Around the globe and across industries, women remain underrepresented in leadership, and the field of education is no different. For example, in the US, in 2021, fewer than 30% of high school principals identified as women (NCES, 2023), and only 28% of superintendents are women (White, 2023). Women of color were even less well represented – in the same year, only 23% of principals in US public schools identified as people of color, and only 7% of principals identified as Black women. Similarly, only 1.5% of superintendents identified as Black women and only 1% as Latinas (Miles Nash and Grogan, 2022). Data on other intersecting racial/ethnic identities and/or those with other marginalized identities is hard to locate and has become only more so since the second Trump administration canceled 100s of contracts associated with the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES).Simultaneously, horizontal segregation persists such that women and women of color are often more concentrated in particular leadership roles (e.g. instructional coaches, directors of pupil services and assistant superintendents) (Weiner and Bouffard, 2026) and in difficult contexts (i.e. the glass cliff) (Timmer and Woo, 2023), which demand elevated levels of emotional labor and care work (Charles, 2003). In general, women leaders experience higher expectations for such work, hindering the ability for advancement and negatively affecting the overall wellbeing and ability to thrive in their roles (Filippi et al., 2025; Peters, 2016; Weiner and Higgins, 2023). If anything, these expectations have only likely increased in the post-COVID era, as workloads and the emotional needs of students and staff have intensified (Hauseman, 2023).Adding to these increased demands, the second Trump administration has pushed what can only be described as an anti-feminist agenda (National Women’s Law Center, 2025), with the negative repercussions of their actions felt around the world. We have, in just the last year, seen the erosion of women’s right of bodily autonomy and the slashing of social programs aimed at supporting women and children and their health. There have been direct attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, LGTBQI + communities and violence and erasure directed towards our trans brothers and sisters.We have also seen the continual degradation of education as well as other, traditionally feminized, professions. The Trump administration’s recent efforts to exclude various women-dominated jobs, including teaching, as “professions” and thus limit access to certain types of federal loans to those pursuing these roles, is a strong example of their devaluation of stereotyped feminized work and has real and negative consequences for women and society. As Gibb (2025) argues, these changes would directly and systematically weaken women’s access and ability to thrive in the workforce. Clearly, the fight for gender equity and equality is far from complete, and we need platforms like this special issue to name these inequities and uplift positive examples as a pathway to reimagine our systems to be more inclusive and just.This need for reinvention includes current conceptualizations of leadership broadly, specifically educational leadership. Just as we have seen masculinized (and White) forms of leadership long being elevated in our professional (Nkomo, 1992, 2021) and political spheres (Löffler et al., 2020; Messner, 2007), so too has the construction of educational leadership reflected this orientation (Alston, 2005; Blount, 1999; Grogan, 2000; Shakeshaft, 1989, 2006; Weiner and Higgins, 2023). Additionally, as theorists like Acker (1990) and Ray (2019) highlight, organizations, including schools and school systems, are neither gender nor racially neutral – race and gender (as well as other forms of identity and power) are being constituted and reconstituted in the space and in ways that operationalize discrimination therein.The impact of such discrimination on women’s and women of color’s access to and ability to thrive in educational leadership is well-documented and includes, but is not limited to, biased hiring practices (Weiner et al., 2022); harsher critiques of their practice (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Rosette et al., 2016); less access to support and mentoring (Méndez-Morse, 2004; Myung et al., 2011; Peters 2010) and other forms of gender discrimination and gendered racism in situ (Aaron, 2020; Burton et al., 2020). Studies also show how all these elements manifest in the more winding and difficult career trajectories of women aiming to lead in education (Bailes and Guthery, 2020). Again, this is particularly true for women of color who are disproportionately placed in schools and school systems in crisis (Reed, 2012).As such, the need for new ways of thinking about and enacting leadership and advocacy for change amongst those of us who still have the freedom and privilege to engage is critical. Therefore, I am proud to present this special issue on women and leadership. On this note, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the courage of the authors included here. Just as those from marginalized backgrounds have been under threat because of various pieces of “anti-DEI” legislation and the current socio-political context, so too are many of those who study these issues (in many cases, these individuals are one and the same). I do not take the potential risk of contributing to this volume lightly and hope their voices will encourage others who are able to continue this important work and fight for justice.With all that said, I am so grateful for this opportunity to spotlight this work and push us all to continue to ask the very questions that drove this special issue. What will the future of the field and women’s ability to thrive within it look like? Will the gains so hard fought and still unevenly distributed based on race, ethnicity and other marginalized identities slip away? How can we move to increase solidarity in this fight, particularly at the intersection of race and gender? Is there a better path forward, and how do we get on it?I call on those in the field to give energy to answering these questions and treat gender discrimination, gendered racism and other forms of gender-based violence as the crises they are – because losing great women leaders and/or creating environments in which they and others with vulnerable gender identities cannot thrive or must work 10x harder to do so is a crisis. Moreover, in our efforts for change we must remember not to reinforce stereotypes or tropes of women, women of color, trans people or anyone else but rather uplift their unique stories and experiences and situate change in systems of oppression. This includes explicitly challenging how Whiteness and patriarchy have shaped our field and policies and practices that reify discrimination across the pipeline. We must also be vigilant in our attention towards whose stories are elevated and shared as well as who gets to tell them. While there is clearly, and sometimes exhaustingly, so much more to do, I believe the 10 articles in this special issue are an essential contribution to this larger conversation and feel extremely privileged to provide a short overview of each one below.First are two articles focused on an oft-overlooked population of women leaders: those in rural settings. Hudson and Hickman (2026), in her piece Intersecting demands: work-life balance and role theory among women school principals in rural settings, focuses on the work-life demands of rural women principals and the impact it has on their job satisfaction and wellbeing. In addition to reframing work-life balance as work-life fluidity, the findings highlight the political vulnerability women principals in rural settings face as well as the limited support they are provided to enhance their wellbeing. Given that over 2/3 of the participants were contemplating leaving the profession, her work is a call to action to support these and so many other women by engaging in systemic change.Next, utilizing the Delphi method, in their articles, Navigating the glass ceiling, gender equity and overcoming barriers in rural PK-12 educational leadership, Wood et al. (2026) focus on rural women school and district leaders in one state. Findings indicate that these women face many of the same structural challenges highlighted in other school settings (i.e. gender bias in evaluations of expertise, limited mentorship opportunities). In response, the authors call for more professional development to build women’s technical and operational knowledge and their toolbox of strategies for addressing gender bias in the field. They also call on others to encourage and support women's networks and mentorship.Second, four additional articles move us to how women leaders in various settings experience and respond to gender discrimination and gendered racism in situ and make visible the often invisible and underappreciated work of women leaders. This includes Hollweck et al.'s (2026) study, Unaccounted work of women leaders – the experience and impact of providing emotional labour on women leaders, centering the emotional labor experiences of women principals and assistant principals in Alberta, Canada. Participants understood emotional labor as gendered and that they were expected to engage in it in ways that their male counterparts were not, often to the detriment of their well-being. The authors call for more equitable distribution of care and the work it entails as well as unbound it from gender stereotypes to ensure all educators engage in this important work and can thrive in their roles.Next, in their piece entitled Superintendent voices: the impact of gender and race while seeking and serving in the superintendency, and focused on the experiences of current and recently departed superintendents in North Carolina, Von Dohlen et al. (2026) found that gender discrimination and gendered racism shaped women and Black women’s experiences across the pipeline and in the role. Their inclusion of White and Black men in their sample enabled them to highlight the intersectional nature of male advantage. White male superintendents recognized that they experienced more access to power and opportunity than all other groups – though did not speak to how they might shift these dynamics. In contrast, Black male superintendents faced racial discrimination while simultaneously recognizing that Black women were unfairly held to higher performance expectations than those with other identities occupying the role. Recognizing the role of the school board in reifying these results, the authors call for diversifying these boards while simultaneously improving their hiring practices.Davis et al. (2026), in their article, Black and Latina educational leaders’ motherwork: a reflection of identity, radical care and collective love, offer the opportunity to deepen our understanding of the power of motherwork as radical care rooted in the intersectional identities of Black and Latina educational leaders. Framing motherwork as an act of resistance combating discrimination and making schools safe spaces for Black and Latino children, the authors remind us that such approaches can and should serve as models for others. They also work to ensure that such observations are not taken as permission to ignore the emotional labor and potential exhaustion associated with motherwork. Instead, they call on those in power to address the underlying structural inequalities driving these women’s overwork and limiting access and outcomes for so many children who deserve more.In the only internationally focused piece, Hopeful leadership and reciprocity: One woman’s narrative as school founder, owner and leader in Bangladesh, Sum (2026) uses the framework of reciprocity and hope to explore the practices and experiences of one women international school leader. Her findings show the ways gender inequity shapes a lack of reciprocity towards women leaders in this sector and highlights the need for further research in the context of international schools and women’s roles within them. Simultaneously, she reminds us of the skill and determination women within these systems show daily and that they and other women principals in international schools deserve so much more.Third are three articles highlighting spaces for women leaders to build solidarity and experience safety to grow, learn and care for themselves and others. First, Reynolds Vassar (2026), in Leading Well: a multi-modal model to center Black women principals’ personal and professional wellness practices in Detroit, examines the experiences of 10 Black women principals as they participated in a professional learning community called Leading Well focused on wellness. Using critical frameworks to guide her inquiry, Vassar positions wellness as collective resistance to the commodification of Black women's labor. She finds that Leading Well created a space for solidarity and belonging in which participants could safely develop and manage the stressors associated with their roles and offers clear and explicit steps to replicate this program elsewhere.Next, Pierce and Morris (2026), in their article, Amplifying women’s voices in educational leadership: a third space approach, compare two studies that worked to create third spaces for women engaged in an educational leadership program. Through ongoing engaged practice and participatory action research, the women engaged together and away from the spaces of work and/or home were able to build community, engage in critical reflection and learn about and enact antiracist leadership practices. Their study highlights the need for educational leadership programs to reflect on and likely revise their practices to challenge traditional conceptualizations of leadership as a White and male endeavor and instead to create spaces, whether within or outside their programs, for those traditionally marginalized in leadership to feel safe to learn.In Understanding how micro affirmations support multiply marginalized social justice school leaders to thrive, Cheung and Ballard (2026) highlight how a professional development support network supported women of color experiencing gendered racism and associated microaggressions in their roles. Over a two-year period, the authors witnessed these women engaging in giving and receiving microaffirmations and validations that created respect and mutuality that sustained them in their daily work. Importantly, the authors make clear that the “solution” to microaggressions and other forms of bias hurled at women of color is systemic change and targeted support for all underrepresented leaders. In this way, as is true with many of the authors in this volume, the authors situate the responsibility for change amongst those with the most power and privilege and not those being harmed by these systems.The final article in this collection, “A world of trans vibrance and trans liberation”: How schools support trans educators by Iskander et al. (2026) pushes us to think about how we might all better engage in gender-inclusive leadership. Centering the concept of “trans joy” and the need to explore positive workplace experiences as a means of provoking imagined futures, the authors call on leaders to, as highlighted by participants, proactively implement gender-inclusive behaviors irrespective of policy context. Such framing should move all of us to, as the authors say, de-emphasize “damage-centered research” and work to identify, capture and create affirming spaces filled with love and belongingness for those across the gender spectrum. I hope we can bring similar orientations to leadership as a way of reclaiming care in our professional spaces, offering a new vision for the future of schools and reimagining how we treat and engage with one another.To conclude, my goal with the special issue was to not simply stimulate greater interest and research centering on women’s experiences and educational leadership but to serve as a rallying cry to those in practice to acknowledge and disrupt gender discrimination and gendered racism in all their forms. I hope this volume will serve as a resource and inspiration for practitioners and researchers to meet this call and make K-12 schools and school systems more equitable for all those working and learning within them.
Jennie Weiner (Wed,) studied this question.