Methodology Based on Critical Reflective Dialogue to Optimize Educational Leadership

Abstract

For educational leadership that promotes equity, there is evidence of successful leadership practices developed by educational leaders striving for social justice, such as the one planned by Leithwood. Furthermore, training programs for educational leaders seeking to replicate these practices have been dominated by training that encourages educational leaders to focus on learning outcomes without developing a critical–reflective dialogue with the school context, the diversity of educational institutions, and, consequently, with students and their families. In this sense, the objective of the research is to examine the interaction between community members such as directors, teachers and parents in eight educational institutions in the Peruvian jungle and propose a formative theoretical model based on critical and reflective dialogue, based on a review of various theories that have contributed to the formation of a dialogue grounded in indignation and questioning of the context. The methodology follows a mixed approach, with a sample of 136 teachers and 16 key informants, using a validated questionnaire and an in-depth interview as instruments. Data analysis showed low interaction between educational leaders and the community, a disconnect with the curricula, and a low sense of responsibility and commitment, reflected only in administrative compliance. Based on these results and the bibliographic review of general and specific theories, a theoretical model based on critical and reflective dialogue was designed to develop awareness and sensitivity toward education with social justice, for the development of successful educational leadership practices.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the training of educational leaders has focused on interventions in teacher performance (Weinstein et al., 2016; Rojas et al., 2020). While this is important, practical action in the face of contextual problematic situations faced by the school requires attention (Iturra & Cansino, 2018). This is why training program designs require a critical and change-oriented perspective to implement inclusive pedagogical leadership practices (Romero, 2021; Volosnikova et al., 2024), as well as the creation of a culture in the school that promotes participation, communication, and coordination from bottom-up interventions (Beycioğlu & Kondakci, 2021). This training approach focuses on equity as a goal (Niesche, 2024).

In this sense, commitment and ethics constitute a component of social justice that enhances transformational leadership in schools and communities. Various studies recognize transformational leadership as a theoretical model for educational leadership (Connolly et al., 2017) due to its ability to influence others to achieve goals, in addition to its effects. However, research is needed to further analyze the effectiveness of transformational leadership and how it contributes to the transition of followers from fulfilling organizational goals to identifying and internalizing values and beliefs (Bass, 1999).

Educational leaders need to strengthen their personal development at a cognitive level (knowing how to shape the organization of the center), social (emotional intelligence), psychological (optimism, resilience, self-efficacy, and proactivity), and ethical (values) (Leithwood, 2021). The personal development of leaders must be based on cultural sensitivity to be effective in the face of diversity (Marshall & Khalifa, 2018). Therefore, training programs for educational leaders must have multiple approaches and be applied consistently, considering the context of each center (Huber & Pruitt, 2024).

Currently, the concept of educational leadership is related to equity and social justice to address the marked inequities and indifferences in the educational system (Gümüş et al., 2020; Vassallo, 2021; Niesche, 2024). In Latin America, Krüger (2019) establishes three dimensions of inequality in schools: educational access, low levels of learning, and segregation of students due to their social, cultural, and economic status, which is reflected in learning outcomes (Murillo & Martínez-Garrido, 2017; Delgado-Galindo et al., 2021). In turn, the capacity for transformative and distributive leadership fosters the best conditions or combines the various types of leadership to structure the organization of the school to the characteristics of the local context and thus achieve a common goal with the participation and commitment of all educational actors (Pashiardis & Johansson, 2020).

In countries with cultural diversity, a model that incorporates dialogue as a mechanism for developing cultural and social sensitivity prevails (Domínguez et al., 2020); furthermore, it incorporates the values of the context, generating good practices that guide good educational leadership (Vassallo, 2021). In this way, successful leaders develop their personal capacities to face the diverse and complex context that a new school requires (Leithwood, 2023). Therefore, this research contributes from a theoretical model for the training of educational leaders (principals) based on critical reflective dialogue as a leader’s capacity to develop their sociocultural sensitivity towards the community and families, recognizing the cultural diversity and educational needs of the context.

It is important to highlight that the terms “management” and “leadership” respond to different logics within the educational field. Pring (2014) argues that management is linked to operational effectiveness, regulatory compliance, and organizational control, while leadership, in its broadest sense, implies the ethical and professional capacity to guide improvement processes based on a critical understanding of the context and a commitment to the common good. In this conceptual order, educational leadership should not be reduced to administrative skills but rather understood as a reflective and transformative practice, oriented toward pedagogical development and social justice.

Educational leadership for social justice focuses its actions on strategies to generate favorable conditions so that all students, especially those from vulnerable backgrounds, can enhance their capacities to achieve lasting learning (Gümüş et al., 2020; Volosnikova et al., 2024). In this sense, learning is meaningful when it links the knowledge that students contribute with the construction of real-life learning to solve problems in their immediate environment.

In this way, educational leadership aligns with the goal of sustainable development by ensuring inclusive, equitable, and quality education where all students feel fulfilled and can contribute to their community.

Leadership for social justice is approached from three fundamental concepts: diversity and equity; culturally sensitive racial leadership; and moral leadership for multicultural education (Gümüş et al., 2020, p. 92). An educational leader for social justice becomes familiar with the existing culture and recognizes the diversity of their students, generating their transformation in interactions within the context (Beycioğlu & Kondakci, 2021), being more receptive to the school environment, generating empathy and an anti-racist pedagogy in the face of all types of discrimination, focused on the rationality of critical and reflective learning (Head & Kaur, 2024).

From neuroscience research, Wang (2018) emphasizes how emotions allow the educational leader to channel moral indignation to motivate change, regulate their emotions and build a collective identity in the school. In this way, the actions of the educational leader focus on universal values such as social justice, dignity and empathy toward the disadvantaged (Pashiardis & Johansson, 2020). However, since the school is a center of complex interactions, how these interactions modify the educational leader and the teaching staff themselves has not been thoroughly studied (Hawkins & James, 2017), much less how the construction of a theoretical model allows to strengthen the training of the educational leader to work with the disadvantaged.

Leithwood’s contributions, which were contrasted with 26 studies in urban and rural schools in diverse contexts such as New Zealand, Cyprus, Canada, England, Australia, and Hong Kong, have captured actions or practices carried out by educational leaders that promote equity. These actions promote integration with families and the community; as well as distributive leadership, collaborative decision-making, and having all school staff, especially teachers, align curricula and subjects with the resources available to the school to achieve the learning goals proposed for disadvantaged students (Leithwood, 2021).

Therefore, the research begins with three questions: How and in what ways do different community actors interact in eight educational institutions in the Peruvian jungle? Second, how can this be theorized? Third, what leadership training model emerges to ensure that community dialogues include less-heard voices to inform a culturally relevant curriculum?

The curriculum can teach real-life contextual skills to stimulate economic growth. This must be achieved through cultures that honor and respect the diversity of cultural heritages, values, and beliefs of the community. This can build relationships of trust and partnerships that support the self-management of communities’ productive capacity, particularly those of the poor and most vulnerable, with formal businesses and workers (World Bank, 2023). A curriculum that can empower young social innovators, the future treasure of Peruvian rainforest communities, to build value chains from harvested products and resources can strengthen resilience to external shocks and build circular green energy systems. Teachers are then equipped, with a culturally relevant curriculum and productive community dialogues, to prepare Peruvian rainforest communities to generate climate change mitigation strategies for sustainable development. This is because Peru’s National Meteorological and Hydrological Service estimates that, by 2050, rainfall will decrease by up to 40% in some areas of the country. Furthermore, temperatures are expected to rise by up to 3.5 °C (SENAMHI, 2021).

1.1. Educational Leadership Practices

For Forde et al. (2021), leadership practices are “tasks and activities carried out by school professionals” (p. 2). In this sense, James et al. (2020) define them as the productive actions or interactions carried out by educational leaders, driven by a commitment to achieving effectiveness. Being a factor of effectiveness and equity, the practices of successful educational leaders focus on actions that include a critical and reflective vision, a shared community project from a school climate with bonds of trust, high expectations in the work of teachers and students, as well as the promotion of an inclusive approach (Romero, 2021).

For this research, the educational leadership practices proposed by Leithwood (2021) were considered, which integrate instruction and transformational leadership oriented towards equity, and which comprise five domains and specific actions, the same ones that have been considered in the research and are detailed below (see

Table 1. Inventory of equitable leadership practices.

No.	Domains	Specific Practices
1	Address Configuration	Build a shared vision; identify specific, shared, and time-bound goals; create high performance expectations; communicate the vision and goals; create a shared, time-bound vision; and communicate the vision and goals.
2	Building relationships and developing people.	Stimulate the growth of the capacities of the staff professionals; provide support and demonstrate consideration of the members’ individual characters, as well as model the values and practices of the school, congruent relationships of trust with and between staff, students, and parents. Establish labor relations productive with representatives of the teachers’ federation.
3	Design the organization to support desired practices	Build cultures of collaboration and shared leadership; structure the organization to facilitate collaboration; build productive relationships with families and communities; connect the school to its broader environment; maintain a safe and healthy school environment; and allocate resources to support the school’s vision and goals.
4	Improve instructional programs	Staff the instructional program; provide instructional support; monitor student learning and progress toward school improvement; protect staff from distractions while on the job; and interact with teachers in their professional learning activities.
5	Ensure accountability	Promote a sense of internal staff accountability and address demands for external accountability.

Source: Leithwood (2021).

).

In this line, the National Policy Board for Educational Administration of North America (NPBEA), based on research on educational leadership, proposed seven standards related to student performance and the moral foundations of the leader, as a basis for understanding effective leadership practices, being the following: Standard one: vision, mission and fundamental values, Standard two: ethics and professional standards, Standard three: equity and cultural leadership, Standard four: educational leadership, Standard five: community and external leadership, Standard six: operations and management and Standard seven: leadership in human resources (Young et al., 2017).

1.2. Potentials of Critical Reflective Dialogue to Optimize Educational Leadership

Reflection as part of pedagogical action has a positivist stance with Dewey and Schön, two classic authors who emphasize a greater contrast between theoretical knowledge and experiential knowledge (what Schön (1998) calls knowledge in action (at the time it occurs) or about action (after the event)). Although both forms of reflection have an experiential component, they emphasize the theoretical so that the author generates new knowledge. Unlike the position of Zeichner (1993), who plans a risk in reflection when the academic predominates without considering the particularity of the context, such as the student’s social environment. Along these lines, Finlay (2008) distinguishes between reflection as a particular action and critical reflection, the latter being that which occurs collectively to encourage dialogue based on the particularity of the context to achieve reflexibility. This position has its conceptual base in phenomenology and critical theory. Reflective dialogue is thinking correctly from an ethical component of commitment based on the social context; dialogue with the other is a dialectical encounter in which the one who forms the other forms himself (Freire, 1975).

Regarding the reflection of educational leaders, various studies address the relationship between the training processes of educational leaders and reflective dialogue. Young et al. (2017) proposed three important trends: critical reflection, critical awareness, and the ability to adopt multiple perspectives. Similarly, Johnson (2023) highlighted the introspective capacity of educational leaders to achieve reflection and their willingness to propose solutions, creating strong relationships that facilitate effective management. Reflective dialogue is an essential aspect of educational leadership practices, requiring the intervention of various stakeholders to understand a specific reality. Furthermore, it requires practice, especially when the actions of the leader for years have been based more on administrative (management) than pedagogical.

Therefore, training educational leaders focused on pedagogical processes entails developing a professional identity, with responsibilities and actions different from those of a teacher (Cuenca, 2019); this implies strengthening their leadership in the development of quality educational services. Effective practices or actions of educational leaders require a component of reflection on educational practice. Training programs in several Latin American countries, including Peru, have not had the best results. There is a lack of training models that allow for incorporating practical experiences in the role of principal in management and leadership, especially during the early years, which creates tension for the leader by seeking to prioritize the urgent actions demanded by the educational institution (Weinstein et al., 2016). As for the leaders with years of service in the position, it is necessary to update their skills and create spaces to share their experiences (Antúnez & Silva, 2020), as well as form learning communities promoted in institutions with shared purposes, joint activities and a collective approach to student learning, de-privatizing practices and reflective dialogue (Zhang et al., 2022).

In this sense, the objective of this research is to examine the interaction between community members such as principals, teachers, and parents in eight educational institutions in the Peruvian jungle and to propose a theoretical training model to optimize educational leadership practices. It is important to consider that the educational institutions involved in the research are principals, who assume the responsibility of managing and leading actions to improve student learning. Therefore, the proposed theoretical training model is designed for leaders who exercise primary educational leadership in educational centers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodological Approach

The paradigm developed in this research is critical and, based on the humanistic model, provides a theoretical model for strengthening pedagogical leadership in managers, called formative management of critical and reflective dialogue. The research approach is mixed, with an emphasis on qualitative and basic research with a transformative approach.

2.2. Variable

The research variable refers to the educational leadership practices proposed by Leithwood (2021) and consists of five domains: setting directions, building relationships and developing people, designing the organization to support desired practices, improving instructional programs, and ensuring accountability.

2.3. Population, Sample and Sampling

The census population consisted of 140 participants (teachers) from eight secondary schools in the San Martín region (Peruvian jungle), two of them in rural areas and six in urban areas, which, due to their geographic location, serve rural populations. Of these, 136 teachers voluntarily completed the online questionnaire. It should be noted that some teachers from areas with limited internet access were unable to complete the questionnaire.

The selection of a sample of 16 participants for the semi-structured interview responded to methodological criteria specific to qualitative research with an interpretive approach, in which the central objective is not statistical generalization, but rather a deep understanding of the perceptions, experiences, and meanings attributed by the actors involved. In this sense, convenience sampling was chosen, allowing for the selection of accessible and available key informants who, due to their positions as experienced leaders or teachers, provide meaningful and relevant information for the study’s objectives. The sample consisted of eight leaders (all principals) and eight teachers. It should be noted that the teachers at these institutions are mostly hired. Therefore, the leaders and teachers interviewed had to have a minimum of two years of experience in the school, which allowed for an institutional perspective from two levels of analysis to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the educational leadership practices developed in diverse contexts.

Likewise, the simultaneous administration of the survey and the semi-structured interview is based on a mixed convergent-parallel design, where quantitative and qualitative data collection is conducted simultaneously (Hernandez-Sampieri & Mendoza, 2018). This synchrony ensured temporal consistency by capturing both data sets under the same contextual conditions. Therefore, administering both instruments during the same period allowed us to capture participants’ perceptions and experiences without being influenced by organizational, regulatory, or contextual changes that alter their responses at different times. The informants who participated in the research are described (see

Table 2. Informants who participated in the research.

Leaders				Teachers
No.	Informant	Gender	Duration of Office	No.	Informant	Gender	Condition
1	DR_x	male	5 years	1	D1	male	appointed
2	DR_v	male	2 years	2	D2	male	appointed
3	DR_z	male	3 years	3	D3	female	appointed
4	DR_r	male	1 year	4	D4	male	appointed
5	DR_t	female	3 years	5	D5	male	contracted
6	DR_p	male	2 years	6	D6	male	appointed
7	DR_w	male	3 years	7	D7	female	appointed
8	DR_y	male	2 years	8	D8	male	contracted

)

2.4. Instruments Used to Obtain Information

The questionnaire obtained a reliability of 0.739 Cronbach’s alpha, and content validity was determined by expert judgment. To assess teachers’ perceptions of the educational leadership practices promoted by their leaders, a structured questionnaire was administered to a sample of 136 teachers. The instrument consists of 22 items, distributed in five key dimensions: (1) establishing guidelines, (2) building relationships and personal development, (3) designing the organization to support desired practices, (4) improving teaching programs and (5) assuming responsibilities.

Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = almost always, 5 = always).

The questionnaire was subjected to expert validation and self-administered by the participating teachers.

A semi-structured interview was also designed and conducted with the 16 key informants, with content validity based on expert judgment. Each interview guide consisted of open-ended questions, differentiated by the informant’s position. The purpose of each interview was to gain a deeper understanding of the application of educational leadership practices in the educational institution and the challenges faced by educational leaders.

2.5. Fieldwork

The instruments were administered simultaneously, beginning with the interview with each leader. The online survey was then conducted with each school, followed by an interview with the teachers. The interview was conducted via Google Meet, but due to poor connectivity, especially in rural areas, it was conducted by phone and, in some cases, had to be completed over two days. The survey was conducted using a Google Forms form; this instrument was anonymous and conducted online.

2.6. Data Analysis

Once the collection of quantitative and qualitative data was completed, data processing continued. For the quantitative data, a descriptive analysis of leadership practices was conducted, considering the levels of very poor, poor, average, efficient, and very efficient for each subcategory. For the qualitative data, Atlas ti software (Version 25.0.1) was used, recording the information collected from the interview guides until data saturation was reached. The responses were synthesized for each group of informants (leader or teacher) using open coding. This coding allowed responses to be grouped using axial coding, which made it possible to establish relationships and characteristics of leadership practices, giving rise to new emerging categories.

3. Results

3.1. Quantitative Phase

The Leithwood Leadership Practices questionnaire, administered to teachers, seeks to capture the actions educational leaders take in their schools to achieve equity. The results for each item are presented below (see

Table 3. Results by item of the teacher questionnaire.

	Rating Scale	Never		Hardly Ever		Sometimes		Almost Always		Always
Domain	Items	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%	F	%
Address Configuration	1. Participate in building your school’s vision.	1	0.7	6	4.4	58	42.6	64	47.1	7	5.1
	2. The short-term goal of achieving learning is recognized by the entire educational community.	2	1.5	5	3.7	46	33.8	51	37.5	32	23.5
	3. Learning achievement expectations consider high levels of student performance.	1	0.7	3	2.2	26	19.1	63	46.3	43	31.6
	4. The leader constantly communicates the vision and the objective that must be achieved in the school.	4	2.9	9	6.6	25	18.4	44	32.4	54	39.7
Building relationships and personal development	5. He believes that his professional efforts to improve learning are recognized.	1	0.7	12	8.8	60	44.1	56	41.2	7	5.1
	6. The leader agrees with the teachers on spaces for professional growth.	4	2.9	20	14.7	62	45.6	34	25	16	11.8
	7. All school activities are related to the values and learning objectives agreed upon with the community.	2	1.5	2	1.5	22	16.2	72	52.9	38	27.9
	8. Trust the leader.	1	0.7	9	6.6	45	33.1	52	38.2	29	21.3
	9. Parents trust the educational service provided by the school.	0	0	2	1.5	26	19.1	72	52.9	36	26.5
Design the organization to support desired practices	10. The leader forms professional learning communities.	1	0.7	8	5.9	22	16.2	49	36	56	41.2
	11. The leader participates in professional learning community meetings.	3	2.2	10	7.4	54	39.7	57	41.9	12	8.8
	12. The family participates in activities organized by the school to help their children learn.	0	0	8	5.9	44	32.4	52	38.2	32	23.5
	13. The leader provides the resources or materials that all students require.	4	2.9	6	4.4	35	25.7	39	28.7	52	38.2
	14. The school is a nice place to do your work.	0	0	5	3.7	12	8.8	52	38.2	67	49.3
	15. The school is a pleasant and safe place for students.	0	0	4	2.9	9	6.6	39	28.7	84	61.8
Improve instructional programs	16. At the beginning of the year and throughout the year, classrooms are staffed with teaching staff.	0	0	0	0	18	13.2	71	52.2	47	34.6
	17. Leader’s follow-up helps with reflection to improve his/her teaching practice.	3	2.2	14	10.3	60	44.1	47	34.6	12	8.8
	18. Students’ progress is monitored in relation to the proposed objective.	0	0	4	2.9	10	7.4	51	37.5	71	52.2
	19. The time allotted for classes is respected and not shortened by any unforeseen circumstances.	0	0	9	6.6	21	15.4	69	50.7	37	27.2
	20. Teachers, together with the leader, delve into the knowledge that students require according to their context.	1	0.7	12	8.8	47	34.6	50	36.8	26	19.1
Ensure accountability	21. You feel responsible for the learning outcomes of all your students.	0	0	0	0	21	15.4	38	27.9	77	56.6
	22. The management team provides timely information on student progress to parents and the community.	0	0	1	0.7	13	9.6	42	30.9	80	58.8

).

• Analysis of the results for each domain

Configuration of directions, in the first and second items, teachers perceive very little participation of the educational community in the elaboration of a joint vision to establish learning goals; for Leithwood (2021) this domain has influence on the others since it marks the direction or perspective that the institution can have.

Regarding personal development and relationship building, in items five and six, teachers overwhelmingly express that their work is almost never recognized, and occasionally, as is the professional development they may receive at school. This is reflected in item eight, as there is little trust in the support they may receive from the leader. Likewise, there is relative trust among parents in the service provided by the school, despite the fact that in this item the teacher may perceive that they also have some responsibility. In this area, equitable leaders are concerned with the development of teaching staff to achieve equitable outcomes for students, as well as with trusting relationships with parents (Leithwood, 2021).

Design the organization to support desired practices. In this area, there are elements that directly involve teachers and not just the leader’s actions, such as elements 10 and 14, where the best results are obtained. Unlike elements 11 and 12, which are part of the leaders’ roles, they encourage the formation of learning communities and create spaces for families to participate in collaborative actions toward their children’s learning.

Educational programs are one of the least valued, as this refers to the leader’s monitoring of teaching actions in relation to learning and the reflection this can generate. Point 20, which addresses the actions of teachers and leaders in relation to considering the student context in educational programs, remains the least valued.

In both areas, Leithwood (2021) highlighted the importance of connecting with families to better understand their culture and interests, which also involves involving teachers. The organizational design involves open and horizontal communication with educational stakeholders to achieve authentic understanding when implementing the pedagogical intervention.

Accountability. The best results are obtained in this dimension. Item 21 refers directly to the commitment of the teaching staff, and the last item refers to the management team, the latter being a functional part of the leader’s responsibility. For Leithwood (2021), in this dimension, commitment to results and the responsibility to be accountable for them are built jointly with the teaching staff.

An important quantitative finding stands out: teachers perceive that leaders fulfill their formal and administrative responsibilities, but do not exercise active leadership to improve instruction. This disparity is significant because it indicates a disconnect between the expected role of the educational leader as a transformative agent of the teaching–learning process.

This result is interpreted in light of an analysis of the interaction between leaders, teachers, families, and the community within the framework of educational leadership oriented toward social justice. In this sense, it is linked to the key dimensions of educational leadership described in the literature, particularly those proposed by Leithwood. Likewise, it is evident that in the Setting Directions domain, teachers have limited participation in goal setting and pedagogical planning. This reinforces a vertical leadership that is disjointed from the context. This distancing is accentuated by the limited participation of parents and the lack of integration of community knowledge into the school curriculum, which contradicts the principles of leadership for social justice, which demand an ethical, culturally sensitive, and contextualized practice (Sarkr & O’Sullivan, 2022; Vigo-Arrazola & Beach, 2020).

3.2. Qualitative Phase

The interview questions were related to each of the Dimensions of Leithwood’s Educational Leadership practices and were applied individually and at different times to each manager and each teacher.

• Address Configuration

The questions were designed to gather information from leaders and teachers about how community stakeholders are encouraged to co-construct a vision of the goals they hope to achieve, as well as to identify the goals they set with teachers to establish high-achieving expectations for students.

Leaders expressed that teachers have a positive attitude, their participation has improved over time, and they have met at the end of the year to set goals for the following year. However, it is important to note that most teachers are hired, and many are transferred to other institutions. Regarding parental involvement in the institution, they expressed that they do not attend school unless they receive some type of donation, such as food or books. Furthermore, leaders expressed a pessimistic view of student performance.

Leaders’ response:

“Parents do not identify with the institution, they believe that everything must be given to the students, it is complicated, meetings are called and the grandmother, an older brother and even a neighbor attend”.

(DR_x)

“With the pandemic, instead of improving, things have gotten worse. Students don’t like to read, they’re told to stop looking at their cell phones, even though they’re forbidden from bringing them to school”.

(DR_r)

Some teachers try hard, but if a child doesn’t want to study, what can they say? Even parents support their bad behavior; during harvest time, there’s a lot of absenteeism.

(DR_v)

Regarding parents, the leaders did not clearly express the actions they are promoting for family participation and involvement; nor did they specify spaces for the participation of families or other community stakeholders.

In the interview with teachers, they stated that they do not participate in setting goals for the school year, as these meetings are held at the end of the year, and some sign their contracts at the beginning. However, they indicated that they receive an annual programming structure from their curriculum coordinator, as well as the activities corresponding to the school calendar. Regarding parent participation, they indicated that attendance is very low when parents are invited to receive report cards and that they are unaware of other times when they are invited to the school.

Teacher’s answer:

“The area coordinator gives me a document with the program that we have to carry out during the year”.

(D2)

“Parents are called to submit student reports, and only some attend, others wait until the end of the year”.

(D4)

Teachers also expressed that the goals set for learning achievement are realistic, but student performance is low, even more so after the pandemic. Parents believe that since their children are in high school, they do not need any follow-up.

• Building relationships and personal development

The interview questions addressed the leader’s practices for fostering the growth of teachers’ professional capacities; providing support and consideration to each staff member; and building trusting relationships with and among staff, students, and parents.

Leaders’ response:

The leaders stated that the level coordinator is primarily responsible for supporting and supervising the teachers’ work, as they have a heavy administrative burden.

I don’t always go to class. Besides, I don’t need to stay the whole hour, since we know who’s working (…) if the contracted teachers have any questions, they have an hour of class time for that.

(DR_t)

Teachers apply for a contract each year; of the 100%, 10% return, while others migrate to a new institution. Therefore, the coordinators provide them with everything they need to work during the school year.

(DR_p)

Regarding the relationships of trust established between and with the faculty, most leaders expressed a climate of trust. However, three leaders expressed a disadvantage in faculty work hours due to the fact that tenured faculty choose their own schedules so they can leave early, forcing contract faculty to work staggered schedules, which generates discontent among the latter.

“The schedule is from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Each teacher works 32 h and leaves school. They don’t stay if they’re called to a meeting. Contract teachers finish at 1:00 p.m. because it’s convenient for them”.

(DR_w)

Regarding the relationship between parents and the school, leaders stated that student enrollment has increased. While it had declined a few years ago due to the pandemic, it has recovered and, in some cases, has remained stable. Therefore, they affirmed that parents trust the institution. Furthermore, many highlighted the good relationship with parents, although, contradictorily, they reported little communication with them. Regarding students, they expressed behavioral problems due to limited parental support and low academic effort.

“Unfortunately, parents no longer care about their older children, and it is during adolescence that they have to be more careful with who they associate with, which is why there are problems in the institution”.

(DR_x)

Teachers’ response

Regarding the teachers, they expressed that their greatest communication is with the level’s coordinating teacher and the teachers with whom they share the same academic load, rather than with the leader. They also indicated that they meet for one hour a week to share their programs. The leader does not participate in these meetings, but general meetings are held when there is an activity or school regulation, which they inform the teachers about.

“The meetings we have had with the leader are for some activities such as the school anniversary, for other activities we have working committees”.

(D5)

“Through collegial meetings, we share the schedules that correspond to the next unit”.

(D3)

• Design the organization for the desired practices.

The questions focused on analyzing the institution’s collaborative culture and creating a welcoming environment for all educational stakeholders to be part of the organization.

Leaders’ response:

The leaders emphasized the positive atmosphere at the institution; they were also asked about the resources allocated to educational activities. In this regard, some leaders mentioned the administrative workload and staff shortages, which is why they do not always hold pedagogical meetings, preferring to hold them virtually, despite the low faculty participation in this space.

“Sometimes we have virtual meetings, but you don’t know if they’re listening because they don’t turn on their cameras, and you have to call them several times.”

(DR_y)

“They have become accustomed to the virtual world, but they do not participate, they say they do not have a good connection, that problem has been brought about by virtuality”.

(DR_p)

Regarding the resources that leaders manage, they report a lack of materials and facilities, such as a computer room or laboratory, especially the physical risk of classrooms that require maintenance.

“This is the largest and most recognized school, but the classrooms are at risk, the (tin) roof is in poor condition in three classrooms, it is going to rain and the students will not be able to use them”.

(DR_x)

Teachers’ response

Teachers affirm that school meetings are spaces for reaching agreements on how to approach teaching; some acknowledge that the area coordinator has supported them in their work. However, they comment that their work is not widely recognized; there is little or no acknowledgment. Regarding their work with students, some say they do everything possible to ensure their students learn but lack the necessary support from their parents; others affirm that teachers lack the necessary support to do their job, as nowadays it is easy to report a teacher if he or she tries to restore order in the classroom.

“As a teacher, I want my students to learn, but there is no greater support from parents”.

(D3)

“They are another generation, now you can’t even yell at the students because they report you”.

(D5)

Regarding school meetings, most teachers stated that there is no collaborative work among teachers, but rather group work, since these meetings are solely for the distribution of tasks, such as the development of monthly learning sessions.

“At school we divide the sessions that each one is going to develop… since they are the same topics, first they sent me one as a model and from there I guide myself”,

(D8)

• Improve instructional programs

The questions focused on reflecting on the curriculum to address student needs and the local context, as well as on monitoring learning to ensure quality teaching and well-equipped teaching staff.

Leaders’ response:

Leaders indicated that, at the beginning of the year, some teachers take a long time to arrive at school due to their hiring. They acknowledge that teaching is arduous, and the pedagogical coordinator provides them with guidelines for working based on the national curriculum. Furthermore, three leaders indicated that teachers receive training through online courses offered by the Ministry of Education (Minedu) to work in accordance with the national curriculum. Leaders are frustrated with the progress in student learning and point to the low interest of students and their families.

“We are very low in learning outcomes; students must also do their part”.

(DR_r)

“We have reading and writing deficiencies, they (students) do not participate (students) in class in the presentations, the teacher tells who can participate and they remain silent; what can we do if the parents do not support either”.

(DR_x)

At no point did leaders express how they might rethink the curriculum based on the local context to respond to the needs of students and their families.

Teachers’ response

The teachers reiterate that they do so collaboratively, taking advantage of study time. While they use the national curriculum for their programs, they seek to create situations of interest to students, taking into account their prior knowledge. In this regard, they did not mention whether they socialize or contextualize community problems to integrate them into the learning process.

“We support each other in programming with our classmates, each one does a unit that we share each month”.

(D3)

“To program we follow the pedagogical processes, we start from previous knowledge, we look for something that catches their attention, but it is difficult with young people, they have a different mentality”,

(D5)

At no point did teachers mention any participation or dialogue with the leader about the skills or content they prioritize; some stated that the leader entered their classroom, checked their schedule, made very general comments, and then left.

• Ensure accountability

The questions focused on commitment and accountability for the learning outcomes provided to the community.

Leaders’ response:

Administrators indicated that they schedule timely delivery of student learning assessment records and that each curriculum coordinator collaborates with teachers and delivers learning outcomes to students and parents promptly. When asked about their responsibility for poor student learning outcomes, they indicated that they ask teachers to reschedule their learning units; they also indicated that the greatest responsibility falls on teachers since they are the ones who work directly with students.

“(…) the notebooks are delivered punctually, the coordinators organize themselves to collect the records”.

(DR_w)

“(…) we have a problem with student performance, we have seen the need at the end of the first two months to rethink learning”,

(DR_v)

Teachers’ response

Teachers expressed that everyone in the institution is responsible: teachers, parents, and students. Regarding students, they stated that they would make greater progress in their learning if they had the support of their parents. Regarding the leader’s commitment to learning outcomes, this is perceived more as an administrative role, providing more necessary information. Finally, teachers perceive that they dedicate a great deal of effort that is not appreciated by their families, who show little interest in their children’s education.

“We are all responsible: parents, teachers, and students; but if parents don’t support us, they take away our authority, how can I move forward?”.

(D4)

“The leader is informed of the students’ progress, but the responsibility always falls on the teacher; not all of one’s effort is recognized”.

(D7)

“(…) It’s not until the end of the year that parents find out whether a student passed or failed. Some are illiterate; they only look at the blue color of the notebook, and that’s enough for them”.

(D6)

“(…) the villagers here no longer have expectations; they know that he will be a motorcycle taxi driver or that he will work in the fields like his father”.

(D8)

4. Discussion

According to the contrasting quantitative and qualitative results, qualitative information provided more insight into the perception of leadership practices, with the following main categories emerging from the findings:

Low levels of interaction between community members (teachers, administrators, parents, local community). Overall, there is a disconnect between the school and the community; without the social component, as expressed by Sarkr and O’Sullivan (2022), dialogue, action, and collaborative reflection are impossible, requiring the development of the emotional component to recognize the value that the community and the enabling context for educational work provide. Without recognition of the diversity offered by the context as an opportunity and challenge to meet the perceived learning needs of students, it is impossible to reduce inequalities in academic performance (Smith & Gumus, 2022). Therefore, the existence of a relational vacuum limits the possibility of building collaborative networks and exercising transformative educational leadership. This situation contradicts the literature reviewed and highlights an urgent need: the development of a training model that sensitizes leaders to the sociocultural context and strengthens their capacity to integrate teachers, students, and families into processes of dialogue, critical reflection, and collaborative action.

Therefore, sensitivity to the social context implies that leaders, as educational leaders and teachers, can propose strategies that promote parental participation, based on a critical reflection that stimulates action (Vigo-Arrazola & Beach, 2020). To do this, they must start from the context that guides the ethical practice of the educational leader to establish better relationships between members of the educational community and, therefore, orient themselves towards the same objectives (Argyropoulou & Lintzerakou, 2025).

This links to the need for a culturally relevant curriculum. Curricula and their development converge with community needs, something that leaders and teachers must take into account (Martínez et al., 2018). This implies that curricula must capture the knowledge that students contribute to community problems, which can be used pedagogically through dialogue and reflection since student absenteeism during harvest season can be transformed into relevant learning situations if the school channels it appropriately.

Assuming collective responsibility. Critical reflection fostered by leaders with teachers can break the myth that poor learning outcomes are attributed to factors related to family poverty, low student motivation, or low expectations of their abilities (Lee & Loeb, 2000). Responsibility for learning outcomes is shared when families and other community leaders engage in participatory dialogue that recognizes the learning needs and perspectives to be met (Vassallo, 2021).

These findings demonstrate the need to develop a theoretical and practical model for training educational leaders that promotes reflection based on openness to interaction with families and the community, especially in areas with a high level of diversity.

Based on the results, a critical reflective dialogue-based approach is proposed to optimize educational leadership. Its construction followed six phases of the theoretical model proposed by Deroncele-Acosta et al. (2023): conceptual, projective, transformative, epistemic transcendence, regularity and scientific novelty as detailed below.

4.1. Proposed Theoretical Framework for the Formation of Educational Leadership Practices

It is important to highlight that the theoretical proposal for an Educational Leadership Model for Training, based on critical and reflective dialogue, arises from its theoretical review and the results corroborated by research on educational leadership for social justice, whose objective is to serve as a basis for training programs in the formation of educational leaders.

Conceptual Phase

Below is a summary of the general and substantive theories that were systematized in the conceptual phase (see Figure 1).

General theories: Vygotsky’s (1979, 1986) historical–cultural theory supports the interrelationship between thought and language in the construction of concepts from social and cultural interaction. Another theoretical contribution is found in Morín (2009, 2011), based on complex thinking that emphasizes an understanding of the world from its complexity for a multidimensional understanding of humanity. Finally, critical pedagogy, with the contributions of McLaren (2020) and Giroux (2015), advocates for social justice that addresses current problems that affect the right to an education that seeks the development of students and their community, based on questioning the systems of power and authority that limit the progress of thinking, reflective and conscious citizens to transform their reality.

Substantive theories: Culturally responsive leadership, with contributions from Marshall and Khalifa (2018) and Khalifa et al. (2016), emphasizes that the role of the educational leader should focus on critical self-reflection of their actions for equity, defending the community’s right to participate, valuing the culture that is integrated into the school, and creating a climate conducive to equity in the school. Another substantive theory is leadership for social justice by Theoharis (2007) and Tintoré (2018), which advocates for a transformation of school organization based on curricula, incorporating culture and the generation of inclusive practices in the classroom to break down barriers of marginalization. In this new form of school organization, families are involved and share learning objectives integrated by bonds of trust.

Freire’s (Freire, 1975, 1997) transformative dialogical education is highlighted, recognized for its humanistic contribution to dialogical education and aware of the transformative role of educating the less fortunate so that they can break the status quo of social and intellectual marginalization through reflection and action. In this sense, Shor et al. (2017) argue that dialogue is crucial when it questions curricular classroom experiences, confronting them with the relevance of including social demands, and generating “neuroplasticity of consciousness” in managers and teachers. For his part, Giles and Cuéllar (2017) highlight the contribution of ethical leadership, which, although other authors have previously addressed, highlights its vision of education as a public service and learning as a moral activity. From this perspective, the educational leader is the professional and manager responsible for fostering relationships between the various educational stakeholders (students, teachers, parents, and the community at large), as well as a shared commitment to transforming the lives of their students through the experiences generated at school.

Another contribution is the formation of educational networks, Fullan and Rincón-Gallardo (2017), Fullan (2021) and Azorín and Fullan (2022), highlight the experiences of the paradigmatic path of schools in forming a social fabric that supports collective action and reflection for the quality of learning. Finally, Tytler’s (2006) contributions to school innovation highlight the need for educational leaders to assume innovation from three perspectives: fostering in their teachers a reflective and critical vision of their pedagogical work, strengthening strategies for the formation of professional teams among teachers and accompanying teachers in the classroom.

4.2. Projective Phase

The projective phase relates the general theories, which are transversal in each theoretical nucleus and it directly links the substantive theories described above, with the goal of integrating new theoretical nuclei, as shown in Figure 2. These are the results of the findings of research conducted in eight educational institutions in the Peruvian jungle, where the training of educational leaders who engage with their context is required, as well as of the theoretical review presented. In this sense, the research provides a theoretical reconstruction of a formative management model based on critical and reflective dialogue for educational leaders, especially leaders in areas with diverse and highly vulnerable contexts.

Based on the general and substantive theories described, new theoretical nuclei are formed as presented in Figure 2.

First theoretical core: interaction of culturally sensitive dialogue, gathering the contributions of research on culturally sensitive leadership and transformative dialogic education.

Second core: development of critical reflection for social justice, based on the contributions of substantive theories of leadership for social justice and transformative dialogic education.

Third core: building responsive dialogic collaborative networks, shaped by the substantive theories of culturally responsive dialogue, transformative dialogic education, and educational networks.

Fourth core: innovative schools for transformative action shaped by the substantive theories of transformative dialogic education and school innovation.

Fifth core: strengthening innovative leaders with an ethical sense based on the contributions of the substantive theories of ethical leadership and the innovative school leader.

4.3. Transformation Phase

The proposal for an educational leadership model for training, based on critical and reflective dialogue, is based on a different conception than the way in which training programs for educational leaders have been implemented, where reflection has started from the learning of students when this is the consequence. The proposed model starts with a critical reflection on the empowerment of educational actors (leaders and teachers) with respect to the social, cultural, economic and political context of the community where the school is located and how it responds to the social, cultural and economic dynamics of the community in which it is located. A dialogical and critical reflection is questioning and sensitive to the environment, generating awareness for transformative action that shakes the foundations of the educational organization.

In this sense, the first central interaction of culturally sensitive dialogue (1-3) is the openness and ability to promote spaces for dialogue with the community to understand and value its diversity, its culture, and the social and environmental problems it faces. The educational leader questions how the school can contribute to an education that responds to the needs of that community, confronts its actions, and develops an identity with the community where the school is located, as well as a commitment to families and residents for quality and equitable education for children and young people.

Through dialogue and interaction, the development of critical reflection for social justice is encouraged (2-3). The educational leader recognizes that critical reflection must be established with teachers in spaces of trust to promote collaborative work where a new dynamic of integrating families as allies encourages teachers to reflect on the students’ educational context and learning opportunities through inclusive practices in the classroom.

Since leading transformative actions toward social justice is an exhausting and often frustrating task for the educational leader, the core of building collaborative dialogic networks with a responsive character (1-3-5). It proposes the creation of collaborative spaces with other educational leaders who share the same path to share experiences. This will require strategies that allow networks of educational leaders to grow and address inequalities. Educational networks work collaboratively to establish joint agreements and responsibilities, such as jointly addressing educational policies for transformative actions in school processes and practices that benefit school communities.

Another important axis is the creation of innovative schools for transformative action (3-6). By creating a school, a space is created where critical reflection on the educational process is shared, not only among teachers and leaders but also among other members of the educational community. Innovative initiatives are promoted, such as curricular structuring and methodologies that respond to the reality of the educational context; for example, reversing student absenteeism during the harvest season through a new school calendar or generating learning spaces that transcend the classroom walls and connect with lived experiences that respond to the diversity and circumstances of the context.

Finally, the core of strengthening innovative leaders with an ethical (4-6) sense is the practice of social justice, which generates social commitment in the educational leader, internalizing the true responsibility of providing learning opportunities to all students and, thus, contributing to the development of the community. Their reflective capacity is based on the participatory research they promote with teachers to address the challenges of learning and family integration. It requires the perseverance of educational leaders in transforming the school into a space that promotes positive and respectful coexistence.

4.4. The Phase of Epistemic Transcendence

Each of the core components is integrated and interrelated within the theoretical model of educational leadership for training, based on critical and reflective dialogue. This involves supporting the leader from the moment they enter a new educational institution. This requires addressing the first three pillars: culturally sensitive dialogue, the development of critical reflection for social justice, and the construction of collaborative dialogic networks with a sensitive approach. This will enable leadership practices with a high degree of awareness and criticality by recognizing the potential and needs of the community and eliminating all forms of discrimination. To achieve this, the leader must feel supported by his or her community and by the shared experience of other leaders with whom he or she shares the transformation toward education with social justice.

The development of innovative schools for transformative action and the strengthening of innovative leaders with an ethical sense are the pillars that not only empower educational leaders in their critical and reflective capacity but, above all, in the ethical attitude and principles that lead them to persevere in their transformative work, becoming researchers of the educational process, on the path toward quality with equity. In this way, educational leaders achieve a level of commitment to the community, being open to actions that contribute to improvement and sustain learning achievements; an educational organization that promotes community participation is increasingly evident.

In terms of coherence, throughout the process, each of the core groups strengthens their capacity for equitable leadership for social justice, internalizing the reality of education with a sensitivity that encourages them to question their role and develop an identity. In this sense, close and sensitive dialogue with the active community and the transformation of the school organization to address the perceived needs of students and their families generate commitment and involve all key stakeholders in the school’s transformative action.

In terms of scientific innovation, the educational management model, based on critical–reflective dialogue and constructed from the epistemological foundations of general and substantive theories, proposes the critical–reflective construction of the educational leader from the perspective of the school’s local context, understanding it and being sensitive to it; that is, critical dialogue and reflection focus on a concrete reality that demands social commitment.

The dialogue that promotes questioning is carried out with families, community representatives, teachers, and students, but within the sociocultural context of the community of origin. In this way, transcendent institutional and personal leadership is built, which implies a revaluation of the educational community and families to address educational challenges.

5. Conclusions

An evaluation of eight educational institutions in a region of the Peruvian jungle revealed a disconnect between school and community. This affects each of the practices of equitable educational leadership, such as having a collective vision with clear, shared goals and an organization where all stakeholders share spaces for dialogue, allowing leaders to assume responsibility for learning in a shared way with teachers, families, and other community members. It is not just about assuming administrative responsibility by reporting what students achieved or failed to achieve; it is about seeking joint strategies for equitable education and providing opportunities for all. Therefore, dialogic and reflective interactions for social justice consider the reality and diversity of the school and the students.

The educational leadership model for training was designed based on critical and reflective dialogue, supported by new theoretical frameworks or essential cores such as the interaction of culturally sensitive dialogue, the development of critical reflection for social justice, the construction of collaborative dialogic networks with a sensitive approach, the creation of innovative schools for transformative action, and the strengthening of innovative leaders with an ethical sense.

The theoretical proposal is composed of two essential relationships. The first is based on the development of a high level of awareness and critical thinking in the educational leader to recognize and value their community. In this sense, the second essential relationship encourages the educational leader to prioritize the investigation of the educational process with critical reflection, thus fostering their commitment to quality education.

Leadership development programs must be contextualized to the realities of the school and community; it is impossible to implement a program nationwide when the problems and realities of the Peruvian context are diverse. While they may have common objectives, the differences and needs of rural and urban educational institutions must be considered.

Finally, the theoretical foundations presented here aim to be an approach for reformulating the designs of educational leadership training programs toward culturally relevant paths toward social, cultural, and economic sustainability mapped to the Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore, it opens the debate on the theoretical foundations for designing educational leadership training programs for social justice. This also entails ensuring that educational policies generate optimal educational and pedagogical management conditions for exercising educational leadership. This entails offering leaders safe spaces and resources to ensure the proper functioning of schools, such as having adequate infrastructure, which does not necessarily mean comfort but rather safe spaces where children and young people can study, as well as having the teaching and administrative staff required to meet institutional objectives and goals.