Beyond Tokenism: How Do Racialized School Leaders Respond to Ethnocultural Diversities in Their Schools?

Abstract

The increasing presence of racialized and immigrant students and educators challenges school institutions to critically examine whose knowledge, leadership, and practices are recognized, legitimized, and valued. Within this context, the integration of immigrant and racialized professionals becomes critical and raises questions about equity, representation, and the reproduction—or disruption—of racial hierarchies. Institutional ethnography is used to analyze how ethnocultural diversity is addressed by three school principals of immigrant origin as well as on a systemic level. The findings highlight how these leaders navigate, negotiate, and reshape leadership practices within normatively white Francophone minority institutions, illuminating both the constraints imposed by institutional norms and the varied ways leaders mobilize their positionality to enact change. As such, the study reveals contrasting conceptions of leadership as modeling. Hélène leads by example, seeking to inspire teachers and students by embodying an alternative leadership, which might be labeled as “quiet leadership”. By contrast, Sylvain and Armand lead primarily through rules, structures, and institutional alignment. As such, their leadership may be labeled legitimate and uncontestable. The study suggests that transformation is negotiated differently depending on leaders’ socialization, institutional positioning, and perceived freedom to act.

1. Introduction

In Alberta, the Francophone community is undergoing significant diversification. According to the most recent Census (Sociopol, 2024), Statistics Canada reports that 76% of the Francophone population was born outside the province, and 32% was born outside Canada. Among those born abroad, 50% originate from Africa. Focusing on recent immigration since 2016, African migrants constitute 67% of Francophone newcomers.

This demographic shift carries profound implications for schools, which function not only as sites of knowledge transmission but also as institutions historically shaped by colonial norms, policies, and leadership practices. The increasing presence of racialized immigrant students and educators challenges school institutions to critically examine whose knowledge, leadership, and practices are recognized, legitimized, and valued. Simultaneously, schools in Alberta are navigating structural pressures, including shortages of qualified teachers and leaders. Within this context, integration of immigrant and racialized professionals becomes critical. It raises questions about equity, representation, and the reproduction—or disruption—of racial hierarchies.

While Canadian research has extensively examined the integration of racialized students (Bouchamma & Tardif, 2011; Jacquet et al., 2008; Potvin, 2014; Potvin et al., 2013), scholarship on immigrant and racialized educators, particularly school leaders, is emergent (Niyubahwe et al., 2025). In contrast, research from the United States illustrates that racialized and immigrant educators frequently experience marginalization through curricula, institutional norms, and professional cultures that privilege Eurocentric, deficit-oriented approaches (Allen & Liou, 2019; Annamma et al., 2017; Bettini et al., 2022; Grace & Lastrapes, 2024). This marginalization not only undermines the professional agency and well-being of racialized and immigrant educators but also limits the transformative potential of schools as inclusive and culturally responsive spaces. This exclusion perpetuates systemic inequities, reinforces monocultural norms in curriculum and policy, and diminishes opportunities for innovation in teaching and learning that could better serve all students—especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds.

This article seeks to contribute to the emerging body of Canadian scholarship by documenting the professional trajectories and everyday leadership experiences of three racialized school leaders in Francophone schools in Alberta1. To identify nuanced patterns and distinctive trends specific to this context, it further aims to contextualize U.S.-based literature within the Canadian setting.

To do so, it asks the following questions: How do school leaders respond to the evolving demographic and cultural landscape of their schools? How do they position themselves as leaders, immigrants, and racialized individuals within institutional contexts that often marginalize or erase non-Western approaches to leadership? How might their experiences inform strategies for disrupting colonial legacies in school leadership?

To address these questions, we begin by articulating our conceptualization of leadership in multicultural school contexts with particular attention to race. We then introduce our three participants through an institutional ethnographic lens. Drawing on these three case studies, we examine their professional trajectories, their understandings of diversity, their positionalities as leaders, and the priorities they identify in their leadership practice.

To situate this inquiry within its broader methodological and ethical context, it is essential to acknowledge the researcher’s positionality, particularly as scholars whose work intersects with questions of power, identity, and leadership. By centering the experiences of school leaders who navigate the complexities of immigration, racialization, and institutional marginalization, this study is shaped by a commitment to foregrounding voices that are often relegated to the periphery of academic and policy discourse. This approach is not neutral; it is intentionally grounded in an awareness of the researcher’s own social location, which informs the framing of the research questions, the selection of theoretical frameworks, and the interpretation of findings. Such reflexivity is not merely a procedural formality but a necessary step in dismantling the colonial logics that have historically shaped educational leadership research. By making this positionality explicit, the study seeks to contribute to a more ethical and inclusive discourse on leadership in diverse and evolving educational landscapes.

Our Positionality

As researchers engaged in the study of school leadership within minoritarian Francophone contexts—and particularly at the intersection of race, language, and power—we recognize that our identities, experiences, and social locations are not neutral. Rather, they actively shape how we frame questions, interpret data, and position ourselves in relation to participants and the broader sociopolitical landscape. This section articulates our positionalities as a form of reflexive accountability—acknowledging the ways in which our subjectivities influence and are influenced by the research process.

We situate ourselves as scholars operating within, yet also critically examining, the Francophone minority educational ecosystem. For us, French is our first language. Our fluency in French shapes our access to communities, our ability to interpret nuanced cultural expressions, and our sensitivity to the emotional labor involved in linguistic advocacy.

As white researchers, we situate ourselves as subjects embedded within systems that have historically privileged whiteness in education, academia, and institutional power. Our racial identity grants us unearned access to credibility, legitimacy, and mobility—privileges that are often denied to racialized educators, particularly those leading in minoritarian Francophone schools where linguistic and racial marginalization intersect.

As both former immigrants, we are very sensitive to the experience of navigating different linguistic and cultural contexts, and to the emotions embedded in navigating the unsettling position of embracing new cultural institutions’ norms while at the same time distancing ourselves from them. We recognize that our subjective experiences of immigration have shaped the encounter with our participants, and our positioning as white–Female–Immigrant–Researcher “allies”.

We acknowledge that our presence in this research, even with the intention to amplify marginalized voices, carries the risk of reproducing colonial dynamics: of extracting stories without returning value, of centering our interpretations over the lived realities of our participants, or of positioning ourselves as “allies” without interrogating the power we hold. We do not claim to be “outside” the systems we critique. We are within them—and therefore, responsible for dismantling them. Our whiteness is not a barrier to this work—but it must be named, examined, and actively unsettled if we are to contribute meaningfully to justice-oriented research and practice.

2. Conceptual Foundations of School Leadership

The study of educational leadership has evolved from administrative efficiency models to more complex, value-laden frameworks that acknowledge the socio-political nature of schools. Shields and Gélinas-Proulx (2022) trace the emergence of leadership as a research domain to the Chicago School, which emphasized theory-based approaches to educational administration. Contemporary scholars increasingly define leadership not merely as management, but as a relational, ethical, and future-oriented practice (Gurr & Drysdale, 2020).

Boudreau and Gaudet (2018) identify six dominant leadership models: transactional, transformational, participative, ethical/moral, transformative, and pedagogical. While a comprehensive review of these models is beyond the scope of this article (see Boudreau & Gaudet, 2018), we focus on transformative leadership, a framework particularly aligned with our research aims as it centers social justice, equity, and systemic critique.

Shields and Gélinas-Proulx (2022) critique dominant leadership paradigms for often neglecting the underlying belief systems and values that shape leaders’ practices, especially in contexts marked by structural inequity. They propose a transformative leadership model grounded in two core principles: (1) respect, inclusion, and valuation of all members, enabling individuals to engage meaningfully in their roles and leading to more effective and sustainable outcomes; and (2) balancing individual achievement with collective civic responsibility, which strengthens democratic society and the social fabric.

This framework positions leadership not only as a technical function but as an ethical and political practice, one that must confront systemic racism, linguistic marginalization, and cultural erasure. In these conditions, leadership is not only cognitive or strategic, but also deeply affective. Poirel and Mamprin (2023) argue that emotions are central to the work of school principals, shaping their capacity to influence stakeholders and navigate complex institutional dynamics. Zembylas (2010) further contends that emotions must be strategically embedded in leadership training as catalysts for social justice. In contexts of racial and linguistic marginalization, emotional awareness becomes a prerequisite for authentic engagement with equity—enabling leaders to confront discomfort, build trust, and mobilize collective action.

2.1. Leadership in Minority French-Speaking Contexts

In Francophone minority settings, such as French-language schools in English-dominant regions of Canada, leadership is inherently contextualized by linguistic and cultural survival imperatives. Leurebourg (2013) identifies three key roles for principals in these contexts: a leader is first a manager of educational activities but also an administrator of school operations. In minoritarian contexts, the leader in a Francophone school is also the promoter and defender of the French language and culture.

Boudreau and Gaudet (2018) argue that leadership must be adapted to this context, which often creates tensions: the imperative to preserve Francophone identity may conflict with the need to value ethnocultural, linguistic, and religious diversity within the school community (Landry & Gélinas-Proulx, 2018). These tensions underscore the need for leadership frameworks that are not only culturally responsive but also critically conscious of power, identity, and historical marginalization.

2.2. Race and School Leadership: Power, Positionality, and Resistance

Race is not incidental to leadership. It is constitutive. In the United States, Miller (2021) proposes an anti-racist leadership framework, asserting that school leaders hold significant power to influence race relations positively; shape institutional cultures; reframe problems and conflicts; engage, persuade, and align key stakeholders within an institution to support, endorse, and actively participate in a particular initiative, policy, or change effort; and extend the impact beyond the school.

However, Brooks and Watson (2019) caution against oversimplifying this power. They emphasize that leaders are both agents and subjects of racism, shaped by, and shaping, racialized structures. They call for deeper, more nuanced analyses of racism in education, beginning with personal reflection and evolving into systemic action. Grace and Lastrapes (2024) reveal how principalship is often viewed and enacted through a white male lens, with many white leaders expressing fear or uncertainty in discussing race—largely because such topics are absent from their training. This silence perpetuates inequity.

About teachers of color, Bettini et al. (2022), in their literature review, identify a double bind: they are simultaneously co-opted into racist systems while maintaining personal ties to marginalized communities. Their leadership is thus mediated by competing loyalties—to their cultural identities and to institutional norms that often marginalize them.

2.3. The Sociogenic Principle: A Theoretical Lens for Leadership Subjectivity

To understand how these intersecting forces, race, language, emotion, and institutional power, shape leadership, we turn to the sociogenic principle, as developed by Wynter (2001), from Frantz Fanon’s sociogeny. For Wynter, human beings are not biologically predetermined but sociogenically constituted. Their identities emerge from the interweaving of bios (biological existence) and mythos (cultural narratives, historical structures, and social norms).

This principle is particularly valuable for analyzing leadership in minoritarian Francophone contexts, where leaders’ subjectivities are shaped, as we have seen above, by linguistic marginalization, racialized institutional hierarchies, emotional labor in defending cultural survival, and tensions between assimilation and resistance. The sociogenic lens allows us to see leadership not as a set of skills or traits, but as a socially produced and historically situated practice, one that is co-constructed through race, language, emotion, and power.

Transformative leadership, when viewed through the sociogenic principle, offers a powerful lens for understanding the unique challenges faced by leaders in Francophone minority contexts. These leaders operate at the intersection of linguistic marginalization, racialized power structures, and institutional pressures. These tensions are not incidental but constitutive of their roles. The sociogenic principle reveals how their subjectivities are shaped by historical narratives of cultural survival, racial hierarchies, and the emotional labor of defending a minoritized identity. In this light, transformative leadership becomes more than a model for equity; it is a framework for navigating the dual imperatives of preserving Francophone identity while fostering pluralism. By centering race, language, and emotion as foundational to leadership practice, this approach exposes how traditional leadership frameworks often overlook the ways in which leaders’ positionality and institutional power are co-constructed. For Francophone minority leaders, this means recognizing that their work is inherently political, requiring them to resist assimilationist pressures, confront systemic inequities, and reimagine leadership as a site of relational and collective repair.

This framework advances leadership theory by explicitly linking the affective, racial, and linguistic dimensions of leadership. These elements are often treated as peripheral in dominant models. Our synthesis demonstrates how leadership in minoritized contexts is a sociogenically produced practice where identity, emotion, and power are inseparable from decision-making. By integrating transformative leadership with the sociogenic principle, we provide a tool for analyzing how leaders’ subjectivities shape and are shaped by their efforts to disrupt inequity and sustain cultural vitality.

3. Methods

Highlighting the everyday experiences of actors and their relationships, institutional ethnography is valuable for analyzing how ethnocultural diversity is addressed on a systemic level. Smith and Griffith (2022, p. 3) define institutional ethnography as follows:

It is a sociology, a method of inquiry into the social that begins and always stays with actual people and their doings; it seeks to discover just how actual people’s doings are coordinated with others so that what we might call the ongoing social organizing of our everyday lives actually happens.

Institutional ethnography directs analytical attention to the relational practices through which participants coordinate and experience their institutional realities. Rather than conceptualizing systems as monolithic or pre-given structures of authority, this approach foregrounds the everyday, localized interactions that constitute and are constituted by organizational processes. By centering the perspectives and actions of those embedded within institutions, institutional ethnography reveals how power, knowledge, and social organization are actively produced and contested in situ. When combined with the sociogenic principle (Wynter, 2001), this framework deepens our understanding of how leadership identities and practices are not merely individual or innate but are socially and historically constituted.

This study adhered to rigorous ethical standards in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2). Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from our university. All participants provided informed consent through a process that included: (1) a detailed explanation of the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential risks/benefits; (2) assurance of confidentiality and the right to withdraw at any time; and (3) clarification that their participation was voluntary and would not affect their professional standing. After the transcription of the interviews, participants were given the opportunity to review and approve their interview transcripts, ensuring accuracy and allowing them to retract or modify any statements. All data was anonymized using pseudonyms. Digital recordings were stored securely with restricted access. Special consideration was given to the power dynamics inherent in researching school leaders, with explicit efforts made to ensure participants felt empowered rather than scrutinized during the interview process.

The three school principals presented here are participants of a broader research project aimed at collecting the perspectives of Alberta school principals on the socioprofessional integration of immigrant teachers. To this end, we conducted two consecutive interviews with eight principals and vice-principals working in two Francophone school boards in Alberta, who contacted us after a brief presentation and invitation letter distributed by their respective school boards. Among the principals and vice-principals in this study, four are first- or second-generation immigrants. Of these, three currently serve as school principals, while the fourth—who held a vice-principal position at the time of the initial interview—has since returned to a teaching role. This article focuses specifically on the experiences of the three racialized principals.

The research design included two consecutive interviews. The first one focused on general considerations regarding the role of principals and the measures they implement to welcome, support, and supervise new immigrant-origin teachers. At the end of this first interview, we asked them to describe the trajectory that led to their current leadership positions in Alberta’s Francophone schools, highlighting moments they found significant. We freely drew inspiration from the trajectory method used by Loisy (2022) to treat these narratives as expressions of their sociogenic constitution, which refers to how their identities, perspectives, and leadership practices have been shaped by institutional and historical forces.

During the second interview, we revisited this trajectory to better understand the meaning they ascribe to it, thereby explaining and reflecting on their practices.

In addition to the interviews and trajectory analyses, we examined institutional policies, including provincial ministry of education directives and school district regulations, pertinent to the role of principals. This complementary analysis allowed us to situate the lived experience of our participants within the broader relations that structure their professional responsibilities, authority, and accountability. By juxtaposing principals’ narratives with the formal frameworks governing their work, we uncovered potential disjunctions, tensions, or alignments between policy intentions and the realities of racialized leadership in practice.

To ensure methodological rigor and transparency, we analyzed data in three stages. First, we conducted open coding of all interview transcripts, identifying key themes related to leadership, diversity, and institutional experiences. This initial coding generated a broad set of categories. Next, we refined these categories through focused coding, grouping similar themes and comparing responses across the three principals. We looked for patterns in how each participant described their leadership experiences, challenges, and strategies. Finally, we used analytic coding to connect these themes to our theoretical frameworks (institutional ethnography and the sociogenic principle). This helped us understand how broader institutional structures influence individual leadership practices.

To ensure the trustworthiness of our analysis, we kept detailed notes on our coding processes and decisions and how themes developed. We also met biweekly within the team to discuss and open the dialogue about our interpretations. Finally, we compared interview data with institutional policy documents to provide additional context. This approach helped us maintain transparency and rigor in our analysis.

By focusing on the narratives of participants about their daily experiences as school principals and their trajectories, this article foregrounds their unique standpoint, which argues that knowledge is situated and shaped by one’s position within social and institutional structures. Their experiences as racialized leaders in educational settings likely reveal tensions, contradictions, or unexamined assumptions embedded in the broader institutional practices of schooling.

Conducting research in such a small, racialized Francophone minority in the Alberta school system requires focusing on the confidentiality of our participants. For this reason, while there were, sometimes, intense conversations among the research teams, we decided not to share with other peers the preliminary results of our ongoing analysis.

The Three Directions and Their Schools

Sylvain, Armand and Hélène (all are pseudonyms) are the three principals featured in this article. We focus on them for the following reasons. They each lead ethnoculturally diverse schools in two Albertan urban areas. All principals sit at the intersection of gender, race, and immigration markers. Sylvain2 is a Black man born in a Central African country who has been the school director of the school “Providence” for one year. Armand is a Black man born in the Southern Coast of West Africa who has been the school director of the school “Patchwork” for five years after previously being a teacher there. Hélène is a Black woman born in Alberta to immigrant parents from East Africa who leads the school “Paradis” after starting as a student before becoming a teacher there. This intersectionality of gender and race (Crenshaw, 1991) allows us to contrast their experiences and practices regarding their perspective on ethnocultural diversity.

For all, this is their first experience as school principals.

Although neither principal has precise data on the proportion of immigrant-origin students at their school, Sylvain estimates that the majority—approximately 70%—are from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb. Additionally, among the school’s 16 teachers, 75% are also of African origin (Sub-Saharan Africa and Maghreb). In his school, Armand estimates that 80% of the more than 300 students are immigrants, mostly from Africa, the Middle East and South America. The other students have also migrated from other Canadian provinces (Quebec or New Brunswick). In her school, Hélène is leading a team where more than half of the teachers are immigrants. Among the students, 30% are first-generation immigrants, while the rest are mostly second-generation immigrants.

As their personal statistics demonstrate, and despite the lack of data, the three participants confirm that their schools are populated by students who have recently immigrated.

4. Results: Leadership, Diversity, and Institutional Power in Francophone Minority Schools

This study explores how racialized principals in Alberta’s Francophone minority schools navigate the complexities of leadership, diversity, and institutional power. The findings reveal three interconnected themes: (1) the sociogenic construction of leadership identities, shaped by migration, race, and institutional norms; (2) the tensions between representation, authority, and systemic equity; and (3) the transformative possibilities of leadership that centers marginalized voices. Through the narratives of Sylvain, Armand, and Hélène—each at distinct stages of their leadership journeys—we uncover how their experiences challenge traditional leadership frameworks and point toward more equitable, relational, and structurally aware approaches.

4.1. The Sociogenic Construction of Leadership Identities

The participants’ trajectories illustrate how leadership identities are sociogenically constituted, shaped by the interplay of migration, race, and institutional norms (Wynter, 2001). Their paths reflect both the barriers and opportunities embedded in Alberta’s Francophone education system, where linguistic minority status intersects with racial and migratory experiences.

• Sylvain: Navigating Racialized Gatekeeping

Originally from Central Africa, Sylvain began his career as a teacher in a Jesuit school before immigrating to Canada, where he had already received educational training. Upon arrival, he furthered his professional qualifications by obtaining a Master of Education from an Ontario university. He gained Canadian teaching experience in Saskatchewan, including interim leadership roles covering for school principals, which laid the groundwork for his advancement into administrative positions.

He served as vice-principal for one year at a Francophone Catholic school, demonstrating leadership capacity within a faith-based, linguistically distinct context. When applying for a principal position at another Francophone Catholic school—predominantly white and likely more established—his application was declined. Despite his qualifications and interim responsibilities, the district cited insufficient experience in school leadership as the reason. Instead, he was directed to École La Providence, a public Francophone school with a reputation he initially perceived as challenging or less desirable.

In his own words, Sylvain acknowledged the decision: “Unfortunately, the person offered the position had more experience than I, and perhaps also in a context that might have been difficult for me” (Interview 2). Regarding École La Providence, he admitted initial reservations: “La Providence is a public school, and the reputation I heard wasn’t necessarily the best… I didn’t know the environment or the school, and when people tried to tell me about it, I said I’d rather not know—I’d prefer to discover it myself, without preconceptions” (Interview 2).

• Armand: From Janitor to Director—Systemic Mobility and Strategic Alignment

Armand holds a PhD from a European country and began his career as a university instructor in French and English literature. Intending to return to the country where he was born, he was forced to delay his plans due to civil conflict. Upon arriving in Quebec, he took a janitorial position, a pragmatic step to stabilize his family’s situation.

After four years in Canada, he pursued a Bachelor of Education at an Ontario university. His first teaching role was in kindergarten at École Le Patchwork, a humbling transition from university professor to early childhood educator. He initially doubted his capacity for the role, feeling the gap too wide, but was encouraged by his wife: “We have children, you’ll learn” (Interview 1).

Over the next four years, he taught under three short-term contracts before securing a permanent position. His dedication and competence led to his promotion to vice-principal at the same school, and one year later, in 2018–2019, he became principal. In September 2024, he assumed the role of director at École El Dorado, marking his continued progression within the school system and affirming his commitment to educational leadership in Francophone minority contexts.

• Hélène: Embodied Representation and Relational Leadership

Hélène’s trajectory is rooted in Alberta’s Francophone education system, schooled in it, and now leading it. She began her teaching career at École Leroy, teaching Grades 2 through 12, then moved to École Paradis in 2016. In 2019, she became vice-principal at Leroy (Grades K–6), and in 2023, she assumed the role of principal at Paradis (Grades 7–12).

As a second-generation immigrant, her progression into leadership was encouraged by her parents and aligned with what she describes as a personal trajectory. Even after becoming an assistant principal, she encountered moments that revealed persistent gaps in representation. She recalls an early experience in which a young student told her, “You can’t be the assistant principal” (Interview 2), which she interprets as evidence of a broader lack of representation. This realization further strengthened her determination to occupy leadership positions, aiming to address this absence and “be a positive role model” for students (Interview 2).

4.2. Tensions Between Representation, Authority, and Systemic Equity

• Sylvain: Navigating Authority, Representation, and the Paradox of Racialized Leadership

When Sylvain arrived at La Providence, he was surprised to see that all teachers were Black women: “I was the only man. There were only women at school. So, I said two things: I need more men and more color” (Interview 1). He further explains:

I don’t want a racialized school. [Otherwise], it would be the school for Black people […]. It was part of my requirements that students realize that we are not in Africa, that parents realize we are not in Africa. We are in Canada. Diversity needs to be reflected at the level of students as well as at the level of staff.

(Interview 1)

Sylvain actively resists any perception that his position stems from tokenism, diversity quotas, or racial representation by framing his professional identity around competence and legitimacy:

I was hired in a school board where I was practically the only Black person, but we are judged on our competencies, our interpersonal skills, and what we bring that’s different to the school. That’s how you stand out. Even when you reach a leadership position, it’s about the qualities you project, your approach, your management abilities—that’s what matters.

(Interview 2)

He emphasizes his desire for balanced staff demographics: “I don’t want a school where all teachers are Black, and all students are Black or immigrants. That’s not what I want.” This reflects a belief in integration and merit-based inclusion rather than identity-based representation.

Despite this, he acknowledges the persistent undercurrent of racialized scrutiny even from colleagues. He recounts an incident with his white secretary during his first year as principal: when questioned about a decision, she asked: “Is this your first year in school leadership?” When he replied no, she followed up: “Is it because I’m white?” He interpreted this as a challenge to his authority and possibly an implication that he might favor racialized individuals. He responded by questioning whether she believed he granted privileges to Black people, signaling his awareness of how his identity is perceived and potentially weaponized in professional dynamics.

Sylvain’s perception of diversity is shaped by his position as a Black school leader in a context where external social dynamics, particularly those tied to ethnicity and neighborhood, significantly influence school life. He observes that schools are not isolated from their surrounding communities: conflicts among students often stem from parental tensions or broader socio-ethnic dynamics in the neighborhood, requiring administrators to trace issues beyond school walls.

However, his conceptualization of diversity does not engage with systemic inequities, rights, or power hierarchies. Instead, he focuses on social dynamics within the staff, observing that newly arrived racialized teachers often gravitate toward one another, forming informal networks. While acknowledging this as natural, he views it as potentially disruptive to school hierarchy and organizational cohesion, implying a concern that such bonding might challenge formal authority structures or create perceived cliques.

• Armand: System-Level Framing of Inclusion

Armand acknowledges that while he does not hold direct data on student demographics, he is confident that his Francophone school board maintains precise, school-by-school statistics, including origin, language, and cultural background, gathered through regular surveys.

He contrasts the two schools he has led: École Le Patchwork and École El Dorado. Le Patchwork is deeply multicultural: around 70% of families are immigrants, while El Dorado is nearly homogenous, with, according to him, 98–99% of families identifying as white and locally rooted. He emphasizes that pedagogically, both schools follow the same curriculum, mission, and provincial standards. Teaching methods may vary by teacher, but the framework is identical. The real differences lie in social context and family capacity. At Le Patchwork, many families have newly arrived, navigating survival, working multiple jobs, unfamiliar with Canadian systems, and often lacking the resources or knowledge to support their children’s academic needs. This requires the school to step in, such as providing a free breakfast program to compensate for parents’ time and financial constraints. At El Dorado, such support is unnecessary as families are typically more economically stable, able to access tutors, and already familiar with institutional norms.

Armand emphasizes that cultural misunderstandings are inevitable but preventable through education. He rejects censorship, arguing that even charged terms like the “N” word can be used pedagogically to teach history, not erased out of discomfort. He calls for extending cultural competency training beyond leadership to all teachers and stresses the need to avoid comparisons like “here in Canada, this is how it’s done” (Interview 1). Instead, he champions patience, integration, and adaptation: “Someone arrives with baggage. We must help them understand, not judge” (Interview 1). He draws parallels to placing a white Québécois teacher in a rural African village. The disorientation would be mutual, and the solution is not assimilation but support.

Armand views diversity not as a symbolic gesture but as a structural and pedagogical imperative, one that requires intentionality, training, and institutional courage. He sees his own trajectory, from PhD holder to janitor in Quebec, then teacher, vice-principal, and now director, as emblematic of the broader underrepresentation of racialized leaders in Francophone education. He notes that when he became principal, he realized he was “almost the only one,” prompting him to question whether systemic hesitation, skepticism, or fear was at play. He insists that recruitment must prioritize competence first: “We don’t hire immigrants to look good,” (Interview 1) but also demands that doors be opened once competence is demonstrated.

He acknowledges the school district’s efforts but urges continued expansion, particularly in staffing. He sees the growing number of Black and immigrant students in Francophone schools as a demographic reality that must be reflected in the teaching and administrative workforce. He frames this not as tokenism but as institutional legitimacy: when students see themselves represented among staff, schools become more credible, responsive, and effective.

• Hélène: Diversity as Lived Reality

Hélène’s school is large and deeply diverse, a “school of the world,” where students arrive with vastly different life experiences: some have known only Canada, others have lived in refugee camps, lost parents, or come from families in crisis. For Hélène, diversity is a daily reality. She challenges educators to look beyond curriculum and ask: “What does this child need right now? For some, French class may not be the priority; survival, safety, or emotional support might be” (Interview 1).

She acknowledges that the school board, through the Francophone school leaders’ association and internal initiatives, has invested in training over the past two years, particularly around the professional integration of teachers and students from diverse backgrounds. She also notes that the board recently attempted to collect ethnic origin data from students and believes such data helps educators understand cultural values and behaviors.

She observes that diversity at her schools has always been present. Leroy and Paradis schools were historically the only public Francophone schools in their area and were known for their inclusivity. But today, the diversity is broader: not just African Francophone, but from Asia, Europe, and across Canada, reflecting Canada’s evolving immigration patterns and the growing global nature of Francophonie.

For Hélène, diversity is something to be lived, understood, and responded to with openness. She sees it as natural, evolving, and essential, and believes that knowing where students and staff come from helps educators better serve them, not by changing who they are, but by meeting them where they are.

4.3. Transformative Possibilities of Leadership

• Sylvain: Authority-Centered Leadership and Risk Management

As a Black man in a leadership role, Sylvain sees himself as uniquely positioned to address discrimination openly. He notes: “At some point, you have to make them understand things as they are. But I couldn’t (perhaps) allow myself to do that as a white person, because immediately I’d be accused… there’s really this fear of perception” (Interview 1). He believes racial identity affects how authority and truth-telling are received and that his own identity grants him a degree of legitimacy or immunity in confronting sensitive issues about race.

His core battle is against communautarism, which he describes as the tendency for staff to prioritize ethnocultural affinity over institutional duty. He sees this phenomenon as eroding accountability and student outcomes. He observes teachers covering for colleagues, avoiding difficult conversations with families from their own backgrounds, and protecting students out of loyalty rather than enforcing standards. To counter this, he advocates for diverse recruitment, clear professional boundaries, and structured accountability. He positions himself as the sole mediator between families and staff, controlling communication. He justifies this by stating he wants to protect teachers from potential false accusations of racism.

Sylvain’s priorities are rooted in reshaping the school’s identity, expanding equity, and dismantling cultural silos. He aims to change how École La Providence is perceived by treating every parent interaction as a deliberate project to rebuild trust. His motivation emerged from direct engagement with the school community, not top-down mandates. He ensures underprivileged students have access to opportunities, like subsidized ski trips, by embedding costs into existing fees to normalize participation without resistance, turning inclusion into tradition. Internally, he fosters a culture where teachers are encouraged to admit mistakes, framing vulnerability as a path to growth rather than failure, and explicitly rejects punitive management, stating staff are hired to develop, not to be discarded.

His vision of an intercultural school would be where cultures coexist respectfully and hold each other accountable. But this vision remains entirely dependent on his personal authority. He does not delegate cultural transformation as he embodies it, asserting himself as the gatekeeper, mediator, and moral compass of the institution.

• Armand: Competence Discourse and Strategic Alignment

His leadership philosophy centers on humility, dialogue, and systemic change, initiated from the top but sustained through training, self-awareness, and the dismantling of unconscious bias in hiring and daily practice. He believes that true inclusion is not passive. It is built through courageous, uncomfortable, and continuous conversations.

Armand sees his role as school director as one of strategic leadership, not direct socio-professional integration, a responsibility he delegates to community organizations where he facilitates training sessions on cultural adaptation, parenting norms, and school system navigation. He does not replicate this work within the school as he believes it belongs to the broader ecosystem of immigrant support, and that schools must focus on pedagogy, inclusion, and professional standards. Ultimately, Armand’s leadership is defined by clarity: competence is non-negotiable, empathy is essential, and inclusion must be structural, not symbolic, not individual, but institutional, collaborative, and sustained.

He draws a firm boundary between his role and systemic responsibility: while he fosters empathy, patience, and cultural curiosity within his school, he insists that training, integration, and structural support for immigrant teachers and families belong to the district, not individual principals. He sees this as a matter of scale and sustainability: he can’t personally guide every newcomer, but the system can and must through partnerships with community organizations, targeted training and policy.

He advocates for mandatory, ongoing training for school leaders, especially in multicultural contexts, to equip them with tools to navigate shifting demographics. He credits his former superintendent at the school district for initiating critical programs on “courageous conversations” and culturally competent recruitment practices, such as understanding that in some countries, applicants include age or birthdate on resumes, which Canadian hiring managers may misinterpret or discard.

Armand’s priorities are anchored in personal ambition, institutional loyalty, and a clear-eyed view of systemic responsibility. His strategy is deliberate: by aligning himself with the district’s mission, praising its efforts, and subtly signaling his readiness to lead at a higher level, he positions himself as not just a beneficiary of the system, but a potential steward of its evolution. He believes diversity is not a challenge to be managed but a reality to be embraced, and that the host society has a duty to adapt, not only the newcomer. That means training professionals to be patient, empathetic, and culturally aware so that newcomers are not just tolerated but empowered to thrive.

• Hélène: Professional Collaboration and Community Engagement

Hélène’s leadership is characterized by a strong commitment to creating a school climate that supports teachers’ socioprofessional integration. She emphasizes openness, transparency, and frequent communication with newly hired teachers to minimize uncertainty and foster trust. Although she recognizes her obligation to carry out pedagogical supervision and evaluation, she frames her role primarily as supportive rather than punitive, stating that she sees herself as “a pedagogical leader who tries to support them, to be problem-solving, to find resources” and not “as the enemy when I open their classroom door” (Interview 1).

She communicates realistic expectations to novice teachers, acknowledging the heavy demands of the first year. She does not expect perfection. Instead, she prioritizes evidence of growth, receptiveness to feedback, and collaborative problem-solving. This message of openness and support is consistently part of her beginning-of-year discourse. When working with teachers from migrant backgrounds, she adopts a highly explicit and structured approach. She meets with them in advance to clarify processes and expectations and relies heavily on concrete examples and templates to reduce ambiguity.

Interpersonal relationships are described as foundational to her leadership philosophy. She values informal interactions with staff as a way of supporting professional growth while also coming to know teachers as individuals. She stresses the importance of understanding where people come from, noting that “knowing where our students come from as well as our staff, we better understand each other’s values” (Interview 2). Through informal conversations, she learns about teachers’ personal situations, families, and priorities: “It’s really the interpersonal part that I value… How can I support them?” (Interview 2). These exchanges are not conducted through formal interviews about origins but emerge organically through everyday interactions.

She defines her role not as enforcing rigidity but as accompanying teachers in their professional development. Rather than imposing a system that conflicts with teachers’ values or educational philosophies, she seeks to build upon what is already present. As she explains, “This is not to take away from their educational philosophy, it is to add a bit” (Interview 2). Her approach is thus additive and developmental rather than corrective.

Her priorities center on preventing teachers from feeling isolated and overwhelmed in their professional responsibilities. She places strong emphasis on collective work and regular collaboration, explaining that her objective is “to prevent teachers from feeling alone in all of this” (Interview 2). To this end, she organizes frequent collaborative sessions during which teachers work together to address shared challenges.

Beyond her work with teachers, she understands her leadership role as extending into the broader community, particularly through becoming a visible and positive role model. She explains that one of her core motivations was “to become a community role model for young people who were born in Canada and whose parents come from immigration,” especially in a context where such models were lacking (Interview 2). Drawing on her own lived experience, she highlights the challenges faced by second-generation children of immigrants, whose parents often work multiple jobs and raise several children while navigating unfamiliar systems. She notes that these challenges can be as significant as those experienced by newly arrived immigrant students. However, she observes an important disparity in support:

A child who immigrates to Canada often receives more support and resources when they arrive… because they have government support and many people helping them, whereas our parents had individual support, but once they had children, they no longer had that support for their children’s school integration.

(Interview 2)

With students, particularly newcomers, she conducts structured interviews using a question grid to explore students’ origins, cultures, and beliefs. This process allows her to better support students in a diverse public-school context. She emphasizes that overlooking cultural and experiential factors can lead to misunderstandings, especially given that some students have experienced interrupted schooling, time in refugee camps, or cultural norms that limited access to education. As she explains, “Believing they all have the same educational background would be a mistake” (Interview 1). Understanding students’ contexts enables her to provide relevant information, support integration, and address gaps in prior learning: “To integrate them into school, we need to understand what is missing” (Interview 1).

She emphasizes that many parents raise children within the school system “without really knowing what they are getting into, lacking information about how the education system functions, what resources exist, and what role parents are expected to play” (Interview 2). Some parents, she explains, were educated to believe that schooling is entirely the responsibility of the school, which can lead to misunderstandings and challenges for students. These difficulties are often particularly pronounced for children born in Canada from migrant parents, as their parents may not have received guidance on the education system themselves.

Her commitment to representation and community engagement is reflected in her involvement in leadership programs and community-based initiatives aimed at student inclusion, such as theater and other extracurricular activities. She explains that she sought to be involved in various organizations to promote shared values and affirm belonging, including within the Franco-Albertan community. At the time, she notes, it was difficult for students to imagine that “someone who looked like me, who had the same background as me, could become a teacher” (Interview 2). She explains that she was among the first in her community to enter the profession and that students often expressed surprise, asking whether they themselves could pursue such a career. This lack of representation reinforced her decision to continue into leadership roles in order “to show that we could do more” (Interview 2).

5. Discussion

The findings highlight how three Black school leaders navigate, negotiate, and reshape leadership practices within normatively white Francophone minority institutions. Drawing on the sociogenic principle and theories of transformative leadership, the findings illuminate both the constraints imposed by institutional norms and the varied ways leaders mobilize their positionality to enact change. Rather than treating diversity as an external variable to be managed, Sylvain, Armand and Hélène reveal how leadership is co-produced through relationships, histories, emotions, and social contexts—core tenets of a sociogenic understanding of educational leadership (Wynter, 2001).

5.1. Sociogenic Leadership and the Weight of Positionality

The sociogenic principle emphasizes that leadership identities and practices are shaped by social relations, historical trajectories, and institutional contexts rather than being individual attributes. Our participants have an acute awareness of their positionality as Black leaders in predominantly white systems, particularly through their shared experience of being ’the only one’ in leadership roles. This awareness, however, materializes differently depending on their trajectories, institutional familiarity, and perceived legitimacy.

Sylvain and Armand explicitly resist being framed as representatives of diversity, insisting instead on competence, professionalism, and merit as the basis of their authority. This resistance can be interpreted sociogenically as a strategic response to racialized scrutiny within institutions where Black leadership remains exceptional rather than normalized. Their insistence on competence is not a rejection of diversity per se, but a way to neutralize the risk of tokenization and protect professional legitimacy. In this sense, their leadership is shaped as much by what the institution permits as by what it constrains.

Hélène, by contrast, embraces her visibility and actively mobilizes it as a relational and symbolic resource. Her leadership is explicitly shaped by the absence of role models during her own schooling, positioning her work as a corrective to that historical lack. Through the sociogenic lens, her leadership is not merely personal but reparative: she inhabits the role she once needed, thereby reshaping what leadership looks like for students, families, and staff. Her positionality is not something to be managed or downplayed, but something to be lived and shared.

Importantly, despite their different narratives, all three demonstrate a high degree of reflexivity about their positionality. They are aware that their race shapes how they are perceived, assigned, and evaluated. This is further underscored by the fact that the institution placed each of them in ethnoculturally diverse schools for their first leadership experiences. Such placements suggest that diversity is not incidental but strategically mobilized by the system—raising questions about whether racialized leaders are implicitly positioned as specialists of diversity rather than leaders for all contexts.

5.2. Context as a Sociogenic Force: Leadership Beyond School Walls

All three leaders emphasize the importance of understanding school context and acknowledge that schools are deeply embedded in their surrounding communities. This aligns with Gurr and Drysdale’s (2020) argument that effective leadership requires contextual intelligence—the capacity to interpret ambiguity and respond meaningfully to complex social dynamics.

Sylvain’s leadership practices—centralizing authority, controlling communication with families, and positioning himself as mediator—reflect an attempt to stabilize the institution amid complex social forces.

From a transformative leadership perspective (Shields & Gélinas-Proulx, 2022), Sylvain’s actions demonstrate both potential and limitations. On the one hand, his willingness to name racism, challenge communautarism, and ensure equitable access to opportunities aligns with transformative aims of disrupting exclusionary practices. His ability to speak openly about race highlights how sociogenic legitimacy can enable certain forms of truth-saying that may be inaccessible to white leaders (Grace & Lastrapes, 2024). On the other hand, his approach remains heavily individualized and authority-centered. While effective in the short term, this raises questions about sustainability: transformation remains dependent on the leader rather than embedded in institutional culture.

Armand similarly situates leadership within broader social systems but responds by emphasizing structural responsibility at the district level. His insistence that socioprofessional integration, cultural training, and family support exceed the scope of individual principals reflects a sociogenic understanding of scale and system. Rather than embodying transformation alone, he seeks to institutionalize it through policy, training, and partnerships. This approach aligns with transformative leadership’s emphasis on systemic change but also reveals a cautious stance shaped by institutional loyalty and career aspirations.

5.3. Diversities of Positionalities in Transformative Leadership Orientations

Transformative leadership demands more than managing diversity; it requires a fundamental rethinking of structures, relationships, and institutional futures (Shields & Gélinas-Proulx, 2022). The findings reveal that the participants occupy distinct positions along a continuum of adaptive and transformative practice, each shaped by their sociogenic trajectories, institutional positioning, and perceived agency within the system.

Sylvain and Armand, both socialized abroad and relative newcomers to Alberta’s Francophone education system, adopt leadership approaches characterized by institutional alignment, strategic caution, and a focus on stability. Their styles reflect what might be understood as sociogenically constrained agency: as racialized leaders navigating legitimacy within a predominantly white institutional framework, their margins for deviation are narrow. Sylvain’s emphasis on authority centralization and Armand’s reliance on systemic alignment, prioritizing integration, regulatory coherence, and incremental change, are approaches necessary for survival and credibility in contexts where racialized leaders face heightened scrutiny. Their leadership is not merely conservative but strategically adaptive, addressing immediate inequities while operating within the boundaries of existing power structures. Sylvain’s resistance to tokenism and Armand’s advocacy for district-level policy shifts, for example, reveal attempts to navigate and subtly reshape institutional norms, even if their transformations remain bounded by present constraints.

Hélène, socialized within the Alberta Francophone system, demonstrates a leadership orientation that leverages institutional fluency and relational capital to enact change. Her approach—rooted in accompaniment, collective reflection, and lived experience—aligns with Sergiovanni’s (1992) concept of “quiet leadership,” blending care with professional rigor. However, her ability to “work the system” rather than merely comply with it may reflect privileged access to institutional knowledge and networks, afforded by her insider status. While her leadership foregrounds relationality and future-oriented vision, it is important to recognize that her transformative capacity is enabled by her embeddedness in the system, a position that Sylvain and Armand, as outsiders, have yet to fully occupy. Her modeling of leadership for marginalized students and teachers, while significant, operates within the same structural limitations that constrain her peers; the difference lies in her greater latitude to experiment due to her institutional tenure and recognition.

Critically, all three leaders grapple with the tension between adaptation and transformation. Sylvain and Armand, though deeply committed to equity, focus on stabilizing their schools, enforcing standards, and managing complexity within current frameworks—a stance that may reflect structural realities rather than personal limitations. Armand, in particular, locates the potential for broader change at the district level, suggesting a strategic understanding that meaningful transformation requires positional authority beyond the school. This perspective underscores how institutional hierarchy itself shapes what counts as “transformative”, privileging those with proximity to power. Hélène’s future-oriented leadership, while visionary, is not inherently more radical; rather, it emerges from a different set of constraints and opportunities, including her long-standing presence in the system and the trust she has cultivated over time.

Ultimately, the participants’ leadership styles reveal that transformative potential is not solely a matter of individual orientation but of institutional permission. Sylvain’s and Armand’s present-focused strategies may be as much a response to systemic gatekeeping as Hélène’s future-oriented stance is a product of institutional endorsement. The continuum they inhabit—from adaptive to transformative—is less a measure of their commitment to change than a reflection of how power is distributed, contested, and negotiated within Francophone minority schools.

5.4. Navigating Double Binds and Cultural Dissonance

The findings also resonate with Bettini et al.’s (2022) notion of double binds, extending it to school leaders. Sylvain’s accounts of teachers hesitating to confront families, fearing accusations of racism, illustrate how leaders must navigate contradictory expectations: uphold institutional norms while avoiding cultural offense. Similarly, Armand’s reliance on external associations to support family integration and Hélène’s attention to teachers’ and students’ values reflect efforts to manage the dissonance between a standardized school system and increasingly diverse human realities.

All three leaders identify gaps between the school system and teachers or families from immigrant backgrounds and attempt to address these gaps within their perceived scope of action. Yet their strategies differ: rule enforcement, delegation to external partners, or relational accompaniment. These variations underscore that diversity work in leadership is not uniform but contingent, negotiated, and deeply shaped by power relations.

5.5. Modeling Leadership and the Politics of Change

Finally, the study reveals contrasting conceptions of leadership as modeling. Hélène explicitly leads by example, seeking to inspire teachers and students by embodying an alternative leadership possibility. Sylvain and Armand, by contrast, lead primarily through rules, structures, and institutional alignment. Their leadership does not aim to be inspirational in a symbolic sense, but legitimate and uncontestable.

Taken together, these findings advance discussions on critical and transformative educational leadership by demonstrating that leadership in diverse contexts is not simply about inclusion, but about reconfiguring power, legitimacy, and belonging. The sociogenic principle allows us to see how leadership emerges at the intersection of identity, history, and institution, while transformative leadership clarifies the conditions under which change becomes possible—or constrained.

The study suggests that schools cannot merely accommodate diversity; they must actively transform leadership structures, pedagogies, and policies to recognize, legitimize, and sustain historically marginalized voices. Importantly, this transformation does not follow a single path. It is negotiated differently depending on leaders’ socialization, institutional positioning, and perceived freedom to act.

In increasingly diverse Francophone minority contexts, transformative leadership must therefore be understood as a collective, sociogenic project—one that moves beyond individual heroism to embed equity, care, and representation into the fabric of educational systems themselves.

6. Conclusions

The findings highlight how three Black school leaders navigate, negotiate, and reshape leadership practices within normatively white Francophone minority institutions. Our study reveals that diversity is not treated as an external variable to be managed by our three schools’ leaders. Rather, it shows how leadership is co-produced through relationships, histories, emotions, and social contexts—core tenets of a sociogenic understanding of educational leadership.

Drawing on the sociogenic principle and theories of transformative leadership, the findings illuminate both the constraints imposed by institutional norms and the varied ways leaders mobilize their positionality to enact and sometimes trigger change. As such, the study reveals contrasting conceptions of leadership as modeling. Hélène explicitly leads by example, seeking to inspire teachers and students by embodying an alternative leadership possibility, which might be labeled as “quiet leadership.” By contrast, Sylvain and Armand lead primarily through rules, structures, and institutional alignment. Their leadership does not primarily aim to be inspirational in a symbolic sense, but legitimate and uncontestable.

While our school leaders acknowledge the legitimacy of diversity and the need to empower historically marginalized voices in schools, active transformation must be implemented at all levels: pedagogy, teacher and administrator training, and structural implementation. Our study underscores the need to develop a community of practice for racialized school leaders that would help them navigate the double binds and cultural dissonance, as well as to alleviate the feeling of always being in “an ejection seat”. Finally, the results of our study led us to assert that transformative leadership in minority Francophone and multicultural school contexts does not follow a homogeneous pathway; the socialization context is important and should be further investigated in intersection with race-gender-immigration, as well as in light of the tension communautarism exerts on racialized principals’ leadership in Francophone minoritarian contexts. We acknowledged however that our qualitative study is based on a small sample of respondents; hence, our findings are analytically transferable, but not generalizable. A broader longitudinal sample for further research is needed to develop a deeper and nuanced understanding of the experience of racialized school principals and the intersection between the trajectories, leadership and power structures.