Effective practices in leadership for social justice. Evolution of successful secondary school principalship in disadvantaged contexts

1 Effective practices in leadership for social justice. Evolution of successful secondary school principalship in disadvantaged contexts. Abstract This paper investigates the evolution of leadership for learning that has occurred in four secondary schools located in disadvantaged contexts in the province of Granada (Spain) over a period of two years, performing a comparative analysis on the values, qualities and strategies that characterize their principals during the academic years 2013-2014 and 20152016. The investigation uses case studies and conducts interviews with principals, teachers and education administrators. It is supported by the group-case method, as well as the longitudinal prospective method. The results show that only one of these principals has maintained a leadership aimed at learning and achievement of all students in the school, at the same time as students' academic results have been improving. This paper concludes by providing information on values, qualities and strategies of successful leadership in disadvantaged contexts in Spain that distinguish them from other less successful leaders. Keywords: Successful leadership, leadership for learning, social justice, leadership effectiveness, disadvantaged contexts. . Introduction and objectives Schools have long been considered an essential instrument for social change and improvement. Freire's basic approach that education does not change the world, but changes people who are going to change the world, gives the school a privileged role as a vehicle to balance social differences (Freire, 1992). However, this approach sometimes seems to be 2 rhetoric used by educational policies rather than reality (BOE, 2016). The fact is that schools in deprived contexts cannot be promoters of social change but rather a "social reproducer" since the association - poor classes with poor children - continues to be maintained and repeated (Althuser, 1988; Bourdieu and Passeron, 1979). The research conducted on social justice highlights the need to investigate effective practices in order to end inequalities and identify the traits and competences leaders need to fight against social injustice, encompasses a range of terms such as equity, inequality, equal opportunity and diversity (Blackmore, 2009). Specifically, we find research on social justice that refers to the fact that a leadership for social justice must be focused on improving student learning outcomes (Carper and Young, 2014; Chapman and Harris, 2004; Furman, 2012; Harris, 2010a; Kose, 2007; McCray and Beachum, 2014; Muijs et al., 2004; Shields, 2003). The current OECD (2012) motto "equity based on quality" is based on the approach of exercising leadership for learning and for improving students’ academic results, since without an improvement in student learning, schools will not be able to achieve the expected social change. The study presented belongs to the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) (Day and Gurr, 2014; Day and Leithwood, 2007), and is focused on identifying the characteristics, attributes, qualities, skills and strategies of successful school principals in a wide range of social, economic and cultural circumstances and in different countries. In some cases, the ISSPP project has specifically identified traits and particular strategies of successful principals located in disadvantaged contexts and promoters of social justice in countries like England (Day, 2007), Norway (Moller and Vedoy, 2014), USA (Merchant, Garza and Murakami-Ramalho, 2014) and Indonesia (Raihani, Gurr and Drysdale, 2014). 3 One subgroup of the Spanish research team participating in the ISSPP at the University of Granada contributed to the project by carrying out a comparative study on the leadership applied at four schools in disadvantaged contexts in the province of Granada, Spain. The purpose of the study was to identify values, qualities and strategies of the leadership aimed at improving students’ academic progress and achievement, practiced by four principals of different secondary schools (Schools A, B, C and D). The schools were selected on the basis of student progress and achievement. Schools A and B showed greater progress in improving learning outcomes and had better educational inspection reports than secondary schools C and D. Nevertheless, the academic results of these schools were never better than those of schools with similar ISC, schools from the same educational area or schools from the Andalusia region (Academic Year 2011-2012). Our study on these schools began in the academic year 2012-2013, collecting data on the type of leadership for learning that took place in them (Author et al., 2024, 2016) and, during the academic year 2013-2014, we carried out the interview protocols provided by ISSPP in order to analyze schools in disadvantaged settings and with lower results than expected. The research study outcomes indicated that, although principals in the four secondary schools had similar values and qualities, principals of schools A and B also demonstrated more energy, passion for the school project, strength and control, and used different strategies to manage the learning processes, especially in terms of the emphasis they placed upon collaboration and the extent to which they distributed leadership (Author et al., 2017). This study presents two styles of leadership for working in disadvantaged contexts: one of them shows a principal who adopts a passionate and hopeful attitude that things can change, within a culture of ‘it can be done’, firmly insisting on implementing the strategies for the leadership for learning model (School A and B). The other style is characterized by accepting to some degree that ‘this is how things are’, assuming a position that principals refer to as a ‘realistic approach’, where they 4 accept that the curriculum is fundamentally aimed at achieving social inclusion (School C and D). Taking into account the results of the first year of research, we have continued analyzing these schools in a second year (2015-2016) in order to find out whether the successful leadership aimed at improving students’ learning and achievement was sustained through these years, checking whether there have been any changes in the type of leadership that has taken place in these schools during the period 2012-2016. In order to do this, we used the data obtained by carrying out the ISSPP interviews in the academic year 2013-2014 and gathered data for a second time during the academic course 2015-2016 using the protocols provided by the ISSPP in the second year study. Our purpose is to provide data to the ISSPP project giving information on characteristics of successful leadership from Spain and, we try to analyse, specifically, to what extent a leadership aimed at student learning and achievement is being applied, or not, in these four secondary schools located in disadvantaged contexts in the province of Granada (Spain), and, to what extent, this leadership for learning stands or evolves over time. Theoretical framework Leadership for social justice in disadvantaged contexts The challenge of improving schools in the most disadvantaged contexts is currently of concern in many countries as they face socio-economic deprivation and are usually full of students with diverse ethnic, cultural and racial backgrounds and low literacy levels. These schools have students from families with unemployment problems, immigration issues and family break-ups, all of which result in a powerful amalgam of social and economic problems (Lupton, 2003; Mulford, 2007). Schools in disadvantaged contexts can find themselves in a 5 "vicious circle" of poor parents - poor children. School education may be one of the few ways society has available to do something about improving the situation of people living in disadvantaged areas (OECD, 2012; Shields, 2003) and getting rid of PISA data in Spain: educational outcomes in deprived areas are worse than those in non-deprived areas (OECD, 2016b). Schools in disadvantaged contexts have higher failure rates, the quality of learning experience is lower and there are also lower expectations regarding the chances of student success (Lalas & Morgan, 2006; Shields, 2003). The curriculum is less significant (OCDE, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2007), the teachers in these schools are of lower quality (DarlingHammond, 2007) and they exercise less instructional leadership and less learning-oriented leadership than in high-level schools (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Schools with socioeconomic disadvantages also lack the capacity for internal improvement and teachers are usually not very motivated to work in them (Chapman & Harris, 2004; Muijs, et al., 2004). In Spanish schools in disadvantaged contexts, we find similar circumstances to those already mentioned. Spanish schools in disadvantaged contexts achieve poorer academic results, pupils have lower expectations and, what it is more worrying, this is permitted and accepted (González, 2014), even justified systematically and structurally (Marshall & Oliva, 2010; Young, 2011). These results are not just a consequence of a disadvantaged environment, but are also due to the social structure of the school they attend. These students are locked out of the world of oportunity and advantage as something they simply take for granted (Harris, 2010a). These data show marginalization and social injustice because school failure penalizes children for life (OECD, 2012). Research into school effectiveness and school improvement has identified strong leadership as one of the most significant correlates of effective and improving schools and 6 improving learning results (Day et al., 2010; Day, Gu & Sammons, 2016). In fact, strong, successful school leadership has been found to reduce the depressing effects of disadvantaged contexts, by acting both directly and indirectly to change them (Mulford, 2007). The research carried out on leadership for social justice is mainly aimed at recognizing and showing these circumstances of inequality and marginalization, as well as showing practices to eliminate them. Furman's definition of leadership for social justice shows the diversity of nuances and strands encompassed by leadership research: “Leadership for social justice is action oriented and transformative, committed and persistente, inclusive and democratic, relational and caring, reflective, and oriented toward socially just pedagogy” (Furman, 2012; pp. 195). Therefore, we find the works of Shields (2003) and Jansen (2006) highlight the need for leaders to act as a morally transformative and proactive agent leaders to counteract marginalization and injustice, the work of Lalas & Morgan (2006) and Theoharis (2007; 2008) that show a committed and persistent leader, the work of Cooper (2009), Wasonga (2014), DeMatthews & Mahinney (2014) that refer to the construction of a democratic community and shared decision-making, in a community of dialogue (Ryan & Rottman, 2009), getting involved in a critical self-reflection (Dantley, 2008) and the development of a deep examinations of personal assumptions (Brown, 2004). But, we also find works that highlight the figure of the leader for social justice, essentially interested in raising the academic achievement of students, focused on improving learning outcomes and oriented toward socially just pedagogy (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004; Furman, 2012; Kose, 2007; McKenzie et al., 2008; Riester, Pursch & Skrla, 2002; Theoharis, 2007, 2008). Some focus on designing a curriculum that is meaningful and motivating enough to eliminate social barriers faced by socioeconomically disadvantaged students (McGray & Beachum, 2014; Riley, 2013; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Although it should be noted that what you are looking for is to achieve not only a social inclusión in school envirotments (Cooper, 2009; 7 DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Ryan & Rottmann, 2009; Wasonga, 2014) but especially the improvement of the results of the learner and the development of inclusive instructional practice from a systematic and ecological perspective (Furman, 2012). This strand of research runs parallel to the objective of attaching equity with quality in education and ending the idea that disadvantage means low performance and ensuring that students are not penalized twice - because of their own disadvantaged background, and because they attend school that heightens this with (OECD, 2012). For this reason it is necessary to delve further into the features that characterize successful principals in disadvantaged contexts and understand how these features sustain success. Traits and strategies of successful school leadership The impact of leadership in improving the results of apprenticeship has been demonstrated by different investigations. They show that effective school leaders exercise an indirect but powerful influence on the effectiveness of the school and on the achievement of students (Day et al., 2010, 2011; Robinson, Looyd & Rowe, 2008). This influence is determined by the possession of a series of values, dispositions, attributes and the use of a series of strategies (Chapman & Harris, 2004; Day et al., 2011; Day & Leithwood, 2007; Day & Gurr, 2014; Kose, 2007; Mulford, et al., 2007; Furman, 2012; Theoharis, 2007). In relation to the characteristics, dispositions and values of successful principals, the research indicates that they show tenacious commitment, arrogant humility, visionary passion (Theoharis, 2008), and focus on achievement within democratic values, consultative and approachable, providing support, caring and attentive, understanding the needs of staff and pupils, having strong vision and values and being firm, fair, flexible and resiliente (Day et al., 2011; Notman, 2014; Pashiardis & Savvides, 2014; Theoharis, 2007; Torres-Arcadia & Flores Kastani, 2014), fostering a collaborative leadership with democratic and distributed components (Chapman & Harris, 2004; Harris, 2014), not taking a heroic bureaucratic figure 8 nor supervising the teaching staff but interacting with teachers managing the teaching and learning programme (Day & Gurr, 2014; Day & Leithwood, 2007; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Moss, Johansson & Day, 2011). In relation to the strategies and leadership model that successful principals put into practice to achieve better student learning outcomes, some investigations make reference to a type of instructional leadership as the real promoter of improved learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985) particulary a shared instructional leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Marks & Printy, 2003). Other studies make reference to a transformational leadership (Leithwood & Sun, 2012) and some consider that a successful leadership relies on a mix of transformational and instructional styles (Day, Gu & Sammons, 2016). The ISSPP project concludes that successful school leaders maintain a post-heroic leadership style that combines transformational and instructional strategies (Day & Gurr, 2014; Day & Leihtwood, 2007). The ISSPP project has established the following core dimensions of successful leaders: 1) Setting directions: Identify the vision of schools, establish clear and well-defined school goals associated with performance expectations; 2) Developing people: Professional development of teachers, intellectual stimulation, support and consideration; 3) Refining and aligning the organization: Building a collaborative culture that allows distribution of leadership and develops a productive relationship with families and communities; 4) Improving the teaching and learning programme: Focusing on the coordination, development and monitoring of the curriculum (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Day et al., 2011; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris & Hopkins, 2006; Moss et al., 2011). The leadership for learning movement developed by Hallinger (2009, 2011) and Hallinger & Heck (2010), or by Knapp (2014) and Knapp & Portin (2014), is also built on the basis of transformational and instructional leadership models and highlights the critical role that leadership plays in creating and sustaining a school-wide focus on learning. Leadership for 9 learning outlines a principal capable of creating the conditions conducive to generating capacity for improvement in school, as well as working directly with teachers in improving the teaching-learning program from a shared and collaborative perspective. It moves away from a vision of a principal managing the improvement process in a solitary and domineering way and is supported by the figure of a principal who works in collaboration with teachers (Halliger & Heck, 2010), through instructional teams (Knapp & Portin, 2014; Marks & Printy, 2003) Leadership for learning takes on a collective vision for understanding leadership. In this vision, professional learning communities (Harris & Jones, 2011) and instructional leadership teams (Knapp & Portin, 2014) play an essential role. This approach is based on collaborative work aimed at improving the school and towards its sustainable change that requires the participation of all staff (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Harris, 2014). The principal is considered the central facilitator of the academic capacity of the school, but his figure is qualified from the image of a 'hybrid' type of leadership proposed by Gronn (2008, 2009). The proposal is built on a collaborative leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 2010) or a shared instructional leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003), a leadership model with distributed, democratic traits (Harris, 2014; Harris & Jones, 2011; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004), as it is considered the only alternative truly capable of transforming the school (Harris, 2010b). The collaborative and distributed models will extend leadership in the organization and ultimately impact on the school's academic capacity through an open dialogue between principals and teachers and shared decision-making on issues related to teaching-learning processes. Features and strategies for sustainable successful leadership The ISSPP has also studied the sustainability of leadership (Moss et al., 2011) and for this purpose numerous investigations have been carried out in order to verify if the characteristics 16 B 0 10,6 20,4 30 23 20 8,7 0 83,3 3,9 18,7 C 0 7,6 13 0 15,4 4,6 17,4 12,5 0 5,9 7,5 D 0 10,6 3,7 3,3 7,7 1,5 8,7 0 0 7,8 5,5 2015/16 A 0 19,7 18,5 30 0 16,9 4,3 37,5 0 25,5 18,1 B 0 15,2 7,4 0 0 16,9 8,7 12,5 0 11,8 10,2 C 0 3 7,4 0 7,7 0 17,4 0 0 7,8 4,5 D 25 10,6 5,6 3,3 7,7 1,6 8,7 0 0 5,9 5,7 * Total Frequency. Teacher 4 66 54 30 13 65 23 8 18 51 332 Note. AO = Academic optimism; EC = Empathy care; RE = Resilience; S = Strength; P = Passionate; CI = Commitment to improvement; MP = Moral purpose; T = Trust; C = Control; R = Responsibility; * = value adopted for weighting. Table 2 Weighted percentage - Frequency of occurrence of "Strategies of Successful Leadership". Leadership for Learning Model. Registration - principals and teachers (School A, B, C, D). Agent Year School SD DP RO ITLP Principal 2013/2014 A 13,5 25,4 22,2 13,2 B 26,2 12,3 25,1 19 C 14,3 7 4,3 6,35 D 8,7 13,8 5,4 8,65 2015/2016 A 23 26,2 29 28,7 B 1,6 4,6 7,9 11,5 C 4 6,9 3,2 6,3 D 8,7 3,8 2,9 6,3 * Total frequency. Principal 126 130 279 174 Teacher 2013/2014 A 27 17,4 24,7 10,9 B 15,5 20,3 26,2 18,7 C 6,2 8 3,6 13 D 6,2 2,9 2,5 5,9 2015/2016 A 26,4 35,5 25,6 22,6 B 3,9 5,8 9,6 18 C 7,8 5,8 4,7 5 D 7 4,3 3,1 5,9 * Total frequency. Teacher 129 138 446 239 Note. SD = Setting Directions; DP = Developing People; RO = Refining Organization; ITLP = Improving teaching and learning program; * = value adopted for weighting. The comparison of case studies (A, B, C and D), together with the longitudinal study carried out thereafter, guarantees the reliability and validity of the investigation and its degree of authenticity (Bush, 2009). Although it is a qualitative investigation based on case studies and, therefore, can never guarantee generalized and absolute ‘truth or knowledge’, we can consider, as does Flyvbjerg (2013), that the results obtained have great conceptual validity. This validity is based on the thesis that knowledge from specific cases is more valuable for 17 human learning than what can be obtained through procedures to extract general knowledge from an independent context, as highlighted by a number of studies on the possibilities of qualitative research (Denzin, 2011; Lincoln et al., 2011), with the only possible knowledge in social sciences being specific knowledge from a dependent context. The investigation also uses a prospective study that is considered the most 'truly longitudinal' (and consequently preferable when analyzing micro social change), because information is periodically gathered on the same individuals, who are asked the same sequence of questions at regular intervals (Ruspini, 2008). Findings The analysis on the data collected in relation to the characteristics, dispositions and strategies of the four principals analyzed in secondary schools in disadvantaged contexts shows great differences with regard to the way they face their tasks as well as to their performance. In relation to traits and dispositions, there has been a significant change in school B, as this school hired a new principal who brought about a significant change in the school direction. This principal had to leave his position for personal reasons at the end of the academic year 2013-2014. In the first year, all principals showed similar traits (empathy, high sense of responsibility, moral purpose, etc.), but the principals of schools A and B showed traits of energy, passion, strength and control. However, in the second year of analysis, these traits have been maintained by all principals (empathy, care, high sense of responsibility, moral purpose, etc.), but only the principal of school A has maintained traits of passion, overwhelming energy, control and strength. Teachers of school B miss the firmness, control and authority of the previous leader: “The previous principal was more authoritarian, but not in a negative sense; this one is not so and that confuses us a bit” (Teacher 2 of school B) (T2B). “This new principal gives you so much freedom and flexibility that you miss the strength 18 of the previous one” (T1-B). “Metaphorically speaking, this principal is a chess player who observes the play and eventually takes part... while the presence of the other principal was more visible (in the corridor, at the door...)... he had everything under control...” (T3-B). Inspector for School B: "having such charismatic leaders produces some advantages and disadvantages, because when they go... they leave the school without resources” (InspectorI-B). The traits of passion, overwhelming energy, control and strength presented by the principal of school A are traits that might be associated with a charismatic or heroic leadership model. This model of leadership has been widely criticized for its ineffectiveness (Yulk, 1999), although, as Day (2009) notes, successful principals are not charismatic or heroic in the traditional sense, but they have a very resolute sense of their moral purpose and personal characteristics that have become a benchmark. Slater (2008) gets to say that principals are true heroes who generate communication relationships based on trust and collaboration that allow the development of a distributed leadership. Therefore, although these charismatic traits could be questioned in some way, research highlights the need for authoritarian leaders in disadvantaged contexts (Muijs et al., 2010). Once the schools have come forward to maintain a ‘hybrid’ leadership (Gronn, 2008; 2009), there is a need for a balance between top-down and bottom-up models orchestrated by the principal (Gronn, 2008; Harris, 2014; Hopkins et al., 2014; Spillane, 2013). Strategies Firstly, with regard to strategy Setting Directions, there are very different positions, which show how principal A clearly maintains this strategy and how other schools do not do that so distinctly. Some researches believe that the basis for an effective school in challenging contexts rests on the capacity of the principal to build a vision towards clearly identified 19 goals with a commitment to improvement (Chapman & Harris, 2004). Without this unifying vision, schools are intended to be systems with a very slight connection, characterized by a number of individuals located in a common area with almost no interaction and without a common purpose (Mitchell & Sackney, 2006). The principal of school A has a clear direction and uses the metaphor of sailing to express this strategy: “It is necessary to have a path, the boat should not go adrift… it has to sail with a direction... opening doors, roads, it is a slow process... We have to go on sailing and sailing” (Principal of school A) (P-A). Teachers recognize the existence of this direction, “the greatest improvement has been to create a school identity... from a leadership that has a very clear vision” (Teacher 1 of school A) (T1A). The previous principal of school B clearly exercised this function of setting directions, although this strategy is not so obvious with the new principal: “The previous principal was very much a leader, he was more persuasive. This one doesn’t lead very much… He was like an orchestra conductor...With this new principal, it is like ‘intuitive music’” (T1-B). Schools C and D do not seem to have a clear direction for all teachers: “We do not have a common line and these children need a good structure and a lot of routine” (T1-C) “there are teachers who do not agree with the inclusion project that we have currently underway” (T1D). In addition, elaborating on this function of setting directions for attaining successful leadership, the vision must be based on a commitment to the success of all students in equal terms and should be prevented from being merely bureaucratic, with the power to energize and stimulate schools (Day & Gurr, 2014; Day & Leithwood, 2007; Murphy & Torre, 2015). School A inspector highlights this idea of an energizing and not merely bureaucratic vision: “If you're in the middle -seeing what’s happening-, this does not lead to anywhere, you have to have an objective... that your school is the best, looking for excellence. There are other principals who are not so enthusiastic... Principal A goes directly to excellence. He does not manage from a bureaucratic point of view, i.e. ‘do what I have to do’, seeking no problems... 20 but now, at what cost? then, at the cost of not demanding anything from students, parents or teachers” (Inspector school A) (I-A). By contrast, comments regarding school D show that the school does not move towards improving learning but to mere social integration, using the socio-cultural origin of students as an excuse: “In this project, we have a social perspective rather than an academic one... we are more interested in social issues, they are children with socio-cultural disadvantages, from broken families, and most of them are Gypsies” (T1-D). Regarding the category Developing People, research shows that a teacher prepared, capable and competent with ample professional capital is needed in order to improve learning outcomes in disadvantaged contexts. Authentic ‘cracks’ are needed, as Hargreaves & Fullan (2014) point out, to meet such challenges, because education demands high levels of skill, knowledge and experience. Principal A gives great importance to this aspect. He knows that the key to success in school is the strength of its staff and greatly cherishes working with all teachers, with all the intensity he can give, through external training courses and very sensitive strategies that are connected to teachers: “When I arrived here, there was no interest in innovation within the staff. But I managed to win them through acting in three fields: from person to person, listening to them and supporting them in their initiatives and projects… The important thing is to attend to teacher diversity. Children diversity is important, but more so is teacher diversity ... We have to stimulate people… this is a living thing, like a plant, you cannot disregard it, because it will dry out and die” (P-A). Day et al. (2011) discuss strategies for Developing People, as principals provide individualized support, care and personal attention, as if it were a living thing that must be cared for, and they have to offer incentives and encouragement. Inspector A shares this idea and says: 21 “professional development and improvement is closely linked to the motivation of teachers, but this illusion for improvement has been transmitted by the principal; he is the most excited about this and he conveys this illusion... their enthusiasm wins over many teachers... this has to do with charisma, that is, the principal is the first one to believe and then he tries to make everyone to follow and, gradually, he achieves it” (I-A). Against this, we find the reactionary stance of teachers in schools C and D who complain about their working conditions, the discouragement suffered and the lack of motivation: “Teachers do not want to spend their free time in training... the teachers’ working conditions have worsened” (T1-D); “we are burned out” (T2-D); “after 12 years, things have not changed, I see no solution or improvement, I feel completely pessimistic” (T3-C). Research shows that it is difficult to recruit teachers for such schools, no one wants to work in them, and it is much harder and very difficult to sustain improvements. Teachers are unmotivated and tired (Lupton, 2003; Muijs et al., 2004). The analyzed results from school C and D show that teachers have no desire to improve, they are tired, listless, depressed, and “look forward to escape” from problems. It is true that there are teachers in schools C and D who want to change and improve, but there is an unpropitious environment for professional development: “teachers have been looking forward to escaping for a long time and this is normal, this is very intense! when year, after year, after year... you run out of ideas and you reach a moment when you get a little collapsed “(T1-C). The principal of school C is aware of this lack of encouragement with regard to teachers “although the management team supports all initiatives, it's easy to see that the energy is fading” (P-C). Against this pessimistic stance, we find the optimistic position of the principal of school A. He is aware about the poor working conditions endured by the staff: “With the amount of problems affecting the staff, the lack of rights at work, the burden of excessive hours, and they are developing 19 projects… the principal does not do this, the teachers do this” (P-A). Besides, we find the optimistic 22 contribution of teachers of school B who openly state their certainty that, although with difficulties, they will continue to be trained to implement the necessary innovations to improve the quality of teaching. Regarding the category Refining and Aligning the Organization, in order to achieve capacity for improvement in school, there should be a collaborative culture of participation and involvement of teachers. An effective school leadership does not depend on the figure of lonely principals, but on a system of shared responsibility and distributed leadership that extends through the school organization generating performance routines and decision making shared as something systematic and habitual (Harris, 2014; Spillane, 2013). Although, as Muijs et al. (2010) point out, in the early stages of improvement, schools in disadvantaged contexts are not recommended to act through a distributed leadership, and as Day et al. (2010) state, in the initial stages of improving, an autocratic leadership builds a degree of trust and confidentiality with teachers and the community, and in the medium and final stages, a distribution of roles and responsibilities is needed to be performed. Nevertheless, as discussed below, the principals of the different schools do not respond the same way to the task of creating a collaborative culture, because not all of them have the same level of confidence and the same system of communication with staff members. At school A, this degree of trust and collaboration can be noticed: “The school does not sail on its own, but this does not mean that all the decisions of the school are democratic and reached by consensus” (P-A). The inspector of school A confirms the existence of a high level of trust among teachers. This environment of shared decision-making and trust also exists in school B and a strong teacher leadership is appreciated in school A and B. The principals of these two schools recognize the leading role of teachers in running schools. By contrast, although there are also dynamic and passionate teachers in school C and D to generate new projects and proposals, the same principals and teachers recognize that not all 23 teachers are involved: “most of the teachers come to teach their class and nothing else... there is little participation... also, if we add the bad working conditions, we noticed it in our health, throat, tiredness” (T1-C). Besides, it should be taken into account that the organization is restructured to be open to the community and families. This is another basic element when the organization is aligned and refined in a successful leadership, although as Muijs et al. (2004) note, relationships with parents are worse and more difficult in schools in social and economic disadvantaged contexts. This opening to the community and families occurs in schools A and B, but it is not found in schools C and D, and even in school C “there is no AMPA (Parents Association) and the degree of distrust of families is widespread” (PC). Faced with this situation, principal A states: “When I started working as principal of this school, I had 23 families targeted at AMPA, there are now 200 families... we have a very troubled population... but we have a climate of collaboration. If this were not so, I can tell you that the school would be a “time bomb”, the day-to-day running is very hard… when you have a school with 700 students and 700 families in front of you, it is unbearable! I would not manage such a school” (P-A). The principal of school C expresses the same feeling that principal A is willing to scape from: “We are fighting as if it were a dwarf against a giant. Relationships with families are not going very well... because we have no resources to do so... and this is like a wall rising up...” (P-C). Regarding the category Improving the Teaching and Learning Programme, as noted in the introduction to this article, theoretical research on leadership in disadvantaged contexts have revealed that the curriculum is not as rich or instructional as it occurs in schools with economic and social advantages (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; González, 2014). Nevertheless, research on successful leadership in disadvantaged contexts, such as Muijs et al. (2004), James et al. (2006) and McCray & Beachum (2014), show that successful leadership in these 24 contexts has essentially an academic focus, although connected to real life experiences and practice of students, not less demanding but aimed at stimulating higher levels of thinking and metacognition. For this section, we can start confronting a unique question about the innovations of teaching. We find two different stances in schools A and D. “We are always looking for new ways; we are working now on educational innovations proposed by the Educational Administration and have 19 ongoing projects. We do not use a classic style, but a rich and attractive model for students, adapted to the 21st century... we work with Didactic Programs that are infinitely more complete, with mixed methodologies” (P-A). “There is a lot of educational innovation by the Educational Administration, but I believe they are not realistic enough... They are impossible to apply to our students. They look wonderful, but we lack resources, and this is because there is no political disposition. I believe there is none whatsoever... there is no money... All of this is making us feel disappointed” (P-D). There exist two positions with regard to improvement in disadvantaged contexts, which are, basically, the academic optimism of successful principals and the pessimism of unsuccessful ones. You have to believe, with energy and passion, that improvement is possible, that changes can be achieved and student learning in disadvantaged contexts can be improved (Day, 2004; 2007; Lalas & Morgan, 2006; Theoharis, 2008). Schools A and B are very optimistic, things can improve and they try to enhance expectations. In schools C and D, they are not confident that they can achieve academic improvement for all pupils alike, the schools are aimed at achieving social inclusion without focusing entirely towards improving learning outcomes: “with some pupils, there is an academic interest, but not with all… we all get very much involved with students who want to study and are capable, we coordinate” (T1-C), “teachers 25 found many barriers to work at the same level with all students. There are barriers to achieve academic improvement, the first is the economic and labour shortage, curricular gap is large. We have to adapt to them because it would be impossible otherwise” (T2-D). The inspector of school D corroborates this lack of interest in improving the teaching program that is accepted as natural and consubstantial to such schools “integration for many teachers is to carry out the traditional programme with these children, with the academic system that he/she has been using all his/her life, and their motto is that children ‘do not bother me’” (I-D). Surprisingly and unfortunately, teacher number 3 from school C openly said that for him “inclusion does not work while they still want the school to cover the entire population, the problems persist, what the school is doing now is a task of CONTAINMENT” (T3-C). All this creates a discomfort and a very disappointing environment, as shown by the Principal C: “I'm discouraged because I see that I am not able to provide solutions to specific problems, and I'm a little frustrated... I see we lose energy in situations where, eventually, we will not get anything positive out of this” (P-C). Conclusions Given these results, we reached a series of conclusions, always bearing in mind that the work we present is a study that, although initially developed in the academic year 2012-2013, evaluates the evolution of leadership for learning between the academic years 2013 -2014 and 2014-2015. It is a brief period of time and changes in this interval may have been produced by numerous variables, not only by the principal, but by other factors such as school culture, context, resistance to change, etc. Neverthelesss, in view of the breadth of results we get to the conclusion that the principal of school A displays a more evident leadership for learning model and his academic results have progressed significantly. In conclusion, we can say that the principal of school A displays a stronger post-heroic leadership, as summarized in the 32 Denzin, N. (2011). The politics of evidence. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 645-658). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Drysdale, L., Goode, H., & Gurr, D. (2011). Sustaining school and ledership success in two Australian schools. In L. Moss, O. Johansson & C. Day (Eds.), How shcool principals sustain success over time (pp.15-38). Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogía de la esperanza. Río de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Fullan, M. (2002). Liderar en una cultura de cambio. Barcelona: Octaedro. Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191-229. Furman, G., & Gruenewald, D. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice. A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 49-78. doi: 10.1177/0013161X03259142. Flyvbjerg, B. (2013). Case study. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 169-205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. González, M.T. (2014). The Leadership for Social Justice at the Educational Organizations. Revista Internacional de Educación para la Justicia Social, 3(2), 85-106. Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 141-158. doi:10.1108/09578230810863235. Gronn, P. (2009). From distribute to hybrid leadership practice. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership. Different perspectives (pp.197-218). London: Springer. Gurr, D., & Day, C. (2014). Thinking about leading schools. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading schools successfully. Stories from the field (pp. 194-208). New York: Routledge. Hallinger, P. (2009). Leadership for 21st century schools. From instructional leadership to leadership for learning. Hon Kong: The Hon Kong Institute of Education. 33 Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lesson for 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142. doi: 10.1108/09578231111116699. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(6), 645-678. doi: 10.1177/1741143210379060. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional leadership behaviour of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-248. Hallinger, P., & Wang, W-Ch. (2015). Assesing instructional leadership with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Switzerland: Springer. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2008). El liderazgo sostenible. Madrid: Morata. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2014). Capital profesional. Madrid: Morata. Harris, A. (2010a). Improving schools in challenging contexts. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp.693-706). Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer. Harris, A. (2010b). Leading system transformation. School Leadership and Management. 30 (3), 197-207. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2010.494080. Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters. California: Corwin. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2011). Professional learning communities in action. London: Leanta Publishing. Hopkins, D. (2003). Instructional leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, C. Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership for school improvement (pp. 55-71). New York, London: Routledge. 34 Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & MacKay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257-281. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2014.885452. Jacobson, S., Johnson, L., & Ylimaki, R. (2011). Sustaining school cuccess: A case fror governance change. In L. Moss, O. Johansson & C. Day (Eds.), How shcool principals sustain success over time (pp. 109-126). Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer. James, C., Connolly, M., Dunning, G., & Elliot, T. (2006). How very effective primary schools work. London: Sage Publications. Jansen, J. (2006). Leading against the grain: The politics and emotions of leading for social justice in South Africa. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 37-51. doi: 10.1080/15700760500484027. Knapp, M. (2014). The evolution of learning-focused leadership in scholarship and practice. In M. Knapp, M. Honing, M. Plecky, B. Portin & M. Copland (Eds.), Learningfocused leadership in action (pp.23-51). New York: Routledge. Knapp, M., & Portin, B. (2014). Team-based leadership of instructional improvement in demanding school contexts. In M. Knapp, M. Honing, M. Plecky, B. Portin & M. Copland (Eds.), Learning-focused leadership in action (pp. 52-78). New York: Routledge. Kose, B. (2007). Principal leadership for social justice: Uncovering the content of teacher professional development. Journal of School Leadership, 17(3), 276-312. Lalas, J., & Morgan, R. (2006). Training school leaders who will promote educational justice: What, why and how? Educational Leadership and Administration, 18(2), 21-34. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership. What is it and how it influences pupil learning. Research Report n. 800. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. 35 Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (2002). Effective Leadership for Especially Challenging Schools. Journal of Leadership in Education, 79(2), 73-82. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11436268. Lincoln, Y., Lynham, S., & Guba, E. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lupton, R. (2003). Secondary school in disadvantaged areas. London: Thesis. Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. doi:10.1177/0013161X03253412. Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2010). Building the capacities of social justice leaders. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice (pp.1-18). USA: Allyn & Bacon – Pearson Education. McCray, C., & Beachum, F.D. (2014). School leadership in a diverse society. USA: IAP. McKenzie, R., Christman, D., Hernández, F., Fiero, E., Capper, C., Dantley, M., González, M., & Scheurich, J. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 111-138. doi: 10.1177/0013161X07309470. Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2006). Building schools, building people: The school principal’s role in leading a learning community. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 627-640. Merchant, B., Garza, E., & Murakami-Ramalho, E. (2014). USA – Culturally responsive leadership. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading school successfully. Stories from the field (pp.174-183). London: Routledge. 36 Minor-Ragan, Y., & Jacobson, S. (2014). USA – Her own words: Turning around an underperforming school. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading school successfully. Stories from the field (pp.9-18). London: Routledge. Moller, J., & Vedoy, G. (2014). Norway – Leadership for social justice: Educating students as active citizens in a democratic society. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading school successfully. Stories from the field (pp.163-173). London: Routledge. Moller, J., Vedoy, G., Presthus, A., & Skedsmo, G. (2011). Sustainable improvement: The significance of ethos and leadership. In L. Moss, O. Johansson & C. Day (Eds.), How shcool principals sustain success over time (pp.55-72). Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer. Moss, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (2011). How shcool principals sustain success over time. Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer. Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Raffo, C., Goldrick, S., Kirstin, K., Lennie, C., & Miles, S. (2010). Leading under pressure: Leadership for social inclusion. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 143-157. doi: 10.1080/13632431003663198. Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman. C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas – A review of research evidence. School effectiveness and school improvement, 15(2), 149-157. Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1076/sesi.15.2.149.3043 Mulford, B. (2007). Successful school principalship in Tasmania. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful principal leadership in times of change. An international perspective (pp.17-38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2015). Vision: Essential scaffolding. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 177-197. 37 OECD. (2012). Equity and quality in education. Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Paris: OECD. OCDE. (2016a). School leadership for learning. Insights from TALIS 2013. OCDE. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/publications/school-leadership-for-learning9789264258341-en.htm OECD (2016b), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced qualitative research. A guide to using theory. London: Sage. Raihani, R., Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2014). Indonesia – Leading an Islamic school in a multicultural setting in Indonesia. In C. Day and D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading school successfully. Stories from the field (pp.184-193). London: Routledge. Riester, A., Pursch, V., & Skrla, L. (2002). Principals for social justice: Leaders of school success for children form low-income homes. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 281304. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635-674. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321509. Ruspini, E. (2008). Longitudinal research: An emergent method in the social sciences. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 437-460). The Guilford Press: New York. Ryan, J. & Rottmann, C. (2009). Struggling for democracy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37 (4), 475-496. Doi: 10.1177/ 1741143209334579. 38 Ryan, K., Gandha, T., Culbertson, M., & Carlso, C. (2014). Focus group evidence. Implications for design and analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(3), 328-345. doi:10.1177/1098214013508300. Scheurich, J & Skrla, I. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence. Creating highachievement Classrooms, schools, and districts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Shields, C. (2003). Good intentions are not enough. Transformative leadership for communities of difference. Oxford: Scarecrow Press. Slater, L. (2008). Pathways to building leadership cpacity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36 (1), 55-69. doi: 10.1177/1741143207084060. Spillane, J. (2013). The practice of leading and managing teaching in educational organisations, OECD Center for Educational Research and Innovation (Ed.), Leadership for 21st Century Learning. Fundació Jaume Bofill. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34. Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research: Perspective in Practice. London: Sage. Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A., & Johnson, B. (2008). Emergent techniques in the gatehring and analysis of mixed methods data. In S. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 389-415). The Guilford Press: New York. Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Towards a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258. doi: 10.1177/0013161X06293717. Theoharis, G. (2008). Woven in Deeply. Identity and leadership of urban social justice principals. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 3-25. doi: 10.1177/0013124508321372. 39 Torres-Arcadia, C., & Flores-Kastanis, E. (2014). Mexico–From fragmentation to community: A journey of change. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading school successfully. Stories from the field (pp. 31-43). London: Routledge. West, A., & Pennell, H. (2003). Underachievement in Schools. London: Falmer Press. Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing Culturally Responsible Teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053001003. Wasonga, T. (2014). Kenya – From perdition to performance. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading school successfully. Stories from the field (pp.44-58). London: Routledge. Yakoov, O., & Tubin, D. (2014). The evolution of success. In C. Day & D. Gurr (Eds.), Leading school successfully. Stories from the field (pp. 19-30). London: Routledge. Ylimaki, R., Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2011). Sustaining school and ledership success in two Australian schools. In L. Moss, O. Johansson & C. Day (Eds.), How shcool principals sustain success over time (pp. 167-1829). Dordrecht Heidelberg: Springer. Young, I. (2011). Responsabilidad por la justicia. Madrid: Paidós. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. DOI: 10.1016/S10489843(99)00013-2. 40 Figure 1. Frequency of occurrence of Leadership for Learning strategies. Principal A, B, C and D. Year 2013-2014. Figure 2. Frequency of occurrence of Leadership for Learning strategies. Principal A, B, C and D. Year 2015-2016.