“I Treat All Students the Same”: Assistant Principal Balancing of Social Justice School Leadership in a High-Stakes Accountability Environment

Abstract

This mixed-methods study focused on the enactment of state accountability policy by educators and how educators balance social justice beliefs with accountability demands. We specifically studied Texas secondary assistant principal (APs) perspectives on accountability policy and social justice leadership and their leadership actions that helped balance the competing demands of high-stakes testing accountability with equity-focused social justice leadership goals. Our study included two phases. 79 APs completed a phase 1 quantitative survey. We used the survey results to select 10 APs to participate in phase 2 qualitative interviews to more deeply explore how the layers of federal, state, and local policy transformed the subjectivities enacted by assistant principals as they attempted to balance accountability with social justice orientation. Findings revealed divergent AP views across social justice and accountability beliefs. These findings drove recommendations for future research, policy, and practice by connecting what APs shared regarding leadership balancing actions that support social justice school leadership goals and help remedy and repair harmful impacts of high-stakes testing and accountability policies.

Keywords

equity social justice leadership culturally sustaining school leadership assistant principals high stakes testing accountability

Introduction

In the evolving landscape of educational leadership, assistant principals (APs) occupy a pivotal yet often overlooked role in navigating the dual imperatives of social justice school leadership (Boske & Benavente-McEnery, 2012; Carpenter et al., 2017) and high-stakes accountability (Au, 2022; Koyama, 2019; Nichols & Brewington, 2020). As schools face increased pressure to meet standardized performance metrics, APs are uniquely positioned at the intersection of instructional leadership, equity advocacy, and operational management (Goldring et al., 2021; Somoza-Norton & Neumann, 2021). Unlike principals, whose roles are more clearly defined and regularly studied, APs must balance the demands of implementing district and state accountability policies while simultaneously fostering inclusive, socially just school environments, often without the authority or autonomy afforded their superiors (Hayes & Burkett, 2021; Hernandez et al., 2025).

Despite their frontline involvement in equity work and policy implementation, APs are underrepresented in educational leadership research. Goldring et al. (2021) argue that the knowledge base on APs has not kept pace with their evolving role. The rigid structure of accountability culture often marginalizes students of color and those with disabilities and can conflict with transformative goals of social justice school leadership (Heilig et al., 2018). APs must reconcile these tensions daily, often with limited preparation or support. As Kowalchuk (2019) emphasizes, social justice leadership requires deliberate, ethical interventions to challenge systemic inequities; something that APs are increasingly expected to undertake yet are often not recognized for.

Below we will discuss the variance of AP responses to survey items that measured two intersecting dimensions of their leadership practice: their social justice beliefs and their accountability perceptions. In addition, we will elaborate on these responses with qualitative interviews that revealed APs’ ability to balance these two dimensions of leadership is context dependent. In fact, as this study makes clear, APs when faced with the thorny dilemma of balancing social justice beliefs and accountability pressures at times tended to confuse equity with equality, as evidenced by the refrain “I treat all students the same.”

The following research questions guided the study: (RQ1) How do APs’ beliefs about social justice and high-stakes testing accountability vary? and (RQ2) How do APs make sense of and take leadership action that balances their social justice perspectives (and reaction to social justice issues) with the demands of accountability policies?

Literature Review

In this study, we focused on the enactment of state accountability policy by educators and how they balance social justice beliefs with accountability demands. We sought to address gaps in the existing research on high-stakes testing accountability (Au, 2020, 2022; Koretz, 2017; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Nichols & Brewington, 2020), social justice school leadership (Dantley & Green, 2015; Khalifa, 2020; Paris & Alim, 2017; Theoharis et al., 2023), and assistant principals (Barnett et al., 2017; Goldring et al., 2021; Hayes & Burkett, 2021), by examining how APs make sense of educational accountability culture while simultaneously confronting and addressing social justice issues within their schools.

High-Stakes Testing and Accountability Environment

We conducted this study in a context with a deep history of accountability. Texas was one of the first states to launch statewide high-stakes testing in the 1980s. Other states followed and Texas-style testing and accountability drove education policy for the nation leading to incorporation in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2002 as the No Child Left Behind Act (McNeil, 2005). Educational accountability relies on high-stakes testing outcomes to inform decision-making. Some decisions directly affect students (Vanlommel & Schildkamp, 2019), such as using test scores for promotion, tracking, and graduation (Oakes et al., 2014; Thornton, 2024). Some decisions affect teachers and school administrators when test scores drive merit pay determinations or teacher dismissals (Mintrop & Ordenes, 2017). Other impacts include campus recognition, awards, increased resources when scores improve, and interventions or loss of accreditation when scores fall (Counsell & Wright, 2018). Some scholars (Hamilton & Johnston, 2020; Skrla et al., 2001; Supovitz, 2009) argued that accountability policies potentially increase educational equity by making achievement disparities more visible by establishing standards and performance-based assessments. Other scholars (Au, 2020; Black & Valenzuela, 2004; Haney, 2001; Koyama, 2019; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2000; Nichols & Berliner, 2005, 2007) contend that accountability policies limit educational opportunities, reinforce, reproduce, and extend social inequalities, that achievement has not increased despite high-stakes testing, and unintended negative outcomes have increased. Harness and Harness (2024) framed the polarizing discourse on standardized testing as a human rights issue and raised questions about human rights and educational equity.

Social Justice, Equity-Focused, and Culturally Responsive School Leadership

Numerous studies that addressed social justice school leadership inform this study (Bishop, 2020; Bogotch, 2002; Capper & Young, 2014; Carpenter & Brewer, 2014; Dantley & Tillman, 2006; Foy, 2008; Theoharis, 2007, 2008, 2010). Additionally, Khalifa et al.’s (2016) comprehensive literature synthesis on Culturally Responsive School Leadership (CRSL) examined how school leaders address issues of equity, inclusion, and cultural relevance in K–12 settings, and offered a framework with the following four strands:

1. Critical self-awareness

2. Developing culturally responsive teachers

3. Promoting culturally responsive and inclusive school environments

4. Engaging students, families, and community advocacy

In addition to Khalifa et al.’s (2016) framework for culturally responsive school leadership, other scholars provide compelling definitions of “social justice” (Bogotch, 2002; Dantley & Tillman, 2006). Gewirtz (1998), and Theoharis (2007, 2010); described social justice in terms of the need to address situations and issues of power differentials and marginalization. Using this description, social justice school leaders must center their leadership on addressing and eliminating marginalization in schools and promoting equitable learning for all students through a wide range of leadership practices. They intentionally develop systems, processes, and school cultures that address all students’ learning needs by recognizing how differences in race, income, language, ability, gender, and sexual orientation can impact student learning. Social justice and equity-focused leaders may feel pressures from districts, parents, staff, and state-mandated accountability and high-stakes testing policies to produce improved student academic achievement results, but they also have an intrinsic motivation to work for genuine and sustainable success (Foy, 2008; Gonzalez & Firestone, 2013).

Social justice and equity scholars (Egbo, 2012; Minow, 2021) pointed to distinctions in the terms equality and equity and highlighted that equality means ignoring differences among people and equity as bringing attention to uneven playing fields and deliberate remedial efforts. Equality calls for uniformity, sameness, or identical treatment, while equity recognizes individuals’ unique needs and circumstances. Treating all students the same regardless of differences in learning abilities, interests, culture, and personality, runs counter to recognizing student diversity and cultivating inclusive pedagogy (Leung, 2021).

Past research addressed the conflict and resistance social justice leaders experienced while trying to affect change within their schools (Carpenter & Brewer, 2014; Foy, 2008; Theoharis, 2007, 2010; Werts et al., 2012). Foy’s (2008) study touched on conflicts and tensions that social justice school leaders experience around high-stakes testing and accountability systems. Theoharis (2007, 2010) further studied social justice leaders and examined how principals enacted social justice in their schools, the types of resistance they faced, and strategies they developed to sustain their social justice work. Werts et al. (2012) used an innovative critical policy analysis approach that incorporated photovoice (drawing on the theory of embodiment) to examine the precarious position school principals find themselves, balancing roles as policy-implementers while striving for equity and social justice. Carpenter and Brewer (2014) shed light on school principals as implicated advocates, who “must frequently curb the desire to give adequate attention to issues of social justice in order to address an externally defined array of foci,” citing Boyd (1987), Kafka (2009), Shipps and White (2009) (p. 294).

Assistant Principals

The APs’ role in the United States has evolved from a purely managerial position but continues to have ambiguously defined roles and responsibilities (Marshall & Hooley, 2006).

Numerous studies addressed preparation programs, professional development, and mentoring for APs (Banks, 2018; Barnett et al., 2012, 2017; Boske & Benavente-McEnery, 2012; Carpenter et al., 2017; Craft et al., 2016; Hausman et al., 2002; Hayes & Burkett, 2021; Morgan, 2018; Oleszewski et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2023). Existing literature addressed AP responsibilities that largely focused on student discipline and campus operations but are now shifting to increased instructional leadership roles (Cranston et al., 2004; Hausman et al., 2002; Hayes & Burkett, 2021; Hunt, 2011; Searby et al., 2017). Recent research has highlighted APs with increased accountability responsibilities, serving instrumental roles in instructional quality, equity, and evaluation systems (Goldring et al., 2021; Somoza-Norton & Neumann, 2021). A few studies examined APs in high-stakes accountability environments (Bukoski et al., 2015; Koyama, 2014; Muñoz & Barber, 2011; Sun, 2011).

Despite increased emphasis on preparing school leaders to address social justice issues, existing research largely ignores the assistant principal (Barnett et al., 2012). Social justice-focused APs may be conflicted by mandates of accountability policies, the leadership style and focus of principals for whom they work, and the policy contexts of their school districts. There appears to be a gap in existing research regarding how social justice-oriented APs navigate and make sense of the competing forces of accountability policies and social justice leadership values. In this study, we highlighted the AP, as opposed to previous studies that focused on schools or principals as the unit of analysis (Capper & Young, 2014; Maynes & Sarbit, 2000; Oakes et al., 2000), explored AP sensemaking, and how they lead for justice amidst competing pressures of high-stakes testing accountability.

Theoretical Perspectives

Wang’s (2017) social justice versus accountability framework provided a useful model for visualizing the balancing that assistant principals regularly accomplish through their leadership actions. Sensemaking Theory (Weick, 1995, 2020) provided additional theoretical basis for examining APs’ ongoing process of making sense of the competing demands of high-stakes testing accountability and their social justice leadership priorities.

Social Justice Versus Accountability Balancing Scale Model

The term balancing is commonly used in scholarly and professional literature to describe the process of managing competing demands, tensions, or priorities, often in complex or high-stakes environments (Ryan, 2006; Shields & Hesbol, 2020). Wang’s (2017) social justice versus accountability model, developed as part of a Canadian qualitative study on how accountability policies impacted 22 elementary and secondary principals’ social justice commitments, provided theoretical support for this study. His model acts like a balancing scale with school leadership as the metaphoric fulcrum, highlighting a central, shiftable, point of leverage or influence.

A modified version is shown in Figure 1. Social justice (driven by moral obligation) resides on the left and high-stakes testing accountability (driven by political mandates) resides on the right. APs’ sensemaking and leadership actions represent the fulcrum, which slides left towards social justice or right towards accountability. The social justice side of the scale focuses on ethical decision-making, creating inclusive environments, and democratic and transformative leadership. Accountability side focuses on transformational, instructional, and managerial leadership and prioritizes testing results and accountability outcomes.

Figure 1.

Modified social justice versus accountability policy conceptual framework

We modified Wang’s (2017) framework by replacing Canadian terminology with corresponding location-neutral terms. Additionally, the four elements from Khalifa et al. (2016) culturally responsive school leadership framework were incorporated plus an additional component to align with social justice leadership definitions offered by Bogotch (2002), Dantley and Tillman (2006), and Theoharis (2007, 2010) that address confronting and eliminating marginalization related to issues of race, class, gender, disability, language, sexual orientation, or other historically marginalizing conditions. We further modified the Wang (2017) framework by labeling the fulcrum “AP sensemaking and leadership actions” since this study focused on assistant principals rather than principals or other school leaders.

Sensemaking Theory

Scholars have used sensemaking as a framework to understand how leaders interpret, respond to, and shape their environments, especially during periods of change, uncertainty, or crisis (Coburn, 2005; Spillane & Louis, 2002; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). The theory helps explain how school leaders give meaning to complex or ambiguous situations, influence decision making and how practices evolve in schools. APs filter policies through their lived experiences, knowledge, pre-existing beliefs, and environmental context to develop cognitive understanding. This shapes how they influence policy enactment within their schools (Coburn, 2005; Sutherland, 2022; Weick, 1995). Past sensemaking research in education focused on other school professionals (Coburn, 2005; Hemmer et al., 2018; Spillane & Anderson, 2014). APs are largely missing from educational sensemaking analysis, despite a critical role in accountability policy implementation (Trujillo, 2013; Welton et al., 2015).

Methodology – Mixed Methods

Utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach (quan → QUAL), in which quantitative methods were employed in phase one to inform and prepare for the subsequent qualitative methods in phase two (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Ivankova et al., 2006), wielded strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research traditions. Use of lower-case and upper-case letters (quan → QUAL) indicated the relative priority or preponderance of the two methods. In this study, phase one quantitative methods explored variation in APs’ beliefs and perceptions of high-stakes testing and accountability; and the results helped identify a smaller sample of APs who participated in-depth qualitative interviews in phase two.

Phase 1 – Quantitative Survey

Phase 1 included a survey of Texas secondary APs (n = 79) to measure AP justice and equity beliefs and perceptions regarding high-stakes accountability. We sent 2,300 survey invitation emails to APs across Texas and received 160 survey responses back (7% response rate). However, 81 survey responses were discarded due to lack of participant consent, or missing response values. 79 of these survey responses were accepted (reflecting an overall 3.4% response rate). The survey was not anonymous, as respondents were asked about their willingness to participate in a follow-up interview and contact data was collected. The 52-question survey (Schlegel & Brewer, 2024) consisted of 20 questions selected from an existing social justice leadership survey (Flood, 2019); 19 questions about AP perceptions of high-stakes testing accountability developed from prominent concerns in the literature; two open-ended questions that connected social justice and high-stakes testing accountability, and 11 demographic questions (Schlegel & Brewer, 2024).

Quantitative data analysis included reliability analyses, exploratory factor analyses, descriptive statistics for each survey question, multiple regression analyses, and statistical analyses to prepare for phase 2 qualitative interviews. Survey results also helped select which APs were invited to participate in phase 2 interviews (see Figures 2 and 3). Before beginning regression analysis, we created a composite score for each of two survey scales. One was an overall average for all social justice survey items, and a second composite score reflected an overall average for all the accountability items. Descriptive analysis of survey data revealed a 2 × 2 configuration of profiles for survey participant APs, which mapped into four quadrants. Each quadrant’s APs held beliefs that were either high or low (compared to the mean) in perceiving high-stakes testing accountability as problematic and high or low (compared to the mean) in their social justice awareness/beliefs. We then employed a standard multiple linear regression model to examine the predictive relationships between 11 AP demographic variables (independent variables) and the resulting two composite scores (dependent variables) for the social justice and accountability scales.

Figure 2.

All phase 1 respondents social justice versus accountability plot

Figure 3.

Phase 1 respondents willing to participate in phase 2 interview

Phase 2 – Qualitative Interviews

Phase 2 incorporated in-depth interviews with ten APs (n = 10) to better understand their experiences balancing the competing demands of high-stakes accountability with social justice and culturally sustaining school leadership practices. APs were asked about their path to becoming an educator and AP, their specific roles and responsibilities, how high-stakes testing has impacted their role as AP, what the term social justice school leadership means to them, challenges faced as a school leader, conflicts or tensions experienced, and how they balance accountability mandates with social justice beliefs. We conducted qualitative interviews via Zoom video conferencing, recorded, and transcribed the interviews verbatim.

For the qualitative analysis process, we used thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2019) six-phase framework to code and interpret interview data. Transcripts were coded inductively using NVivo software to identify recurring patterns, with attention to language that reflected tensions between social justice goals and accountability pressures.

Findings

Next, we present the results of phase 1 surveys and phase 2 interviews that address the study’s two research questions: (RQ1) How do APs’ beliefs about social justice and high-stakes testing accountability vary? (RQ2) How do APs make sense of and take leadership action that balances their social justice perspectives (and reaction to social justice issues) with the demands of accountability policies?

Findings revealed significant differences in how APs viewed social justice school leadership and perceived state-mandated high-stakes testing and accountability policies. APs are not a singular or monolithic block of educators but are individual school leaders with complex personal and professional histories, working in distinct organizational and environmental contexts that shape their ongoing sensemaking and nuanced perspectives regarding social justice school leadership and high-stakes testing accountability.

Phase 1 – Quantitative Survey Results

Survey results are available (Schlegel & Brewer, 2024). We conducted reliability and factor analyses to investigate underlying constructs in the survey items and make decisions for regression analyses. Reliability analysis for entire survey resulted in Cronbach’s alpha of 0.847 (Forero, 2024). A 20-item social justice scale and 19-item accountability perceptions scale resulted in Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.916 and 0.836 respectively.

Regression Analysis

Quantitative data analysis was conducted using multiple regression techniques (Stolzenberg, 2004) to examine predictors associated with two outcome measures: the Social Justice Subscale and Accountability Perceptions Subscale. Each subscale was analyzed independently to determine the extent to which demographic and contextual variables contributed to variance in participants’ scores. Predictor variables entered in both models included years of experience as an educator, years of experience as an assistant principal, age, gender, and race/ethnicity of the assistant principal, as well as school-level characteristics such as approximate student enrollment, geographic location, percentage of minority students, percentage of economically disadvantaged students, and percentage of students with disabilities. Regression coefficients for each variable were evaluated to identify significant relationships and to assess the relative influence of individual and institutional factors on assistant principals’ perceptions related to social justice and accountability. This analysis resulted in three statistically significant findings: (1) a correlation between percentage of students with disabilities and participant AP’s social justice beliefs (β = 0.305), (2) a similar correlation between school location and participant AP’s social justice beliefs (β = −0.285); and (3) a correlation between race/ethnicity of AP and their accountability perceptions (β = 0.272). These do not represent strong correlations but were statistically significant (p < 0.05) and warrant exploration.

Table 1 below shows the relationship between the percentage of students with disabilities and the participant AP’s social justice beliefs composite score.

Table 1.

Campus Disabled Student Percentage vs. AP’s Social Justice Beliefs

Percentage of students with disabilities	N =	Social justice beliefs composite score
0–20%	6	100.83
21–40%	11	114.82
41–60%	17	104.82
61–80%	21	107.14
81–100%	24	107.13

We theorize that APs at schools with a large diversity of students (21–40% students with disabilities) may develop more inclusive attitudes that recognize disability as just one of many human differences (Connor, 2014; Terzi, 2014). Exposure to students with divergent learning needs challenge APs to address the importance of differentiated instruction and inclusive learning environments (Bender, 2008; DeMatthews & Serafini, 2021; Villa, 2016). This leadership emphasis may impact this small yet statistically significant result.

Multiple regression analyses on the social justice scale showed a statistically significant although weak correlation between school location and the participant AP’s social justice beliefs, with APs from urban campuses having higher social justice composite scores than their suburban and rural AP counterparts (see Table 2 below).

Table 2.

Location of School vs. AP’s Social Justice Beliefs

Location of the school	N =	Social justice beliefs composite score
Rural	16	98.94
Suburban	31	106.55
Urban	32	112.03

We conjecture that this correlation (β = −0.285, p > 0.05) relates to challenges unique to urban education, including the following seven characteristics highlighted by Dolph (2017): (1) urban students more likely to live in poverty (Kozol, 1991; Reardon, 2013); (2) urban populations have a greater concentrations of emergent bilingual students (Valdés & Castellón, 2010; Zhou, 2003); (3) urban schools often struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers (Hudley, 2013; Jacob, 2007); (4) limited parental involvement and educational attainment (Williams & Sánchez, 2013); (5) school resource shortfalls (Stabile, 2015); (6) issues such as attendance problems, dropout rates, violence, physical, sexual, and substance abuse (Camacho & Parham, 2019); and (7) aging infrastructure issues (Casserly et al., 2011).

Multiple regression analysis on the accountability perceptions subscale revealed a statistically significant correlation (β = 0.272, p < 0.05) between the race/ethnicity of the AP and their accountability perceptions. When we examined the mean composite score and standard deviation for each AP race/ethnicity category (Table 3 above), white APs (n = 30) had the highest accountability composite score (mean of 103.30), indicating that of any race/ethnicity category, these white APs had the highest level of perceiving testing and accountability as problematic. In contrast, Black or African American APs (n = 14) and Hispanic APs (n = 30) had mean accountability composite scores of 92.36, and 92.63 respectively. Past research has linked high-stakes testing as a tool for white supremacy, protecting the myth of meritocracy, and maintaining a racially unequal status quo (Au, 2020; Randall et al., 2022). Nichols and Valenzuela (2013) underscored the differential impacts of testing and accountability policies based on race, ethnicity, and social class and that students often internalize these racist and classist views (Kendi, 2016).

Table 3.

Race/Ethnicity of AP vs. AP’s High-Stakes Accountability Perceptions

AP race/Ethnicity	N =	Accountability composite score
Native Hawaiian or pacific Islander	1	76.00
Asian	2	87.00
Black or African American	14	92.36
Hispanic/Latino	30	92.63
Two or more races	2	100.50
White	30	103.30

Results of Open-Ended Survey Questions

The survey included two open-ended questions to gauge APs’ self-described perspectives on social justice leadership and high-stakes testing accountability. Table 4 below summarizes responses to the first open-ended question:

Table 4.

Open-Ended Survey Question 1 Responses

Open-ended Q1: How does high-stakes testing, and accountability relate to social justice leadership?
Response category sub-themes
(1)	Stated that STAAR testing is fair and appropriate.	6	7.6%
(2)	I don’t see a link; there is no correlation, I don’t understand the question.	10	12.7%
(3)	No response or “prefer not to answer.”	21	26.6%
(4)	Pointed out specific ways social justice school leadership intersects with high-stakes testing and accountability.	42	53.2%
	Resource allocation - testing can influence where resources are allocated. SJ leaders aim for equitable distribution, address needs of marginalized students.
	Curriculum and pedagogy – HST may narrow teaching to focus on test prep. Social justice leaders promote inclusive, culturally responsive teaching.
	Assessment disparities - testing can exacerbate achievement gaps for disadvantaged students. SJ leaders work to rectify these disparities.
	Accountability measures - punitive actions tied to test scores affect low performing schools. SJ leaders advocate for supportive accountability measures.
	Data-driven decision-making - SJ leaders use test data but consider broader data sources for informed decisions.

A small group of respondents (7.6%) expressed that STAAR and other high-stakes tests were necessary, fair, and appropriate measures of student academic performance. 12.7% of respondents did not see any correlation between high-stakes testing and social justice school leadership. More than a quarter of respondents (26.6%) did not answer, entered “NA” or “prefer not answer.” More than half of respondents (53.2%) shared specific social justice concerns associated with high-stakes accountability. The bottom of Table 4 reflects some open-ended question responses for ways social justice school leadership intersects with high-stakes testing accountability.

There was a broad range of responses to the second open-ended question. Table 5 below highlights and summarizes the responses of the 41.8% of survey respondents who provided a specific dilemma they had faced. Example responses include:

My district did not want students to retest and take the “hit” again. I spoke to students and told them they could retest if they wanted. (Survey respondent, 2023)

I hated to add extra math/reading classes to students’ schedules who were losing electives due to an interim test. (Survey respondent, 2023)

I faced a campus that cheated to [improve] scores. (Survey respondent, 2023)

Testing does not accurately reflect the abilities of students facing socio-economic challenges. I advocated for a better assessment system. (Survey respondent, 2023)

Table 5.

Open-Ended Question 2 Responses

Open-ended question 2: Explain any dilemma(s) you faced due to high-stakes testing and accountability. How did you resolve it?
Response category sub-themes
(1)	No response.	29	36.7%
(2)	Provided response but did not answer the question.	17	21.5%
(3)	Provided specific dilemma(s) faced.	33	41.8%
	- Student stress; scandals, adults cheating.- Interventions for low-performing students (pull from electives?)- Supporting new arrivals and emergent bilingual students- High school graduation requirements for students who fail STAAR.- Lack of resources (computers for instruction) yet testing all online- Differentiating/scaffolding support for special education students- Having to dismiss teachers due to low student test scores.- District opted out of Teacher Incentive allotment, instead focusing on whole child development and authentic assessments

Using Survey Results to Select Phase 2 Interview Participants

Phase 1 survey facilitated selection of APs that participated in phase 2 interviews. Of 79 who completed the survey, 26 were willing to participate in 90-min interviews. To help with selection, we created overall composite scores for the two survey scales (AP social justice beliefs and AP accountability perceptions). Figure 2 is a scatterplot of each respondent’s composite scores. Accountability perceptions is on the horizontal axis and social justice beliefs is plotted on the vertical axis.

Figure 3 is the same graph as Figure 2 but filtered for those willing to participate in phase 2 interviews. We invited participants from each quadrant with an over-sampling of respondents from quadrant 1 (high accountability – high social justice), as we conjectured that this subset of APs would be most motivated and attuned to the balancing required between the competing demands of social justice and accountability. Ten assistant principals (noted by circles on Figure 3 graph) participated in phase 2 interviews.

Profiles of Interview Participants

Table 6 below includes demographic information for interview participants. We used pseudonyms (Heaton, 2022) to de-identify interview participants and ensure anonymity/confidentiality. We told participants their identities would be protected to encourage more candid responses.

Table 6.

Interview Participant Demographic Information

Demographic characteristics:	Interview participant
Demographic characteristics:	Kelsey	Nathan	Miriam	Berkley	Julie
Years as educator	16–20	11–15	16–20	5–10	16–20
Years as AP	<5	5–10	<5	<5	<5
Age	30–39	30–39	40–49	30–39	40–49
Gender	Woman	Man	Woman	Woman	Woman
Race/Ethnicity	White	Hispanic/Latinx	Two or more races	White	White
Approx # of students	500–999	2500–2999	1500–1999	<500	2000–2499
Gradel levels	6–8	9–12	10–12	9–12	9–12
Location	Suburban	Urban	Urban	Rural	Suburban
Approx % of minority students	61–80%	81–100%	81–100%	41–60%	21–40%
Approx % of economically disadvantaged students	61–80%	61–80%	81–100%	61–80%	0–20%
Approx % of students with disabilities	21–25%	11–15%	26–50%	11–15%	11–15%

Demographic characteristics:	Interview participant
Demographic characteristics:	Eli	Larissa	Travis	Martha	Edward
Years as educator	11–15	16–20	21–25	16–20	16–20
Years as AP	<5	<5	5–10	5–10	5–10
Age	40–49	40–49	50–59	40–49	40–49
Gender	Man	Woman	Man	Woman	Man
Race/Ethnicity	Hispanic/Latinx	Hispanic/Latinx	White	Hispanic/Latinx	Native Hawaiian or pacific Islander
Approx # students at school	500–999	500–999	500–999	1500–1999	<500
Gradel levels	6–8	6–8	6–8	9–12	6–8
Location	Urban	Urban	Suburban	Urban	Suburban
Approx % of minority students	81–100%	81–100%	21–40%	81–100%	0–20%
Approx % of economically disadvantaged students	81–100%	61–80%	41–60%	81–100%	61–80%
Approx % of students with disabilities	0–5%	26–50%	16–20%	21–25%	6–10%

Phase 2 – Qualitative Interview Results

Analysis of phase 2 interviews centered on addressing the study’s two underlying research questions. Divergent and common themes emerged as APs shared their understanding of what social justice school leadership entails. Some APs conveyed definitions aligned with social justice leadership scholars, while other APs conflated equity and equality and believed that social justice meant treating all students the same. AP perceptions regarding high-stakes testing and accountability were similarly varied. Several APs saw great value in high-stakes testing; many shared critical concerns regarding unintended impacts of testing; and nearly all APs were at least somewhat troubled by the high frequency of student testing.

“I’m Fair Across the Board, I Treat All Students the Same”

Several APs used the words equity, equitable, equitability, or equality to explain their sensemaking of “social justice leadership.” Larissa (urban middle school AP) stated, “As an AP, I’m just fair across the board. I think (social justice) means you are equitable to parents, teachers, students across the board.” She compared equity and social justice to a math operation, “It’s like a math equation. What you do for one, you do for the other.” Other APs echoed these sentiments when responding to the topic of social justice school leadership. Edward shared, “we pretty much just try to be fair” and Travis offered, “I treat every kid equally, I don’t favor any.”

This common notion that social justice involves “treating everyone the same” denies fundamental individual differences. Similar to a prevalent colorblind statement such as, “I do not see color…I treat everyone equally…as far as I’m concerned, everyone is the same” (Egbo, 2012, p. 73), these kinds of expressions ignore a key distinction between equality and equity – that treating all students the same regardless of differences of learning abilities, interests, culture and personality, runs counter to recognizing student diversity and building it into inclusive education and pedagogy (Leung, 2021). Minow (2021) wrote an extensive essay about this distinction and differences in the terms “equality” and “equity” that have emerged in current vernacular. She shares that “equality” means ignoring any differences among people and “equity” as focusing attention to uneven playing fields and intentional remedial efforts. Equality calls for uniformity, sameness, or identical treatment, while equity recognizes individuals’ unique needs and circumstances.

In her interview response, Kelsey (a suburban middle school AP) emphasized this difference between equity and equality as she articulated how she constructed meaning of social justice school leadership:

A lot of it is equitability. Not necessarily treating students equally but making sure everybody has a chance, everybody has that fair playing field… checking your bias at the door…It’s really trying to be empathetic and mindful, really trying my best to make sure that it’s fair, not necessarily equal. – Kelsey

Kelsey connected her notion of social justice leadership to focusing on efforts to level the playing field and provide students with what they need based on their unique backgrounds, histories, and circumstances, rather than uniformly treating all students the same.

“All Students”

Five APs expressed that social justice school leadership involved establishing an inclusive environment where “all student” groups felt welcomed and supported, needs of the whole child were addressed, and emphasized relationships and diverse voices being heard. For instance, Berkley was concise in her definition, contending that social justice leadership meant “ensuring 100% of students feel welcome and supported, and have the same opportunities.” Travis expressed a similar definition but mentioned a few specific areas of diversity and difference: “all kids, no matter their sex, race, gender, or socio-economic backgrounds, they all have equal opportunity to be successful.” However, as Smith (2018) contended in an article about tolerance discourse and LGBTQ allyship which cited Brown (2006), “all students” language implies openness and tolerance but emphasizes sameness as opposed to valuing or naming specific types of difference. Smith (2018) further argued the “all students” framework is “indicative of a system of depoliticization that has exonerated educators from naming and addressing the Othering of [marginalized student] identities that occurs through policy, pedagogy, curriculum, and other structures that shape school life” (p. 301). In this study, two APs specifically addressed the unique challenges of marginalized student groups. For example, Eli shared the following:

Our most vulnerable are newcomers, immigrants, and refugees., with little English skills… I help them by making [them feel] welcome… providing teachers with ESL support strategies… Our LGBT [students]… they’ve had hurtful comments made… I make them feel safe… get support from the counselor, ensure teachers are aware. It’s a vulnerable time, and I don’t want anybody to be miserable. – Eli

Eli was specific about how he supports marginalized student groups on his campus. Other APs’ sensemaking of social justice was limited to non-disruptive and non-specific strategies to support “all students.” Brown (2006) examined how “all students” and tolerance is used to smooth over friction that arises when diverse groups are forced to coexist:

In the United States, tolerance is held out as the key to peaceful coexistence in racially divided neighborhoods, the potential fabric of community in diversely populated public schools, the corrective for abusive homophobia in the military and elsewhere, and the antidote for rising rates of hate crime. (p. 2)

Principles of tolerance maintain positions of privilege and power, allowing a school to superficially incorporate differences without reconsidering policies and practices that maintain hierarchical relations (Smith, 2018). Edward’s comment below illustrates this:

Like social justice warriors? We don't have that [here]… The last issue we had was pronouns. I’m okay with that. If we need to put a designated restroom, we’ll do that too…because it doesn't bother me that much. – Edward

AP Leadership Balancing Actions

Survey respondents shared leadership balancing actions that include supporting recent immigrant students, special education students and other students who struggled on high-stakes tests, and advocating for more comprehensive whole-child assessments that more accurately reflect the potentials, abilities, and diverse challenges students face. APs reported balancing actions that fit into six general categories, as shown in Table 7 below:

Table 7.

Assistant Principal Balancing Actions

(1)	Keeping a light-hearted mood on testing days, organizing morale boosting activities, and focusing on social-emotional connections with staff and students
(2)	Distributive leadership, allowing staff to input on important campus decisions
(3)	Doing what is best for students regardless of accountability rating impact
(4)	Promoting ESL strategies to support emergent bilingual students
(5)	Encouraging teachers to focus on student growth versus raw test scores
(6)	Professional development for school staff that focuses on social emotional needs of students and creating an inclusive and culturally responsive school environment

Specific leadership balancing actions reported by participant APs aligned with components of the social justice versus accountability balance-lever framework (Wang, 2017). For instance, Eli’s and Martha’s balancing action around providing support for recent immigrants and promoting ESL strategies aligned with the framework components “developing culturally responsive teachers” (Khalifa et al., 2016). When Julie shared the following, “Having personal conversations with teachers… some people [would say] ‘My gosh, so touchy feely! All she cares about is what kids are thinking and feeling.’ I think it’s important…I’m trying to convert others,” she was providing an example of a balancing action that also aligned with developing culturally responsive teachers and promoting an inclusive environment.

Eli’s specific support for LGBT students aligns with confronting and eliminating marginalization related to race, class, gender, language, immigrant status, disability, and sexual orientation (Theoharis, 2007, 2010). Other APs were not as specific as Eli and their comments regarding support for marginalized students were discussed in very general terms using the previously mentioned “support all students” type language (Smith, 2018).

Julie shared the following in her response to one of the open-ended survey questions regarding a dilemma she faced due to high-stakes testing and accountability:

I hated to add extra math or reading classes to students’ schedules who were losing electives based on an interim test. I loved beyond that and elected to only change schedules of students who would really benefit from the love. – Julie

In Julie’s example, she made a conscious placement decision that balanced the student’s social-emotional well-being with accountability outcomes. Her decision-making demonstrated that leadership actions can be complementary (improved testing outcomes and address student well-being) or at other times might be mutually exclusive (decisions that may require a hard choice between accountability metric improvement versus a social justice concern). Julie provided another example that illustrated how AP leadership actions can be complementary and conducive to both sides of the balancing lever (Wang, 2017).

We provide opportunities for conversation and feedback…[Teachers] can bend the ear of [APs], as we take the pulse of the campus…For example, next year we're changing our schedule to an 8-period day, to a block schedule. It’s something teachers had rallied for… It’s been a big win for the whole campus. – Julie

Berkley shared two examples during her interview. In one case, a recent immigrant student was enrolling who struggled to pass STAAR end of course assessments and was encouraged to enroll in a private school. In the other case, Berkley allowed a transfer student to enroll despite it possibly having a negative impact on her campus’ accountability rating. She stated, “it was best for the student.” Both cases exemplified mutually exclusive leadership action, and a difficult choice between competing priorities of accountability metrics and social justice concerns.

Martha explained how she balances accountability pressures by providing increased autonomy (Jumani & Malik, 2017) to the teachers she is responsible for evaluating: “I try not to go to every PLC…when they see the administrator, they shut down and don’t want to share bright ideas.” Martha’s decision to afford teachers increased planning autonomy demonstrated her leadership action that prioritized democratic and distributive leadership but may yield testing and accountability benefits for her school. In this sense, her actions represented a complementary or conducive relationship between social justice and accountability. A final AP leadership balancing action was shared by Kelsey as she described a professional development initiative at her school that focused on social-emotional needs of students and creating an inclusive and culturally responsive school environment.

We split our faculty meetings…into core content instructional staff [in one group] and elective teachers and coaches [in another group]. Electives teachers and coaches went through the book, Middle School: A Place to Belong and Become (Barron & Kinney, 2017). It breaks down a sense of belonging, what students need to feel safe, and the realization that if they don't feel safe, they can't learn. – Kelsey

Discussion

This mixed-methods study examined variations in APs’ social justice and accountability beliefs (RQ1) and how APs make sense and take leadership actions that balances their social justice perspectives (and reaction to social justice issues) with the demands of accountability policies (RQ2).

Study findings revealed significant differences in how APs viewed social justice leadership and how they perceived current high-stakes testing accountability. Analysis of quantitative survey data revealed that APs at urban schools and APs at schools with a large diversity of students (21–40% students with disabilities) had statistically significant higher social justice composite scores, which corresponded with increased critical self-awareness, development of culturally responsive teachers, promotion of culturally responsive and inclusive school environments, greater engagement with students, families, and communities, and stronger efforts to confront and eliminate marginalization. Survey results also revealed a statistically significant relationship between race and ethnicity of the assistant principal and their perceptions of high-stakes testing and accountability.

APs shared different understandings of social justice school leadership. Some APs provided personal definitions that aligned with social justice school leadership scholars. Other APs conflated equity and equality and believed social justice meant treating everyone the same. AP perceptions of high-stakes testing were similarly varied. Some APs saw value in high-stakes testing; many shared critical concerns regarding unintended impacts; and nearly all APs were at least somewhat troubled by the high frequency of high-stakes testing. Figure 4 below depicts additional modifications to Wang’s (2017) framework that reflects study findings regarding AP leadership actions that balance social justice advocacy with high-stakes testing student achievement goals that were previously outlined in Table 7.

Figure 4.

AP balancing act: Social justice versus accountability framework

We recommend additional research that explores the intersection of APs, social justice school leadership and high-stakes testing accountability (Boske & Benavente-McEnery, 2012; Carpenter et al., 2017). Future research should include triangulation by including field observations (Mulhall, 2003), focus groups (Gundumogula & Gundumogula, 2020), or survey input from other school personnel such as teachers and principals who could shed additional insight into the leadership behaviors of subject assistant principals (Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2006). Our policy recommendations include continued support for APs beyond initial training and certification (Allen & Weaver, 2014; Barnett et al., 2017). At the end of her interview, one of the APs (Julie) reflected on this need: “I wish there was more training for [APs…I support everybody else, but who supports me?” State and local district policies should include provisions for increased AP support and training to include training that addresses social justice leadership, issues of marginalization, and culturally responsive school leadership. Another policy recommendation relates to reducing high-stakes testing frequency (Bergbauer et al., 2024); developing alternative, culturally responsive, authentic assessments of student achievement (Derman-Sparks et al., 2015; Escamilla, 2021; Nortvedt et al., 2020; Seitz, 2023) as this was a common AP study participant comment; and redesigning more complete measures of school-based accountability that acknowledge all the things that good schools do (Hammond, 2014; Schneider, 2017), also frequently mentioned by study participant APs.

Our practice recommendations include improvements to educational leadership programs to prepare future APs to resist and dismantle oppressive systems within their schools (Bertrand & Rodela, 2018; Bogotch, 2002). Using case studies, such as from Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership (University Council for Educational Administration, 1998-present) can improve preparation and practice of APs’ social justice leadership. We also recommend democratic leadership practices by APs in their respective schools (Kilicoglu, 2018; Shava & Tlou, 2018; Torres, 2019), and more professional development for APs and teachers that address issues of marginalization (Ferrell, 2022). These recommendations may assist APs with balancing the moral obligation that stems from their social justice beliefs with the political mandates of high-stakes testing and accountability policy.

This study illuminated persistent tensions APs face as they strive to enact social justice leadership while navigating the pressures of high-stakes accountability. These tensions are consistent with other research, such as Sarid’s (2021) conceptualization of social justice school leadership as inherently dilemmatic, requiring leaders to constantly negotiate between competing ethical, pedagogical, and bureaucratic demands. Some APs in this study described context specific efforts to center marginalized students’ needs yet felt constrained by rigid performance metrics and test-based accountability systems. This aligns with Sarid’s (2024) expanded framework, which emphasized democratic leadership as a continuous balancing act requiring situational judgment and responsiveness to conflicting institutional logics. Kim (2023) framed accountability as not just technical, but deeply human and relational, and highlighted the moral dilemma leaders face when policy expectations conflict with the goal of reaching all learners. This was echoed by APs in this study who struggled to reconcile equitable practices with data-driven mandates, as evidenced by the “all students” and “I treat all students the same” language. These findings contribute to a growing body of scholarship that calls for a more nuanced understanding of leadership as a series of ethical negotiations, rather than linear implementation of either justice or compliance.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine variation in AP social justice and accountability beliefs and explore how APs balance accountability policies while addressing social justice issues in their schools. 79 APs participated in a phase 1 survey with 10 APs selected to participate in phase 2 interviews. Findings revealed divergent AP views across social justice and accountability beliefs which drove recommendations for policy, practice, and future research by connecting what APs shared regarding leadership balancing actions to support social justice and accountability priorities. Policy recommendations included improved support for APs beyond initial certification, reducing testing frequency, developing alternative authentic assessments, and redesigning more robust measures of school-based accountability (frequently mentioned by APs). Recommendations for practice included increased democratic leadership by APs in their schools, and more professional development for APs that address issues of marginalization. Recommendations for future research included research to explore AP mentoring and rotational assignments, as well as the relationship between a school’s population of students with disabilities and APs’ social justice beliefs. The study highlighted the complexity of the assistant principal position, the complicated, nuanced, and ongoing sensemaking of assistant principals and their importance at the forefront of campus leadership.

Footnotes

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas at San Antonio (IRB# FY23-24-13).

Consent to Participate

All study participants provided informed consent to take part in the research.

Author Contributions

The authors declare that this manuscript is original work, has not been published previously, and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors have contributed significantly to this manuscript.

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

Datasets for this study are publicly available at . Data includes survey questions, survey results frequencies, open-ended survey question response summaries, interview protocol, and interview themes and codes.

Author Biographies

Robert J. Schlegel is the program manager for the Hawkins Center of Excellence at Texas State University. His research interests include equity-focused school leader development, ability grouping and tracking of students, and the impact of high-stakes testing and accountability in education. Dr. Schlegel earned his Ph.D. at the University of Texas at San Antonio in 2024.

Curtis A. Brewer is a Professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. His research interests include political action by educators, the utilization of democratic theory in educational arenas, and critical policy studies. Dr. Brewer received his Ph.D. at the University of Texas at Austin in 2008. He also taught at Clemson University.

References

Allen

J. G.

Weaver

R. L.

(2014). Learning to lead: The professional development needs of assistant principals. Education Leadership Review, 15(2), 14–32. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105575.pdf.

(2020). Testing for whiteness? How high-stakes, standardized tests promote racism, undercut diversity, and undermine multicultural education. In Visioning multicultural education. Routledge.

(2022). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge.

Banks

K. J.

(2018). Sensemaking as a framework for understanding how middle school assistant principals as social justice leaders adjudicate discipline referrals to disrupt the racial discipline gap (Publication No. 2185682967). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Barnett

B. G.

Shoho

A. R.

Okilwa

N. S.

(2017). Assistant principals’ perceptions of meaningful mentoring and professional development opportunities. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(4), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmce-02-2017-0013

Barnett

B. G.

Shoho

A. R.

Oleszewski

A. M.

(2012). The job realities of beginning and experienced assistant principals. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(1), 92–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.611924

Barron

Kinney

(2017). Middle school: A place to belong & become. BookBaby.

Bender

W. N.

(2008). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: Best teaching practices for general and special educators. Corwin Press.

Bergbauer

A. B.

Hanushek

E. A.

Woessmann

(2024). Testing. Journal of Human Resources, 59(2), 349–388. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.0520-10886R1

10.

Bertrand

Rodela

K. C.

(2018). A framework for rethinking educational leadership in the margins: Implications for social justice leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(1), 10–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117739414

11.

Bishop

(2020). Becoming an ally, 3rd edition: Breaking the cycle of oppression in people. Fernwood Publishing.

12.

Black

Valenzuela

(2004). Educational equity and accountability: Paradigms, policies, and politics. Taylor & Francis Group.

13.

Bogotch

I. E.

(2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460201200203

14.

Boske

Benavente-McEnery

(2012). The quiet roar: Assistant principals leading for social justice. In A. R. Shoho, B. G. Barnett, & A. K. Tooms (Eds.), Examining the assistant principalship: New puzzles and perennial challenges for the 21st century (pp. 125–152). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

15.

Boyd

W. L.

(1987). Public education’s last hurrah? Schizophrenia, amnesia, and ignorance in school politics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002085

16.

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1628806

17.

Brown

(2006). Regulating aversion: Tolerance in the age of identity and empire. Princeton University Press.

18.

Bukoski

B. E.

Lewis

T. C.

Carpenter

B. W.

Berry

M. S.

Sanders

K. N.

(2015). The complexities of realizing community: Assistant principals as community leaders in persistently low-achieving schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(4), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1021053

19.

Camacho

D. A.

Parham

(2019). Urban teacher challenges: What they are and what we can learn from them. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.014

20.

Capper

C. A.

Young

M. D.

(2014). Ironies and limitations of educational leadership for social justice: A call to social justice educators. Theory Into Practice, 53(2), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.885814

21.

Carpenter

B. W.

Brewer

(2014). The implicated advocate: The discursive construction of the democratic practices of school principals in the USA. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.745737

22.

Carpenter

B. W.

Bukoski

B. E.

Berry

Mitchell

A. M.

(2017). Examining the social justice identity of assistant principals in persistently low-achieving schools. Urban Education, 52(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915574529

23.

Casserly

Lachlan-Hache

Naik

(2011). Facility needs and costs in America’s great city schools. Council of the Great City Schools.

24.

Coburn

C. E.

(2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143

25.

Connor

(2014). The disability studies in education annual conference: Explorations of working within, and against, special education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v34i2.4257

26.

Counsell

S. L.

Wright

B. L.

(2018). High-stakes accountability systems: Creating cultures of fear. Global Education Review, 5(2), 189–202.

27.

Craft

H. M.

Malveaux

Lopez

S. A.

Combs

J. P.

(2016). The acclimation of new assistant principals. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1(2), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v1i2.1914

28.

Cranston

Tromans

Reugebrink

M. A. J.

(2004). Forgotten leaders: What do we know about the deputy principalship in secondary schools? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120410001694531

29.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

30.

Dantley

Tillman

(2006). Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In Marshall

Oliva

(Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. Pearson Publishing.

31.

Dantley

M. E.

Green

T. L.

(2015). Problematizing notions of leadership for social justice: Reclaiming social justice through a discourse of accountability and a radical, prophetic, and historical imagination. Journal of School Leadership, 25(5), 820–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461502500502

32.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Serafini

(2021). Do good principals do bad things? Examining bounds of ethical behavior in the context of high-stakes accountability. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1668023

33.

Derman-Sparks

LeeKeenan

Nimmo

(2015). Leading anti-bias early childhood programs: A guide for change. Teachers College Press.

34.

Dolph

(2017). Challenges and opportunities for school improvement: Recommendations for urban school principals. Education and Urban Society, 49(4), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516659110

35.

Egbo

(2012). What should preservice teachers know about race and diversity? Exploring a critical knowledge base for teaching in 21st century Canadian classrooms. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.20355/C5C30R

36.

Escamilla

I. M.

(2021). Learning stories. YC Young Children, 76(2), 33–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27095172.

37.

Ferrell

(2022). A literature review of multicultural education practices to support marginalized communities. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cieduht/31, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

38.

Flood

L. D.

(2019). A new way forward for social justice researchers: Development and validation of the social justice behavior scale. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 4(2), 303–346. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2019.2.4

39.

Forero

C. G.

(2024). Cronbach’s alpha. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1505–1507). Springer International Publishing.

40.

Foy

L. L.

(2008). Principals’ perceptions of high -stakes accountability testing policies’ influence on their behavior as instructional leaders. [EdD]. Temple University.

41.

Gewirtz

(1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory. Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093980130402

42.

Goldring

Rubin

Herrmann

(2021). The role of assistant principals: Evidence and insights for advancing school leadership. Wallace Foundation.

43.

Gonzalez

R. A.

Firestone

W. A.

(2013). Educational tug‐of‐war: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311528

44.

Gundumogula

(2020). Importance of focus groups in qualitative research. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 8(11), 299–302.

45.

Hamilton

L. S.

Johnston

W. R.

(2020). Data access and use among middle and high school principals. RAND Corporation.

46.

Hammond

(2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.

47.

Haney

(2001). Response to Skrla et al. The illusion of educational equity in Texas: A commentary on “accountability for equity.” International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4:3, 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/713807337

48.

Harness

M. A.

Harness

A. Z.

(2024). A false accountability narrative: The human rights implications of developed nations over-testing youth in education. Journal of Law and Education, 53(1), 135–166.

49.

Hausman

Nebeker

McCreary

Donaldson

(2002). The worklife of the assistant principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(2), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210421105

50.

Hayes

S. D.

Burkett

J. R.

(2021). Almost a principal: Coaching and training assistant principals for the next level of leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 31(6), 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684620912673

51.

Heaton

(2022). “Pseudonyms are used throughout”: A footnote, unpacked. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004211048379

52.

Heilig

J. V.

Brewer

T. J.

Pedraza

J. O.

(2018). Examining the myth of accountability, high-stakes testing, and the achievement gap. Journal of Family Strengths, 18(1), 1–14.

53.

Hemmer

Aguilar

Fleming

(2018). Visionary planning and the eagle ford shale play: A cross-case study of rural school superintendents as sense-makers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(6), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1318959

54.

Hernandez

Ezzani

M. D.

Harmon

K. S.

Mugabe

(2025). The assistant principal leadership academy: Creating a stronger bench for school leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 20(4), 428–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751251341300

55.

Hudley

A. H.

(2013). Sociolinguistics and social activism. In Bayley

Cameron

Lucas

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0040

56.

Hunt

J. W.

(2011). The care and feeding of assistant principals: Leadership development or squandered potential. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education, 61(1), 163–173.

57.

Ivankova

N. V.

Creswell

J. W.

Stick

S. L.

(2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260

58.

Jacob

B. A.

(2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0005

59.

Jumani

N. B.

Malik

(2017). Promoting Teachers’ Leadership Through Autonomy and Accountability. In Amzat

Valdez

(Eds.), Teacher empowerment toward professional development and practices (pp. 21–41). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4151-8_2

60.

Kafka

(2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902973506

61.

Kendi

I. X.

(2016). Why the academic achievement gap is a racist idea. Black Perspectives, 48(3), 424–467. https://www.aaihs.org/why-the-academic-achievement-gap-is-a-racist-idea/.

62.

Khalifa

(2020). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.

63.

Khalifa

Gooden

Davis

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

64.

Kilicoglu

(2018). Understanding democratic and distributed leadership: How democratic leadership of school principals related to distributed leadership in schools? Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(3), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.150.1

65.

Kim

(2023). The human side of accountability: Dilemmas of reaching all learners. Harvard Educational Review, 93(3), 313–341. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-93.3.313

66.

Koretz

(2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. University of Chicago Press.

67.

Kowalchuk

(2019). Voices for change: Social justice leadership practices. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 3(1), n1. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1226940.pdf.

68.

Koyama

J. P.

(2014). Principals as bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x13492796

69.

Koyama

J. P.

(2019). Making failure pay: For-profit tutoring, high-stakes testing, and public schools. University of Chicago Press.

70.

Kozol

(1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. Harper Perennial.

71.

Leung

(2021). Mindful and relational approaches to social justice, equity, and diversity in teacher education. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’Éducation, 44(3), xii–xv. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27114428.

72.

Marshall

Hooley

R. M.

(2006). The assistant principal: Leadership choices and challenges. Corwin Press.

73.

Maynes

Sarbit

(2000). Schooling children living in poverty: Perspectives on social justice. Exceptionality Education Canada, 10(1–2), 37–61.

74.

McNeil

(2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In Valenzuela

(Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 57–112). State University of New York Press.

75.

McNeil

Valenzuela

(2000). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In Orfield

Kornhaber

(Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education (pp. 127–150). Boston, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.

76.

Minow

(2021). Equality vs. equity. American Journal of Law and Equality, 1, 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1162/ajle_a_00019

77.

Mintrop

Ordenes

(2017). Teacher work motivation in the era of extrinsic incentives: Performance goals and pro-social commitments in the service of equity. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 44. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2482

78.

Morgan

T. L.

(2018). Assistant principals’ perceptions of the principalship. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 13(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2018v13n10a743

79.

Mulhall

(2003). In the field: Notes on observation in qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02514.x

80.

Muñoz

M. A.

Barber

H. M.

(2011). Assistant principals in high-stakes accountability environments: The effects of job attributes and school characteristics. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-010-9114-y

81.

Nichols

S. L.

Berliner

D. C.

(2005). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing (p. 187). Arizona State University, Education Policy Research Unit.

82.

Nichols

S. L.

Berliner

D. C.

(2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Harvard Education Press.

83.

Nichols

S. L.

Brewington

(2020). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about high-stakes testing and their working environments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(30), 30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4877

84.

Nichols

S. L.

Valenzuela

(2013). Education policy and youth: Effects of policy on practice. Theory Into Practice, 52(3), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.804306

85.

Nortvedt

G. A.

Wiese

Brown

Burns

McNamara

O’Hara

Taneri

P. O.

Fellner

Herzog-Punzenberger

Nayir

(2020). Aiding culturally responsive assessment in schools in a globalizing world. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 32(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09316-w

86.

Oakes

Quartz

K. H.

Ryan

Lipton

(2000). Becoming good American schools: The struggle for civic virtue in education reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 568–575.

87.

Oakes

Stuart Wells

Yonezawa

Ray

(2014). Change agentry and the quest for equity: Lessons from detracking schools. In Nina Bascia

Hargreaves

(Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change (pp. 72–96). Routledge.

88.

Oleszewski

Shoho

Barnett

(2012). The development of assistant principals: A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211223301

89.

Oliver-Hoyo

Allen

(2006). The use of triangulation methods in qualitative educational research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 42–47.

90.

Paris

Alim

H. S.

(Eds.), (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

91.

Randall

Slomp

Poe

Oliveri

M. E.

(2022). Disrupting white supremacy in assessment: Toward a justice-oriented, antiracist validity framework. Educational Assessment, 27(2), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2022.2042682

92.

Reardon

S. F.

(2013). The widening increase in achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16.

93.

Ryan

(2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500483995

94.

Sarid

(2021). Social justice dilemmas: A multidimensional framework of social justice educational leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(2), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1631856

95.

Sarid

(2024). A dilemmatic approach to democratic school leadership and governance. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 23(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2022.2137043

96.

Schlegel

Brewer

(2024). Assistant principal balancing act: Making sense of social justice leadership in a high-stakes testing and accountability environment. Roadrunner Press, University of Texas at San Antonio.

97.

Schneider

(2017). Beyond test scores: A better way to measure school quality. Harvard University Press.

98.

Searby

Browne-Ferrigno

Wang

(2017). Assistant principals: Their readiness as instructional leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(3), 397–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1197281

99.

Seitz

(2023). Authentic assessment: A strengths-based approach to making thinking, learning, and development visible. YC Young Children, 78(1), 6–11. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/spring2023.

100.

Shava

G. N.

Tlou

F. N.

(2018). Distributed leadership in education, contemporary issues in educational leadership. African Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.30918/aerj.64.18.097

101.

Shields

C. M.

Hesbol

K. A.

(2020). Transformative leadership approaches to inclusion, equity, and social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 30(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619873343

102.

Shipps

White

(2009). A new politics of the principalship? Accountability-driven change in New York city. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 350–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902973563

103.

Skrla

Scheurich

J. J.

Johnson Jr

J. F.

Koschoreck

J. W.

(2001). Accountability for equity: Can state policy leverage social justice? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120110057073

104.

Smith

M. J.

(2018). “I accept all students”: Tolerance discourse and LGBTQ ally work in US public schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(3-4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2019.1582376

105.

Somoza-Norton

Neumann

(2021). The assistant principal as instructional leader: The redesign of the AP position in the 21st century. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 6(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.32674/jsard.v6i1.2444

106.

Spillane

J. P.

Anderson

(2014). The architecture of anticipation and novices’ emerging understandings of the principal position: Occupational sense making at the intersection of individual, organization, and institution. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 116(7), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600705

107.

Spillane

J. P.

Louis

K. S.

(2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building instructional capacity. Teachers College Record, 104(9), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810210400905

108.

Stabile

R. G.

(2015). Ohio school finance blue book (22nd ed.). Powerhouse Press.

109.

Stolzenberg

R. M.

(2004). Multiple regression analysis. Handbook of data analysis (pp. 165–208). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608184.n8

110.

Sun

A. Q.

(2011). Exploring the role of assistant principals in an accountability-oriented environment in New York state public schools. State University of New York at Buffalo.

111.

Supovitz

(2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9105-2

112.

Sutherland

D. H.

(2022). School board sensemaking of federal and state accountability policies. Educational Policy, 36(5), 981–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820925816

113.

Terzi

(2014). Reframing inclusive education: Educational equality as capability equality. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2014.960911

114.

Theoharis

(2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x06293717

115.

Theoharis

(2008). Woven in deeply: Identity and leadership of urban social justice principals. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124508321372

116.

Theoharis

(2010). Disrupting injustice: Principals narrate the strategies they use to improve their schools and advance social justice. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 331–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200105

117.

Theoharis

Sarah

Kibriani

(2023). Culturally responsive and socially just leadership practice. In Smith

Kim

E.C.

(Eds.), Equity doesn’t just happen: stories of education leaders working toward social justice (pp. 67–82). Rowman & Littlefield.

118.

Thornton

(2024). The kids can handle it”: A culturally responsive case study of four detracking school leadership teams. Educational Administration Quarterly, 61(1), 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X241289111

119.

Torres

D. G.

(2019). Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers’ job satisfaction in US schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.001

120.

Trujillo

T. M.

(2013). The disproportionate erosion of local control: Urban school boards, high-stakes accountability, and democracy. Educational Policy, 27(2), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812465118

121.

University Council for Educational Administration. (1998–present). Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership. Sage Publications.

122.

Valdés

Castellón

(2010). English language learners in American schools: Characteristics and challenges. In Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 38–54). Routledge.

123.

Vanlommel

Schildkamp

(2019). How do teachers make sense of data in the context of high-stakes decision making? American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 792–821. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218803891

124.

Villa

R. A.

(2016). Leading an inclusive school: Access and success for ALL students. ASCD.

125.

Wang

(2017). The Ontario quandary: Principals’ perceptions of accountability policy and social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 27(3), 392–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700304

126.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.

127.

Weick

K. E.

(2020). Sensemaking, organizing, and surpassing: A handoff. Journal of Management Studies, 57(7), 1420–1431. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12617

128.

Weick

K. E.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Obstfeld

(2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

129.

Welton

A. D.

Diem

Holme

J. J.

(2015). Color conscious, cultural blindness: Suburban school districts and demographic change. Education and Urban Society, 47(6), 695–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513510734

130.

Werts

A. B.

Brewer

C. A.

Mathews

S. A.

(2012). Representing embodiment and the policy implementing principal using photovoice. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(6), 817–844. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211264702

131.

Williams

J. A.

III Lewis

Starker Glass

Butler

B. R.

Hoon Lim

(2023). The discipline gatekeeper: Assistant principals’ experiences with managing school discipline in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 58(8), 1543–1571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920908913

132.

Williams

T. T.

Sánchez

(2013). Identifying and decreasing barriers to parent involvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Society, 45(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x11409066

133.

Zhou

(2003). Urban education: Challenges in educating culturally diverse children. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00236