Learning to Lead Democratically: A Democratic Imperative for Leadership Preparation 95gap for all members of in society). Importantly, recent domestic policy events, such as the No
Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB, the impact of state standards and accountability legislation,
and the concern for strong democratic citizenry have directed attention to reconsidering lead-
ership for schools concerned with democracy, freedom, and social justice (Freire, 1998;
Giroux, 1994; Starratt, 2001). Now, more than ever, school leaders are challenged with meet-
ing the needs of society’s children in uncertain times. If we are to meet these challenges, “it
follows that education must foster democracy” (Perry & Fraser, 1993, p. 12).
Amidst this uncertainty, Giroux (2002) drew our attention to the necessity of “rethinking
the role of educators and the politics of schooling,” (p. 1138) as America continues to be rede-
fined by the “cataclysmic political, economic, and legal changes inaugurated by the mon-
strous events of September 11” (p. 1138). The implications for education, of such uncertain-
ties and changes, bring into specific relief the need to examine the work of education leaders.
In this paper the author revisits the work of John Dewey, in particular Dewey’s philoso-
phical positionings on democracy. Beginning with an overview of the problematics of society,
the author examines Dewey’s democracy as the “heart of matter” in reconsidering leadership
preparation. The author then presents a democratic imperative for consideration in the rear-
ticulation of educatiol leadership preparation. Four primary elements shape the democratic
imperative for leadership preparation: democratic knowledge, democratic inquiry, democratic
practice, and democratic culture. Following the democratic imperative is discussion of the
implications of the imperative.
PROBLEMATICS OF SOCIETY
Problematically, schools exist in a democracy that is marked “by an undemocratic econ-
omy, by undemocratic communications and media industries, by undemocratic cultural insti-
tutions, and by a form of representative government many see as serving special interests and
itself more than the broad needs of the people” (Starratt, 2001, p. 341). Respectfully, public
schools and colleges of education are equally affected by the undemocratic nature of society.
Finkelstein (1984), writing over two decades ago in Education and the Retreat from Democ-
racy in the United States, 1979-198?, argued that contemporary reformers of that era,
seem to be recalling public education from its traditional utopian mission—to nurture
a critical and committed citizenry that would stimulate the processes of political and
cultural transformation and refine and extend the workings of political democracy.... Reformers seem to imagine public schools as economic rather than political instru-
mentalities. They forge no new visions of political and social possibilities. Instead,
they call public schools to industrial and cultural service exclusively.... (p. 280)
Now, perhaps even more so than when Finkelstein wrote these words, the realization of
democracy is made problematic and uncertain by current political reform agendas in educa-
tion. We stand a crossroads in education, and importantly in education leadership, when we
must consider our role in shaping and sustaining a democratic society in a dramatically chang-
ing world.
From an ethical and critical perspective, democracy and democratic education will require
that “who” is considered as educational leader in educational institutions be expanded to en-
gender the imperative of an inclusive democracy—that is, we can no longer simply define
leadership by role or office such as principal. Rather, we must recognize the complex and dy-