Diversity and Community Relationships: The Role Within

Ryan, T.G. (2012). Diversity and community relationships: The role within. The Scholar-
Practitioner Quarterly, 6 (4), 374 – 387.

Abstract

The following discussion of diversity and community relationships herein is supported by

recent research findings which demonstrate that community-building, in and outside of
schools, is an integral aspect of student success. All school leaders must recognize the
value of the relationship between the school, and community, in order to act as an
effective liaison between the school and community, encouraging meaningful community
participation in school life. With continual support from all school leaders, all staff,
students, parents, and community members can remain committed to improving schools
and student learning. The organizational structure will be tested, as community school
relationships take hold and move toward a shared vision of improvement in a knowledge
society. The reculturing, creation and/or reform of all schools depend upon the ability of
all leaders to visualize, imagine, and construct the framework of pertinent values within a
fresh, inclusive mission statement.

Keywords: diversity, community-building, leadership

Media reports of the increased prevalence of intolerance towards those deemed ‘different’

has augmented the call and need to address diversity in schools (Ornstein & Hunkins,

2004; Webster, 2002). Schools tend to be the best stage to enact a response to social ills

since “education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform” (Dewey,

1966). To address diversity, we must first articulate a definition which conceptually is not

only understood, but also serves the needs of all people, hence, herein ‘diversity’, “refers

to the state of being different or varied. The term is derived from the root ‘divers’ or

‘diverse’ which in turn is derived from the Latin diversus, meaning turned in different

directions” (van Vuuren et al., 2012, p. 156). Researchers have further contextualized

this ‘state of being’ within our modern world suggesting,

 2

Diversity includes differences in age, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs,

socioeconomic status, religion, physical and mental ability, language and

ethnicity. Although some schools have greater diversity than others, all schools

must acknowledge and act on the diversity found in their populations, the

community itself, the state, the nation, and on our planet. Staff and students need

to (a) be aware of diversity, (b) have knowledge and understanding about

diversity, and (c) on the basis of that knowledge take action. (Cunningham &

Cordeiro, 2009, p. 99)

Action can unfold within various school and community programs and services yet the

extent, quality, and duration of these programs and services are very much dependent

upon school leaders who often initiate this action. This leadership in schools can be

understood as a “social influence process in which one or more individuals exert

intentional influence over others to structure activities and relationships in a group or

organization” (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009, p. 173). Leadership can extend to all

levels including teachers, superintendents, directors, consultants, trustees and school

council members.

Arguably, student diversity in schools requires an organized, informed and

strategic school plan combined with a community approach. All communities have

valuable resources that can promote positive and meaningful learning experiences for

diverse students (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009). To choose not to work with the

community may lead to school isolation, and educator misunderstanding of the social and

cultural factors within the community that can potentially affect children’s learning.
 3

Failing to promote diversity in schools has actually encouraged students to maintain their

distinct diverse values and remain apart from others (Fleras & Elliot, 2002). Often this

outcome can be traced to diverse students past experiences, being subjected to hostile

attitudes and actions including prejudice, discrimination, and isolation in these failing

schools (Kivisto, 2002). These experiences were typically a result of the naïve and

narrow-minded attitudes that were upheld by the dominant mainstream element within

society and schools. As a result of these attitudes, and the lack of support within the

school environment, many diverse students failed to experience meaningful and equal

learning experiences. This predicament forced educators to confront the need to eliminate

school practices that attempted to homogenize students into one single ‘mainstream’

group.

Ornstein and Hunkins (2004) suggested that each student brings an entirely

different need to the classroom. As these needs become visible, educators are

recognizing the call for a learning environment that is inclusive and responsive to student

diversity. This environment must be reflective of reformed learning goals, diverse school

programs, new pedagogical approaches, flexible curricula, and varied educational

environments. Many, if not all of these demands can be procured through the

development of supportive relationships with school community members.

School–Community Partnerships

A review of current research indicates that parent involvement is important in improving

their children’s achievement (Owens & Valesky, 2011, p. 216). This association and/or

partnership between school and community can be understood as,

 4

partnerships that are either school-linked or school-based. These school

partnerships range in complexity from a collaboration with one person,

organization, or agency to multilayered alliances. Literature supports that the

partnering service is not only useful but in today’s economic and social climate

also quickly becoming recognized as mandatory. (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009,

p. 123)

Any scepticism of this arrangement can be quickly doused by reporting how “two meta-

analyses of 104 research studies on parent involvement confirm the importance of parent

involvement” as this linkage has been shown to increase student achievement with

minority(sub-groups) and non-minority students at both the elementary and secondary

levels (Owens & Valesky, 2011, p. 216). Partnerships may surface via religious

organizations, higher education institutions, non-profit organizations, government

organizations, the medical community, business, and industry, media, youth

organizations, social and ethnic organizations, and the rapidly growing outside

community and world (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009).

In the next 50 years, diversity among student populations is expected to

dramatically increase (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009; van Vuuren et al., 2012). This

signals a need for school reforms that are inclusive and accepting of changing student

populations as diversity is indeed one of the most ubiquitous features of all societies (van

Vuuren et al., 2012).

With each diverse student bringing an entirely different need to the classroom,

educators are quickly recognizing the call for a learning environment that is inclusive and

responsive to student diversity. With this recognition comes the demand for reform
 5

(Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004). Many, if not all of these demands can be promoted through

the development of supportive relationships in the school community.

New Meaning: Creation

Principals have often been viewed as primary agents charged with developing

and encouraging new meanings, regarding diversity in schools. Without constructing new

meanings and understanding in staff, students, parents, and administration, inclusive

structures and practices may not result in enduring change. This process cannot simply

succeed by communicating new meanings within the school environment; it also means

making these meanings a part of the school context (Fullan, 2001; Riehl, 2000). For

example, an administrator may demonstrate sensitivity to diversity; however, he or she

may fail to integrate it as a meaningful part of the school’s programs.

Henderson and Kesson (2004) have suggested that educators structure their

classrooms in a manner that integrates meaningful learning experiences that work to

promote diversity. One way is via critical democratic pedagogy involving learning

communities, critical consciousness, authentic work, and advocacy projects which

promote diversity among students. Education is the way forward, and Dewey (1966)

agreed stating:

I believe that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform.

All reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the threatening of

certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are

transitory and futile . . .. By law and punishment, by social agitation and

discussion, society can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and
 6

chance way. But through education society can formulate its own purposes, can

organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and

economy in the direction in which it wishes to move. (p. 57)

Education as a force, and means to move society, remains a realistic and

pragmatic means to make all schooling inclusive (Kose, 2011). Aoki (2005) endorsed the

idea of principals who would encourage teachers to recognize the unique experiences that

students bring into the classroom, as each student has lived experiences that are

influenced by their diverse situations. School leaders must understand that merely

communicating these meanings and ideas will not suffice (Kose, 2011). School leaders

must actively seek to construct new meanings while also modeling these in daily routines

to reform and move forward (Fullan, 2001; 2009).

Inclusive School Praxes

The second task facing school administrators is to create conditions and practices within

the school that address the needs of diverse students (Theoharis, 2007). Riehl (2000)

suggested that this takes place in two ways; first, a school must promote inclusive

teaching and learning. This involves teacher learning communities that are facilitated by

the principal. In these communities, the principal manages educators towards integrating

inclusive strategies in the classroom that are reflective and sensitive to diversity. With

the principal as leader, he or she can direct teachers toward promoting diversity in the

classroom (Kose, 2011). Teachers must integrate inclusive strategies in the classroom to

promote diversity such as the integration of diverse texts and providing opportunities for

students to use their minds freely (Li, 2002). We have support for this since "there is
 7

consensus among scholars that classroom experiences have the greatest impact on

whether students learn a lot or a little" (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008, p. 464).

Also, there must be a moulding of inclusive school cultures; meaning the

school culture must include the instructional program as a central carrier of values and

commitments promoting diversity (Kose, 2011; Riehl, 2000). Daily the people within the

school culture must, in some way, promote a caring environment, high expectations for

all students, cultural knowledge, partnerships, advocacy, critical awareness, and permit

the evaluation of biased and prejudiced attitudes (Kose, 2011; Marshall & Olivia, 2006).

Building Connections: School and Community

The most essential task facing school principals who aim to serve diverse students

is building connections between schools and their community (Riehl, 2000). Astute

leaders sense this purposeful objective and respond by building linkages to a point where

the school is viewed as a culturally responsive entity that collaborates with student

families and the community (Glickman et al., 2010, p. 449). Clearly, schools can no

longer exist as isolated entities; they must build community linkages in a purposeful

manner. Because “without purpose, educational leaders are, at a minimum, vulnerable to

directing their energy to inappropriate or wasteful tasks, and at worse, subject to

manipulation and exploitation by individuals, organizations and special interest groups

bent on pursuing their self-interests” (Begley, 2010, p. 12). Traditionally schools were

viewed as places where,

order, control and discipline came first. Indeed, the bureaucratic-like cultures that

pervade contemporary school systems are seen by many as the best (and only)

way to organise large groups of people to achieve these common goals, despite lip
 8

service to the contrary, particularly among conservative-minded groups. So, in the

pursuit of these ends, schools actually foster in students forms of compliant

thinking and work to prevent expressions of social and cultural differences.

Even though they may on the surface look to promote values of democracy,

creativity, and diversity, they actually operate under conditions that embody a

competing set of values, like obedience, compliance, routine, conformity and

homogeneity. (Ryan, 2003, p. 150)

Contemporary educators must be aware of the traditional issues and work to build

new school traditions via a number of community outlets that have relationships with

students. Effective administrators today recognize their community as a valuable

resource within the learning experiences of diverse students. Building connections

between a school and community may have great value however, it is essential that

school leaders recognize the importance of strong school-community relationships

(Fullan, 2009). These relationships are often underestimated and are consequently

lacking in many our school systems. Nonetheless, if valued and encouraged, school–

community relationships can play a vital role in promoting inclusive, equitable, and

meaningful learning experiences for diverse students (Theoharis, 2007).

Community Connections

Rule and Kyle (2009) have explained how community building positively

influenced the success of diverse students via parents, community, and school staff

involvement by addressing three areas: Parents, community and faculty and staff

bonding.

Parents.
 9

A basic school–community connection is one with the parents within the vision

for school success (Kose, 2011). Building relationships with parents allows educators to

provide engaging and meaningful learning experiences that are more likely to reach

diverse students (McKay, et al., 2003). “Parents should be welcome at school, not just as

visitors but as part of the school community. Schools should be organized so that

supervisors and teachers are available to meet with parents to discuss their concerns”

(Glickman et al., 2010, p.449). Parent–school relationships allow educators to understand

the unique backgrounds of diverse students, inform parents about school activities, and

learn about diversity and how to effectively respond to it, while establishing solid

home/school connections (Rule & Kyle, 2009).

“Parent communication styles, cultural values, and childrearing practices should

be respected” (Glickman et al., 2010, p.449), acknowledged and understood since they

will and should take part in shared decision making between the parents and school.

Parents need to be given the opportunity to provide input on important decisions

regarding their child and school activities since “Parents should be part of the school

leadership” (Glickman et al., 2010, p.449). Class visits, fundraising, curriculum nights,

sports events and open houses for parents are opportunities for parents to lead. This

provides them with the opportunity to observe not only how and what their child is

learning; it also provides them with the opportunity to provide feedback to the teacher

regarding the learning experiences of their child. Parents are resources of knowledge and

Jones (2006) believed that the inside experiences of parents may be an essential way for

teachers to enhance their practices in the classroom. Parents can join school

organizations such as councils and initiate a parent’s centre that can be a valuable
 10

resource to not only their own child’s learning, but the learning of other students, families

and the community at large (McKay et al., 2003).

Parents and “diverse community members can sit on school advisory groups, be

guest teachers, and serve as role models for students” (Glickman et al., 2010, p.450).

This enhances the learning experiences of all children, especially those children who are

diverse. Parents are an authentic link to the community, and they may share knowledge

of the experiences and situations lived by the child on a daily basis, with a teacher,

administrator or school in general. Parents are an essential source of knowledge that can

be drawn on by educators and parents gain an understanding of how their child is being

treated within school (Epstein et al., 2002). Parents must be informed, concerning what

their child is experiencing in school, and how it is being experienced (Cavarretta, 2000).

These relationships work to create understanding, harmony and an enduring bond that

may serve the school and parents through good times and bad. The arrangement services

a working relationship that aligns the learning experiences with the needs of diverse

students.

Community.

“Relationships in communities are based on shared identity, beliefs, values and

goals. Members of a community are mutually committed to each other and the

community,” (Glickman et al., 2010, p.462). Everyone is encouraged to contribute and

share their ideas in order to construct common values and knowledge. (Noddings, 2007).

This in turn, inspires “creative thinking that produces new hypotheses, expanded means,

a larger set of alternatives, and fresh ideas” (Noddings, p. 38). Rule and Kyle (2009)

believed that community building involved, first, creating a school environment founded

on trust, co-operation, encouragement, respect, and openness. The goal in community

 11

building involves integrating parents, community members, and community institutions

into the school environment so as to support and encourage diversity (Epstein et al.,

2002). These connections help to foster understanding, knowledge of, and diversity

(Rule & Kyle, 2009).

Community building continues to play a key role in the advance and support of

diversity in schools. Building this community is a moral enterprise involving trust,

justice, respect, freedom, care, encouragement, connectedness, and open-mindedness

(Fullan, 2009). At the helm are "effective principals [who] have a comprehensive

knowledge of leadership strategies and have developed an awareness of when to use

them. Further, they understand how to balance school culture, the student population,

and the community to promote increased student achievement" (Nettles & Herrington,

2007, p. 731). If a school environment fails to infuse these foundational elements,

diverse students may not receive inclusive nor meaningful learning experiences, and

achievement may be diminished. Therefore, effective school leaders must recognize the

need for community building centred upon basic human values, and moral understanding

(Epstein et al., 2002). All school leaders, staff and members must actively seek

community building by managing the school in a way that promotes connectedness

(Fullan, 2009).

Faculty/Staff bonding.

An essential component of community building identified by Rule and

Kyle (2009) is faculty bonding. Faculty bonding involves fostering an appreciation for

one-another among staff members. This appreciation among staff sends messages to

students that communicate acceptance, respect, and trust. Faculty bonding increases

collaborative practices and caring, an essential component of student success. The goal
 12

within a school may be to see that “collaboration is embedded into every aspect of the

school culture. Every major decision related to the learning mission is made through

collaborative processes” (DuFour et al., 2008, p. 11). A Collaborative culture will “free

teachers from isolation and provide peer support as they share information and expertise,

work together to develop curriculum, create instructional materials, and assess student

learning; and engage in joint problem solving (Glickman et al., 2010, p. 470). Faculty

bonding helps educators to see the way in which their attitude and teaching style may

prevent diverse students from receiving quality educational experiences. Faculty bonding

allows educators to discuss how attitudes and practices can be detrimental to diverse

students, and how they can be eliminated (Rule & Kyle, 2009). Researchers have

concluded that incorporating community-building strategies which,

emphasized creating a welcoming school and classroom climate; that fostered

helpful faculty connections; that encouraged positive classroom interaction; and

that promoted on-going and open teacher/parent communication resulted in a

school that worked together to meet the needs of each student. It is energizing to

have such positive outcomes when we could have had tension and strife.

Community-building activities are one of the most effective tools for creating a

school with a climate conducive to learning. (Rule & Kyle, 2009, p. 295)

However, if principals, teachers, and other staff fail to promote inclusive

practices, then students will emulate these negative models. Conceptually, inclusive

schooling is chain linked, meaning all individuals must show a willingness to support and

participate in the process, and when one opts out, it can stop others, as the attachment
 13

becomes impaired and weak. Hence, one individual or group member can impact the

entire structure, program, service or model (DuFour et al., 2008). Parent and community

involvement, and the experiences of diverse students, were essential in modern schools

(Cavarretta, 2000; Jacobs & Harvey, 2005).

Shared: Visions and Decisions

When teachers, administrators, parents, and community members collectively

work together to make decisions, to vision, to trust, to collaborate, true academic success

can be attained within the school (McKay, Atkins, Hawkins, Brown, & Lynn, 2003; Rule

& Kyle, 2009). This shared decision making takes a step away from the traditional

district organization where administrators make most decisions regarding schooling and

curriculum as the provincial government looks over the Board’s shoulder. With this

shared vision, parents and community members are given the opportunity to move

beyond their powerless roles and contribute both their input and expertise (Cavarretta,

2000; Jacobs & Harvey, 2005). A shared decision-making process allows the needs and

situations of diverse students to be accounted for (McKay et al., 2003). Observers can

suggest that today’s schools are, for the most part, comprised of White, middle-class

educators, who likely lack the knowledge regarding the needs of diverse students

(Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009; Rule & Kyle, 2009). Yet, this shared decision making,

and community participation can account for the needs of diverse students which may be

unknown, unrecognized, or forgotten by many educators (Castelloe, 2002; McKay et al.,

2003).

Road to Reform
 14

The school–community relationships noted herein offer an opportunity for

different stakeholders to team up and achieve goals concerning student needs. This team

building can result in community members influencing the educational process (Fullan

2001). Key academic reforms have unfolded as a by-product of these relationships

(Castelloe, Watson, & White, 2002; Cavarretta’s, 2000; Fullan, 2003). Through these

school–community relationships, community members have had the opportunity to shape

the curriculum, assist in textbook selection, plan media centers, and assist in the selection

of administration.

Reform movements are essential to the experiences of diverse students as

community relationships can be an effective way of ensuring that educational elements

are presented to address the best interests of all students. Educators do not instinctively

know the needs of each student however; many years ago, Dewey (1956) explained that,

from the standpoint of the child, the great waste in the school comes from his

inability to utilize the experiences he gets outside the school in any complete and

free way within the school itself; while on the other hand, he is unable to apply in

daily life what he is learning in school. That is the isolation of the school–its

isolation from life. When the child gets into the schoolroom, he has to put out of

his mind a large part of the ideas, interests and activities that predominate in his

home and neighbourhood. (p. 75)

Therefore, building community relationships may ensure that the needs of all students

are better met. Each school can then direct educational reform towards inclusive

practices. Salend (2005) reminds us that,

 15

inclusion is a philosophy that brings students, families, educators, and community

members together to create schools based on acceptance, belonging, and

community. Inclusionary schools welcome, acknowledge, affirm, and celebrate

the value of all learners by educating them together in high-quality, age-

appropriate general education classrooms in their neighbourhood schools. (p. 36)

Inclusive actions while reforming can also result in challenges earmarked towards school

traditions that are oppressive and/or neglectful of many students. This can lead to the

establishment of new school values and traditions that account for all differences in the

school (Cavarretta, 2000; Salend, 2005).

Power within relationships.

School–community relationships have the ability to boost school improvement. If

school leaders encourage relationships that foster consensus, respect, a voice for all, and

valuable learning opportunities, the success of the school and its students can, and will,

increase. Often the development of these relationships signals a change from past school

practices. This change could be said to be community development; “but it is community

development that is built on people development – on people developing the power and

voice to articulate their most pressing issues, and the self-assurance to use their existing

skills and knowledge to create positive community change” (Castelloe et al., 2002, p.13).

These school–community relationships have the power to increase the academic success

of students and improve relationships among their peers and educators (Cavarretta, 2000;

Epstein et al., 2002).

Building trust.
 16

Building relationships between the school and community can, and has produced

dividends however, initially, educators are often cautious, and somewhat reluctant or

disenchanted by the notion of community involvement in schooling. Once relationships

take hold they can grow, mature and deepen (Salend, 2005). The Equity and Inclusive

Education Strategy proposed by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2009) was a potential

step towards the establishment of important inclusive school–community relationships in

Ontario’s schools. The document noted how inclusive education involved the broader

community which was, and is fundamentally important however, Lupart & Webber

(2002) found within their historical review of Canadian inclusionary trends that, “as

general education began to shift towards these more inclusionary practices, it became

increasingly apparent that regular classroom teachers and administrators were

insufficiently prepared and ill-equipped to effect the multidimensional and complex

changes that inclusive education reformers had envisioned” (p. 18). Nonetheless, the

hope remains that all schools will continue to commit to the movement towards inclusive

community enriched educational experiences for all students via effective leadership,

vision, co-operation, and commitment in all schools. For many years we have been

making strides to move towards increased democracy in schools, "we become connected

for reason of commitment rather than compliance" (Sergiovanni, 1994, p. 58).

Concluding Thoughts

All school leaders must recognize the value of the relationship between the school and

community in order to act as an effective liaison between the school and community,

encouraging meaningful community participation in school life (Cunningham &

Cordeiro, 2009). Through continual support from all school leaders, all staff, students,
 17

parents, and community members can remain committed to improving schools and

student learning (Epstein et al., 2002). The very organizational structure will be tested as

community school relationships take hold and “those participating in the improvement in

schools will need to orient their common efforts toward a shared vision of improvement

as they develop creative insights, invent new schools, and prepare all students for life in a

knowledge society” (Cunningham & Cordeiro, 2009, p. 64). The reculturing, creation

and/or reform of all schools depend upon the ability of all leaders to visualize, imagine,

and construct the framework of pertinent values within a fresh mission statement (Fullan,

2001). Fullan (2009) also noted how vision plays a role in the process of changing

school dynamics yet it must be done with humility, open-mindedness, respect, a

willingness to reconcile differences, the ability to identify win–win scenarios, and remain

hopeful. Ultimately, "people are bonded to each other as a result of their mutual bindings

to shared values, traditions, ideas, and ideals" (Sergiovanni, 1994, p. 61).

If leaders approach the situation without a plan, they will most likely experience

setbacks or disappointment (Sergiovanni, 2004). The development of school–community

relationships remains a complex undertaking hence the need for thoughtful consideration,

planning, and implementation. Moving through these modes carefully will allow the

development of a vision that may bridge a breach between ideas and purposeful action.

With growing complexity in today’s schools and diversity increasing, students bring

many needs into the school environment. An established relationship between the school

and community helps all of us to address the many of the needs, which all students have,

and in theory, researchers support the idea that community partnerships enrich schooling

for all.
 18

Reaching diverse students is and has been a priority for a few years. All students

deserve a quality education that is inclusive. Through our strong and stable

relationships, a leap can be taken towards this goal, as appropriate organizational

management strategies can be situated by school leaders, in order to integrate diverse

educational practices into the values of the school. This vision may seem desirable,

however, difficult to achieve for some. Therefore, it requires participation, co-operation,

and dedication on many levels, and from many individuals involved in the school and

community.

References

Aoki, T. (2005). Teaching as in-dwelling between two curriculum worlds. In W. Pinar & R.

Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted. T. Aoki (pp. 159-

169). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Begley, P.T. (Ed.). (2008). School leadership in Canada (4nd Edition). Mt. St. Louis,

Ontario: Paul Begley & Associates.

Begley, P.T. (2010). Leadership: Authentic. International Encyclopedia of Education.

Volume 5, pp. 7-11.

Castelloe, P., Watson, T., & White, C. (2002). Participatory change: An innovative approach

to community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 10(4), 7-32.

Cavarretta, J. (2000). Parents are a school's best friend. The Journal of Educational

Leadership, 55, 12-15.

Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cunningham, W. G., & Cordeiro, P.A. (2009). Educational leadership: A bridge to improved

practice (4th ed.) Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.

 19

Curriculum Services Canada. (2007). All children can learn: A focus on equity of outcomes.

Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.org/index2.shtml

Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum and the school and society. Chicago: Phoenix.

Dewey, J. (1966). My pedagogic creed. In F.W. Garforth (Ed.). John Dewey: Selected

Educational Writings. London: Heinemann.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

work: new insights for improving schools. Bloomington, Indianna: Solution Tree Press.

Epstein, J., Sanders, M., Simon, B., Salinas, K., Jansorn, N., &Van Voorhis, F. (2002).

School, family, and community partnerships (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fleras, A., & Elliot, J. L. (2002). Engaging diversity. Multiculturalism in Canada (2nd ed.)

Scarborough, ON: Nelson Thompson Learning.

Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Teachers’ College Press.

Fullan, M. (2009). Large scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10,

101-113. doi: 10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z

Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2010). SuperVision and instructional

leadership. (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Henderson, J., & Kesson, K. (2004). Two teacher narratives: A teacher educators story. In J.

Henderson & K . Kesson (Eds.), Curriculum wisdom: Educational decisions in

democratic societies (pp. 144-158). New Jersey: Pearson.

 20

Jacobs, N., & Harvey, D. (2005). Do parents make a difference to children’s academic

achievement? Differences between parents of higher and lower achieving students.

Educational Studies, 31(4), 431–448. doi:10.1080/03055690500415746.

Jones, C. (2006). Continuity of learning: Adding funds of knowledge from the home

environment. Early Childhood Folio, 10, 27-31.

Kivisto, P. (2002). Multiculturalism in a global society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kose, B. W. (2011). Developing a transformative school vision: Lessons from peer-

nominated principals. Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 119-136. DOI:

10.1177/0013124510380231

Li, N. (2002). Toward educational equality within the context of schoolteachers’ managing.

Education, 123, 329-334.

Lupart, J.L., & Webber, C. (2002). Canadian schools in transition: Moving from dual

education systems to inclusive schools. Exceptionality Education Canada, 12(2), 7–52.

McKay, M., Atkins, M., Hawkins, T., Brown, C., & Lynn, C. (2003). Inner-city African

American parental involvement in children’s schooling: Racial socialization and social

support from the parent community. American Journal of Community Psychology,

32(1/2), 107–114. doi:10.1023/A:1025655109283.

Marshall, C., & Olivia, M. (2006). Leaders for social justice: Making revolutions in

education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Nettles, S., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school

leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy.

Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736.

Noddings, N. (2007). Philosophy of Education (2nd Ed.). Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

 21

Ornstein, C. A., & Hunkins, F. (2004). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues (4th

ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Ontario Ministry of Education & the Human Rights Commission. (2009). Presentations to

school boards on Ontario’s equity and inclusive education strategy, human rights and

education, and religious accommodation guideline [PowerPoint slides].

Owens, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational behaviour in education: Leadership

and school reform (10th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Riehl, C. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students.

Journal of Education, 189, 183-197.

Rule, A., & Kyle, P. (2009). Community-building in a diverse setting. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 36, 291-295.

Ryan, J. (2003). Educational administrators' perceptions of racism in diverse school contexts.

Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6, 145-164.

Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (5th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. (2004). Building a community of hope. Educational Leadership. 61(8)

33-37.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a

theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221-258.

 22

van Vuuren, H. J., van der Westhuizen, P. C., & van der Walt, J. L. (2012). The management

of diversity in schools — A balancing act. International Journal of Educational

Development, 32, (1), 155-162. d.o.i. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.11.005.

Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles

of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.

Webster, O. (2002). A human-centric alternative to diversity and multicultural education.

Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 17-37.

Zaretsky, L. (2005). Parent advocates and principals’ perceptions of professional knowledge

and identity in special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 18, 29-39.