Centering Equity within Principal Preparation and Development: An Integrative Review of the Literature

Abstract

Throughout the globe, there is growing attention being paid to issues of equity and efforts to produce more equitable student learning outcomes in schools, and much of the scholarship internationally has begun to center school leaders as key drivers of more equitable conditions. Indeed, in the United States, persistent inequities in education have highlighted the need for K-12 principals who can effectively support diverse students. Effective leader preparation and development, particularly with a focus on equity, is crucial, as it equips school leaders with the knowledge and skills to create inclusive and equitable learning environments. U.S.-based research highlights that high-quality, equity-centered preparation programs can significantly impact student outcomes, emphasizing the importance of integrating equity-focused training in leadership development. However, we know less about the design of high-quality preparation programs oriented around equity, and scholars have noted that current programs are often ill-equipped to prepare equity-centered leaders. Therefore, this study provides an integrative review of the U.S.-based equity-centered principal preparation literature to extract learnings from several types of publications, including descriptive and empirical studies, literature reviews, and conceptual essays. This study provides insights into four key elements of equity-centered principal preparation and development: program vision, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. This review consolidates insights from the existing literature into a single, accessible article, offering valuable learnings for program faculty, others who prepare school principals, and researchers focused on equity-centered preparation. Additionally, while centered on the U.S. context, this review is likely to be of value to leadership preparation and development programs in other national contexts, particularly those that have more recently begun to form.

1. Introduction

Throughout the globe there is growing attention being paid to issues of equity and to efforts that will produce more equitable student learning outcomes in schools. Equitable student learning is achieved when all students meet established learning expectations. The benefits of equitable outcomes are notable given their importance to individuals as well as to “societies and economies” more broadly [1] (p. 101). Thus, there is widespread need for investments that can produce more equitable education [1].

In this manuscript, we focus on school leaders as key contributors to the achievement of more equitable student learning, and by extension, on the development of school leaders for equity-oriented aims. To begin, we look to a body of research situated in several national contexts that establishes the contributions that school leaders make to school and student outcomes [2,3,4,5]. Recently in the U.S. context, Grissom and colleagues (2021) completed a meta-analysis of research over the last 20 years on principal effects and found that “the size of principal effects is nearly as large as estimates of individual teacher effects on student learning” (p. 39). These findings led these scholars to conclude that “the effectiveness of the principal is more important than the effectiveness of any single teacher” for improving a school’s student learning (p. 40) and that interventions that develop principals are “likely the most efficient way to affect student achievement” (p. 40), with few investments having “higher ceilings on [their] potential return than a successful effort to improve principal leadership” (p. 43). They also argued that principals “must develop an equity lens” (p. xviii) and called for the “continued reorientation of the work of school principals toward educational equity through preservice preparation” (p. 93).

This suggestion to attend to principal preparation for strengthening equity-centered practices of leaders is not surprising given that in some national contexts—such as the U.S.—preparation is a primary pathway through which school leaders develop the knowledge and skills they will use on the job [6,7,8,9]. In national contexts that are less regulated, or what Barnett [10] describes as loosely or moderately regulated systems, this reorientation toward equity is likely to occur through developmental programs for practicing school leaders rather than preparation programs. However, given the mounting recommendations for principal preparation to “be expanded to both developed and developing [national] contexts” [11], such considerations are also likely to be important to the formation of preparation policies and program designs in some national contexts in the years ahead.

In the U.S. context, where leadership preparation and development programs have been more deeply examined, we know that students attending schools led by principals trained in high-quality preparation programs see greater achievement gains and positive outcomes than students with principals from more conventional programs (e.g., [8,12,13,14]). A growing body of literature provides insights into what makes a preparation program high-quality. Drawing across the literature that has considered high-quality and exemplary forms of preparation as well as published evaluations of principal preparation programs’ efficacy, we note a set of key program elements that have been identified as consequential to program quality and impact [8,12,15,16]. These include (a) program vision, (b) curriculum, (c) pedagogy, (d) assessment, (e) clinical experiences, (f) faculty, (g) developmental supports, (h) recruitment and selection, (i) partnerships, and (j) improvement processes.

As we consider the reorientation of school leadership for equity-oriented aims, the literature sheds less light on how these key program elements manifest with this goal in mind. Stone Johnson and Wright [17] note, “In a surprising way, the two bodies of literature—high-quality leadership preparation and leadership preparation for social justice—do not really ‘speak’ to one another” (p. 16). In fact, several additional U.S. scholars have critiqued this disconnect, noting that leadership preparation programs are, at present, ill-equipped to prepare equity-centered leaders [18,19,20,21,22]. To become better-equipped to cultivate equity-centered leaders, preparation and development programs must reorient learning experiences in ways that better attend to aspirants’ equity and justice orientations and work [8,23]. However, little is known about the range of issues and actions that might benefit from consideration by preparation programs seeking to reorient program elements for equity-centered aims.

With this in mind, we drew our attention to a small but growing body of literature that provides insights for programs seeking to take up equity-centered aims. Four types of articles proved useful to our interests. First, we identified a small set of conceptual and theoretical essays on principal preparation. These articles are grounded in theoretical perspectives and tend to propose issue-specific frameworks for equity-centered preparation [24,25,26,27,28,29]. While the conceptual and theoretical essays draw upon the literature, we distinguish these from more systematic reviews of the literature that provide search and analytic procedures [17,30,31,32,33,34]. We also found a body of largely descriptive literature originating from preparation programs that have engaged in efforts to take up equity-centered design and elaborate these equity-centered designs and/or the improvement work conducted to take up equity more deeply [23,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Lastly, a small body of literature moves beyond describing equity-centered design to making empirical connections between equity-centered preparation program elements and equity-centered leader outcomes [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. These empirical pieces rely on a spectrum of data to make such claims, ranging from drawing upon student feedback within individual programs to looking across several programs to identify common impacts. While the individual articles across these four categories may provide piecemeal insights into how preparation programs either have or might take up equity orientations, we find that taking these pieces together, such as through a systematic review, offers a fuller and more complementary picture of how preparation and development might be reoriented for equity-focused aims. Additionally, the higher-level, more conceptual and scoping articles provide us a comprehensive understanding of key ideas and themes in advancing equity within principal preparation, while descriptive and empirical articles unearth key considerations, issues, and strategies as programs have grappled with equity-centered program designs.

Within this study, we engaged in an integrative review [50] of the equity-centered principal preparation literature in the U.S., which allowed for us to analyze this full spectrum of conceptual essays, literature reviews, and descriptive and empirical studies. Amongst the ten program elements noted above, our current analysis for this article draws attention to four program elements: (a) program vision, (b) curriculum, (c) pedagogy, and (d) assessment. We privilege these elements for initial attention because we view them as particularly relevant to both preparation and development programs for school leaders. We found evidence of attention to one or more of these program elements in many published accountings of leader development programs in contexts beyond the U.S. (e.g., [11,51,52,53]). Moreover, findings from robust preparation program redesign work supported by the Wallace Foundation reveals that these program elements received initial improvement attention because these areas were deemed “fundamental to program redesign” [54] (p. 25). As we note further below, the literature is quite lean in more systematic examinations of the impact of specific program designs and elements within equity-centered preparation program. Therefore, within this review, we unearth trends across the literature likely to be consequential to programs seeking to take up more equity-centered aims. Our review was guided by the following research questions:

• What are the key issues and actions that have been considered or received attention in the equity-centered (re)design of preparation programs in relation to program vision, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments?
• What examples or illustrations exist of such work?

Although this review speaks directly to preparation programs in the U.S. context that are seeking to engage in equity-centered program redesign, this review is also likely to generate findings of value to leadership preparation and development programs in other national contexts and to ministries of education and international organizations like the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); and the World Bank—entities that are engaged in supporting this sort of work. Importantly, it also generates important insights that can inform future equity-centered preparation program scholarship. First, this review sheds light on important approaches, designs, and considerations that may be relevant to programs seeking to engage in equity-centered program redesign. Next, this review advances insights from across a variety of program experiences; given the contextual nature of leadership [31], this expansive treatment is likely to provide learnings of interest to a wide assortment of programs. Third, this review presents these insights within one article-length discussion, creating accessible information for program faculty or developers who may not have the time to comb through large numbers of articles. Finally, by looking across the extant literature examining the academic portion of equity-centered preparation, this review allows for us to take a bird’s eye view that provides insights into the state of the literature and directions for further research.

In what follows, we begin by describing the U.S. context for an international audience. We then delve more deeply into the conceptual framing of the piece, and we then describe the methods we used for this review, including the literature search and coding processes. Next, we provide findings related to each of the four program elements receiving our focal attention, highlighting illustrations where available. We conclude with a discussion and suggestions for future research.

Placing the United States Preparation System within an International Context

Given that this synthesis of the literature examines equity-centered preparation in the United States specifically, here, we provide brief background on the history and current context of preparation within the U.S.

Murphy [55] provides an informative accounting of the history of principal preparation, which we draw upon here. In the 19th century, the principal tended to be perceived as an extension of teaching, there were no formalized requirements for principals, and Murphy [55] notes that “programmes specific to school administration ‘were unknown until the early 1900s’” (p. 361). Moving into the early 20th century, states began to require that individuals interested in the principalship engaged in formalized preparation, and the number of university-based training programs for principals expanded significantly, from zero in 1900 to 125 by the end of World War II. However, these programs looked little like the programs we see today, as they centered the managerial and technical facets of the principalship. Following World War II, major developments such as the creation of the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) and the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) solidified efforts to professionalize and institutionalize principal preparation, and the number of preparation programs has increased dramatically since. In the 1980s, these bodies began to envision leadership as extending beyond management toward instructional leadership and influencing teaching and learning processes. Many states introduced standardized certification processes for principals and standards for preparation programs, with a vision of leadership that moves beyond management toward instructional leadership.

Over the past two decades, the United States has served as a pioneer and exemplar in principal preparation, unlike many other countries where such training is not mandatory [10,56]. Individual states within the U.S. tend to control pre-preparation and licensure requirements for aspiring principals. For example, states may require that aspiring principals hold a certain number of years in teaching experience prior to taking licensure exams. Within the programs themselves, aspiring U.S. principals must complete higher-level coursework, typically for a master’s degree, although some preparation programs offer a Doctor of Education (EdD) degree, pass a licensure test administered by the state, and often join an induction program from their school district and fulfill a set number of professional development hours to keep their license or certificate. This contrasts other countries, which Barnett [10] refers to as moderately and loosely regulated systems, where pre-preparation requirements are minimal if present at all and formal preparation and/or licensure is not always mandatory for school leaders. However, as Barnett [10] notes, there is a global trend toward mandatory requirements and increased structure and standardization of preparation. While many organizations within the U.S. (e.g., districts, private institutes) offer preparation programs [57], universities remain the avenue for preparation for the majority of school leaders, and are most frequently examined in the research [58]. Many principal preparation programs in the U.S.—and most frequently those that are operated by universities—are implemented in partnership with local school districts and professional associations [59]. These programs often target specific local needs related to district and state contexts [56,59]. These programs typically include coursework that typically explores issues of instructional leadership, finance, ethics, organizational theory, data utilization, and other topics meant to prepare leaders for school improvement [59]. Many programs also include a practical component, such as an internship or clock hours [59], that is often supported by coaching and/or mentoring. As noted above, in response to increasingly diverse students and a more humanistic understanding of the purpose of the principalship, within the U.S. context, programs have also taken up a deeper and more intentional centering of issues of equity as a highly consequential aspect of school leadership and leadership preparation. Many international contexts have seen increases in refugees, far-right conservatism, and other sociopolitical changes that may also necessitate a move toward stronger equity and justice centerings.

With this said, our focus on the U.S. context nonetheless carries global implications. The U.S. serves as an international exemplar for principal preparation for many nations. Specific to our focus here, preparation programs in the U.S. have begun to respond to some of the pressing issues of equity and justice that we have seen across the world. Within this research, we make the U.S. approach clear by identifying key trends in equity-centered preparation across the country, while also highlighting specific contexts (e.g., urban, rural) where possible. By examining the U.S. approach to equity-centered principal preparation, other countries can gain insights into how to structure their own programs to better meet their own needs.

2. Conceptual Framing

In rigorous reviews, a conceptual framework shapes research decisions, including study topics, literature selection, analysis, and interpretation [60]. This review is framed by a set of the literature that has identified and formed a consensus around the key elements of high-quality and exemplary preparation programs—what Young and colleagues [61] refer to as “program quality features”. This literature guides our understanding of the elements of preparation program design likely to be consequential to the development of equity-centered leaders, and that should therefore receive attention within this review.

This set of literature contains several subsets of work: First, we include the literature that specifically identifies and elaborates key program elements within high-quality and exemplary preparation programs [12,15,16,58,61,62,63,64]. As Cosner [16] notes, “exemplary” is a relatively new term that has been increasingly taken up within the literature following the creation of UCEA’s prestigious Exemplary Educational Leadership Preparation Program (EELP) award. Prior to the EELP award, a few scholars used the term exemplary to describe specific preparation programs [12,65] but many tended to use terms such as innovative, effective, and high-quality [7,8,62,66,67]. These terms were used in contrast to more traditional preparation programs. Given that research using these assorted terms carries the spirit of exemplary preparation, within this review, we include all such articles to guide our understanding of exemplary preparation. Additionally, we draw upon the Quality Measures Self-Study Toolkit, a tool funded by the Wallace Foundation and grounded in research, that supports principal preparation programs’ self-led examination and reflection of program effectiveness around a set of program elements such as admissions, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment [68]. We also look to work that has elaborated more robust principal preparation program redesign and improvement, such as program redesign supported by the Wallace Foundation (e.g., [40,54]). Lastly, we also draw upon the literature that has examined principal preparation programs’ efficacy and surfaced program design components that are impactful to program graduates’ successful leadership practice [62,69,70].

Across these bodies of literature, we note ten key program design elements that are likely to be consequential to the operation of principal preparation programs: (a) program vision, (b) curriculum, (c) pedagogy, (d) assessment, (e) clinical experiences, (f) faculty, (g) developmental supports, (h) recruitment and selection, (i) partnerships, and (j) improvement processes. We extend these program elements into our consideration of equity-centered principal preparation programs (ECPPPs). As discussed above, analysis for this article focuses on a subset of these identified program elements, given the relevance of these elements to both programs for principal preparation and development: (a) program vision, (b) curriculum, (c) pedagogy, and (d) assessment. Figure 1 below illustrates how we envision these four elements relate to one another. In the paragraphs that follow, we provide more detail to explain each of these four program elements.

2.1. Program Vision

A program vision delineates what an ideal program graduate should know and be able to do. The literature reveals several terms or phrases that have been used to describe such visions, including the “portrait” or “profile” of a graduate [61] (p. 78) and a “program logic model” [64] (p. 14). Early critiques on principal preparation pointed to the absence of a program vision as characteristic of more traditional preparation programs [71]. Both leadership standards and local education contexts have been commonly identified as sources of information to program visions [54,61,72]. With this in mind, Young and her colleagues suggest that standards are put to work when they are used to set program expectations [73] (p. 21). Exemplary principal preparation programs have a clear vision that serves as “the glue that holds these programs together” [15,62] (p. 6). Importantly, these visions tend to be shared by everyone within program [54]. Program coherence, a quality that has been associated with more effective preparation programs [12] and those engaged in more robust forms of program redesign [54], can be cultivated when programs make use of a program vision to orient the program’s learning experiences [15,34,64,74]. A vision can support more intentional program design that begins with “the end in mind” [61] (p. 58). Importantly, a program vision or logic model can be used to support program improvement within preparation and development programs as they collect and analyze data aligned to the vision to identify areas where the vision has not yet been fully realized and using these insights to inform improvement work [64].

2.2. Curriculum

Curriculum is the “full course of study for a given program” [61] (p. 93). It encompasses the entire set of program courses as well as the relevant learning objectives and content areas that are covered within and across program courses [12,15,30,58,61,62,64]. The actual sequencing of learning content and objectives is an area of consideration to the design of program curriculum [12,38,39,68,75,76]. Both exemplary programs and those that have engaged in more robust program redesign have been found to be carefully aligned to relevant leadership standards and program visions as well as with local school district context needs in mind [15,54]. In turn, program alignment, particularly to a program vision, has tended to promote a more coherent program curriculum where learning objectives and content focus greater attention in a few areas [58,62,64,65,68,76]. Coherence is also supported when programs consider the sequencing of the curriculum across multiple program courses to ensure that learning objectives and content build upon one another and create a scaffolded progression of learning [77]. These sort of curricular design considerations prove vital if the leadership practice expectations set forth by a program’s vision and relevant standards are to be cultivated from the program experience [68].

2.3. Pedagogy

Pedagogy refers to “the art or practice of teaching” [78] (p. 173). Knowles [79] developed the term “andragogy”, which refers to the practice of teaching adult learners, and defined “pedagogy” as the practice of teaching children. However, others have used the term “pedagogy” more broadly to refer to all learners, and we note that authors in the exemplary preparation program space tend to take up “pedagogy” rather than “andragogy” [27,39,78,80,81]. We follow these authors with the use of the term “pedagogy”, which we conceptualize as the way in which curricular content within preparation and development programs is taught [41]. This includes the undergirding philosophies of learning and specific learning strategies a program uses to promote aspirants’ ability to effectively learn curricular materials [62,68,76]. As Shulman [82] notes, within programs that prepare professionals, such as school leaders, “pedagogies must measure up to the standards not just of the academy, but also of the particular professions” (p. 52). Pedagogical strategies are typically marshalled to achieve a program’s intended learning outcomes, which are likely linked to program vision [15]. In their 2017 review of the principal preparation literature, Byrne-Jiménez and colleagues [78] identify five key pedagogical strategies used within exemplary programs: problem-based learning, simulations, case studies, critical reflection, and critical discourse. Exemplary programs tend to use more active and experiential learning strategies that allow for aspirants to connect classroom learning to their real-world school contexts, developing their leadership skills and practices [12,62,64,68,76]. Schulman’s term “signature pedagogy” has also been applied to at least one such active learning approach, the use of course-embedded and clinically enacted work tasks, because of its deliberate and recurring use across multiple courses within a preparation program [64]. Sutcher and colleagues [76] state that through these sorts of learning opportunities aspirants “become more able to ‘contemplate, analyze, and systematically plan strategies for action’” (p. 8).

2.4. Assessment

Finally, assessment refers to how programs assess aspirant learning and development, with consideration to potential targets for aspirant learning, communication of assessments, and impacts of assessment [12,30,58,61,64,68]. Once an aspirant has engaged with the program curriculum and pedagogy, what has the aspirant learned and to what extent? Within exemplary preparation programs, assessments are tightly aligned to program visions and curricular learning outcomes [68] and also are tied to standards, which are often tied to program visions [12]. Assessments can occur at multiple levels of a program, including within specific courses or more broadly across a program [30]. Assessments may have formative or summative purposes, meaning that they may be used to guide future learning experiences for an aspirant or can be used to provide a point-of-time understanding of aspirants’ development [64]. Within exemplary programs, ongoing opportunities for aspirants to receive formative feedback is a particularly essential aspect of aspirant development, allowing for aspirants to continually improve their knowledge and skills toward meeting benchmarks on the program graduate profile [12,64,68]. Assessment may include typical instruments such as papers or tests, or more authentic, field-based tasks that link aspirants’ classroom learning to their school settings [64]. While the purpose of assessments is to provide insights into individual aspirants’ growth, they also can help programs identify whether specific learning designs are working; if aspirants do not show growth on a particular assessment, a program may then investigate why [61]. Crow and Whiteman [58] note four key types of assessment reflected within the principal preparation literature: portfolios, journals, simulations, and assessment instruments (e.g., surveys assessing knowledge and dispositions).

3. Methodology

This research utilized an integrative review [50] design to examine the body of literature related to equity-centered leadership preparation.

3.1. Search Procedures

Within this review, we conceptualized equity in the context of leadership preparation in a broad sense to denote programs seeking to develop school leaders who engage in practices that are relevant and responsive to the needs of a wide variety of historically marginalized student populations. Therefore, we began data collection for this integrative review with a search bounded by combinations of broad key terms such as “equity”, “leadership”, “principals”, “preparation”, and “schools” within a university library search engine that includes several scholarly search databases (e.g., ProQuest, EBSCOHost, ERIC, and JSTOR). To ensure that our review captured as many pieces as possible within our broad conceptualization of equity-centered leadership preparation, we then expanded the search to include attention to pieces that centered issues of equity but did not use that specific term, such as anti-racist leadership, inclusive leadership, or leadership for ELL populations, or approaches such as “culturally responsive leadership” within principal preparation. The purpose of this initial search was to gather a “wide range of possible sources in an attempt to identify potentially relevant studies” [60] (p. 134). We extended this search by entering the same key term combinations into Google Scholar, and then cross-referencing results. Our search was limited to include only articles, book chapters, and books published since 2000 that were available in English (due to language barriers) and related to the United States’ contexts [58]. These searches yielded a total of 427 pieces.

After a review of article titles and refining search results, we identified 127 pieces for review. Pieces were eliminated if they did not take a clear preparation (e.g., mentioned preparation only in an implications section but majority of piece described a different topic) and equity focus, or examined preparation at any level other than building-level leadership. We also eliminated pieces from the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, which function primarily as pedagogical tools, and dissertations. Upon further review of article abstracts, and then the full articles, we eliminated an additional 66 pieces. As we continued to comb the literature through the summer of 2024, we added an additional 32 pieces that were either newly published or that we identified through ongoing ancestral searches of the previously identified literature. The sum total of articles for review following this addition was 93 pieces that inform our understanding of key considerations for equity-centered preparation program design.

3.2. Analytic Procedures

Following the completion of the search process, we recorded notes in a spreadsheet database for each article, listing article information such as the author, title, year, methods, context, whether the article was empirical, and impacts captured, if relevant. Most importantly, we annotated within individual columns for each of the four relevant program elements mentioned above—vision, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. Following our completion of annotations within the spreadsheet, we uploaded all annotations into ATLAS.ti and then engaged in coding annotations within and across individual columns using a constant comparative approach to identify visible themes. These themes are presented in the Findings Section below.

3.3. State of the Literature

Across the studies, we note an assortment of descriptive trends that provide insights into the state of this body of literature. First, of the 93 reviewed pieces, 21 came from the Journal of Research on Leadership Education (JRLE), which was the most frequently represented journal in the body of literature. Additionally, 35 pieces within this body of work were empirical, meaning that they include insights into impact by making connections between program elements and program outcomes. However, as alluded to above, many of these empirical pieces rely upon aspirants’ and faculty members’ perceptions of impact rather than more systematic inquiries that measure change over time. The remainder of the pieces provide insights into aspects of ECPPP design likely to be worthy of consideration, but these pieces do not help us understand the impacts of particular program designs. Of these pieces, eight were literature reviews, which we define as pieces that include a methods section that accounts for how the literature were included and excluded; 19 were theoretical/conceptual, which we define as pieces providing essays likely grounded in the literature but not systematically; and 31 were descriptive, which we define as pieces that provide useful insights into individual programs’ approaches and designs but do not make connections between program elements and program outcomes. Amongst the empirical and descriptive pieces, the majority (52) were qualitative, while 7 drew upon quantitative and 7 drew upon mixed methods data.

4. Findings

In the sections that follow, we present our findings related to both research questions in an integrative fashion within each of the following four areas: (1) program vision, (2) curriculum, (3) pedagogy, and (4) assessment. Across the articles, we found that the majority tended to conceptualize equity broadly in their discussions of these facets [61,75,83]. However, some articles centered specific populations, particularly emphasizing anti-racist and culturally responsive leadership for students of color [29,84,85,86]. We found a smaller subset of articles described English language learners (ELL students) [87,88,89], LGBTQ+ students [86,90,91], and students with disabilities [72,92]. This variety of articles reflected our expansive search process through which we sought to capture considerations for leadership preparation relevant to a wide variety of historically marginalized students. In the sections below, we identify insights related to equity-centered preparation broadly, as well as instances where articles centered the preparation of leaders who could make an impact for specific students. Additionally, where possible, we provide contextual details (e.g., region, program) in our discussions of illustrations of findings within specific programs.

4.1. Program Vision

Overall, the literature in this analysis provided less attention to equity-focused preparation program visions and their development in comparison to the other elements, particularly curriculum and pedagogy. Nonetheless, we draw evidence from the literature to highlight key findings related to four areas of program vision: (1) key sources of information for equity-centered program visions, (2) types of equity-centered visions, (3) the role of equity-centered visions, and (4) key variations in equity-centered program visions, shown in Figure 2.

In the below sections, we begin with a discussion of the types of information that ECPPPs tend to draw upon when they create their visions. We then describe why ECPPPs create such visions, highlighting key purposes and benefits of holding a strong program vision. We conclude with a discussion of variation within ECPPP visions, particularly variation in vision scope and the focus of visions. We provide illustrations of ECPPP visions and visioning processes throughout.

4.1.1. Sources of Information for Equity-Centered Program Visions

The literature points to three key sources of information that shape equity-centered program visions: (1) local and national standards, (2) local district contexts, and (3) leadership research.

Local and national standards. Leadership and preparation program standards are one key source of information preparation programs draw upon to create equity-centered visions. These include the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSELs) and the National Educational Leadership Preparation Standards (NELPSs), as well as state leadership standards [39,61,72]. Importantly, work by Leggett and colleagues [75] provides an illustration of the analysis of both the PSELs and NELPs from an equity-centered perspective as the Western Kentucky University program worked to construct an equity-centered vision.

District context. District context is a second source of information drawn upon as equity-centered visions are being established and sheds some light on how district-oriented insights might be gained to support visioning work. Tailoring equity-centered visions to the local community and its unique needs requires that preparation and development programs consider what “justice” means within their context and for whom it applies [22]. In the equity-centered program improvement work that occurred at Western Kentucky University, Leggett and her colleagues [75] discussed their need for tailoring of their program vision to their context: “We realized that no universal model was applicable across all contexts. As programs, we were operating in a different policy context and serving varied communities” (p. 407). The importance of school district context knowledge to program visioning and working jointly with district leaders for vision creation becomes especially critical for programs that operate in partnership with local school districts [34,54,61].

Leadership research. Finally, there was a small amount of evidence within the literature suggesting that leadership research is a third source of information drawn upon to shape equity-centered preparation program visions. We found examples of the use of more general leadership-oriented literature reviews [75] as well as reviews that targeted equity-centered considerations such as inclusion [72] and race/culture [39] that were used exclusively or in complement to information from leadership standards. These types of reviews tended to help program faculty more granularly elaborate equity-centered visions for program graduates.

4.1.2. Types of Visions within ECPPPs

Across the literature, we identify three key types of visions that equity-centered programs may develop and hold: (1) graduate profiles, (2) core program values, and (3) program logic models. First, graduate profiles, or visions of ideal program graduates, identify shared understandings across an entire program faculty about what an equity-centered program graduate should know and be able to do [18,23,37,41,42,43,49,74,85,92]. Second, programs may denote guiding beliefs or values generally rather than program outcomes. Core values might center equity, justice, and social transformation as important facets of school leadership, such as in the example Haar [93] provides of a Minnesota program embedded within a college that holds as its vision “to inspire lifelong learning and professional engagement through racial consciousness, social justice, and inclusion within a global context” (p. 9).

Third, program logic models connect all aspects of the program together in such a way that they collectively work to “achieve” specific program goals. These may take up graduate profiles and core values as actionable frameworks, offering clear strategies for ensuring that the vision and values are actively pursued and realized in practice. Illustrating the use of such a profile, [41] describe the University of Illinois Chicago’s program logic model, which positions the program as using an assortment of inputs (e.g., academic program, clinical experience, coaching) to develop program graduates who can positively impact student learning within their school settings as principals. As part of this logic model, the program delineates equity-centered leadership practices and capacities that the program must develop within aspirants in order to meet its larger goal. Gooden and colleagues [94] share a similar program logic model that delineates what aspirants should be able to do at the end of one anti-racist preparation program, including “(1) gaining (and integrating) knowledge, (2) examining self, (3) (re)envisioning the world, and finally, (4) taking anti-racist action” (p. 6). This in turn informs other facets of the program.

4.1.3. Role of Vision within ECPPPs

Our analysis of the literature reveals two distinct roles that equity-centered program visions play within ECPPPs: (1) building coherence across a program and (2) supporting program improvement efforts.

Coherence. First, equity-centered graduate visions as described above play an important role in building equity-centered program coherence [61]. Visions support program coherence because they are drawn upon in the design of key student learning objectives, learning content and experiences, and assessments [61,74,95]. For example, in their examination of highly diverse preparation programs, Clement and colleagues [74] found that exemplary programs maintaining diverse leadership cohorts held strong equity-centered visions and instilled these across program elements, including curriculum that centered equity and instructional leadership. Illustrations of the use of such coherent visions for these sorts of curricular considerations are evidenced in a small set of articles in which tools and work processes that support this work are also shared [39,40,41,75,94].

Improvement efforts. Equity-centered program visions play a second critical role in ECPPPs’ equity-oriented program improvement efforts—including improvement to the academic program. Improvement efforts necessitate that programs hold a shared vision of what they hope to achieve through the program (e.g., developmental outcomes, impacts to local school district), around which improvement efforts can be shaped. The literature less frequently connects visions to supporting program improvement as programs use these visions to “take stock of the current program” [54] (p. 15) and use these insights to inform program changes [40,75]. Honig and Donaldson Walsh [38] illustrate this in their discussion of the University of Washington’s L4L program’s efforts to improve its curriculum around a strengthened equity-centered vision, aligning program improvement efforts to the vision itself. Additionally, in at least one instance, the use of a graduate vision is also illustrated to unearth the kinds of faculty learning needs that must be addressed and learning routines that must be utilized if a program equity-centered vision is to be achieved [61].

4.1.4. Variability in Equity-Centered Program Visions

Across the literature that illustrated actual visions within ECPPPs, we noted variation in the visions along two key dimensions: (1) scope and (2) focus.

Variability in scope. A small number of published accountings within the literature illustrate that program visions vary in scope, such as (1) visions that encompass the entire program, (2) visions that encompass a thematic strand of the program, and (3) visions encompassing an individual course. We illustrate visions encompassing an entire program above. An illustration of a vision established for one of several thematic strands within a program, a three-course sequence on equity-centered instructional leadership, is captured in the work by Salisbury and Irby [39], who examine the University of Illinois Chicago program. Thematic strands can be advanced in ways that are specific to equity or where equity is infused into the thematic strand. This contrast is made visible by comparing the work of the University of Virginia, illustrated in work by Young and her colleagues [61], where faculty identified equity as one of four discrete curricular themes to work by Liou and Hermann [89] that elaborates an Arizona program’s vision of equity that occurs across and within each of three program themes: school structure, school culture, and agency. Additionally, a vision associated with a discrete course on equity-centered instructional leadership is illustrated by Garver and Maloney’s [20] examination of a program in the Northeast.

Variability in focus. The literature also illustrates that ECPPP visions vary in focus, either (1) taking a broad lends to focus on leadership for historically marginalized students generally, or (2) centering leadership for a specific group of historically marginalized students (e.g., students with disabilities or students of color). The majority of the visions illustrated within the literature centered issues of equity and social transformation broadly [20,37,38,40,44,75,89], reflecting Capper and colleagues’ [30] suggestion that program vision should call attention to an assortment of issues such as race, disability, diverse learners, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. However, a subset of articles shared graduate visions that narrow to a particular equity-focused issue [39,49,72]. For example, the graduate vision within one West Texas program discussed by DeMatthews and colleagues [72] brings attention to issues of disability in comparison to the one articulated by Rasmussen and Raskin [49] that brings attention to issues of race.

4.2. Curriculum

Contrasting the lack of attention to vision within the literature, program curriculum was frequently discussed across the scholarship, typically in tandem with pedagogical processes. We draw evidence from the literature to highlight key findings related to four areas of program curriculum: (1) the sources of information that shape curricula, (2) curricular learning objectives, (3) curricular designs, and (4) curricular topics, shown in Figure 3. We find that programs draw upon several sources of information to directly shape curricular learning objectives. Programs seek to achieve these curricular objectives through intentional curricular design and the inclusion of high-leverage curricular topics.

In the sections below, we begin by discussing the sorts of information ECPPPs draw upon to create the program curriculum. We then move on to present curricular learning objectives within ECPPPs, how programs design curricula to meet these objectives, and what sorts of topics programs center to meet learning objectives.

4.2.1. Sources of Information for Equity-Centered Program Curriculum

The literature points to five key sources of information that shape equity-centered program curricula: (1) program vision, (2) local and national school leadership and preparation program standards, (3) research, (4) peer institutions and professional associations, and (5) continuous improvement processes.

Program vision. First, ECPPPs are likely to draw upon program visions, described above, to shape the program curriculum [38,39,61,75,89,94]. Program visions and related logic models help a program to identify key learning objectives and to envision how particular curricular designs and topics might achieve such objectives. For example, Gooden and colleagues [94] illustrate how one program’s logic model that envisions aspirants moving through four stages of anti-racist leadership development guides the program toward scaffolding readings and learning experiences over time to effectively engage and support aspirants through each stage. Illustrating how ECPPPs use equity-centered graduate profiles to guide curricular design, Honig and Donaldson Walsh [38] discuss the University of Washington’s L4L program, which drew upon its graduate profiles to highlight key practices consistent with the profiles, and develop graduate performance standards from those. The program then designed its curricula in alignment with those performance standards to ensure that all aspects of the program would be supportive of aspirants gaining the knowledge and skills to ultimately meet the program’s standards and graduate profile.

School leadership standards. Second, ECPPPs may directly draw upon state and national standards to shape their curriculum, in addition to using these standards to shape vision, which then shapes curriculum, as described above. In particular, with the release of the PSELs in 2015 that infuse issues of equity, ECPPPs had more opportunity to infuse standards within their curricula and we note several accountings of individual program efforts to do so [8,17,34,38,47,75,96]. For example, Salisbury and Irby [39] illustrate how the University of Illinois Chicago program integrated the local, state, and national standards affecting its aspirants within a redesign of an instructional leadership sequence to ensure program graduates would meet those standards.

Research. Third, a smaller subset of the literature suggests that ECPPPs draw upon research to shape their equity-centered curricula. Samkian and colleagues [86] provide one illustration of this is in their work to create a more culturally responsive, anti-racist, and LGBTQ+-inclusive program at USC Rossier. They drew upon exploring culturally responsive, anti-racist, and LGBTQ+-inclusive schooling research to identify key leadership practices aligned with this approach; they then shaped the curricula around themes they identified from the literature. A second illustration of this is evidenced by a three-person team at University of Illinois Chicago, which used research around principal preparation, equity-centered leadership, and instructional leadership to inform its development of an instructional leadership learning strand within the program [39].

Peer institutions and professional associations. Fourth, we identified one article that explicitly positioned peer institutions and professional associations as providing useful insights that ECPPPs draw upon to shape their equity-centered curricula. In their conceptual discussion of the ways in which preparation programs might orient themselves around equity, Henry and Cobb [34] state that:

Engaging in collaborative inquiry and program redesign alongside peer institutional members of UCEA can be a powerful driver for organizational and programmatic improvement. For example, a program might identify an internal challenge within their recruitment efforts, program structure, curriculum, learning experiences, district partnerships, etc., and invite faculty colleagues from other institutions to visit and offer their expertise. In addition to having other faculty to provide feedback and support, programs may also visit peer programs with characteristics they would like to emulate.

(p. 20)

While this represents just one article’s perspective, our knowledge of the field highlights the fact that several of the authors writing about their efforts to strengthen program equity orientations participated in collaborative inquiry around this topic with peer institutions through grant-funded and/or professional networks (e.g., [18,40,75,97]).

Continuous improvement processes. Finally, the literature suggests program improvement work may shape curricular design within ECPPPs. Within the literature, we found several mentions of the Principal Preparation Program Self-Study Toolkit (QM Self-Study Toolkit) [68], created by the Education Development Center and funded by the Wallace Foundation, as an improvement tool that can play a role in shaping ECPPP curricula [35,40]. The most recent QM Self-Study Toolkit is meant to guide preparation programs toward assessing and strengthening various program domains, including coursework, and includes a centering around issues of equity. For example, Western Kentucky University used the QM Self-Study Toolkit to assess its program, which led it to identifying a need to more intentionally embed equity within its curriculum and put into place sequenced and thematically organized courses [40].

4.2.2. Equity-Centered Curricular Learning Objectives

The literature reveals that ECPPPs tend to take up two key curricular learning objectives: (1) critical consciousness or (2) knowledge and skills [30], and also provides insights into (3) how learning objectives vary across programs.

Critical consciousness. One curricular outcome within ECPPPs is that programs should result in the development of aspirants’ critical consciousness—or understandings of issues of identity, privilege and oppression, as well as their own role in maintaining these structures [25,30,80,81,98,99,100,101]. Raising aspirants’ critical consciousness means that aspirants will move beyond their previously held biases and limited understandings of others and the social world more broadly, toward taking up more critical and authentic equity-centered lenses [98,102]. As noted above, specific accountings of individual ECPPPs’ curricular learning objectives illustrate that programs may conceptualize critical consciousness differentially depending upon their program vision, such as by centering the importance of building critical consciousness around issues of race [94].

Knowledge and skills to promote equity. A second curricular outcome within ECPPPs is that programs should result in the development of aspirants’ knowledge and skills to put their critical consciousness into practice, what Furman [25] refers to as critical praxis [38,47,75,81,87,103]. Knowledge typically refers to aspirants’ understandings of evidence-based leadership practices to create equitable schools, while skills relate to aspirants’ ability to carry out this knowledge. Honig and Donaldson Walsh [38] provide an expansive illustration of this in their delineation of the University of Washington’s L4L program learning performance standards, which outline sixteen key practices program graduates should be able to take up toward equity-centered aims. Examples of these include “Take a cycle of inquiry approach…to pinpoint the learning, teaching, and leadership practices that contribute to specific educational inequities” and “Draw from historical precedents and research to understand, disrupt, and shift systems toward equitable learning for each student” (pp. 60–61). Here, we see a focus on aspirants’ knowledge and skills to engage in cycles of inquiry and, more broadly, school improvement work that promotes equity within their school settings.

Variability in curricular learning objectives. Finally, we identified areas of variation in learning objectives across accountings of individual programs, specifically related to (1) the intersection of program foci and learning objectives and (2) the application of learning objectives to thematic strands rather than entire programs. First, we found that ECPPPs’ specific conceptualization of consciousness, knowledge, and skills vary dependent upon the program’s vision. Gooden and colleagues [94] provide an illustration of how one program that centers issues of race also centers issues of race within its curricular learning objectives. For example, the program seeks to ensure that aspirants possess critical knowledge around issues of race, can investigate and eradicate racial disparities within their settings, and are capable of addressing interpersonal issues within the school that influence racialized student outcomes. Second, we also found that some illustrative accountings discussed learning objectives applied to curricular strands rather than entire programs. For example, we learn about USC Rossier’s Leading Instructional Change concentration, which centers as key learning objectives that aspirants will develop critical consciousness around issues affecting equity in instruction, and the knowledge and skills to lead instructional change in more equity-centered ways [86].

4.2.3. Equity-Centered Curricular Designs

The literature delineates three approaches ECPPPs may use to design or “map” [61] their curriculum: (1) taking a program-wide approach to infuse all courses with issues of equity; (2) taking a stranded approach to subdivide the curriculum and provide opportunities for faculty to collaborate around more discrete areas of learning; and (3) providing one or two courses that deeply explore issues of equity and justice. Within the program-wide and stranded approaches, programs may also integrate intentional sequencing to scaffold learning over time. Additionally, while we present these as separate approaches, programs may combine more than one of these approaches in tandem. For example, Honig and Donaldson Walsh [38] illustrate how the University of Washington L4L program infuses issues of equity within all courses, while also using sequenced learning strands across which faculty have sought to promote coherence.

Infusing equity across the program. First, and most frequently mentioned within the literature, ECPPPs are likely to utilize curricular designs that infuse equity across an entire program curriculum rather than relegating these issues into single “diversity” courses [22,23,32,34,38,49,98,99,100,103,104,105,106,107,108,109]. As Diem and Carpenter [32] state, “Rather than marginalizing issues of diversity and race to a singular preparatory course, these concepts must be reflexively examined during each stage of a future leader’s education” (p. 107). While not all courses “provide an obvious fit for [equity and justice-oriented] conceptions…any course could be re-envisioned with an expanded conception of leadership in mind” [110] (p. 27). The literature provides illustrations of how individual programs have sought to accomplish this. For example, Everson and Bussey [111] discuss how Saint Louis University infuses equity within courses that may not naturally include this topic, such as exploring how facilities can support the learning of all students within a school facility course and addressing equitable funding within a school finance course.

ECPPPs may sequence equity-centered content across the program curriculum to allow aspirants to build upon previous knowledge each semester [38,39,41,74,75,86,89,100,112]. Typically, the literature positions sequencing as related to stages of learning, moving aspirants from building equity-centered dispositions and knowledge toward skill-building that allows for them to put equity orientations into practice [49,80,86,91,108,113,114]. Marshall and Hernandez [91] illustrate how one program sequences two social justice courses to bookend the program; the first builds aspirants’ understandings of issues of justice to serve as a foundation, while the second engages students in equity audits within their schools that allow for them to put program learnings into practice.

Learning strands. Second, the literature indicates that ECPPPs are likely to use thematic learning strands within their curricular designs. Thematic learning strands subdivide the program curriculum into discrete topical areas [38,39,40,75,105]. They can provide opportunities for multiple faculty members to teach coherently toward a commonly shared goal within that strand, as well as to ensure that each individual course within a strand work together to achieve specific curricular goals [34,38]. Honig and Donaldson Walsh [38] illustrate this with their accounting the use of four strands within one program: Leadership for Equity and Excellence, Inquiry- and Data-Informed Leadership, Leadership for High-Quality Teaching and Learning, and Leadership for Equitable Systems. Each strand within this program engages aspirants in learning around that specific topical area, about which the authors said: “This bracketing of the curriculum helped faculty create a scope-and-sequence addressing a manageable subset of program content, rather than confronting the previous task of finding coherence across the program in general” (p. 59). Additionally, across each strand the program engaged aspirants in consideration of issues of equity as related to strand content.

ECPPPs may also integrate sequencing within learning strands. One illustration of this is provided by Salisbury and Irby [39], who describe how one program redesigned a three-course instructional leadership strand to operate as an intentionally sequenced three-semester learning experience rather than as three individual courses (note here the use of sequencing within strands). Three faculty members worked together to create a more coherent and continuous learning experience that moved aspirants from building knowledge about best practices related to socially just instructional leadership, to building skills to assess instructional leadership, and finally moving to students engaging in instructional leadership themselves in the final semester.

Specific, equity-centered courses. Finally, some ECPPPs include individual equity-centered courses as an intentional curricular design in addition to infusing equity across the program [91,99,103]. Marshall and Theoharis [108] provide an example of how one program infuses equity throughout the program curriculum, as well as provides a specific course addressing equity within an intentionally sequenced course at the beginning of the program:

While the authors agree with Marshall (2004) that social justice should not be limited to discussion in one discrete course in a preparation program, it is logical to address social justice issues in our program’s required foundations course, which requires that students reflect upon history and theoretical perspectives of schooling within the context of their own cultural identity.

(p. 3)

Including these specific courses exploring equity does not necessitate that programs do not also infuse all courses with equity, but that these programs draw importance to deliberate attention to issues of equity within full courses.

4.2.4. Equity-Centered Curricular Topics

Finally, the research points to three primary curricular topics that ECPPPs are likely to include (1) curricula that expose aspirants to diverse identities and cultures, (2) curricula that take up critical theories to explore unjust educational systems, and (3) curricula that examine equity-centered leadership approaches.

Diverse identities and cultures. Curricula that engage aspirants in the of diverse identities and historically marginalized groups are meant to strengthen aspirants’ critical consciousness and cultural expertise toward serving diverse students within their schools [98,115]. The articles highlighted two approaches to integrating diverse identities and cultures within program curricula: (1) taking a broad approach to integrate all historically marginalized identities within curricula or (2) highlighting specific identities within curricula.

First, most of the articles described ECPPP curricula as integrating issues relevant to historically marginalized students, broadly defined. For example, Woods and Hauser [101] recommend that equity-centered programs integrate issues of race, ethnicity, social class, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability, and Furman [25] recommends that program curricula interrogate areas of difference, broadly. Across the body of literature exploring ECPPPs, we found illustrations of individual programs that include race, ability, social class, religion, class, gender, and sexual orientation within curricula [85,90,100,101,103,116]. Importantly, Marshall and Hernandez [91] note that simply including course readings around diverse identities is not enough—ECPPPs need to be thoughtful about how diverse groups are portrayed and ensure they are discussed as resilient and having agency, rather than from more deficit-oriented perspectives.

Alternatively, some studies positioned specific historically marginalized identities as crucial for inclusion within ECPPP curricula. This tended to be related to the authors’ expertise (i.e., authors who focus most of their scholarship around issues of race were likely to highlight issues of race within their articles on principal preparation), or in response to a lack of the literature that has examined these specific identities within preparation settings (e.g., several authors note a paucity in the literature discussing LGBTQ+ issues within preparation). Illustrating the former point, we noted that work by Diem and colleagues [85] and Gooden and colleagues [94]—anti-racist scholars—tended to either prescriptively suggest or provide accountings of ECPPPs that center issues of race and racism. Illustrating the second point, Capper and colleagues [90] advocate for the inclusion of LGBTQ+ and gender identities within ECPPP curricula in response to an identified gap in the preparation scholarship addressing these issues. We note that there is no evidence that the scholars who centered particular identities are advocating for the exclusion of other identities. Instead, we interpret these articles as likely still advocating for an infusion of all historically marginalized identities, but with a specific centering around one or two in response to program vision, context, or other facets.

Critical social theories. Next, the literature indicates that critical social theories are another key equity-centered curricular topic within ECPPPs [25,30,32,38,42,47,81,83,102,104,105,109,117,118]. Gooden and Dantley [26] suggest that exposing aspirants to critical theories can guide them toward identifying systems that perpetuate inequities across areas of difference, paving the way for aspirants to take up equity-centered work to contest such systems. While many of the studies discussed the inclusion of “critical theory” more broadly, we found that many of the articles included in our review pointed to (1) critical race theory and (2) critical policy analysis as particularly important for inclusion within ECPPP curricula.

Critical race theory (CRT) was frequently mentioned as a key equity-centered curricular topic [48,109,119,120]. Reis and Smith [120] describe how one program centered critical race theory as a key topic within the first semester to form aspirants’ foundational knowledge for the rest of the program (note here the intentionality in sequencing as well). Relatedly, the literature offers several illustrations of how ECPPPs drew attention to examinations of deficit mindsets within their curricula [32,38,43,89,98]. For example, Liou and Hermanns [89] state about one Arizona program centered around issues of race and equity: “Given the fact that deficit thinking and low academic expectations continue to be an enduring problem in many schools for immigrant students and other students of color (Milner, 2010; Shields, 2010; Valencia, 2012), the program decided that these two persistent problems would be consistently discussed across all topical areas” (p. 669).

A smaller subset of the literature positioned critical policy analysis as another key curricular topic, as aspirants must be able to identify inequitable and unjust policies in order to dismantle them [38,121]. For example, Diem and colleagues [85] illustrate how one urban Midwestern ECPPP situated within a school choice setting engaged its aspirants in critical policy discussions around school choice to explore the connection between school choice policies and racial inequity (thereby also bringing in aspects of CRT).

Equity-centered leadership approaches. Finally, and perhaps unsurprisingly, we found that the literature highlighted equity-centered leadership approaches as a key equity-centered curricular topic within ECPPPs [26,38,72,81,108,121]. The equity-centered leadership approaches we identified within the literature included (1) equity-centered instructional leadership, (2) culturally responsive school leadership, (3) inclusive leadership, and (4) family- and community-centered leadership.

First, the literature suggests that equity-centered instructional leadership is one key curricular topic within ECPPPs [23,42,73,79,88,97,98,121]. In particular, the equity-centered literature emphasized instructional leadership that supports the needs of all students with intentionality. Salisbury and Irby [39] illustrate how the University of Illinois Chicago moved aspirants from building knowledge and skills toward actually engaging in equity-centered instructional leadership within their own school settings across a three-course instructional leadership strand.

Second, the literature highlights culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL) as another key equity-centered curricular topic within ECPPPs [33,84,86,98,122,123]. Samkian and colleagues [86] provide one of the few illustrations of how individual programs have adopted CRSL as a key equity-centered curricular topic. USC Rossier program faculty mapped out a program curriculum that would engage aspirants in self-reflection and provide them with knowledge and skills to create culturally responsive school staff and school campuses as a whole.

Inclusive school leadership is a third leadership approach advanced within the literature as a key topic within ECPPP curricula [66,72,104,118,124,125]. While some scholars conceptualize inclusion more broadly as related to exclusion/inclusion across race, class, gender, and other marginalizing factors [126], here, we highlight the literature that spoke to inclusive leadership as it relates to students with disabilities. The discussions related to preparing inclusive leaders tended to be conceptual, prescriptive pieces meant to guide programs’ designs rather than illustrations of individual programs’ efforts. For example, DeMatthews and colleagues [72] report that principals tend to lack a strong foundational understanding of leadership for special education and inclusion, and therefore advocated for a stronger infusion of inclusive leadership principles within ECPPP curricula.

Finally, the literature positioned family- and community-centered leadership approaches as a fourth consequential curricular topic within ECPPP curricula [81,102,127]. Family- and community-centered approaches view families and communities from an asset-oriented perspective that positions them as partners for schooling rather than obstacles or objects in need of saving [110,128]. In her analysis of 50 preparation program syllabi, Mayger [127] found that many aspirants graduate from their programs without strong content knowledge related to family and community engagement. However, the literature does provide illustrations of how individual programs have developed aspirants’ knowledge around this topic. For example, Lac and Diaz [102] discuss an ECPPP situated within an urban Southwest context that incorporated family and community engagement over the span of two social foundations courses, including a school–community relations course. Reflecting impact, aspirants who participated in these courses reported that these courses had strengthened their equity-centered understandings of school–family–community relationships and that they believed they would treat these groups as authentic partners once they took leadership positions.

4.3. Pedagogy

Mayger [127] describes pedagogical approaches as ultimately seeking to build aspirants’ critical consciousness, knowledge, and skills. Within our review, we identified five key pedagogical approaches, shown in Figure 4. First, we identified the prevalent use of (1) equity-centered course readings, which was frequently discussed and provided foundational knowledge drawn upon by the remaining four approaches. These four additional pedagogical approaches for developing equity-centered aspirants include (2) critical reflection; (3) rational discourse; (4) classroom-based practice-oriented learning; and (5) field-based practice-oriented learning. We also identify specific pedagogical activities drawn upon within each approach.

In the below sections, we begin with a brief discussion of the key learning theories that undergirded pedagogical approaches. Then we move on to the approaches themselves, highlighting reading, reflection, discourse, classroom- and field-based practice-oriented learning, concluding with a discussion on how the pedagogical approaches intersected with one another.

4.3.1. Undergirding Learning Theories within ECPPPs

As Byrne-Jiménez and colleagues [78] write, “an understanding of learning and how to facilitate it is fundamental to any discussion of pedagogy” (p. 173). Across the literature, we identified four common theories of learning that were evident ECPPPs’ equity-centered pedagogical approaches: (1) adult learning theory, (2) transformative learning theory, (3) constructivist learning theory, and (4) active learning. We also identified powerful learning experiences as an important learning approach within ECPPPs.

First, and most broadly, the four principles of adult learning theory were prevalent throughout the literature that spoke to pedagogy, specifically pointed to by Brown [24,42], whose highly cited work informed much of the later work we identified [17,25,48,98,99,104,105]. These four key principles describe how adults, such as those within ECPPPs, learn through self-directed learning, critical reflection, experiential learning, and learning to learn [24].

Second, transformative learning theory, which centers changes in how individuals perceive themselves and the social world, was evident across the literature. ECPPP pedagogy tended to position preparation as transforming aspirants’ dispositions, knowledge, and skills toward equity-centered outcomes. Critical reflection and rational discourse, in particular, may support transformation in individuals’ perspectives, knowledge, beliefs, self-awareness, and, ultimately, empowerment [129].

Third, constructivist learning theory was an underlying theoretical framing evident within this body of scholarship [27,113]. Constructivist learning centers the ways in which learners build knowledge through their experiences, interactions with others, and their environment [130], such as through reflective thinking, collaborative learning through dialogue, and using real-world contexts to integrate knowledge.

Fourth, and related to constructivism, active learning was evidenced as a key modality throughout the body of research and directly referred to by several pieces as well [35,39,75,131]. Active learning engages aspirants in applying new knowledge to their school settings; as Gray and Bishop [132] state, active learning promotes learning that “comes as a result of acting in the role of leader, contending with authentic situations” (p. 29).

Powerful learning experiences. While not necessarily a learning theory, we found that much of the ECPPP literature positioned powerful learning experiences (PLEs) as a framework for conceptualizing authentic and impactful pedagogical design [34,131,133,134]. PLEs are characterized by nine key elements:

(1) they are authentic, meaningful, relevant, problem-finding activities; (2) they involve sensemaking around critical problems of practice; (3) they involve exploration, critique, and deconstruction from an equity perspective (for example, race, culture, language); (4) they require collaboration and interdependence; (5) they develop confidence in leadership; (6) they place both the professor and the student in a learning situation; (7) they empower learners and make them responsible for their own learning; (8) they shift the perspective from classroom to school, district, or state level; and (9) they have a reflective component.

[63] (p. 445)

Within ECPPPs, PLEs can lead aspirants toward developing their critical consciousness, strengthening their ability to critically analyze equity-centered problems of practice within their own school contexts, and advance their self-efficacy as equity-centered school leaders [34].

4.3.2. Equity-Centered Readings

A backbone of any preparation program, the literature suggests that readings play a foundational role within ECPPPs [101,111,127]. The literature provides insights around (1) key reading topics and (2) the role of readings within ECPPPs.

Reading Topics. Key reading topics highlighted within the literature included readings around the following:

• The concept of social justice, broadly [108];
• The purpose of schooling [108];
• Critical frameworks for understanding oppression [74,120];
• Asset orientations and community cultural wealth [46,89];
• Family–school–community relationships [108,111,127]
• More specific discussions of issues of justice and special populations such as race [45,94,108,135], heterosexism [91,108,115], rurality [108], English language learners [46,88], poverty [102,108], and students with disabilities [72,91,118];
• Conceptual understandings of ethical and justice-oriented leadership [31,111];
• Best practices in equity-centered teaching and leading [20,31,72,86,87].

The readings highlighted by individual articles tended to relate to the focus of the article and respective program. For example, articles centering anti-racist leadership as a key preparation outcome were likely to discuss the inclusion of race within readings [45,94]. However, we have no reason to believe that the example readings delineated within the articles represent the full scope of readings included across a program; in other words, it is likely that programs centered around more specific aims, like anti-racist leadership, nonetheless include readings around other topics.

Purpose and Role of Readings. The literature suggests that equity-centered readings can be impactful to aspirants’ equity-centered development by (1) exposing them to new ideas and ways of thinking, (2) identifying best practices in equity-centered leadership, and (3) stimulating reflection.

Much of the literature positioned readings as exposing aspirants to new knowledge that they were the able to integrate into their understandings of schooling and leadership [48,105,114]. For example, Reis and Smith [120] illustrate the impacts of such readings on one aspirant within a program that is purposeful about infusing equity within the program. The aspirant said about the readings: “How come I never learned terms like cultural capitalism, racial stratification, White privilege, and institutional racism when I was earning my B.A. degree? Why did I have to wait this long before learning about, understanding, and applying these terms as part my preparation to become a school administrator?” (p. 665). Readings can provide “entrance points” [108] (p. 9) for aspirants to explore issues of equity new to them, such as deficit assumptions about families.

Next, a smaller subset of the literature suggests that readings also exposed aspirants to best practices in leadership for equity. In their conceptual essay, Byrne-Jiménez and Orr [31] discuss how ECPPPs can integrate readings that connect aspirants with research on key leadership practices. In a more concrete illustration of this, Samkian and colleagues [86] describe how the USC Rossier program integrates readings that introduce leadership strategies oriented around certain high-leverage practices that the program has identified as consequential to promoting equity-centered student outcomes.

Finally, the literature points to readings as serving a foundational role in other pedagogical approaches, particularly as a stimulator for aspirant reflection and discourse around issues of equity and their own responsibility for promoting equity [25,94,102,108,127,136]. Following a review of the literature around issues of race within teacher and principal preparation programs, Roegman and colleagues [135] found that readings can “elicit emotions that support candidates’ transformative learning, including acknowledging and addressing their own racist views” (p. 214). While we discuss these pedagogical approaches in more detail below, here, we briefly highlight illustrations of how ECPPPs brought readings into these approaches. For example, related to both reflection and student discourse as pedagogical approaches, Zarate and Mendoza [48] describe how within one program in Southern California, students discussed their reflections and reactions to the readings via peer letter exchange. Related to classroom-based practice-oriented approaches, Garver and Maloney [20] describe how aspirants within one program in the Northeast drew upon readings and other class session materials to inform their reaction to a leadership simulation.

4.3.3. Critical Reflection within ECPPPs

The body of research suggests that ECPPPs support aspirants’ equity-centered development through critical reflection [24], a pedagogical approach meant to expose aspirants to new ideas that push them to question, critique, and thoroughly examine their own privileges, assumptions, biases, and practices toward taking up a stronger equity-centered disposition [20,24,28,31,32,34,46,48,91,100,104,109,115,119,121,131]. The literature points to three key pedagogical activities involved in critical reflection within ECPPPs: (1) reflection as a course-embedded routine; (2) cultural autobiographies; and (3) exposure and immersion experiences.

Reflection as a course-embedded routine. Reflections that are embedded as routines within courses typically prompt aspirants to provide their reactions to course readings and course sessions and assess their developing equity orientations. The literature delineates that ECPPPs embed (1) spoken and/or (2) written reflection as a normal, routine part of courses [23,24,25,30,34,81,91,102,108,113,137,138].

First, the literature highlighted the use of spoken reflections within ECPPPs, typically via class discussions. Merchant and Garza [113] illustrate how the University of Texas San Antonio program embedded spoken critical reflections about readings as a routine that occurred at the start of each class session. Importantly, discussion could not commence until all aspirants have shared their reflections, making the focus of this activity that aspirants have space and time to reflect. (Note that we review aspirant discussion around issues of equity further below in Section 4.3.4.) Related to impact, one aspirant noted about this routine that “The process of reflection itself was, for me, transformative. I gained not only insight about my own thinking but had the most valuable experience of hearing our colleagues within the class which have proven invaluable to me” [113] (p. 49).

Second, the literature identified the use of written reflections within ECPPPs, typically through routinized writings provided to the instructor or, potentially, the entire class via a learning management system. Illustrating written reflection routines, journaling was most commonly mentioned as an ongoing assignment within ECPPP classrooms through which aspirants reflect on and assess their own evolution as equity-centered leaders [23,24,25,30,34,81,102,108]. For example, Brown [42] describes how aspirants completed weekly journal reflections to track personal reactions to courses and their own feelings and experiences. Across this work, we note that such routines are likely an important aspect of ECPPPs that may lead to regular aspirant reflection around course materials and their development over time.

Autobiographies. The literature positions cultural autobiographies as another key pedagogical method for prompting aspirants’ equity-centered reflection within ECPPPs [24,30,43,81,91,94,104,113,138]. Polizzi and Frick [138] discuss how writing one’s own life story can prompt aspirants to consider how their experiences fit into frameworks, such as justice-related frameworks (e.g., how a white male aspirant’s experiences reflect facets of whiteness and sexism). For example, Carpenter and Diem [43] describe how aspirants in another program write racial autobiographies that prompt them to consider their racial identities and the ways in which those identities have impacted their personal and professional experiences. There is reason to believe autobiographies can be impactful; following the use of racial autobiographies within one program in the Southwest, Gooden and O’Doherty [45] found that aspirants exhibited growth in their consciousness around issues of race and privilege.

Cultural exposure and immersion. Finally, a smaller subset of the literature described exposure and immersion experiences as a key pedagogical approach for encouraging equity-centered self-reflection within ECPPPs. Two methods for this that are delineated in the literature are (1) prejudice reduction workshops and (2) educational plunges [24,25,31,81,91].

Within ECPPPs, prejudice reduction workshops are a pedagogical approach through which experts discuss issues of identity and justice, and are meant to prompt deep reflection and awareness amongst aspirants [24,81,121]. While these workshops are mentioned several times within the literature (typically citing Brown, 2004, which originated the use of the term in the literature), we did not identify illustrations of how ECPPPs have taken up prejudice reduction workshops.

Second, within ECPPPs, educational plunges (note that Brown [24] lists educational plunges as a pedagogical approach related to discourse but we see it more strongly situated as a reflective exercise) are a pedagogical approach that embed aspirants into school settings that they are inexperienced with, prompting equity-centered reflection and understanding of others’ experiences [24,81,91,108]. Illustrating this, Marshall and Theoharis [108] discuss how aspirants in one program are asked to engage in an educational plunge by engaging with a culture unfamiliar to them and then reflecting upon the experience and presenting about it to the class. Reflecting impact, they state that aspirants shared that these plunges were the only times students have been in the cultural minority and provided a meaningful and impactful experience for aspirants.

4.3.4. Rational Discourse within ECPPPs

The literature suggests that ECPPPs also support aspirants’ equity-centered development through rational discourse [24], a pedagogical approach that centers collaboration and discussion as a learning mechanism, allowing for aspirants to use one another and others from outside the course as learning resources for collective sensemaking around divergent viewpoints and experiences, and equity-centered problems of practice [27,29,34,39,46,49,80,85,86,94,98,101,104,108,115,121]. The literature identifies three key pedagogical activities involved in rational discourse within ECPPPs: (1) cross-cultural interviews, (2) diversity panels, and (3) class discussions, more broadly.

Cross-cultural interviews. First, ECPPPs support rational discourse with cross-cultural interviews, a pedagogical approach in which aspirants interview one another about their culture and background as a way to develop cultural competency [24,30,81,98]. Brown [42] describes the impactful nature of this process within one program, which required aspirants to identify an individual who is racially/ethnically different from them, and then ask that individual questions related to their cultural values, experiences with racism, and other similar topics. Following completing this assignment, one white female aspirant stated,

It pushed my boundaries, forced me to go beyond what I am familiar with, helped me see my blind spots, tested the amount of fortitude that I had within myself, and made me have to stretch myself so thin I thought I was going to have to go into therapy just to debrief.

(p. 727)

Diversity panels. Second, diversity panels are another equity-centered pedagogical activity drawn upon to promote rational discourse within ECPPPs. Diversity panels engage aspirants in deeply examining a specific identity group (e.g., Black individuals, individuals with disabilities) by researching the history of that group and its experiences in educational settings [24,42,81]. Aspirants then present about that group within class and lead a class discussion around the history and present experiences of that group within schools. Capper and colleagues [30] share an accounting of a pedagogical strategy that the lines between cross-cultural interviews and diversity panels by bringing panels of LTBTQ+ educators to share their experiences with aspirants. This is meant to raise aspirants’ understanding of LGBTQ+ people and issues of heterosexism and homophobia.

Class discussions. Finally, the literature indicates that class discussions, broadly, are a crucial activity for supporting rational discourse, and offered specific recommendations for tools and structures that facilitate both (1) in-class and (2) online or written discussions within ECPPPs.

The literature highlighted several tools and frameworks that ECPPPs might leverage to support equity-centered in-class discussions. First, the Courageous Conversations protocol [139], a structured framework designed to facilitate open, honest, and challenging discussions about race, was often mentioned as a key tool for moderating constructive dialogue within classes [33,107,109]. Similarly, Rasmussen and Raskin [49] denote intentional racialized conversations as a thematic practice within one program that infused all course discussions with a consideration of how race is influencing the topic at hand. Additionally, the literature indicates that group discussion activities, including think–pair–share [30], fishbowl exercises [101,137], and debates [30], can be supportive of rational discourse. Illustrating one example, Capper and colleagues [30] suggest that ECPPPs invested in developing aspirants who can meet the needs of LGBTQ+ students use think–pair–share activities to engage aspirants in identifying problems of practice related to heterosexism and homophobia, and then brainstorming how to address these problems.

Next, a smaller subset of the ECPPP literature identified tools and structures that ECPPPs can leverage to support equity-centered written discussions, specifically through letter exchanges and online discussion boards. Through letter exchanges, aspirants write letters or posts to one another, discussing their experiences, perspectives, and understandings around issues of justice highlighted within the course or program [48,101,108]. Zarate and Mendoza [48] illustrate the use of peer letter exchanges within one program in Southern California that sought to develop aspirants’ understandings of race. Aspirants were paired (typically with students of dissimilar race) and exchanged weekly letters in which they reflected on and critiqued ideas from the course. The authors found that these letters prompted enhanced understandings of race issues amongst some of the aspirants. The second key discussion structure we identified within the literature was the use of weekly reflections posted to course discussion boards (e.g., on Blackboard or Canvas) through which students similarly respond to one another in an exchange of ideas [91,101,108].

4.3.5. Classroom-Based Practice-Oriented Learning toward Equity

Classroom-based practice-oriented learning methods, which provide aspirants the opportunity to practice transferring knowledge to practice in the formative, low-stakes environment of the classroom, are another equity-centered pedagogical approach we identified within the ECPPP literature [29,34,39,46,47,72,80,81,86,101,134]. The literature provides insights into three primary approaches to classroom-based practice-oriented learning within ECPPPs: (1) problem-based learning, (2) case method, and (3) simulations.

Problem-based learning. First, the literature frequently named problem-based learning as a primary equity-centered pedagogical method within ECPPPs [17,24,32,81,89,96,115,140]. Through problem-based learning, aspirants within ECPPPs center their learning around key equity-centered problems of practice in educational settings (or their own settings), investigating these problems and potential solutions as a learning exercise. This is meant to connect learning tasks to aspirants’ own experiences and work in schools [81]. Diem and Carpenter [32] describe this as a problem-posing pedagogy through which aspirants and instructors collaborate around identifying solutions to social injustice. Unfortunately, across the literature, we note a lack of illustration around problem-based learning pedagogy in practice.

Case method. Next, much of the literature advanced case method—engaging aspirants in reading and responding to case studies that explore issues of equity within schools (e.g., from the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership)—as an additional classroom-based practice-oriented approach within ECPPPs [39,46,47,80,101,134]. Kemp-Graham [47] notes that case studies can “stimulate [aspirants’] awareness of inequities in schools and how to address these issues effectively and successfully” (p. 124). While the majority of the articles recommend case method with references to equity-centered cases broadly, Leggett and Smith [134] devote an article to the examination of the role one specific case study played in prompting aspirants’ equity-centered thinking in the Western Kentucky University program. The case explored a rural principal’s experiences with veteran teachers who were not willing to shift their practice toward responding to the needs of changing student demographics. Addressing issues of impact, they found that the use of case method provided valuable opportunities for aspirants to envision themselves taking the role of the leader—importantly, moving beyond a teacher’s perspective—and to consider equity-centered actions they might take in this role.

Simulations. Finally, opportunities to practice equity-centered leadership skills and experiences via simulations—sometimes referred to as rehearsals—was a third classroom-based practice-oriented approach named throughout the ECPPP literature [25,29,34,72,81,86,98,101]. Simulations allow for aspirants to practice or rehearse specific situations, like interviews with potential teachers or meetings with families, in a low-stakes classroom environment and to receive feedback on their actions [86]. For example, Baecher and colleagues [87] describe how one program use an ELL Observation Tool protocol to engage aspirants in a video observation of teachers to introduce aspirants to such observations and allow for time to practice. Interestingly, despite these simulations being widely discussed across the literature, Woods and Hauser [101] found in their evaluation of California preparation program’s implemented curriculum that simulations were used least of the pedagogical methods they investigated, behind readings, lecture, discussion, case study, and field experiences.

4.3.6. Field-Based Practice-Oriented Learning toward Equity

Finally, field-based practice-oriented learning methods, which provide aspirants the opportunity to transfer knowledge to practice within school settings—typically their own—are a fourth equity-centered pedagogical approach we identified within the ECPPP literature [24,29,38,83,99,131]. Cosner [16] refers to these experiences as course-embedded, clinically enacted experiences that allow for aspirants to integrate course learning into their real-world school settings. The literature provides insights into three primary approaches to field-based practice-oriented learning within ECPPPs: (1) opportunities to learn directly from exemplary equity-focused educators, (2) conducting equity audits within aspirants’ own schools, and (3) planning for and enacting change.

Learning directly from exemplary equity-focused educators. First, several of the articles stated that ECPPPs provide aspirants with opportunities to learn from exemplary equity-focused educators—both teachers and principals—as an important pedagogical approach to field-based practice-oriented learning [30,49,81,98,141]. Related to teachers, ECPPPs might create structures that pair aspirants with master teachers who are successful with producing equitable outcomes and bring aspirants into these teachers’ classrooms so that aspirants can learn about and witness firsthand effective instruction, supporting their ability to serve as equity-centered instructional leaders [30,49,81]. Related to principals, ECPPPs might provide aspirants with opportunities to meet with and learn from exemplary principals who have shown success with historically marginalized students [72,81,141]. Additionally, ECPPPs can bring aspirants on field trips to local schools known to be successful with historically marginalized students or to exemplify equity orientations, such as through strong cultural responsiveness [98].

Equity audits. Next, equity audits were frequently mentioned as a key field-based practice-oriented strategy within ECPPPs [25,30,39,49,75,91,94,98,101,142,143]. Equity audits involve aspirants in collecting data within their school settings to assess the current school context to determine levels of equity and inequity in specific areas, using a variety of protocols, rubrics, and checklists [25,142,144,145,146]. For example, Gooden and colleagues [94] illustrate how one anti-racist-oriented ECPPP engages aspirants in examining their own school data to identify potential race-based disparities in aspects of the school, such as enrollment in advanced courses. Reflecting the impact of equity audits, Harris and Hopson [142] found that aspirants in one Texas program reported that equity audits they completed as a culminating course activity were highly transformative, powerful learning experiences that additionally led to changes on aspirants’ campuses. Within the ECPPP literature, equity audits often served as a precursor to action and improvement plans and action research (i.e., equity audits identify problems of practice and lead to planning and taking action around that problem), which we turn to next.

Planning for and enacting change. Finally, an abundance of the literature made clear that ECPPPs engage aspirants in planning out how to respond to educational inequities within their own settings and then implementing those plans toward more equitable outcomes [24,25,75,81,91,94,101,108,115,120,142]. Aspirants’ plans are likely to follow from equity audits, described above, which can point aspirants toward key issues of inequity within their school settings that need to be addressed. Aspirants move from gathering data via equity audits toward action plans, which delineate potential actions aspirants would plan to take to address equity-centered challenges they identify within their own schools and how aspirants would overcome likely barriers [81]. Reis and Smith [120] illustrate such plans in their discussion of how aspirants within one program created an equity-centered staff professional development plan as a key program assignment. Moving beyond planning, Gooden and colleagues [94] describe how aspirants within an anti-racist ECPPP may use the results of their race-based equity audits to drive their culminating leadership in action project, through which they take action to challenge the identified race-based disparities.

Some of the research identified action research, in particular, as a specific method for engaging aspirants in enacting equity-centered change within their school settings [49,61,81,86,89,105,113,134,141,142]. As a pedagogical strategy, action research is a systematic and specific method of inquiry in which aspirants identify an issue of equity within their school setting, review research around that issue, collect and analyze data related to that issue, and then plan for and enact change [105,141]. There are several illustrations of this within the literature. Trujillo and Cooper [81] provide one in their discussion of UC Berkeley’s culminating “Leadership Action Research Project”, through which aspirants identify an equity-centered research question, research potential responses to that question, and then simultaneously engage in and analyze change processes. Additionally, Alford and Hendricks [141] provide examples of aspirants’ action research project foci within another program, which include creating a mentor program, providing development around ELL students, and using technology to support student engagement. However, we do not gain an understanding of how the program engaged aspirants in action research projects.

4.3.7. Interconnections amongst Pedagogical Approaches

While our discussion above presents the pedagogical approaches as discrete, we found that within ECPPPs pedagogies are often connected to one another in several ways. First, reflecting the sequential nature of pedagogical approaches, ECPPPs may conceptualize pedagogies in a scaffolded way, such as by beginning aspirants with foundational understandings via critical reflection and discourse and then moving aspirants toward practice-oriented learning within classrooms and then within the field [39]. Additionally, we found that within ECPPPs multiple pedagogical approaches are likely to occur in tandem rather than in isolated ways. For example, critical reflection and rational discussion often occurred together, with discussion exploring aspirants’ reflections about course materials [48,91,101,108]. Finally, while we categorize pedagogical activities within specific approaches, some pedagogical activities could be drawn upon within multiple approaches. For example, the literature suggests that educational plunges, a cultural exposure and immersion activity categorized under critical reflection, could be used to prompt both reflection and discourse/discussion [24,98].

4.4. Assessment

Nearly two decades ago, Capper and colleagues [30] noted a paucity in the literature exploring how programs might assess aspirants, and our review of the literature reveals that this area of work remains underdeveloped. Nonetheless, the literature provides insights into (1) the key focal areas assessed within ECPPPs and (2) the purposes of assessments within ECPPPs. We show these in Figure 5 below.

In the below sections, we discuss key purposes of assessment within ECPPPs first, identifying assessments that seek to ascertain whether aspirants meet program vision and curricular learning objectives. We then describe two types of assessment—formative and summative—and how ECPPPs use these within individual courses and across the span of an entire program.

4.4.1. Assessment Purposes within ECPPPs

The small body of literature suggests that ECPPPs assess whether/how aspirants are meeting expectations set forth by (1) program visions (e.g., graduate profiles) and/or (b) curricular learning objectives. This is perhaps unsurprising given that we have shown throughout this review that vision and learning objectives appear to permeate all aspects of equity-centered preparation. We also identified a third set of findings related to how assessments can lead to program improvement in the academic portion of a program itself.

Assessment toward program vision. First, the literature suggests that ECPPPs assess aspirants with an eye to how aspirants are meeting program visions and the leadership standards that often inform these visions. Illustrating this, Everson and Bussey [111] discuss how Saint Louis University requires aspirants to complete a comprehensive self-assessment report prior to graduation through which the aspirant describes the learning they did throughout the program and how this learning reflects the program’s vision and the ISLLC Standards (now the PSELs). In an additional example, Leggett and colleagues [75] explain how the Western Kentucky University program intentionally aligned individual courses to NELP standards, which knowledge and skills preparation program completers should possess, and in turn designed assessments that would examine aspirant development in relation to these standards with a specific eye to equity.

Assessment toward curricular learning objectives. Second, ECPPPs assess whether aspirants are meeting curricular learning objectives, specifically aspirants’ (1) critical consciousness and (2) knowledge and skills. We found more discussion in the literature of these sorts of assessments and the sorts of work tasks associated with them. This is perhaps because, while curricular learning objectives are often drawn directly from program visions, they may make more explicit the sorts of learning that a program seeks to take place and therefore more readily be connected to assessment.

Related to critical consciousness, ECPPPs assess changes in aspirants’ dispositions and orientations around issues of equity and justice. Have aspirants developed their ability to reflect on their own biases and role in maintaining unjust structures, and has their desire to engage in equity-centered work strengthened? To assess aspirants’ critical consciousness, we found that ECPPPs tend to rely upon work tasks like journals, autobiographies, and other opportunities for aspirants to reflect upon and identify growth in their dispositions and understandings.

Related to knowledge and skills, ECPPPs assess changes in aspirants’ understandings about issues of equity and justice, key practices school staff may leverage to advance equity and justice for students, and aspirants’ ability to actually engage in these actions within their own settings or simulations [38,81,86,95,105,134]. To assess equity-centered practical knowledge and skills, we found that ECPPPs tend to use active learning assignments that center aspirants’ school settings rather than term papers that take a more scholarly centering. Honig and Donaldson Walsh [38] describe the former as “authentic products” (p. 62) through which aspirants in the University of Washington L4L program showcase real-life equity-centered actions they have taken as a result of course learnings. Similarly, Richard and Cosner [41] describe how the University of Illinois Chicago program engages aspirants in authentic, field-based assessment work tasks that occur within aspirants settings as part of their daily work. Aspirants provide practice-based artifacts of their work, which are then assessed by faculty members. Examples of these sorts of authentic assessments include portfolios, simulations, and leadership learning and action plans [61].

Assessments informing curricular improvements. Notably, the literature suggests that assessments can provide important insights for programs themselves [48]. While this is strongly tied to program evaluation, which we do not discuss here, we identified examples of articles describing how specific ECPPPs use aspirant assessments (e.g., course assessments) to adjust curriculum and other design facets. These assessments are not meant to be evaluative of the program itself but nonetheless point to potential areas for improvement for ECPPPs. Illustrating this, Reis and Smith [120] assess aspirant progress and adjust the curriculum to attend to aspirant needs and apparent lags in growth. They provide the example that at one point in time, they noted that aspirants began the program with little knowledge about critical issues, and so they began to offer an introductory curriculum centered around critical theories such as critical race theory. Arzu and colleagues [35] provide a similar example that assessments across the Texas programs inform faculty members’ instructional decisions.

4.4.2. Assessment Types within ECPPPs

In addition to identifying what is assessed within ECPPPs, the literature provides insights into how ECPPPs assess aspirants. We identified two key types of assessment delineated within the literature: (1) formative and (2) summative. The literature suggests that these assessments occur both (1) within individual courses and (2) program-wide, such as through the use of capstone projects that span a number of semesters. We integrate these dimensions into our discussion of formative and summative assessments below.

Formative assessments. Formative assessments are oriented around providing feedback to learners—in this case, leadership aspirants—to support their growth over time. Within ECPPPs, these assessments and “their subsequent feedback help candidates learn to identify strengths, where they succeeded, the places they struggled, and where their areas of leadership growth lie” [61] (p. 199).

Within individual courses, formative assessments provide opportunities for aspirants to identify equity-centered areas in need of improvement as related to the specific course topics. For example, Arzu and colleagues [35] describe how within three Texas programs, detailed formative feedback is provided to all aspirants and all assignments across each course. Similarly, Liou and Hermanns [89] illustrate how faculty within an Arizona ECPPP break assignments down into scaffolded portions that they use to provide ongoing equity-centered formative feedback to aspirants.

Additionally, the literature suggests that program-wide formative assessment can provide similar opportunities for aspirants to improve toward equity but in a more continuous way [105]. These may occur at the beginning of the program and be used to guide aspirants’ learning across the program. For example, Reis and Smith [120] describe how in one program new aspirants complete a series of self-assessments, questionnaires, and other instruments, to help guide their goals for equity-centered growth across the program. Aspirants’ progress toward achieving these goals are then monitored by a fieldwork advisor. Formative assessments may also occur at intervals throughout the program. Liou and Hermanns [89] illustrate this in their description of how one program conducts structured meetings between aspirants and faculty at six points in time across the program duration to provide systematic feedback on aspirants’ ongoing work. In another ECPPP in the Southeast, aspirants complete three formative assessments across the program duration, receiving formative feedback after each.

Summative assessments. Summative assessments provide “a more holistic indication of where a candidate might be on a leadership development continuum or where they might be on their way toward embodying the graduate profile your team described” [61] (p. 199). Their purpose is to ascertain whether an aspirant has mastered specific content and leadership competencies [75,134].

The literature suggests that within ECPPPs, summative assessments within individual courses are typically used to gauge the ways in which aspirants have or have not developed their critical consciousness, knowledge, and skills to engage in equity-centered leadership. These assessments were sometimes described as individual culminating assessments. For example, Leggett and colleagues [40,75] describe “anchor assessments” within the Western Kentucky University program that serve as culminating final assessments in each program course meant to assess aspirants’ learning related to equity and justice. Aspirants must demonstrate proficiency in the specific assessments to move on to subsequent courses. Examples include conducting an equity audit within the Leading a Culture of Achievement course, an MTSS audit in the Leading Teaching and Learning course, and a simulation of advancing equity in a school budget for the Managing Schools for Equitable Outcomes course. Alternatively, the literature sometimes referred to within-course assessments comprising before-and-after measures meant to assess aspirant growth throughout the course, sometimes used as a method for assessing course efficacy overall. These before-and-after assessments use an instrument such as a questionnaire to provide baseline information at the beginning of the semester, such as an Anti-Defamation League survey [114], and then use that same instrument at the end of the semester to assess growth.

Additionally, the literature described program-wide summative assessments, often referred to as culminating projects or capstones, which are meant to assess aspirant capacity to advance equity at the end of their program journey [86,95,105]. Illustrating this, Guerra and colleagues [105] discuss how one program has leadership aspirants engage in an action research project and provide artifacts from this project to demonstrate growth. Similarly, Samkian and colleagues [86] discuss USC Rossier’s culminating dissertation, through which aspirants use action research to identify and address inequitable structures and systems within their own school context. Outside of culminating projects, Honig and Donaldson Walsh [38] demonstrate how the University of Washington L4L program uses annual portfolios to create an annual record of aspirant growth and leadership practice. The portfolios ask aspirants to provide evidence of their leadership practice, particularly as it relates to equity.

5. Conclusions

If we as a field are committed to advancing equitable student opportunities and outcomes within schools, we must ensure that educators—including school leaders—are adequately prepared to fulfill their role in this work. Within this review, we mine the equity-centered principal preparation literature to extract learnings related to vision, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment within equity-centered principal preparation programs. Framed by the body of literature that has identified key elements of high-quality and exemplary preparation programs, we specifically investigate program vision, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, each of which are tightly connected to the academic portion of ECPPPs. We draw upon 35 empirical examinations of the ways in which particular program designs impact aspirants’ development, 31 descriptive accountings of particular programs’ designs, 8 reviews of the literature, and 19 theoretical and conceptual essays to form our conclusions. While, as we note below, more work should be carried out to investigate equity-centered preparation, particularly in relation to the efficacy of specific program elements and approaches, consolidating findings from the body of literature makes clear that the literature offers a plethora of insights for preparation programs seeking to take up an equity lens. In Figure 6, below, we delineate these key insights from the literature to illustrate our research findings.

In addition to unearthing key insights across the literature, our review makes clear the interconnected nature of these elements within ECPPPs, in that each of the four areas we investigated were often presented as aligned and influencing one another. We find that program visions tightly align with and permeate curricular considerations, in particular, although we see evidence of alignment between vision, pedagogy, and assessment as well. The literature provides ample insights into how programs create and carry out curricular design to support equity-centered aspirant development, and how equity-centered pedagogical approaches can support the advancement of curricular learning objectives. While we located less in the literature that addresses assessment within ECPPPs, we nonetheless find that assessments align with program visions and curricular learning objectives, and work tasks used for assessments flow directly from pedagogical approaches. With this said, programs seeking to strengthen their equity orientations are likely to find it helpful to take an ecological perspective as they examine their academic programs, considering how each of the four program elements work together to promote equity-centered leadership development.

5.1. Implications for Preparation and Development

This review holds several implications for preparation. First, the review itself highlights key insights from across the body of literature addressing these four elements of equity-centered principal preparation programs. Through this review, we identify key considerations and approaches that have surfaced in the literature associated with equity-oriented principal preparation. By summarizing and synthesizing findings across existing work, we provide insights that are more comprehensive than a single study can offer. We draw across theoretical studies as well as studies conducted in a variety of preparation program contexts (e.g., Honig and Donaldson Walsh, 2019, conducted research on designing for equity at the University of Washington, while Salisbury and Irby’s, 2020, similar equity-centered redesign work took place at the University of Illinois Chicago). While studies often capture individual preparation programs’ strategies, within this review, we foreground strategies that many programs have used to center equity. Findings within this review, therefore, draw perspectives from across geographic and contextual boundaries, shedding light onto program designs likely to be applicable to a broad variety of programs. With this said, our review may guide preparation programs’ informed choices about strategies and designs that will support their ability to prepare equity-centered leaders.

Additionally, this review carries implications for global preparation and development programs, as well as for international organizations exploring issues of equity and school leadership. The U.S. contexts that have driven preparation programs to more deeply take up equity and justice are similar to those likely to drive similar efforts across the globe, such as refugee crises, far-right nationalism, and increasing income inequality [147,148]. The U.S., with its long history of principal preparation work noted above, has accumulated substantial wisdom and experience toward strengthening principal preparation and development broadly, and more recently toward equity [10,56]. As more countries begin to incorporate formalized requirements for leadership preparation programs [10], this accumulated wisdom and experience, summarized within this review, is likely to offer crucial insights useful at the outset of their journeys. By examining the U.S. approach to equity-centered principal preparation, other countries can gain insights into structuring their programs to better meet their own unique needs.

While the literature does not provide insights into the efficacy of specific equity-centered designs, we highlight here some key learnings from this body of literature that are likely to be consequential to programs engaged in centered program development. First, the literature suggests that redesign processes are best supported by multiple members of the faculty who can bring together varied expertise and perspectives, supporting coherence across the academic program [34,41,61,113]. Next, the literature indicates that a vision is likely highly important to redesign efforts and program ability to take up issues of equity, because the program vision plays a foundational role in all other aspects of the academic program [39,40,41,75,94]. Therefore, programs might begin redesign with a visioning process that takes into account local and national standards, the needs of local district contexts, and leadership and schools research to identify key program values and a vision of what ideal program graduates will know and do [22,39,54,61,72,75]. Third, translating these values and graduate profile into a clear theory of action may be especially helpful for programs seeking to redesign because the theory of action can guide a program toward designing all aspects of the program toward achieving the program’s goals [41,94]. The program’s curricular goals will likely be aligned to the graduate profile, particularly related to developing aspirants’ critical consciousness and equity-centered leadership knowledge and skills [39,40,41,75,94]. Additionally, as programs redesign the curriculum, intentionality in course content and the sequencing of courses is likely consequential [61]. Programs might consider how to infuse equity within all courses, as well as provide specific equity centered courses that go deeply into these issues, and offering these courses in a logical order that moves developmentally toward equity-centered knowledge and skills [32,34,38,39,86,89]. Fifth, incorporating varied and complementary pedagogical approaches will likely support programs’ ability to meet curricular goals. While reflection and discourse may help most with developing aspirants’ dispositions and understandings of equity issues, they can really begin to gain leadership knowledge and skills through the classroom- and field-based practical activities [34,39,40,46]. Finally, programs should favor authentic assessments that involve real-life tasks embedded within aspirants’ schools to examine the extent to which aspirants are growing and meeting learning outcomes [38,39,41,61,86].

In addition to providing insights for preparation programs, this review provides insights around markers of exemplary equity-centered programs that may be useful for governing bodies such as the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), which engages in formal recognition processes of exemplary preparation programs. Along these lines, it also highlights potential areas that might be considered within the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) standards, which delineate what beginning building-level leaders should know and be able to do. While this review does not rely upon substantial empirical evidence that links ECPPP elements to aspirant development as equity-centered leaders, it does highlight areas for consideration that are likely to be useful to entities invested in promoting high-quality, equity-centered leadership.

5.2. Implications for Research

Through this examination, we provide a helpful bird’s eye view of the state of the field that highlights several important areas for future research. We highlight key areas of knowledge within the field, such as the extensive discussion of curricular and pedagogical elements across the literature. Yet, as we note above, vision and assessment were less often discussed within the body of literature we investigated. These findings call for future research to explicitly investigate these areas to deepen our understanding of equity-centered preparation across all program elements. This is especially crucial given the central role of program vision within each of the other areas we investigated.

Next, few pieces deeply attended to the challenges of taking up an equity centering within preparation programs. Yet, this topic is of increasing relevance and importance given the recent dismantling [149] of DEI programs within institutes of higher education. Given the time lag between research, writing, and publication, our findings cannot provide insights into how faculty members persist through these challenges. Future research should investigate how programs can persist in equity-centered design in spite of interpersonal disputes within faculty, a lack of resources, recent legislation barring mention of social justice in some states, and other barriers likely impact this work.

Finally, while this review points to design elements that scholars position as consequential to supporting ECPPPs, much of the literature we draw upon does not empirically link these design elements to the development of equity-centered leaders. Further, as shown in Appendix A, amongst the articles that do empirically link design elements to equity-centered development, there was a clear preference in the literature for qualitative work that relied upon program aspirants’ or graduates’ perceptions of impact. In many ways, this reflects the broader field of research on leadership preparation, which Orr [150] notes tends to be limited to smaller-scale examinations of individual program efforts and lacks investigations that identify links between preparation and leader readiness. Very few (8 out of 35) pieces sought to quantitatively—or even systematically—link program design with leadership aspirants’ learning and practices. To establish a stronger understanding of which sorts of program design considerations are most crucial to supporting equity-centered leadership, more deliberate examination of the impacts of program components and processes is necessary. Based on the body of scholarship included within this review, we cannot with certainty say that programs implementing these design facets will successfully develop equity-centered leaders.

Nonetheless, this study highlights key areas of consideration for scholars and program faculty interested in taking up an equity lens within principal preparation programs. By consolidating existing knowledge and identifying areas for future exploration, this review provides a foundation that will contribute to the field’s ongoing conversation and collective efforts to advance equity-centered leadership in educational settings.