|
Elena
Abascal Obeso[1], |
|
|
Carmen
Álvarez-Álvarez |
|
|
Emma Fernández Gutiérrez |
Abstract
Keywords
Rural School, Leadership, School-Community Relationship, Administrative Direction, Continuous Training.
1. Introduction
1.1. Relationships in Rural
Schools
The warmth and
proximity of relationships established by rural schools are significantly
influenced by the leadership style and management of the school, as school
administrators are closer to the community and exert a greater influence on
school involvement than teachers (Barrientos et al., 2016; Camarero, 2015; Leiva-Guerrero,
2022; Preston & Barnes, 2017; Torres, 2008; Zuckerman, 2020). In this
article, the educational community comprises all daily participants in rural
schools, including teachers, families, students, administrative staff, neighbours,
and local organizations. Thus, community participation encompasses the
engagement of all these individuals in school activities (Fred & Singh,
2021; Leiva-Guerrero et al., 2022; Traver et
al., 2010). Rural schools promote rural development (Zuckerman, 2020) and
implement practices to foster positive relationships with the community. These
include ongoing teacher interaction with the environment, the incorporation of
social references, proximity, the expansion of the classroom into social
spaces, and the integration of rural culture and the environment into work
plans (Abós et al., 2021; Álvarez-Álvarez et
al., 2020; Camarero, 2015; Champollion, 2011;
Sales et al., 2019; Torres, 2008).
School-community relations in rural areas are characterized by being
close and positive, leading to an understanding and improvement of the local
area, shared educational responsibility, collaborative problem-solving, addressing
social inequalities, and strengthening the sense of belonging to the rural
world (Calvo et al., 2016; Harmon & Schafft,
2009; Herrera, 2017; Leiva-Guerrero et al.,
2022; León-Nabal et al., 2017; Lien, 2021;
Preston & Barnes, 2017; Younis et al., 2022; Zuckerman, 2020).
Although relationships were traditionally limited to families regularly
associated with the school, community participation in rural schools is on the
rise (Leiva-Guerrero et al., 2022), and
scientific research on school leadership attests to this fact (Abós et al., 2021; Bolívar, 2010; Fred & Singh,
2021; Freire & Miranda, 2014; Harmon & Schafft,
2019; Leithwood et al., 2004; Seashore-Louis et
al., 2010; Mayoral et al., 2018; Álvarez-Álvarez et al.,
2020).
Leadership is required to oversee practices within the school (Ortega
& Cárcamo, 2018), and shared and networked
leadership practices are needed to establish and promote collaboration and
engagement networks with the community (Botella,
2023). Both Calvo et al. (2016) and Ortega and Cárcamo
(2018) found that clarifying community participation and democratically
establishing when and where it occurs lead to an increase in participatory
willingness. Therefore, this research aims to understand the role of rural
leadership in mobilizing relationships with the community, according to the
perception of rural school administrations.
1.2. Rural Administration and Leadership
Rural school administrations face significant challenges (Cothern,
2020; Hansen, 2018; Ulker & Baris, 2020; Younis et
al., 2022), including resource scarcity, social, territorial, and labour
isolation (Álvarez-Álvarez & Gómez-Cobo, 2021;
Sales et al., 2019; Klocko & Justis, 2019), the temporary nature of the staff, and a
lack of specific training plans in rural leadership (Barrientos et al.,
2016; Bolívar, 2010; Torres, 2013) . These factors hinder the continuity of
projects (Álvarez-Álvarez et al., 2020; Fred & Singh, 2021) and the
professionalization of the position (Torres, 2013; Zuckerman, 2020).
Leadership
requires reflection and preparation (Mayoral et al., 2018; Bolívar,
2010), as emphasized by rural directors studied by Lorenzo et al.
(2019), who have received specific training for their profession. Leadership
training is crucial and necessitates educational policies due to its
implications for schools and their environments (Leiva-Guerrero
et al., 2022). Torres (2013) and Zuckerman (2020) advocate for rural
leadership interaction as a means to address
difficulties within rural schools.
In a
society that encourages democracy and participation, school leadership must
delegate and diversify tasks (Bolívar, 2010; Klocko &
Justis, 2019; Torres, 2013), and leadership must
facilitate and motivate participation (Leiva-Guerrero
et al., 2022; Lorenzo et al., 2019; Ortega & Cárcamo, 2018). It is essential for these figures to have
dedicated time for these purposes (Abós et al.,
2021; Bolívar, 2010; Fred & Singh, 2021; Leithwood
et al., 2004; Zuckerman, 2020).
Previous
research (Barrientos et al., 2016; Lorenzo et al., 2019; Traver et
al., 2010) considers that the mastery of communication skills by rural
leadership is important for community involvement in schools (Zuckerman, 2020).
Thus, studies by Lorenzo et al. (2019) and Ulker
and Baris (2020) highlight skills for creating a relaxed working environment,
which facilitates and energizes relationships (Bolívar, 2010; Ulker & Baris, 2020), and a clear purpose: social,
community, and educational improvement (Mayoral et al., 2018; Preston &
Barnes, 2017; Younis et al., 2022). Finally, multiple authors (Abós et al., 2021; Hansen, 2018; Preston &
Barnes, 2017) call for managerial knowledge of the geographic and cultural
context to build trust and community support and create a collaborative culture
(Zhu et al., 2022).
Rural
leadership is transformational (Quality Education Agenda, 2016), understood as
leadership seeking educational innovation and improvement to address challenges
and difficulties (Zhu et al., 2022). It is also redarchic,
as it promotes the collaboration and involvement of the community in schools (Botella, 2023). Rural leadership empowers teachers for
change by establishing and leading joint work points (Seashore-Louis et al.,
2010; Zhang et al., 2002; Zhu et al., 2022). It encourages
autonomy in decision-making and participation in public life (Seashore-Louis et
al., 2010; Traver et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2022; Zhu et
al., 2022).
In this
line, the practices of successful rural leadership studied by Preston and
Barnes (2017) show that they have become agents of change for the school and
its environment through the interrelation of the local context with the global
world (Quality Education Agency, 2016; Mingorance
& Estebaranz, 2016). In those rural schools that
have embraced change, leadership exercised by both management teams and
Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) has been decisive (Camarero,
2015; Torres, 2008). In China, it is empirically proven that rural leadership
plays a crucial role in stimulating community participation (Leiva-Guerrero et al., 2022; Zhang et al.,
2022) by (1) promoting reflection and teacher training on collaboration
structures and (2) mobilizing and supervising actions.
Transformational
leadership emerges in rural schools through the interplay of pedagogical and
distributed leadership. This entails the compilation of support and training
from colleagues equipped with relevant strategies, tools, or methodologies
(Fred & Singh, 2021). This leadership approach addresses social and
educational challenges in a multidisciplinary and collective manner (Abós et al., 2021; Barrientos et al., 2016; Camarero, 2015; Preston & Barnes, 2017). Notably, rural
pedagogical leaders actively promote the continuous training of their team,
encouraging the utilization of social, material, and cultural assets present in
the environment (Lorenzo et al., 2019). Moreover, directors, as studied
by Mayoral et al. (2018), emphasize that a school's educational project
is not fruitful unless it considers the needs and perspectives of various
community agents, ensuring continuity.
2. Methodology
The research
aims to explore leadership in rural schools as a key factor in mobilizing
relationships with the educational community. Specific objectives include: (1)
exploring the leadership's self-perception regarding its role in stimulating
community relationships; (2) identifying trends in leadership style regarding
relationships with the environment; (3) understanding the specific training of
rural leadership in Spain in these terms; and (4) understanding rural
school-community relationships.
The review
of scales on rural schools, their relationships, and their leadership style
allowed for the development of a questionnaire to shed light on an empirically
understudied question: the role of rural leadership in mobilizing relationships
with the community from the leadership perspective. The questionnaire sought to
gain a deeper understanding of the relationships that rural schools establish
with their community through specific questions in the study. Validated by five
expert researchers in rural education, who provided rigorous feedback on its
content and form, the questionnaire is structured around seven study axes: (1)
leadership style; (2) director's knowledge of the local area; (3) specific
training; (4) leadership actions to guide relationships; (5)
environment-community relationship with the school; (6) school relationship
with the environment-community; and (7) characteristics of the school's
relationships with its community.
This
questionnaire is the result of consulting and adapting other scales validated
in this research field, such as "effective practices of pedagogical
leadership in school management" (García-Garnica,
2018), the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
pedagogical leadership scale, and the rubric for evaluating family
participation in schools by León and Fernández (2017). The questionnaire
consists of a Likert-type scale and open-ended questions to delve into the
addressed issues in detail. It was sent to all rural directors in Spain (812)
through an online form, resulting in 123 responses. Quantitative analysis was
conducted through descriptive statistics using Excel, calculating mean values,
percentages, and deviations, presented in tables in the next section and
briefly discussed after their presentation. Additionally, the data is
complemented by the ethnographic analysis of educational leadership and
participation practices in a Galician Rural Clustered Centre, using systemic
observation and conducting interviews with community members (neighbours, bakers, families, teachers, management,
students). Qualitative analysis was performed.
Observation
was chosen as it allows for attention to natural behaviours
and interactions and formulating future hypotheses (Qaddo,
2019; Uwamusi & Ajisebiyawo,
2023). Interviews allowed for a detailed understanding of participants'
perceptions regarding research questions, and interviewers could explore
mentioned aspects and gather more information, serving as a suitable complement
to observation to understand developed practices (Kumar, 2022; Utibe, 2019). Both practices are helpful in exploratory
studies such as this one, as there are no previous studies, and they identify
central aspects of this theme that will guide broader studies.
3.Results
3.1. Characterization
of Study Participants
The 123
school directors, comprising 79 women and 44 men, are unevenly distributed
across Spain (Figure 1). Regarding their age, the predominant age group is
between 41 and 50 years (43.09%) (Table 1), and the most common initial
education is a diploma (73.17%). Over 79% of the participants lead Clustered
Rural Schools (CRA, ZER, CER, CPR, CPRA, Eskola Txikiak).
Figure
1. Geographical distribution of
school directors
Table 1.
Age of school directors
|
Age range |
Percentage |
|
Under 30 |
2,4% |
|
31 a 40 |
13,8% |
|
41 a 50 |
43,1% |
|
51 a 60 |
37,4% |
|
Over 60 |
3,3% |
3.2. Leadership for the Improvement of
Community Relations
Through different tables, the
remaining results will be presented. In the Likert scale, the value 1
corresponds to the highest degree of disagreement with the question, and value
5, consequently, to the highest agreement. Thus, in the data analysis, the use
of the value 1 is associated with the term "totally disagree"; value
2 implies "disagree"; value 3, "somewhat agree"; 4,
"agree," and finally, the number 5 refers to "totally
agree." The corresponding symbols for the mean value (x̄) and standard
deviation (σ) have been used.
Table 2.
Directorial leadership style
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
σ |
|
|
My leadership style contributes to enhancing
the relationships between the school, the educational community, and the
environment |
0% |
2,4% |
5,7% |
35,8% |
56,1% |
4,46 |
0,71 |
|
I am responsible for collecting
contributions from all members of the educational community and giving them
meaning and response |
0% |
5,7% |
15,4% |
44,7% |
34,1% |
4,07 |
0,85 |
|
I monitor the effectiveness of relationships
established with all members of the educational community |
1,6% |
12,2% |
31,7% |
34,1% |
20,3% |
3,59 |
1,00 |
|
I set guidelines for collaboration and relationship
with the educational community |
0,8% |
7,3% |
22% |
44,7% |
25,2% |
3,86 |
0,91 |
|
I stimulate a cooperative work environment
with the educational community to improve the quality of teaching |
0% |
0,8% |
9,8% |
39% |
50,4% |
4,39 |
0,70 |
|
In my school, the SEP has been developed and
structured thanks to the contributions of the educational community |
4,9% |
11,4% |
20,3% |
39,8% |
23,6% |
3,66 |
1,10 |
|
In my school, the educational community is
aware of what is happening in the school through formal and informal meetings,
as well as monitoring social networks or blogs of the school |
1,6% |
4,1% |
12,2% |
38,2% |
43,9% |
4,19 |
0,92 |
The participating directors express that their leadership
significantly contributes to enhancing relationships
with the community and the environment, as reflected in an average Likert scale score of 4.46. Nearly 92% of them
indicate strong agreement or agreement with
this sentiment. Similarly, sentiments are echoed in relation
to fostering a cooperative work environment, yielding an average score of 4.39, with almost 90% strongly agreeing or agreeing. However,
in queries regarding the collection of contributions, monitoring the effectiveness of relationships, or the development of the School Educational Project
(SEP) through contributions,
the average responses are 3.59, 3.86, 3.66, respectively, indicating more variability compared to the
initially discussed questions.
These values
are supported by qualitative data, as rural leadership advocates for a management style characterized by listening, collaboration,
and proximity, under the premise that
"to educate a child, the entire
tribe is necessary" (Participant21).
Table 3.
School
leadership’s knowledge of the local area
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
σ |
|
|
I know the needs and potentialities of the
local area and its educational community through observation and active
listening to all members |
0% |
1,6% |
6,5% |
37,4% |
54,5% |
4,45 |
0,69 |
|
In my school, understanding of the local
area is cultivated through plans and programs that focus on heritage,
diversity, and culture |
0% |
4,1% |
20,3% |
34,1% |
41,5% |
4,13 |
0,88 |
|
I represent the school within the local area
by participating in activities, associations, or local institutions |
1,6% |
7,3% |
18,7% |
32,5% |
39,8% |
4,02 |
1,02 |
|
5,7% |
4,9% |
27,6% |
26,8% |
35% |
3,8 |
1,14 |
Rural school
administrations are focused on understanding their local area (average: 4.45). This
understanding is nurtured through plans and programs aimed at comprehending
heritage, diversity, and culture, with 34.1% and 41.5%, respectively, rating
values 4 and 5 on the Likert scale. It can be observed that responses to both
questions are concentrated around the mean value. On the other hand, the
representation of the school administration in the local area, although having
an average value of 4.02, shows greater dispersion, as nearly 27% of the
administrators exercise it to a minimal or moderate extent.
An area
of interest is rural leadership isolation. There are active communication
channels among rural leaders (average value: 3.8), and their responses exhibit
high dispersion in the results. Some administrations have no (5.7%) or very
little (4.9%) interaction with counterparts. However, associations like AMCRAGA
(Association of Teachers from Grouped Rural Schools in Galicia) aim to
facilitate communication among rural administrators and teachers who share
concerns and needs.
Table 4.
Specific training
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
σ |
|
|
I regularly attend leadership training to
enhance collaboration with the local area. |
11,4% |
19,5% |
30,1% |
22% |
17,1% |
3,14 |
1,24 |
|
I propose diverse training sessions for
teachers to identify and address local area needs. |
1,6% |
5,7% |
16,3% |
41,5% |
35% |
4,02 |
0,94 |
The
average value for responses on specific training to improve collaboration with
the local area is slightly above 3, reflecting a distribution across all
degrees of agreement. Notably, just over 30% of participants have had minimal
or no training in this regard. Qualitative data supports this, indicating a
lack of specific training for rural directors, with many having general
training in areas such as "leadership and management of schools" (Participant75)
or "training for leadership teams" (Participant76). However,
directors propose specific training for their teaching staff on some (16.3%),
many (41.5%), or numerous (35.0%) occasions.
Table 5.
School
leadership actions for leading relationships
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
σ |
|
|
I understand, regulate, and enhance the
actions of the educational community in classroom and school dynamics |
0% |
3,3% |
14,6% |
52,8% |
29,3% |
4,08 |
0,75 |
|
In my school, schedules and spaces are
adapted to the demands and needs of the educational community to facilitate
their participation in classroom and school dynamics |
0% |
6,5% |
13% |
43,9% |
36,6% |
4,11 |
0,87 |
|
I regularly engage with entities and
community members to build positive and influential bonds |
0% |
1,6% |
6,5% |
45,5% |
46,3% |
4,37 |
0,68 |
|
I propose new projects when I observe that
community participation is low due to a lack of motivation or identification |
0,8% |
4,9% |
23,6% |
46,6% |
24,4% |
3,89 |
0,86 |
More than 80% of the school directors affirm that they effectively
understand, regulate, and enhance community actions in their educational centre to a considerable or great extent. To achieve
this, spaces and times are adapted to the needs of participants on some (13%),
many (43.9%), and numerous (36.6%) occasions. They believe that their work
involves ongoing interaction with community entities, a matter that has an
average of 4.37 and little response dispersion. Open-ended questions reinforce
this, indicating that "from the management, there is close collaboration
with the town halls" (Participant35) and "different
administrations" (Participant57). Furthermore, 71% of the participants
consider that they propose new projects when observing low community
participation "somewhat" and "a lot".
3.3.
School-Community Relations
Table 6.
Environment-community
relationship with the school
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
σ |
|
|
In my
school, community participation and involvement of institutions in school
life are increasing |
0,8% |
4,9% |
24,4% |
38,2% |
31,7% |
3,95 |
0,91 |
|
In my
school, institutions in the local area understand their social and
educational potential and regularly participate in school dynamics |
0,8% |
4,9% |
23,6% |
39,8% |
30,9% |
3,95 |
0,90 |
|
In my
school, material, social, and cultural resources from the local area are used
provided they align with the educational purposes of the school |
0% |
2,4% |
13% |
44,7% |
39,8% |
4,22 |
0,76 |
|
In my
school, community inclusion in school dynamics is outlined in a specific plan |
4,1% |
9,8% |
23,6% |
35,8% |
26,8% |
3,72 |
1,09 |
Regarding the relationship established between
the community and the school, directors agree that participation is increasing
(31.7% totally agree, and 38.2% agree). Thus, rural institutions understand
their potential and regularly engage in school activities, with 23.6% somewhat
agreeing, 39.8% agreeing, and 30.9% totally agreeing.
Directors believe that resources provided by
the local area are incorporated into educational dynamics if they are
pedagogically appropriate (mean value: 4.22), and 84% of participating
directors strongly or somewhat agree with their incorporation—an idea supported
by various testimonies: "We are open to the local area and take advantage
of all the educational opportunities it provides" (Participant6) and
"The local area is an essential and structuring element of the
curriculum" (Participant76).
Finally, when asked about implemented actions,
such as the existence of a specific plan regulating community inclusion in the
school, there is no agreement. Although the mean value is 3.72, responses are
quite dispersed, with 9.8% and 4.1% of participants stating that they disagree
or totally disagree.
Table 7.
Relationship of the centre
with the local area and the community
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
σ |
|
|
My
school serves as the primary means of socialization and cultural dynamism in
the environment |
0,8% |
6,5% |
22,8% |
38,2% |
31,7% |
3,93 |
0,94 |
|
In my
school, students and teachers participate in community commemorations (patron
saint's day, tributes to illustrious people) and engage in local activities
(farming, livestock, tourism) |
3,3% |
8,9% |
23,6% |
30,1% |
34,1% |
3,83 |
1,10 |
|
In my
school, collaborative initiatives between the school and the educational
community are implemented (e.g., learning communities, interactive groups,
service-learning dynamics) |
10,6% |
19,5% |
23,6% |
27,6% |
18,7% |
3,24 |
1,26 |
|
In my
school, the relationships established with families go beyond solely school-related
issues, addressing deeper family needs |
0% |
4,1% |
20,3% |
34,1% |
41,5% |
4,24 |
0,80 |
The results regarding the relationship between
the school and its environment do not differ from those collected in the
previous section. Nearly 70% of the participants agree or totally agree that
their school serves as a means of socialization and cultural dynamism in the
area, with the school being “one of the pillars of the town"
(Participant31) and a "fundamental axis and engine of activities"
(Participant75). Thus, 64% of the school leaders believe that their students
and teachers participate in commemorations and activities proposed in the local
area. However, it is noteworthy that 3.3% of the directors indicate that there
is no participation in such dynamics in their schools, followed by 8.9% who
consider it to occur infrequently.
Again, when asked about ongoing actions, the
dispersion of responses increases. With a standard deviation of 1.26 points and
a coefficient of variation of 39%, 10.6% of the directors do not implement
dynamics to unite the school and the community, followed by 19.5% who indicate
doing so infrequently and 23.6% who claim to do so on some occasions.
Finally, 75.6% of the responses from the
directors express that they agree or totally agree that school involvement in
the family extends beyond the educational realm.
Table 8.
Characteristics of the school and community
relationships
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
σ |
|
|||||||
|
In my
school, the proximity of the teaching staff, the management, and the
community promotes the development of a shared vision of teaching. |
1,6% |
0,8% |
9,8% |
36,6% |
51,2% |
4,35 |
0,82 |
|||||||
|
En mi escuela, los docentes y la comunidad
aúnan fuerzas para acompañar y reforzar los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje |
0% |
2,4% |
21,1% |
37,4% |
39% |
4,13 |
0,82 |
|||||||
|
En mi escuela, la comunidad educativa conoce
nuestra organización y los mecanismos de participación desde principio de
curso |
0% |
4,9% |
13,8% |
30,9% |
50,4% |
4,27 |
0,88 |
|||||||
|
In my
school, the relationships established with the educational community are
stable, warm, close, and long-lasting |
0% |
4,1% |
6,5% |
42,3% |
47,2% |
4,33 |
0,77 |
|||||||
|
In my
school, contact with the educational community is crucial to generate a sense
of belonging between the local area and the centre. |
0% |
4,1% |
13% |
38,2% |
44,7% |
4,24 |
0,83 |
|||||||
The
school-community relationship is characterized by promoting a shared vision of
teaching, with 90% of the responses concentrated in high values. Collaboration
between teachers and the community to support and reinforce teaching and
learning processes is a common point among participants, with 39% of
administrations completely agreeing, 37.4% quite satisfied, and 21.1% somewhat
satisfied, considering it "a line of action for the centre"
(Participant19).
81% of
the administrators believe that their educational community is familiar with
the organization and participation mechanisms available from the beginning of
the school year, with an average value of 4.28.
Finally, 90% of
administrators consider the relationships with the community to be stable,
warm, close, and long-lasting, with an average response value of 4.33. They
foster a sense of belonging from the community to the centre,
as indicated by 83% of participants and some of their testimonies, stating that
"they participate in our projects, and we participate in theirs"
(Participant122).
4. Discussion and Conclusions
The observed
trends diverge from those documented in scientific literature and previous
empirical studies. From a leadership standpoint, the rural leadership style has
been shown to enhance community relations (Zhang et al., 2022), playing a
crucial role in their regulation (Leiva-Guerrero et
al., 2022; Lorenzo et al., 2019; Preston & Barnes, 2017). Rural leaders
express a commitment to considering the opinions and needs of their
surroundings, fostering collaborative work (Younis et al., 2022), and
monitoring the effectiveness of relations (Zhu et al., 2022). However, there is
generally a lack of reflective, documented, or systematic follow-up on the
implemented measures, leading to instances where some schools fail to inform
the community.
The
collaborative culture, characterized by mutual understanding and knowledge (Zhu
et al., 2022), is actively pursued by rural leaders aiming to comprehend the
needs and potential of the environment, instilling such knowledge in their
teachers and students (Abós et al., 2021; Hansen,
2018). However, leaders exhibit a lack of consensus regarding their involvement
in the community outside the school. In contrast to Barrientos et al. (2016) or
Bolívar (2010), more than ten per cent of directors operate independently of
their community counterparts (Klocko & Justis, 2019). Additionally, it is apparent that leadership
training does not appear to be a priority for those involved, raising questions
about its potential impact on schools and their community relations.
There are
leadership actions aimed at fostering community relations. Leaders are
cognizant of, regulate, and enhance these relations, which is crucial for
developing new initiatives (Zuckerman, 2020). Thus, the leadership figure
maintains constant contact with community entities and members (Preston &
Barnes, 2017). While participants perceive themselves as highly involved, the
data indicate that this involvement lacks structured monitoring plans,
presenting an area for potential improvement.
Concerning
school-environment relations, a bidirectional link is established. On the one
hand, community participation in schools is on the rise (Leiva-Guerrero
et al., 2022), as social and cultural institutions in the environment recognize
the pivotal role that schools play. Similarly, most rural schools make use of
resources provided by their surroundings. However, when questioned about
tangible actions, such as the existence of a specific plan for community
inclusion, collaboration exists but lacks systematic implementation. On the
other hand, the educational institution stands out as a social and cultural
focal point in its locality (Abós et al., 2021;
Mayoral et al., 2021).
Finally,
it is evident that school-environment relations are characterized by promoting
the educational co-responsibility of the entire rural community and
collaboration in educational processes (Herrera, 2017; León-Nabal
et al., 2017). These are stable, warm, and close relationships that foster a
sense of belonging from the environment to the school and vice versa
(Barrientos et al., 2016; Leiva-Guerrero et al.,
2022).
It is
worth noting that, after the considerable effort made to locate and contact the
directors of all rural schools in Spain, this study boasts significant
participation from 123 directors. This sheds light on a critical issue in
schools: collaboration and joint work with the centre’s
environment, the various mechanisms in which such practices take place, and the
involvement of good leadership in this process.
This work
paves the way for future perspectives and new research directions on leadership
as a key factor in rural school relations with its environment. In-depth
interviews are recommended to understand the actions related to the community
within their leadership style and the existence of plans or projects in this
area. Additionally, it is crucial to continue studying the specific training
available to implement, monitor, and evaluate action plans with the rural
community and the specific training available to rural leaders in their
leadership journey to adapt to their social and educational reality.
In
conclusion, this study has facilitated a deep dive into the study of
administrative functions regarding the leadership of relations established with
the community, from the administrative perception. Thus, this study provides an
approach to the importance of leadership as a tool to interconnect the rural
school and its surroundings, encouraging educational co-responsibility while
highlighting rural culture and resources. The leadership style significantly
influences the relationships established at the centre
level with the community, encouraging (or not) increasing community
participation in school life and local development. It is proven that
relationships exist and are bidirectional, prompting positive evaluations from
all involved parties and generating a sense of belonging. This contribution
sheds light on a community leadership model of interest for any rural
educational institution.
CRediT autorship contribution statement
Elena Abascal Obeso:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project
Administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing. Carmen Álvarez-Álvarez: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing. Emma Fernández Gutiérrez: Supervision,
Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Bibliography
Abós,
P., Boix, R., Domingo, L., Lorenzo, J. and Rubio, P. (2021). El reto de la escuela rural. Hacer visible lo invisible. Graó.
Agencia de Calidad de la Educación
(2016). Características del liderazgo directivo en escuelas rurales efectivas.
Álvarez-Álvarez, C. and Gómez-Cobo, P.
(2021). La Escuela Rural: ¿un destino deseado por los docentes? Revista
Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 96(35.2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i35.2.81507
Álvarez-Álvarez, C., García, F.J. and
Pozuelos, F.J. (2020). Posibilidades, limitaciones y demandas de los centros
educativos del medio rural en el norte y sur de España contemplados desde la
dirección escolar. Perfiles Educativos, 13(168), 94-106. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2020.168.59153
Barrientos, C., Silva, P. and Antúnez,
S. (2016). Competencias directivas para promover la participación: familias en
las escuelas básicas. Educación, 25(49), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.18800/educacion.201602.003
Boix, R. and Buscà,
F. (2020). Competencias del Profesorado de la Escuela Rural Catalana para
Abordar la Dimensión Territorial en el Aula Multigrado. REICE, 18(2),
115-133. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2020.18.2.006
Bolívar, A. (2010). El liderazgo
educativo y su papel en la mejora: Una revisión actual de sus posibilidades y
limitaciones. Psicoperspectivas, 9(2),
9-33. https://bit.ly/42Etsz2
Bolívar-Botía,
A. (2010). ¿Cómo un liderazgo pedagógico y distribuido mejora los logros
académicos? Magis, 3(5), 79-106. https://bit.ly/3CvDjMS
Botella, F. (2023). El liderazgo
invisible: los grandes rasgos. Harvard Deusto business
review, 337, 60-69. Calvo, M.I., Verdugo, M.Á. and
Amor, A.M. (2016). La Participación Familiar es un
Requisito Imprescindible para una Escuela Inclusiva. Revista
Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 10(1), 99-113. https://bit.ly/3p3brwq
Camarero, M. (2015). Dirección escolar
y liderazgo; análisis del desempeño de la figura directiva en centros de
Educación Primaria de Tarragona. [Tesis doctoral, Universitat
Rovira I Virgili]. https://bit.ly/3P9S27N
Champollion, P. (2011). El impacto del
territorio en la educación. El caso de la escuela rural en Francia. Revista
de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 15(2), 53-69. https://bit.ly/45Yl3JD
Cothern, T. (2020). The Professional
Development of Rural Schools Principals: The Elements, Contexts, and Topic
Desired by Principals in a Rural School District. School Leadership Review,
15(1). https://bit.ly/43IQXYY
Fred, A. and Singh, G.S.B. (2021). Instructional Leadership
Practices in Under-Enrolled Rural Schools in Miri, Sarawak. Asian Journal of
University Education, 17(1), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i1.12694
Freire,
S. and Miranda, A. (2014). El rol del director en la
escuela: el liderazgo pedagógico y su incidencia sobre el rendimiento
académico. (Avances de Investigación, 17).
Group for the Analysis of Development. https://bit.ly/3p8jzvy
García-Garnica, M. (2018). Prácticas
Eficaces de Liderazgo Dirigidas a Apoyar la Calidad Docente en los CEIP
Públicos de Andalucía. La Percepción de Directivos y Maestros. REICE, 16(3),
138-153. https://bit.ly/43E6Ik0
Hansen,
C. (2018). Why Rural Principals Leave. The Rural Educator, 39(1), 41-53.
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v39i1.214
Harmon,
L.H. and Schafft, K. (2009). Rural School leadership
for collaborative community development. The Rural Educator, 30(3), 4-9.
https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v30i3.443
Hayes,
S.D., Flowers, J. and Williams, S. M. (2021). “Constant Communication”: Rural
Principals’ Leadership Practices During a Global Pandemic. Frontiers in
Education, 5(618067), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.618067
Klocko, B. and Justis, R.J.
(2019). Leadership challenges of the rural school principal. The Rural
Educator, 40(3), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v40i3.571
Kumar,
S. (2022). Interview as a Tool for Data Collection in Educational Research.
In J. H. McMillan and L. P. Gogia (Eds.), Data
Collection in Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199756810-0087
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson,
S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. The
Wallace Foundation. https://bit.ly/43UMrpU
Leiva-Guerrero, M.V., Loyola Bustos, C.
and Halim Donoso, R. (2022). Liderazgo y
participación en escuelas públicas chilenas. Revista de Estudios y
Experiencias en Educación, 21(45), 149-167. https://doi.org/10.21703/0718-5162.v21.n45.2022.008
León,
V. and Fernández, M. J. (2017). Diseño y validación de un
instrumento para evaluar la participación de las familias en los centros
educativos. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 28(3),
115-132. https://bit.ly/3X7I7RY
León-Nabal, B., Zhang-Yu, C. and Lalueza, J.L. (2021). Uses of Digital Mediation in the
School-Families Relationship During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.687400
Lien,
T.N. (2021). Teachers' Feelings of Safeness in School-Family-Community
Partnerships: Motivations for Sustainable Development in Moral Education. International
Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20798
Lorenzo,
J., Domingo, V., Nolasco, A. and Abós, P. (2019). Analysis of educational leadership
at rural early-childhood and primary schools: a case study in Teruel (Aragón, Spain). International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 22(5), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1657590
Mayoral,
D., Colom, J., Bernad, O. and Torres, T. (2018). Liderazgo en la Escuela Rural: Estudio de Casos. International Journal of Sociology
of Education, 7(1),
49-70. https://doi.org/10.17583/rise.2018.2637
Mingorance, P. and Estebaranz, A. (2016).
Construyendo la comunidad que aprende: la vinculación efectiva entre la escuela
y la comunidad. Fuentes, (9), 179–199. https://bit.ly/3N8T41h
Ortega, M.D. and Cárcamo, H. (2018).
Relación familia-escuela en el contexto rural. Miradas desde las familias. Educación,
27(52), 98-118. https://bit.ly/3JgB4kh
Preston, J.P. and Barnes, K. E. R.
(2017). Successful
Leadership in Rural Schools: Cultivating Collaboration. Rural Educator, 38(1),
6-15. https://bit.ly/3p7ym9Z
Qaddo, M. (2019). Participant Observation as Research
Methodology: Assessing the Validity of Qualitative Observational Data as
Research Tools. Dubai International Academic City.
Sales,
A., Moliner, O. and Traver, J. (2019). Redefiniendo el território de la
escuela: espacios educativos para la transformación social. Revista Fuentes, 21(2), 177-188. https://doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2019.v21.i2.03
Seashore-Louis,
K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L. and Anderson,
S.E. (2010). Learning from leadership: investigating the links to improved
student learning. https://bit.ly/3p3a5Sm
Torres, M. C. (2013). El liderazgo
en la escuela rural. In J. Argos and M.P. Ezquerra Muñoz (Coords.), Liderazgo y educación (215-219). Universidad de
Cantabria.
Torres, N. (2008). La participación en
las comunidades rurales: abriendo espacios para la participación desde la
escuela. Revista Electrónica Educare, 12, 115-119. https://bit.ly/43SeSoI
Traver, J. A., Sales, A. and Moliner, O. (2010). Ampliando el
territorio: algunas claves sobre la participación de la comunidad educativa. Revista
Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 8(3), 96-116.
https://bit.ly/3PdRmy1
Ulker, M. and Bariş, E. T.
(2020). Relationship between school, family, and environment, according to
school principals’ views. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(3),
115-122. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2019.3872
Utibe, T. (2019). Impacts of Interview as Research
Instrument of Data Collection in Social Sciences. Journal of Digital Art
& Humanities, 1(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.33847/2712-8148.1.1_2
Uwamusi, C. B. and Ajisebiyawo,
A. (2023). Participant Observation as Research Methodology: Assessing the
Defects of Qualitative Observational Data as Research Tools. Asian Journal
of Social Science and Management Technology, 5(3), 19-32.
Younis,
M. C. Z., Kudlats, J. Cox, K. T., Shore, R. A., La
Serna, J. J. and Watson, J. R. (2022). Relating Principals’ Invitational
Leadership to Teacher Job Satisfaction and Principal Effectiveness in
High-Poverty Rural Elementary Schools. Journal of Applied Educational and
Policy Research, 7(1). https://bit.ly/3qLW4sP
Zhang,
J., Huang, Q. and Xu, J. (2022). The Relationships among Transformational Leadership,
Professional Learning Communities and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction in China: What
Do the Principals Think? Sustainability, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042362
Zhu,
H., Li, L. and Li, H. (2022). Teacher trust in others and teacher commitment
co-mediate the path from school leadership to students’ reading literacy in
rural Chinese schools. Front Psychol, 13(992003).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992003
Zuckerman,
S. J. (2020). The Role of Rural School Leaders in a School-Community
Partnership. Theory and Practice in Rural Education, 10(1), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2020.v10n1p73-91