(Get Answer)

education & teaching writing question and need guidance to help me learn. plz read and follow the instructions carefully. I only need part one within 36 hours, I'll extend the time limit for part two. Requirements: 2 part+replies Part One you will post an initial response (350-400 words) to the required readings on PeppeR. Synthesize your comments rather than responding to each reading separately. Integrate a minimum of 2-3 of the required weekly readings into your response. Do not simply summarize the articles, instead, the majority of your reading response should focus on your opinions, insights and analysis of the articles. Be sure to weave together the key ideas or themes from the readings, showing how they connect to each other (or not) and possibly how they might relate to other readings or your own experience. In paragraph form, include as much of the following information as suits the articles. Response to at least 3 other posts: (between 100 Ð 250 words) Part Two These guidelines for an assignment to critique a peer- reviewed journal article will apply to all kinds of articles (an empirical/research article, or a review of literature), but each type of article may provoke questions that are especially pertinent to that type. Tips on how to read critically: ¥ Skim the article once to get an overview. Some people like to review the abstract, introduction and then the conclusions first to get an understanding of the main ideas. ¥ Then read it again, critically, looking for the items as outlined in the numerical list below. (You may want to make some notes to yourself.) ▪Argument: What is (are) the main point(s) of the ar2cle? Is it clearly and convincingly argued? Do you agree?▪Connec,ons to Other Readings: How does this inform your understanding of other readings? (Cite other course readings, or readings from other sources)▪What’s le* out?: What are the perspec2ves, approaches, ques2ons leB out of this ar2cle that are important for understanding the topic? (What else might you have wanted to know?)▪Most Compelling Quote: Is there a line or statement that impacts you nega2vely or posi2vely? Explain why.▪Implica(ons for policy and for you as an educator: Now what? So what? How is this significant? How does this relate to your own experience?▪Only if relevant - Author and/or Audience: Who is the author and what is their discipline? For whom was this ar2cle wriKen: Academics? Teachers? People who already agree? Skep2cs?▪ A provoca,ve ques,on for discussion: “Something that is s2ll burning” Your 2-page, double spaced critique must include: A. Title Page; follow Student Title Page APA7 guidelines B. An organized structure that includes headings (APA 7 format) C. Brief summary the problem or issue discussed by including: the authorÕs purpose, main argument, approach or methods, and major conclusions. (The summary part is brief! Only include enough to understand the premise and context of the paper in order to situate the reader.) D. Your critique of the articleÕs contents (see details below) E. Proper citations (in-text and references) of the article you critiqued, using APA 7 format. (Include other citations, if you wish) The bulk of your critique should consist of your opinions of the article. The following are some questions you may choose to address in your critique (Use your discretion. These points donÕt have to be discussed in this order, and some may not be pertinent to your particular article.) 1. Is the title of the article appropriate and clear? 2. Is the abstract specific and representative of the article? 3. Is the purpose/research question of the article made clear in the introduction? 4. Has the author cited the pertinent, and only the pertinent, literature in the literature review? 5. Is the study design appropriate for the purposes of the study? (Quantitative, mixed methods, qualitative, narrative inquiry, case study, ethnography, phenomenology, grounded research, action research, etc.) 6. Are the methods described adequately? 7. Are the results clearly stated, do they make sense, and do they tie into the purpose, the main argument or to the research question? 8. Is all of the discussion relevant? 9. Is the conclusion an appropriate wrap-up of the paper and include suggestions further research? Overall 10. Is the study based on theory? 11. Do you find errors of fact and interpretation? (Authors sometimes misinterpret or misrepresent the work of others. You can check on this by looking up for yourself the references the author cites.) 12. Have any ideas been overemphasized or underemphasized? 13. Should some sections of the manuscript be expanded, condensed or omitted? 14. Has the author been objective in their discussion of the topic and disclosed their positionality/bias? 15. Does the author include limitations to the study? 16. Does the topic/argument of the article make a significant contribution to the field The Effect of Definitions ofPolicy on the Nature andOutcomes of Policy AnalysisVarying interpretations of the word policy greatlyaffect how and where particular policies arecreated and implemented and, ultimately,whether their results are as intended.EGON G. GUBAin the literature on policy analy-sis, one can safely conclude thatthe term policy is not defined in anyuniform way; indeed, the term is rare-ly defined at all. Authors of policypapers, monographs, and books as-sume that their readers know what theterm means. And, of course, theseauthors have their own implicit or tacitdefinitions in mind which shape whatthey have to say.Yet these implied definitions varyconsiderably among authors and, mostlikely, among readers. This variationcan lead to miscommunication andconfusion, but there is another farmore serious problem: the particulardefinition assumed by the policy ana-lyst determines the kinds of policyquestions that are asked, the kinds ofpolicy-relevant data that are collected,the sources of data that are tapped, themethodology that is used, and, finally,the policy products that emerge. Un-fortunately, if the reader and the ana-lyst operate from different definitions,the reader will find the policy prod-Egon G. Guba is Preswr, Sdool qOfEdu-cation, Indiana Urnr-sit, Bloom-groIndianaThis artice is based on a pap-periedat the annual meeurg of the AmevanEducational Resarce Asociation in NewOrleas in April 1984.Author's note: I am indebted to DennisJPalunbo, ubo aarendy beads the Morri-son Insitaue for Public Policy at ArizonaState Unisrsty, for harng prwidd methe opporfunky during the smmer of1982 to develop the ideas eressed in thisanrie. His encourgement and s4porta gre fully acknouledgedOcroBEs 1984163 ". .. the analystcan predeterminewhat a policyanalysis willproduce by thesimple act ofchoosing theguidingdefinition."ucts irrelevant at best and perniciousat worst Moreover, analyses thatemerge from different definitions dif-fer sufficiently among themselves sothat the analyst can predetermine whata policy analysis will produce by thesimple act of choosing the guidingdefinition. The political and ethicalimplications of this possibility are im-pressive.I propose, first, to note the variousdefinitions ofpolicy that are implied inthe literature and, second, by applyingthese definitions in three policy are-nas, to note their differential effect.The Three Exemplar PolicyArenasI have chosen three widely differentfields for these analyses:1. 7be community correctons program witbin the criminal justice field(CJCC). The concept of communitycorrections is based on the assump-tion that retaining offenders in theirhome communities is more effectivethan sending them to prison. Felonswho have committed less serious felo-ny crimes (typically referred to asClass C felonies) are eligible for sen-tencing to programs such as drug re-habilitation, alcohol treatment, jobskills development, personal/psycho-logical counseling, marital/familycounseling, work release, victim resti-tution, halfway house, parole, proba-tion, vocational training, communityservice, or employment/placementcounseling. The assumption is that of-fenders who stay in close touch withtheir families are more likely to berehabilitated. Moreover, court caseloads and prison overloads may besubstantially reduced; and punish-ments may more closely fit the natureof the crime. Possible negative effectsinclude increased risk to the generalpublic, more plea bargaining (sincelesser offenders become eligible), andincreases in the web of control, that is,the number of persons who remainunder active supervision as comparedto a prison or release situation.2. The program of education for allhandicapped students under PublicLaw 94-142 (SPED-special educa-tion). P.L. 94-142, passed in 1975, re-quires that all students, regardless ofhandicap, receive a free, appropriatepublic education in the least restrictiveenvironment consistent with the pu-pil's handicap. The least restrictiveenvironment is usually interpreted tomean that the pupil shall, insofar aspossible, be assigned to a regularclassroom or mainstreamed. Whenstudents are suspected of having ahandicapping condition, they are re-ferred, tested, diagnosed, and assignedin an elaborate form of due process inwhich parents must be intimately in-volved. If a child is found to be handi-capped, an individual educational pro-gram must be prepared that stipulatesin detail the instruction the child is toreceive, including placement, objec-tives, methods, timing, and so on. Theindividual educational program is re-viewed at least once every three years.Possible negative effects are stigma forthe child, excessive legalism, excessivepaperwork for teachers and adminis-trators, and instruction within the reg-ular classroom by teachers ill-pre-pared to deal with handicappedyoungsters3. The process of accreditation ofcolleges and unie.rsities by regionalaccreditation associations such as theNorth Central Association, the Mid-States Association, and the like(HEAC). Colleges and universitieswishing to be accredited by a regional64association must apply for accredita-tion and undergo close scrutiny toensure that they meet certain definedstandards. Previously accredited insti-tutions must undergo inspection atleast every ten years; inspections maybe scheduled more frequently if nec-essary or if the institution applies for anew level of program. Candidate insti-tutions must prepare a lengthy self-study, which provides information rel-evant to the standards (such as facultyqualifications), and must submit toinspection by a site-visit team. A groupof evaluator-consultants retained bythe accrediting agency, a team is com-posed of experts competent to makejudgments in the field in which ac-creditation is sought, typically the fullgamut of colleges and professionalschools. The team leader prepares areport based on the individual find-ings of team members. This report,which contains an accreditation rec-ommendation, may be challenged bythe institution if it is seen as inaccurateor ill-founded A variety of grievancesteps exist for the airing of such ap-peals. Possible negative effects of theaccreditation process include externalcontrol over institutional policies, de-velopment of self-study reports thatput the institution's best foot forwardwhile covering up faults, and emphasisby the team on providing leverage toinstitutional administrators rather thanon overall accreditation issues.Definitions of PolicyLet us consider eight different defini-tions of policy:1. Policy is an assertion of intents orgoals2. Policy is the accumulated stand-ing decisions of a governing body bywhich it regulates, controls, promotes,services, and otherwise influencesmatters within its sphere of authority.3. Policy is a guide to discretionaryaction.4. Policy is a strategy undertaken tosolve or ameliorate a problem.5 Policy is sanctioned behavior, for-mally through authoritative decisions,or informally through expectationsand acceptance established over (sanc-tified by) time.6. Policy is a norm of conduct characterized by consistenct and regularityin some substantive action area.7. Policy is the output of the policyEDIU(:ATI()NAI. L.FAI)FRSHIPr1L Figure 1. Policy Types, Determiners, Appearances, and Proximity to Point of Action for Bght Definitions of Poc.Promily to PoitPolicy Types Policy Detenniners Definllon of Policy of Acl Policy Lodo LUePolicy-in-intention CICC: State legislature 1. Goals or intents Distant EndsSPED: U.S. CongressHEAC: Commission on institutionsof higher education of aregional accrediting associ-ationCICC: State criminal justice divi- 2. Standing decisions Intermediate Rulession and local supervisorsSPED: State education agency andlocal supervisorsHEAC: Regional association ad-ministrators3. Guide to discretionary Intermediate Guidelinesaction4. Problem-solving Intermediate Sets of tacticsstrategyPolicy-in-action CJCC: Street-level bureaucrats 5. Sanctioned behavior Close Expectationsand local supervisorsSPED: Street-level bureaucratsHEAC: Street-level bureaucratsand regional associationadministrators6. Norms of conduct Close NormsCICC, SPED, HEAC: All of theabove 7. Output of the policy- NA Effectsmaking systemPolicy-in-experience CICC, SPED, HEAC: Clients 8. Constructions based on Inside Encountersexperiencemaking system: the cumulative effectof all the actions, decisions, and behav-iors of the millions of people whowork in bureaucracies. It occurs, takesplace, and is made at every point in thepolicy cycle from agenda setting topolicy impact8. Policy is the effect of the policy-making and policy-implementing svs-tem as it is experienced by the client.These eight definitions are abbrevi-ated in Figure 1. which makes severalother points:* Three polio' Otpes are implied bythese eight definitions Policv Defini-tions 1 through 4 treat policy aspolic-in-intention, that is, as statementsabout policy De)hnitions 5 through 7treat policy as polio'1-in-inplemnenta-tion, that is, as behaviors or activitiesthat are displaved in the process ofimplementing policy l)elinition 8treats policy as policT-in-a:pri'ience,that which is actually experienced bythe client* Different pol/ic detIerine7-, arealso implied. Examples are given inFigure 1 for the three exemplar areas.Thus, for Definition 1--Goals or In-tents-the policy determiners areseen as high level agents-membersof the several state legislatures thathave enacted communitv correctionsprograms; the U.S. Congress in thecase of Public Law 94-142; and theComnmission of Institutions of HigherEducation within the various accredit-ing agencies. For Definitions 2through 4, policy determiners tend tocomprise lower level subordinateagents-the state criminal justice divi-sion together with the supervisors ofactual implementers (tspically re-ferred to as street-level bureaucrats')for CJCC: the state education agencywith local supervisors for SPED; andregional association administrators inthe case of HEAC For Definitions 5and 6. policy determiners are the op-erational implementers together withtheir immediate supervisors in allthree areas. For Definition 7. all levelsare involved, while for Definition 8 itis the clients' constructions that count0 Different definitions have policyformulated at different distances fromthe point of action. Thus, per Defini-tion 1, policy is created far from thepoint of action; per Definitions 2through 4, at an intermediate point;and per Definitions 5 and 6, dose tothe point of action. Since Definition 7includes policy made at all levels, theconcept of proximity is not relevantDefinition 8 places policy formulationwitbin the point of action, since policybv this definition is the constructionsthat clients make out of their experi-ences.* Finally, it is clear that these differ-ent definitions will produce policies ofdifferent complexions. In the case ofDefinition 1. policy looks like a set ofends. Definition 2 results in policystatements that look like ru/es, whileDefinition 3 results in guidelnes withbuilt-in discretion. Definition 4 resultsin a set oftactics. Definition 5 results in(k:TOB)R 1984 eaectaons; 6 in norms; 7 in efects; The Impact of Various impact of each of the eight definitionsand 8 in encounters. These differences Deflnitions in terms of five categories.in policy appearance are further eluci- Figure 2 (in eight parts) summarizes 1. Policy question. What is the essen-dated below. the essential information about the tial question that the policy analystFigure 2. Polcy Question, Data Colected, Data Sources, Methodology, and Policy Products forBght Definitions of Policy in Three Exemplar Areas: CJCC, SPED, and HEAC.Defhition 1. Poy is an assertion of oitenlt or goatItem CCC SPED HEACPolicy Question: What are the overall intents or What are the overall intents or What are the overall intents orgoals of the community correc- goals of PL 94-142? goals of accreditation in highertions program? education?Data Collected: State and county level criminal jus- National, state, and local level spe- National, state, and local collegetice statistics, such as crime rates, cial education statistics, such as va- and university statistics, such asarrests, incarcerations, paroles, re- riety and rate of handicapping con- admission data, program selectioncidivism; plus: ditions; plus: data, employment data; plus:needs assessments, strengths assessments, resource assessments, opinions of expertsData Sources: Stakeholding audiences: general Stakeholding audiences: handi- Stakeholding audiences: facultypublic, victims, offenders, judges, capped students, parents, school and administrators, boards of trust-parole officers; state and county boards, principals, teachers, spe- ees, students, parents, employers;records; relevant documents: such cial service providers; national, position papers; national, state, Io-as white papers; court decisions; state, local education agency rec- cal college and university records;experts such as university profes- ords; position papers; court deci- court decisions; experts such assors of political science and foren- sions; experts such as professors university professors of highersics and leading practitioners. of special education and leading education.practitioners.Methodology: Statistical data analyses, interviews, observations, questionnaire studies, documentary analyses, hearings.Policy Products: Listing of goals to be served; prior- Listing of goals to be served; prior- Listing of goals to be served; prior-itized goals, such as reduction in itized goals, such as free and pub- itized goals such as assisting insti-costs of operating the criminal jus- lic education for all, education in tutions to improve their programtice system, reduction in incarcera- the least restrictive environment, quality, inserting a quality floor intions, lowered recidivism, better fit reduction in stigma suffered by the higher education, protecting theof punishment to crime. handicapped, increased general ac- public against inferior institutions.ceptance of the handicapped.Definition 2. Pocy is a governng body's standing decisions by which it regulates, controls, promotes, services, and otherwiseinfluences mnatters within its sphere of authority.Item CICC SPED HEACPolicy Question: What rules should govern the deci- What rules should govern the deci- What rules should govern the deci-sions in implementing the commu- sions regularly made in implement- sions regularly made innity corrections program? ing PL 94-142? implementing higher education ac-creditation standards?Data Collected: Decision-making roles and func- Decision-making roles and func- Decision-making roles and func-tions such as state division of crim- tions such as state departments of tions such as review boards, evalu-inal justice, judges, probation offi- education, superintendents, direc- ator consultants, review teamcers, service providers. Types of tors of special education, class- chairpersons. Types of decisionsdecisions made by each. Timing of room teachers. Types of decisions made by each. Timing of deci-decisions. Impact of decisions made by each. Timing of deci- sions. Impact of decisions such assuch as public safety, recidivism, sions. Impact of decisions such as failure to accredit, loss of funds byrelief of prison overcrowding, plea least restrictive environment, stig- institution, appeal, court suit.bargaining. ma, grade achievement.Data Sources: State and county community cor- State and local education agency Examining team reports, self-studyrections administrators, state and administrators, state and local edu- reports, consultant evaluators, cli-county statistical records, operat- cation agency records, operating ents.ing personnel, clients, other oper- personnel, clients (including par-ating community corrections pro- ents), classroom experiences.grams.Methodology: Questionnaire studies, records Questionnaire studies, records Analysis of self-study and team re-analyses, site visits. analyses, site visits, evaluation re- ports, interviews with consultantports. evaluators and clients, question-naire studies.Policy Products: Identification of needed decisions; Identification of needed decisions; Identification of needed decisions;recommendations for rules such as recommendations for rules such as recommendations for rules such asClass C felons are eligible to be parents must be afforded due institutions must prepare an ade-sentenced to community correc- process before children are placed quate self-study report, institutionstions programs, offenders who in any special education program, have the right to veto a proposedcommit another felony shall be im- local education agencies must es- evaluator-consultant.mediately resentenced to the state tablish a child-find program.penitentiary. would try to deal with, having definedpolicy in a particular way? Policy ques-tions are given for each of the threeexemplar areas. That is, given Defini-tion 1, "Policy is an assertion of intentsor goals," the CJCC analyst would ask,"What are the overall intents or goalsof the community corrections pro-grams?" At the other extreme (Defini-tion 8), the analyst would ask, "Howwould the clients describe the policyof the community corrections pro-gram as a result of their encounterswith it?"2. Dam colecaed. What kinds of datawould the policy analyst collect, giventhe policy question posed by a particu-lar definition of policy? For example,given Definition 1--goals and in-tents-the analyst might well collect,for CJCC, state and county criminalDefinition 3. Policy is a guide to discretionary action.Item CICC SPED HEACPolicy Question: What is the scope of discretionary What is the scope of discretionary What is the scope of discretionaryaction that can be tolerated in im- action that can be tolerated in im- action that can be tolerated in de-plementing the community correc- plementing PL 94-142? termining the accreditation statustions legislation? of a higher education institution?Data Collected: Action roles and functions such as Action roles and functions such as Action roles and functions such asthose in Definition 2 above. Types those in Definition 2 above. Types those in Definition 2 above. Typesof actions taken by each. Impact of of actions taken by each. Impact of of actions, such as those in Defini-actions such as those in Definition actions, such as those in Definition tion 2.2. 2.Data Sources: As in Definition 2.Methodology: As in Definition 2.Policy Products: Identification of key action roles; Identification of key action roles; Identification of key action roles;recommendations for expectations recommendations for expectations recommendations for expectationswith respect to each, recommen- with respect to each, recommen- with respect to each, recommen-dations for discretionary limits, dations for discretionary limits, dations for discretionary limits,"meta-rules," such as a probation "meta-rules," such as the school "meta-rules," such as evaluatorofficer may recommend termina- psychologist may recommend consultants may recommend non-tion of sentence with the approval placement in the gifted program accreditation if they believe the in-of the judge, a county criminal jus- for students whose l.Q. falls be- stitution will be unable to providetice administrator may determine tween 115 and 125, parents may funds for a viable program in thethe county's degree of involve- elect to keep an EMR child in a future, institutions may appeal if itment in the program: full, partial, regular classroom even though is believed that their situation hasor none. school staff recommend otherwise. been misassessed.Definition 4. Policy is a strategy undertaken to solve or ameliorate some problem.Item CICC SPED HEACPolicy Question: What strategies can be followed to What strategies can be followed to What strategies can be followed tominimize the problems that arise minimize the problems that arise minimize the problems that arisein implementing community cor- in implementing PL 94-142? in implementing higher educationrections programs? accreditation processes?Data Collected: Types and frequency of problems. Types and frequency of problems. Types and frequency of problems.Impact of each type of problem, Impact of each type of problem, Impact of each type of problem,such as prevents locating commu- such as assigns blacks dispropor- such as tends to misassess specialnity corrections facilities in estab- tionately to the EMR category and purpose institutions such as biblelished neighborhoods, encourages whites to the LD category, over- colleges and chiropractic schools,offenders to accept as valid the loads teachers with paperwork. biased toward re-accrediting for-classification imposed on them by merly accredited institutions eventhe court. in the face of program determina-tions to the contrary.Data Sources: Implementers, such as parole offi- Implementers, such as teachers, Implementers, such as drafters ofcers, judges; clients, other stake- administrators, special services self-study reports, evaluator con-holding audiences such as the gen- providers; clients; other stake- sultants; clients; other stakehold-eral public, legislators; state and holding audiences such as parents, ing audiences, such as students,local records, such as recidivism, state department of education employers; national, state, localsentence completion, plea bargain- monitors; national, state, local rec- records such as faculty credentials,ing; actual experience. ords, such as increases in the num- enrollment data, placement data.ber and type of handicappedserved, amount of paper perserved client.Methodology: Statistical data analyses, interviews, observations, questionnaire studies, records analyses (including exceptionreports and monitoring reports), "hearings."Policy Products: Identification of common, recur- Identification of common, recur- Identification of common, recur-rent problems; sets of tactics for rent problems; sets of tactics for rent problems; sets of tactics fordealing with each, such as con- dealing with each, such as moni- dealing with each, such as usingducting community forums to toring black-white distribution of special purpose faculty as evalua-overcome fear of corrections facili- cases over the several special edu- tor consultants, emphasizing in-ties in neighborhoods, counseling cation categories, using computer structions to evaluator consultantsto overcome negative self-image. facilities to provide as much rou- to ignore previous accreditation intine paperwork as possible. reaching judgments.(Continued on page 68.) Delouil;m SI Pky saconed behaWrr, foinai through authoritative decisions, or infonnrlly through expectations andacc ace, esuablshed over (sanctied by) lmne.Ner o CICC SPED HEACPolicy Question: What expectations should be set What expectations should be set What expectations should be setfor implementers of community for implementers of PL 94-142, ei- for implementers of higher educa-corrections programs, either as a ther as a priori prescriptions or as tion accreditation processes, eitherpriori prescriptions or as modified modified through experience? as a priori prescriptions or as modi-through experience? fied through experience?Data Collected: Implementation roles and func- Implementation roles and func- Implementation roles and func-tions such as parole officers, tions such as regular and special tions, such as evaluator consul-judges, special service providers; education teachers, administrators, tants, review board members; "ex-"expert" opinion about expecta- special service providers; "expert" pen" opinion about expectationstions reasonable for each role, that opinion about expectations reason- reasonable for each role, that is,is from counterpart implementers able for each role, that is from from counterpart implementersfrom other sites; constructions of counterpart roles at other sites; who have carried out other accred-role incumbents. constructions of role incumbents. itations; constructions of role in-cumbents.Data Sources: Role incumbents and counterparts; Role incumbents and counterparts; Role incumbents and counterparts;site observations; activity reports. site observations; activity reports; site observations; activity reports;evaluation reports. evaluation reports; team reports.Methodology: As in Definition 4.Policy Products: Role definitions and corresponding Role definitions and corresponding Role definitions and correspondingexpectations, such as parole offi- expectations, such as regular class- expectations, such as evaluatorcers shall be at all times responsi- room teachers shall consult with a consultants shall inform universityble for knowing the whereabouts resource teacher when they are officials of the accreditation statusof their charges, service providers unsure about how to handle a to be recommended but not dis-shall follow the program plans they case, administrators should be cuss it, review boards shall nothave filed with the county commu- knowledgeable about every special overturn the recommendation ofnity corrections administrator. education child assigned to their the visitation team without input ofbuildings. additional evidence.Deibiion 6. Policy is a norm of conduct, charactenrized by consistency and regularity, in some substantive action area.tem CICC SPED HEACPolicy Question: What forms of conduct are consis- What forms of conduct are consis- What forms of conduct are consis-tently acceptable in agents who are tently acceptable in agents who are tently acceptable in agents who areimplementing the community cor- implementing PL 94-142? implementing higher education ac-rections program? creditation processes?Data Collected: Implementation agents, such as Implementation agents, such as Implementation agents, such asjudges, probation officers, special regular and special education evaluator consultants, reviewservice providers; tried-and-true teachers, administrators, special board members; tried-and-truesatisfying practices of local agents service providers; tried-and-true satisfying practices of local agentsand counterpart agents elsewhere. satisfying practices of local agents and counterpart agents elsewhere.and counterpart agents elsewhere.Data Sources: As in Definition 5.Methodology: As in Definition 4.Policy Products: Descriptions of satisfying behavior Descriptions of satisfying behavior Descriptions of satisfying behaviorand corresponding norms, such as and corresponding norms, such as and corresponding norms, such asparole officers should check the teachers should keep paperwork evaluator consultants should checkwhereabouts of parolees sufficient- up-to-date to satisfy any monitor, the data presented in the self-ly often to be comfortable about administrators should reassign bor- study at random as a means of vali-the possibility of absconding, derline cases as needed to manage dation, evaluator consultantsjudges should accept plea bargains teacher loads or to take account of should be less concerned with ac-as necessary to keep their case special circumstances of the child. creditability than in providing le-load manageable. verage to the institution in solvingdifficult problems.justice statistics such as crime rates,arrests, incarcerations, paroles, and re-cidivism. He or she might conductneeds assessments, strengths assess-ments, and resource assessments aswell, and finally, might solicit the opin-ions of various experts about what theintents or goals should be. Paralleldata would be collected for SPED andHEAC. At the other extreme, in follow-ing Definition 8-client construc-tions-the analyst would be interestedin collecting as many such construc-tions as possible3. Data sources The data stipulatedabove cannot be found just anywhere;knowing what data are wanted makesit possible to stipulate where theymight be found. Sources may include(as they do for CJCC by Definition 1),groups of stakeholding persons, rec-ords, documents, position papers,court decisions, and groups of experts;others will be useful for other defini-tional situations. In the case of Defini-tion 8, the sources will be almostexclusively clients since It is their con-68 ISOUCA rioNAt. LF.ADI RSHiP68EDUCAFI()NA. ILEADERSHIP Definiion 7. Poicy i the output of the polymalih system: the cumlaive elecd of al thke acdes, deci md hehekm ofthe mfnions of people who work in rbueaurcies. t occrn, takes plce, and is made at eery pot in the politcyde, from agenda se, to polcy impact. As such, poicr s an anJl c categor.Item CICC SPED HEACPolicy Question: What are the collective effects of What are the collective effects of What are the collective effects ofthe behaviors of the several imple- the behaviors of the several imple- the behaviors of the several imple-menters of the community correc- menters of PL 94-142? menters of higher education ac-tions program? creditation processes?Data Collected: Relevant laws, court decisions, ex- Relevant laws, court decisions, Relevant standards, guidelines, ex-ecutive orders, administrative state department of education dir- emplar field reports and recom-guidelines, regulations, memoran- ectives, monitoring reports, guide- mendations, minutes of reviewda, instructions, behavior of street- lines, exemplars of common pa- board sessions, appeals, behaviorlevel bureaucrats; responses to the perwork, behavior of the several of administrators, evaluator consul-above by clients; opinions of ex- implementer categories; responses tants, and review board members;perts. to the above by clients and other responses to the process by stake-stakeholding audiences such as holding audiences within the insti-parents; opinions of experts. tutions; opinions of experts.Data Sources: Law libraries, state and local rec- Law libraries, national, state, and Professional literature, accreditingords, practices of agents at state local education agency records, association records, practices ofand county sites and counterpart practices of agents at state and lo- agents within the association andagents elsewhere, "experts" such cal levels and counterpart agents at the candidate site, "experts"as professors of political science elsewhere, "experts" such as pro- such as professors of higher edu-and forensics and leading practi- fessors of special education and cation and leading practitionerstioners. leading practitioners. such as university administrators.Methodology: Statistical data analyses, documentary analyses, interviews, observation, unobtrusive measures, investigative in-quiry techniques.Policy Products: Descriptions of collective effects, Description of collective effects, Description of collective effects,such as widening the net of social such as determining who is "teach- such as stigmatizing nonaccreditedcontrol to include offenders who able," placing more emphasis on institutions, diminishing the rangemight otherwise be released, in- keeping auditable records than on of creativity in programming thatcreasing the range of acceptable overcoming student problems. institutions will be willing to risk.plea bargaining.Definition 8. Policy is the impact of the polcymaking and podicy-implementing system as it is experienced by the cient.Item CdCC SPED HEACPolicy Question: How would the clients describe How would the clients describe How would the clients describethe policy of the community cor- the policy emanating from PL 94- the policy of the accreditationrections program as a result of 142 as a result of their experiences process as a result of their experi-their experiences with it? with it? ences with it?Data Collected: Client constructionsData Sources: ClientsMethodology: Interviews, observation, unobtrusive measures, investigate inquiry techniques.Policy Products: Client constructions, such as coer- Client constructions, such as stig- Client constructions, such as nega-cion, control, reluctance to pro- ma, babysitting rather than help, tivism, overquick judgment, inade-vide entitlements such as employ- reluctance to provide entitlements quate understanding, reluctance toment opportunities, addiction ther- such as adequate diagnosis, thera- provide entitlements such as fairapy. py, prosthetic devices. hearings study of special circum-stances.structions that define policy.4. Methodology. Different datasources imply different methodologiesin tapping them. Thus, personal con-structions may require interviews andobservations, records may requireanalysis, statistics may require numeri-cal analysis, and so on. Hearings are acommon form of input device to col-lect data from interest groups.5. Polio' products. This row of Fig-ure 2 is by far the most interesting,OCTOBER 1984since it is here that one can bestappreciate the vast differences that dif-ferent policy definitions can produce.In CJCC, for example, a definition ofpolicy as intents or goals results in apolicy analysis yielding recommenda-tions or prioritizations among goalssuch as reduction in costs of operatingthe prison system, lowering recidivismrates, providing a better fit of punish-ment to crime, and so on. This productis quite different from, say, Definition2, which results in recommendationsof rules (for instance, Class C felonsshall be eligible for consideration forthe community corrections program);,Definition 3's guidelines (a probationofficer mav recommend terminationof sentence with the approval of thejudge); Definition 4's sets of tactic(conducting communin, forums toovercome fear of having correctionsfacilities placed in neighborhoods);Definition 5's expectations (judges69 should accept plea bargains as neces-sary to keep their case lod manage-able);, Definition 6's norrs (judgesshould accept plea bargain4 as neces-sary to keep their case loads manage-able); Definition 7's effects (wideningthe net of social control to includeoffenders who might otherwise be re-leased); or Definition 8's client con-structions (coercion and control).A Test for Policy ProductsThe examples appearing in the PolicyProducts row of Figure 2 can reason-ably be construed as policies. Some ofthe examples may sound more likepolicies to the reader than others,although this apparently greater valid-ity is as much a function of what thereader normally takes to be policy as it.is of any property intrinsic to theexamples themselves. Nevertheless, itis reasonable to suggest a test; and thereader is invited to apply the followingone. Using the sentence stub, "It is thepolicy of this entity to ... " completethe sentence by adding the variousexamples of Figure 2. The term entitycan, of course, be understood to meana program, a unit, an agency, a legisla-ture, or any other body or institution.To illustrate, let us take one examplefrom Figure 2 for the special educa-tion (SPED) definition of policy:Definition 1: Intents or Goals. It isthe policy of this entity to provide afree, appropriate public education forall.Definition 2: Standing Decisions. Itis the policy of this entity to affordparents due process before placingany child in a special education pro-gram.Definition 3: Discretionaiy Guide toAction. It is the policy of this entity topermit a school psychologist to rec-ommend placement in a gifted pro-gram of any child whose I.Q. fallsbetween 115 and 125.Definition 4: Problem-Solving Strat-egy. It is the policy of this entity to usecomputer facilities to provide as muchroutine paperwork as possible.Definition 5: Sanctioned Bebavior.It is the policy of this entity to haveregular classroom teachers consultwith a resource teacher when unsureabout how to handle a case. (Thispolicy statement differs from numbers2 and 4 above in that it is devised byimplementers close to the point ofaction; it is less a rule or strategy than aself-developed rule-of-thumb; the be-havior is sanctioned by virtue of thesuccessful experience of imple-menters.)Definition 6: Norms of Conduct. Itis the policy of this entity that adminis-trators should reassign borderline cas-es as needed to manage teacher loadsor to take account of the special cir-cumstances of the child. (This policystatement differs from number 5above in that norms are peer-devel-oped accommodations to reality thathave been worked out through mutualnegotiation, even if only implicitly.)Definition 7: Output of the Policy-Making System. It is the policy of thisentity to place more emphasis onkeeping auditable records than onovercoming student problems. (Thisanalytic statement deduces policyfrom observations of behavior, analy-sis of records, and so forth. It may, asin this case, be an unwritten policythat is deduced but one that is opera-tive in controlling the behavior ofpolicymakers and implementers at alllevels.)Definition 8. Client Constructions.It is the policy of this entity to denyentitlements such as adequate diagno-sis, therapy, or prosthetic devices.(This statement, like number 7 above,is a deduction, based not on analysisbut on client experience. Clients hav-ing made such constructions will act asthough these deductions were in factthe policy of the organization.)ConchsionsSeveral conclusions may be drawnfrom the above analysis:* It is nonsense to ask the question,"What is the real definition of policy?"No one of the definitions given above(or any others, for that matter) canstake a legitimate claim to priority. Alldefinitions are constructions; nonecan claim tangible reality. Virtually anypolicy definition must be admitted solong as its proposer can make a ratio-nal case for his or her particular usage.* Nevertheless, not all definitionsare equal in their consequences forpolicy analysis. Each definition callsfor its own data, sources, and methods,and produces unique outcomes. Ex-plicitly or tacitly, each different defini-tion has an enormous impact on theprocesses and products of policy anal-ysis.*The particular definition that ananalyst elects to use should depend onthe purpose of the analysis. From theperspective of the analyst some defini-tions will always be better than others.When Congress is seeking to set broadgoals for the education of handi-capped children, a definition of policyas goals or intents is clearly moremeaningful than any other; indeed,certain others would not even be pos-sible. And there can be no client con-structions unless a program is alreadyin place, for example.*What constitutes a better defini-tion is of course a matter of values.Thus, the selection of a particular defi-nition is a value choice. Certain defini-tions of policy are likely to be moreconsonant with the analyst's valuesthan others. The political implicationsof this choice should not be over-looked; that is, policy analysis may beused to advance certain values and tocheck others. The authoritarian policyboard is not likely to be much interest-ed in implementer norms or clientconstructions, for example. Policyanalyses are not value free; the out-come depends heavily on the defini-tion of policy that the analyst explicitlyor implicitly follows.* To be ethical, the policy analyst isobliged to point out the particulardefinition used in an analysis and tocharacterize its consequences for thevariety of stakeholding audiences con-cerned with the analysis. The best wayto do that is to show, as in Figure 2,what might happen if different defini-tions of policy were adopted. The besttime to make this disclosure isprior toundertaking the analysis so that allstakeholding audiences may knowwhat is involved and arrive at someconsensus before the analyst pro-ceeds. If consensus is not possible, theanalyst may need to develop differentanalyses for different audiences; rec-onciliation and accommodation thenbecome the audiences' problemE'Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucra-cy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation,1980)EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved. 1 Promoting Social Justice in Schools: PrincipalsÕ Political Strategies James Ryan OISE Abstract This article describes a study that explores the ways in which principals use their political acumen to promote social justice in their schools. Employing face-to-face interviews with 28 principals who have worked in variety of schools, the study examines the principalsÕ efforts to understand their political contexts, the manner in which they employ their knowledge in the strategies that they use, and the ways in which they strategically monitor their actions as they work toward their equity goals. The study concludes that principals need to acknowledge the importance of engaging in political activity in their organizations. More than this though, they need to combine their intellectual and strategic abilities with personal and social qualities like courage, boldness and care if they are to move their social justice agendas along. It is not always easy to promote social justice, equity and inclusion1 in schools. Educators who attempt to do so do not always meet with success. This is as true for administrators as it is for students, teachers and parents. There are many reasons for this. To begin with, administrators work in hierarchical systems that make them legally responsible for enforcing policies and practices that may be unfair. Even with the best of intentions, administrators may find themselves in the course of carrying out their jobs unwittingly supporting in both subtle and not so subtle ways various forms of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia (Ryan, 2003a; 2007; Ryan & Rottmann, 2009). More to the point, though, equity-minded educators 2 regularly face resistance from various constituencies in their school communities (Theoharis, 2007). Some of this resistance is planned and overt (Datnow, 1998). But some is also inadvertent, shepherded along by proponents who do not always realize that their favored reform initiative, program proposal or policy works against already marginalized groups (Ryan, 2003b; Taylor, 2006). Needless to say, equity-minded administrators have their work cut out for them. But if they are to make their schools and communities better places to live, work and learn, then they will have to find ways to counter practices that work against their initiatives. One way to promote equity, social justice and inclusion in these contested educational environments is to employ political skills. Given the local or ÔmircoÕ contexts in which they are employed, academics have referred to these skills as Ômicropolitical skillsÕ. Although acknowledging that they can also be employed to advance less desirable social ends, Anderson (1991) and Marshall and Scribner (1991) contend that micropolitical skills can be used to promote socially just goals. Marshall and Scribner (1991, p. 3), for example, maintain that Educators can use micropolitical skills to plan alterations in resources and manipulation of symbols to reduce inequities and to increase the power and voice of previously powerless groups. Most would express support for making practical use of micropolitical skills, for example, to remedy the exclusion of 3 women from top administration or to increase the participation of poor and disabled students in extracurricular activities. In the spirit of Marshall and ScribnerÕs observation, this article describes a study that explores principalsÕ use of micro/political skills to promote their social justice agendas. In particular, it examines principalsÕ political acumen, that is, it explores their efforts to understand their political contexts, the manner in which they employ their knowledge in the strategies that they use, and the ways in which they strategically monitor their actions as they work toward their equity goals. Social Justice Leadership Scholars in educational administration have only addressed issues of marginalization for a comparatively short time. Initially operating within traditions associated with critical theory, feminism, neo-Marxism and poststructuralism, pioneers in the field like Bates (1980), Foster (1980), and others introduced leadership and administrative perspectives that were designed to enable scholars and practitioners to understand and do something about persistent injustices in schools that revolved around social class, gender, and race (Ryan & Rottmann, 2007). More recently though scholars concerned with the plight of the marginalized have adopted the term 4 social justice, illustrated most obviously in a number of special issue journal editions devoted to leadership and social justice (e.g. Educational Administration Quarterly, Journal of Educational Administration, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations). And while some of these academics may focus on particular issues, many of them also direct their attention to more than one form of marginalization. Enlightening as it is, much of the more recent literature that addresses leadership and social justice, as Theoharis (2007) observes, tends to be more theoretical than practical in nature (e.g. Blackmore, 2002; Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Lugg & Soho, 2006; MacKinnon, 2000; Shields, 2004). Few pieces actually document how social justice leaders, and in particular principals, accomplish their goals. One exception is Theoharis (2007). He describes a number of strategies that principals employ to promote social justice in contexts that actively resist such efforts. But while his work informs the work of practitioners in helpful ways, it does not actually delve into the realm of micropolitics, that is, it does not document the power interactions at the school and district level Ð not to mention the political acumen that actors employ Ð that occur as principals attempt to accomplish their goals in the midst of persistent resistance. Other literature that 5 addresses the advocacy role of social justice leaders and principals (Anderson, 2008; Ryan, 2006a) also does not explore the micropolitical aspects of it. Indeed, Anderson (2009) goes so far as to as to draw a distinction between what he refers to as advocacy leadership and Òpolitical activity.Ó To date, no research has attempted to marry these two perspectives, or actually probe in detail the use of political acumen in the pursuit of social justice. In an attempt to address this gap, this article combines these two perspectives, employing a micropolitical approach that features political acumen to understand how social justice principals accomplish their goals. The next section expands on leadership and micropolitics. The Politics of Leadership Research into the politics of education has a relatively short history. Initially, the politics that scholars wrote about five decades ago were quite different than the politics Marshall and Scribner (1991) and Anderson (1991) describe. Mirroring their political science colleagues at the time, researchers conceived of politics in education very broadly as Ôwho gets what, when and howÕ (Laswell, 1936) and the Ôauthoritative allocation of valuesÕ (Easton, 1965). In doing so, they concentrated on large scale 6 structures of government and education, policy making processes, interest groups and their pursuits, the alignment of community power, the recruitment and socialization of politicians for education, the role of state legislators and courts, among others (Townsend, 1990). What was most important to these scholars was what happened beyond the walls of the schoolhouse. Seldom did they venture to look at what happened inside the school. This changed, however, with the advent of a micropolitical perspective, and so did the meaning of politics. Innaconne (1975) was among the first to coin the term, Ômicropolitics of educationÕ. For Innoconne and other micropolitical social scientists in education who followed him, like Ball (1987) and Blase (1991a, 1991b), ÔpoliticsÕ involved more than just the actions and interests of politicians and the trajectories of formal policies. Instead, it revolved around Ôthe interaction and political ideologies of social systems of teachers, administrators and pupils within school buildingsÕ (Innaconne, 1975, p. 43). Ball (1987) subsequently characterized these contexts as Ôarenas of struggleÕ. Blase (1991a, p. 11) captures nicely the spirit of this perspective on politics: Micropolitics refers to the use of formal and informal power by individuals and groups to achieve their goals in organizations. In large part, political actions result from perceived differences 7 between individuals and groups, coupled with the motivation to use power to influence and /or protect. Although such actions are consciously motivated, any action, consciously or unconsciously motivated, may have political ÒsignificanceÓ in a given situation. Both cooperative and conflictive actions and processes are part of the realm of politics. Moreover, macro- and micropolitical factors frequently interact. Explorations of educational leadership from a political/micropolitical perspective in education have a spotted history. Although many studies refer to power and leadership at the school level, few describe the dynamics of these micropolitical relationships (Malen & Chochran, 2008). Many of those that do, treat this sort of political activity critically. A number of the earlier studies in this area (e.g. Ball, 1987; Blase,1991b; Blase & Anderson,1995), for example, describe how more powerful school administrators bend less powerful parents and teachers to their wills. More recent studies and reviews (e.g. Brooks et. al., 2004; Blase & Blase 2002; Ingersoll, 2003; Leithwood et. al. 1999; Malen & Cochran,2008), confirm the ongoing the power of the principal in these exchanges, even though such interactions may at times be cordial. Studies that explore the ÔpositiveÕ side of the politics of educational leadership, on the other hand, are rare. Moreover, research that examines micropolitical activity designed to promote social justice is non-existent. But successful pursuit of social justice may require that those who are committed to it engage in 8 micropolitical activity, that is, they may see it, as Anderson (1991), Lindle (1994), Marshall and Scribner (1991) and McGinn (2005) do, as a necessary and positive practice. Indeed principals who want their teachers to be inclusive-minded, require additional resources for their underprivileged students, or see the need to develop equity-friendly district wide policies may have no choice but to play the political game. A key element in this political action is political acumen. Indeed, principals who want to achieve their goals will have to exercise their political wisdom or acumen (McGinn, 2005). According to the godfather of micropolitics, Nicholo Machiavelli (1952, 1997), wisdom is a key pillar in any leaderÕs political arsenal. Unfortunately, little work has been done in this area. Political Acumen Despite, his (not always warranted) unsavory reputation, Machiavelli (1952, 1997) has much to offer contemporary leaders. Principal among his useful ideas is the notion of political acumen. Machiavelli believed that leaders could not effectively govern their respective states by brute force alone. Instead they needed to be wise, and they had to use this wisdom in judicious ways. To make his point, Machiavelli (1952, p. 92), observed that A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect 9 himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. Those that wish only to be lions do not understand this. In the intervening years, scholars have recognized the importance of this fox persona, often according it more value than the lion character (Lukes, 2001). Along these lines, contemporary scholars in education and other disciplines have pursued MachiavelliÕs notion of statecraft. With Machiavelli, they believe that it is necessary for leaders to (1) acquire knowledge of the system/environment in which they work, (2) apply the knowledge they have acquired in the strategies that they employ, and (3) strategically monitor their own actions (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Buchanan & Badman, 1999; Deluca, 1992; Kotter, 1985; McGinn, 2005). The first requirement for a politically astute leader is to recognize the importance of understanding the political environment. Machiavelli himself conceded that this was not always an easy thing to do. This was because much of what was important to know was hidden behind a veil of false convention, perpetrated by those whose interests would best be served by concealing their true intentions. Thus, Machiavelli believed that understanding political reality was not just a matter of collecting obvious facts, but of uncovering meanings that were not immediately visible. To do this, astute leaders needed to pay particular attention to the people with 10 whom they worked. In particular, they needed to be able to interpret their colleaguesÕ words, actions and gestures in ways that allowed them to understand the latterÕs real intentions, dispositions and passions so that they could predict their behaviour. While contemporary disciples emphasize the necessity of understanding the culture and system part of the political environment, they also acknowledge the inseparability of system and human, and continue to emphasize the importance of knowing the people with which one works. Buchanan and Badham (1999), for example, maintain that when joining an organization the politically astute executive ought to make an effort to find out (1) who is friendly with who, who are enemies, secret liaisons, (2) the real agendas of key resource holders, (3) who controls ÔdiscretionaryÕ resources and who to ÔreachÕ if you want something done, (4) past and current hot issues, and (5) who to befriend and who to avoid. Leaders also need to be able to put their knowledge of the political environment to good use in the strategies that they employ. A number of contemporary scholars suggest particular strategies. Bolman and Deal (2008), for example, maintain that politically astute leaders need to develop an agenda, build a base of support, and learn how to manage relations with those who might support or resistant the agenda. Buchanan and Badman (1999), on the other hand, maintain that these leaders must develop Ôpower 11 talking strategiesÕ and Ôinfluence tacticsÕ. In education, Marshall and Mitchell (1991) and McGinn (2005) explore the politics of the vice principalship and the principalship, respectively. With regards to the former, Marshall and Mitchell contend that in order to survive in the position, vice principals need to limit risk taking, remake policy quietly, avoid moral dilemmas, refrain from displaying divergent values, be committed (join the club), avoid getting labeled as a troublemaker, keep disputes private, and cover all your bases. McGinn (2005), on the other hand, observes that politically-minded principals develop relationships within and beyond the school community, including central office people, speak political language, and develop networks of support. While the above suggestions may help leaders get the leverage they need to move their agendas forward, leaders cannot automatically or blindly put them into practice. Instead, they need to apply them in strategic ways, carefully considering what the particular circumstances demand at the time. There is no formula for politically minded leaders to follow. They must understand the situations in which they find themselves and then decide on the best courses of action. In order to cope with the improvisatory and experimental nature of such practice, Buchanan and Badman (1999) feel that politically-minded leaders need to see themselves as bricoleurs, using 12 whatever resources that they have at their disposal as they pursue their goals, including opportunity, luck and accidents of good timing. In these kinds of contexts, self-monitoring is particularly important. Administrators need to be self-conscious, self-aware and self-critical and to learn from experience. McGinn (2005) found that the politically-minded principals in her study considered very carefully the contexts in which they acted, thought about the impact of their actions as they were occurring, and reflected on them after-the-fact. Among the many things upon which administrators might reflect, are the ethical implications of oneÕs actions. Given the fine line between ethical actions and practical strategies, reflective politically-minded administrators will inevitably consider the ethics of their actions. The study described in this article explores how school principals display the three elements of political acumen Ð (1) understanding political environments, (2) applying the knowledge they have acquired in the strategies that they employ, and (3) strategically monitoring their own actions Ð as they pursue their social justice goals. The Study This study was part of a larger study that explored principalsÕ approaches to inclusion and social justice. It involved three components: interviews of inclusive/social justice-minded principals, a survey of 13 principals that probed their inclusive/social justice practices, and case studies of two schools. This article reports on a theme that arose from the interview portion of the study Ð political acumen. Qualitative methodology (Kirby & McKenna, 1989; Merriam, 1998) was employed for this portion of the study because it was thought to be the most appropriate way to generate insight into how a variety of administrators promoted social justice in their schools. Qualitative interviews were particularly well suited to the study because they are the best way to acquire an understanding of the complexities associated with the process, and in particular, the political side of administratorsÕ work (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Interviews also permit the researcher to probe areas that research participants may not be used to speaking about Ð like political strategies. In the end though, interviewing is the preferred data collection strategy in this case because it allows researchers to Ôget better data or more data at less cost than other tacticsÕ (Merriam, 1998, p. 72). The sample consisted of inclusive/equity-minded school principals. Participants were chosen on the basis of their desire to promote inclusion, equity and social justice. The concern here was not with locating ÔexemplaryÕ administrators, but with recruiting principals who thought about these issues, and as a consequence, could talk about their efforts (and 14 struggles). Obviously, as will become evident, not all principals were successful at achieving their equity goals. It was also evident among the study participants that in order to achieve any sort of success in achieving their social justice goals, they had to play the political game. A snowball technique (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990) was employed to locate and approach potential principals. Initially, principals known to be equity-minded were chosen. These individuals, in turn, provided the names of other like-minded administrators. In all, 28 principals were interviewed. As it turned out, virtually all of the principals shared similar views on social justice, equity and inclusion. They were first and foremost concerned with issues associated with not just the differently-abled, but also with other axes of dis/advantage like gender, social class, race and sexual orientation, among others. In this regard, they sought to expose, contest, and overturn the disadvantages associated with these structures. While not all could articulate some of the finer points of social justice that academics illustrate, like for example, the fair distribution of resources (Rawls, 1971) or the recognition of identities (Fraser & Honneth, 2003), these principals nevertheless reflected these principles in the way they talked about their practices. Most also understood that promoting social justice went hand in hand with ensuring the equitable treatment of marginalized groups, that is, they 15 acknowledged that disenfranchised groups could not be treated in the same manner as privileged groups (Ryan & Rottmann, 2007). In order to achieve such ends, many of these principals also favoured the idea and practice of inclusion. They did what they could to include members of their school communities Ð students, parents, teachers and others Ðin decision-making processes and other activities in ways that provided them with the power that they often did not possess in other contexts. They saw inclusion not as mere tokenism, but as a way for the marginalized to have a meaningful voice (Ryan, 2006c). The principal pool represented a wide variety of experiences. All of these administrators had been in more than one school and eight had worked in more than one school district. Typically the schools that they worked in and central district offices with which they were associated functioned in a hierarchical manner. District offices issued policies and directives and they distributed resources. While most of the schools had school councils, they were only advisory in nature. These schools and districts and the communities that the principals in this study served in over the years varied considerably. They included both rural and urban schools Ð schools in big, mid-size and small cities and towns and those in villages and in the countryside, far from municipalities. The communities that they served 16 were well-off and poor, uniformly white and racially diverse, locally-born and highly immigrant. Some were also mixes of these. The schools that these principals worked over their careers were small and large, elementary and secondary, and public and private. Principals were contacted by phone, and those who agreed to be interviewed were visited in person. Interviews were conducted in a variety of locations, including participantsÕ offices, at the university, in coffee shops, or wherever it was most convenient. Interviews ranged in length from 45 to 90 minutes. All the interviews were tape-recorded. Initially study participants were asked about what they did to promote inclusion, equity and social justice in their schools and communities. In particular, they were asked about who and how they included students, teachers, parents and others in various school and academic activities, how they advocated for them, developed critical skills, emphasized student learning, promoted dialogue, adopted inclusive policy making processes and engendered whole school approaches (Ryan, 2006b). Data analysis, as is commonly the case with qualitative research (Merriam, 1998), began as the interviews were being carried out. The interviewer took note of common themes during the interviews and after Ð with a cursory review of the transcriptions. In the interviews, the 17 participants spoke about what they were doing in their current environment and about the full breadth of their administrative experience in all of the schools in which they worked. What became apparent as they talked about these experiences were the difficulties of promoting inclusion, equity and social justice and the need to develop political strategies. In one of the first interviews, one of the participants Ð Beatrice (a pseudonym) Ð introduced this notion of political acumen, saying that principals needed a bit of this simply to survive on the job when promoting equity. She was not the only one to refer to the political arena, however, and this theme was pursued in more depth. Participants were asked more questions about politics and political acumen. In order to help with this issue, the literature on the topic was explored. Interviewing was concluded when the data began to repeat itself (Merriam, 1998). After all the interviews were carried out, the data were analyzed in a more comprehensive way using N6 software. This aspect of the analysis fleshed out the nature of political acumen in more detail. In particular, it facilitated the emergence of three political acumen categories Ð (1) understanding the political environment, (2) putting this knowledge into practice in the strategies that principals employed, and (3) strategically monitoring actions. The remainder of the article is organized around these 18 three categories. It begins, though, with a general orientation to being political. Being Political The administrators in the study saw their political predispositions in a number of ways. Some recognized the necessity of playing politics and readily acknowledged their active participation in related practices. Beatrice, an experienced principal, for example, claims that Ôyou have to have political acumenÕ to survive on the job. More common, though, were principals who either preferred not to think of themselves as politicians or those who had difficulty articulating what they did in their political capacities. Jean is typical of the latter. An elementary principal who has had plenty of experience in a variety of schools, she has difficulty seeing herself as a Ôpolitical personÕ, even though she readily acknowledges that schooling is a political process. She says, ÔI don't see myself as being particularly politically savvy. I know, however, that everything that we do is political and carries political weightÕ. After reflecting on her statement, she reconsidered somewhat, indicating that Ômaybe I am more politically savvy than I give myself credit forÕ, and relating that the reason for saying that she was not particularly savvy was her perceived lack of success at changing things. 19 Administrators speak of their political practices in a number of ways. They describe how they come to understand the political environments in which they work, the political strategies that they employ, and the manner in which they consciously consider their actions. Understanding Political Environments Participants in the study acknowledged the importance of understanding the political environments in which they worked. John, an experienced principal now working in a diverse urban elementary school, emphasized this point when he says, ÔYou have to understand before you seek to change.Õ John and his fellow participants felt that it is crucial to understand school cultures, community dynamics and the wider system idiosyncrasies. Understanding these realms requires that they come to know, or know about, the people who work in the system Ð teachers, parents and central office people Ð and their values and priorities. They speak about a number of ways of acquiring this knowledge, including listening, interacting with people and moving around. Participants spoke of the importance of knowing and understanding the not-always-obvious system conventions. Part of this understanding required an understanding of the people who occupied significant positions in the system. According to Jean, school administrators need to know who has 20 power, what kind of power they possess, and how they are likely to use this power. Jean maintains that power is not necessarily associated just with a personÕs formal organizational position, however. Instead, she says that it is often a product of the kind of relationship people have with others. So it is important for principals to understand these kinds of relationships and the relationships that they have with these powerful others in order to know who is likely to support their initiatives and interests. Roz also believes that part of politicking Ôis getting to know the playersÕ. She says that it is important to know if Ôa lot of them like to profile themselves and their careers, and they like to be the best at whatever. So they donÕt want anything to become public that might undermine that effortÕ. Getting what she wants requires that she figure out Ôtheir values, whatÕs important to them, what makes them tickÕ. Roz contends that promoting her equity agenda requires that she finds a way to align system/individual priorities with her own. She says, for example, that she has a Ôbetter shot at succeedingÕ if she can ÔmarryÕ her goal of getting funding with the boardÕs desire to Ôlook good publiclyÕ. Study participants also have a number of strategies that they employ to help them learn about their political environments. One strategy for learning more about the school district and the important and powerful players is to sit on board-wide committees. Jasmin says that in these circumstances ÔI 21 meet these people and I get to read themÕ. Jasmin also maintains that moving from board to board has helped her come to understand district dynamics. She says: It helps when you have had a breadth of experiences. So I havenÕt been in one system; IÕve been in many, unlike most of my colleagues. I tend to want to get that big picture. And so when you do that, you start to see some commonalities in all the systems. And that helps me figure out how everything is set up. Participants also talked about the importance of getting to know the school community and staff. Roger, for example, maintained that Ôthe first thing is listen to your community and get an understanding. And it takes timeÕ. John also recognizes the importance of hearing what people have to say. He also employs a variety of techniques to learn about his environment. He invites parents into the school for focus groups and he sends out surveys. Not all principals, however, support the idea of using surveys. Jasmin, for example, does not employ this technique because she believes that it Ôreally reinforces the power for the people who already have power in the communityÕ. She feels that not all parents will take advantage of the survey opportunities, and as a consequence, not all sectors of the community will be equitably served by the practice. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding the political environments in which they work. However, they also realize that just 22 knowing about how things work is not enough to promote their social justice agendas. They also have to understand how to best employ this knowledge in the unique contexts in which they work. Political Strategies In this study, participants spoke about a number of political strategies they employ to promote equity and social justice in their schools. These include, among others, developing and establishing relationships, persuading others, persisting, planning, experimenting, being up front, keeping others off-balance, playing ignorant, ignoring, working the system and quietly advocating. Relationships Participants emphasize the importance of developing and establishing relationships that will help them move their equity agendas along. The kinds of relationships that administrators have with others will vary considerably, however. They are shaped by such things as where the administrators and the others are located in the organization, the kind of power that they are able to wield, the relationships administrators feel comfortable with, and the nature of the issues in question, among other things. Whatever the particulars of the relationships, administrators feel that the people with 23 whom they deal will be more likely to be open to various overtures, requests and new initiatives if they have good working relationships with them. Roger, an elementary principal, works on developing and maintaining trusting and caring relationship with his staff. He contends that Ômy focus with staff from the very beginning is school is your second family... we will always support youÕ. Roger maintains that he needs to establish credibility with his staff before they will listen to his ideas about equity. He says Ôyou can't even talk about inclusion until they kind of know that you're going to care about them and genuinely care about them.É You have to build the relationships up with your staff first, before you get into the heart of the matter because equity and inclusion are only one piece of the puzzleÕ. Roger believes he has to model this caring Ð walk the talk Ð before his staff will trust what he has to say about equity issues. Sylvia also talks about the importance of establishing relationships. She contends that good relationships with her staff enable her to talk to them about things that might be uncomfortable. Beside personal issues, this includes issues like racism. Sylvia also talks about the importance of establishing relationships with the central office. She maintains that her good relationship with Bob, an engineer at central office, which she achieved by Ômaking things easier for himÕ on another project, helped her 24 get a track for her school. Sylvia and other participants also spoke about establishing credibility, which included treating people right, not being perceived as a ÔwhinerÕ or someone who looks to Ôgrab all the resourcesÕ, and giving people credit for the things that they (and others) do. Participants also speak of another kind of relationship that assists them in achieving their equity goals Ð alliances. According to administrators in this study, forging alliances can make it easier to promote equity. The politically astute administrators are constantly on the lookout for allies to help them in their cause. The kinds of relationships that administrators establish with others will have an impact on the degree to which they will be able to convince them of the value of their equity causes. Persuading Others Administrators in this study often found themselves in the position of having to persuade others to go along with their equity initiatives, and so they had to employ various techniques to convince school or community members of the value of equity programs or prompt central office administrators to support a policy initiative or give them much needed resources. To do this, they employed various information circulating 25 techniques, modes of prompting, guided discussions, questioning, and provoking, and they used various arguments to get their points across. Participants found ways of providing information to their school communities in various forums. Not only did they supply academic articles and student performance data for educators to mull over; they also employed stories, videos and peopleÕs experiences to get their teachers, parents and students to buy into their ideas about equity. They hoped that these resources would prompt members of their schools and communities to learn things that they had not known before, to see things that they had not previously seen, and to prompt them to look more closely at themselves and at their environments. Jean, for example, likes to use a fable to discuss risk taking, dis/comfort and security. Jean also uses a couple of films that probe issues of race. She found that the discomfort that these films produced led to meaningful discussions. Roger, on the other hand, likes to bring in speakers from the community and from community organizations. Brian organizes workshops for teachers to help them understand and deal with the developmental needs of some of the special needs students who are now coming to the school and the students who are interacting with them. Administrators had a number of strategies for conveying messages to their school communities and central office people. Most preferred to let 26 others reach their own conclusions about the issues that are presented to them. Jean, for example, says that Ôyou have to be careful not to preachÕ. She believes that she can get her message across more effectively by providing people with information in ways that allow them to come to their own conclusions. Most participants encourage discussion among their staff. Such discussions often revolve around talk about academic articles or films. Some administrators find it necessary to move these discussions along by asking critical questions. Tom, for example, asks critical questions about teacher practice, like ÔWhy have you done that? Why do I see 80% of the kids sent from your room are Black? Why is that?Õ The least desired means of conveying the messages that promote equity is by preaching. Sometimes, though, administrators contend that they have no alternative but to do this. Administrators also acknowledge that they need to be aware of their language when making a case to teachers or central office people. Ron, for example, believes that administrators need to be able to say what they have to say Ôwithout using these $500 words and put it in lay person termsÕ. Other administrators stress the need to be cautious. Jean says Ôyou have to be careful with what audience you say it to and how you say itÕ. Other participants claim it helps to compliment superiors when making a case for something. Shelley, for example, says Ôalways start with É the great work 27 the board is doing. Everybody loves a compliment. And then say, ÒthereÕs an area I think we still need to identifyÕÓ. Participants also contend that it is important to use the current government or district rhetoric/language. Anne claims that she has used this tactic successfully when trying to get money for her school. She remembers one occasion where she used the Ôconscience of the Board Ð their own rhetoricÕ to get what she wanted. According to Anne, Ôyou just use their language, and bing, I got the maximum amountÕ. Administrators also use other arguments to convince others of the sense of their ideas. The one to which they most frequently appeal to is the Ôlooking after the interests of studentsÕ argument. Bill, for example, contends that ÔI take the role of an administrator very seriously in looking out for kids. É I want to do a good job for the kids, all kids and not just the ones who fit into the dominant cultureÕ. Joan puts it this way: ÔYou know you always rationalize it, whatÕs good for kids, we all throw that line out, but it is your argumentÕ. Others find themselves combining this argument with ÔfairnessÕ values. Other Strategies Participants in the study also talked about other ways in which they put their knowledge of the system into practice. These strategies go hand in hand with the relationships they have established and their efforts at 28 persuasion. Administrators spoke of how their persistence, planning, experimentation, honesty, patience, aggression, play acting and quiet advocacy served them as they promoted their equity agendas. Brenda maintains that her persistence has enabled her to get things done. She insists that if administrators persevere, others will tire and they will eventually get their way. She says, One of the things I find that the systems generally donÕt have as much of is energyÉ. But generally, I think if I choose my issue properly, I am tenacious and the system gets tired and their needs change. But I will continue to focus my resources, particularly my energy, on that one thing until I succeedÉ. I do know that systems can get fatigued. And sometimes theyÕll just give up and say ÔFine, give her the frigging wallÕ. Other administrators note the value of being open and honest with those they deal with. Janice, for example, maintains that it is important to put Ôeverything on the tableÕ. She believes that people will not accept what she has to say about inclusion and equity if they think that she has a hidden agenda. Brian, on the other hand, has learned over the years that he must be patient in his efforts to promote social justice practices in his schools. He believes that the best approach is to take Ôbaby stepsÕ along the path to social justice and equity. For him it takes time to build the trust and understanding necessary for these practices to sustain themselves. 29 Another practice that administrators spoke of was playing ignorant. Brenda, for example, broke system protocols by proceeding with a much-need renovation at her school, saying after being confronted by the central office that she was not aware that she violated system regulations. Other administrators simply ignore some of the inequitable policies that they are required to implement. Shelley, for example, felt that there were more important things to focus on than mobilizing to raise test scores, and so she ignored some of the policies associated with this issue. Participants had different approaches for the way in which they approached their colleagues and superiors when they needed resources or when they were promoting a program or policy. This often depended upon the kinds of resources they could draw upon. Brenda, for example, employs the personal power that she has acquired over the years to get what she wants. She is an experienced principal who has moved from district to district, and she uses this experience, othersÕ awareness that she is very knowledgeable, and her unpredictability to put people on edge. She says: people are nervous around me and theyÕre worried Ôwhat might she do next?Õ And I use that, I leverage off of that, I sense that thereÕs that nervousness. And so yeah, I make people nervous. And they donÕt know what I might say or do next. And thatÕs the edge I create. And I do that somewhat instinctively 30 Bill, on the other hand, is not able to bring these same pressures to bear. He is a young, relatively inexperienced administrator of colour who works in a primarily white school community. His strategy is not to put people off-balance or make them nervous. Instead he employs what he refers to as Ôquiet advocacyÕ. He says, ÔI've been a quiet advocate just because I've always had to quietly advocate for myself being a minority, growing up in the same community that I'm working in right nowÕ. Bill speaks of how he employed this strategy for getting one of his diversity projects underway. The first thing he did was to talk to people he believed Ôshould be brought on boardÕ. He was careful to let them have their say and worked to build a consensus among them before proceeding. In doing so, he made use of the good relationships that he had built with these colleagues over the years. Study participants employ many strategies to promote their social justice agendas. They invariably consider their actions very carefully because the contexts in which they seek to promote their agendas may differ considerably. This means that a successful strategy in one situation may fail in another. Ultimately, the more politically astute among the study participants realize, as did Machiavelli five centuries ago, that they need to be strategic if they are to achieve their goals. 31 Acting Strategically Administrators spoke of the importance of consciously considering their own actions before acting. They believed that they needed to be careful when deciding whether or not to introduce an initiative, promote a policy or request resources. They spoke first and foremost of being strategic in their actions Ð what strategies to employ, when to use them, and when to pull back. They also spoke of how they learned to be strategic and the manner in which they reflected on their successes and their failures. Brenda contends that she needs to view situations strategically. She says ÔI have to look at it strategically. So I canÕt be trying to do everything, I have to be specific about what needs I have to attend to, what are the critical things that IÕm going to focus my efforts onÕ. She claims that she needs to Ôtarget properlyÕ, that is, be selective. She does not go Ôafter everything because you can wear that out pretty quicklyÕ. Brenda considers a number of factors before making the decision to act. These include the history of the issue, who is involved at the time, whether she can read the situation and how much can she ÔpushÕ. Brenda also recognizes that there are situations where she needs to pull back. And I have had to say ÔnoÕ on a few things, even things I know we should be getting them for staff. But weÕve just gone to the 32 superintendent three times. I donÕt think a fourth time to the well, right now, is a good idea. I think we need a little bit more time. É So you got to kind of pull back, regroup, rethink. Administrators learn how to act strategically through their experience. Some are more prepared to learn than others. In this study, it was obvious that the more experienced principals were more tuned into their political environments and had a more acute sense of what to do to get their desired ends. Mary has learned a great deal over the years; most of this learning has come from her mistakes. She says: Well, IÕve made a lot of mistakes over the years. And when youÕre a risk taker or when you just want to learn, and you wonÕt be stopped. You know, IÕve been hit around the head a lot by systems and people in system positions. And I guess, IÕm one of those people, and I hope most of the profession is, where you reflect on that and you figure out ÔWhat just happened there?Õ Mary goes on to say that she learns Ôfrom experience, I have to say that, and being reflective on whatÕs occurred and whatÕs going on here. I didnÕt want that to happen, or how did that happen? What just happened here?Õ Of course, many other administrators speak of situations where they had to think long and hard about what they should do in these circumstances. Others have routines that they follow. Rosemary, for example, keeps quotes in her desk that she consults every once in a while. Not all administrators are as strategic or have the acumen that Mary, Rosemary and others in the 33 study possess. Gerald, for example, has not been as successful in his efforts to promote his vision or obtain resources at the district level. A very principled individual, he has been reluctant to play political games, preferring to follow his conscience and voice his opinion, regardless of the circumstances. His proclivity to speak his mind, however, has cost him. He says that over the years he has Ôgradually withdrawn from involvement because, obviously, I started to pay a price career-wise, and even personallyÕ. GeraldÕs situation underlies the risk that administrators take when they resist organizational conventions (See also Ylimaki, 2005). Indeed there are also other costs for engaging in such risky endeavors, like burnout, for example (Theoharis, 2007). Gerald is not the only one to wrestle with the ethical issues associated with playing politics. Participants in this study, however, felt justified in doing what they did. Their justifications generally were related to their belief in the importance of working in the interests of students. Roger, for example, says that Ôwe keep coming back to students. The school belongs to the students and not to anybody else. And one of the things you have to accept if you're going to be a principal is what is popular might not be morally right, or ethically or equitably rightÕ. No participants admitted 34 committing unethical acts as part of their political strategies. They preferred to think of what they did as necessary. Sheila put it this way: You manipulate, but with integrity. Everyone is doing it all the time. I do play the same game sometimes with the intention of want[ing] to move this forward. But here weÕre not about being the agency advocate; weÕre here as a collective to represent the needs of the students. ThatÕs that political piece again about how you get these people to work together on inclusive education. Discussion: Foxes, Lions and Politics The participants in this study recognized the importance of political activity, and they used what resources they had at their disposal, that is the power they could bring to bear, to promote their equity interests. In this sense, they developed MachiavelliÕs (1952) fox persona, relying on their acumen, intellect and cleverness. They worked to understand their political environments, employed various political practices, and acted strategically. Study participants spoke at length about their political maneuvering. While not all saw themselves as politicians or looked positively on the idea of Ôplaying politicsÕ, most nevertheless recognized the importance of getting along in this often not-so-visible political arena. Engaging in this way did not always mean that principals were able to advance their equity agendas, however; many, like Jean for example, expressed frustration that their efforts to achieve their goals often fell short. Even so, those who engaged in 35 political maneuvering were more likely to be successful than those who did not. For example, one of the study participants who refused to play the political game out of principle, Gerald, found himself marginalized within the district, achieving few of his goals and mired in career quicksand. Participants admitted that they had to engage in politics because their social justice and equity priorities were not always popular with their school communities and in their school districts. If they were to have any chance at implementing and seeing these initiatives through, then they needed to play the political game. Study participants talked about the importance of understanding the political environment in which they worked. Part of this process, as Machiavelli (1952) believed, required that leaders Ôfind out what the truth of the matter isÕ. Among other things, this meant that they had to correctly interpret othersÕ intentions and understand the reasons for the lattersÕ actions. Principals in the study also acknowledged that it was important to know their contexts, and in particular, the people with whom they interacted. In this regard, they felt that they needed to understand who has power, how these people have acquired it and how they use it. Principals also talked about the strategies that they employed to help them come to know their political environments. These included sitting on committees, taking up 36 various positions in different districts, and taking time to listen to what people have to say. Ironically, principals spoke little about listening to students. This is perhaps not all that surprising given that students generally have less power than other members of the school community, and thus may not require the same kind of political attention that the latter do. Principals in the study also described a number of political practices in which they engaged. They noted that it is helpful to establish good working relationships and to use the right words when communicating with others. Scholars who study political acumen also emphasize the importance of social relationships. McGuinn (2005), in fact, goes so far as to distinguish political acumen from social acumen. For her, social acumen refers to the ability to foster relationships and to communicate. Principals in this study recognized the importance of establishing good relationships with their fellow educators and community members. Among other things, these relationships helped them when it came time to convince the latter to go along with their equity initiatives. Like Machiavelli who emphasized the importance of rhetoric (See also Viroli, 1998), and McGuinn (2005) who refers to the need to be aware of oneÕs conversation, principals in this study noted the importance of the language that they employed. They were careful with language and preferred to advance their various arguments/initiatives 37 by employing different sources of information or modes of prompting, guided discussions, questioning, and provoking. The most effective means of convincing others, according to Jean and others, was not to preach, but to let people come to conclusions on their own. The most effective arguments were those that put students first and were aligned with board and government priorities. Principals also made reference to a number of other strategies that served them well. They found that persistence, planning, experimentation, honesty, patience, aggression, play acting and quiet advocacy also helped to promote their equity agendas. Perhaps the most important element of political acumen is its strategic component (Buchanan & Badham, 1999; Machiavelli, 1952). Principals in the study emphasized that they cannot simply apply ready-made formulas or sets of prescriptions to the situations that arise in schools. They recognized that what might have worked in one situation will not necessarily work in another, even though the circumstances may be similar. Like the academics who write about organizational politics, the principals contended that they have to carefully consider the context before acting. One of the more important strategic decisions involved sizing up their own relative power and acting on the basis of this estimate. Consider the contrasting situations of Brenda and Bill. Brenda is an experienced principal with many resources 38 at her disposal. She knew that she Ômakes people nervousÕ and so did not hesitate to use aggressive tactics when she could get away with it. Bill, on the other hand, is a relatively inexperienced administrator of colour who works in a primarily white school community and district. He understood that aggressive tactics would probably not work for him, so he employed what he refers to as Ôquiet advocacyÕ strategies to advance his equity agenda. Principals also said that they learn to act strategically from reflecting on their experience, particularly the mistakes that they have made in the past. Needless to say, the more experienced principals in the study had more to say about this process than the less experienced administrators. Surprisingly, principals did not dwell on the morality of acting politically, despite a propensity to reflect on their actions. Political activity, particularly if it is patterned after MachiavelliÕs extreme pragmatist or ÔconsequentalistÕ position (Fischer, 2006), can raise moral questions. For example, is a principal justified in doing whatever it takes to promote the interests of his or her school? The principals in this study, however, did not experience any moral dilemmas as they promoted their equity agendas because they believed wholeheartedly in them. They ignored policies, attempted to manipulate superiors and did what they could to convert others to their ways of thinking because they sincerely felt that that this was the 39 right thing to do. None admitted to engaging in immoral actions or violating any personal or collective moral codes in these quests. Finally, the data indicate that principals did not rely exclusively on their fox persona to promote their agendas; they also counted on their lion qualities. Lukes (2001) maintains that MachiavelliÕs lion persona is both underappreciated and misunderstood. According to Lukes, MachiavelliÕs lion embodies much more than just brute strength, impetuosity and violence; it was intended to complement the fox, tempering intellect with sensuality, and coldness and loneliness with passion and community. In 16th century Italy, the lion was seen as a social being that displayed courage, boldness and integrity, earning the respect and loyalty of its fellow beasts. The participants in this study exhibited a number of these characteristics. Roger, for example, spoke of earning the loyalty of his school community by treating it as a second family. Brenda boldly worked at making people nervous and she attempted to marshal her energy resources to outlast the system. But there are also elements of the foxÕs strategy in these acts. Brenda, for example, would always take the time to calculate the potential consequences of her actions before she acted. The conclusion here is that it is difficult in practice to separate the fox and the lion. As Lukes (2001, p. 573), contends, Ôpolitics for Machiavelli is a delicate balance of acumen and 40 boldness, of knowing and feelingÕ. The same was true for a number of principals in this study; many combined their intellectual and strategic abilities with personal and social qualities like courage, boldness and care to move their social justice agendas along. Conclusion This article has described the manner in which social justice-minded principals employ political acumen to achieve their goals. It outlines how these administrators come to understand their political environments, the ways in which they put this knowledge to use, and the manner in which they strategically calculate their actions. Many of these strategies are similar to those that politically-minded administrators employ to achieve ends other than social justice ones. Indeed, recent and not so recent studies of micropolitical action in schools indicate that teachers and administrators rely on personal relationships, forge alliances with like-minded others, or look to persuade, ignore or keep their colleagues off-balance to achieve their various goals (Ball, 1987; Blase, 1991b; Blase & Blase, 2002; Malen & Chochran, 2008). What is different about the actions of social justice-minded principals is the urgency and the context-specific nature of their actions. The specific nature of the strategies of social justice-minded principals may differ from other more general micropolitical strategies. For example, principals may 41 opt to show teachers a film that prompts them to reflect on racism, seek to mobilize an activist community group or target resources that would specifically benefit marginalized students Ð actions that other principals might not consider. There is also a certain degree of urgency in the micropolitical action of social justice-minded principals that is not always apparent in other non-social justice oriented micropolitical action. This is because social justice initiatives routinely face opposition from the various constituents of systems that resist such efforts in ways that other initiatives do not. If principals are to succeed in their social justice endeavors then they have little choice but to play the political game, that is, to acknowledge the political realities of their organizations, hone their political skills, and put these skills into play. Failure to do so will not bode well for the future of equity and social justice. References Anderson, G. (1991). Cognitive politics of principals and teachers: Ideological control in an elementary school. In J. Blase (ed.), The Politics of Life in Schools (London: Sage), pp. 120-138. 42 Anderson, G. (2009). Advocacy Leadership: Toward a Post-Reform Agenda in Education. New York: Routledge. Ball, S. (1987). The Micro-Politics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organization (New York: Methuen). Bates, R. (1980). Educational administration, the sociology of science, and the management of knowledge. Educational Administration Quarterly 16 (2), 1-20. Blackmore, J. (2002). Leadership for social just schooling: More substance and less style in high risk, low trust times? Journal of School Leadership, 12 (2), 138-156. Blase, J. & Anderson, G. (Eds.) (1995). The Micropolitics of Educational Leadership: From Control to Empowerment (New York: Teachers College Press). 43 Blase, J. & Blase, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 671-727. Blase, J. (1991a). The micropolitical perspective. In J. Blase (ed.), The Politics of Life in Schools (London: Sage), pp. 1-18. Blase, J. (1991b). The micropolitical orientation of teachers toward closed school principals. Education and Urban Society, 23, 356-378. Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership 4th Edition (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). Buchanan, D. & Badham, R. (1999). Power, Politics and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game (Thousand Oaks: Sage). Datnow, A. (1998). The Gender Politics of Educational Change (London: Falmer Press). 44 DeLuca, J. (1992). Political Savvy: Systematic Approaches to Leadership Behind-the-scenes (Horsham, Pennsylvania: LRP Publications). Easton, D. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall). Fischer, M. (2006). MachiavelliÕs rapacious republicanism. In P. Rahe (ed.), MachiavelliÕs Liberal Republican Legacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. xxxi-lxii. Foster, W. (1980). Administration and the crisis in legitimacy: A review of Habermasian thought. Harvard Educational Review 50 (4), 496-505. Fraser, N. & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. New York: Verso. Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (Toronto: Longman). 45 Innaconne, L. (1975). Education Policy Systems: A Study Guide for Educational Administrators (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova University Press). Kirby, S. & McKenna, K. (1989). Experience, Research, Social Change: Methods Beyond the Mainstream (Toronto: Garamond). Kotter, J. (1985). Power and Influence: Beyond Formal Authority (New York: Free Press). Larson, C. & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134-161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lasswell, H. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (New York: McGraw-Hill). Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. & Steinbech, R. (1999). Do school councils matter? Educational Policy, 13, 467-493. 46 Lindle, J.C. (1994). Surviving School Politics: Strategies for Administrators (Lancaster: Technomic). Lugg, C. & Soho, A. (2006). Dare public school administrators build a new social order? Social justice and the possibly perilous politics of educational administration. Journal of Educational Administration 44 (3), 196-208. Lukes, T. (2001). Lionizing Machiavelli. American Political Science Review, 95, 561-571. Machiavelli, N. (1952). The Prince. Translated by L. Ricci, revised by E. Vincent (Toronto: Mentor). Machiavelli, N. (1977). Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. Translated by J. Bondarella & P. Bondarella (New York: Oxford University Press). MacKinnon, D. (2000). Equity, leadership and schooling. Exceptionality Education Canada 10 (1-2), 5-21. 47 Malen, B. & Cochran, M.V. (2008). Beyond pluralistic patterns of power: Research on the micropolitics of schools. In B. Cooper, J. Cibulka & L. Fusarelli (eds), Handbook of Education Politics and Policy (New York: Routledge), pp. 148-178. Marshall, C. & Scribner, J. (1991). ÒItÕs all politicalÓ: Inquiry into the micropolitics of education. Education and Urban Society, 23, 347-355. Marshall, C. & Mitchell, B. (1991). The assumptive worlds of fledgling administrators. Education and Urban Society, 23, 396 - 415. McGinn, A. (2005). The story of 10 principals whose exercise of social and political acumen contributes to their success. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 9, (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll). Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation Methods, 2nd edn (Thousands Oaks: Sage). 48 Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Ryan, J. (2003a). Leading Diverse Schools (Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer). Ryan, J. (2003b). Educational administrators' perceptions of racism in diverse school contexts. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6, 145-164. Ryan, J. (2006a). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 3-17. Ryan, J. (2006b). Inclusive Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). Ryan, J. (2006c). Exclusion in Urban Schools and Communities in D. Armstrong & B. McMahon (Eds.), Inclusion in Educational Environments: Addressing Issues of Diversity, Equity and Social Justice (pp. 3-29). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. 49 Ryan, J. (2007). Dialogue, Indentity and inclusion: administrators as mediators in diverse school contexts. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 340-369. Ryan, J. & Rottmann, C. (2009). Struggling for democracy: administrative communication in a diverse school context. Education Management, Administration and Leadership, 37 (4), 473-496. Ryan, J. & Rottman C. (2007). Educational Leadership and Policy Approaches to Critical Social Justice. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations. 18 (1-2), 9-23. Shields, C. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly 40 (1), 111-134. Taylor, E. (2006). A critical race theory analysis of the achievement gap in the United States: Politics, reality and hope. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 71-87. 50 Theoharis, G. (2007). Social Justice Education Leadership and Resistance: Toward a Theory of Social Justice Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 43 (2), 221-258. Townsend, R. (1990). Towards a broader micropolitics of schools. Curriculum Inquiry, 20, 205-224. Viroli, M. (1998). Machiavelli (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Ylimaki, R. (2005). Political risk-taking: Leading literacy in an ear of high-stakes accountability. Journal of School Leadership, 15 (1), 2-42. 1 While inclusion, equity and social justice may mean different things, they belong to the same family of ideas and practices. For the purposes of this article, inclusion, like equity and social justice, is concerned with issues associated with not just the differently-abled, but also with other axes of dis/advantage like gender, social class, race and sexual orientation, among others. Inclusive, equitable and social justice practice seeks to expose, contest, and overturn the disadvantages associated with these structures.