This paper addresses the aim of building educators’ capacities to work as lead professionals for democratic ethics. The rationale for this capacity-building is drawn from a multi-methodological “bricolage” Kincheloe’s (2005) of critical, philosophical, curricular, and pedagogical theorizing, which provides the curricular “platform” (Walker & Soltis, 2009) for a study-based professional development approach. The paper begins with an overview of the action research in a graduate curriculum course. This design has been guided by Schwab’s (1971) argument for the practice of arts of the eclectic in curriculum work and by Deleuze’s (1993) concept of folding as “the expression of a continuous and vital force of being and becoming” (Conley, 2011, p. 202). Three ethical themes—which allow for a value-based pluralism—serve as the course’s normative referent: critical pragmatism, democratic hermeneutics, and holistic pedagogy. Graduate students’ understanding of this normative referent is advanced through the study of eight curriculum fundamentals as applied to three projects: an educational criticism, a lead-learning plan of action, and a currere expression (Henderson et al., 2015; Pinar, 2012). The relevance of this professional development method for teacher leaders is next discussed. In mainstream literature teacher leaders are primarily represented as technically trained, bureaucratic functionaries, skillfully carrying out the standardized management of instruction with a sense of uncritical, value-neutral efficiency. Such teacher leadership can unwittingly contribute to hegemonic forces that de-intellectualize and de-skill curriculum-based pedagogy. By engaging in the above described course design, teacher leaders can build their capacities to embody and advance democracy as a moral way of living (Dewey, 1939/1989). The paper concludes with an analysis of how administrative leaders can support this reconceptualized teacher leadership. If ‘good’ curriculum work is interpreted as the study and practice of the relationship between educational courses of action and democratic ethics, then administrative leadership must also be grounded in this inquiry and praxis logic. If we are to expect classroom teachers to engage in deep-seated study and practice of the relationship between the what, the how, and the why of educational courses of action, no less is required of administrators. The administrative role in wise curriculum work (Henderson & Gornik, 2007) is to create a deep democratic ethos to support ‘good’ curriculum actions (Samford, in press). Creating a culture of trust and renewal (Sirotnik, 1999) that invites change will assist all educators on their currere journeys (Pinar, 2012) in a context that structurally values such teaching/learning/leading.

Conley, T. (2011). Folds and folding. In C. J. Stivale (Ed.), Gilles Deleuze: Key concepts (pp. 192-203). Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Deleuze, G. (1993). The fold: Leibniz and the baroque (T. Conley, Trans). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Dewey, J. (1989). Freedom and culture. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. (Original work published 1939) Henderson, J. G., et al. (2015). Reconceptualizing curriculum development: Inspiring and informing action. New York, NY: Routledge. Henderson, J. G., & Gornik, R. (2007). Transformative curriculum leadership (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(3), 323-350. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Samford, W. L. (in press). Out of the dark: A direction for change in education. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of the eclectic. School Review, 79, 493-542. Sirotnik, K. A. (1999, April). Making sense of educational renewal. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(8), 606-610. Walker, D. F., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). Curriculum and aims (5th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.