ABSTRACT
While there are many reasons to propose new curriculum or instructional leadership approaches, Rayner’s (2010) references to inclusion and growth as well as personal and collective praxis suggest that it cannot be studied and conceptualized with educational administration theories alone. Th e need to create a new curriculum leadership fi eld comes upon realizing that the wellmeaning instructional leadership rhetoric is betrayed not only by its emphasis on professional (data-driven) procedures but also by its failure to link leadership with broader cultural political movements and critical theories required to make inclusion and democratic education a reality.
