education. Historically, one of the purposes of public schooling was to unify culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse communities (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015). However, inclusive schools do not emerge by chance, they require commitment, planning, preparation, and ongoing professional development (Parker & Day, 1997). Inclusion is a way of thinking and acting that ensures all individuals feel accepted, valued, and safe (Osiname, 2018). It involves intentionally meeting the evolving needs of community members and ensuring meaningful involvement and equitable access to all school benefits (Osiname, 2018). Inclusive schools promote the active participation of every student and celebrate diversity in all forms – cultural, linguistic, cognitive, and personal (Kugelmass, 2004; Ryan, 2003). Such schools foster a sense of belonging and shared identity, where each student connects with the school’s social and cultural life (Sailor, 2002). As such, everyone has a right to contribute, and all voices are welcomed in building a just and democratic community (Ryan, 2003).

Inclusive Education and the Leadership Imperative

Inclusive education directly counters exclusion, which manifests as segregation, isolation, and marginalization (Kugelmass, 2003; Ryan, 2003). It is rooted in the belief that every individual belongs and is valued (Villa & Thousand, 2005), and it rejects all forms of selection and systemic barriers (Ainscow et al., 2006). Inclusion affirms the equality of beliefs and perspectives held by all students and staff, seeking to eliminate discrimination based on race, class, gender, ability, or language (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015). In addition, definitions of inclusion can be descriptive detailing current practices, or prescriptive guiding future actions (Ainscow et al., 2006). Broad definitions emphasize diversity as an asset, the involvement of families, and the respect for human rights (Kugelmass, 2004). To this end, inclusion entails dismantling barriers that impede access to rights and establishing supportive environments for all (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015).

Furthermore, inclusive schools operate with a shared mission focused on learning for all. These types of schools employ committed educators who collaborate to create supportive climates (Martyn & Florian, 1997). Inclusion involves addressing equity, ensuring representation of diverse perspectives, and transforming instructional practices to challenge structural inequities (Ryan, 2003). Sustainable change requires not only new structures but also shifts in values and understanding (Riehl, 2009). As such, school principals play a pivotal role in advancing inclusion. Riehl (2009) identifies three key leadership tasks: fostering inclusive perspectives on diversity, promoting inclusive school practices, and building community connections. Inclusive leadership requires critical reflection, dialogue, advocacy, and a commitment to equity (Ryan, 2003). Modelling these practices will allow the school principal to address challenges to inclusion and cultivate schools that serve all students with fairness, dignity, and respect.

Inclusion as Guided by Critical Inclusive Praxis

Inclusion, as a foundational element of equitable education, aligns directly with the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework, which emphasizes reflective, dialogical, and action-oriented leadership. This framework calls on school principals to recognize systemic inequities and respond with inclusive practices that affirm diversity, ensure belonging, and dismantle barriers to participation (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). Inclusive education requires leaders to not only create access but to critically examine power structures and dominant norms that marginalize students based on race, ability, language, or socioeconomic background (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). Through the lens of Critical Inclusive Praxis, inclusion becomes more than a policy mandate, it is a transformative, justice-centered process that engages educators, families, and communities in sustained dialogue and collective action to build democratic, culturally responsive, and socially just school environments (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009).

Challenges

Creating and sustaining an inclusive culture is an ongoing and complex process that requires continuous self-examination and reflection by leaders and all members of the organization (Wasserman et al., 2006). Theoharis and Scanlan (2015) assert that fostering inclusive schools that meet diverse student needs is a demanding endeavor. Research shows that effective principals face challenges from within and outside the school community (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015). As such, to serve the common good and promote social justice, principals need a deep understanding, the right skills, and the appropriate dispositions to support teachers, students, families, and the broader community. Responding to the demands of multiple educational stakeholders makes the role of the principal uniquely complex (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015; Wasserman et al., 2006). These challenges arise both internally, within the school environment, and externally, through interactions with the wider community.

Internal Challenges

Leadership for social justice involves addressing multiple dimensions of diversity and leadership responsibilities, including student achievement, school structures, curriculum, instruction, behavior, and school culture (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015). Principals, who lead collectively and encourage inclusive practices make all members feel valued and respected (Osiname, 2018; Osiname & Kirk, 2024; Ryan, 2003). Internal challenges can be grouped into two categories: academic and non-academic.

Academic Challenges

Learning is the core mission of schools, but it presents critical questions for inclusive leadership: What should be learned? How should learning opportunities be structured? Who should benefit and how (Parker & Day, 1997)? Even when a mission is collaboratively developed, success depends on leaders to articulate a vision that upholds inclusive values and practices. This approach includes fostering a shared school climate focused on success for all, aligning resources with inclusive goals, monitoring each student’s progress, and modeling reflective practices to strengthen inclusive teaching. Principals who adopt proactive instructional leadership are better equipped to support colleagues, students, and families through anticipated challenges (Parker & Day, 1997).

Non-Academic Challenges

A safe, inclusive, and caring school climate is vital but difficult to sustain. Students must feel physically and emotionally secure to learn effectively (Barton, 2009). Barton defines safe schools as environments free from violence, intimidation, and fear, where expectations are clearly communicated and fairly enforced. While building an inclusive school culture, it is also critical to focus on protecting students from harassment related to race, religion, gender, poverty, ability, and LGBTQ identity (Hernandez & Fraynd, 2015). Bullying, identified by Sautner (2008) as a persistent issue, further complicates this task. To meet both academic and non-academic goals, educators need to foster respectful, responsible behaviors and nurture character in students and themselves.

Responding to External Challenges

Principals also face external challenges that affect school-community relationships. These include building partnerships with parents, engaging community stakeholders, navigating the effects of social media, and addressing broader societal issues like poverty, gang activity, and insufficient governmental support. Osterman (2000) stresses that authentic community emerges when all members experience belonging, trust, and safety. For meaningful inclusion, Ryan (2003) argues that parents should be placed in authentic roles in governance and decision-making. The way principals manage these relationships impacts the inclusivity of their schools. Scanlan and Johnson (2015) and Osiname and Kirk (2024) advocate for respectful alliances across educational and community boundaries in pursuit of equity and democracy. To that end, addressing these external challenges requires principals to lead with empathy, collaboration, and steadfast commitment to fostering inclusive, socially just school communities.

Involving Parents

Strengthening school-family relationships is a key task for principals. Historically, schools operated separately from communities, and parents were discouraged from involvement (Morris & Taylor, 1998). However, the growing complexity of education now demands collaboration. Expanded curricula and increased reliance on volunteers and external learning opportunities have fostered mutual dependency between schools and communities. Successful education now hinges on mutual respect and trust among educators, families, and community members.

Involving Community

Building community engagement is essential. Limited involvement reduces academic and social supports for students and weakens conditions for health and well-being (Scanlan & Johnson, 2015). Collaborative partnerships with community groups can enhance school outcomes, increase democratic participation, and strengthen public support (Scanlan & Johnson, 2015). Effective school-community relationships foster shared problem-solving and contribute to broader educational success (Osiname & Kirk, 2024; Ryan, 2003).

Addressing the Effects of Social Media

Social media poses significant challenges for students and school leaders. It plays a central role in young people’s identities and decisions, sometimes exposing them to harmful content and relationships (Cowling et al., 2025; Ezeji & Uwizeyimana, 2025; Simpson, 2013; Tess, 2013). Cowling et al. (2025), Ezeji and Uwizeyimana (2025), and Simpson (2013) highlight key concerns: excessive screen time, risky communication, and oversharing. Social media can introduce students to unsafe environments, including online predators and harmful subcultures (Cowling et al., 2025; Ezeji & Uwizeyimana, 2025). It is important for leaders and parents to equip students with tools to navigate digital spaces safely while addressing the impact of social media on school climate.

Social Media Algorithms

Beyond safety and well-being concerns, the algorithms that power social media pose deeper challenges to school communities. Designed to maximize engagement, these algorithms curate content based on users’ past behavior, reinforcing existing beliefs and creating ideological “echo chambers” (Gillani et al., 2018). This personalization can narrow students’ worldviews, increase polarization, and diminish empathy for differing perspectives (Ognibene et al., 2023; Theophilou et al., 2023). Educators and leaders are not immune, as they too may unknowingly internalize misinformation or develop inflexible views that hinder inclusive dialogue. These algorithm-driven silos undermine the goals of inclusive education by discouraging critical thinking, open discussion, and shared understanding (Gillani et al., 2018; Ognibene et al., 2023; Theophilou et al., 2023). Principals, therefore, can support teachers and students by promoting digital literacy, encouraging diverse viewpoints, and fostering school cultures where dialogue across differences is actively supported. Confronting the influence of social media algorithms is essential for cultivating critically aware, inclusive learning environments.

Accountability Pressures and Policy Constraints

Principals’ efforts to lead inclusively are shaped and often constrained by accountability regimes that privilege standardized performance, compliance, and risk management over relational and democratic leadership (Au, 2016; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Portz & Beauchamp, 2022). High-stakes testing, school ranking systems, and performance-based evaluations narrow the purposes of schooling and limit leaders’ capacity to respond critically to inequity (Lipman, 2011; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024). Held accountable for measurable outcomes without commensurate resources, principals work under conditions of intensified surveillance and risk aversion that prioritize performance and compliance over responsiveness to diverse student needs (Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Berliner & Nichols, 2007). As such, these accountability pressures can inadvertently encourage exclusionary practices, particularly toward students perceived as jeopardizing school performance indicators, including students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and students from marginalized communities (Choi, 2023; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Theoharis et al., 2016).

Research suggests that, under pressure to meet performance targets, schools may respond through marginalization, reclassification, or restricted access to programs in efforts to protect institutional metrics and reputations (Daly et al., 2011; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Pagès et al., 2024). These practices disproportionately affect students with disabilities, English language learners, and other marginalized groups, revealing how accountability systems can incentivize exclusion rather than inclusion (Choi, 2023; Milano, 2018; Pagan, 2024; Pagès et al., 2024). Such outcomes reflect structural policy effects rather than individual leadership failure and help explain why principals who are committed to equity often experience role conflict, moral tension, and professional vulnerability within technocratic accountability regimes (Apple, 2006; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Shields, 2022). In this context, leadership effectiveness is frequently reduced to compliance and measurable outcomes, obscuring the relational, ethical, and democratic work required to create schools that genuinely serve diverse learners and communities.

Addressing External Risks

It is important that school leaders recognize and respond to societal risks that threaten inclusion, including political polarization, poverty, and gang activity. In an increasingly polarized climate, ideological divisions shape public discourse and extend into school communities, creating tensions among staff, students, and families (Kirk et al., 2025). As public institutions, schools are deeply affected by these forces. Principals therefore play a critical role in engaging families and community members through inclusive decision-making structures such as advisory councils, community forums, and sustained two-way communication that builds trust and shared understanding (Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021; Henriksen & Paulsen, 2021; Klein, 2017). At the same time, leaders navigate the limits of engagement, including conflicting ideologies, unequal power relations, and policy mandates that constrain local discretion (Shields, 2022). Accountability pressures and policy constraints often narrow leaders’ capacity to respond flexibly to complex social challenges, requiring principals to balance democratic dialogue with institutional responsibilities (Milano, 2018; Berliner & Nichols, 2007; Pagan, 2024; Shields, 2022). Effectively navigating these tensions demands principled leadership that models democratic values, mediates conflict, and sustains inclusive, equitable school communities despite external pressures.

In addition, Marling and Marling (2015) explain that early childhood poverty has enduring negative effects on brain development and learning capacity. Historically, academic failure among impoverished students has been attributed to deficits in language or culture (Horsford & Clark, 2015). Schools in low-income areas often offer limited, low-level curricula, unlike the rich educational experiences in affluent schools (Marling & Marling, 2015). Socially just leadership requires that impoverished students receive equitable, high-quality learning opportunities (Shields, 2022).

Furthermore, Singleton et al. (2006) report that schools are increasingly sites of gang recruitment and violence. Peer pressure, family instability, and neighborhood crime fuel gang involvement (Edwards, 2008). School leadership can be informed by an understanding of gang dynamics and a willingness to collaborate with communities to reduce their influence. In addition, UNICEF (2006) warns that children in poverty often lack access to essential services and face exploitation. Governments are morally and legally obligated to protect children’s rights to survival, education, and participation. School leaders as advocates for children will engage government agencies in fulfilling these responsibilities (Ryan, 2003). Since schools do not exist in isolation, it is important for leaders in the school to build strong relationships with all levels of the community (Osiname & Kirk, 2024). The school is an isolated entity but an integral part of the community. School leaders are responsible for fostering family and community engagement to support student achievement and inclusive practices. To this end, inclusive, socially just education requires a shared commitment among schools, families, and communities.

Addressing Internal and External Challenges as Guided by Critical Inclusive Praxis

The internal and external challenges described within the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework, emphasize the need for reflective, inclusive, and transformative leadership (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). The Critical Inclusive Praxis emphasizes the importance of addressing academic inequities, fostering a school culture grounded in safety, respect, and belonging, and promoting instructional practices that support all learners (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). It also stresses the need for authentic engagement with families and communities, power sharing in decision-making, and advocacy to address broader societal issues such as poverty, systemic exclusion, and inadequate governmental support (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). By critically reflecting on these challenges and responding with inclusive, equity-driven actions, school leaders enact the core principles of the Critical Inclusive Praxis, moving beyond surface-level inclusion toward structural change and social justice in education.

Moreover, within the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework, inclusion is enacted through instructional practices that intentionally respond to learner diversity, such as culturally responsive pedagogy, differentiated instruction, Universal Design for Learning, and collaborative, student-centered approaches that value multiple ways of knowing (Darder et al., 2009; Gibbs, 2025; Giroux, 2009; Katz & Sugden, 2013; Khalifa et al., 2016; McLaren, 2009). Teachers are supported in implementing these practices through sustained professional learning, collaborative inquiry, reflective dialogue, and leadership structures that prioritize trust, shared responsibility, and instructional coaching (Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021; Guidera, 2014; Harris & Jones, 2019; Zhang & He, 2024). An inclusive curriculum is flexible, critically oriented, and representative of students’ identities and lived experiences, challenging deficit narratives while fostering critical thinking and social awareness (Akintayo et al., 2024; Miller, 2024; Shields, 2022). While school culture shapes shared norms, relationships, and values of belonging, inclusion is operationalized through everyday instructional decisions, curricular choices, and assessment practices that ensure meaningful access, participation, and success for all students (Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015). To this end, through aligning instructional practice with reflective leadership and ongoing support, principals move inclusion beyond symbolic commitments toward systemic, equity-driven change . Figure 2 below summarizes the five elements of Critical Inclusive Praxis (CIP).

Figure 2.

Summary of the Critical Inclusive Praxis Framework. Note. Critical reflection, dialogical engagement, and equity-oriented action operate continuously across all five elements enabling principals to assess impact, respond to challenges, and sustain transformative, inclusive school change

Implications for Practice

The Critical Inclusive Praxis framework offers a transformative approach to educational leadership that centers on creating inclusive, democratic, and socially just school cultures. Grounded in critical pedagogy and reflective action (Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009), it challenges school principals to confront systemic inequities through sustained dialogue and deliberate praxis that embraces diversity and disrupts the status quo. The framework’s five interconnected elements: culture, change, leadership, inclusion, and challenge, emphasize the dynamic nature of inclusive school transformation. Each element affirms the need for principals to be critically engaged, responsive, and proactive in cultivating environments where every member of the school community is valued and empowered.

The practical implications of this framework are wide ranging. Principals, who are tasked with responsibility for building and maintaining school culture, will sustain a shared vision that resists groupthink and embraces difference (Barth, 2002; Deal & Peterson, 1990; Schein, 2010). This includes creating space for diverse perspectives, promoting critical conversations, and dismantling exclusionary norms. Change should be a collaborative, participatory process that engages staff, students, and families in shaping equitable practices (Evans, 1996; Peterson & Deal, 1998). Leadership, as envisioned by this model, requires moral courage, cultural humility, and a deep commitment to social justice (Roache & Marshall, 2022; Shields, 2022). To illustrate their commitment to building an inclusive school culture, principals should model inclusive values and consistently hold themselves and others accountable (Parker & Day, 1997; Theoharis & Scanlan, 2015). Moreover, inclusion goes beyond representation and demands structural transformation to ensure full participation and belonging (Ainscow et al., 2006). Addressing internal and external challenges such as academic inequities, community mistrust, or the impact of social media requires empathetic and strategic leadership rooted in equity and justice (Roache & Marshall, 2022; Shields, 2022; Wasserman et al., 2006).

Consider a school principal, who has made a personal and professional commitment to developing an inclusive school culture and has worked through the process of rewriting policy and procedural manuals collaboratively with the school community but is currently faced with a situation where a staff member has requested that a racialized student be suspended for coming late to class and for the late submission of a number of assignments. This type of suspension had been a common response in the past.

Even though the staff unanimously agreed to the new policies and procedures regarding attendance and assignment submission, the principal recognizes that change often feels different in practice than it does on paper. The staff had anticipated a need to work collaboratively through the issues until they became comfortable with the new policies. They had made a commitment to listening to a variety of perspectives, inviting critical conversations, and welcoming participation from students and their parents.

The principal knows that it is important to be firm with staff and remind them of the commitments that they made when they were developing the policies. They would also need to be reminded that it was important to work collaboratively with students and parents to ensure that the inclusive policies became part of their shifting school culture. However, the principal recognizes that any conflict with a student would cause discomfort for the teacher and would predictably cause them to seek the safety of past practice. Furthermore, the principal knows that after agreeing to policy changes made collaboratively with the school community, that the teacher would feel uncertain about being the first one to challenge the new policy. The principal understands the need to recognize the teacher’s knowledge and skills and confirm their valuable commitment to the students and the school community before attempting to resolve the issue.

The principal decided to start with a face-to-face conversation with the teacher. First, the principal knew that they would need to listen to how the teacher had experienced this case. Then, it would be important to reacquaint the teacher with the two relevant policies. Finally, the principal planned to remind the teacher that the staff had anticipated challenges as the school learned how to approach issues from a more inclusive lens. They should frame it as a learning opportunity and approach it together within the school community.

Following the discussion with the principal, the teacher confirmed that they would be willing to try something new, and they agreed that past policies had failed when working through similar cases. As an outcome of the discussion, the principal and teacher agreed to invite the student and their parents to participate in a solution focused discussion.

Finally, the teacher and the principal planned to share their experiences with the rest of the staff at a regular meeting. The teacher would be able to tell her story and explain how things had worked out. If they were successful, the teacher could also share the success. If they were unsuccessful, they could ask the staff to help them to find an alternative plan. They would not share the student’s name, grade, or course with other staff members unless the student also wanted to come to share their story or to tell the story collaboratively with the teacher.

The previous example illustrates how the Critical Inclusive Praxis can be applied within a collaborative school community. Applying the framework necessitates professional development focused on critical self-reflection, anti-oppressive pedagogy, and inclusive governance (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). It also calls for systemic support that enables principals to navigate sociopolitical complexities and advocate for marginalized communities (Darder et al., 2009; Giroux, 2009; McLaren, 2009). To that end, this framework reimagines principals not merely as administrators but as transformative leaders committed to building caring, equitable, and socially conscious school environments where all students can thrive.

Implications for School Leadership Preparation Programs

The Critical Inclusive Praxis framework has significant implications for school leader preparation programs, particularly in how leadership is conceptualized and cultivated. Preparation programs will need to move beyond technical and managerial models of leadership to explicitly center critical reflection, equity, and democratic engagement as core competencies. This requires preparing aspiring principals to critically examine power, policy, and accountability structures, including how these systems reproduce inequities for marginalized students and communities. Leader preparation should intentionally integrate coursework and experiential learning that develop racial literacy, ethical decision-making, and policy analysis skills, enabling future leaders to navigate accountability pressures while maintaining a commitment to inclusion and social justice. For example, programs might choose to offer courses in Anti-Racist Educational Leadership, Social Justice Leadership, and Leadership for Truth and Reconciliation.

In addition, Critical Inclusive Praxis calls for leadership preparation that emphasizes praxis through sustained, dialogical, and community-engaged learning experiences. Aspiring leaders should be provided structured opportunities to engage in collaborative inquiry, reflective practice, and inclusive problem-solving with teachers, families, and community partners. For example, leadership coaches could offer training sessions for school leaders and school communities in implementing the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework within their schools. Furthermore, clinical or practicum placements, mentoring, and coaching models should foreground relational leadership, shared decision making, and advocacy for marginalized groups. Embedding these practices into preparation programs supports the development of principals who are not only instructional leaders, but also reflective, ethical, and activist leaders capable of leading transformative change within complex and contested school contexts.

Conclusion

This article examined the Critical Inclusive Praxis and its five core elements: culture, change, leadership, inclusion, and challenge, emphasizing their interconnectedness and the ways they equip principals to engage in reflective, critical, and collaborative action. Principals play a central role in shaping school culture, acting as agents of change and navigating the complex internal and external dynamics that influence educational environments. Drawing on various leadership approaches, including transformational, moral, servant, shared, and transformative leadership, school leaders are positioned to foster justice-oriented and inclusive school communities. These elements empower principals to lead with purpose ensuring that schools become equitable where all students and stakeholders can thrive.

Inclusive education demands more than policy compliance; it requires a reimagining of leadership practices that actively dismantle systems of exclusion based on race, class, gender, ethnicity, religion, or ability. This involves reframing how diversity is understood, embedding inclusive pedagogical and organizational practices, and building authentic partnerships with families and communities. While the work of inclusive leadership is undoubtedly complex, principals who embrace the Critical Inclusive Praxis framework are better prepared to resist conformity and groupthink, elevate diverse perspectives, and lead schools with a deep commitment to equity, democracy, and social justice. In this way, Critical Inclusive Praxis offers a powerful and practical model for creating school cultures that are not only inclusive in name but transformative in practice.

Furthermore, Critical Inclusive Praxis builds on, yet extends, established traditions such as democratic schooling (Apple, 2014; Beane, 2019; Beane & Apple, 1995), holistic education (Woods & Woods, 2012), and collaborative leadership (Woods, 2018; Woods & Roberts, 2019) by integrating these approaches within a critically reflective, equity-centered praxis. While democratic and collaborative models emphasize participation and shared decision-making (Maalouf, 2019; Woods, 2017, 2018), Critical Inclusive Praxis foregrounds the interrogation of power, policy, and structural inequities that shape whose voices are heard and whose knowledge is valued. Unlike holistic approaches that may prioritize well-being without explicitly addressing systemic injustice (Woods & Woods, 2013), Critical Inclusive Praxis explicitly links inclusion to social justice, accountability pressures, and the lived realities of marginalized students and communities. Critical Inclusive Praxis is therefore not a technocratic reform model, a compliance-driven leadership approach, or a neutral call for collaboration within existing structures. Rather, it is a transformative orientation that requires leaders to critically reflect, engage in dialogical action, and enact inclusive practices that challenge the status quo. As such, Critical Inclusive Praxis advances a distinct framework that positions principals as ethical, reflective, and activist leaders capable of leading democratic and inclusive change amid contemporary policy and accountability constraints.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ayodeji Osiname

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Author Biographies

Dr. Ayodeji Osiname holds a PhD in Educational Leadership and Diversity Education from the University of Manitoba and is currently an Assistant Professor of Educational Administration in the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan. His research focuses on critical dimensions of educational leadership, including anti-racist and social justice leadership, decolonizing methodologies, and advancing diversity and equity in schools. In his graduate and undergraduate teaching, Dr. Osiname is committed to helping teachers and educational leaders to develop the knowledge and skills needed to support newcomers and to foster welcoming school communities. He is particularly dedicated to amplifying the voices of marginalized students and empowering them to advocate for themselves and their communities. His research and scholarly insights have been shared widely at national and international conferences.

Dr. Jacqueline Kirk holds a Ph.D. from the College of Education at the University of Saskatchewan. Jackie is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Leadership and Educational Administration in the Faculty of Education at Brandon University. She is dedicated to creating conditions that allow all people to experience a good and meaningful life. Her academic work explores how school leadership has the potential to shape wellbeing, positivity, and a sense of belonging within educational communities. These commitments ground her research interests, which include understanding the experiences of international students in Canada, the counselling role of school principals, leader wellness, and the use of storytelling as a path to individual and collective wellbeing. Jackie is continually inspired by her work with both graduate and undergraduate students and draws on her research to understand their experiences as teachers and emerging educational leaders.

References

Ainscow

Booth

Dyson

Farrell

Frankham

Gallannaugh

Howes

Smith

(2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge.

Akintayo

O. T.

Eden

C. A.

Ayeni

O. O.

Onyebuchi

N. C.

(2024). Inclusive curriculum design: Meeting the diverse needs of students for social improvement. International Journal of Frontiers in Sciences and Technology Research, 6(2), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.53294/ijfstr.2024.6.2.0037

Apple

M. W.

(2006). Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in education. Pedagogies, 1(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15544818ped0101_4

Apple

M. W.

(2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. Routledge.

Atasoy

(2020). The relationship between school principals' leadership styles, school culture and organizational change. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.277.16

(2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815614916

Barth

R. S.

(2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6–11. https://cursa.ihmc.us/rid=1207228897993_605800142_8024/Barth-CultureBuilder.pdf

Barton

E. A.

(2009). Leadership strategies for safe schools (2nd ed.). Corwin.

Bass

B. M.

(1995). The meaning of leadership. In Wren

T. J.

(Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insight on leadership through the ages (pp. 37–38). The Free Press.

10.

Beane

J. A.

(2019). This is what democracy looks like: Some thoughts on democratic schools. Middle Grades Review, 5(3), 1–6. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol5/iss3/2

11.

Beane

J. A.

Apple

M. W.

(1995). The case for democratic schools. In Apple

M. W.

Beane

J. A.

(Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 1–25). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

12.

Beatty

B. R.

(2013). The emotions of leadership. In Tomlinson

(Ed.), Educational management: Major themes in education (pp. 179–207). Routledge-Falmer.

13.

Berliner

D. C.

Nichols

S. L.

(2007, March 12). High-stakes testing is putting the nation at risk. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org

14.

Bogler

(2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Education Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969460

15.

Borwick

(2013, June). Revolutionary vs. evolutionary organizational change. HEIT management. https://www.heitmanagement.com/blog/2013/06/revolutionary-vs-evolutionary-organizational-change/

16.

Burns

J. M.

(1995). The crises of leadership. In Wren

T. J.

(Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insight on leadership through the ages (pp. 8–10). The Free Press.

17.

Bush

Glover

National College for School Leadership (NCSL, United Kingdom) . (2003). School leadership: Concept and evidence. Full report.

18.

Calabrese

R. L.

(2002). The leadership assignment: Creating change. Allyn & Bacon.

19.

Caldwell

Dixon

Floyd

Chaudoin

Post

Cheokas

(2012). Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1116-2

20.

Choi

G. S.

(2023). Included to be excluded: Accountability pressure and students in special education. University of Texas at Austin.

21.

Constantinides

(2022). High-stakes accountability policies and local adaptation: Exploring how school principals respond to multiple policy demands. School Leadership & Management, 42(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2021.2016687

22.

Cowling

Sim

K. N.

Orlando

Hamra

(2025). Untangling Digital Safety, literacy, and Wellbeing in School activities for 10- to 13-Year-Old students. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13183-z

23.

Culver

B. B.

(2025). The role of educational administrators in shaping school culture (Vol. 405). Murray State Theses and Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd/405

24.

Daly

A. J.

Der-Martirosian

Ong-Dean

Park

Wishard-Guerra

(2011). Leading under sanction: Principals' perceptions of threat rigidity, efficacy, and leadership in underperforming schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.557517

25.

Darder

Baltodano

M. P.

Torres

R. D.

(2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.

26.

Darling-Hammond

Bae

Cook-Harvey

C. M.

Lam

Mercer

Podolsky

Stosich

E. L.

(2016). Pathways to new accountability through the every Student Succeeds Act. Learning Policy Institute, 10(966.414).

27.

Davies

(2005). The essentials of school leadership. Sage.

28.

Deal

T. E.

Peterson

K. D.

(1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture. Office of educational research and program for the improvement practice (PIP Report 90-870). Superintendent of documents, U.S. government printing office, DC 20402-9325.

29.

DeMatthews

Mawhinney

(2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion: Exploring challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 844–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13514440

30.

Dematthews

D. E.

(2018). Urban principal narratives on including black boys with emotional disabilities. Journal of School Leadership, 28(3), 401–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461802800306

31.

Dulude

Milley

(2021). Institutional complexity and multiple accountability tensions: A conceptual framework for analyzing school leaders’ interpretation of competing demands. Policy Futures in Education, 19(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320940134

32.

Edwards

C. H.

(2008). Classroom discipline & management (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

33.

Edwards-Groves

Grootenboer

(2021). Conceptualising five dimensions of relational trust: Implications for middle leadership. School Leadership & Management, 41(3), 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2021.1915761

34.

Egalite

A. J.

Fusarelli

L. D.

Fusarelli

B. C.

(2017). Will decentralization affect educational inequity? The every student succeeds act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 757–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17735869

35.

Evans

(1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life of innovation. Jossey-Bass.

36.

Ezeji

C. L.

Uwizeyimana

D. E.

(2025). The implications of technology and innovation: A critical analysis of youth and children's activities on social media platforms. International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy (2687-2293), 7(3), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.36096/ijbes.v7i3.820

37.

Freire

(2009). From the pedagogy of the oppressed. In Darder

Baltodano

M. P.

Torres

R. D.

(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 52–60). Taylor & Francis.

38.

Fullan

(1991). The new meaning of educational change. Cassell.

39.

Fullan

(1999). Change forces: The sequel. Psychology Press.

40.

Fullan

(2004). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook. Jossey-Bass.

41.

Fullan

(2007). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.

42.

Fullan

Hargreaves

(Eds.), (2013). Teacher development and educational change. Routledge.

43.

Fuller

E. J.

Hollingworth

Pendola

(2017). The every Student succeeds act, state efforts to improve access to effective educators, and the importance of school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 727–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17711481

44.

Gardner

J. W.

(1990). On leadership. In Fullan

(Ed.), Educational leadership (pp. 3–12). Jossey Bass.

45.

Genza

G. M.

(2021). But what is leadership? A systematic review of the leadership concept in view of heightened educational leadership in Africa. Journal of Education and Practice, 12(9), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7176/jep/12-9-14

46.

Gibbs

(2025). School leaders’ approaches to supporting differentiated instruction. Educational Research, 67(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2025.2530613

47.

Gillani

Yuan

Saveski

Vosoughi

Roy

(2018). Me, my echo chamber, and I: Introspection on social media polarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference (pp. 823–831). ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186130

48.

Giroux

H. A.

(2009). Critical theory and educational practice. In Darder

Baltodano

M. P.

Torres

R. D.

(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 27–51). Taylor & Francis.

49.

Greenleaf

R. K.

(1995). Servant leadership. In Wren

T. J.

(Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insight on leadership through the ages (pp. 18–24). The Free Press.

50.

Guidera

I. A.

(2014). Principals implementing growth mindset norms: Insights on school culture reform. University of California.

51.

Gurr

Drysdale

Mulford

(2006). Models of successful principal leadership. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organization, 26(4), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430600886921

52.

Hanson

E. M.

(1996). Educational administration and organizational behaviour. Allyn & Bacon.

53.

Hargreaves

(1997). Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In Association for supervision and curriculum development yearbook (pp. 1–26). ASCD Publisher.

54.

Harris

Jones

(2019). Leading professional learning with impact. School Leadership & Management, 39(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1530892

55.

Harris

Lambert

(2003). Building leadership capacity for school improvement. Open University Press.

56.

Henriksen

Ø. H.

Paulsen

J. M.

(2021). Balancing trust and control through dialogue meetings in Norwegian school district governance. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 20(3), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09287-1

57.

Herman

Gates

S. M.

Arifkhanova

Bega

Chavez-Herrerias

E. R.

Han

Wrabel

S. L.

(2017). School leadership interventions under the every student succeeds act. Evidence reviews.

58.

Hernandez

Fraynd

(2015). Inclusive leadership and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students. In Scanlan

Theoharis

(Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 101–118). Routledge.

59.

Horsford

S. D.

Clark

(2015). Inclusive leadership and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students. In Scanlan

Theoharis

(Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 58–81). Routledge.

60.

Horsford

S. D.

Jean-Marie

Tran

Carpenter

Adams

Schares

Sanders

K. N.

(2017). Special issue introduction: School leadership and the every student succeeds act: Dilemmas and possibilities in an era of inequality. Journal of School Leadership, 27(5), 618–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700501

61.

Hughes

R. L.

Gunnet

R. C.

Curphy

G. J.

(1995). What is leadership? In Wren

T. J.

(Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insight on leadership through the ages (pp. 39–43). The Free Press.

62.

Janice

I. L.

(2011). Groupthink: The desperate drive for consensus at any cost. In Shafritz J. M., Ott J. S., Jang Y. S. (Eds.), Classics of organizational theory (7th ed., pp. 189–196). Wadsworth.

63.

Katz

Sugden

(2013). The three-block model of universal design for learning implementation in a high school. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 141, 1–28. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/42841/30698.

64.

Khalifa

M. A.

Gooden

M. A.

Davis

J. E.

(2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

65.

Kin

T. M.

Kareem

O. A.

(2015). Organizational change and leadership. Journal of Scientific Research, 23(1), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2015.23.01.22031

66.

Kirk

Osiname

A. T.

Reuter

(2025). Restoring healthy relationships: A case study of an early career female vice-principal in a rural French immersion school. In Smith

Schnellert

(Eds.), Research in teacher leadership in Canada: Transformative and contextualized agency (pp. 37–61). Canadian Association for Teacher Education (CATE).

67.

Klein

(2017). Steps to promote open and authentic dialogue between teachers and school management. School Leadership & Management, 37(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1325353

68.

Kugelmass

J. W.

(2003). Inclusive leadership, leadership for inclusion. New York State University Press.

69.

Kugelmass

J. W.

(2004). The inclusive school: Sustaining equity and standards. Teachers College Press.

70.

Leithwood

(2001). School leadership in the context of accountability policies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120110057082

71.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2005). Transformational leadership. In Davies

(Ed.), The essentials of school leadership (pp. 31–43). Sage.

72.

Leithwood

K. A.

Riehl

(2003). What we know about successful school leadership. National College for School Leadership (NCSL).

73.

Lipman

(2011). Neoliberal education restructuring dangers and opportunities of the present crisis. Monthly Review, 63(3), 114. https://doi.org/10.14452/mr-063-03-2011-07_13

74.

Maalouf

G. Y.

(2019). Effects of collaborative leadership on organizational performance. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 6(1), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.22271/ijmrd.2019.v6.i1.25

75.

Marling

C. D.

Marling

A. D.

(2015). Inclusive leadership and poverty. In Scanlan

Theoharis

(Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 39–57). Routledge.

76.

Martyn

Florian

(1997). Inclusive education in the marketplace. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(4), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360311970010403

77.

McLaren

(2009). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In Darder

Baltodano

M. P.

Torres

R. D.

(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed., pp. 61–83). Taylor & Francis.

78.

Milano

C. W.

(2018). Federalism's compromise: Inequity in education from ESEA to ESSA. [Senior Honors Thesis, Boston College]. eScholarship@BC. https://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:107948

79.

Miller

(2024). Exploring the lived experiences of educators implementing a program focusing on inclusivity, empathy, resilience, and collaboration: Perceptions of student learning and behavior (Order No. 31240626). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exploring-lived-experiences-educators/docview/3052367106/se-2

80.

Morris

V. G.

Taylor

S. I.

(1998). Alleviating barriers to family involvement in education: The role of teacher education. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(20), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00037-1

81.

Ogawa

R. T.

Bossert

S. T.

(1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Quarterly, 31(2), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X95031002004

82.

Ognibene

Wilkens

Taibi

Hernández-Leo

Kruschwitz

Donabauer

Lomonaco

Bursic

Lobo

R. A.

Sánchez-Reina

J. R.

Scifo

Schwarze

Börsting

Hoppe

Aprin

Malzahn

Eimler

(2023). Challenging social media threats using collective well-being-aware recommendation algorithms and an educational virtual companion. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5(654930), Article 654930. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.654930

83.

Osiname

A. T.

(2018). Utilizing the critical inclusive Praxis: The voyage of five selected school principals in building inclusive school cultures. Improving Schools, 21(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480217717529

84.

Osiname

A. T.

Kirk

(2024). My story matters: Using duo-ethnographic discussions as a method for engaging diverse voices to build caring and empathetic school communities. In Mackinnon

(Ed.), Transformative Change through Educational Leadership: Stories, models, and wonderings (pp. 183–200). Canadian Scholars.

85.

Osterman

K. F.

(2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323

86.

Pagan

(2024). Leadership practices and instructional improvement: A quantitative study in predominantly minority schools failing to meet ESSA accountability standards (Order No. 31639432). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (3184962821). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/leadership-practices-instructional-improvement/docview/3184962821/se-2

87.

Pagès

Ferrer-Esteban

Verger

Prieto

(2024). At the crossroad of performativity and the market: Schools’ logics of action under a hybrid accountability regime. Compare. A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 54(7), 1116–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2023.2175316

88.

Parker

S. A.

Day

V. P.

(1997). Promoting inclusion through instructional leadership: The role of the secondary school principal. NSSP Bulletin, 81(587), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659708158712

89.

Peterson

K. D.

Deal

T. E.

(1998). How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational Leadership, 56(1), 28–30.

90.

Peterson

K. D.

Deal

T. E.

(2009). The shaping school culture field book (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

91.

Portz

Beauchamp

(2022). Educational accountability and state ESSA plans. Educational Policy, 36(3), 717–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820917364

92.

Prasky

A. M. P.

(2025). From compliance to coherence: A qualitative study about how principals perceive and use observational data for professional learning decisions (Order No. 32038883). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (3201334372). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/compliance-coherence-qualitative-study-about-how/docview/3201334372/se-2

93.

Pratiwi

Wening

(2024). The impact of groupthink, group cohesiveness, and bounded rationality on the quality of decision making: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Manajemen, Kepemimpinan, dan Supervisi Pendidikan, 9(1), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.31851/jmksp.v9i1.14668

94.

Priyanto

Wening

(2024). The influence of dominant leadership and group cohesiveness on groupthink phenomenon in the decision-making process: A systematic literature review. Journal of Universal Studies, 4(6), 4766–4784. https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v4i6.1201

95.

Prosser

(Ed.), (1999). School culture. Sage.

96.

Riehl

C. J.

(2009). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-213

97.

Roache

Marshall

(2022). Transformative educational leadership: Leading for equity and social justice in the twenty-first century. In Gélinas-Proulx

Shields

C. M.

(Eds.), Leading for equity and social justice: Systemic transformation in Canadian education (pp. 70–81). University of Toronto Press.

98.

Ryan

(2003). Leading diverse schools. Kluwer Academic Publisher.

99.

Sailor

(2002). Whole school success and inclusive education: Building partnerships for learning, achievement, and accountability. Teachers College Press.

100.

Sautner

(2008). Inclusive, safe and caring schools: Connecting factors. Developmental Disabilities, 36(1), 135–167. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ82851.pdf.

101.

Scanlan

Johnson

(2015). Inclusive leadership on the social frontiers: Family and community engagement. In Scanlan

Theoharis

(Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 162–185). Routledge.

102.

Schein

E. H.

(1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

103.

Schein

E. H.

(2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

104.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

(1991). Constructing and changing theories of practice: The key to preparing school administrators. The Urban Review, 23(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01120237

105.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

(1992). Leadership as stewardship: Who is serving whom? In Fullan

(Ed.), Educational leadership (pp. 269–286). Jossey-Bass.

106.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

(2000). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, and personal meaning in our schools. Jossey-Bass.

107.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

(2007). Rethinking leadership: Collection of articles (2nd ed.). Corwin.

108.

Shields

C. M.

(2022). Transformative leadership theory: A comprehensive approach to equity, inclusion, excellence, and social justice. In Gélinas-Proulx

Shields

C. M.

(Eds.), Leading for equity and social justice: Systemic transformation in Canadian education (pp. 23–42). University of Toronto Press.

109.

Simpson

J. E.

(2013). A divergence of opinion: How those involved in child and family social work are responding to the challenges of the internet and social media. Child and Family social work, 21(1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12114

110.

Singleton

P. A.

May

D. C.

Decker

S. H.

Minor

K. I.

Wells

J. B.

(2006). Are there gangs in school? Journal of School Violence, 5(2), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v05no2-05

111.

Sousa

B. J.

(2024). Growth mindset. In Allison

J. K.

BegganGoethals

G. R.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of heroism studies (pp. 748–751). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48129-188

112.

Spillane

J. P.

(2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678

113.

Starratt

R. J.

(2005). Ethical leadership. In Davies

(Ed.), The essentials of school leadership (pp. 61–74). Sage.

114.

Tess

P. A.

(2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.032

115.

Theoharis

Causton

Tracy-Bronson

C. P.

(2016). Inclusive reform as a response to high-stakes pressure? Leading toward inclusion in the age of accountability. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611801403

116.

Theoharis

Scanlan

(2015). Leadership for increasingly diverse schools. Routledge.

117.

Theophilou

Lomonaco

Donabauer

Ognibene

Sánchez-Reina

R. J.

Hernàndez-Leo

(2023). AI and narrative scripts to educate adolescents about social media algorithms: Insights about AI overdependence, trust and awareness. In European conference on technology enhanced learning (pp. 415–429). Springer Nature Switzerland.

118.

UNICEF . (2006). The state of the world’s children 2006: Excluded and invisible.

119.

Villa

R. A.

Thousand

J. S.

(Eds.), (2005). Creating an inclusive school (2nd ed.). ASCD Publications.

120.

Wasserman

L. C.

Gallegos

P. V.

Ferdman

B. M.

(2006). Dancing with resistance: Leadership challenges of fostering a culture of inclusion. In Thomas

K. M.

(Ed.), Diversity resistance in organization: Manifestation and solutions (pp. 1–42). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

121.

Williams

S. M.

Welsh

R. O.

(2017). ESSA and school improvement: Principal1 preparation and professional development in a new era of education policy. Journal of School Leadership, 27(5), 701–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700505

122.

Wilson

D. C.

(2023). Defining leadership. Philosophy of Management, 22(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00210-7

123.

Woods

M. F.

(2018). Exploring collaborative learning methods in leadership development programs (Order No. 10786186). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exploring-collaborative-learning-methods/docview/2031062893/se-2.2031062893

124.

Woods

P. A.

(2017). Researching holistic democracy in schools. Democracy & Education, 25(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.65214/2164-7992.1334

125.

Woods

P. A.

Roberts

(2019). Collaborative school leadership in a global society: A critical perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218759088

126.

Woods

P. A.

Woods

G. J.

(2012). Degrees of school democracy: A holistic framework. Journal of School Leadership, 22(4), 707–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461202200402

127.

Woods

P. A.

Woods

G. J.

(2013). Holistic democracy. University of Hertfordshire.

128.

Young

M. D.

Winn

K. M.

Reedy

M. A.

(2017). The every student succeeds act: Strengthening the focus on educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 705–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17711481

129.

Zhang

W. J.

(2024). The predictive effect of cultural orientation and perceived school climate on the formation of teachers’ growth mindsets. Frontiers in Education, 9(1428890), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1428890

130.

Zimmerman

(2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSAP Bulletin, 90(3), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521