School leadership in disadvantaged contexts in Spain: Obstacles and improvements

Abstract

The increase in child poverty in Spain highlights the importance of equality and inclusion of students at risk of social exclusion in the Spanish educational system. Recent research emphasises the importance of educational leadership, particularly from school principals, as a tool to improve the learning of these students. The main aim of this study is to establish the characteristics of school management in disadvantaged contexts in western Andalusia (Spain), placing special emphasis on the factors considered to hinder or aid effective leadership from principals. A mixed methodology was used in this process, surveying 282 teachers and interviewing 14 principals, and employing descriptive and contrastive statistics techniques. According to the teachers surveyed, principals tend to follow good educational leadership practices. However, the disadvantaged contexts present obstacles to their effective execution. While improvements are observed in the continuity of teaching staff, there is an urgent need to improve the qualifications of teachers working with students at risk of exclusion. In conclusion, principals need greater autonomy in relation to teachers and teaching practice.

Keywords

Administration leadership management schools

Introduction

The increase in inequality in childhood is indubitably one of the most worrying aspects of current society. This is especially true of Spain, which is the fourth European Union country and the sixth Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country in terms of child inequality (UNICEF, 2016). Out of the 17 Spanish Autonomous Communities, Andalusia is the region with the third highest rate for children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (INE, 2014). This problem has become more visible as a result of the current economic crisis in Spain (Cantó and Ayala, 2014).

Poverty is a situation experienced by individuals who cannot access certain resources to cover their basic needs, sometimes due to a process of social exclusion or marginalisation (INE, 2014). However, from the 1990s on the concept of poverty has gradually been replaced by that of social exclusion, given that this provides a clearer explanation of the new social groups (Hernández, 2010).

According to the At Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion indicator, based on the harmonisation of indicators within the framework of Eurostat (INE, 2014), risk of poverty and social exclusion is understood to occur among the population when at least one of the three following situations is applicable (European Commission, 2010):

Disposable income below 60% of average.

Severe material deprivation in at least four aspects from a nine-item list including going on holiday, eating protein every two days at least, etc.

Living in homes with unemployment or low work intensity.

A swift improvement to this situation requires the implementation of different structural measures. Bearing in mind the high rates of youth unemployment in Spain, these measures ought to include economic aspects (Echeita, 2013), paying special attention to policies for employment to improve the wellbeing of the population (Menjo and Ngah, 2015). However, the economic aspect is also key when referring to the processes of social exclusion. Education acts as protection and reduces the odds of falling into social exclusion (UNICEF, 2014), facilitating access to the labour market and in turn guaranteeing greater equality in terms of opportunities, equity and social justice.

Although the latest reports in Spain point to an improvement in equality in the educational system, the data are still worrying, including the high levels of early school leaving and academic failure, the continuing increase in youth unemployment as well as the percentage of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion as mentioned above (Save the Children, 2015). Therefore, equality and educational inclusion ought to be considered one of the main priorities of the Spanish educational system, with the understanding that educational inclusion should try to guarantee that all students can access a good education, in turn ensuring better social inclusion and a reduction in social inequality (UNICEF, 2015). In fact, similar situations in other European countries are prompting educational reforms geared towards increasing the academic performance of these students (Wilkins, 2015).

Although numerous aspects affect the improvement of schools working with students at risk of social exclusion, the work of principals needs to be focused on the promotion of social justice in schools (Berkovich, 2014). This task, which affects the academic results, becomes far more essential in the case of students at risk of exclusion (Leithwood et al., 2004). Accordingly, it is necessary for principals to develop a series of strategies aimed at providing a positive learning atmosphere for an increasingly diverse student body (Miller and Martin, 2015).

The implementation of economic measures is vital in order to ensure greater inclusiveness to all sectors of the population experiencing social exclusion (Menjo and Ngah, 2015). However, this article stresses the role of schools in reducing exclusion by providing their students with greater opportunities in the labour market (Razer et al., 2013). This study aims to contribute to improving the quality of the education currently being provided to students at risk of social exclusion.

This research is based on two main aims. First, to ascertain the opinions held by teachers on the leadership capacities of principals in disadvantaged schools, using a specially designed questionnaire. In addition, interviews are used to analyse the factors which according to the principals themselves hinder or aid effective leadership by the principals in these schools.

Background

Above carrying out efficient management, there is a pressing need for principals to carry out efficient leadership in schools, that is, mobilising and influencing others to achieve shared goals in the school (Leithwood and Riehl, 2005). In keeping with this, the OECD recognises educational leadership as the second most influential factor in academic results (Pont et al., 2009).

Leadership is a complex concept, and there is no widespread academic consensus on which styles are the most efficient or how it ought to be implemented (Corbella, 2013). However, research literature and international reports consider ‘distributed leadership’ and ‘pedagogical leadership’ to be the most important leadership styles in improving education for students (Murillo Torrecilla, 2006).

Pedagogic leadership came into focus in the United States following extensive research linking it to improved academic results (Bush, 2015). Bolívar (2010) holds that moving away from an emphasis on the administrative to focus on ensuring conditions allows the teaching–learning processes to be improved. Thus, attention is increasingly being paid to ensuring that principals are focusing on what truly matters: improving teaching–learning processes (Shazter et al., 2014).

In the field of distributed leadership there is a pressing need for school principals to no longer be considered the sole individuals in charge of directing teaching tasks within the school and to also provide support to teachers in order to share this responsibility (Urick and Bowers, 2015). Principals are thus able to establish a balance between the influence awarded by the authority of their position and the encouragement of trust, support and collaborative participation (Boe and Hognestad, 2015). This strategy leads to increased involvement and commitment of teachers in the school’s mission, encouraging their involvement in decision-making, as well as demonstrating the increasing trust placed by principals in their staff (Day, 2014). This is to say, in order for schools to advance towards greater inclusiveness, teachers need to be steered towards informal leadership within these schools, where it is all the more important to ensure the commitment of its entire personnel (Oswald and Engelbrecht, 2013) so that principals become key figures in the implementation of this type of leadership in the school (Harris, 2006).

Distributed leadership is particularly important in Spain, where schools have traditionally been viewed as spaces for teachers and their students. Despite this, at present there is an increasing number of schools, known as ‘Learning Communities’, paying special attention to the voice of families in the planning, management and assessment of the educational project (Márquez and Padua, 2015).

It should be noted that both distributed and pedagogic leadership in Spain are still lacking, as shown by the poor ratings obtained by principals in international reports (TALIS, 2013).

One of the obstacles to Spanish principals focusing on the teaching–learning processes lies in the time devoted to dealing with bureaucratic and administrative problems (Moral et al., 2016). In fact, this has become the focus of successive laws which have concentrated on the competences awarded to Spanish principals.

There has been much international research demonstrating the need to train school principals to implement this pedagogic leadership (Hallinger and Lee, 2014), giving them confidence and skills to enable them to take part in the improvement of the teaching–learning processes, and to tackle any problems arising in teaching practices (Le Fevre and Robinson, 2015).

Many different studies have been carried out on school leadership in disadvantaged contexts. Stevenson (2007) ponders the importance of educational policies being carried out to improve these schools, facilitating the efforts made by schools themselves. This is especially important when taking into account that principals working in less stable contexts need to develop strategies designed to reduce negative effects stemming from the lack of continuity inherent in these educational communities (Abaya, 2016).

Equally, Fuller (2012) holds that there is a need to research the extent to which values that principals try to transmit in these schools clashes with the impositions from the administration, and whether they feel able to overcome this conflict of interest by promoting the values they consider most beneficial to students.

Other research has highlighted the good practices carried out by principals from these schools. Harris (2006) emphasises the principals’ preoccupation in keeping teaching staff motivated. Moreover, for teachers to be able to deal appropriately with the many daily challenges to their teaching it is essential for principals to boost their confidence (Ainscow, 2001). López (2010) obtained similar results in Spain, emphasising the importance of ensuring good relations between teachers in order to counter the many difficulties facing these vulnerable students. Fernández and Hernández (2013) reflected the good practices used by principals, highlighting the implementation of cultures of collaboration, teachers’ professional development and the delegation of responsibilities.

For principals to carry out these good practices the numerous obstacles they face in efficiently carrying out their jobs has to be considered:

The need for highly qualified and experienced professionals (Mulford et al., 2007) with greater commitment and selflessness (Murillo et al., 2010).

Principals are often reluctant to work in precarious situations, and finding efficient leaders for these schools can be a veritable challenge (Leithwood and Riehl, 2005).

There are serious difficulties in involving families (Torres, 2001).

Many teachers demand more specific special training to prepare them for their everyday work (Amores et al., 2012).

There are high turnovers in the teachers (Altopiedi and Murillo, 2010; López et al., 2011;).

There are high levels of school absenteeism and poor student performance (Razer et al., 2013).

Their principals are under extreme stress (Zikhali and Perumal, 2016).

The difficulties of newly qualified teachers worsen as they find themselves in situations which they did not expect (Corral and Martín, 2015) and suffer from reality shock (Moliner and Ortí, 2015; Rodríguez, 2015). Even the knowledge acquired during their initial training may not coincide with the strategies adopted by their principals (Marcelo, 1998).

Our body of study is the schools known as ‘poorly performing schools’ and the schools which take part in compensatory education plans are found in disadvantaged contexts in western Andalusia.

In Spain, teachers for state schools are selected through competitive state examinations. The process consists of a theoretical exam, practical case study and the presentation of didactic programmes as well as a competition phase assessing the merits of the participants¹.

This competition values the specific knowledge of the speciality of individual applicants, their pedagogic skills and their command of essential teaching techniques (Real Decreto 276/2007 de 23 de febrero: art. 18).

Based on a series of criteria, the Regional Department of Education of Andalusia decides which schools are ‘in particular difficulty’ and require compensatory actions (Orden de 26 de abril de 1988). In this regard, teachers propose that their schools be considered ‘in particular difficulty’ and principals then submit a formal request for classification to the Department. Public civil servant teachers working in centres of this type are awarded merits when taking part in a transfer competition (Royal Decree 1364/2010), which means that when opting for their definitive teaching post they are awarded higher marks than the rest. The transfer competition is a procedure through which a state teacher can obtain a definitive destination or position.

Some of these schools are ‘Learning Communities’², distinguished by the fact that they are open schools where many people and bodies take active part in improving student learning (Díez and Flecha, 2010). Their organisational structure is also characteristically more democratic than that of typical traditional schools, as they are structured around ‘mixed working commissions’, with different members of the educational community participating in the decision-making process, and achieve a more horizontal structure in the school (Puigvert and Santacruz, 2006).

Different measures have been implemented in these disadvantaged areas, most notably the ‘integral area plans’. These include measures to ensure greater stability for teaching staff, by creating ‘specific posts’ to facilitate the continuity of both projects and teachers. These positions are appointed through public competitive examinations set by the Provincial Delegations of Education to cover teaching positions requiring specific characteristics, profiles, qualifications and experiences³.

When teachers occupy ‘specific positions’, in order to ensure their continuity in the school, priority is awarded to the favourable opinion of the school principal, whereas in other schools in Spain the only parties in charge of the selection of teachers are tribunals and selection commissions appointed by the administration⁴. Hence the appeal of these schools, as they provide principals with greater autonomy and responsibility.

School principals’ good opinion of teachers’ competence is greatly valued when deciding on continuity. There is a series of requirements (Real Decreto 302/2010: art. 24) for teachers applying to these posts, including the submission of a project which includes socio-educational measures for student inclusion and strategies for the prevention of school absenteeism⁵. Teaching experience, especially in similar posts, is also valued (Orden de 24 de mayo de 2011).

Given the unique characteristics of these schools and the importance of their principals practising efficient leadership, it is essential to analyse the leadership of principals in schools in disadvantaged contexts, as well as any conditions with positive or negative effects on such performance.

Method

Instruments and data analysis

This study uses a mixed method with quantitative and qualitative techniques. Data was collected mainly through surveys and interviews, complemented with onsite observation during repeated visits to the schools.

An ad hoc questionnaire was used to record the teachers’ opinions of effective leadership practices from the principals as well as aspects relating to initial teacher training. It included a section on identification data which included aspects such as age, sex of teachers and school principals, and aspects relating to teacher training followed by three aspects relating to three major facets of school leadership:

Teacher’s professional development (the principal uses mechanisms to identify their training needs; provides support for innovation in the classroom…).

Teaching and Learning (principals are receptive to hearing new ideas for improving student teaching–learning; they have and transmit high expectations for learning for the students…).

Democratic or distributed leadership (principals share authority and responsibility with the teachers and the rest of the educational community; they facilitate consensus and negotiation in decision-making…).

A Likert scale with five answer options was used (1= never to 5= always).

Before distributing the questionnaire among the total participating sample a pilot trial was carried out to check the reliability and validity. The questionnaire was distributed among a total of 60 teachers (the minimum for this test stands at between 30 and 50 subjects), from schools similar to those studied but not included in the final sample (Casas et al., 2003).

To measure reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used. The results obtained were close to 1, indicating high reliability for the overall scale (0.884).

To guarantee the validity of the questionnaire, first, expert opinion was consulted on the validity of the tool, improving the clarity and relevance of items proposed. Second, the results of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett sphericity tests were used as the basis of the exploratory factor analysis to test the validity of the construct (Table 1). Each aspect of the questionnaire was then analysed using the Principal Component Method, showing saturations with a value above 0.40 for each factor.

Table 1.

Construct validity.

Aspect	KMO test	Bartlett test			Saturation coefficient	% variance
Aspect	KMO test	÷2	Gl	Sig.	Saturation coefficient	% variance
1	0.704	64.865	3	0.000	0.878–0.884–0.818	74.022
2	0.712	42.546	6	0.000	0.825–0.797–0.592–0.674	53.032
3	0.726	81.049	10	0.000	0.805–0.770–0.700–0.713–0.583	51.600

KMO: Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin; Sig.: significance

Quantitative data were analysed using the SPSS v. 23 statistical software, descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis through non-parametric tests.

In addition, interviews were used for an in-depth analysis of principals’ opinions on conditions which aid or hinder their work within the schools. These interviews consisted of a series of introductory questions on age, sex, years of experience as principal and procedures to access this post. They also included questions on conditions which hinder or aid the execution of efficient leadership in these contexts and on those which were considered of interest to further explore the responses of teachers to the questionnaire in order to obtain two different viewpoints – from teachers and principals – regarding the leadership of principals.

The survey thus provided a general framework for this study, and based on the opinion of teachers and interviews with principals the information was expanded to obtain more interesting and in-depth responses.

Qualitative data were analysed using Atlas.ti v. 6.2 software, with a category and code system created following an inductive analysis process based on the answers received.

Participants

According to data provided by the Department of Education of the Andalusian Regional Government the study sample is made up of 955 teachers from children’s and primary education centres currently classed as poorly performing or included in the compensatory education plans of provincial capitals in western Andalusia (Spain).

The size for a participating sample based on a population of 955 teachers was calculated using the formula for calculating ratios for finite populations (n= σ² · N · p · q / e ² (N – 1) + σ² · p · q), establishing a trust level of 95% (level of significance α = 0.05) and a 5%⁶ margin of error, with a participating final sample of 282 teachers. In addition, proportional stratified sampling was used to maintain the same ratio of population subjects within each stratum (province) (Colás and Buendía, 1992). Of the sample 77.3% were women and 22.7% were men, a gender distribution which is considered normal in the field of education in Spain. Most of the teachers were over 36 years of age (66.7%).

Finally, theoretical saturation was calculated based on interviews from 14 principals from the schools studied, obtaining repeated information. A high percentage of the principals analysed (64.2%) were over 45, with from one to 13 years’ experience in their current schools.

Most of these currently in charge of the schools had been appointed by the educational administration, followed by those who had applied to these posts to ensure continuity, having previously held the positions of director of studies or secretary within the same schools. Finally, a small percentage became principals after presenting their candidacy and being democratically chosen by the School Board.

Results

Training, teacher professional development and support from principals

Of teachers surveyed in these schools 90.4% considered that they needed a more specific initial training to prepare them for work in these contexts. According to the Chi-Square statistical test, they consider that this is necessary regardless of the initial education received and their years of teaching experience, obtaining levels of significance above 0.05 in both cases (p=0.069 and p= 0.452 < p= 0.05). In keeping with this, a high number of teachers (44.9%) believe that the greatest disadvantage of their initial training is that they receive no training for working together with families.

These results show the importance of principals encouraging the professional development of teachers. Teachers’ opinions on principals’ use of some sort of mechanism to identify their needs for training have differed greatly (d.t.= 0.988); 33.3% believe that principals ‘almost always’ implement this practice, 28.8% do so ‘on occasion’ and 27.8% ‘always’ do so.

Given the abnormality of the sample, the Mann–Whitney test was carried out to establish whether significant differences in teachers’ opinions of these practices are based on whether or not they consider their initial training for working in these schools lacking. This gave a significance value below 0.05 (p= 0.006 < p= 0.05). Therefore, the teachers who state that there are shortcomings in their initial training for work in disadvantaged contexts feel that their principals identify teachers’ educational needs with greater frequency (Table 2).

Table 2.

Mann–Whitney test for the ‘identification of educational needs of the teachers by the principal’ and ‘need of teachers for a more specific initial training’ variables.

	More specific initial training	N	Average range	Rank sum
Mechanisms for identifying educational needs	Yes	255	145.65	37142
	No	27	102.26	2761
	Total	282

The interviews with principals helped to further explore the conditions that hinder and aid efficient leadership in these schools. A demand was detected for greater levels of autonomy to enable principals to at least decide on the continuity of the teachers in their school. They also call for the implementation of mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing teachers who are truly qualified to work in this sort of school.

The profile for teachers in these schools is very specific, and if there are willing and qualified personnel, the Provincial Delegation of Education should admit this. On occasion we get teachers who are fantastic in other schools, but not in this one. I worry that people who are not qualified may come here (Interview 14).

Some principals state that they have been able to involve a good number of teachers. Despite this, there are still teachers with little commitment to ways of working in these contexts. In particular, principals who have no ‘specific posts’ in their schools express their disagreement with teachers’ level of qualifications and their own limited autonomy. Although they admit that teachers are able to find out what type of schools they are going to prior to the transfer process under the new regulations, they believe their personal intervention is essential to the subsequent continuity of teachers within their school: ‘Teachers who truly connect with the reality of these schools ought to stay. It would be fantastic if we could choose the continuity of teachers in our school’ (I. 4).

Many of the teachers in the schools studied have over 15 years’ teaching experience (37.9%), but over half (55.7%) have been working in their current school for under five years. However, according to most of the principals interviewed, what is apparently a clear indicator of the instability of teaching staff has lessened with the improvements introduced in recent years: ‘A stable workforce makes my job as principal much easier. We are all permanent, with the exception of one colleague. This is essential in this type of school and we are privileged’ (I. 12).

Over half of teachers (56.1%) answer that the principals of their schools support their innovations in the classroom, while according to 54.3% their principals hold meetings to discuss any needs and difficulties arising in the classroom. These results coincide with the opinions expressed by principals, who state that their next priority after student learning is to ‘take care’ of their teachers. They pay great attention to the atmosphere in the school, to getting on with each other and personal relationships: ‘In these schools it is essential to have really involved teachers, and to encourage this, even here where the staff are permanent!’ (I. 13).

Leadership practices relating to teaching and learning

The fact that school principals are paying closer attention to aspects relating to teaching and learning is an important new development (Shazter et al., 2014). Another interesting question was hearing teachers’ opinions on the willingness of principals to improve teaching and student learning. According to the majority of teachers (65.8%) their principal is always receptive, resulting in a mean that is close to the top of the scale (M= 4.52 and d.t.= 0.770).

Equally, regarding the second leadership practice analysed for teaching and learning, ‘a principal has and transmits high expectations regarding learning to students’, a large percentage of teachers (46.8%) consider that their principals ‘almost always’ carry this out.

Depending on their age, the rating that teachers award their principals differs significantly based on two variables: A. If they are receptive to new ideas for improving teaching-learning. B. If they hold and transmit high expectations for learning to students. For both of these aspects, the younger teachers believe that their school principals do not carry out both educational leadership practices as frequently. This is verified using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test after checking the abnormality of the sample, obtaining a significance value below 0.05 in both cases (p=0.020 and p=0.003 <p= 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Kruskal–Wallis test for ‘appearing receptive’ and ‘having high expectations’ variables depending on age of teachers.

	Age	N	Average range
Appears receptive to new ideas to improve teaching-learning	Under 25	6	96.92
	25–35	88	157.38
	36–45	89	131.24
	46 or over	98	137.85
	Total	281
Has and transmits high expectations for student learning	Under 25	6	27.83
	25–35	88	142.22
	36–45	90	145.02
	46 or over	98	144.58
	Total	282

When further interviewing principals on the conditions which aid and hinder them in carrying out efficient leadership in these difficult contexts, they hold that although student learning is their main priority, many of the numerous obstacles they encounter are due to the educational administration. These include excessive concern for students’ academic results, considered more important than an education based mostly on skills and abilities which promotes the overall personal development of students, helping them integrate into society.

Principals also maintain that the use of non-traditional teaching methodologies (principally on the non-use of school textbooks) presents problems to students in their transition to secondary education, where they encounter different methodologies. This difficulty has not yet been resolved by the administration and is often cause for complaint:

The administration does not understand us. If we worked within the regulatory framework of the administration we really wouldn’t be able to move. Increasingly, schools are working outside the regulatory system and we believe that our own methods are far more positive for our students. (I. 12)

Moreover, they complain that the educational administration does not comply with its own compensatory education policy, specifically the reduction in ratios and the provision of economic and personal resources, which they consider to be completely insufficient. This is also a problem for students with special educational needs.

Another aspect affecting teaching and learning and reported by principals as an obstacle to the execution of efficient leadership is the excessive paperwork required by the educational administration, which takes up a considerable proportion of work time. This is a cause of great concern as it prevents them from focusing on their main priority, the pedagogical and methodological aspects in their school: ‘The system in itself does not allow you to focus on pedagogic issues. These days I spend four hours in front of a computer, and we work with people, they are our priority’ (I. 11).

It is very difficult for teachers to accept the instructions provided by principals to improve their teaching and there are many different opinions on this. Some principals consider that these instructions are necessary mainly in the case of newly qualified teachers, while others find it a tricky subject: ‘I have a big problem with mobile phones. They are forbidden in class. I find it very awkward to tell teachers who are even older than me that’ (I. 6).

Teachers maintain that their school principals provide them with little guidance for improving their teaching. As can be seen in Figure 1, and unlike the other leadership practices in this study, a large portion of teachers (39.7%) believe that principals only carry these out ‘on occasion’, 20% believe that this is ‘almost never’ and 8.2% believe that they ‘never’ do. This reflects a wide variation in responses (d.t.= 1.126) reaching the lowest mean (M= 3.10).

Figure 1.

Guidelines from principals to teachers on aspects of teaching practice to be improved.

These results are in keeping with the responses of some principals in the interviews. They tend to experience difficulties in tackling possible problems arising from teaching practices in the classroom mainly because they consider their pedagogic authority is insufficient: ‘I ought to go into their classroom and provide some indications but I have no power to say anything to them. I am a teacher just like them. We would need to have solid pedagogic knowledge to do that’ (I. 12).

Practices in democratic or distributed leadership

As principals are expected to ‘distribute’ their responsibility, particularly among teachers (Urick and Bowers, 2015), thus increasing their involvement and commitment (Oswald and Engelbrecht, 2013), teachers’ opinions on the democratic leadership of their principals are to be taken into account.

To ensure the success of this type of leadership principals need to share the ‘formal’ authority of their position with teachers and the rest of the educational community. Figure 2 shows teachers’ opinions about that.

Figure 2.

Teachers’ opinions on the authority and responsibility of the principals shared with teachers and the rest of the educational community.

While most teachers surveyed state that their school principals carry out this practice rather frequently (M= 4.12), responses are not unanimous (d.t.= 0.901).

The high ratings teachers awarded to principals for this leadership practice are linked to principals’ opinions concerning the practice of democratic leadership. Moreover, interviews showed that principals believe that in order to carry out their responsibilities as well as possible in these difficult contexts it is essential to act as democratic leaders, making all school staff take part in decision-making, thus increasing their involvement in the development of the educational processes.

Equally, principals interviewed believe that the ‘traditional’ role of principal, with its pre-established timetables, does not work in these schools as their jobs require more flexibility. Some even carry out duties that do not fall within their job description:

I sometimes leave the school and go to the homes of pupils who have not come to class, and wake them up myself so that they come to school. They also come to my office to tell me about their financial problems and I lend them money to buy bread. (I. 10)

Coming back to teachers’ opinions on the democratic leadership practices of their principals, a large percentage (51.4%) answer that their school principal ‘always’ (M= 4.34% and d.t.= 0.815) facilitates consensus and negotiation in decision-making processes. According to the Spearman Rho coefficient there is a positive (0.618) and significant (p= 0.000) correlation between the practice of facilitating consensus and negotiation in decision-making and being sympathetic to ideas to improve teaching and learning. This result shows that according to teachers, when principals are facilitating consensus and negotiation in decision-making they are also more receptive to new ideas to improve teaching–learning processes and vice versa.

A further exploration of the opinions held by principals on the conditions which help them practise effective leadership in these difficult contexts shows that they attach great importance to having a good school board that allows them to take joint decisions. Here it can be seen that once again teachers and principals agree on the advisability of principals negotiating and making joint decisions: ‘The decisions made here by individuals are supported by everyone. The decisions made here are usually collective’ (I. 2).

In order to practise democratic leadership, it is very important for the principal to encourage family participation. Many teachers believe that principals ‘almost always’ encourage this participation (43.7%) (M= 4.15 and d.t.= 0.750). In addition, after establishing the abnormality of the sample and using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test significant differences are detected in teachers’ opinions regarding this leadership practice, depending on their age (p = 0.014 <p = 0.05) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Kruskal–Wallis test for the ‘principal’s involvement in family participation’ and ‘teacher age’ variables.

	Age	N	Average range
Stimulates and facilitates the participation of families in the school	Under 25	6	42.00
	25–35	88	142.17
	36–45	90	142.06
	46 or over	98	146.48
	Total	282

In terms of principals stimulating family participation in the schools, teachers aged under 25 hold this to a lesser extent than those over 45.

According to principals, although family participation is a complex matter, unique to the situation and a challenge to be overcome, it is no obstacle to efficient leadership. Many consider that despite improvements, family participation is limited in educational aspects within the schools, while encouraging in leisure–festive aspects and in the transmission of information.

The first year we were here we asked some parents to dress up as the Three Wise Men, and they were all mothers. We now put up a sign outside: Do you want to be king for a day? And they fight over it! There are men now and I even have to draw lots for them. (I. 8)

With the importance of family participation in mind the administration appointed some principals due to their previous experience as teachers at the school, which implied a better knowledge of the neighbourhood and previous acquaintance with the families.

Finally, attempts were made to identify any major differences between the three ‘democratic’ leadership practices (sharing authority and responsibility, facilitating consensus and negotiation in decision-making, and facilitating the involvement of families) depending on whether or not the school is classed as a Learning Community.

Once the abnormality of the sample was established the Mann–Whitney U test was used to verify that there were no major differences, obtaining significance values above 0.05 in the three practices (0.46, 0.58 and 0.16).

Conclusion and discussion

Based on the results of this study it can be stated that according to the teachers the principals of schools in disadvantaged contexts generally follow good educational leadership practices. Nevertheless, obstacles and difficulties were detected in the practice of effective leadership in these setting. Among these it is worth noting the deficiencies in teacher training as admitted by the teachers themselves and by principals, who in the interviews call for teachers who are truly qualified to work in these contexts.

In line with López (2010), the principals analysed make an effort to support their teachers, paying attention to personal relationships and improving the atmosphere of co-existence.

In addition, in keeping with Mulford et al. (2007) they agree on the need for these teachers to have sufficient years of experience. Although most of the teachers included in this study have over 15 years’ teaching experience, it is agreed that principals need sufficiently qualified teachers. This is reinforced by the teachers’ observation that they themselves did not receive initial training to cope with the real situation in these schools, particularly with aspects relating to interaction with families. This is also true of secondary schools (Amores et al., 2012).

Fully aware that the Spanish civil service teaching system hinders the implementation of mechanisms to guarantee teacher continuity in schools, the principals interviewed request countermeasures from the educational administration. In agreement with the principals themselves, it becomes apparent that they need more independence to at least decide on the fundamental aspect of teacher continuity in their schools. In fact, one of the aims of the ‘integral area plans’ consists of favouring the continuity of teachers who successfully connect with families and students, contributing to improved learning. However, although all the schools studied have very similar profiles, not all offer ‘specific posts’, under which principals have greater autonomy at least when deciding on the continuity of teaching staff in their school, which would be unthinkable in state schools in normalised contexts.

To compensate for the lack of prior specific training enabling teachers to carry out their educational task in these contexts continuity in education is necessary. It is important to promote strategies for improving family involvement to make up for the almost complete lack of training in this field reported by teachers. This is all the more important since it has been established that, despite the gradual improvements in family participation reported by principals, the strategies used to appeal to these families are presented solely in terms of leisure–festivities aspects and the transmission of information.

In disagreement with the conclusions of previous research (Altopiedi and Murillo, 2010; López et al., 2011), improvement has been observed in the continuity of teaching staff, especially as a result of recent measures established by the educational administration, including:

The creation of ‘specific posts’.

Awarding higher ratings for transfer competitions to teachers who provide services in these schools (Real Decreto 1364/2010 de 29 de octubre: Annex I).

Granting greater autonomy and importance to the opinions of principals working in these schools, by allowing them to draw up unfavourable reports affecting the continuity of teachers in these posts.

In fact, these ‘specific posts’ are requested by principals as a means to ensure that the teachers who are to work in these schools are properly qualified and relate to their special nature, over and above ensuring continuity in their staff.

The requirements for teachers applying to these posts, in addition to the merits valued, are not enough to guarantee that they are qualified. The opinions of the principals interviewed support this statement.

In short, awarding the teachers higher ratings appears to improve the continuity of teaching staff, but not enough mechanisms have been implemented to prepare the teachers for work in these schools.

As regards leadership practices in teaching and learning, principals do not often offer feedback on improvable aspects of teaching practice. This goes hand-in-hand with the limited power of principals in Spain to oversee teachers at work in the classroom. In this regard it is essential to provide Spanish principals with the necessary competences for improved pedagogic leadership (Hallinger and Lee, 2014), enabling the principal to tackle possible problems with teaching practices in the classroom (Le Fevre and Robinson, 2015). This was highlighted in interviews by principals who express wariness in offering instructions to teachers as they feel they lack the necessary pedagogic authority.

When young teachers attempted to put the knowledge they gained from their initial training into practice they often observed that this was not in line with the principal’s strategies (Marcelo, 1998). In addition, they were truly shocked once they started teaching (Moliner and Ortí, 2015) and had to adapt to new working conditions and to change their attitudes from the ideal to reality (Rodríguez, 2015). They encountered situations which they may well have imagined to be different, especially when working in poorly performing schools (Corral and Martín, 2015). This may explain why the younger teachers award lower ratings to principals in some practices, such as high academic expectations for the pupils, or being open to new ideas for improving teaching and learning, and encouraging family participation.

As regards the obstacles encountered by principals, the daily paperwork is clearly excessive (Moral et al., 2016), and combined with other daily trials and tribulations can contribute to increased stress levels (Zikhali and Perumal, 2016).

The limited autonomy of principals reflects a worrying lack of understanding from the educational administration, which is rather removed from everyday problems. Principals usually respond by implementing numerous alternative initiatives and activities which they consider suited to their students (Fuller, 2012) and which occasionally are not quite in line with administrative regulations. This situation is less than desirable in any school and even more so in this type of school, where principals need to focus on teaching–learning processes. If measures are not taken, most principals will be externally appointed, as is clear from this research (Leithwood and Riehl, 2005). This is all the more worrying as they themselves consider that in order to be efficient principals in these schools it is essential to have previous experience in the same school, to ensure the empathy, closeness and trust needed to connect with families and teachers.

Principals widely report their dissatisfaction with compensatory education policies which they consider an obstacle to efficient leadership. In view of repeated complaints on important aspects, including non-compliance with the reduction in the teacher–student ratio, this study calls for an assessment on the impact of these policies to establish whether students’ needs are being addressed. This redistribution of resources is in turn expected to lead to greater equality for those most in need.

When asked about the ‘democratic’ leadership practices of principals, the teachers surveyed consider that the principals of their schools generally carry out good democratic or distributed leadership practices, which the principals themselves consider vital in these schools.

In addition, a close correlation was found between principals disposed to follow democratic practices (facilitating consensus and negotiation in decision-making) and a greater involvement in practices relating to teaching–learning (being receptive to new ideas for improving teaching and learning). This is particularly important if we bear in mind that both leadership styles are those most highly valued by teachers (Calatayud, 2015) and educational research (Murillo, 2006).

No correlation has been detected between the schools organised as Learning Communities, assumed to have a less hierarchical and bureaucratic organisation (Puigvert and Santacruz, 2006) and increasing participation from different agents (Díez and Flecha, 2010), and the fact that the principal carries out a greater number of democratic leadership practices. Therefore, principals in these schools, according to their teaching staff, do not carry out a greater number of democratic leadership practices in Learning Communities. This conclusion reinforces the idea that, despite the existence of a ‘formal’ distribution of leadership with the different commissions, which also provide the school with a more characteristic horizontal hierarchy, carrying out democratic leadership is not a sine qua non condition for the principals. This contradicts what we had hoped to confirm in this study, given that characteristically Learning Communities are more democratic.

Given the key role of school principals in the promotion of social justice (Berkovich, 2014) and in the improvement of students’ academic achievements (Leithwood et al., 2004), the results achieved allow us to deduce the need for educational policies and measures to support and facilitate the tasks of principals in socially vulnerable contexts (Stevenson, 2007). Therefore, it is considered advisable for principals to be awarded greater autonomy in relation to teachers and teaching–learning processes in order to be truly efficient leaders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Abaya

(2016) School leadership challenges along Kenya’s Borabu-Sotik border. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(5): 757–774.

Ainscow

(2001) Comprendiendo el desarrollo de escuelas inclusivas. Notas y referencias bibliográficas. UK: University of Manchester.

Altopiedi

Murillo Estepa

(2010) Prácticas innovadoras en escuelas orientadas hacia el cambio: ámbitos y modalidades. Revista Profesorado 14(1): 47–70.

Amores Fernández

Luengo Navas

Ritacco Real

(2012) Educar en contextos de exclusión social: necesidades y cambios desde la perspectiva del profesorado. Un estudio de casos en la provincia de Granada. Revista Fuentes 12: 187–206.

Berkovich

(2014) A socio-ecological framework of social justice leadership in education. Journal of Educational Administration 52(3): 282–309.

Boe

and Hognestad

(2015) Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership: Best practices in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education 20(2): 133–148.

Bolívar

(2010) ¿Cómo un liderazgo pedagógico y distribuido mejora los logros académicos? Revisión de la investigación y propuesta. Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación 3(5): 79–106.

Bush

(2015) Understanding instructional leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4): 487–489.

Calatayud Salom

(2015) El liderazgo emergente de los directores escolares en España: la voz del profesorado. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 69: 207–228.

10.

Cantó Sánchez

Ayala Cañón

(2014) Políticas públicas para reducir la pobreza infantil en España. Análisis de impacto. Madrid: UNICEF.

11.

Casas Anguita

Repullo Labrador

Donado Campos

(2003) La encuesta como técnica de investigación. Elaboración de cuestionarios y tratamiento estadístico de los datos. Atención Primaria 31(8): 527–538.

12.

Colás Bravo

Buendía

(1992) Investigación educativa. Sevilla: Alfar.

13.

Corbella

(2013) Liderazgo y responsabilidad educativa: el necesario liderazgo de directores y profesores en la educación. Fuentes 14: 85–104.

14.

Corral Carrillo

and Martín Cuadrado

(2015) Mentoría y formación del profesorado novel para la comunicación emocional en los centros de difícil desempeño. In: I Congreso Internacional de Expresión y Comunicación Emocional (ed Clares López

Ángel Benavides

), Sevilla, España, 2–4 Septiembre 2015, pp. 73–82. Sevilla: AIECE. Avaiable at: http://congreso.us.es/ciece/Publicacion_CIECE_2015.pdf

15.

Day

(2014) Sustaining the turnaround: What capacity building means in practice. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación 12(5): 9–20.

16.

Díez Palomar

Flecha García

(2010) Comunidades de Aprendizaje: Un proyecto de transformación social y educativa. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 67(24,1): 19–30.

17.

Echeita Sarrionandia

(2013) Inclusión y exclusión educativa. De nuevo “voz y quebranto”. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación 11(2): 100–118.

18.

European Comission (2010) Comunication from the comission Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels. Available at: http://goo.gl/q5xP7g (accessed 20 May 2017).

19.

Fernández Batanero

Hernández Hernández

(2013) Liderazgo directivo e inclusión educativa. Estudio de casos. Perfiles Educativos 35(2): 27–41.

20.

Fuller

(2012) Leading with emancipatory intent: headteachers’ approaches to pupil diversity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(6): 672–689.

21.

Hallinger

Lee

(2014) Mapping instructional leadership in Thailand: Has education reform impacted principal practice? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1): 6–29.

22.

Harris

(2006) Leading change in schools in difficulty. Journal of Educational Change 7: 9–18.

23.

Hernández Pedreño

(2010) Estudio de la pobreza y la exclusión social. Aproximación cuantitativa y cualitativa. Revista interuniversitaria de formación del profesorado 69(24,3): 25–46.

24.

INE (2014) Dossier Pobreza en EAPN España. Available at: http://www.eapn.es/ARCHIVO/documentos/dossier_pobreza.pdf (accessed 30 April 2017).

25.

INE (2014) Encuesta condiciones de vida. Resultados definitivos. Available at: http://goo.gl/1rpZUI (accessed 11 June 2017).

26.

Le Fevre

Robinson

(2015) The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly 51(1): 58–95.

27.

Leithwood

Riehl

(2005) ¿Qué sabemos de liderazgo educativo? New York: Teacher College Press.

28.

Leithwood

Louis

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004) Review of Research How Leadership Influences Student Learning. Minnesota: The Wallace Foundation.

29.

López Yáñez

(2010) Confianza. Un patrón emergente de desarrollo y mejora de la escuela. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 54: 85–106.

30.

López Yáñez

Sánchez Moreno

Altopiedi

(2011) Comunidades profesionales de práctica que logran sostener procesos de mejora institucional en las escuelas. Revista de Educación 1(356): 109–131.

31.

Marcelo García

(1998) Aprender a Enseñar: Un Estudio Sobre el Proceso de Socialización de Profesores Principiantes. Madrid: CIDE.

32.

Márquez

Padua

(2015) Comunidad Gitana y Educación Pública. La necesidad de construir un proyecto social y educativo compartido. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 85(30.1): 91–101.

33.

Menjo Baye

Ngah Epo

(2015) Impact on human capital endowments on inequality of outcomes in Cameroon. Review of Income and Wealth 61(1): 93–118.

34.

Miller

Martin

(2015) Principal preparedness for leading in demographically changing schools: Where is the social justice training? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1): 129–151.

35.

Moliner Miravet

Ortí Pitarch

(2015) ¿Podré acabar el temario?: Las preocupaciones a las que se enfrenta el profesorado novel. Revista Complutense de Educación 27(2): 827–844.

36.

Moral Santaella

Amores Fernández

Ritacco Real

(2016) Liderazgo distribuido y capacidad de mejora en centros de educación secundaria. Estudios sobre educación 30(1): 115–143.

37.

Mulford

Kendall

Ewintong

Edmunds

Kendall

Silins

(2007) Successful principalship of high-performance schools in high-poverty communities. Journal of Educational Administration 46(4): 461–480.

38.

Murillo Torrecilla

(2006) Una dirección escolar para el cambio: Del liderazgo transformacional al liderazgo distribuido. Revista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación 4(4): 11–24.

39.

Murillo Torrecilla

Krichesky

Castro

and Hernández

(2010) Liderazgo para la inclusión escolar y la justicia social. Aportaciones de la investigación. Revista Latinoamericana de Inclusión Educativa 4(1); 169–186.

40.

Orden de 26 de abril de 1988, por la que se regulan los Centros de Actuación Educativa Preferente. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía (36): 1.638–39.

41.

Orden de 24 de mayo de 2011, por la que se regulan los procedimientos de provisión, con carácter provisional, de puestos de trabajo docentes así como la movilidad por razón de violencia de género. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía (108): 7–14.

42.

Oswald

Engelbrecht

(2013) Leadership in disadvantaged primary schools: Two narratives of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(5): 620–639.

43.

Padilla

(2002) Técnicas e Instrumentos para el Diagnóstico y la Evaluación Educativa. Madrid: Editorial CCS.

44.

Pont

Nusche

Moorman

(2009) Mejorar el Liderazgo Escolar. Volumen 1: Política y Práctica. París: OCDE.

45.

Puigvert

Santacruz

(2006) La transformación de centros educativos en comunidad de aprendizaje. Calidad para todas y todos. Revista de Educación 1(339): 169–176.

46.

Razer

Friedman

Warshofsky

(2013) Schools as agents of social exclusion and inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17(11): 1152–1170.

47.

Stevenson

(2007) A case study in leading schools for social justice: When morals and markets collide. Journal of Educational Administration 45(6): 769–781.

48.

Rodríguez Moreno

(2015) Relación dialógica entre el profesorado senior y el profesorado novel universitario. Educational, Cultural and Psychological studies 1(12): 283–302.

49.

Rodríguez Sabiote

Gutiérrez Pérez

Pozo Llorente

(2007) Fundamentos conceptuales de las primeras pruebas de significación estadística en el ámbito educativo. Grupo Editorial Universitario. Available at: http://goo.gl/967CDo (accessed 30 May 2017).

50.

Real Decreto 276/2007, de 23 de febrero, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de ingreso, accesos y adquisición de nuevas especialidades en los cuerpos docentes a que se refiere la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación, y se regula el régimen transitorio de ingreso a que se refiere la disposición transitoria decimoséptima de la citada ley. Boletín Oficial del Estado (53):1–42.

51.

Real Decreto 302/2010, de 1 de junio, por el que se ordena la función pública docente y se regula la selección del profesorado y la provisión de los puestos de trabajo docentes. Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía (108): 16–25.

52.

Real Decreto 1364/2010, de 29 de octubre, por el que se regula el concurso de traslados de ámbito estatal entre personal funcionario de los cuerpos docentes contemplados en la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación y otros procedimientos de provisión de plazas a cubrir por los mismos. Boletín Oficial del Estado (263): 91262–91281

53.

Save the Children (2015) Iluminando el futuro. Invertir en educación es luchar contra la pobreza infantil. Available at: https://goo.gl/50vkCr (accessed 4 March 2017).

54.

Shazter

Caldarella

Hallam

Brown

(2014) Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4): 445–459.

55.

TALIS (2013) Estudio Internacional de la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje. Informe Español. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

56.

Torres González

(2001) La acción del director en zonas desfavorecidas. In: Vicente Rodríguez

(Coord.) Viaje al Centro de la Dirección de Instituciones Educativas. Bilbao: I.C.E Universidad de Deusto, pp.419–438.

57.

UNICEF (2014) Vulnerabilidad y exclusion en la infancia. Available at: http://goo.gl/jktLjR (accessed 20 March 2017).

58.

UNICEF (2015) El argumento en favor de la inversión en la educación y la equidad. Avaiable at: http://goo.gl/ULRVLv (accessed 5 February 2017).

59.

UNICEF (2016) España es el cuarto país de la UE con más desigualdad infantil. Available at: http://goo.gl/p8NrGf (accessed 15 April 2017).

60.

Urick

Bowers

(2015) What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 50(1): 96–134.

61.

Wilkins

(2015) Education reform in England: quality and equity in the performative school. International Journal of Inclusive Education 19(11): 1143–1160.

62.

Zikhali

Perumal

(2016). Leading in disadvantaged Zimbabwean school contexts: Female school heads’ experiences of emotional labour. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(3): 347–362.