encyclopedia of educational leadership administration€¦ · encyclopedia of educational...

EducationalLeadership andAdministration

Encyclopedia ofEducational

Leadership andAdministration

Encyclopedia of

FM-Vol-II-English-4854.qxd 1/11/2006 10:42 AM Page i

EducationalLeadership and

Fenwick W. EnglishEditor

Administration

Encyclopedia of

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2VolumeL-Z

FM-Vol-II-English-4854.qxd 1/11/2006 10:42 AM Page iii

Copyright © 2006 by Sage Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

For information:

Sage Publications, Inc.2455 Teller RoadThousand Oaks, California 91320E-mail: [email protected]

Sage Publications Ltd.1 Oliver’s Yard55 City RoadLondon EC1Y 1SPUnited Kingdom

Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.B-42, Panchsheel EnclavePost Box 4109New Delhi 110 017 India

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration / Fenwick W. English, [editor].p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-7619-3087-6 (cloth : set)

1. School management and organization—United States—Encyclopedias.2. Educational leadership—United States—Encyclopedias.3. Public schools—United States—Encyclopedias. I. English, Fenwick W.LB2805.E527 2006371.2′003—dc22 2005023061

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

06 07 08 09 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Publisher: Rolf A. JankeDevelopmental Editor: Paul ReisProduction Editor: Laureen A. SheaTypesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.

FM-Vol-II-English-4854.qxd 1/11/2006 10:42 AM Page iv

Contents

List of Entries vii

Reader’s Guide xii

List of Figures and Tables xvii

Entries

Volume 1: A–K 1–548

Volume 2: L–Z 549–1086

Index I-1–I-59

FM-Vol-II-English-4854.qxd 1/11/2006 10:42 AM Page v

� LANGUAGE THEORIESAND PROCESSESAll linguistic theories describe language as a learnedsystem of sounds having an arbitrary value that meetsa social need to communicate. This system is com-prised of units, or subsystems, that are embedded intoeach other. Sounds are combined to produce words,words are combined to produce utterances, and utter-ances are combined to produce discourse.

More precisely, these subsystems can be classifiedas follows: phonology—the sounds of a language;orthography—the ways in which language is organized in awritten text, including systems of punctuation, capitaliza-tion, and paragraphing; graphophonics—the relationshipbetween the sound systems of language and the writtensystems of language; syntax or grammar—the study ofthe systematic ways in which words are organized andrelated to one another for meaning to occur; semantics—the study of vocabulary and how words and phrases relateto objects and ideas; pragmatics—the study of the waysin which language use changes depending on context,time, place, and the social relationships between speakersand listeners, readers and writers.

Knowledge of a language is knowledge of a set ofsubsystems that allows us to comprehend and producean infinite number of utterances. People use languageas a way of establishing contact, maintaining relation-ships, and sharing and categorizing experiences andideas. But what causes acquisition of this knowledge?

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Most children complete the basic language acquisitionprocess by the age of 5 without any direct instruction.

Current theories of language acquisition posit thathumans have a unique ability to test various hypothe-ses about the structure of language, to develop rules ofa particular language and remember them, and to usethese rules to generate appropriate language in variouscircumstances. As a child develops, these hypothesesabout how language is structured are modified by par-ticular language input. In other words, the set of rulesavailable to the child changes as the child developsand recognizes what are and are not permissible struc-tures in his or her particular language. Furthermore,the evidence of developmental change is clear in thetypes of utterances and discourse understood and pro-duced at various ages.

This capacity for language acquisition follows apredictable pattern through different stages of acquisi-tion. While the rate of acquisition may be different,the order is the same for all children and for languagesother than English. Constance Weaver outlined thefollowing stages in 1998:

1. Babbling is more a result of developing finemotor skills than an attempt to communicate. Thesesounds seem to be required in order for infants todevelop the musculature needed to produce coherentspeech later on.

2. Single-word utterances are usually nouns forcommon objects and people in the child’s life. Theseutterances are the beginnings of the child’s purposefulattempt to communicate. At this stage, overgeneraliza-tion, when a child formulates a rule and applies it toobroadly, is common. For example, when a child learnsthat the four-legged friend in the house is a dog, or thatthe dog’s name is Baxter, the child then generalizes

549

L

L-English-4854.qxd 1/11/2006 10:45 AM Page 549

and refers to all four-legged animals (cats, cows,horses, etc.) as dogs or as Baxters. Near the end of thisstage, children begin to apply words to the behavior ofothers and not just their own.

3. Word combining and syntax emerge when thechild begins to combine first two or three, then manywords together. The ability to combine words signifiesthe ability to convey deeper meaning and use morecomplex grammar.

Noam Chomsky, the originator of transformational-generative linguistics, suggested that what a grammarshould do is account for native speakers’ unconsciousbut functional knowledge of grammar (i.e., “deep struc-ture”), which enables comprehension and production oflanguage. This internalized knowledge is one meaningof the word grammar. In this sense, grammar refers to acapacity for language, a native ability to create andcomprehend utterances. His work represented a markedshift from the structuralist theorists who based theirgrammars on an analysis of the structures of a language.They focused on the surface structure of sentences andanalyzed them into increasingly smaller components.Grammar may also refer to these formal systems thattheorists have developed and studied to explain and ana-lyze language. It is important to point out that this typeof study has not produced a single body of knowledgeon which all linguists agree. Rather, it has produced dif-ferent grammars that are each dependent on differentunderlying assumptions and different methods of analy-sis and, accordingly, have different results. We now turnto the primary distinctions between prescriptive gram-mar and descriptive grammar.

PRESCRIPTIVISMVERSUS DESCRIPTIVISM

As the term suggests, someone who subscribes to aprescriptive approach to grammar believes that thereis a prescribed list of rules to which all speakers of alanguage must conform. Those who do not comply aresaid to be speaking “incorrectly.” This is the approachtaken in most language instruction and is still widelyused in many language arts classrooms. A prescriptiveapproach reflects a transmission model of educationthat considers learning to be best fostered through con-tinued practice of the rules.

However, in their 1989 article “ExplainingGrammatical Concepts,” Muriel Harris and Katherine

E. Rowan found that continued practice, in mostinstances, does not promote adequate understanding.Being able to identify sentence fragments in an exer-cise written specifically for that purpose does notguarantee that the student knows the critical featuresof fragments in contrast to grammatically completesentences, much less that the student can reliably dis-tinguish between the two. Nor, as another example,does memorizing the rule that it is ungrammatical toend a sentence with a preposition ensure that thespeaker who has memorized this rule will no longerconstruct such sentences. Furthermore, the problemfor prescriptivists is that most sentences that are notgrammatically correct sound perfectly acceptable tonearly all speakers, and nearly all speakers regularly useungrammatical sentences.

Rather than prescribing how people should speak,contemporary linguistics and language theories andtheorists are interested in observing and describing howpeople actually do speak. Descriptive grammar doesnot judge language production as correct or incorrect. Adescriptivist works from the assumption that whenevernative language speakers of a language speak, they arefollowing a set of grammar rules. However, not all nativespeakers are following the exact same set of rules.Consider the following two sentences:

1. If I were you, I would choose a different teacher.

2. If I was you, I would choose a different teacher.

To some extent, there is certain to be disagreementamong native speakers regarding which of these state-ments is grammatically correct and which is ungram-matical. For some, sentence (1) is grammatical andsentence (2) is ungrammatical; for others, the oppositeis true. However, because sentences like (1) and (2) arespoken regularly by native speakers of English, theyare both grammatical for the people who speak them.However, it is difficult to imagine any native speaker ofEnglish disagreeing that a sentence such as “Wish theyfor a teacher new” is ungrammatical. Descriptivists useexamples such as these to highlight that while all nativeEnglish speakers share certain rules, we do not shareall rules. In fact, there is a tremendous amount of linguis-tic diversity among the speakers of English, as well asamong the speakers of any language.

This is not to suggest that descriptivists do not acknowl-edge grammar rules; they do. For prescriptivists, how-ever, rules are constructed (rather than prescribed) fromobservations of real language data—from language in

550———Language Theories and Processes


use. Furthermore, the correct versus incorrect distinc-tion gives way to the appropriate versus inappropri-ate distinction. That is, when speaking with peoplewho prefer sentence (1) to (2), it would be appropriateto use (1), and when speaking with people who prefer(2), it would be appropriate to use (2).

In the language arts classroom, this concept becomesextremely important when considering instruction.For people to be successful in American society,knowing how to speak standard English (i.e., the vari-ety of English accepted in formal contexts) is critical.Descriptive linguists, while being careful not to judgenonstandard English as incorrect, work to teachstudents the differences between the two and how toproduce standard English in the appropriate contexts.The focus of descriptive linguists on actual utterancesled quite naturally to the study of dialect.

LANGUAGE VARIATIONS AND DIALECTS

Working within the traditions of structural or prescrip-tive linguists, dialecticians have shown that most differ-ences in usage among speakers cannot be consideredaberrations from standard preferred speech. Rather, mostvariations in usage derive from different language com-munities that develop their own varying norms.

For example, William Labov showed in 1972 thatBlack Vernacular English (BVE) is a distinct subsystemwithin the larger grammar of English with its own regu-lar conventions and rules. One such rule allows for whatLabov calls a remote present perfect in the use of been,such as “I been know your name,” in which been knowmeans “have known for a long time and still know.”

Shirley Heath described in 1983 instances whenteachers who do not know BVE usage often interpretit as incorrect standard English. Ethnographic studiessuch as Heath’s abundantly demonstrate how the dif-ferent language conventions of people living and work-ing in the same community can cause conflict andmisunderstandings on the parts of teachers andstudents. As a result, these often lead to inappropriatejudgments of students and failure to learn.

In an effort to address this and related issues,in 1972 the National Council of Teachers of English(NCTE) adopted a resolution on language andstudents’ dialects titled “Resolution on the Students’Rights to Their Own Language.” For 30 years, thisposition statement has served as a guidepost forNCTE’s continued focus on the issue of dialects andlanguage usage in the classroom and has been the

basis for other professional and governmental organi-zations. Viewing language from this perspective posi-tions language acquisition and usage as more thanacquiring autonomous, cognitive skills. Rather, it sit-uates language within social contexts and immerses itwithin human relationships. Theories of language, aswe move through the twenty-first century, construelanguage as social practices.

SOCIAL AND POLITICALAPPROACHES TO LANGUAGE

Sociolinguistics, a part of the new literacies, perceivesthe function of language as more than to communicateinformation. Language is, in addition, also a device tothink and feel with, as well as a device with which tosignal and negotiate social identity. In other words,the new literacies of this century focus on language associal practices. Through the work of Lev Vygotsky,theorists, researchers, and teachers came to realizethat what students can accomplish on their own wasonly a small part of what they could do with the helpof others. Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal develop-ment” referred to the spectrum of language activitiesthat individuals could accomplish with the assistanceof more able individuals in their social realm.

Understanding that language is shaped by socialand cultural contexts contributed toward our enhancedunderstanding of the role of language in a democracyand its political implications. From such a perspec-tive, issues of race, class, and gender are explicitaspects of understanding language processes. Muchcurrent language theory centers on the social andpolitical implications of language.

Language theories, in large measure, constituteand are constituted by shifts in culture. Movements withinthe field are blended and complex, suggesting the fluidityof language as a living cultural, social, and political entity.In a democratic society such as that in the United States,understanding language theories and processes asdynamic and open systems provides a stronger sense ofthe purpose and consequences of the role of language forstudents, for communities, and for the nation.

—Gina DeBlase

See also affective education; at-risk students; Black education;cognition, theories of; computers, use and impact of; con-structivism, social; critical race theory; critical theory; cross-cultural studies; curriculum, theories of; differentiation ofstimuli; early childhood education; elementary education;

Language Theories and Processes———551


high schools; individual differences, in children; instructionaltechnology; Latinos; learning environments; literacy, theoriesof; measurement, theories of; metacognition; minorities, inschools; multiculturalism; National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress; reading, history of, use in schools; under-achievers, in schools; writing, teaching of

Further Readings and References

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague,Netherlands: Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Harris, M., & Rowan, K. E. (1989). Explaining grammaticalconcepts. Journal of Basic writing, 8(2), 21–41.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, andwork in communities and classrooms. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Joshi, R., & Aaron, P. (2005). Handbook of orthography andliteracy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kist, W. (2005). New literacies in action. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Kucer, S., & Silva, C. (2005). Teaching the dimensions ofliteracy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies inthe black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Marsh, J., & Millard, E. (2005). Popular literacies, childhoodand schooling. New York: Routledge.

National Council of Teachers of English. (1974). Resolution onthe students’right to their own language. Urbana, IL: Author.

Soler, J., & Openshaw, R. (2005). Literacy crises and readingpolicies: Why our children still can’t read. New York:Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth,NH: Boynton/Cook.

� LATINOS

The term Latinos is often used interchangeably withthe term Hispanic or with the various national originterms (e.g. Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban) found informal educational sources. Indeed, the choice ofterms to describe this population has been the subjectof considerable scholarly and political debate. Theimpact of these debates on education is ongoing,given that available data on the educational status andrepresentation of Latinos in the United States can bemisleading if one is not careful to identify such factorsas national origin, economic class, native language,ethnic identity, and so forth to more accurately depict

the tremendous within-group diversity. Moreover,each of the groups that together comprise U.S. Latinoshas its own particular history, often rooted in theregional or generational issues that likewise influencetheir particular educational experiences. Such within-group diversity notwithstanding, the available data onLatinos in U.S. schools do indicate that several signif-icant issues exist and persist for this population.

LATINO DEMOGRAPHICS

Distribution of LatinosAcross the United States

Latinos can be found all throughout the UnitedStates. In total, Latinos comprised 12.5% (35.3 mil-lion) of the country’s total population in 2000, andthis figure represents an increase of 58% since the1990 census. The 2000 census indicates that this pop-ulation is concentrated in the largest numbers in sevenstates: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois,Arizona, and New Jersey, with half of all U.S. Latinosconcentrated in California and Texas alone. Latinoswere the highest proportion of the population in EastLos Angeles (California) and Puerto Rico, with 96.8%and 98.9% of the total population in these areas,respectively. Throughout the United States, 58.5% ofall Latinos identified themselves as Mexican (origin)and 9.6% as Puerto Rican, thereby representing thetwo largest Latino groups. Approximately 28% of allLatinos identified themselves as “Other Hispanic” inthe 2000 census, including those who identified them-selves as Central American (4.8% of all Latinos), SouthAmerican (3.8%), and Cuban (3.5%).

Based on data derived from the Pew HispanicCenter in Washington, D.C., Latino workers madeup 40% of the 2.5 million jobs created in 2004, eventhough they made up only 15% of the U.S. workforce.Of these, 88% of the 1 million new jobs were filled byLatinos from Mexico. According to Joel Millman in2005, the Pew study bolsters the belief that immi-grants do not take jobs from American workers butinstead supplement the U.S. workforce.

Latinos in U.S. Public Schools

The significance of the Latino population figuresis particularly apparent in the U.S. public schools.Among K–12 public schools, Latinos made up 17% ofthe total student population in 2000, according to theU.S. Department of Education. The concentration ofLatino students in public schools varied by region,

552———Latinos


with most Latinos concen-trated in the South and West.Latinos at least doubled theirpresence as a percentage oftotal regional K–12 enroll-ments in all four regions ofthe United States between1975 and 2000. For example,Latinos comprised 31.6%of total public school enroll-ments in the West in 2000,showing an increase of 16.8percentage points since 1975,or nearly a 114% increase.

The distribution of Latinostudents among school levelsreflects the relative youth ofthis population. As noted byRichard Valencia in the bookChicano School Failure andSuccess (2nd ed.), althoughin 2000 Latinos represented17% of total K–12 enroll-ments, they comprised 20%of the kindergarten enrollmentsversus 15% of the totalenrollments in high school.Indeed, in California, Latinos,who made up about 45% ofthe state’s total enrollmentsin 2003–2004, comprised 51% of the total kinder-garten population versus 37% of all 12th graders. InTexas, Latinos, who made up 44% of the state’s totalenrollment in 2003–2004, comprised 48% of the totalkindergarten population versus 43% of all 9th gradersand 35% of all 12th graders. Part of this distributionpattern is attributable to significant dropout ratesamong Latinos (discussed below). Nevertheless, anoptimistic view of these data indicates that the enroll-ments of Latinos will continue to grow and maintain asignificant presence overall, particularly in states suchas California and Texas, but also in states such asIllinois, Iowa, Georgia, and New York. (See Figure 1.)

Growing Presence ofEnglish Language Learners

It is important to note that among the K–12 Latinostudent population is quite a large and growing pro-portion of English language learners (ELL). The U.S.Department of Education reports that in 2001–2002,

ELL students numbered one in four students inCalifornia and one in seven students in Texas, wherethe vast majority of ELL students are Latinos andSpanish speakers. In California, for example, thestate’s department of education indicates that 85% ofall ELL students were Spanish speakers and num-bered over 1.3 million in 2003–2004. Unfortunatelyfor many of the ELL students, only 30% of publicschool teachers instructing these students have receivedpertinent training, and a mere 3% have degrees inEnglish as a Second Language (ESL) or bilingual edu-cation, as noted by the U.S. Department of Educationin 1993–1994. Indeed, 2003–2004 data from theCalifornia Department of Education indicates thatonly 38% of ELL students had met the state board ofeducation criterion for English proficiency.

Two scholars who have documented the complexi-ties of serving Latino ELL students are GuadalupeValdés and Eugene E. García. Valdés’s work attendsto the role of school-parental/family interactions andrelationships in supporting Latino immigrant students’

Latinos———553

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Grades 9–12 1,854,509

Grades 7–8 1,000,558

Grades K–6

756,860

444,761

1,662,132

675,426

340,642

1,019,897 3,386,700

Total Latino Total White State Total

Figure 1 Total Latino, White, and Statewide Public School Enrollments by GradeLevel, California 2003–2004

SOURCE: Adapted from California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit.(2004). California public schools, statewide report: Enrollment by gender, grade, and ethnicdesignation, 2003–04 [Datafile].


participation in schools. It also illuminates the inter-connectedness of race, class, national origin, culturalheritage, and educational status in understanding howimmigrant students and their families navigate theeducational system in their own behalf. In a similarvein, García argues for the incorporation of an under-standing of individual and shared cultural identity for-mation and maintenance into discussions of bilingualeducation policy. In doing so, he contends that bilin-gual education policy can be better aimed at produc-ing learning environments for Latino ELL studentsthat are more responsive to both their needs and theirtalents.

Despite such remarkable changes in the studentdemographics at the K–12 levels, Latinos in postsec-ondary institutions have not increased very rapidlyover the past several decades. Affirmative action poli-cies had enabled some states to make inroads in therecruitment of Latinos and other students of color intohigher education institutions. However, recent changesin policy, including the elimination of affirmativeaction in some states, have likewise had an impact onthe degree to which Latinos participate in college andgraduate school. Over the past two and one halfdecades, Latinos have only increased their presenceamong students enrolled in graduate/first-professionalprograms by 3 percentage points, moving from 2%in 1976 to just 5% in 2000, according to the U.S.Department of Education. Translated into numbers,this means that of the 2.2 million students enrolledin graduate/first-professional programs across thecountry, only 110,000 were Latinos in 2000. Among 2million individuals holding doctorates in the UnitedStates in 2001, only 71,000 were Latinos.

PERSISTENT CHALLENGES: HISTORICALPATTERNS AND RECENT TRENDS INLATINO EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Latinos have and continue to face tremendous chal-lenges to their success in schools. The lack of educa-tional success among Latinos has been attributed towhat many researchers have deemed to be deficien-cies in their genetics, home cultures and experiences,parental education, and socioeconomic class origins.Rather than rely on such “cultural deficit” explanatorymodels, other contemporary researchers insteadexplain the relative lack of educational success amongLatinos as being tied to institutional and systemicbarriers that perpetuate the unequal status of this

group relative to their White, middle-class counter-parts. While more recent research on Latino educa-tional experiences has focused on best practices forensuring Latino success (as discussed in more detailbelow), the data indicate that challenges in educa-tional access and attainment still persist.

Dropouts

Perhaps one of the most persistent challenges forLatino students in the United States is the high rate ofdropping out of school. Although it is clear that therehave been improvements in dropouts when one followsmore recent cohorts of students through their highschool years, scholars have pointed to the persistence ofthe gap that results in dropout rates among Latinos thatare up to four times the rate of White students in simi-lar age groups (using U.S. census data). Even if oneonly examines the dropout data in comparisons of U.S.-born Latinos and White students, the gap is still 2:1 interms of dropout rates, and the gap has persisted for thenearly three decades of data available through the cen-sus. Nevertheless, the presence of immigrant studentsamong the total Latino population, some of whom havehad very little or no formal schooling prior to theirarrival in the United States, at times contributes to over-stated dropout rates relative to White students. In arecent report sponsored by the Pew Hispanic Center inWashington, D.C., among U.S.-born and immigrantLatinos, ages 16 to 19, the dropout rates varied widelyacross Latino subgroups in 2000. For 16- to 19-year-oldMexican-origin immigrants, the dropout rate was 39%versus 15% for their U.S.-born Mexican-origin coun-terparts. Among Puerto Rican students, the immi-grant to U.S.-born difference was 22% versus 12%.Regionally speaking, among 16- to 19-year-olds,California’s immigrant Latinos experienced a 34%dropout rate compared to U.S.-born Latinos with a10% dropout rate. Likewise, in Florida, the dropoutrate among immigrant Latinos was 26% for 16- to 19-year-olds, double the rate for U.S.-born Latinos inthat state.

High School Completion

Simply examining dropout rates will not provide asufficient picture of Latino graduation or completionrates, particularly given that Latinos may take signifi-cantly longer to graduate with a high school diplomathan other students. According to the National Center

554———Latinos


for Education Statistics, Latino high school comple-tion rates have fluctuated over the past two and onehalf decades. Nevertheless, in 2001, 58% of Latino18- to 24-year-olds had completed high school. Thispercentage is markedly lower than their White coun-terparts, of whom 83% had completed high school.While high school completion, in and of itself, doesnot always translate into substantial returns to thestudents, for Latinos it can lead to higher education andthereby better employment opportunities.

College Eligibility Rates

Even for those Latino students who are able topersist in school in order to graduate, there remains animportant hurdle to further educational and employ-ment opportunities. College eligibility among Latinohigh school graduates has been the focus of the workof many scholars. In California, for example, only21.5% of all Latino 12th-grade graduates completedall of the courses required for admission to theUniversity of California and/or the California StateUniversity systems in 2002–2003. While 2002–2003Texas data indicate that Latinos completed the“Recommended High School Program” at rates com-parable to White students in that state (about 57% ver-sus 56%, respectively), it appears that Latinos aredisproportionately underrepresented among studentscompleting their high school programs with theDistinguished Achievement Program designation.While Latinos comprised 34% of the total graduatepopulation, they comprised 29% of those graduatescompleting the college-level coursework associatedwith the Distinguished Achievement Program.Comparable figures for White Texas graduates, how-ever, show a disproportionate overrepresentationwith their being 49% of the total graduate populationand 60% of those accomplishing the DistinguishedAchievement Program designation.

Representation AmongTeachers and Administrators

Researchers have argued for the importance ofrepresentation of Latinos at all levels of K–12 andpostsecondary education, particularly in light of schol-arship on the role of Latino culture in their educationalsuccess. Table 1 presents data that reflect the dispro-portionate representation of Latino teachers and

administrators relative to students in U.S. publicschools. For example, nationwide figures indicate thatof all school principals and teachers, only 5% and 6%,respectively, are Latinos. Similarly, in the states ofCalifornia and Texas, where Latinos are found in suchhigh concentrations among students, Latino represen-tation among teaching and administrative ranks isquite low. In both states, Latinos comprise well over40% of the total student enrollments, yet they com-prise much less than 20% of the teachers and adminis-trators. Given the data on Latino participation in highereducation, these figures are not necessarily surprising,but they do illuminate the challenge that schools facein becoming responsive learning environments, as rec-ommended in the research of Patricia Gándara, García,Valdés, Valencia, and others. (See Table 1.)

Newly Emerging EducationalIssues: Resegregation, High-StakesTesting, and Zero-Tolerance Policies

There are several policy issues affecting the growingnumbers of Latino students in the United States, par-ticularly in urban settings: resegregation, high-stakestesting, and zero-tolerance policies. These issuespotentially thwart educational efforts aimed at increas-ing Latino attainment and success in public schools.Data from 2003 on the distribution of Latino fourthgraders, for example, show that 40% attend schoolswith concentrations of children of color of 90% ormore. Latinos are more likely now than before deseg-regation efforts in the 1960s to attend segregatedschools. Latinos face a variety of forms of segregation,such as that based on language and academic ability.Indeed, the movement toward high-stakes testing todetermine the placement and progress of Latinos inschools has become a serious concern for manyresearchers. They argue that Latino students’ learning,academic growth, and academic giftedness are notonly inadequately captured by many of the standard-ized tests designed to “hold schools accountable” fortheir educational success, but the tests discriminateagainst students by testing them on material that theymay not have been taught in the first place. This situa-tion is particularly acute, according to these scholars,in the case of English-language-learning Latinoswhose schools may not provide assessments that areappropriate measures of their progress. Moreover,given the relatively high concentration of Latinosin urban communities, with the added attention on

Latinos———555


identifying violent behavior among urban youth(males, especially), Latino students face additional iso-lation as targets for zero-tolerance policies. Increasingnumbers of Latinos in Texas, for example, are removedfrom school for a variety of disciplinary issues, result-ing in the overrepresentation of Latino (and AfricanAmerican) males in suspensions, expulsions, and assign-ments to alternative educational settings.

Documenting Latino High Achievement

Latino high achievers are largely invisible in urbanhigh schools and in educational research. Over the lastthree decades, numerous scholars have written about theconnections between the academic underachievement ofLatino students schooled in the United States and socioe-conomic/academic barriers. Sonia Nieto, John Ogbu,Signithia Fordham, and William Vélez have variouslydiscussed the impact of internal and direct colonialism,single-parent households, poverty, culturally irrelevantcurricula, and nonacademic tracking on Latino studentswithin traditional public urban schools. Other scholarscontend that Latino academic underachievement hasbeen exacerbated by the disproportionate representationof Puerto Rican- and Mexican-origin students in specialeducation programs that academically miscategorizethem and employ watered-down curricula.

While this scholarly work is important and theoret-ically rich, recent scholarship is turning the page from

an exclusive overemphasis on academic under-achievement to stories that describe the conditions thatmake it possible for working-class Latino students tobecome high academic achievers. Thus, to counteractthe overabundance of scholarly literature that discusseswhy Puerto Rican- and Mexican-origin students dropout of school and/or academically underachieve, schol-ars on Latino issues have recently produced researchthat focuses on the institutional, familial, and commu-nity-based factors that have the potential to enablethese students to become high academic achievers. Inturn, this research has resulted in major implicationsfor students, families/communities, policymakers, andschool reformers.

Research With Puerto Rican Students

Scholars have focused on the high achievingschooling experiences of Puerto Rican students. Withthis line of inquiry, they have countered traditionalperceptions of the overall lack of support and caringthat working-class families and communities of colorprovide their children. What is especially interestingto note is that all of these researchers situate the mul-tiple ways in which families, and especially mothers,serve as support systems to these students’ academicsuccess. Thus, the research directly challenges cul-tural deficit theories regarding the lack of academicsuccess among Latinos by employing new theoretical

556———Latinos

Table 1 Distribution of Latino, White, and Total U.S. Public School Teachers, Administrators/Principals, andStudents (in thousands)

Teachers Administratorsa Students

Latino White Total Latino White Total Latino White Total

US 169.0 2,531.6 3,002.3 4.3 68.9 83.8 8,103.3 28,612.4 47,440.5(6%) (84%) (5%) (82%) (17%) (60%)

CA 41.5 227.7 306.9 3.5 19.3 26.4 2,717.6 2,138.1 6,108.1(14%) (74%) (13%) (73%) (45%) (35%)

TX 50.4 204.3 279.8 2.9 12.2 17.1 1,735.0 1,701.2 4,163.4(18%) (73%) (17%) (72%) (42%) (41%)

SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), The Digest of EducationStatistics, 2002; NCES, “Public School Student, Staff, and Graduate Counts by State: School Year 2001-02,” April 2004; CaliforniaDepartment of Education, Educational Demographics Unit, 2001-2002, http://data1.cde.ca.gov; Texas Education Agency, Snapshot 2002,http://www.tea.state.tx.us.

a. NCES data source only reported ethnic demographics for school principals in the United States. California and Texas data includeprincipals and all other administrators.


frameworks that situate the experiences of PuertoRican students within the context of their families andcommunities as a base (versus lack) of support.

For example, Pedro Antrop-González found thatthe families of Puerto Rican high achievers held theirchildren to high academic expectations and expectedtheir children’s teachers to do the same. In addition,mothers took it upon themselves to help their childrenwith homework. In the event that the mother, or anyother family member, could not help with homework,outside help was found so that their child would notfall behind in their schoolwork. Other forms of famil-ial support included children being encouraged todevelop their bilingual language skills and biculturalframes of reference in order to navigate life inside andoutside their homes and communities. Moreover, thefamilies of these high achievers taught their childrenthat many people, especially many of their teachersand peers, would hold them to low standards andexpectations by virtue of being Puerto Rican; hence itwas crucial that their high academic performanceserve as a tool with which to dismantle these erro-neous assumptions.

Other scholars have also located the high academicachievement of Puerto Rican students in relation totheir access (or lack thereof) to community-based andschool-based resources. These students’ acquisition ofsocial capital and their participation in social networks,including churches and extracurricular activities withinstitutional agents, greatly contributes to high acade-mic achievement. These social networks serve multi-ple purposes, such as allowing for the establishment oftrust-laden relationships between youth and adults andthe consequent exchange of valuable information likethe college entry process, the scholarship applicationprocess, and providing general mentoring/advice. Thismentoring especially contributes to the developmentof a “school kid identity,” which places emphasis onproschool behaviors like going to school every day,remaining on top of schoolwork/homework, seekingplacement in safe social niches with other high achiev-ers, participation in extracurricular activities, and con-forming to institutionally sanctioned rules and norms.On the contrary, “street kids” found it very difficultto situate themselves in school-oriented peer networks,and often adopted negative means of resistance toschooling through membership in gangs and/or notgoing to school altogether. Finally, all these scholarsultimately contend that large, comprehensive highschools often do a poor job at equitably encouraging

all students to access social networks that foment aschool kid reality.

Research with Mexican-Origin Students

Scholars have contributed to the literature on theschooling experiences of high achieving Mexican-originstudents. Like much of the aforementioned workregarding Puerto Rican high achievers, Mexican-originstudents and their families have informed these schol-ars of similar institutional and familial/community con-ditions that have supported their high academicachievement. One thorough analysis of familial sup-port among Mexican origin students, for example, canbe found in Latino High School Graduation: Defyingthe Odds by Harriett D. Romo and Toni Falbo.

Families play a very active role in the academicsuccess of their children because they go the extra mileto mentor them at home and seek positive supportstructures outside the home by way of larger outsidecommunities. Institutions work to either help or hinderMexican-origin students’ academic success. Whilestudent membership in “cosmopolitan networks” andtheir access to positive support structures and resourcesare very helpful for students, Romo and Falbo also dis-cuss the myriad ways in which institutions diligentlywork to inequitably offer them to all students.

While it is known that some teachers try very hardto construct additive curricula by weaving theirstudents’ linguistic and sociopolitical realities withintheir classrooms, it is also known that most teachersdo not. Rather, as documented in a Texas high school,many school-related forces strive hard to maintain thestatus quo through subtractive schooling that demo-nizes the bilingualism and biculturalism that studentsand their families already bring to their classrooms.Furthermore, this subtractive schooling is reinforcedthrough structures of large, comprehensive schoolsand overcrowded classrooms where students, theirteachers, and other school staff members often find itimpossible to authentically know each other and maintainmutually caring relationships.

Academic resiliency among Latino students ismost evident in those high-achieving students whocomplete school and successfully complete college.These students are the ones who are high achievingthroughout their school life. The research on high-achieving Latino students identifies their copingstrategies. Gándara identifies protective factors thatmay assist a child in avoiding undesirable developmental

Latinos———557


and academic outcomes. Protective factors cangenerally be categorized under the role of parents,the students’ behavioral and cognitive attributes, andschool/institutional factors. Richard Duran identifiesfactors of resourcefulness in Latino students’ ability toovercome incompatibilities between the student andthe educational institution. Henry Trueba’s work onthe academic success of immigrant children showsthat if children are able to manage to retain a strongand affirming self-identity and remain as part of thesociocultural community, they can achieve.

Future Directions for DocumentingLatino Educational Success

Students have taught educational scholars that theiracademic success is often not attributable to school-related factors like teachers and other institutionalagents. Rather, their success is more clearly linkedto home and community-related factors like the influ-ence and advocacy of their mothers, the importanceof their ethnic identity, and their acquisition of socialcapital through community-based social networks likechurches and extracurricular activities. The difficul-ties experienced by high-achieving Puerto Rican- andMexican-origin students lead researchers, such asFestus Obiakor, to believe that even “good” largecomprehensive urban high schools still inequitablystructure opportunities for high achievement. That is,even for high-achieving Latino students, many schoolsdo not tap into the funds of knowledge that thesestudents bring to school.

Thus it is important that schools be encouraged tocontinually examine the ways in which their students’lives are reflected both inside and outside schools.Broader partnerships with community-based agen-cies, families, and area universities are also some ofthe recommendations emanating from the research onhigh-achieving Latinos. Through these types ofschool-community partnerships, high schools can fur-ther reinforce the social and cultural capital thesestudents are already receiving in their homes andcommunities, which Latinos can employ to graduatefrom high school, enter college, and access opportuni-ties that will improve their life chances.

—Gloria M. Rodriguez,Rene Antrop-Gonzalez, and Augustina Reyes

See also accountability; achievement gap, of students;achievement tests; affirmative action; Chavez, Cesar

Estrada; cross-cultural studies; desegregation, of schools;discipline in schools; diversity; dropouts; equality, inschools; ethnicity; ethnocentrism; expectations, teacher andstudent cultures; high schools; immigration, history andimpact in education; League of United Latin AmericanCitizens; Mendez, Felicitas; minorities, in schools; multi-culturalism; underachievers


Antrop-González, R. (2003). “This school is my sanctuary”:The Dr. Pedro Albizu Campos alternative high school. Jour-nal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies, 15(2), 232–255.

California Department of Education, EducationalDemographics Unit. (2004). California public schools,statewide report: Enrollment by gender, grade, and ethnicdesignation, 2003–04 [Data file]. Retrieved fromhttp://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest.

Gándara, P. (1995). Over the ivy walls: The educational mobil-ity of low-income Chicanos. New York: State University ofNew York Press.

García, E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United States:Raíces y alas. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

McCarthy, C., Crichlow, W., Dimitriadis, G., & Dolby, N.(Eds.). (2005). Race, identity, and representation in educa-tion. New York: Routledge.

Millman, J. (2005, May 2). Low-wage U.S. jobs get“Mexicanized,” but there’s a price. Wall Street Journal, p. A2.

Nieto, S. (2000). Puerto Rican students in U.S. schools: A briefhistory. In S. Nieto (Ed.), Puerto Rican students in U.S.schools (pp. 5–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Obiakor, F. E. (2001). It even happens in “good” schools:Responding to cultural diversity in today’s classrooms.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Pedraza, P., & Rivera, M. (2005). Latino education. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Reyes, A. (2001). Alternative education: The criminalizationof student behavior. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(2),539–559.

Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latinostudents in American schools. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2002). Chicano school failure andsuccess: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.). London:RoutledgeFalmer.

� LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v.Board of Education was the most important education-related case in U.S. history, perhaps its most signifi-cant judgment ever. With Brown providing a majorimpetus in the ensuing years, the United States has

558———Law


undergone a myriad of educational, legal, and socialtransformations. Brown not only ushered in an era ofequal educational opportunities in striking down racialsegregation in public schools but also signaled the birthof the field known as education law or school law.

Prior to Brown, the Court addressed only a handfulof education-related cases. Yet, now almost every yearthe Court resolves at least one school-related case. Infact, since the Court first addressed a dispute underthe Establishment Clause in 1947, upholding a state’sproviding transportation for children who attend non-public schools in Everson v. Board of Education(1947), it addressed more than 30 cases in both schooldesegregation and religion.

In light of the significance that education law hasassumed in the daily activities of educational leaders,this entry reflects on the centrality of education law ineducational leadership preparation programs. The cen-trality of education law is reflected in a study conductedon behalf of the University Council for EducationalAdministration (UCEA). The survey revealed that with87.5% of UCEA’s members offering courses in educa-tion law, it is the second most commonly taught subjectin leadership programs. Furthermore, since many uni-versities offer a variety of graduate and undergraduateclasses in education law, it is likely to remain a crucialelement in curricula, demonstrating that as an appliedrather than a purely theoretical discipline, it is essentialfor educators at all levels.

The UCEA study and other indicators support theproposition that specialists in education law must helpclarify the law so that it remains a valuable tool. Facultymembers who specialize in education law can help topreserve the importance of education law by teachingstudents to focus on such basic concepts as due processand equal protection, essential elements in the develop-ment of sound policies and practices. In other words,as important as abstract legal principles or theories are,faculty members who teach education law must con-centrate on ways to help practitioners apply these con-cepts rather than having them memorize case holdingsapart from their applications in real-life situations.

Education law presents a unique intellectual chal-lenge to prepare educational practitioners, whether boardmembers, superintendents, principals, or teachers, tobe proactive. Working in a discipline that tends to bereactive, faculty members teaching education law needto present their subject matter as a tool that should beapplied in advance to help ensure that the school offi-cials meet the needs of all of their constituents, ranging

from students and parents to faculty, staff, and thelocal community. Yet, the goal of making the lawproactive becomes complicated, because mostchanges generated by education law are reactive, andmodifications come only after a decision has beenreached via litigation. To this end, Brown is a typicalexample of how the law can be seen as reactive inso-far as there would not have been a need for Brown ifthe schools in Topeka and elsewhere had met theneeds of African American students.

Along with balancing the tension present betweenthe proactive and reactive dimensions of education law,law classes in educational leadership programs shouldnot become Law School 101. Rather than trying to turneducators into lawyers equipped to deal with such tech-nical and procedural matters as jurisdiction, statutes oflimitation, and the service of process, courses in educa-tion law should provide a broad understanding of thelaw that will allow them to accomplish two importantgoals.

First, classes in education law should provide educa-tors with enough awareness of the legal dimensionsof a situation so they can better frame questions for theirattorneys to answer, performing a kind of triage to limitproblems, when a legal controversy arises. To this end,educators must be taught to recognize the value in mak-ing their attorneys equal partners not only in problemsolving after the fact but also in developing responsive,proactive policies. Such a proactive approach is consis-tent with the notion of preventative law wherein knowl-edgeable educators can identify potential problems inadvance and in concert with their attorneys can work toensure they do not develop into crises. Moreover, wheneducational leaders select attorneys for their boards, forexample, they would be well advised to hire individualswith specialized practices in education law, therebyavoiding potential lapses in critical knowledge andensuring their advice has the most up-to-date perspec-tives on legal matters. Second, classes in education lawmust teach educators how to rely upon their substantiveknowledge of the law and where to look to update theirsources of information through professional organiza-tions such as the Education Law Association so they candevelop sound policies to enhance the day-to-day oper-ations of schools.

Education law is a dynamic, intellectually stimu-lating discipline that is constantly evolving to meet theneeds of educational leaders as they direct the dailyactivities in schools. The merits of its decisions aside,and the impact that they are likely to have on educational

Law———559


leaders aside, one has only to read recent SupremeCourt opinions in such areas as sexual harassment,religion, and special education, among others, to rec-ognize the importance of keeping abreast of legalchanges. In light of these cases, educators are chargedwith the task of developing and implementing policiesto enhance school environments for all constituents.

Perhaps the only constant in education law is that asit evolves to meet the demands of a constantly chang-ing educational world, it is likely to remain of utmostimportance for all who are interested in schooling. Infact, the seemingly endless supply of new statutes, reg-ulations, and cases speak of the need to be ever vigilantof how legal developments impact on education.

—Charles J. Russo

See also accountability; affirmative action; Black education;boards of education; civil rights movement; collective bar-gaining; critical race theory; critical theory; desegregation,of schools; Latinos; League of Latin American Citizens;Marshall, Thurgood; Mendez, Felicitas; A Nation at Risk;National Association for the Advancement of ColoredPeople; No Child Left Behind; special education; statedepartments of education; unions, of teachers


Brown v. Board of Education, I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§

1400 et seq.Pohland, P. A., & Carlson, L. T. (1993). Program reform in

educational administration, UCEA Review, 34(3), 4–9.Russo, C. (2005). The role of law in leadership preparation pro-

grams. In F. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educa-tional leadership (pp. 168–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russo, C., & Osborne, A. (2003). Special education and thelaw. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

� LAW, TRENDS IN

The typical publication in school law, whether anarticle or a book, examines one or more topics for arelatively contemporaneous period or without a com-prehensive and systematic trends analysis. The pur-pose of this entry is to help fill the gap by providinga compact longitudinal overview of the trends inschool law. Inasmuch as the expansive school lawliterature provides the microlevel textual details, thefocus of this overview will be on two key dimensions,

or variables—volume and outcomes—of the educationlitigation.

The overall trend for these two dimensions, whichis different from a prevailing perception among manyeducators and other segments of the public, is thatcourt decisions in the context of K–12 education areon a gradual downswing rather than an explosiveupswing and that the school defendants have won themajority of the published, final decisions, even in theturbulent 1970s and continuing to the present time.

Volume refers here to the frequency of publishedcase law, which is the only available database for suchoverall purposes. Contrary to a common perception ofa continuing “explosion” in education litigation, vari-ous empirical analyses have reached the opposite con-clusion—the overall volume of published case lawreached a high point in the 1970s and has graduallybut rather steadily decreased since then. The majorexception within this total downward trend is thespecial education segment, which has risen relativelydramatically since the end of the 1970s in terms ofboth published hearing/review officer and publishedcourt decisions. Yet, contrary to Richard Arum’s 2003characterization of the courts’ hostility toward schoolauthority, his own data show a steady and steep declinein the frequency of student discipline cases in regulareducation since the 1970s.

Outcomes refers here to who won these publisheddecisions—the plaintiff or suing party or the defen-dant school authority. Again contrary to the commonconception, the school authorities won the majority ofthe decisions overall in both the 1970s and the moremodern era. Although the proverbial pendulum fromthe earlier to the later period did not swing for theoverall published case law, it did do so for studentcases. More specifically, there was a statistically sig-nificant shift in the outcomes of student-initiated courtdecisions from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.Within the student-initiated category, however, theoutcomes of the special education decisions, both atthe hearing/review officer as well as the court level,remained relatively stable, modestly favoring schooldistricts, at least for the time period 1989 to 2000.

—Perry Zirkel

See also accountability; affirmative action; Black education;boards of education; civil rights movement; collective bar-gaining; critical race theory; critical theory; desegregation,of schools; Latinos; League of Latin American Citizens;Marshall, Thurgood; Mendez, Felicitas; A Nation at Risk;

560———Law, Trends In


National Association for the Advancement of ColoredPeople; No Child Left Behind; school safety; special edu-cation; state departments of education; unions, of teachers;violence in schools


Arum, R. (2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis ofmoral authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

D’Angelo, A., Lutz, J. G., & Zirkel, P. A. (2004). Are pub-lished IDEA hearing officer decisions representative?Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 14, 241–252.

Joint Center & Common Good. (2003). The effects of law onpublic schools. Retrieved June 8, 2004, from http://cgood.org.

Lupini, W. H., & Zirkel, P. A. (2003). An outcomes analysis ofeducation litigation. Educational Policy, 17, 257–279.

Zirkel, P. A., & D’Angelo, A. (2002). Special education caselaw: An empirical trends analysis. West’s Education LawReporter, 161, 731–753.

� LAWRENCE-LIGHTFOOT, SARA

Sociologist Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot (1944–) builther research agenda describing interactions betweenfamilies and schools. Throughout eight books andinnumerable articles, Professor Lawrence-Lightfootprovided insightful analyses of the social conditionsof school and family relations. She also expanded onqualitative research approaches adopting the reportingstyle called portraiture. Much of her work drew onpersonal perspectives formed during her life as a femaleAfrican American professor at Harvard.

The daughter of a professor of sociology and a psy-choanalyst, young Lawrence-Lightfoot shared herparents’ educated view of the dynamics of race, gender,and culture in the intersection of home and school. HerMississippi-born parents attended White institutions ofhigher education. Lawrence-Lightfoot attended ruralNew York schools. She noted her parents’ remarkablevigilance negotiating her siblings’ and her experiencesin predominantly White schools. She earned her bach-elor’s degree from Swarthmore College, where she holdsan endowed professorship, and a doctorate from HarvardUniversity, where she holds the Emily Hargroves FisherProfessorship, a chair that will become the Lawrence-Lightfoot Endowed Chair upon her retirement. TheLawrence-Lightfoot Endowed Chair is Harvard’sfirst to be named for an African American female.

Lawrence-Lightfoot also serves as the chair of theMacArthur Foundation, an organization that recognizesthe betterment of the human condition. Among her manyhonors, Lawrence-Lightfoot received a MacArthurFellowship in 1984.

Lawrence-Lightfoot’s analysis of the tensionsbetween families and schools, especially the divisionsbetween mothers and teachers, began with WorldsApart in 1978. Her subsequent descriptions of the inter-locking networks among schools, communities, andfamilies in The Good High School provided intimatedepictions of high schools with healthy relationships.During this period of the mid-1980s, Lawrence-Lightfoot joined with another noted sociologist, JamesColeman, to provide direction for high school reformand explain how schools and communities couldexploit social capital in schooling. Their work exposeddifferences between public and nonpublic schools asless about students’ socioeconomic status and moreabout the social networks ignored or severed by publichigh schools but nurtured and woven more tightly innonpublic schools.

In addition to contributions illuminating thesocial complexity of school, parent, and communityrelationships, Lawrence-Lightfoot’s approach to pub-lishing her findings offered a more fluent presentationof the results of qualitative research. In the late 1990s,she published an explanation and a defense of hermethod, portraiture. With coauthor Jessica HoffmanDavis, Lawrence-Lightfoot extended ethnographers’debates over the role and place of voice as a meansof relating research results. Lawrence-Lightfoot posi-tioned portraiture as a phenomenological procedure.Portraiture provides a means of data reduction that hasbeen criticized for its unspoken reification of a singu-lar perspective on phenomena of interest.

Despite such critiques, Lawrence-Lightfoot’snuanced rendering of the emotional dimensions ofracial and gendered relations in schools and theircommunities strikes a sustained resonance. Her para-bles and portraits of mothers and teachers engaged incontests over students’ education and futures continueto provide an authentic description of highly chargedsocial situations surrounding schooling.

—Jane Clark Lindle

See also Black education; Catholic education; children andfamilies in America; communities, types, building of; cul-tural capital; cultural politics, wars; expectations, teacher andstudent cultures; feminism and theories of leadership; gender

Lawrence-Lightfoot, Sara———561


studies, in education; high schools; human capital; parentalinvolvement; qualitative research, history, theories, issues;resiliency; social capital; stratification, in organizations


English, F. (2000). A critical appraisal of Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot’s portraiture as a method of educational research.Educational Researcher, 29(7), 21–26.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school:Portraits of character and culture. New York: Basic Books.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2000). Respect: An exploration.Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Hoffman Davis, J. (1997). The artand science of portraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

� LEADERSHIP, COMPLEXTHEORY OF

Complex leadership theory is the study of the roleof leadership in the emergence of ideas amongneural-like networks of interactive, interdependentagents. It is premised on complexity theory, ascience of emergent dynamics in interactive, adap-tive networks.

Complexity theory itself derives from chaos theory,a science of nonlinear behavior in interactive, dynam-ically active systems (nonlinearity is defined as pro-ducing outcomes that are disproportional to inputs).Chaotic systems exhibit complicated, dynamic, deter-ministically derived order (thus they are distinguishedfrom simple random systems that exhibit no order).Mathematically generated plots of the motion of suchsystems reveal convoluted—and hauntingly beauti-ful—patterns, the most famous of which looks likebutterfly wings drawn with nonoverlapping, never-ending lines (the well-known Lorenz attractor).Chaotic systems are nonlinear and consequentlyunpredictable; they are so highly changeable that theycarry little information about their past or futurebehaviors. A number of turbulent or potentially turbu-lent activities, such as weather patterns or fluid flows,are described by the science of chaos.

Before chaos theory, it was assumed that dynamicbehavior was either random (hence of little interest)or stable. Stable systems, such as a clock pendulum,repeat themselves eventually; thus their past and theirfuture are predictable. Neither chaos nor stabilitydescribes what happens in human systems, however.

One can see a bit of chaos and a bit of stability insocial dynamics, but one can also identify characteris-tics (such as adaptability) that are not observed ineither chaos or stability. Instead, social systems liebetween chaos and stability but exhibit unique char-acteristics as well. This boundary is the realm of com-plexity theory.

Like chaotic systems, complex systems are non-linear, but this nonlinearity manifests predominately assmall change events rather than as the dramatic eventscharacteristic of chaos. Like stable systems, complexsystems are sufficiently unchanging to carry informa-tion about their past and their future; that is, they arepredictable. However, information in complex systemsis also dynamic (from its chaotic side), so memories andpredictability are prone to dissipation. Unlike stable orchaotic systems, complex systems are adaptive, capableof solving problems (computer simulations of complexsystems can solve difficult puzzles, for example), andare able to respond quickly and flexibly to satisfy theirneeds. Perhaps most important for leadership and orga-nization, complex systems are also capable of reinvent-ing themselves in surprising and creative ways.

Complex systems are networks of agents (individ-uals or groups) who are interactive, interdependent(the actions of one agent affects the fitness of otheragents), and moderately coupled (directly affecting alimited number of other agents). The dynamics ofcomplex systems are enhanced by the presence ofcatalysts, and indeed the system can generate its owncatalysts. One important catalytic agent is the leader.Complex systems produce new structures or creativitywith bottom-up rather than top-down activities; thatis, their strength lies in the dynamics of their follow-ers rather than the control of their leaders. Complexsystems are typically coordinated by simple, local,minimally restrictive rules that govern the actionsof agents. Because complex systems are adaptive andcapable of rapidly producing creative surprises, theyare ideally suited for knowledge-producing organiza-tions in hypercompetitive environments such as thecomputer software industry, research and develop-ment systems, and, more topically, higher educationinstitutions that value and promote research or publicschools struggling to adapt rapidly and creatively toenvironmental demands.

Leadership plays an important role in enablingthe emergence of complex systems. The study of suchleadership is called complex leadership (to suggestleadership of complex systems rather than a description

562———Leadership, Complex Theory Of


of the leader). Complex leadership differs dramaticallyfrom traditional models of leadership. Traditionalmodels can be categorized either as management ofinfluence or management of meaning models.Management of influence refers to leadership thatdirectly influences follower behavior to accomplishorganizational goals; these perspectives include com-mand and control models, contingency theories, andbureaucracy theory. Management of meaning refers toleadership that seeks to align workers’ sense of pro-priety, their worldviews, or their definitions of lifegoals with organizational goals; this category includestransformational leadership and culture leadership.Both influence and meaning models of leadership dealprimarily with human relations and tend to dependheavily on social-psychological strategies.

Complex leadership moves away from (although itdoes not abandon) relational approaches and focusesinstead on enabling conditions (i.e., network dynam-ics) that foster the creativity and flexibility availablethrough complex systems. Because of its significantdeparture from traditional approaches, it is appro-priately labeled with its own model categorization,which can be termed management of emergence. Thisterminology emphasizes the bottom-up, spontaneousnature of productivity in complex systems and under-scores leadership’s unique role in that process.

Complex leadership enables complex behaviorwithin an organization. Its role can be defined in termsof several overlapping functions. First, complex lead-ership enables interaction. Agents in complex organi-zations need unfettered access to each other and toideas, for it is the interaction of ideas that generatessurprise and creativity. Interaction can be accom-plished both passively and actively. Passive enablinginvolves the way space is structured. Educationalfacilities can be organized to either encourage or dis-courage interaction. Traditional school structures withclasses staggered on both sides of long hallways(called the egg crate layout) are poorly suited forinteraction. Leaders can ameliorate passive structureswith effective organization, but there are more appro-priate structures such as pod structures (a small numberof classrooms open onto a common area) or evenstructures in which two or more classrooms share aglassed teacher workroom.

Active enabling of interaction refers to directactions by leaders to build patterns of interaction, andusually is accomplished by the way school activitiesare scheduled and organized. Leaders can schedule

teachers with common interests to common prepara-tion time, they can foster interaction with judicious useof committees, they can encourage interdisciplinaryunits, and they can find creative ways to use inserviceto foster interaction (sponsor a “teacher’s” fair alongthe lines of student science fairs, for example).

A second function of complex leadership is foster-ing interdependencies. In interdependent networks,the actions of one agent directly or indirectly affectthe actions of other agents. A decision by the Englishdepartment to focus on grammar in the ninth grade,for example, might inhibit students’ capacity to dealwith word problems in algebra (such conflicts arecalled conflicting constraints). The manner in which amath department leads students to envision calcula-tion of unknowns may make it difficult for them tosolve quantity equations in chemistry. The complexleader finds ways to enhance such interdependenciesin order to achieve three outcomes: (1) conflictingconstraints (or task-related conflicts) that naturallyoccur in interdependent networks stimulate agents tofind ever fitter solutions to their problems, (2) interde-pendence imposes a measure of accountability thatfosters coordination, and (3) interdependent relation-ships provide pathways for the dissemination andcoordination of innovations—without such linkages, achange agent must, in the extreme, introduce changeto one person or department at a time.

Complex leadership seeks to foster moderate levels,as opposed to tight or loose levels, of coupling amongagents. Coupling refers to the number of interdepen-dencies any given agent experiences or the degree ofeffect that interdependent agents have on one another.In tightly coupled systems, conflicting constraints aredifficult or impossible to resolve because many differ-ent agents must coordinate and participate in seekingmutually fit solutions. Consequently, such systemseither freeze into inaction, or if they do change, thatchange is likely to perturb the entire system—whichmay be catastrophic. Leaders create tight couplingwith, among other things, excess coordination orauthoritarian behavior. Loosely coupled systems do notexperience the tension of conflicting constraints and donot have channels for coordination or dissemination;thus there is little incentive to work together or tochange. Loose coupling emerges when organizationalpatterns and leadership activities fail to foster interde-pendency; different disciplines in higher education tendto be loosely coupled because of organizational pat-terns and regulations, for example. Moderately coupled

Leadership, Complex Theory Of———563


complex systems, in contrast, are sufficiently tight toexperience motivating tension and channel innovationbut sufficiently loose to change stably.

Complex leaders motivate action with adaptivetension. Adaptive tension is any pressure that pushes asystem to perform. When Jack Welch, former CEO ofGeneral Electric, told employees that their product mustbe number 1 or number 2 in their field or be canceled,he was creating adaptive tension. Adaptive tension movesa system away from a steady state toward an unstable,unspecified, but urgent future; such conditions are con-ducive to nonlinear change and creative surprise.

Complex systems are focused on indeterminatevision. Determinate vision—the usual form of visioning—utilizes current states of understanding to define a spe-cific desired future and focuses the organization onachieving that future. In such conditions, creativity islimited by the capacity of vision makers and by the stateof current understanding. That is, determinate visionenables the unfolding of current knowledge but does notenable creative surprise. Indeterminate vision envisionsgeneralized future states and behaviors and does nototherwise limit those futures. Welch envisioned number1 or number 2; he did not envision what number 1 or 2would look like. A principal whose vision is for theschool to be the most creative school in the district doesnot specify what creativity is to look like; rather he orshe envisions a behavior that can be realized in a varietyof ways.

In addition to building indeterminate organization-wide vision, complex leadership fosters heteroge-neous agents and heterogeneous visions. As implied inthe preceding paragraph, traditional models of leader-ship have the effect, either by direction or indirection,of coordinating activity around a central determinatevision or set of visions to homogenize follower behav-iors to a common perspective. Chester I. Barnard, forexample, argued that the leader’s role is to align workerpreference with organizational goals. Transformationalleadership seeks to define worker meaning relative toorganizational vision. Complex leadership, on the otherhand, seeks to foster multiple, decentralized visions. Animportant strength of the complex leadership approachis its ability to bring together a rich diversity of skillsand visions in an interactive, interdependent network.Interaction of heterogeneous ideas enables potentsurprise and creativity. Ideas combine, recombine, andaggregate in complex and surprising ways to producea diversity of unanticipated meta-ideas, products, andenvironmental adaptations.

Complex systems are coordinated in part by simple,local rules. Rules for complex systems enable ratherthan limit behavior. Complex rules serve six primaryroles: they stimulate action, enable interaction, fosterinterdependency, interject tension, enable bottom-updecision making, and focus conflict on task (rather thanpersonal) behaviors. A good example is provided byMicrosoft’s “synch and stabilize” rule. Microsoftdivides its programming staff into small teams—agents, in complexity terminology. These teams areresponsible for particular elements of a given program.Programs such as XP or MS Word are extremely com-plex and require millions of lines of code. Top-downcontrol of the programming function would be ineffi-cient, produce programs with limited capability, andit would be difficult to respond rapidly to changing tech-nological landscapes. Semiautonomous work groupsand bottom-up decision making—complex structur-ing—overcomes these limitations. To coordinate pro-gramming workgroups, Microsoft has implementedlocal rules structures such as synch and stabilize. At theend of each week, groups are required to compile theircode and combine it with the codes of other groups. Ifthe different code sets fail to run together, the program-mers are required to fix the problems before they leavefor the day. One can readily see that this rule accom-plishes all six of the primary roles described above.

Transformation is an important characteristic ofcomplex leadership, but the traditional definition oftransformation must be modified to be consistent withassumptions underlying complex leadership theory. Inthe traditional approach, transformation strategies tend tobe constructed around two premises (although there areexceptions): the transformation of individuals into self-motivated, engaged follower/leaders, and the alignmentof follower meaning with organizational goals. This def-initional set works for complex leadership theory if wedefine organizational goals in terms of indeterminaterather than determinate vision, and if we further recog-nize the value of heterogeneous vision embedded withinthe more general, indeterminate vision focus. Efforts toalign worker motivation to determinate goals stifle bot-tom-up behaviors and its advantage for creative behavior.Organizational vision is important, but complex leader-ship achieves transforming benefits with indeterminatevision that enable creativity.

Complexity leaders allocate resources in ways thatsupport and foster network dynamics. For example,public schools traditionally allocate money on aper-pupil basis, or they make distributions based on

564———Leadership, Complex Theory Of


the resource intensiveness of a given discipline (thussciences get more money than do English classes).The complexity leader might make allocations to meetfoundational needs, but remaining funds would be dis-tributed in support of creative ideas—money followscreativity. Another important resource is information,and complex leadership finds strategies to maximizedistribution of that commodity.

Finally, complexity leaders work to build externalnetworks with clients, other educational organizations,resource providers, community agencies, and others.Primary attention is devoted to building network rela-tionships with agencies that have a vested interest ineducation, but fit networks extend to a wide spectrumof outside agencies as well. At least two complexity-related functions are served by this. First, the con-struction of external networks serves the samepurpose as internal, system-based networks: it fosterscreativity and innovation in the educational (andbroader) system. Second, fitness is derived from broadbases of support, and support can come from unex-pected sources. For example, a recreation departmentmay seem a somewhat unlikely ally for an elementaryschool, but it may be willing to share costs of aschool-site recreation facility for mutual benefit. Afarm bureau may seem an even more unlikely ally, butit may have influence with local school boards.

—Russ Marion and Phil McGee

See also adaptiveness of organizations; administration,theories of; boundaries of systems; bureaucracy; capacitybuilding, of organizations; creativity, in management;frame theory; hierarchy, in organizations; infrastructure, oforganizations; line and staff concept; management informa-tion systems; management theories; matrix organization(the “adhocracy”); motivation, theories of; networking andnetwork theory; organizational theories; organizations,types of, typologies; planning models; rational organiza-tional theory; role conflict; role theory; satisfaction, inorganizations and roles; scalar principle; school improve-ment models; stratification, in organizations; table of orga-nization; Theory X, Theory Y; total quality management;transformational leadership


Argyris, C. (1972). The applicability of organizational sociol-ogy. London: Cambridge University Press.

Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effec-tiveness through transformational leadership. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Cusumano, M. (2001). Focusing creativity: Microsoft’s“Synch and Stabilize” approach to software product devel-opment. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowledgeemergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensionsof knowledge creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lorenz, E. (1993). Chaos theory. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Ogawa, R. (2005). Leadership as social construct: The expres-sion of human agency within organizational constraint. InF. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational lead-ership (pp. 89–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marion, R., & Uhi-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complexorganizations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389–418.

McKelvey, B. (2003). Toward a 0th law of thermodynamics:Order creation complexity dynamics from physics & biol-ogy to bioeconomics. Journal of Bioeconomics, 6, 1–31.

� LEADERSHIP, DISCRETIONARY(AND POWER)

A discretionary leader uses power—generally authorityto achieve desired outcomes effectively and efficiently.Within classical hierarchical or linear organizationalparadigms, discretionary leadership evokes greatman/great woman theories. Because participatory leader-ship styles often are viewed as more enlightened, benefi-cial, and productive, leadership without attention tosituations, needs of followers, and the like are lessfavored. Nevertheless, situational realities often requirethat leaders use power discreetly, according to the natureof decisions required, leadership demanded, and needs ofthe occasion. Discretionary leadership, then, emphasizesthe nature of values, situational factors, organizationalcharacteristics, participant behaviors or needs, endssought, and demands for types of leadership. Cognizanceof such factors enables leaders to act on existing contin-gencies toward positive organizational outcomes.

The need for discretionary leadership is driven byrecent reliance on data-based decision making andaccelerated by growing concerns for accountability.As organizational performance bows to environmentalfactors and aligns with contemporary forms of earlyemphases on scientific management, specialized pro-fessional roles become critical to organizational sur-vival and success. Thus, administrative leaders oftenfind themselves constrained by the system with littleflexibility in decision making. Information-drivendecisions or centralized systems too often leave littleroom for managers to use their own judgment. Toovercome the constraints of such mechanistic systems,

Leadership, Discretionary (and Power)———565


leaders necessarily use discretion when countermand-ing hard data or information so that decisions accountfor soft, hard-to-measure factors, factors that easilycan nullify the best laid bureaucratic plans.

Discretionary leadership and the judicious exerciseof power are synonymous. In the context of neo-greatman/great woman theories and Frederick Taylor’s time-and-motion job specifications, discretionary leadersmust employ values, ethics, and sound judgment whenconsidering issues of right and wrong, fairness, or thegreater “good” of the organization. Furthermore, discre-tionary leaders must recognize changing organizationalneeds: increasing diversity, multiple constituencies atall levels, and the utility of distributed leadership. As aresult, leadership roles are multifaceted with broadresponsibilities and must deal with evolving culturalnorms and values, pervasive technology, and externaldemands for effectiveness—and efficiency. These mul-tiple complexities necessitate leaders who are flexibledecision makers, who are contextual in orientation, andwho balance organizational ends with those of bothinternal and external constituencies.

Various organizational and environmental variablesalso can determine the latitude a leader can assume.For example, an environment with a highly mechanis-tic organizational structure, a centralized managerialsystem, and rigid operational policies has little flexi-bility, and discretionary leadership is less possible.However, the way that a leader construes and reacts toa given situation determines leadership actions.Obviously, the position that leaders hold in a hierarchyaffects their credibility and ability to act, and interper-sonal dynamics have much to do with the amount ofpower that discretionary leaders have as well as theirsuccessful use of it.

Discretionary leaders usually have a wide repertoireof leadership attributes and styles that they can use.They vary their leadership depending upon the situationin which they operate. Hierarchical, environmental, andtechnological complexity and organizational structureall constrain leadership behavior. Macrovariables,including factors such as the general and specific envi-ronments, context (size and technology), structure, andcultural diversity, also add to the complexity with whichleaders must grapple. Given these problems, leadersmust still strive for successful organizational outcomes.Flexibility—and sufficient discretionary leadership—can be key to organizational success.

—Zav Dadabhoy and Rodney Muth

See also leadership, complex theory of; leadership, distributed;leadership, situational; leadership, task-oriented; leader-ship, theories of; path-goal leadership theory; scientificmanagement; Taylor, Frederick


Clement, D. (2004). The veil of discretion: A new look at howmuch freedom the Fed should have in setting monetarypolicy. Region, June, 10–13, 42–47.

Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership:Culture and diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kochan, F., & Reed, C. (2005). Collaborative leadership, com-munity building, and democracy in public education. InF. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational lead-ership (pp. 68–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management.New York: Harper.

Tomlinson, H. (2004). Educational management. New York:Routledge.

� LEADERSHIP, DISTRIBUTED

Educational researchers have long examined the linkbetween the importance of principal leadership andstudent achievement, concluding that successful educa-tional leaders have a powerful influence on the effec-tiveness of the school and student learning. In fact,school leadership has been found to have a significantimpact on student learning, second only to the effects ofthe quality of curriculum and teachers’ instruction.

Until recently, most research assumed that leader-ship must come from the school principal. Fordecades, studies on leadership have documented spe-cific leader traits and behaviors, focusing on the top ofthe hierarchical organization—the principal. There isnow much greater emphasis placed on the idea of dis-tributed leadership, shared by multiple individuals atdifferent levels of the school organization.

The idea that a single “hero” leader can lead andtransform a school alone has become obsolete. Thetask of leading today’s schools has become so multi-faceted and complex that a single person cannot beexpected to accomplish this alone. More than twodecades of school reform has continually added to theworkload and responsibility of the principal.

The multitude of demands placed on principals’time draws resources away from a focus on curriculum

566———Leadership, Distributed


and instruction, as numerous tasks from the school,district, state, and federal government require theattention and consideration of school leaders. Becauseof this, many educational researchers and policymak-ers believe that school leadership today should bedistributed throughout the organization, rather thanfocused on a single individual.

Distributed leadership is currently a buzzword ineducational circles, and in the past few years has beenused increasingly in discussions about school leader-ship. As attention to this perspective grows, so does itsresearch base and empirical support. However, thereseems to be little agreement as to the meaning of theterm, and it lacks a widely accepted definition.

Some may define distributed leadership as simplythe redistribution of the principal’s responsibilities toother staff members. Other views move beyond thissimplistic analysis and call for a fundamental changein organizational think

encyclopedia of educational leadership administration€¦ · encyclopedia of educational...

Documents