Education Cycle Coordinators as Middle Leaders: Key Agents for Educational Organizations

Abstract

Middle leaders are figures who play a leadership role with influence over teachers, while also maintaining a connection with senior positions in educational organizations. The Catalan education system includes the cycle coordinator, a professional who exercises mid-level leadership. The aim of this study is to identify cycle coordinators as middle leaders and determine the key roles they perform. A quantitative descriptive methodology was employed, implementing a questionnaire with 414 primary education cycle coordinators from the Catalan education system, followed by a confirmatory factor analysis. The findings demonstrate that cycle coordinators fulfill all the roles of a middle leader. The results provide evidence of six main roles developed by coordinators, highlighting their role as drivers of innovation and change, as well as their involvement in team organization and curriculum implementation. Additionally, they excel as strategists, personnel managers, and administrators, positioning them as key agents in promoting sustainable educational development. This study establishes practical and theoretical implications for recognizing cycle coordinators and their leadership roles. Greater leadership training is required for these positions, along with policy recognition that fosters their empowerment within the education system.

1. Introduction

Although, a few years ago, the concept of middle leaders (from here on MLs) was difficult to define [1,2], the recent literature allows us to understand and summarize the concept of ML with specific definitions [3]. Middle leaders are understood to be teaching figures who occupy a formal management position in an education center where they teach. Defining formal positions that are considered MLs is difficult, due to the organizational variability between different countries. In the present study, we have focused our research on the figure of the education cycle coordinator, understood as a leading supervisor who coordinates education for two academic years. Education cycle coordinators can be found in the Initial Cycle (IC), Middle Cycle (MC), and Upper Cycle (UC), encompassing the entire stage of primary education (6–12 years old).

The focus of the ML study originated in English-speaking countries and Asian countries, mainly in Australia, New Zealand, China, and the United Kingdom [4]. However, there is a scarcity of empirical studies in Spanish-speaking countries, especially in the context of the Spanish education system, and they have been commonly studied previously from a descriptive and theoretical perspective.

In addition, recent reviews have suggested that further studies are needed on the integration of the practices of ML at schools, as well as its theoretical foundations [5].

1.1. Middle Leadership in Educational Organizations

In the past few years, educational organization has evolved towards more horizontal models of organization, where the distribution of responsibilities has led to new styles of leadership [6,7]. The traditional model, which prioritized hierarchy and the implementation of decisions from top to bottom, no longer meets the needs of educational institutions that seek to adapt to modern challenges [8].

Distributed leadership, understood as a vision of sharing responsibilities and tasks, as well as the collective management of the organization, has been shown to be an efficient model for providing a response to modern needs in educational institutions [9], thereby acting as a predecessor model of MLs. In fact, a prevalence has been found of different types of distributed leadership at the middle level [10] that has led to the growth of more specific types of distributed leadership. In addition, evidence has recently been provided that demonstrates that effectiveness within the management of educational organizations is not determined by a single leader, but by a community of leaders [11].

At this point, the ML emerges as a figure who is in contact with classrooms; that is, with teachers and senior management officials in the educational center [12]. In spite of this, these figures do not represent a specific position within the organization, although they play the role of leaders who coordinate and direct other professionals, given their position as a “bridge” between senior officials and their teaching peers [13,14].

Despite not having a specific role as a ML, each context determines their habitual functions and roles, with a common aim being school improvement [3].

Although studies on MLs have notably evolved in the past few years, the current state of research is centered on more descriptive phases, where the aim is to define the ML, to position them within an organization, to describe their characteristics, and to show their benefits within organizations [3]. However, more recent studies have been focusing on the identification of more specific leadership roles they play [10,11,15]. Most of these role studies underline that MLs perform administrative tasks, supervise teachers, teach classes, act as a mentor, provide personal support, provide pedagogic leadership and leadership in the courses, and even manage groups [3,16,17,18,19]. In addition, there has been a recent increase in the recognition of the ML as a key factor in the sustainable development of an educational organization and the promotion of good sustainability practices [20].

Some experts define sustainable development as the effort to achieve progress that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own demands [20,21]. This perspective involves achieving a balance between advancements in environmental, economic, and social aspects, with the aim of ensuring a healthy and beneficial world for both present and future generations [22]. In this regard, MLs can be agents that contribute to this balance within educational organizations [21].

Among the most important research contributions in this area, it is important to describe the influence of the studies [18,23,24], which have proposed a theoretical model (MLiS; Middle Leadership in Schools), along with the Middle Leadership Roles Questionnaire– School Edition (MLRQ-SE) instrument, which identifies six key roles played by MLs in educational organizations (

Table 1. Roles described in the Middle Leadership Roles Questionnaire—School Edition.

Roles	Description
SFR—Student-Focused Role	The role refers to the ways in which MLs address student issues. These include behavior, academic progress, subject choices, health and well-being, and communication between home and school.
AR—Administrative Role	The administrative role refers to the procedures that middle leaders implement to manage information and resources. Tasks within this role range from maintaining inventory and recording other documents to placing orders, purchasing, and other forms of resource management.
MR—Management Role	The management role refers to the organization of people and events. In particular, this role involves middle leaders negotiating schedules, organizing class schedules, and preparing for meetings.
SUPR—Supervisory Role	The supervisory role refers to monitoring staff performance and includes a variety of supervisory tasks such as observing teaching, discussing work performance, and providing feedback.
SDR—Staff Development Role	The staff development role describes how middle leaders work to build the capabilities of teachers and other staff. Key aspects of this role include motivating staff to do their best through affirmation and support, being good role models, and onboarding new staff.
STR—Strategic Role	The strategic role refers to defining objectives and forming a vision for specific responsibilities associated with the leadership position, such as a subject area or a cross-curricular program.

Note: adapted from [23,24].

).

In a general manner, it is understood that MLs are diverse figures that change according to the context; although they exert formal leadership roles in contact with all levels of the organization, becoming an essential piece to explore, in order to better understand the improvement, they can comprise the main thread of research on educational organizations and the roles MLs play according to their position within the organization.

In addition, interest in the study of MLs has grown due to their ability to drive change in educational organizations. MLs can facilitate the necessary mechanisms to promote long-term sustainable school development and improve educational effectiveness [25]. Furthermore, they facilitate and build socio-political arrangements that promote sustainable and democratic educational communities [26] (p. 158). In this regard, it is crucial to understand the practices and roles of MLs, as well as to comprehend the key role that ref. [27] attributes to them as facilitators of sustainability, innovation, and organizational change.

1.2. Cycle Coordinators

In the Catalonian education system, school organization at the primary education stage is determined by the Catalan Education Law [28], and its aim is to regulate the Catalan education system. The cycle coordinators are elected by the school principal. Among their functions, coordinators are responsible for organizing and supervising the teamwork of the teachers and ensuring the coherence and continuity of the educational actions. They actively participate in the creation and application of an internal evaluation plan of their educational center, collaborating with the management team to put forward proposals for its improvement.

In addition, they plan and structure the meeting calendar of the education cycle, call for and preside these meetings, and create written summaries of the subjects that are discussed, later providing them to the head of studies for follow-up. They are also in charge of transmission of information mechanisms, along with other coordinators and the head of studies [29].

They are part of the management council, acting as the representative of the education cycle, and are responsible for the management of the inventory of materials, including orders and maintaining collaboration with the teaching team. Likewise, they organize cycle-specific activities, and ensure the dissemination and compliance with educational center operating rules within their area of management [30]. These coordinators influence their peers (teachers of the cycle), while also being influenced by the school’s leadership (principal), positioning them as the role most similar to the characteristics of a ML as described in the recent literature.

Educational policies within the Catalan education system tend to give more responsibilities and management capacity to middle management, thereby promoting distributed leadership [29]. Educational institutions have greater autonomy, and, at the same time, leadership positions, whether collective or individual, have also been more distributed. As a result, cycle coordinators have gained particular interest and importance in their recognition as true educational leaders in their roles and tasks.

This study, conducted within the Catalan education system, aims to be the first research to recognize cycle coordinators as middle leaders and analyze the leadership roles they perform. This research provides valuable insight for future studies, as it is the first to focus on middle leadership in the role of cycle coordinators and, at the same time, the first to determine the roles of MLs in the Catalan educational system. Therefore, the following general objective is defined:

We aim to analyze the role and functions of cycle coordinators in their position as middle leaders in the Catalan education system. To this end, the research questions we posed are as follows:

• Can education cycle coordinators be considered MLs?
• What roles do education cycle coordinators play in their position as middle leaders?
• Is there a correlation between the roles of cycle coordinators in their ML role based on independent variables such as gender, training, etc.?

2. Methods

With the aim of studying cycle coordinators in their role as MLs, a study with an exploratory descriptive quantitative approach was designed. The quantitative approach was based on measuring the characteristics of social phenomena [31]. This is an approach with an empirical nature, emphasizing the value of observable and objective data [32]. For the present research, this approach was considered appropriate, as the research questions aim to identify skills and competencies, which requires a descriptive and objective data collection process.

To this end, the Middle Leadership Roles Questionnaire—School Edition (MLRQ-SE) by [23] was adapted. This instrument, described in Section 1, allows for the identification of up to 36 practices associated with 6 key roles of middle leadership, making it the most suitable tool for this research. Additionally, the study is based on the theoretical model MLiS by the same author.

Once the reliability and validity of the newly adapted instrument, which included four dimensions grouping different items, were demonstrated, it was administered to a significant sample in an online format. The data were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis, and correlations between the different dimensions of the questionnaire and the independent variables considered were also explored.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used, based on the MLRQ-SE data, to identify and confirm the key roles of middle leaders. The results from the CFA allowed us to answer the research questions.

2.1. Data Collection Procedure

The questionnaire was administered through the Office Forms web platform. The initial contact was made via email, in which the research project’s objectives were described, and the contact information of the researchers was provided for any further questions or assistance. To ensure confidentiality, the entire dataset has been anonymized. Each participant provided informed consent, and approval for this research study was also obtained at the institutional faculty level.

Data collection took place during October and November 2024, and a total of 414 responses were obtained by 30 November 2024. All participants agreed to take part in the study, confirming that they were currently working or had previously worked as cycle coordinators in their school. At the end of the questionnaire, a contact email was provided for participants interested in receiving a summary of the research findings upon request. This procedure took into account all ethical considerations approved by the institutions within the study context.

2.2. Sample

The sample included data from 414 cycle coordinators (initial cycle, middle cycle, or upper cycle) and was selected by convenience, considering the permissions granted by the Department of Education to access education centers for research aims. The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are described in

Table 2. Sample.

Index (n = 414)		Frequency	%
Sex	Male	168	40.5
	Female	245	59.5
Years of experience	Less than 1 year	109	26.3
	1–3 years	131	31.6
	4–6 years	101	24.4
	More than 6 years	73	17.6
Education level	Diploma	80	19.3
	Bachelor’s	229	72.2
	Master’s	35	8.5
Type of center	Public school	318	76.8
	Concerted school	96	23.2
	High-complexity center	42	10.1
Has received leadership training	Yes	30	7.2
	No	384	92.8

.

The majority of the sample were women (59.1%), with a smaller percentage of men (40.5%). Regarding years of experience, the largest percentage of the sample had more than one year of experience, so their responses were based on their own experience over the years they had served as cycle coordinators. Most of the sample was composed of individuals with university degrees or bachelor’s degrees, and they held coordinator positions in public educational institutions, which aligns with the percentage of public and concerted schools in Catalonia. Finally, it is noteworthy that there were low levels of leadership training (7.2%).

In general, the sample was made up of coordinators with university degrees, working in the public sector and in schools that are not of high or maximum complexity, with several years of experience as cycle coordinators.

2.3. Instrument

The instrument contains two parts. The first section comprises identification data, where questions are asked regarding gender, education, and experience of the informant, about the center where the informant is an education cycle coordinator, and about the leadership training they have received. The second section comprises 33 items that are answered using a Likert-type response scale (1—“Not at all”, 2—“Rarely”, 3—“Sometimes”, 4—“Frequently”, and 5—“Very frequently”).

Although the original questionnaire included 36 items, in order to adapt the instrument to the context where it would be used, it was shown to a panel of experts in education organization and leadership, who identified 3 items that could be eliminated.

The item “Demonstrating procedures and/or techniques” was discarded from the MLRQ-SE because the function of the education cycle coordinator did not include teaching techniques to their peers, given that the training of teachers is already integrated and managed by the center’s managers. The item “Mentoring staff” was also eliminated, as mentorship is not a habitual practice nor a recognized role in education environments. Lastly, the item “Engaging in classroom observations of teachers” was eliminated, given the absence of an established culture of observation among teachers for learning, evaluation, or other purposes in the system analyzed.

The validation of the instrument began with an expert judgment analysis through the evaluation of 10 educational organization professionals. Subsequently, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. A highly significant Chi-squared value (p < 0.001) was obtained, with a good ratio of 2.56 concerning its degrees of freedom (Value = 1227; 480 df), an RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value (0.061; 95% CI (Comparative Index): 0.057–0.066) indicating a very good fit, which was confirmed by other indices such as CFI (Comparative Fit Index) (0.950) and TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index) (0.915). Consequently, the structure was sufficiently tested and validated. Reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, with a result of 0.831, and intraclass correlation (95% CI), with a result of 0.807–0.854.

The remaining 33 items were classified in the same 6 dimensions of the original instrument, which correspond to 6 roles (

Table 3. Dimensions and items of the instrument used.

Dimensions (Roles)	Number of Items	Items
SFR—Student-Focused Role	6	I-01: Helping students. I-05: Meeting with students about academic issues. I-15: Meeting with students about personal issues. I-21: Dealing with student behavior. I-26: Assisting students with academic issues. I-28: Liaison between student’s home and school.
AR—Administrative Role	6	I-07: Creation and/or maintenance of information (or data) relating to student progress. I-08: Being responsible for records of student discipline. I-13: Keeping inventory of resources. I-16: Creation and/or maintenance of records relating to student behavior. I-22: Creation/modification of forms, proformas, and other admin tools. I-23: Arranging orders and purchases.
MR—Management Role	6	I-02: Organizing rosters. I-09: Organizing timetables for relief teachers or guest staff. I-17: Implementing curriculum. I-18: Organizing a team or committee. I-27: Organizing agendas and itineraries for special days or events. I-32: Planning curriculum with other teachers.
SUPR—Supervisory Role	5	I-03 Supervising a grade or stage. I-10: Monitoring the performance of staff. I-11: Supervising a group of staff in a teaching area. I-19: Discussing aspects of work performance with staff. I-29: Providing feedback to staff members for work performed.
SDR—Staff Development Role	4	I-04: Leading staff development. I-24: Organizing staff development. I-30: Helping staff members with aspects of their work. I-33: Involvement in staff induction.
STR—Strategic Role	6	I-06: Establishing goals for area of responsibility. I-12: Creating or changing whole-school policy. I-14: Leading innovation and change. I-20: Establishing a vision for area of responsibility. I-25: Leading whole-school policy change. I-31: Heading teams or committees.

Note: adapted from De Nobile [23,24].

).

One of the important aspects of this adaptation was the process of translation from English to Catalan. An inverse translation approach was used for this [33].

2.4. Data Analysis

The statistical techniques and tests used were as follows:

The description of the quantitative variables was carried out with frequencies and percentages, comparing these variables with contingency tables. The quantitative variables were explored with the main objective of verifying their fit, or not, to a Gaussian normal distribution bell. For this exploration, the following were used: (a) normal Q–Q graphs, (b) asymmetry and kurtosis indices, and (c) the goodness-of-fit Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test, where only a severe deviation (p < 0.01) made us consider that the variable was not distributed normally. At the same time, a box plot was used to determine the existence or not of atypical values, due to their distance with respect to the other members of the sample (outliers or far-out values). The independent variables were described through habitual tools, as follows: (a) centrality: mean and median; and (b) variability: observed range, standard deviation, and interquartile range. The Likert variables were described using frequency of response tables, along with mean and standard deviation values. Adequate graphical representations were used for each type of data from the variables. Quantitative pairs were correlated with Pearson’s coefficient and Spearman’s coefficient, depending on the normality or abnormality of the variables.

Lastly, to compare the means between groups with different subjects (independent between themselves) a multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) was used, assuming that the central limit theorem asserts the tendency towards normality of the variables in N > 200, and thus the similarity between parametric and non-parametric methods.

In all of these inferential statistical tests, significance was considered when p < 0.05 (c.l. 5% habitual) and a high significance when p < 0.01 (c.l. 1%). The high sample number is itself a provider of significance (smaller p-values), so more attention should be paid to the effect size values for a better interpretation of the results.

3. Results

The results are classified based on the research questions. Firstly, descriptive results for each dimension (roles) are analyzed to answer the first and second research questions.

Secondly, the results are analyzed in correlation with the independent variables to position cycle coordinators as MLs and identify their main characteristics, thus addressing the third research question.

3.1. What Roles Do They Develop? Descriptive Analysis of the Items

The questionnaire results from the 414 participants showed a high frequency of practice/use of the roles proposed in each item, with habitual values of 4 and 5 out of 5.

Table 4. Description of the education cycle coordinators’ responses to the items in the Roles Questionnaire. (N = 414). Reliability of the items in the Roles Questionnaire.

ITEM	1	2	3	4	5	Mean	Standard Deviation	Corrected Homogeneity Index of the Item
I-01	4.8%	22.0%	18.1%	45.9%	9.2%	3.33	1.07	0.317
I-02	0.5%	11.6%	19.1%	47.3%	21.5%	3.78	0.93	0.326
I-03	2.2%	12.1%	18.1%	31.6%	36.0%	3.87	1.10	0.371
I-04	0.7%	7.7%	17.1%	40.3%	34.1%	3.99	0.94	0.263
I-05	4.6%	20.0%	15.0%	39.1%	21.3%	3.52	1.16	0.337
I-06	0.7%	3.6%	13.3%	46.6%	35.7%	4.13	0.83	0.296
I-07	1.0%	6.0%	16.2%	47.3%	29.5%	3.98	0.89	0.342
I-08	3.4%	8.2%	16.4%	42.3%	29.7%	3.87	1.04	0.362
I-09	0.5%	3.6%	16.4%	45.9%	33.6%	4.08	0.83	0.299
I-10	1.0%	4.1%	18.4%	41.5%	35.0%	4.06	0.88	0.324
I-11	1.0%	5.3%	13.0%	42.8%	37.9%	4.11	0.89	0.322
I-12	1.9%	6.3%	11.6%	43.7%	36.5%	4.07	0.95	0.328
I-13	9.7%	26.6%	14.3%	34.1%	15.5%	3.19	1.26	0.342
I-14	0.7%	1.0%	7.2%	27.5%	63.5%	4.52	0.74	0.243
I-15	2.2%	4.8%	10.4%	48.8%	33.8%	4.07	0.91	0.395
I-16	1.0%	4.1%	8.9%	44.7%	41.3%	4.21	0.84	0.413
I-17	0.5%	1.4%	7.0%	32.9%	58.2%	4.47	0.73	0.371
I-18	0.5%	1.2%	7.0%	32.9%	58.5%	4.48	0.72	0.303
I-19	0.5%	5.3%	18.8%	60.1%	15.2%	3.84	0.76	0.358
I-20	0.0%	2.9%	17.6%	55.8%	23.7%	4.00	0.73	0.391
I-21	2.2%	8.9%	21.7%	39.6%	27.5%	3.81	1.01	0.345
I-22	1.4%	5.6%	15.9%	45.4%	31.6%	4.00	0.91	0.417
I-23	1.9%	7.2%	17.9%	43.0%	30.0%	3.92	0.97	0.333
I-24	0.5%	3.6%	11.4%	53.4%	31.2%	4.11	0.78	0.327
I-25	0.7%	1.2%	10.1%	42.8%	45.2%	4.30	0.76	0.232
I-26	2.9%	19.3%	14.3%	34.5%	29.0%	3.67	1.17	0.278
I-27	0.5%	5.3%	17.4%	40.6%	36.2%	4.07	0.89	0.220
I-28	1.0%	9.7%	19.3%	44.9%	25.1%	3.84	0.94	0.265
I-29	0.2%	4.8%	17.6%	42.8%	34.5%	4.07	0.86	0.394
I-30	0.7%	2.7%	10.1%	39.9%	46.6%	4.29	0.81	0.289
I-31	0.2%	1.4%	7.2%	37.7%	53.4%	4.43	0.71	0.223
I-32	0.5%	0.7%	7.7%	35.5%	55.8%	4.45	0.71	0.365
I-33	0.2%	3.6%	13.8%	37.4%	44.9%	4.23	0.84	0.386

shows the results as a percentage for each item, as well as the mean and the descriptive data of each answer (1—“Not at all”, 2—“Rarely”, 3—“Sometimes”, 4—“Frequently”, 5—“Very frequently”). In addition, the reliability is provided by the Cronbach’s alpha value for each item.

The general results place most of the answers between 4 and 5. In addition, the mean values of the results from all the dimensions are between 3.71 and 4.24 (Figure 1), thus confirming that the roles and items identified as habitual in MLs are also associated with education cycle coordinators. This allows us to corroborate one of the research questions regarding the positioning of the coordinators as authentic leaders in educational organizations.

The differences between these means are highly significant, with p < 0.001 (repeated measures (RM) ANOVA: =109.41; p-value = 0.0000) and a large effect size (R² = 0.209), so that it can be concluded that the performance of these coordinators is different in some roles compared to others. To better understand this figure, each dimension (role) is analyzed individually, considering their different items.

3.1.1. “Student-Focused Role” Dimension

This role refers to the ways in which middle leaders manage the academic problems and well-being of the students [19]. This role obtained a mean of 3.71 (95% CI) and a median of 3.67.

Among the items that compose it, the high values of I-15 “Meeting with students about personal matters”, I-26 “Help students with academic problems”, and I-28 “Relationship between student’s home and school” stood out (

Table 5. Descriptive results and CFA of the SFR dimension.

Dimension	Item	Mean	Estimator	Error	Z-Value	p-Value	Standard Estimator
SFR	I-01	3.33	0.392	0.0623	6.29	<0.001	0.369
	I-05	3.52	0.425	0.0685	6.20	<0.001	0.365
	I-15	4.07	0.465	0.0513	9.07	<0.001	0.512
	I-21	3.81	0.481	0.0572	8.40	<0.001	0.478
	I-26	3.67	0.369	0.0719	5.13	<0.001	0.316
	I-28	3.84	0.299	0.0543	5.51	<0.001	0.317

).

These scores confirm that the cycle coordinators have related functions centered on the well-being and accompanying of the students. Despite it being the dimension with the lowest scores, SFR still obtained a score that can be considered as an identifying habitual practice of MLs.

3.1.2. “Administrative Role” Dimension

The Administrative Role (AR) refers to the bureaucratic tasks in which the MLs have the power to make decisions. The items that compose it showed high means (

Table 6. Descriptive results and CFA of the AR dimension.

Dimension	Item	Mean	Estimator	Error	Z-Value	p-Value	Standard Estimator
AR	I-07	3.98	0.377	0.0489	7.71	<0.001	0.426
	I-08	3.87	0.494	0.0564	8.76	<0.001	0.477
	I-13	3.19	0.488	0.0695	7.02	<0.001	0.389
	I-16	4.21	0.422	0.0452	9.34	<0.001	0.502
	I-22	4.00	0.498	0.0490	10.16	<0.001	0.547
	I-23	3.92	0.392	0.0535	7.32	<0.001	0.405

), with most of them being positive answers about the practices that shape the role. The mean was 3.86 (95% CI), with a median of 3.67.

It must be underlined that I-13 “Maintain an inventory of resources” showed levels that were lower than the rest. This result could be to the fact that many centers have a person who is in charge of these tasks. Nevertheless, it is also understood to be a practice related to MLs, as they must manage the resources of the entire education cycle. On the other hand, I-16 “Creation and/or maintenance of records related to the behavior of students” was shown to be one of the facets described as belonging to middle leaders, referring to the management of the center and the student body [34].

Positive responses to the items related to this role indicate that MLs spend part of their teaching hours on administrative tasks, where the leadership they exercise transforms into a capacity and responsibility for managing resources and documentation for their peers and students.

3.1.3. “Management Role” Dimension

This dimension is composed of six items, with a mean of 4.15 (95% CI) and a median of 4.00. The MR dimension was the third-most identified by the education cycle coordinators, and includes some of the highest-scored responses (

Table 7. Descriptive results and CFA of the MR dimension.

Dimension	Item	Mean	Estimator	Error	Z-Value	p-Value	Standard Estimator
MR	I-02	3.78	0.312	0.0540	5.79	<0.001	0.336
	I-09	4.08	0.272	0.0456	5.97	<0.001	0.330
	I-17	4.47	0.351	0.0460	7.63	<0.001	0.480
	I-18	4.48	0.336	0.0465	7.23	<0.001	0.466
	I-27	4.07	0.211	0.0501	4.22	<0.001	0.238
	I-32	4.45	0.357	0.0386	9.25	<0.001	0.503

), such as I-18 “Organization of a team or committee”, with a mean of 4.48 points and 58.5% of respondents who answered with “very frequently”, or I-17 “Implementation of the curriculum”, with a mean of 4.47. Only I-02 “Organizing rosters” obtained a mean lower than 4.

Positive responses to the items related to this role indicate that MLs dedicate hours from their teaching responsibilities to administrative tasks, where the leadership they exercise transforms into an ability and responsibility for managing resources and documentation for their peers and students.

3.1.4. “Supervision Role” Dimension

The Supervision Role (SUPR) role is related to the supervision, including monitoring, of staff performances, including those who work with a specific group of students [19]. With a mean of 3.99 (95% CI) and a median of 4.00, this role was found to be the fourth-most affirmed by the informants. This role includes practices such as I-03 “Supervision of the stage” and I-11 “Supervision of a staff group or teaching area”, a role that is characteristic of the education cycle coordinator, given the similarity between the stage and primary education cycle (

Table 8. Descriptive results and CFA of the SUPR dimension.

Dimension	Item	Mean	Estimator	Error	Z-Value	p-Value	Standard Estimator
SUPR	I-03	3.87	0.416	0.0600	6.93	<0.001	0.379
	I-10	4.06	0.418	0.0492	8.51	<0.001	0.473
	I-11	4.11	0.398	0.0501	7.93	<0.001	0.446
	I-19	3.84	0.324	0.0411	7.88	<0.001	0.429
	I-29	4.07	0.406	0.0475	8.56	<0.001	0.475
	I-03	3.87	0.416	0.0600	6.93	<0.001	0.379

).

The ability to supervise derives from the permissions and responsibilities granted by the senior officials of the organization, a fact that characterizes the education cycle coordinators in their management of the two academic years that are conferred to them.

3.1.5. “Staff Development Role” Dimension

This role was the second-most mentioned by the informants, with a mean of 4.16 (95% CI) and a median of 4.00 in its four items (

Table 9. Descriptive results and CFA of the SDR dimension.

Dimension	Item	Mean	Estimator	Error	Z-Value	p-Value	Standard Estimator
SDR	I-04	3.99	0.296	0.0492	6.02	<0.001	0.315
	I-24	4.11	0.290	0.0397	7.30	<0.001	0.374
	I-30	4.29	0.286	0.0456	6.27	<0.001	0.354
	I-33	4.23	0.349	0.0461	7.58	<0.001	0.418

). It refers to the work performed by the teams to change or innovate, and professional learning as a logical consequence of their leadership [21].

The following items stood out: I-30 “Helping the staff with aspects of their task” and I-33 “Involvement in staff induction”. These are practices in which MLs are involved in benefitting and improving their team, a role of leaders who seek to mobilize teachers to obtain better school achievements [35]. In this sense, coordinators can be associated with MLs, who seek to develop the team they lead.

3.1.6. “Strategic Role” Dimension

Lastly, the strategic role is defined in ref. [23] as the most distinctive role of MLs. This role, in turn, obtained the highest score (with a mean of 4.24 (95% CI) and a median of 4.33) for its six items (

Table 10. Descriptive results and CFA of the STR dimension.

Dimension	Item	Mean	Estimator	Error	Z-Value	p-Value	Standard Estimator
SDR	I-06	4.13	0.319	0.0468	6.82	<0.001	0.386
	I-12	4.07	0.389	0.0535	7.27	<0.001	0.410
	I-14	4.52	0.317	0.0417	7.60	<0.001	0.431
	I-20	4.00	0.369	0.0408	9.04	<0.001	0.507
	I-25	4.30	0.325	0.0436	7.46	<0.001	0.429
	I-31	4.43	0.264	0.0425	6.21	<0.001	0.371

).

The strategic role refers to the practices used to improve the learning of the students through the establishment of a vision and goals for their areas of responsibility, changes in policies, and innovative leadership.

The following items stood out: I-14 “Lead innovation and change”, with a mean of 4.52 points from 63.5% of individuals answering with “very frequently”; and I-34 “Lead teams or committees”, with a mean of 4.43 points and a with 53.4% answering “very frequently”. It can be stated that STR (strategy) is part of the roles of cycle coordinators, playing the role of leaders and strategists in their vision of MLs.

In general, it can be stated that cycle coordinators fulfill the typical roles and practices of a ML. Furthermore, the results indicate that the roles studied in other educational contexts are significantly present in the context of this study. In this regard, the figure of the cycle coordinator fulfills all six key ML roles, particularly in the dimensions of Management Role, Staff Development Role, and Strategic Role.

3.1.7. Correlations Between Dimensions

After the descriptive analysis of the data, considering the different established dimensions, we found it interesting to examine the correlation between the dimensions.

Table 11. Correlation matrix (Pearson) with 95% confidence intervals between the dimensional score variables of the Roles Questionnaire. (N = 414).

Dimensions	SFR	AR	MR	SUPR	SDR	STR
SFR	-
AR	0.494 ** (0.417–0.563)	-
MR	0.332 ** (0.243–0.415)	0.382 ** (0.297–0.462)	-
SUPR	0.355 ** (0.268–0.436)	0.424 ** (0.341–0.500)	0.611 ** (0.547–0.668)	-
SDR	0.259 ** (0.167–0.347)	0.375 ** (0.289–0.455)	0.510 ** (0.435–0.578)	0.480 ** (0.402–0.511)	-
STR	0.244 ** (0.151–0.332)	0.317 ** (0.227–0.401)	0.436 ** (0.354–0.511)	0.472 ** (0.393–0.543)	0.444 ** (0.636–0.518)	-

(**) = Highly significant = p < 0.001.

presents the Pearson correlations between all the dimensions. As shown, all the coefficients fulfil the following criteria: (a) highly significant (p < 0.001); (b) positively directed, meaning that the variables are associated with the same dynamic of values (high with high; low with low); and (c) of intensities that are high in some cases, such as the correlations between Management and Supervision (0.61) and Management and Staff Development (0.51), the correlation between the Administrative Role and the Student-Centered Role (0.49), and the correlations between Supervision and Staff Development (0.48) and Management and the Strategic Role (0.47).

3.2. Differential Effects of the Variables on the Roles

After having answered two research questions, an analysis of the differential effects of the independent variables on the cycle coordinators was conducted, aiming to identify which characteristics are most common among cycle coordinators in their role as MLs.

3.2.1. Differential Effect of Gender

The result of the MANOVA in the global test did not detect the existence of statistical significance (p > 0.05) or a sufficient effect value (η2p = 0.011) that would indicate that gender was a differential factor in the roles played by MLs. The results (

Table 12. Roles Questionnaire. Differential effect of gender. (N = 413). (GLOBAL MANOVA: F = 0.72; p-value = 0.632; η2p = 0.011).

Dimensions	Mean (±SD)		MANOVA Comparison Test		Effect Size η2p
	Men (n = 168)	Women (n = 245)	F-Value	p-Value
SFR—Student-Focused Role	3.72 (±0.62)	3.70 (±0.55)	0.19 ns	0.660	0.000
AR—Administrative Role	3.88 (±0.57)	3.84 (±0.58)	0.48 ns	0.488	0.001
MR—Management Role	4.17 (±0.42)	4.14 (±0.44)	0.41 ns	0.524	0.001
SUPR—Supervisory Role	4.00 (±0.57)	3.99 (±0.51)	0.04 ns	0.847	0.000
SDR—Staff Development Role	4.20 (±0.49)	4.13 (±0.50)	2.16 ns	0.142	0.005
STR—Strategy Role	4.23 (±0.42)	4.25 (±0.46)	0.31 ns	0.576	0.001

(ns) = non-significant. Degrees of freedom = 1412.

) show a great similarity between the mean values of both genders for all of the dimensions. As a result, nothing allows us to venture that gender was a differential factor affecting the role of these coordinators.

This result allows us to understand that gender was not a differential effect among the middle leaders.

3.2.2. Differential Effect of Experience

The study identified four categories with equilibrated sizes of experience in the position (from less than 1 year to more than 6 years).

In the study of this variable as a possible differential factor (Table 12), the overall MANOVA detected the existence of highly significant differences (p < 0.001) in the Questionnaire as a whole, which corresponded to a moderate effect size (η2p = 0.047). Therefore, in this case, a differential effect was detected.

Table 13. Roles Questionnaire. Differential effect of experience. (N = 414). (GLOBAL MANOVA: F = 3.34; p-value < 0.001; η2p = 0.047).

Dimensions	Mean (±SD)				MANOVA Comparison Test		Effect Size η2p
	<1 Year (n = 109)	1–3 Years (n = 131)	4–6 Years (n = 101)	>6 Years (n = 73)	F-Value	p-Value
SFR—Student-Focused Role	3.64 (±0.57)	3.62 (±0.56)	3.81 (±0.60)	3.82 (±0.53)	3.47 *	0.016	0.025
AR—Administrative Role	3.67 (±0.56)	3.82 (±0.60)	3.99 (±0.55)	4.04 (±0.51)	8.63 **	<0.001	0.059
MR—Management Role	4.05 (±0.41)	4.17 (±0.45)	4.16 (±0.47)	4.26 (±0.37)	3.48 *	0.016	0.025
SUPR—Supervisory Role	3.80 (±0.55)	3.97 (±0.53)	4.07 (±0.44)	4.21 (±0.54)	9.99 **	<0.001	0.068
SDR—Staff Development Role	3.99 (±0.56)	4.17 (±0.48)	4.26 (±0.43)	4.24 (±0.47)	6.23 **	<0.001	0.044
STR—Strategy Role	4.06 (±0.45)	4.26 (±0.42)	4.32 (±0.40)	4.35 (±0.46)	9.19 **	<0.001	0.063

(*) p < 0.005 = significant. (**) p < 0.001 = highly significant. Degrees of freedom = 3411.

shows the mean, the MANOVA comparison test, and the effect size, which detect the roles in which experience shows highly significant values.

The mean value of the supervision role increases as the participant acquires more experience. Following a Tukey post hoc test, the following two differentiated groups were identified: (a) those with 4–6 or more than 6 years of experience, and (b) those with 1–3 or less than 1 year of experience. This indicates that the Supervision Role has a greater weight when the education cycle coordinators reprise their position or maintain it for a longer period of time.

In the cases of the Strategy Role and the Staff Development Role, the post hoc tests determined that there were no differences between the three highest levels of experience, although differences were found for the coordinators that recently took on the position (less than 1 year of experience). In this way, it can be affirmed that strategy is acquired with experience, noting an evolutionary increase in the role.

The Administrative Role, in line with the previous ones, was shown to be higher in the professionals with 4 or more years of experience, with it being a role that moderately increases with experience.

The Management and Student-Focused Roles showed a slight effect, with differences only observed between the experience extremes (less than 1 year and more than 6 years); therefore, these roles are considered more widespread among the education cycle coordinators during these stages and are associated with more bureaucratic tasks and tasks centered on teaching.

Accordingly, it is stated that all the roles generally increase in education cycle coordinators over the years.

3.2.3. Differential Effect of Education Level

The results (

Table 14. Roles Questionnaire. Differential effect of education. (N = 414). (GLOBAL MANOVA: F = 2.75; p-value = 0.001; η2p = 0.039).

Dimensions	Mean (±SD)			MANOVA Comparison Test		Effect Size η2p
	Diploma (n = 80)	Bachelor’s (n = 299)	Master’s (n = 35)	F-Value	p-Value
SFR—Student-Focused Role	3.86 (±0.50)	3.66 (±0.58)	3.75 (±0.64)	3.76 *	0.024	0.018
AR—Administrative Role	4.00 (±0.52)	3.84 (±0.57)	3.70 (±0.70)	3.80 *	0.023	0.018
MR—Management Role	4.17 (±0.43)	4.16 (±0.43)	4.06 (±0.45)	0.93 ns	0.396	0.005
SUPR—Supervisory Role	4.14 (±0.52)	3.95 (±0.51)	3.97 (±0.68)	4.14 *	0.017	0.021
SDR—Staff Development Role	4.20 (±0.50)	4.15 (±0.50)	4.11 (±0.51)	0.41 ns	0.665	0.002
STR—Strategy Role	4.34 (±0.43)	4.24 (±0.42)	4.05 (±0.57)	5.55 **	0.004	0.026

(ns) = non-significant. (*) p < 0.005 = significant. (**) p < 0.001 = highly significant. Degrees of freedom = 2412.

) determine that, in the Questionnaire as a whole, there is a differential effect of Education that is significant (p < 0.01), with an effect size at the limit of being considered moderate (η2p = 0.039). When studying each dimension separately, it was found that, in two dimensions, the differences between the different types of academic training did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05), namely in Management and Staff development. However, statistical significance was found in the remaining four.

The results in Table 14 show that academic training had a significant impact on the overall roles questionnaire (p < 0.01), with a moderate effect (η2p = 0.039). However, when analyzing each dimension separately, it was observed that, in Management and Staff Development, the differences between levels of education were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). On the other hand, significant differences were found in the other four dimensions.

A noteworthy finding is that professionals with a degree tended to score higher in the evaluated roles, while those with a Master’s degree tended to score lower. This could be explained by the fact that degree holders, in general, have more years of experience in the position and have accumulated more experience within the country’s educational system. This result aligns with the experience effect discussed in Section 3.2.2, which suggests that with greater experience comes greater development of middle leadership roles.

However, it is also possible that more recent study programs (Degree/Master’s) place less emphasis on leadership competencies, which may influence the observed differences.

With respect to training, an analysis was performed to verify if receiving previous leadership training could help in the development of specific ML roles. The results (

Table 15. Roles Questionnaire. Differential effect of leadership training. (N = 414). (GLOBAL MANOVA: F = 8.56; p-value < 0.001; η2p = 0.112).

Dimensions	Mean (±SD)		MANOVA Comparison Test		Effect Size η2p
	Has Training (n = 30)	Does Not Have Training (n = 384)	F-Value	p-Value
SFR—Student-Focused Role	4.23 (±0.45)	3.67 (±0.56)	28.39 **	<0.001	0.064
AR—Administrative Role	4.26 (±0.39)	3.83 (±0.58)	15.64 **	<0.001	0.037
MR—Management Role	4.48 (±0.38)	4.13 (±0.43)	18.92 **	<0.001	0.044
SUPR—Supervisory Role	4.53 (±0.43)	3.95 (±0.52)	36.51 **	<0.001	0.081
SDR—Staff Development Role	4.48 (±0.37)	4.13 (±0.50)	13.62 **	<0.001	0.032
STR—Strategy Role	4.56 (±0.51)	4.22 (±0.43)	17.56 **	<0.001	0.041

(**) p < 0.001 = highly significant. Degrees of freedom = 2412.

) show that all the roles notably increased when the subjects had previous training, thus supporting the studies that affirm the need for leadership training for ML [36].

Therefore, it was concluded that having been trained in leadership is related to having a higher degree of performance in all the roles evaluated by the dimensions of the questionnaire.

3.2.4. Differential Effect of Type of Center

Lastly, the coordinators of public centers compared to concerted centers were analyzed. The objective of this variable was to recognize the difference (or not) between the education cycle coordinators as a function of the type of center and its complexity, as well as the habitual roles.

In the analyses performed with the variables Roles (

Table 16. Roles Questionnaire. Differential effect of type of center. (N = 414). (GLOBAL MANOVA: F = 9.72; p-value < 0.001; η2p = 0.125).

Dimensions	Mean (±SD)		MANOVA Comparison Test		Effect Size η2p
	Has Training (n = 30)	Does Not Have Training (n = 384)	F-Value	p-Value
SFR—Student-Focused Role	3.80 (±0.49)	3.40 (±0.71)	40.55 **	<0.001	0.090
AR—Administrative Role	3.94 (±0.54)	3.61 (±0.62)	24.48 **	<0.001	0.056
MR—Management Role	4.17 (±0.45)	4.11 (±0.40)	1.21 ns	0.272	0.003
SUPR—Supervisory Role	4.00 (±0.52)	3.95 (±0.58)	0.85 ns	0.357	0.002
SDR—Staff Development Role	4.20 (±0.47)	4.02 (±0.58)	9.07 **	0.003	0.022
STR—Strategy Role	4.25 (±0.43)	4.23 (±0.47)	0.16 ns	0.689	0.000

(ns) = not significant. (**) p < 0.001 = highly significant. Degrees of freedom = 1412.

), the global MANOVA detected the existence of a highly significant differential effect (p < 0.001) with an effect close to being defined as large (η2p = 0.125), which as a result confirmed that the type of center is a differential factor.

The results show that the professionals who work in public centers develop more middle leadership roles than those who work in concerted centers. In this way, it can also be observed that three especially differential roles exist (SFR, AR, and SDR). In this sense, it can be stated that middle leaders in public centers have more roles centered on people (student and staff development), as well as on bureaucratic tasks. Likewise, all the roles are increased in public centers, so middle leadership has a greater presence in this type of center.

On the other hand, significant differences were not detected as a function of the complexity of the education center (

Table 17. Roles Questionnaire. Differential effect of the high-complexity center. (N = 414). (GLOBAL MANOVA: F = 2.09; p-value 0.053; η2p = 0.030).

Dimensions	Mean (±SD)		MANOVA Comparison Test		Effect Size η2p
	High Complexity (n = 42)	Not High Complexity (n = 371)	F-Value	p-Value
SFR—Student-Focused Role	3.99 (±0.46)	3.68 (±0.71)	11.83 **	<0.001	0.031
AR—Administrative Role	3.96 (±0.46)	3.85 (±0.62)	1.25 ns	0.264	0.003
MR—Management Role	4.24 (±0.43)	4.11 (±0.40)	2.00 ns	0.158	0.005
SUPR—Supervisory Role	4.10 (±0.55)	3.95 (±0.58)	2.18 ns	0.141	0.005
SDR—Staff Development Role	4.23 (±0.45)	4.02 (±0.58)	1.08 ns	0.299	0.003
STR—Strategy Role	4.32 (±0.52)	4.23 (±0.47)	1.38 ns	0.241	0.003

(ns) = non-significant. (**) p < 0.001 = highly significant. Degrees of freedom = 2412.

). Only the Student-Focused Role showed a high significance (p < 0.001), with a moderate–low effect size (η2p = 0.031). Therefore, it must be concluded that this characteristic of the center has an influence on the type of specific role. The data collected indicate that the coordinators of the highly complex centers obtained a higher score only in this role.

In conclusion, cycle coordinators acting as MLs share common characteristics influenced by factors such as experience, education, and the type of institution where they perform their duties. Experience in the position is a key differentiating factor, as the roles of supervision, strategy, and staff development are strengthened with years of practice. Additionally, academic and specific leadership training also significantly impacts the performance of these roles, with those who have prior leadership training showing greater development across all evaluated dimensions. Finally, the type of institution (public or private) also creates differences, with coordinators in public institutions tending to take on more student-centered roles and administrative tasks. Overall, middle leaders with more experience and specific leadership training are the ones who perform best, especially in more complex environments and public institutions. Therefore, the third research question is answered by characterizing the most influential MLs who demonstrate the greatest development of the key roles.

4. Discussion

This study has addressed the three research questions, providing empirical evidence on the role of cycle coordinators as MLs in the Catalan education system. The following section discusses the findings in relation to each research question.

4.1. Can Education Cycle Coordinators Be Considered MLs?

The results confirm that cycle coordinators fulfill the six key roles identified in ref. [23] in their MLiS model, positioning them as MLs. These roles include curriculum management, supervision, staff development, and strategic leadership, among others. This finding aligns with previous studies that have highlighted these functions as core responsibilities of ML, as well as their role in connecting school leadership with teaching staff [3,16,17,18,19].

Furthermore, cycle coordinators demonstrate a high level of involvement in practices such as curriculum planning, educational innovation, and team management, reinforcing their role as key agents in school improvement at the pedagogical level [3,37]. This finding is particularly relevant in the Catalan context, where cycle coordinators act as bridges between school leadership and teachers, in line with [11], facilitating the implementation of educational policies and promoting distributed leadership [29]. In fact, most of the highest-scoring items are directly related to the typical functions of a cycle coordinator.

Furthermore, the items explicitly referring to leadership, such as “Leading innovation and change” or “Leading staff development”, also received significantly high responses, positioning the cycle coordinator as an educational leader [38].

In comparison with international studies, such as those in refs. [39,40], Catalan cycle coordinators share similarities in their approach to curriculum management and staff development. However, they differ in placing greater emphasis on administrative tasks, which could be related to the organizational structure of the Catalan educational system. This aligns with the concept of MLs with organizational responsibilities [41] and supports the views of authors like [23,42], who argue that ML roles are often dominated by management duties and an excessive workload of bureaucratic tasks.

Overall, respondents answered positively to the items characterizing MLs, with average responses ranging from 3.19 to 4.52 out of 5, indicating a high level of agreement with all key items and roles. Therefore, it can be affirmed that cycle coordinators are MLs, characterized by their self-recognition of a wide variety of roles that align with existing literature on middle leadership [19,43,44].

4.2. What Roles Do Cycle Coordinators Develop in Their Position as Middle Leaders?

The study results identify that cycle coordinators perform six main roles, with the most prominent being the Strategic Role, the Management Role, and the Staff Development Role. These findings align with those of [19], who also found that middle leaders (MLs) tend to focus on strategic planning, innovation, and staff supervision. In fact, all the key roles described yield favorable results, supporting the assertion that cycle coordinators perform functions similar to those identified in previous models of middle leadership [23,24].

The high levels observed in the Strategic Role indicate that cycle coordinators demonstrate strong involvement in defining objectives and promoting educational innovation, in line with [39]. This role is fundamental in driving change in schools, as suggested by [3,45].

In accordance with [40], MLs assume comprehensive yet diverse responsibilities. In addition to roles focused on vision and strategy, the Administration and Management Roles are also reflected in cycle coordinators’ practices. This aligns with the recent study by [19], which also identifies management roles and practices centered on bureaucratic and administrative tasks.

Cycle coordinators also play a key role in teacher training and support [37,43], contributing to an improved school climate and educational effectiveness. This result reinforces the idea that MLs act as facilitators of teachers’ professional development [46], showing that the Staff Development Role is clearly linked to MLs.

Regarding their relationship with teaching and classroom management, MLs take on the Student-Centered Role, performing functions related to learning supervision and student well-being [47]. In fact, the high scores in items such as I-15 “Meeting with students about personal matters” and I-26 “Helping students with academic difficulties” suggest that MLs are leading teaching and learning within schools [40].

Finally, the Supervision Role also shows a strong association with cycle coordinators. The functions described by [48] align with the key items of this role, such as “Monitoring the performance of staff” and “Supervising a group of staff in a teaching area”. Furthermore, this could confirm the professional leadership role they exercise among their peers, creating multiple leadership domains beyond pedagogy [44]. In fact, team management is one of the most distinctive traits identified in studies such as [13,14].

Compared to other contexts, such as New Zealand [49] or Malaysia [50], Catalan cycle coordinators show a greater emphasis on educational innovation, leadership for change, and curriculum management [39]. This focus may be influenced by school autonomy policies in Catalonia. Moreover, the new Catalan educational curriculum has reinforced sustainable management and Education for Sustainable Development in schools.

The characteristics of cycle coordinators in their role as MLs position them as key agents for systemic and sustainable change [22], aligning with studies that highlight middle managers as crucial players in sustainability strategies [51] and leadership and change in Education for Sustainable Development [52].

4.3. Is There a Correlation Between the Roles of Cycle Coordinators and Variables Such as Gender, Training, and Experience?

The results reveal that experience and leadership training are key factors in the performance of middle leadership roles. Coordinators with more years of experience tend to develop supervision and strategic roles more intensively, suggesting that these competencies strengthen with practice [40]. This finding aligns with previous studies that have highlighted the importance of experience in consolidating middle leadership [3].

On the other hand, leadership training also has a significant impact on role performance. Coordinators who have received specific training in leadership show greater development across all evaluated dimensions, emphasizing the need for continuous training programs for these professionals [53]. This result is particularly relevant in a context where only 7.2% of coordinators have received formal leadership training.

Regarding gender, no significant differences were found in role performance, which contrasts with studies such as that of [54], who identified specific barriers for women in middle leadership positions. This finding suggests that, in the Catalan context, gender is not a determining factor in the exercise of middle leadership.

Finally, there is a notable increase in ML roles and practices in public schools compared to semi-private (concerted) schools. This contradicts the study by [51], which focused on private schools in Malaysia, where MLs tended to be more active due to higher levels of responsibility. In the Catalan public education system, coordinators tend to assume greater responsibilities in areas such as administrative management and staff development, which could be related to greater autonomy and available resources in these schools.

4.4. Are Middle Leaders Key Agents for Sustainable Development in Educational Organizations?

Focusing on the relationship between SD and educational organizations (EOs), we can consider sustainable management when it aligns its goals with the preservation and promotion of a system that remains over time, improves educational quality, and reduces its environmental impact [55]. An organization that centers its policies on sustainability should apply this vision across all its key points, particularly in administration and educational methodology [21].

In this regard, the key roles resulting from this study are ideal for an EO that seeks to promote this type of change. The Administration Role and the Management Role are recognized as important factors, alongside training, for pedagogical sustainability [56], in line with [57].

Recently, GreenComp green competencies [58] have been linked to leadership competencies of middle leaders [20]. The results align with the roles described in this study, as the authors state that competencies for teamwork, similar to the Staff Development Role, should be possessed. They also describe strategic and technical competencies, in line with the Supervision Role.

Regarding the management and administration of EOs, competencies for continuous improvement in results, negotiations, relationships, and entrepreneurship in management are highlighted.

Finally, it is worth noting that the roles described in this study fully align with UNESCO’s 2015 guidelines for Goal 4.7 of the SDGs, promoting sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, as well as creating a culture for sustainable development within EOs, as a sustainable leader [59].

Therefore, the general infographic of the 33 items and six key roles aligns with the SD principles promoted by UNESCO and GreenComp. The middle leader is a potential agent for fostering sustainable change in educational organizations through their roles in Management, Administration, Supervision, and Staff Development.

4.5. Study Contributions

4.5.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study makes several important contributions both to the theoretical understanding and practical application of ML in educational organizations.

Firstly, it provides a validation of the MLiS Model in the Catalan context. This study confirms the applicability of John De Nobile’s Middle Leadership in Schools (MLiS) model within the Catalan educational system. By identifying six key ML roles, the findings reinforce the theoretical framework and demonstrate its relevance in various educational contexts, notably outside English-speaking countries.

Secondly, it provides the first recognition of cycle coordinators as MLs. The research contributes to the evolving discourse on ML by empirically establishing cycle coordinators as middle leaders within primary education. This recognition is crucial, as it highlights a leadership role often overlooked within schools.

Thirdly, it establishes a link between the roles of middle leaders and the competencies required for a middle leader to be a promoter of sustainable development in educational organizations.

Finally, it presents empirical evidence on the multifaceted nature of MLs, emphasizing their involvement in strategic planning, administration, supervision, curriculum management, and team leadership—key roles for the smooth functioning of an educational organization.

4.5.2. Practical Contributions

The findings of this study not only provide insights into middle leadership but also offer concrete good practices that can be implemented in educational organizations to improve leadership effectiveness.

The study highlights some of the implications of recognizing cycle coordinators as ML in Educational Policy and School Management: The study underscores the need for policymakers and school administrators to formally recognize and support ML positions. Given the essential role that cycle coordinators play in connecting senior leadership with teaching staff, educational institutions should implement clear policies that acknowledge and empower these leaders, as well as provide better leadership training based on the study’s descriptive results. One of the good practices derived from these findings is the establishment of structured mentoring programs where experienced middle leaders guide new cycle coordinators, ensuring a smoother transition into leadership roles.

On the other hand, support for sustainable educational leadership should be a priority for the future of educational organizations. The study aligns with contemporary discussions on sustainable educational reform, demonstrating that middle leaders play a key role in fostering innovation, continuous improvement, and a collaborative school culture.

Schools can adopt good practices such as regular peer-learning sessions, where middle leaders share strategies for effective leadership, as well as the implementation of professional learning communities (PLCs) to strengthen leadership capacity at all levels.

In summary, this study lays the foundation for a more nuanced understanding of middle leadership within primary education, providing both theoretical insights and practical recommendations that can inform future research, policy decisions, and school leadership development programs. By applying these findings, educational institutions can enhance leadership practices, ultimately improving school governance and student outcomes.

4.6. Limitations

Despite the significant findings of this study, several limitations need to be acknowledged. Firstly, the study relies on a quantitative approach using the Middle Leadership Roles Questionnaire—School Edition (MLRQ-SE), which, although robust, may not fully capture the complexity of ML practices in educational environments. Future research could complement these findings with qualitative methodologies, such as interviews or case studies, to gain a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of cycle coordinators in their leadership roles.

Secondly, the study is geographically limited to the Catalan educational system, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other educational contexts. Since the structures and responsibilities of ML vary between countries and educational systems, further research in different regions could provide a comparative perspective and strengthen the external validity of these findings.

Thirdly, although this study identifies the key leadership roles of cycle coordinators, it does not analyze their long-term impact on student outcomes or institutional performance. Future longitudinal studies could examine how the exercise of ML roles influences teaching effectiveness, school improvement, and sustainable educational development over time.

Finally, the study highlights the importance of leadership training for cycle coordinators but does not explore which specific training programs would be most effective. Future research could investigate the impact of targeted professional development initiatives on the improvement of ML competencies and their subsequent effect on school dynamics.

4.7. Future Research

Finally, the findings also open the door for future research focused on the contrast between leadership practices in public and private schools, suggesting a potential research gap in the implementation of leadership policies based on the type of school.

For future research, it is also key to investigate the relationship between academic training and leadership performance, especially why teachers with a diploma show higher levels of leadership. Future studies could explore which formative elements enhance ML and how training can be improved.

Another line to explore is the impact of ML on educational outcomes, including student performance and teacher satisfaction. Longitudinal studies could provide data on its influence on school improvement.

Lastly, it is recommended to evaluate specific middle leadership training programs to measure their impact on cycle coordinators’ performance. Exploring these topics will help strengthen the recognition and effectiveness of ML in educational institutions.

5. Conclusions

The study had two main objectives. The first objective was to identify cycle coordinators as MLs. The second objective was to recognize the roles they develop in their key position as middle leaders within the Catalan educational system.

It has been observed that cycle coordinators perform key functions in areas such as curriculum management, supervision, staff development, and organizational strategy. These findings not only validate the MLiS model proposed by [18,21] but also align with previous studies that have emphasized the importance of middle leadership in improving teaching and learning.

Therefore, this article provides initial evidence recognizing cycle coordinators as true middle leaders (MLs), with high levels of engagement in most practices associated with each role, thereby confirming the following six key roles: Strategic Role, Management Role, Administrative Role, Supervision Role, Student-Focused Role, and Personal Development Role.

Regarding the correlation of variables, the results show that experience, more than academic training, has a significant impact on role performance. This underscores the importance of practical experience in consolidating leadership skills in cycle coordinators. However, the results also indicate that prior leadership training is effective in enhancing the performance of ML roles.

This study, therefore, provides valuable insights into the reality of middle leadership ML and lays the foundation for a deeper understanding of the impact of training and experience on the evolution of middle leadership roles based on the educational system, as well as the characteristics of MLs in educational organizations. In addition, it establishes an important link between the ability to create educational organizations that promote sustainable development, as the roles of middle leaders and the functions of cycle coordinators align with the characteristics of a leader who can promote SD.

Furthermore, it positions cycle coordinators as middle leaders within the Catalan educational system.