THE PEDAGOGICAL LEADERSHIP OF THE PRINCIPAL AND ITS INFLUENCE ON EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW MEXICAN SCHOOL

EL LIDERAZGO PEDAGÓGICO DEL DIRECTOR Y SU INFLUENCIA EN LAS PRÁCTICAS EDUCATIVAS EN EL CONTEXTO DE LA NUEVA ESCUELA MEXICANA

 

Leticia Cruz-Morales¹

E-mail: shunka3004@gmail.com

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7507-2107

Maritza Librada Cáceres-Mesa²

E-mail: maritza_caceres3337@uaeh.edu.mx

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6220-0743

¹ Colegio Pablo Latapí Sarre. México.

² Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo. México.

 

ABSTRACT

The present study is focused on the principal's leadership and its influence on the approach to educational practices in the New Mexican School. Its purpose is to establish the relationship between the principal's pedagogical leadership and teachers' performance. That's why; research was conducted in different scientific journals and educational books, which emphasize the characteristics that a good school management should have, as well as the importance of a pedagogical leadership that transforms teacher’s educational practices. It is important to recognize that educational management must focus now more than ever in the pedagogical field and accordingly reach the best levels that the educational model the New Mexican School demands, in order to achieve the transformations that today's society requires.

Keywords:

Pedagogical leadership, educational practices, school management, New Mexican School.

 

RESUMEN

El presente estudio está encaminado en torno al liderazgo del directivo y su influencia en el abordaje de las prácticas educativas en la Nueva Escuela Mexicana. Tiene como propósito establecer la relación entre el liderazgo pedagógico del director y el desempeño de los docentes. Es por ello que se investigó en diferentes revistas científicas y libros educativos, en donde se enfatiza en las características que debe tener una buena gestión escolar; así como la importancia de un liderazgo pedagogico que transforme las prácticas educativas de los docentes. Es importante reconocer que la gestión educativa debe centrarse ahora más que nunca en el ámbito pedagogico y con ello alcanzar los niveles óptimos que el modelo educativo de la Nueva Escuela Mexicana demanda, en función de alcanzar las transformaciones que la sociedad actual requiere.

Palabras clave:

Liderazgo pedagógico, prácticas educativas, gestión escolar, Nueva Escuela Mexicana.

 

INTRODUCTION

The School Director is undoubtedly a key point for an institution to guarantee educational quality, high school performance, teaching innovation and success in the performance of the functions of all actors. For that reason, school management is essential in educational centers, since it promotes the creation of its own culture; hence the New Mexican School retakes the importance of pedagogical leadership of the school director and the teachers. Rodríguez et al. (2013), state that altruistic motivations, such as the improvement of the center or personal satisfaction, are what make a teacher decide to exercise school leadership.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2011), points out that currently the number of people receiving education is the highest in history, even the poorest countries have increased their schooling rates, thus corroborating the expansion of educational services worldwide. Nevertheless, it is considered that what today's society demands goes beyond having classrooms full of students; it requires changes that make possible a quality education and excellence that manages to be an instrument of social development to solve the today´s problems.

Faced with this situation, the question that can be asked is, what should managerial leadership be like in order to be successful in the school? There may be multiple answers, knowing that educational leaders need to design improvement plans in which the educational context is paramount and the culture of the community is taken into account, as well as emphasizing the ability to form collaborative and cooperative work teams that are able to provide solutions to real problems (Sepúlveda & Aparicio, 2017).

Authors such as Hernández-Castilla, et al. (2017), also make reference to the fact that, for a principal to be successful in the school, it is necessary to carry out a very human leadership, where the opening of the school to the community is promoted, joint goals are established and the development of people within the organization is favored, these aspects are related to the way of doing the pedagogical leadership stated.

Consequently, an important aspect to consider is how to turn management into pedagogical leadership. Given this, it points to the imperative need to generate specific and continuous training to train in competencies related to leadership and leadership development at a professional level (Bolívar, 2010; Gómez, 2011; Rodríguez et al., 2013; Sarasúa, 2013; Vila, 2015; Álvarez, 2016; García & Solbes, 2016; Mehhdinezhad & Sardarzahi, 2016). This will favor the distribution of responsibilities in the center. As a successful leadership practice is the joint work with other centers, thus enhancing the creation of professional learning communities (Lorenzo, 2012; Bolívar, et al., 2014; García & Caballero, 2015).

In some countries such as Spain, it is suggested that in order for the management function to offer pedagogical leadership it is necessary to consider certain characteristics such as: motivation, communication skills, conflict management and coexistence. However, there are some competencies that can hardly be acquired in formal training processes and it is necessary to think of more flexible training contexts (Navarro-Corona, 2017).

The purpose of this paper is to establish the relationship between the principal's pedagogical leadership and teachers' performance. This purpose is of great importance, since there is a generalized vision of the leaders of educational institutions on the impact they have on the learning and performance of the teachers at their expense; there is a belief that it is the teacher who directly executes the pedagogical action and that, in turn, the greater weight of the good and bad results of the learning processes falls on him/her. The leadership style foresees the expectations of results, assuming that a certain action will produce a certain consequence, hence defining the level of motivational effectiveness in the leadership process, where each role is identified and assumed according to the needs of the context. In this sense, the pedagogical leadership must promote the adaptation of its work to the environment in which it develops, generating a favorable environment to the development of its objectives.

According to Bizquera (2000), motivation is a theoretical-hypothetical construct that designates a complex process that causes behavior. Motivation involves multiple variables (biological and acquired) that influence the activation, directionality, intensity and  behavioral coordination aimed at achieving certain goals; they are factors that generate significant changes in a result that can be with different intensity, motivating factors are those that intrinsically move people and are never the same. Consequently, to the extent that it is possible to assume the positive reaction that motivation generates -identifying capabilities-, the expected results are obtained. The most important aspect of this aspect is that satisfaction is not only experienced by the leader, but by all the members of the team.

 

For that reason, it is necessary to rethink the role of the principal in this context, who has assumed, for many years, a purely administrative role, at this point it is necessary to mention that the fault is not entirely theirs, since the bureaucracy in our country has forced them every day to put aside their main role, that of being a pedagogical leader. Based on this, the following question arises: What is the relationship between the principal's pedagogical leadership and teacher performance in the New Mexican School?

In this regard, it is important to consider the contributions of Vaillant (2012), when he refers that in Latin American countries, seniority in the teaching position was considered the main means of promotion to management and leadership positions. Added to this situation, there still persists a disintegration between administrative tasks and pedagogical functions, he highlights that, in the region the improvement of the quality of teaching and learning, remains an unfinished task, there is an urgency to offer quality education to which all students have access in such a way that it is equitable and emphasizes that the best school leadership has a pedagogical emphasis consists of enabling structures and times that make it possible to "develop the professional capital of teachers: as individuals, as teams and as a profession." (p.23)

Likewise Vaillant (2015), refers that it is necessary to better understand how principals can positively influence the educational students´ outcomes and it is required to clearly identify which the leadership practices that support an adequate performance of teachers in schools are, likewise warns that school leadership is built, and refers to the faculty to guide, excite and motivate students and teachers. And these processes are not innate, but require skills that can be promoted and developed through training, collaboration and peer-to-peer exchange processes.

For that reason, it has been considered that, within the scope of the demands of the New Mexican School, pedagogical leadership should be assumed as a process of direct and indirect academic influence on teachers as subjects involved in educational practices and student learning, from where the interaction of all the members of the educational community is mobilized and promoted, from a strategic perspective, leading to the achievement of the established goals, in coherence with the aspirations declared in the graduate's profile, all this as an input that conditions a school culture, which promotes the change of the organization.

In this area, leadership can offer an articulated vision of the goals and missions of the educational organization, since it contributes to the transformation of the school culture, because there is both individual and collective capacity to solve problems, and from this position Bass (2000) and Chamorro (2005), argue that transformational leadership can be directive or participative, and specify that the three structural elements of this style of leadership are: collegial functioning, the development of explicit goals and the creation of a zone of proximal development for the principal and his staff. From this point of view, the school culture is strengthened for the benefit of the school, guiding the behavioral patterns of its members, the principal uses the set of skills, knowledge, strategies and abilities to strengthen the school project assign tasks or solve problems. According to Bass & Avolio (1994), transformational leadership offers the way to achieve greater results, which are delimited below:

In order to achieve educational quality, many factors have an influence, some of which are related to the cultural, social and economic context of the students; however, there are other elements of great relevance that also influence this objective. In the case of management and pedagogical leadership exercised by the directors, since their participation is a fundamental element when aiming to achieve quality education. Freire & Miranda (2014), state that some conditions within schools also show important associations, as is the case of the principal's management, which would undoubtedly have effects on learning.

Although it is clear not to confuse or address only school management as an act that involves making requests to agencies so that the school or educational institution benefits from some material or economic resource, at this point, in the Anthology 2020 of Basic Education for Teachers, designed by the Unit of the System for the Career of Teachers, where it is mentioned that "in the educational field management is classified into three categories, according to their level of concreteness within the system, which are: institutional, school and pedagogical". (p.178)

In such a way that each one becomes relevant according to the attention it generates, however, they have a point in common, which is to generate a work or a dynamic in which the group or members that belong to it are benefited and improve the things or situations in which all the actors are involved. According to Hopkings & Reynolds (2006), it assumes a culture of collaboration among the actors who manage the change towards educational quality, so that this change involves the transformation of their own pedagogical practices and thus improve student learning. Likewise, according to Bolivar (1999), it is necessary to design communities that are concerned with learning to do things better, since making a good school depends solely and exclusively on each one of them, where communicative interaction and co-responsibility in the conduction of academic processes should be privileged.

They also argue that both institutional, school and pedagogical management are in uncertain contexts and with changing conditions, hence the importance of reinventing, systematizing and continuously modifying the objectives, strategies, practices and organizational culture of each school institution.

According to the 2020 Anthology of Basic Education for Teachers, designed by USICAMM, each of the three categories that are classified around management in the field of education are defined.

DEVELOPMENT

In the educational field, Institutional Management establishes the lines of action of each of the administrative instances that rule it. Accordingly, it considers the generation of projects, programs and the articulation of these, these categories are not only at the national level, since it is essential to have a broader vision that goes to different levels of the education system, that is, in it the national, state, regional and local levels are found, having in all the interrelation with all the actors who are in it, integrating them in such a way that a quality education with equity for all is placed in the center of the educational transformation.

Institutional management, in general, includes actions that refer to the administrative, managerial, personal policy, economic, budgetary, planning, programming, regulation, guidance, among others, since it is a process that helps to the proper conduct of projects and actions related to each other, that is , the linkage with government agencies and their practices to achieve the objectives set at the national level, since it is used to evaluate the educational system and thus know the general direction and so redesign and reorient them to fulfill the institutional mission, therefore, shared objectives are proposed in an inter-institutional manner.

 

This type of management must not only be effective, it must also be adequate and adapted to the contexts and realities of each institution, because it is necessary to mobilize all members of the educational field, since it is essential to coordinate efforts and cooperate in actions since the objectives must be shared, hence the importance of designing intra and inter-institutional alliances.

According to Cassasus (2000), in order for institutional management to be effective, it is essential to facilitate development paths towards real educational change, from and for schools. Above all, if understand management is understood as a tool to grow in efficiency, effectiveness, pertinence and relevance, as well as to have the flexibility, maturity and openness to the new ways in which education must be faced in school microsystems, which at any given moment have repercussions in the macrosystem.

Alvarado (1999), on the other hand, defines institutional management as the implementation of a set of procedures, instruments and techniques for the management of resources, as well as the importance of the development of institutional activities, that is, institutional management is related to the management of strategies, and in turn this is given through management tools which are applied in different activities, all with the purpose of achieving the planned in institutional management.

It is important to mention that in institutional management the actions that are prioritized are carried out in a systematic way and that the objectives must always be directed with the aim of advancing with great precision and constancy towards a single end, that is, it must always be in favor of a basic education of quality and excellence.

Therefore, institutional management in the educational field has as its means and end to answer back to the fundamental purposes of education, thus becoming a strategic action, whose purpose is to promote education and obtain quality results, including an evaluative culture, and to strengthen the institution.

For that reason, in the field of institutional management, it is necessary to point out that those who intervene and lead in decision-making spaces must be quality managers whose orientations must contribute in their totality to the improvement of educational achievement, regardless of the hierarchy or political, social or economic status within the system.

In the research on institutional management, emphasis is placed on the involvement of teachers and parents in public schools in Mexico; Acevedo Valenti (2017), emphasizes that institutional management factors or variables that are the responsibility of the principal and that positively affect school results have been found, such as: promotion of collaborative work, agreeing on common learning objectives, follow-up and monitoring of teachers' work, administrative procedures based on the systematic generation and processing of information, collaboration with parents, among others.

According to Treviño & Treviño (2004), three dimensions of institutional management can be identified, which are described below:

On the other hand, Miranda (2016), argued that leading or managing educational institutions starts from the basis of knowing how to enhance the talent of other people, strategic planning, guiding others to achieve the objectives, carrying out follow-up actions, evaluating and providing feedback on the processes, doing so through teamwork, promoting dialogue and in conjunction with the educational community. In this way, management becomes an exercise of attitude and the sum of administrative and pedagogical capacities of those who manage. That is, it is aimed at developing educational processes and deepening the context of students from their reality and based on the execution of their processes. The director's management is oriented through actions to achieve the purposes from which they arise and from their administration, as well as focusing on facilitating an organization and its coordination.

Based on this, it is possible to determine a series of knowledge, capacities and abilities that the manager must have to develop in the managerial management. Among other aspects, they should be: positive leadership, have a human vision to understand themselves and others, have theoretical knowledge in educational administration, pedagogical and research skills, as well as strategic capacity. It is also essential to have assertive communication, to be a facilitator and conciliator when necessary. The manager must be capable of managing himself, capable of self-evaluation in order to be able to transform himself and help the transformation of others, must know how to do in relation to strategic direction, handle issues of labor and educational legislation. Finally, above all, he/she must be an example of sincerity and honesty values. In this way, directive management is a task that implies actions of an administrative nature, but also of formation and human sense that constitutes the being and doing of the educational institutions and represents their nature and their task of responsibility before society.

Therefore, whoever assumes the challenge of leading educational institutions, must know how to empower human talent, plan the work in strategic areas, guide towards the achievement of the objectives and goals established in the PEI and coordinate the actions of monitoring, evaluation and feedback of the various processes, promoting dynamics of dialogue, teamwork and collective construction in the different strata of the educational community (Miranda, 2016).

School management has various concepts, which seek to recognize its complexity and multiplicity of which it is constituted. From a broad perspective of the set of processes and phenomena that occur within the school (Mexico. Secretary of Public Education, 2001), school management is understood as: "The scope of the organizational culture, made up of directors, the teaching staff, the norms, the decision-making bodies and the actors and factors that are related to the particular way of doing things in the school, the understanding of its objectives and identity as a group, the way in which the learning environment is structured and the links with the community where it is located".

On the other hand, it mentions that according to Loera (2003), school management is understood as the set of tasks performed by the actors of the educational community (principal, teachers, support staff, parents and students), linked to the fundamental task assigned to the school, as well as the fact of generating environments where students learn according to the goals, objectives and purposes of Basic Education.

For Tapia (2010), school management should be "pedagogically focused, open to learning and innovation... that seeks professional advice and guidance, that dedicates collective efforts to enriching activities, that concentrates the energy of the entire educational community in a comprehensive plan towards its systemic transformation, with an overall and feasible vision" (p. 61). This definition places school management as a mechanism to transform and improve the internal functioning of schools through multiple development activities.

Elizondo quoted by Pérez-Ruiz (2014), states that based on school management, "schools should be thought of as 'flexible organizations'. That is, permeable to changes in the environment, functionally adaptable to the contingent nature of education and capable of providing solutions to any educational problem wherever it may arise. In addition to this perspective, Pérez-Ruiz (2014), takes up various authors "whose interest lies in establishing possible correspondences between school management, educational quality and managerial action. The common element is to consider that the substantive concern of schools should be focused on improving student learning." (p. 362)

In this regard Tapia (2010), argues that it is necessary to turn schools into an organization focused on pedagogy, but open to innovation and learning, a school that forgets the uncertainties and promotes actions that can address the complex, specific and diverse, a school that replaces the practices that limit it, and that dedicates itself to grow, to seek advice from its professionals, to unite its collective efforts with enriching activities, where all members concentrate their energy on being an educational community with a common vision, and thus achieve a systemic transformation.

Regarding school actors, Pozner (2003), argues that school management is understood as "the set of interrelated actions undertaken by the management team... to promote and enable the achievement of the pedagogical intentionality in/with the educational community" (p.15). School management comes from the disciplinary field of school administration and organization, mainly provides teamwork, as well as openness to learning; it is based on the design of strategies that help to reinvent and achieve the objectives, so it involves developing projects that stimulate educational innovation, and that occurs through strategic planning processes that design, develop and maintain intervention projects assuming the complexity of organizational processes.

The strategic approach to school management consists of the different educational actors having the same direction, that is, that the actions that are deployed acquire meaning for all of them, that their capacities, skills, attitudes, values are aligned towards the same premise, the same objective, that is, that they share the same institutional mission and vision, as well as make their own the purposes, strategies and activities that are selected collectively, allowing the achievement of the objectives and contents that are proposed in the educational programs. In consequence, school management really makes sense when all those involved in the educational community define and make their own the projection of the school to which they seek.

Therefore, school management cannot be understood or analyzed only as isolated educational actions; it must be defined as a process that has multiple activities and educational processes articulated among them to respond to different needs of students, teachers and the educational community that respond to particular objectives.

Based on the above conceptualization, it can be stated that school management deals with the intrinsic school reality and processes within the school, that is, the interaction and collaboration among the different school actors, as well as the forms and actions they carry out. For this reason, pedagogical management is essential to complement the realization of all levels of school management.

According to Pacheco Méndez et al. (1991), pedagogical management is defined as "a strategy that has an impact on the quality of education systems and reflects the role played by the school as a whole and in its specificity on the level of teaching-learning processes in the classroom, to incorporate, promote and develop actions aimed at improving educational practices" (p. 1). (p. 1)

And according to Mendoza Monzant & Bolívar Aparicio (2016), it is a "process in which knowledge, action, ethical principles, policy and administration intervene, oriented to the continuous improvement of educational practices, from a school setting with aspects proper to administration to promote and drive them towards concrete educational purposes." (p. 40)

Likewise Rubio Vargas et al. (2018), indicates that pedagogical management is a "decision-making process at the level of the teacher that is closely linked to institutional management and actions at this level. It requires organizing, planning regulating and controlling the formative process from the interaction of the pedagogical collective at the different levels of organization of the formative process, the result of which has social significance, in given economic-social conditions." (p. 93)

According to the above concepts or definitions, we can discern that pedagogical management goes beyond the physical conditions and material resources that exist in the classrooms; rather, it is about acting from an approach directed towards the quality of the teaching system, as well as the improvement of educational practices and the efficiency of the pedagogical and didactic process.

In order to achieve the graduate profile assumed by the New Mexican School, it is necessary to mitigate the most common problems in which students develop and from there to achieve meaningful learning, however, according to Álvarez Gómez et al. (2019), students do not achieve quality learning, as they do not show a wide variety of skills in the use of the methods of their profession, group work, management of professional dialogue and their creative projection.

It is in the pedagogical management where the teacher carries out the teaching processes, where the curriculum is assumed and translated into didactic planning, as well as evaluated and also where he/she interacts with students and parents, the primary objective is to ensure student learning.

In Latin America it means a discipline of recent development, therefore its level of structuring, being in a process of construction becomes an innovative discipline with multiple possibilities of development whose object potentiates positive consequences in the educational sector.

Rodriguez (2009), mentions that pedagogical management is the coordinated actions and resources to enhance the pedagogical and didactic process carried out by teachers as a group, in order to direct their practice to the fulfillment of educational purposes. So, the teaching practice becomes a management for learning. Therefore, it is determined by applying the general principles of the educational mission in a specific field, such as the classroom. Therefore, it is determined by the development of educational and management theories. Thus, it is understood as a discipline applied in a field of action in which theory, policy and educational practice interact.

For this reason, pedagogical management is fully linked to the quality of teaching and the responsibility that resides in the teachers in front of the group. The School Educational Management Model recognizes that there must be an organizational management of the collective, aligned to the purposes and oriented to ensure the learning of all students in the school, as well as the time to achieve them and the creation of learning environments  suitable to do so and its influence is considered in the generation of school leadership that cohesion and give direction to the school group, through collegiate work and the incorporation of parents and educational actors, as support for a school culture in which a sense of responsibility is privileged.

On the other hand, basic education faces great challenges, since it needs to provide an integral education and not only of quality, but also of excellence, together with providing children and adolescents with knowledge, values and socially positive attitudes, among other things, without leaving aside humanism and the integration of all according to their own characteristics from a point of view that starts from their context and where the school community is the center of it, since these are some of the premises that the New Mexican School intends.

Sandoval (2007), considers that curricular modification does not detonate by itself a deep transformation, since it is a process that directly involves the subjects involved in it, and that this requires an appropriation of the change itself as well as institutional conditions that are not given by decree or instantaneously, that is, to form or belong to a teaching collective where teachers promote a work of excellence with their students, and are the ones who guide their teaching and learning processes, promoting self-managed and self-taught education does not depend on a curriculum or institutional planning that is only bureaucratic, since it involves addressing aspects that are not entirely in the hands of schools, it is the teachers and principals who solve, and this is where the work of pedagogical management and pedagogical leadership of the principal begins.

A true educational transformation inevitably starts with the actions of all Basic Education teachers, that is why it is necessary to guide children and adolescents not only in the mastery of new approaches to pedagogical knowledge or the basic guidelines of the new curriculum, but also in the treatment and attention to the problems that they have in their context or in their first environment. Knowing and appropriating of it, they will be able to locate themselves and attend to problems or situations at a global level.

Consequently, in the framework for excellence in teaching and school management aimed at learning and the integral development of all students, it is necessary for principals with pedagogical leadership to be clear about the educational purposes, the curriculum and the way in which they can be achieved in their particular context and conditions, so that in addition to being distinguished by their knowledge and experience, they are also distinguished by their treatment, example and human qualities. In this sense, he is a principal who knows which aspects are central and a priority to develop in his school, and therefore places the human and pedagogical sense of his task at the center of his actions rather than the administrative one.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the analysis carried out, it is necessary that school principals use a proper pedagogical leadership and at the same time assimilate the importance of accompanying the teacher in order to provide the necessary support to carry out a correct pedagogical management in the classroom, all this with the purpose of reaching the educational quality levels required by the students and demanded by our country.

Even though school management and institutional management are necessary and part of the educational processes of the national education system, it is necessary to give greater weight to pedagogical management, since it is through it that principals use their pedagogical leadership together with teachers. On the one hand, within schools there is a separation of roles between principals and teachers. The operation and functioning of the school and the distribution of responsibilities takes place through commissions for punctuality, hygiene, sociocultural events, among others.

On the other hand, it seems that there is no intersection in terms of pedagogical, teaching-learning processes. Therefore the relevance of modifying educational practices within schools, practices where the principal knows his teaching staff, and is able to provide accurate monitoring and follow-up, create working environments suitable for the school community, with a shared vision and mission, where everyone participates and have a common goal: to achieve quality education through the development of learning processes, and I do not mean to have a maximum quantitative qualification, but rather goes beyond.

It is necessary to point out that there are still principals in our country who reached their positions through a vertical promotion system, based mainly on seniority and/or union merits. Nevertheless, thanks to the implementation of the vertical promotion exams through System for the Career of Teachers, a large number of teachers have been promoted to the management position, but despite the efforts that have been made in the country, it has not yet been possible for all school principals to receive some type of specific training to enable them to face the demands of the management function, which means that they learn in the process and with the years of service.

This is the importance of providing not only support to teachers but also to principals, but this support must stop being punitive and administrative, it is necessary to feel really accompanied and without fear of being wrong because therein lies a teacher learning, although the bureaucratic part should be minimal, because it could only disappear in a utopia, the administrative discharge of which much has been said is far from being close, promoting that the pedagogical part entrusted to the principal is reduced to the minimum.

 

Definitely the New Mexican School is a project with many challenges, but the main one is to ensure that principals exercise a true pedagogical leadership hand in hand with the teaching staff of each institution, through a true educational community can achieve the goals that have been outlined in the sectoral plan of education, it is necessary first of all, that the principals and teachers have a clear idea of where this New Mexican School is headed, otherwise it becomes a ship adrift, undoubtedly a good leader will know how to guide the crew in any sea that is navigated.

REFERENCES

Alvarado, O. (1999). Gestión Educativa. Enfoques y procesos. Udegraf.

Bass, B. (2000). The future of Leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership & organizational Studies, 7(3), 18-40.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness. Through transformational Leadership. Sage Publications.

Bizquera, R. (2000). Educación emocional y bienestar. MIDE. https://corporacionlaudelinaaraneda.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Educacion-emocional-y-bienestar.pdf

Bolívar, A. (1999). Cómo mejorar los centros educativos. : Síntesis.

Bolívar, A., López Yáñez, J., & Murillo, F. J. (2014). Liderazgo en las instituciones educativas. Una revisión de líneas de investigación. Revista Fuentes, 14, 15-60.

Chamorro, D. J. (2005). Factores determinantes del estilo de liderazgo del director-a. (Tesis doctoral). Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Elmore, R. (2010). Mejorando la escuela desde la sala de clases. Fundación Chile.

Fondo de Naciones Unidas para la Infancia-Ministerio de Educación de Chile. (2004). Escuelas efectivas en sectores de pobreza. Santiago de Chile: Fondo de Naciones Unidas para la Infancia, Unicef

Hernández-Castilla, R., Murillo, F. J., & Hidalgo, N. (2017). Lecciones Aprendidas del Estudio del Liderazgo Escolar Exitoso. Los casos de España en el Proyecto Internacional ISSPP. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 35(2), 499-518.

Loera, A. (2003). Planeación estratégica y política educativa. SEP.

Lorenzo, M. (2012). Las comunidades de liderazgo de centros educativos. Revista Educar, 48(1), 9-21.

Mendoza Monzant, F. M., & Bolívar Aparicio, M. E. (2016). Gestión pedagógica e integración de proyectos educativos productivos en las escuelas rurales. Negotium: Revista de Ciencias Gerenciales, 12(35), 39-55.

México. Secretaría de Educación Pública. (2019). Marco para la excelencia en la enseñanza y la gestión escolar dirigidas al aprendizaje y el desarrollo integral de todos los alumnos. https://cife.edu.mx/recursos/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/perfil_docente-20-21.pdf

Miranda, S. (2016). La gestión directiva: un concepto construido desde las comprensiones de los directivos docentes de las escuelas públicas bogotanas. Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 7(13), 10-28

Navarro-Corona, C. (2017). Estrategias de aprendizaje de los directores escolares en la so- ciedad del conocimiento. Education in the Knowledge Society, 18(4), 97-112.

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. (2011). Manual de gestión para directores de instituciones educativas. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000219162?posInSet=4&queryId=N- EXPLORE-0239f1f9-d1c2-45fc-b18c-c956542b98d0

Pacheco Méndez, T., Ducoing Watty, P., & Navarro, M.A.(1991).La gestión pedagógica desde la perspectiva de la organización institucional de la educación. Revista de la Educación Superior, 78(2), 97-111.

Pérez-Ruiz, A. (2014). Enfoques de la gestión escolar: una aproximación desde el contexto latinoamericano. Educación y Educadores, 17(2), 357-369.

Pozner, P. (2003). La gestión escolar. Secretaría de Educación Pública (sep). Antología de gestión escolar. SEP.

Rubio Vargas, I., Abreu Payrol, J., Cabrera Hernández, G. C., & Cardoso Zambrana, C. L. (2018). La interdisciplinariedad en la gestión pedagógica, una tarea de los profesores de la universidad cubana actual. Boletín Virtual, (7-8), 89-97.

Sandoval Flores, E. (2007). La reforma que necesita la secundaria mexicana. Revista mexicana de investigación educativa, 12(32), 165-182.

Sarasúa Ortega, A. (2013). La dirección escolar, lunes y sombras. Padres y Maestros, 350, 41- 44.

Sepúlveda, F., & Aparicio, C. (2017). El desafío de los directores de escuelas chilenas: liderando a partir de un enfoque instruccional hacia un enfoque distribuido. Revista Gestión de la Educación, 7(2), 1-19.

Tapia, G. (2003). Autoevaluación inicial de la gestión de nuestra escuela. SEP.

Treviño, E., & Treviño, G. (2004). Estudio sobre las desigualdades educativas en México: la incidencia de la escuela en el desempeño académico de los alumnos y el rol de los docentes. Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación Educativa.

Vaillant, D. (2012). Directores, capacidades y liderazgo educativo. En, C. M. Guedes, La gestión desafio crítico para la calidad y la equidad educativa. (pp. 51-67). Ministerio de Educación y Cultura.

Vaillant, D. (2015). Liderazgo escolar, evolución de políticas y prácticas y mejora de la calidad educativa. UNESCO. https://es.scribd.com/document/339233455/Liderazgo-Escolar-2015-UNESCO-pdf

Vila, A. (2015). Importancia e impacto del liderazgo educativo. Padres y maestros, 361, 6-11.