School Leadership in Latin America 2000-2016

Original Article
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
School leadership in Latin 1–25
ª The Author(s) 2017
America 2000–2016 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143217717277
journals.sagepub.com/home/ema
Joseph Flessa, Daniela Bramwell,

Magdalena Fernandez and José Weinstein
Abstract
School site leadership has commanded the attention of researchers and policymakers in Anglo-
American jurisdictions for at least two decades, but little is known about how many other parts of
the globe have addressed this topic. This paper reviews published research and policy documents
related to school leadership in Latin America between 2000–2016. Applying rapid mapping
techniques used for scoping studies, we review 359 research and policy documents and give
‘coherent, meaningful shape’ to what we know and what we don’t know about school leadership in
the region. Attention in research and policy to school leadership in Latin America was relatively
slow to arrive: whilst it grew steadily in the first decade of this century it remains low compared to
other regions of the world. We provide an overview of the school leadership policy environment
in several countries, describing recruitment, selection, evaluation, and job responsibilities of
principals; relevant leadership frameworks; and requirements for training or professional devel-
opment. We speculate on what might explain the diverse ways that school leadership has been
taken up in the region: degree of school system centralization; policy borrowing; stage of devel-
opment; technocratic problem solving; and neoliberal accountability.
Keywords
Latin America, literature reviews, principals, school leadership
Introduction
For at least two decades, policymakers and school reformers in North America and the UK have
embraced school leadership as a lever for school improvement, investing in a range of high profile
initiatives including leadership standards, leadership centres, and changed expectations for pre-
paration of school level leaders. Since ‘leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an
influence on pupil learning’ (Leithwood et al., 2008: 7) among within-school factors, and since
accountability pressures to raise scores on student achievement tests have risen, it stands to reason
that ‘various stakeholders have increased their expectations from school leaders demanding, for
Corresponding author:
Joseph Flessa, Educational Leadership and Policy, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario M5S1V6, Canada.
Email: joseph.flessa@utoronto.ca
2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)
instance, higher academic results and performance standards’ (Pashiardis and Johansson, 2016: 1).
It likewise is understandable that the English language scholarly literature on school leadership has
both broadened and deepened in the first two decades of this century.
What of the rest of the world? A comparative perspective on school leadership that connects
other parts of the globe to these policy and research trends is missing even though ‘it is increasingly
obvious that more research concerning the needs of educational leaders within a specific cultural
context is definitely necessary in order to prepare successful and effective school leaders’ (Pashiar-
dis and Johansson, 2016: 12). In this article introducing the Latin American Special Issue of
Educational Management Administration and Leadership we seek to address that gap by providing
a multifaceted examination of school leadership in Latin America, identifying both what we know
and what we don’t know about the state of the field. Using systematic research review methods,
this paper represents an effort to put the disparate research in this area into a ‘coherent meaningful
shape’ (Hallinger, 2012: 145). We examined policy and research on school level leadership in
Latin America from 2000 to 2016, and found that (a) until recently there has been a relative silence
with regards to school leadership in Latin America, and (b) a recent interest in school leadership in
Latin America is now becoming evident. For scholars of comparative education, both of these
findings are interesting and raise questions. What connections can be observed between the range
of educational systems (from highly centralized to decentralized, for example) in Latin America
and the timing of the arrival of this particular policy remedy in different jurisdictions? Latin
America is so diverse; why would we expect to see any commonalities across education policy
initiatives at all?
Regional background and educational context

Education researchers from outside Latin America often know little about this populous, culturally
diverse part of the world and even less about its schools. With systems ranging from Cuba (and its
context of fully centralized government control) to Chile (where schools operate within an expli-
citly competitive market model), the day-to-day work of school leaders in Latin America varies
greatly. In terms of school principals, for example, the degree to which they are viewed alternately
as professionals with a specialized job description, or as bureaucrats, or as teachers with additional
school level chores, varies greatly. Regionally, we see new investment in educational leadership
across this range of contexts. Latin America’s experiences therefore highlight the broad appeal of
educational leadership as a tool for school improvement.
Several distinctive characteristics of Latin America and its education systems are worth con-
sidering here. First, Latin America includes more than 500 million people and is made up of a wide
and diverse range of countries, from Brazil and Mexico, which are gigantic in both land mass and
population, to Nicaragua and Uruguay, which are small. Nevertheless, all countries in Latin
America struggle with legacies of colonial rule and the common problems of the concentration
of wealth and high levels of poverty, given that Latin America is the most unequal region of the
planet (Rivas, 2015). Also, of the 500þ millon people, approximately 120 million are of African
descent and 40 million are Indigenous; both tend to be concentrated at the bottom of this unequal
class structure and suffer from discrimination (Telles and Bailey, 2013).
‘By the end of the twentieth century, all South American countries had reached the United
Nations Millennium Development Goals for 2015 in education, with most children enrolled and
completing primary education, and basic literacy reaching almost 100 percent of the young pop-
ulation’ (Schwartzman, 2015: 3–4). At the same time, ‘quality of education remains critical’
Flessa et al.: School leadership in Latin America 2000–2016 3
(Schwartzman, 2015: 4) with PISA results from the first decade of the 21st century showing 60%
or more of students below standard in mathematics and 40% or more below standard in language
(Schwartzman, 2015: 4). These difficulties in the quality and equity of education not only come
from the social context in which most families live – and have lived – but also derive from the
limited capacities found within schooling systems, starting with the classroom teaching skills of
many teachers (Bruns and Luque, 2015). The growing middle classes in Latin America are
demanding greater access to high quality secondary and post secondary schooling (Rivas,
2015), putting pressure on policymakers to tackle issues of quality, system improvement, and
obstacles to access simultaneously.
Another characteristic shared by Latin American education systems are powerful national
teacher unions. Most began in the 1960s during a period of educational expansion, are ideologi-
cally from the left, include all public teachers and thus are the largest group of public workers, and
are generally powerful enough to oppose education reforms and even influence national policy and
elections (Corrales, 1999; López, 2008; Palamidessi, 2003; Tedesco and Tenti Fanfani, 2002). Any
examination of the work of school level leaders in Latin America must therefore consider the
influence of teachers’ organized labour.
Attention to school level leadership in the region

Policies emphasizing school leadership – including rewriting the job descriptions of school level
leaders in ways that emphasize more ‘instructional’ and less ‘managerial’ leadership – are
relatively new in Latin America and are not without controversy (Weinstein et al., 2014). In
part the controversy derives from the fact of low levels of professionalization of school princi-
pals (Murillo and Roman, 2013); do principals have the baseline pedagogical knowledge or
organizational authority to provide feedback to teachers? In addition, efforts to build teacher
capacity or improve instructional quality, insofar as they involve teacher evaluation or incen-
tives, generate resistance and questions about fairness and transparency (López, 2008), and often
unions become involved.
We note that there is little published research about school leadership in the Latin American
context, even in countries paying greater attention to leadership, such as Chile. Some might argue
that this simply mirrors a larger trend: there is little published research in any subject area in Latin
America compared to other parts of the world. For example, the Scimago database lists 10,699,739
publications for Northern America, but only 1,386,009 for Latin America (all subject areas, all
subject categories, 1996–2015). This may indeed be so: we would have to conduct a different study
to determine this. However, we hypothesize that research publications on school leadership per se
is lower in Latin America than on other topics, but we also show in this paper that the interest in
school leadership is growing – not only in research but also in policy.
We also find that a little more common is work that examines ‘school management in devel-
oping countries’ (Galiani and Perez-Truglia, 2014, emphasis added), focused on ‘the system
through which schools are organized to manage their resources’ (Galiani and Perez-Truglia,
2014: 193–194). In other words, management in this research has been defined in ways that
highlight systems rather than the work of managers. In this article we start with a different level
of analysis; we foreground the work of school leaders to understand better how a diverse region
views their potential to contribute to school improvement. As most of the literature we found
focuses on school principals, we had to write more about school principals than other school
leaders, such as vice-principals or teacher leaders. In the text, we use ‘leader’ when referring to
all school leaders (principals, vice-principals, teacher leaders and others) and ‘principal’ when
referring only to school principals.
Methods
The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the educational policy directions as well as the
research published on school leadership in Latin America from 2000–2016. Consistent with
Hallinger’s (2012) call for high standards and greater methodological transparency in reviews
of the literature in educational leadership and management, we devote several paragraphs here to
our approach.
We engaged in a systematic search of documents and publications based on rapid mapping
techniques used for scoping studies (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). Our baseline was the work of
Fernandez-Hermosilla (Fernandez-Hermosilla, 2015), which gathered, classified and reviewed
181 publications in English and Spanish on school leadership and improvement in Latin America
from 2002 to 2013. We updated that data set to include references from Brazil (in Portuguese) and
we expanded the date parameters to 2000 to 2016. Because we were interested in the ways school
reforms, either explicitly or implicitly, changed the work of school level leaders, we also reoriented
our search terms to pick up work on policy, reform, changing system contexts, and the institutio-
nalization of new roles for school leaders in different countries. We searched EBSCO (276 results)
and PROQUEST (122 results) using the specific search string: ‘Latin America’ and ‘school
leadership’or’principalship’or school near leadership’. We also hand searched four specific edu-
cation journals: Pensamiento Educativo (PEL), Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y
Cambio en Educación (REICE), Revista Internacional de Educacion para la Justicia Social
(RIEJS), and Revista Iberoamericana de Educación (RIE).
Furthermore, we searched websites of educational organizations that traditionally engage in
research in this region. We examined UNESCO, the World Bank, PREAL (Partnership for
Educational Revitalization in the Americas), OEI (Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos),
International Development Bank, Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), and CIPPEC (Centro de Implementación de Polı́ticas Públicas para la Equidad y el
Crecimiento). We reviewed specialized websites such as Fundacao Victor Civita (Foundation
Victor Civita/Brazil), and we searched the websites of Ministries of Education of Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela for information on
school leadership. Finally, we contacted researchers from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, Mexico and Peru directly, via email, to collect publications we may have missed and to
solicit information that would help us understand better the different national contexts.
Our review and analysis in this paper is based on a total of 367 documents. Of those, 302 are
journal articles, scholarly books and other ‘grey’ literature (i.e. reports, theses, conference papers)
specifically related to school leadership research and policy in Latin America. The 65 remaining
documents refer to overall education policy in the region, including laws, manuals/handbooks,
reports and other government publications.
We classified documents by country, year, type of publication and data (empirical, normative/
theory, literature review); we assembled the data on a spreadsheet. We reviewed all document
titles, abstracts and, when available, the methodology sections to extract the type of data used by
authors. In the case of foundational documents, those providing broader reviews of leadership
literature and/or policy for one or more countries in the region (i.e. Avalos, 2011; Mariano et al.,
2016; Torres-Arcadia et al., 2016; Weinstein et al., 2014), the whole document was analysed.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1. School leadership research, number of publications between 2000–2016.
Research team members held weekly meetings for four months and compared notes and prelim-
inary analysis via a shared drive. Step one of the analysis was to identify the regional trends; step
two was to identify confirming or disconfirming illustrations from specific countries; step three
was to suggest possible explanations for the trends and contradictions, going back to the scholarly
literature on school leadership and comparative education for contextualization; step four was
writing the article, with each member of the research team taking turns as a critical reader to
identify gaps and inconsistencies in argument and evidence.
What we learned about research on school leadership in Latin America

Although research interest on school organization in the region dates back almost 80 years
(Galarza, 1939), we found surprisingly little contemporary research focused squarely on school
leaders or school leadership. This finding is consistent with that of Oplatka who concluded that ‘the
research on educational leadership in Latin America is extremely limited (at least in English)’
(Oplatka, 2016: 8). Nevertheless, our scan, which does include publications in Spanish and Portu-
guese, indicates that the number of publications has grown dramatically in the last decade, with a
drop off after 2014 (see Figure 1). Our review also found that references to school leaders and
management arise primarily within the context of other discussions, mainly education policy
reforms. Articles about decentralization, school-based management, democratization of schools,
school improvement reforms or school effectiveness sketch the impact on or relevance for school
leaders. However, leadership per se is infrequently the main topic of research. Brazil illustrates this
issue clearly; about three out of every ten articles focused on leadership as the main topic. Those
few studies that do examine leadership are often case studies of leadership characteristics, practices
and problems encountered by principals. These types of studies are commonly found in Chile and
Mexico, and more frequently after 2005 (in Chile: Horn and Marfán, 2010; Weinstein and Muñoz,
2012; and in Mexico: Garcı́a et al., 2010; Patrón and Cisneros, 20111). There are even fewer
studies including quantitative larger scale studies attempting to connect school leadership and
students results (exceptions are Volante, 2010; Valenzuela and Horn, 2012).
Our review found that most research (Castillo, 2005; Gil-Garcı́a et al., 2008; Montt, 2012;
Murillo, 2006; Rodriguez-Molina, 2011) relied on leadership frameworks such as ‘transforma-
tional’ and ‘instructional’ leadership, and focused on the formal administrative roles in schools.
Although some studies indicate the importance of teams and other teachers as school leadership,
studies in Latin America thus far mostly investigate the leadership practices of principals without
considering other members of the leadership team or using distributed leadership as a framework,
with a few exceptions (Ahumada, 2010; Bolivar, 2010).
Regional
Paraguay
Honduras
Ecuador
Uruguay
Haiti
El Salvador
Puerto Rico
Peru
Venezuela
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Chile
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 2. Number of publications on school leadership research by country.
Latin America is also diverse and heterogeneous in terms of research production. In this regard,
similarly to what has been described in a recent review (Weinstein et al., 2014), we found three
groups of countries:
(1) Prolific countries such as Chile, Brazil and Mexico where there is a substantial body of
publications on school leadership and it is possible to identify trends;
(2) Countries with evident but heterogeneous interest in school leadership and fewer
publications, such as Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Colombia or Venezuela; and
(3) Countries with almost no research on this topic, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Panama
and Peru.
Countries with prolific research production: Chile, Brazil, and Mexico

As Figure 2 demonstrates, Chile far outpaces the rest of the region in terms of research production
in this area. Chilean research includes studies about principals’ characteristics and practices,
leadership effects on student results, common leadership problems, and professional development;
researchers use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the former mostly case studies
and often with representative populations (Weinstein and Muñoz, 2012; Weinstein et al., 2014).
Chilean research related to school leaders also integrates topics on school improvement (Bellei
et al., 2014), external technical assistance for school improvement (Bellei et al., 2009), education
and leadership policy and school management in general (Bravo et al., 2008; Weinstein and
Muñoz, 2013).
In contrast, Mexican research has primarily examined school principals’ practices and needs for
professional development at elementary and secondary schools and at different localities, without
nationally representative samples (Weinstein et al., 2014). The set of Mexican research papers also
shows an emphasis on novice principals, likely thanks to Mexico’s participation in the
International Study of Principal Preparation (ISPP) (Garcı́a et al., 2010, 2011; López-Gorosave
et al., 2010). A recent review of research on leadership in Mexico identified four areas of emphasis:
(1) professional development, (2) definition of the position, (3) work load, and (4) work relation-
ship with teachers (Torres-Arcadia et al., 2016). However, this review does not specify how much
research had been dedicated to each area and indicated that there was still an important gap of
knowledge regarding training and professional development programs.
Brazil provides a different perspective. Findings regarding school leadership appear primarily
as a secondary emphasis in studies of education policy reforms sustained since the 1990s – i.e.
decentralization and school democratization. These reform studies mention the impact of such
policies on principals’ practices and on school management (Mariano et al., 2016). Another review
suggests leadership research in Brazil focused mostly on principals’ training, practices and recruit-
ing (Weinstein et al., 2014). Our own search leads us to believe leadership has not been studied
deeply as a field of research on its own in Brazil. We agree with Mariano et al. (2016) that
international leadership frameworks have less influence in Brazil than in Chile and Mexico.
To understand why these three very different countries are the most prolific in terms of
school leadership research, we note that they were the only three Latin American countries
participating in TALIS 2013, which dedicates a full chapter to comparing school principals
from participating countries (OECD, 2014). Joint efforts come from universities, research
centres and the government providing funding for developing knowledge on the topic. Chile,
the outlier, not only has most obvious policy involvement over time, it also has recently
funded two leadership development and research centres with the task of training leaders and
producing the necessary knowledge and evidence to guide their work (Ministerio de Educa-
ción de Chile, 2016). These centres are diagnostic of the advanced level of system investment
in school leadership and an indication that nationally there are researchers and policymakers
with the capacity to engage the topic.
Countries with an emerging interest in school site leadership

In Argentina, studies collect evidence on principals’ demographic characteristics (Weinstein et al.,
2014) with some interest in understanding the role, goal and priorities they have in the context of
socio-economic inequalities, increasing social problems affecting schools, and a changing school
population that includes historically marginalized population (de Podestá et al., 2005; Tiramonti
and Nobile, 2013). Only recently has there been an interest in describing different leadership styles
(Hirschberg, 2015). Another example is Costa Rica which, after 2007, created centres of education
research and development involving the professional development of principals and teachers
administrators. The small number of publications (12) we were able to find about leadership are
primarily theoretical, and highly influenced by the instructional leadership framework (Chacón,
2011; Vargas, 2010). There are a few empirical studies (case studies) focused on leadership
practices and professional development of principals (for examples, see Camacho Alvarez,
2012; Garcı́a, 2007).
Cuba is distinctive in many ways and although its education system has received some inter-
national attention, there is scarce evidence about the role school leadership plays. The school
system performs highly on the UNESCO regional standardized tests developed by LLECE
(Murillo, 2008). International researchers seeking to understand Cuba’s educational results have
looked at the role of principals only indirectly, finding that they dedicate more time to guiding
teaching and following pedagogy and curriculum than their Latin American peers (Carnoy, 2007;
Murillo, 2012). Publications about leadership in Cuba describe competencies, training and policy
from a normative point of view (Santiesteban and Valiente, 2011; Valiente et al., 2013).
We found just a few examples of small-scope empirical studies from Venezuela and Colombia.
The Venezuelan work explores transformational and instructional leadership styles (Pérez, 2012),
competencies (Maduro and Rietveldt, 2009) and policy and professional development from a
normative point of view (Monarca, 2013; Rodriguez and Meza, 2006). Colombia is an interesting
case. At the policy level there seems to be growing system interest in advancing leadership as a
core priority of school improvement efforts, even more so than in Brazil or Mexico. In Colombia,
there is an important participation of the business sector, specifically sponsored by Fundacion por
empresarios de la educacion de Colombia – Exe [Entrepreneurs’ Foundation for Colombian
Education], in supporting leadership development in partnership with public institutions (Wein-
stein et al., 2015). At the research level, however, we found very few publications. Other reviews
about Colombia likewise suggest scarce evidence: ‘local and low extent studies centered on
professional development needs, profiles, skills and development, and their role on change’
(Weinstein et al., 2014: 18).
Countries with little or no apparent research on school leadership

We found next to no research on school site leadership from other countries in Latin America, such
as Bolivia, Ecuador, Panama or Peru. We did locate Peruvian research on school efficacy (Cueto
and Secada, 2003; Cueto, 2004) and educational leadership at the political level (Contreras, 2009).
Multi-country research on school leadership

Cross-national comparisons have provided much of the research base for understanding school
leadership in the region. UNESCO is one of most prolific and directly involved organizations in
understanding leadership (i.e. Rojas, 2006; Vaillant, 2015; Weinstein et al., 2014; Weinstein et al.,
2015). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is also actively
involved in promoting the importance of school leadership through research (Pont et al., 2006).
Other organizations such as the International-American Development Bank (IADB) and the World
Bank have shown some interest on school leadership and management (Borden, 2002: Barrera-
Osorio et al., 2009; DiGropello, 2006; Rodriguez and Hovde, 2002).
In spite of the available data provided by participations in international assessments from
UNESCO and OECD, comparative analyses on school leadership and their characteristics are still
scarce (Murillo and Martı́nez Garrido, 2015; Murillo and Román, 2013; Vaillant and Rodrı́guez,
2015). Furthermore, for most countries there are neither baseline descriptive statistics of school
leader demographics nor analyses linking school leadership responsibilities to system priorities with
few exceptions (see Weinstein et al., 2014). In contrast, we found that across the region most of the
evidence is gathered in small-scope studies, leaving gaps in our understanding at the system level.
Policy development: school leadership in Latin American countries

An examination of the research patterns emerging from Latin America on the topic of school
leadership provides one diagnostic of the concept’s relevance, but not the only one. To understand
better the importance Latin American jurisdictions placed on school leadership, we also needed to
look at policies. In this section, we provide the reader with a brief overview of school principal
Table 1. Summary of policies affecting school leaders in Latin America, 2016.
Countries1 AR CL CR CO EC PE MEX
Frameworks and standards X2 X X X3 X

Role definition
Pedagogical/instructional functions defined by law/regulation X X X X X X X
Selection process and requirements
Classroom experience requirement X X X X X X
Requirement of professional degree in ed. X X X X X4
Requirement of professional development X5 X X X X
Merit-based assessment X X X X X X X
Competencies-based test X X X X X
Centralized government involved in selecting/appointing candidates X X X X X X
Professional development
Public–Private X X X
Public X
Private X X X
Voluntary X X X X
Mandatory X6 X7 X8 X
Assessment and evaluation
Annual assessment/review X X X X9
Employer/supervisor evaluates X X X
National evaluation X X
Notes:
1: AR ¼ Argentina, CL ¼ Chile, CR ¼ Costa Rica, CO ¼ Colombia, EC ¼ Ecuador, PE ¼ Peru, MEX ¼ Mexico.
2: Standards are not associated with annual assessment or review of principals formally.
3: Standards for practice were recently created, but without an assessment process associated.
4: Only for principals in secondary education.
5: Only in some provinces.
6: It depends on the province.
7: Induction is mandatory.
8: In order to become a principal and move up in the promotion ladder PD is required, although not many institutions offer
specialized education for principals.
9: Only for teachers starting at the job under the new code established in 2002.
policies from a range of Latin American countries. This snapshot is based on ‘grey’ literature (i.e.
government reports) as well as information found on education ministry websites, up-to-date as of
September 2016. Our overview covers Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and
Mexico. This sample is a mix of large and small countries, with different experiences of centra-
lization and decentralization in the education system, variations in national wealth and inequality,
and different histories of economic growth. We briefly describe the following: job description,
selection, and professional development and supports.
Job description
In Latin America education laws that regulate the teaching profession also dictate school leaders’
functions and roles, selection processes and minimum requirements for the job, professional devel-
opment requirements and their regulations, and the assessment for school leaders (Weinstein et al.,
2014). For the role of school principal, these aspects are explained next and summarized in Table 1.
Overall, we note that national laws suggest principals are the ‘maximum authority responsible for
guiding and the functioning of the school organization’ (Weinstein et al., 2014: 22).
Although the policy snapshot shows regional attention to principals’ functions and roles, com-
parative policy research also reminds us that principals in Latin America are relatively ‘under
professionalized’ compared to principals in other parts of the globe. Using UNESCO SERCE
(Second Regional Comparative and Explanatory Study) data Murillo and Román’s (2013) study
of principals’ use of time in 17 countries found that 57.3% worked full time (40 hours a week or
more) in the role. In other words, in these 17 countries, more than 40% of principals held a second
job in the school, often as teachers. In addition, other factors might explain this phenomenon, such
as the number of rural schools in the region, these being generally smaller organizations lead by
teachers who do not hold a formal title of leadership.
There is great variation across countries in the explicit emphasis placed on ‘instructional
leadership’ for principals. For example, policies in Chile ask principals to supervise classroom
practice directly as part of their job (Weinstein and Muñoz, 2012), and Cuban principals seem
to be quite involved in supporting teachers (Carnoy, 2007; Murillo, 2012), but in many
countries the references to responsibilities related to instructional leadership were negligible
for school principals.
All in all, a recurring observation of the school change and school effectiveness literature from
Latin America is that school principals are administrators, not leaders (Pozner et al., 2000; Vail-
lant, 2011). Oplatka (2004) suggested that this is a tendency across the ‘developing’ world: school
principals are administrators who implement mandated change; they do not initiate it. It seems the
job descriptions emphasize mainly or only administrative duties. Data from primary schools in
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay published by UNESCO (Rivas, 2015: 142)
show that while decisions about student discipline and evaluation are made at a school-level, often
decisions regarding teacher selection, teacher firing and teacher salaries are not. Far more common
among most countries were mandates to manage personnel, infrastructure, and relationships with
parents, and to provide necessary information to superiors.
Selection
Countries in Latin America generally require principals to have previous experience in the class-
room and a professional degree in education – with exceptions such as Colombia, which requires
an undefined degree and work experience of at least four years; and Chile, which requires three
years of experience in the classroom and any Bachelor’s degree of eight semesters (Weinstein
et al., 2014). There is a history of viewing the principalship as ‘a political appointment related to
the election process more than with competence’ (Mariano et al., 2015, cited in Oplatka, 2016: 9),
but there have been recent policy changes which emphasize greater transparency and standardiza-
tion in hiring. Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru use a combination of merit-based
competitions and/or examinations. Costa Rica and Chile are attempting to increase the standardi-
zation of processes by using merit-based selection assessed by central government agencies.
Given the limited autonomy that principals in Latin America seem to have, we were surprised to
find great diversity in the degree to which their hiring was managed centrally or are decentralized.
(We expected to see mostly centralized hiring.) In Argentina local provinces regulate the eligibility
process and there is no role for central government (an illustration of how many decisions in
Argentina’s federal system are made at the provincial level); in Chile and Peru there is a shared
governance approach where the local level has the final decision; in Ecuador a school committee,
made up of parents, students and teachers, participates in assessing the school management plan
presented by the candidate; and in Costa Rica, Colombia and Mexico there is a fully centralized
process whereby candidates are scored by judges to decide about the final appointment.
Professional development and supports

Professional development (PD) for school principals in the region is provided by different actors.
In Argentina, Chile and Peru professional development is primarily private and mostly unregu-
lated, while in Costa Rica it is primarily public (ministry-based), and in Colombia, Ecuador and
Mexico both sectors offer training. Different countries emphasize professional development at
different phases of school principals’ careers. In Argentina, principal PD is required in some
provinces; induction is mandatory in Colombia; in Ecuador training is important to move up the
promotion ladder and become a principal; and Peru has introduced a three year National Program
for Professional Development of Principals including induction period, specialization, and rein-
forcement (Ministerio de Educacion Peru, 2014).
Although there is a extensive recognition of the need for credentials, which are valued by every
system explicitly or implicitly in their selection processes, there is also agreement that the training
and professional preparation that principals receive is of mixed quality at best (Muñoz and Marfán,
2011; Torres-Arcadia et al., 2016). Some go as far as to say that poor training received in higher
education institutions is ‘a sizeable part of the difficulties experienced’ by principals in the region
(Gomes et al., 2016: 78). Even with concerns of the value of PD, it does seem worrisome that
principals with less preparation are, on average, more represented in the poorest and isolated
schools (Murillo and Martı́nez Garrido, 2015).
Several countries (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico) have frameworks and/or standards
defining roles and functions to set expectations for leadership practice, but these are not always
aligned with, nor hold the power of, law. In Ecuador the frameworks and bylaws differ; in Mexico,
the selection processes for principals are being changed in association with profiles and standards
(SEP, 2016; Torres-Arcadia et al., 2016). Only Colombia shows alignment between standards and
the assessment processes (Weinstein et al., 2014).
Another aspect that has been changing quickly in the last decade is the process by which
principals are being assessed and evaluated. A central government institution independent from
Ministries of Education implements some of these assessments nationally – for example, in
Mexico by the National Institute for Evaluation in Education (INNE) and in Ecuador by the
National Institute of Evaluation. In both cases evaluations have been implemented once in the
past six years, which indicates a new development (Weinstein et al., 2014). In other countries
(Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica and Colombia), evaluations are conducted annually by direct super-
visors or the employer at the local level. The type of system used also varies, from implementing an
assessment aligned with national standards of practice (Colombia) to the use of criteria developed
by each employer (Argentina, Costa Rica and Chile). Lastly, there are places like Peru where
systematic evaluation of principals has not been implemented.
We can safely conclude that the degree to which the principalship has been professionalized,
with specific managerial and instructional responsibilities and expertise, and standards for selec-
tion into the profession, varies greatly in Latin America. We observe some potential contradictions
in the way that policy is developing. On the one hand, credentials and selection processes for
principals are of growing importance; on the other, there are doubts about the quality and relevance
of the education behind just those credentials. Stated more bluntly: given the nascent attention to
school level leaders as a specialized profession, just who do policymakers imagine can provide
principals with useful professional development and preparation for the job?
Analysis and discussion: understanding the state of the field

While collecting and analysing the data about school leadership research and policy in Latin
America we identified patterns in knowledge production and dissemination and we debated pos-
sible explanations for the trends that we saw. The storyline is basically this: first, we noted that
Latin America has come to school leadership as an area of research and policy focus only recently;
second, a small set of Latin American countries, led by Chile, accounts for a majority of the school
leadership publications in this century, meaning the published record of leadership for most
countries is very thin; and, third, in the few places where there are policy efforts to emphasize
leadership, their points of reference appear to be Anglo-American leadership concepts and
researchers. Focusing on school site leadership as a policy phenomenon – as a case – is also a
good way to test out a handful of prevailing ideas about how and why, more generally, educational
policy in Latin America emerges in the ways that it does. In the following paragraphs we briefly
address some of these ideas and raise questions about whether the degree of system centralization/
decentralization, policy borrowing, neoliberal technocratic problem solving, or some other com-
parative/developmental educational policy argument best explains what we found. Since our
paper’s contribution is primarily to provide a descriptive state of the field, the ideas that follow
are necessarily speculative.
Baseline: low attention to leadership in research and practice

After about two decades of standard-based reform and test score accountability, and with the
lessons of effective schools research (eg Edmonds, 1979) clearly in mind, state governments (like
California) and private foundations (like Wallace) in North America turned to principal leadership
as an instrument to address some of the intractable problems of school improvement. The same did
not happen in Latin America. As Vaillant (2011) noted, concern for school leaders was recent in
Latin America compared to the rest of the world. As one illustration, we note that in the 2015
edited volume Education in South America (Schwartzman, 2015), there are no index references for
‘leadership’, or ‘principals’, or ‘administration’. It is hard to imagine a similar edited volume on
education in North America or the UK with nothing to say about school level leadership. Similarly,
there are virtually no easily available basic statistics regarding principals (number of principals,
average age, gender, etc.) for most countries in Latin America. We found very little baseline
information from UNESCO statistics or individual country databases. Whether this is cause or
effect of the lack of research in the area we cannot determine, but we can conclude that there is
little systematic investigation into the work of principals in most countries in the region.
Do system centralization and decentralization explain regional trends in

leadership policy?
Many organizations (e.g. Inter-American Development Bank, PREAL, UNESCO, World Bank)
bemoan what they deem the excessive centralization of Latin American education systems and
propose decentralization as a way of improving education. We wondered if centralization might
therefore be one explanation for the historical lack of attention to school level leaders in Latin
America, and if decentralization might explain the turn to leadership as a policy focus. After all, in
a centralized education system, where the most important decisions are made by a national
Ministry of Education, a school principal may be primarily a bureaucratic middle manager imple-
menting decisions made by others – not exactly the definition of a leader.
The Anglo-American emphasis on school level leadership assumes some relative autonomy and
discretion in local decision-making that Latin American principals simply may not have. Borden
says, ‘even with the implementation of reforms that decentralize education, school principals in
Latin America and the Caribbean are still only exercising the administrative dimension of school
leadership’ (Borden, 2002: 5, emphasis added). According to Vaillant ‘In many Latin American
countries, there is excessive centralism and lack of autonomy among principals and teachers when
performing their tasks’ (Vaillant, 2011: 572).
The point here is not that principals in jurisdictions outside Latin America are freed from
administrative chores or constraints on their autonomous leadership. In fact, among scholars of
educational leadership in North America there is a great deal of attention paid to the tensions
between managerial and instructional leadership (see Cuban, 1988; Flessa, 2012; Neumerski,
2012; Pollock and Cameron Hauseman, 2016). The difference to understand here is one of degree:
in Latin America, where attention to school site leadership as a lever for school improvement is
nascent, fundamental expectations about principals’ work are still firmly anchored, often by
legislation, to limited administrative tasks.
So, if centralization works against a focus on school leadership, does decentralization lead to an
emphasis on school leadership? Our investigation shows that the link is not so clear or direct.
Decentralization was the focus of education reform in Latin America in the 1990s (Gajardo, 2012;
Rivas, 2015) and, according to Gajardo (2012), decentralization reforms are most advanced in
Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Interestingly, Chile and Mexico are the Latin American
countries that began focusing policies and research on school leadership the earliest
(Fernandez-Hermosilla, 2015). Argentina has a relatively decentralized education system, but it
does not seem that decentralization policies per se triggered an interest in school leadership (de
Podestá et al, 2005; Hirschberg, 2015; Tiramonti and Nobile, 2013). The link between decentra-
lization and leadership seems clear in the case of Ecuador, where a large decentralization project
began in 2012 (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2012a), and standards related to school
leaders were published the same year (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2012b). The link is
less obvious, though, in places like Cuba, which is not decentralized yet has invested in leadership
(Carnoy, 2007).
It is also important to note that decentralization or school-based management does not always
involve giving school principals more decision-making power: often in Latin America, decen-
tralization has transferred responsibilities from central government agencies to local school
committees of teachers, parents and students, not to principals (for an example, see Barrera-
Osorio et al., 2009). Furthermore, rural schools are an important sector in Latin America and in
many rural schools there is no official school principal. These are generally small organizations
with one, two or a few teachers assuming all responsibilities. This could also explain the absence
of research on school leadership in countries where the figure of a principal is not central to the
school organization.
We can safely conclude that the degree of system centralization affects the working condi-
tions and responsibilities of school principals. But, if decentralization were the primary driver of
Latin American interest in school level leadership, we would expect to have seen it sooner and in
more countries.
Policy borrowing
From its origins as a field of study, comparative development education has sought to understand
why educational jurisdictions in such different places sometimes take up such similar policies.
‘Which educational systems tend to be objects of emulation, i.e. serve as reference systems or
“reference societies”? . . . and why?’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012: 8). Scholars call this policy ‘borrow-
ing and lending’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2016), the processes through which knowledge from one polit-
ical setting (past or present) is used to develop policies in another (Waldrow, 2012). Over time,
organizations in the same ‘field’ come to resemble one another via the process of institutional
isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), whether intentionally seeking to emulate one another
or not. One possible explanation for the growing regional attention to school level leadership in
Latin America is that it is one way for the education system of one country to signal its legitimacy.
Sometimes this movement is called harmonization, whereby education systems align with the
‘space’ they want to join (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012). For our purposes it is worth considering that
policy actors in very different contexts may, by following local incentives to solve local problems,
end up embracing the same small set of answers as their very different neighbours. Given the
diversity in Latin America, sameness might be weirder than difference.
The dynamics of policy lending and borrowing are also shaped by influential international
organizations; these organizations advocate certain reforms and not others and, in some cases, the
reforms they promote are tied to loans (Steiner-Khamsi, 2012). In addition, in Latin America there
is little national funding for conducting research; often, research is funded by international orga-
nizations. The OECD, as previously mentioned, promotes school leadership as a key factor for
school improvement (also see Hopkins et al., 2011). Thus it is possible that school leadership is
gaining currency because international organizations have advocated particular reforms, such as
school-based management, that led to an interest in school leaders, and/or that international
organization funding creates the incentive for countries to focus on school leadership.
There are risks to policy borrowing, of course. Harris et al., (2016), although not focusing on
Latin America, noted a global trend toward the prevalence of a small set of approaches to lead-
ership development and preparation across a diverse, cross-national set of schools and systems.
They critiqued the potential blind spots that were reinforced by this policy borrowing and they
raised questions about the cultural and contextual factors that take a back seat. Referring to the
ways that policymakers worldwide apply what they consider to be the lessons from the best
performing systems, Harris et al. concluded that, ‘While high quality leadership may indeed be
an important contributor to school and system performance, how it is understood, enacted and
performed is, ultimately, culturally and contextually defined’ (Harris et al., 2016: 8). Pashiardis
and Johansson (2016: loc 445)2 likewise pointed out that ‘policy initiatives that work well in one
country cannot necessarily be transferred across national borders’.
Given this contextual information – that policy borrowing is common but it also has limitations
– the Chilean principal leadership framework (now called the Marco Para la Buena Direccion y
Liderazgo Escolar, 2015) is a particularly interesting illustration of the ascendance of particular
leadership models and ideas. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to trace the lineage of
the Chilean framework in detail, we note that the categories of principal leadership emphasized in
the framework are applied from the work of Leithwood and colleagues(Leithwood et al., 2008)
which also formed the foundation for the Ontario Leadership Framework (see Leithwood, 2012).
The parallels between the two frameworks are explicit. Our review also encountered a framework
recently developed in the Framework for Sound Performance for School Leaders (Marco de Buen
Desempenõ del Directivo) (2013) which embraces the same core concepts. The embrace of frame-
works by ministries/departments of education could itself be considered a mode of policy borrow-
ing, with the framework content making the link all the more explicit.
Leadership and a system’s ‘developmental stage’

When trying to understand both why Latin America lagged other parts of the world in taking up
school leadership initiatives, as well as why now there is growing interest in the topic, we con-
sidered the question of how an education system’s ‘developmental stage’ might explain its will-
ingness or ability to invest in school leadership. Pashiardis and Johansson (2016) stated that
‘depending on the country’s stage of development as well as on the education system’s phase of
evolution in the different contextual domains, different definitions of success and effectiveness
will be applicable’ (Pashiardis and Johansson, 2016: loc 450). In the words of Mourshed et al.,
(2010: 24): ‘We observe dominant clusters of interventions that all improving systems carry out at
each journey stage on the long path from poor to excellent’. We tried to figure out whether
investments in school leadership policies emerged in particular ‘phases of evolution’ in different
countries, and wondered whether we should count them as ‘interventions’ systems make as they
move from ‘poor to excellent’.
There are clearly differences in the development and capacities of educational systems in Latin
America, but these differences do not neatly explain why some countries are investing in school
leadership and others are not. After reviewing the available evidence we do not conclude that
countries must necessarily reach a developmental tipping point before they are able take up school
leadership, nor do we conclude that there is always some sort of baseline quality in place before
systems begin to expand their interest in school leadership. We do however notice the following:
On international tests such as PISA, Latin America as a region has low scores. Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay participated in PISA 2012, and
in all subjects Latin America scored in the lower third of the ranking (Bos et al., 2013). If baseline
system effectiveness were necessary before policymakers showed interest in school leadership, we
wouldn’t see it anywhere in Latin America. Yet our paper shows that there is demonstrable and
growing interest in school leadership in some Latin American countries.
Latin America’s experience with school leadership is not uniform; some countries began
focusing on leadership before others. Chile, for example, with a high standard of living and the
best comparative education results in the region, may be better positioned to emphasize and
support school level leadership frameworks and standards than other countries struggling with
fundamental questions of access. So while Barber and Mourshed (2007: 40) noted that ‘school
reforms rarely succeed without effective leadership, both at the level of the system and at the level
of individual schools’, we believe that a full explanation of the links between reform policies,
school leadership, and school improvement in Latin America requires more research.
Instructional leadership as technocratic problem-solving

Maybe the reason for greater attention to school leadership in Latin America is the result of
policymakers’ rational decision-making. As Stone (2012: 11) stated, rational decision-making is
the most popular and most pervasive model for decision-making in policy whereby policymakers:
(a) identify objectives, (b) identify alternative courses of action for achieving objectives,
(c) predict the possible consequences of each alternative, (d) evaluate the possible consequences
of each alternative, and (e) select the alternative that maximizes the attainment of objectives. From
this mode of thinking, policymakers in Latin America focus on leadership now as a way to address
access and quality problems that have been resistant to other solutions. Although it is not a
sophisticated argument to make, it is possible that policymakers view school level leadership as
the ‘alternative that maximizes the attainment of objectives’.
Almost all countries in Latin America have participated in regional student achievement tests
such as SERCE (Flotts et al., 2015), and some have participated in international tests such as PISA
(Bos et al., 2013). Analyses from these tests point to leadership – especially instructional leader-
ship – as a factor that positively influences students’ test scores. Based on PISA 2012 data for Latin
American countries, Vaillant and Rodrı́guez Zidán concluded ‘learning results improve where
there is instructional leadership and principals guide and intervene designing the curriculum to
be delivered’ (Vaillant and Rodriguez Zidán, 2015: 253).
Treviño et al. concluded from analyses of SERCE 2006 data that, ‘When the principals focus
their work on instructional leadership and promoting learning in schools, their activity has a
positive impact on students’ academic achievement’ (Treviño et al., 2010: 15). Blanco et al.,
writing about Latin America, said that, ‘instructional leadership is essential for efficient schools’
(Blanco et al., 2008: 67). Murillo (2008) also concluded that leadership must focus on student
learning for schools to improve. In short, it is certainly possible that Latin American policy-
makers could be focusing on educational leadership because regional research has shown it has
an impact on student learning, and policymakers are looking for new ways to improve their
educational systems.
Neoliberal accountability leads to a focus on principals

Some scholars seeking to understand the current policy environment note that the limited range of
policy options popular at any given time seems to share an underlying ideology. In this context,
Joshee argued that, ‘neoliberalism is the engine that has been driving the globally structured
education agenda’ (Joshee, 2008: 32). Scott, examining the racial politics of market based reforms
in the USA, noted that, ‘conservatives and neoliberals see schools as wasteful, ineffective, and not
sufficiently focused on results . . . [they] believe traditional public systems need to be reinvigorated
by the private sector . . . and also favour entrepreneurial approaches that center testing to make
judgments about teacher and school leader compensation’ (Scott, 2016: 13). Scholars of the ‘New
Public Management’ emphasize precisely this point by drawing attention to the ways public
institutions are increasingly asked to do more with less, to provide consumer choice and satisfac-
tion, and to understand market-style incentives such as competition as being linked to improve-
ment (Ward, 2011). Investments in entrepreneurial, results-driven, school level leadership are
consistent with this set of ideas.
This phenomenon is especially obvious in Chile, where principals are subject to double
accountability (Weinstein et al., 2016): accountability within the competitive education market-
place, whereby they must compete for enrolment each year in order to receive the per student
funding used to run the school; and they must also increase achievement scores because both their
work and the school are evaluated by the ministry according to these results. Similar changes are
occurring in Brazil: schools are now evaluated according to the IDEB index – student assistance
and students’ scores on national tests (Prova Brazil) (Ministério da Educação, 2016). With these
evaluations comes greater attention given to principals who are, implicitly in some cases and
explicitly in others, expected to deliver results. Thus, Latin America could be focusing on
educational leadership to have someone specific to ‘hold accountable’ and be responsible for
improving schools. After all, one of the most highly visible ways to show that you’re taking
organizational results seriously is to make changes at the top of the organizational chart.
Although we are not able in this primarily descriptive paper to disentangle with certainty root
causes, we believe that it is important to consider a range of ideas that might explain why an
interest in school level leadership is emerging now in Latin America, and why it is taking particular
shape in particular countries. It is unlikely that there will be a sole regional explanation; in fact,
various combinations of factors will explain why school leadership research and practice look
different in different parts of the region.
Conclusions
We began the research for this paper already aware that ‘school leadership issues are becoming
increasingly debated and explored in an international and comparative context’ (Pashiardis and
Johansson, 2016: loc 220–221). Our paper adds to this comparative body of work by drawing
much-needed attention to Latin America.
We know that Latin American jurisdictions, like others in the developing world, have embraced
a small set of leadership ideas. Prior research suggests that a reliance on (usually) US-based
scholarship limits the development of more contextually-informed conceptualizations of school
leadership (see Brundrett et al., 2006; Hallinger and Kantamara, 2000; Karstanje and Weber, 2008;
Litz, 2011; Oplatka, 2004, 2006). Two of the dominant Anglo-American leadership ideas being
taken up in Latin America warrant special attention and critique.
First, in the mainstream literature, even during this era of ‘distributed leadership’ scholarship, a
typical takeaway is that the single most important educational leader is the school principal. The
Latin American experience suggests that paying attention solely to the principal to the exclusion of
management teams or the faculty as a whole will lead to a distorted idea of who school leaders are
and how they lead. For example, as previously noted, in many schools, especially in rural areas,
there are perhaps only one or two teachers who must teach all grades and also somehow meet the
responsibilities of a principal. On the other hand, in larger schools there are often various leader-
ship positions. For example, unlike North American schools, Chilean institutions rely upon a
unique administrative structure where leadership is shared between Directores (principals) and
Jefes de Unidad Tecnica Pedagógica (technical unit pedagogical heads) (Flessa 2014: 2).
Second, in North American literature there is often a simplified vision of the principal as
‘instructional leader’ that portrays the individual concerned as working directly or in a coaching
role with teachers to improve their practice. In a Latin American context, finding such a principal
would be extremely challenging. But does that mean there are no ‘instructional leaders’ in Latin
American schools? No. There is reason to think that defining ‘instructional leadership’ in a way
that will be legible in Latin American schools will require viewing the phenomenon as including
managerial, institutional decisions and sharing of expertise from multiple sources rather than
solely one-on-one pedagogical mentorship from the principal. We are identifying a problem
consistent with the one described by Neumerski (2012), and we believe that questions about
who school leaders are and what leadership in support of instruction looks like may have
substantively different answers in Latin America than in the countries that have originated the
majority of school leadership scholarship. In short: the emphasis on administrative management in
the principalship in Latin America is a feature, not a bug, of the system. Platitudes about
instructional leadership that do not recognize this reality are unlikely to gain much traction in Latin
America.
There are other blind spots in the body of research that we reviewed. Although there is a
relatively well established body of research on teachers’ organized work (unions) in Latin America
(i.e. Corrales, 1999; López, 2008; Palamidessi, 2003; Tedesco and Tenti Fanfani, 2002), we did not
find examples of school leadership scholarship engaging with it. Principals in Latin American
public schools grapple daily with the possibilities and constraints of school leadership in unionized
public schools; scholarship that describes both the philosophical and practical implications of
greater investment in principals as pedagogical leaders, and what that means for teachers, would
be welcome.
We also note that the theme of leadership for educational equity remains underdeveloped
regionally. Surprisingly, we found next to no specific reference to race or ethnicity in our literature
review on school leadership, although we suspect it does affect educational opportunity and the
work of school principals in the region, as it does worldwide. There is certainly a large body of
Latin American scholarship about race, racism and educational opportunity for indigenous peo-
ples; our observation is that the nascent body of research on school leadership does not seem to
engage it. Learning more about how school leaders confront questions of race and indigeneity in
their schools – for good or bad – would help build a more comprehensive knowledge base for this
diverse region.
Oplatka (2016) offered a comprehensive template for building the Latin American knowledge
base in educational leadership. He suggested that research should be conducted to help improve
school leadership in Latin America (Oplatka, 2016: 11–13), that Latin American research can
provide new insights to the field (Oplatka, 2016: 13) and a critical view of both existing research
based on European concepts as well as a critical view of traditional arrangements include nepo-
tism, corruption and political considerations (Oplatka, 2016: 14) are necessary. To his list we
would add that in order to develop a knowledge base about leadership preparation and professional
development researchers and practitioners in Latin America would do well to consider evidence of
impact, not only intention or participant satisfaction.
Pashiardis and Johansson (2016) reminded us that principals’ work is highly context
dependent. After reviewing the scholarship from 2000-2016 in Latin America we come to
a conclusion similar to theirs, namely that, ‘the future of the study of school leadership and its
effects on student achievement is not simply more statistical analyses and large international
studies. The way forward . . . is to advance through a study of the unique characteristics of the
context of each educational system, its history, culture, and local needs’ (Pashiardis and
Johansson, 2016: loc 336–337).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.
Notes
1. Space constraints limit the number of citations we have included. Readers interested in the full biblio-
graphy are invited to contact the corresponding author.
2. We use ‘loc’ hereafter to signal the number refers to the location in the Kindle version of the book, not a
page number in the hard-copy edition.
References
Ahumada L (2010) Liderazgo distribuido y aprendizaje organizacional: Tensiones y contradicciones de la ley
de subvención escolar preferencial en un contexto rural. Psicoperspectivas 9(1): 111–123.
Arksey H and O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1): 19–32.
Avalos B (2011) Leadership issues and experiences in Latin America. In: En MacBeath JY and Townsend T
(eds) International Handbook of Leadership for Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Barber M and Mourshed M (2007) How the World’s Best-Performing Schools Come Out on Top. London:
McKinsey & Company.
Barrera-Osorio F, Fasih T, Patrinos HA, et al. (2009) Decentralized Decision-Making in Schools The Theory
and Evidence on School-Based Management. World Bank Report.
Bellei C, Valenzuela JP, Vanni X, et al. (2014) Lo Aprendı´ en la Escuela ¿Cómo se Logran Procesos de
Mejoramiento Escolar? Santiago Chile: Universidad de Chile.
Bellei C, Raczynski D and Osses A (2009) Asistencia Tećnica Educativa: ¿Aporte al Mejoramiento Escolar?.
Chile: Centro de Investigación Avanzada en Educación, Universidad de Chile.
Blanco R, Aguerrondo I, Calvo G, et al. (2008) Eficacia Escolar y Factores Asociados en Ame´rica Latina y el
Caribe. UNESCO y LLECE. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001631/163174s.pdf
(accessed 12 September 2016).
Bolivar A (2010) ¿Cómo un liderazgo pedagógico y distribuido mejora los logros académicos? Revisión de la
investigación y propuesta. Magis 3(5): 9–33.
Borden A (2002) Directores de Escuela en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe: ¿Lı´deres del Cambio ó Sujetos a
Cambio?. Working paper, IADB.
Bos MS, Ganimian A and Vegas E (2013) Ame´rica Latina en PISA 2012: Brief #1, ¿Cómo le fue a la regioń?
IADB. Available at: https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/698/Am%C3%A9rica%20Lati
na%20en%20PISA%202012%20%3a%20%C2%BFC%C3%B3mo%20le%20fue%20a%20la%20regi
%C3%B3n%3f.pdf?sequence¼1 (accessed 15 September 2016).
Bravo D, Sevilla P and Miranda L (2008) Equipos directivos y resultados de los estudiantes: Evidencia a partir
de la Asignación de Desempeño Directivo. In: Conference Encuentro Sociedad de Economıá de Chile,
SECHI, 4–5 September 2008.
Brundrett J, Slavikova L, Karabec S, et al. (2006) Educational leadership development in England
and the Czech Republic: Comparing perspectives. School Leadership and Management 26(2):
93–106.
Bruns B and Luque J (2015) Great Teachers: How to Raise Student Learning in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/20488
(License: CC BY 3.0 IGO).
Camacho Álvarez MM (2012) Mejoramiento del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de la matemática en la
educación inicial: Un desafiı́o para la gestión de la educación. Revista Gestioń de la Educación 2(1): 1–28.
Carnoy M (2007) Cuba’s Academic Advantage: Why Student’s in Cuba Do Better in School. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Castillo A (2005) Liderazgo administrativo: Reto para el director de escuelas del siglo XXI. Cuaderno de
Investigacioń en la Educacioń (20): 1–9.
Chacón A (2011) Liderazgo y educación: Hacia una gestión educativa de calidad. Revista Gestioń de la
Educacioń 2(1): 144–165.
Contreras B (2009) Liderazgo directivo en la gestión escolar desde el enfoque polı́tico de la escuela. Educa-
ción XVIII 34: 55–72.
Corrales J (1999) Aspectos polı́ticos en la implementación de reformas educativas. PREAL 14: 1–16. Available
at: https://www.google.com.ec/url?sa¼t&rct¼j&q¼&esrc¼s&source¼web&cd¼2&cad¼rja&uact¼8&
ved¼0ahUKEwjhq4HWoabQAhVM4iYKHcSeCmoQFggfMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oei.es%2
Freformaseducativas%2Faspectos_politicos_implementacion_reformas_educativas_corrales_portugues.
pdf&usg=AFQjCNHUbvTfpvKFxxEiCsOxBPVeVNrKFw&sig2¼-05kIy7BV8ypcFbDk-ynmg
(accessed 5 August 2016).
Cuban L (1988) The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. NY: Suny Press.
Cueto S (2004) Factores predictivos del rendimiento escolar, deserción e ingreso a educación secundaria en una
muestra de estudiantes de Zonas rurales del Perú. Archivos Analı´ticos de Polı´ticas Educativas 12(35): 1–42.
Cueto S and Secada W (2003) Eficacia escolar en las escuelas bilingues en Puno, Perú. REICE Revista
Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educacioń 1(1): 1–23.
DiGropello E (2006) A Comparative Analysis of School-based Management in Central America. Working
Paper N 72, World Bank
DiMaggio PJ and Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.
Edmonds RR (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37: 15–37.
Fernandez Hermosilla M (2015) Mapping the school improvement and leadership research in Latin America:
A rapid review of literature. In: Conference Paper ICSEI 2015, 3–6 January, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Flessa J (2014) Learning from school leadership in Chile. Canadian and International Education / Education
canadienne et internationale 43(1): 2.
Flessa J (2012) Principals as middle managers: school leadership during the implementation of primary class
size reduction in Ontario. Leadership and Policy in Schools 11(3): 325–343.
Flotts PM, Manzi J, Jiménez D, et al. (2015) Informe De Resultados TERCE – Tercer Estudio Regional
Comparativo y Explicativo: Logros De Aprendizaje. UNESCO. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0024/002435/243532 S.pdf (accessed 3 August 2016).
Galarza E (1939) Chapter VIII: Educational research in Latin America. Review of Educational Research 9:
368–371. DOI:10.3102/00346543009004368.
Gajardo M (2012) La educación tras dos décadas de cambio. ¿Qué hemos aprendido? ¿Qué debemos trans-
formar? Serie Documentos PREAL N65. Santiago: Chile.
Galiani S and Perez-Truglia R (2014) School management in developing countries. In: Glewwe P (ed.)
Education Policy in Developing Countries, Chapter 6, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 193–242.
Garcı́a JM, Slater C and López-Gorosave G (2010) El director escolar novel de primaria: Problemas y retos
que enfrenta en su primer año. Revista Mexicana de Investigacioń Educativa 15(47): 1051–1073.
Garcı́a JM, Slater C and López-Gorosave G (2011) El director escolar novel: Estado de la investigación y enfoques
teóricos. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad Eficiencia y Cambio en Educación – REICE 9(3): 31–50.
Garcı́a K (2007) Prácticas administrativas y de liderazgo en centros educativos públicos de barranca, chacar-
ita y puntaarenas. Actualidades Investigativas en Educacioń 7(2): 1–27.
Gil-Garcı́a A, Muñiz M and Delgado A (2008) El liderazgo transformativo en el ámbito escolar: Un esfuerzo
de investigación en acción y cooperación entre instituciones de educación superior. Sapiens: Revista
Universitaria de Investigacioń 9(1): 13–33.
Gomes CA, Ventura A and Evangelista Machado MF (2016) South American perspectives. In: Pashiardis P
and Johansson O (eds) Successful school leadership: International perspectives. London, NY: Blooms-
bury, pp. 68–79.
De Podesta MEGT, Abregú MV and Zinn M (2005) A successful school improvement intervention at the
mico level: Is this enough to achieve sustainable changes in the Argentine education system?. REICE –
Revista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educacioń 3(1): pp. 83–95.
Hallinger P (2012) A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and
management. Journal of Educational Administration 51(2): 126–149.
Hallinger P and Kantamara P (2000) Educational change in Thailand: Opening a window onto leadership as a
cultural process. School Leadership and Management 20(2): 189–205.
Harris A, Jones M and Adams D (2016) Qualified to lead? A comparative, contextual and cultural view of
educational policy borrowing. Educational Research 58(2): 166–178. DOI:10.1080/00131881.2016.1165412.
Hirschberg S (2015) La conducción de la escuela secundaria en el marco de la obligatoriedad del nivel. Serie
La Educacioń en Debate N 18. DINIECE. Available at: http://portales.educacion.gov.ar/diniece/wp-
content/blogs.dir/37/files/2015/11/Serie-Debate-Nro-18-WEB.pdf (accessed 13 November 2016).
Horn A and Marfán J (2010) Relación entre liderazgo educativo y desempeño escolar: Revisión de la
investigación en Chile. Psicoperspectivas 9(2): 82–104.
Hopkins D, Harris A, Stoll L, et al. (2011) School and System Improvement: State of the Art Review. In:
Keynote presentation prepared for the 24th International Congress of School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, Limassol, Cyprus, 6 January 2011.
Joshee R (2008) Neoliberalism versus social justice: A view from Canada. In: Hopson RK, Camp Yeakey C
and Boakari FM (eds) Power, Voice and the Public Good: Schooling and Education in Global Societies
(Volume 6 of Advances in Education in Diverse Communities: Research Policy and Praxis). Bingley:
Emerald, pp. 31–54.
Karstanje P and Webber C (2008) Programs for school principal preparation in East Europe. Journal of
Educational Administration 46(6): 739–751.
Leithwood K (2012) The Ontario Leadership Framework 2012: With a Discussion of the Research Founda-
tions. Toronto: The Institute for Educational Leadership.
Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School
Leadership and Management 28(1): 27–42.
Litz D (2011) Globalization and the changing face of educational leadership: Current trends and emerging
dilemmas. International Education Studies 4(3): 47–61.
López-Gorosave G, Slater C and Garcı́a JM (2010) Prácticas de dirección y liderazgo en las escuelas
primarias públicas de México. Los primeros años en el puesto. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad
Eficiencia y Cambio en Educacioń – REICE 8(4): 33–49.
López M (2008) Introducción. In: Fischer-Bollin P (ed) Sindicatos docentes y reformas educativas en
Ame´rica Latina. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Konrad Adenauer, pp. 7–12.
Maduro I and Rietveldt F (2009) Competencias del gerente educativo en el desarrollo de la práctica peda-
gógica. Revista electrónica de Humanidades, Educacioń y Comunicación Social 4(6): 41–57.
Mariano S, Costa e Silva F and Moraes J (2016) Leadership in Brazil. In: Ärlestig H, Day C and Johansson O
(eds) A Decade of Research on School Principals: Cases from 24 countries, Chapter 21 – Brazil. Dor-
drecht: Springer, pp. 445–470.
Ministério da Educação (2016) Ideb – Apresentação. Available at: http://portal.mec.gov.br/ideb-sp-
1976574996 (accessed 3 August 2016).
Ministerio de Educación de Chile (2016) Centros de Liderazgo Escolar. Available at: http://liderazgoescolar.
mineduc.cl/centros-liderazgo-escolar/ (accessed 3 August 2016).
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador (2012a) Marco legal educativo: Constitución de la república, ley
orgánica de educación intercultural y reglamento general. Available at: http://www.desarrollosocial.
gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/ml_educativo_2012.pdf (accessed 3 August 2016).
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador (2012b) Estándares de calidad educativa: Aprendizaje, gestión escolar,
desempeño profesional e infraestructura. Available at: http://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/down
loads/2013/03/estandares_2012.pdf (accessed 3 August 2016).
Ministerio de Educación del Perú (2013) Marco de Buen desemepeño del directivo. Directivos construyendo
escuela. Available at http://www.minedu.gob.pe/DeInteres/xtras/marco_buen_desempeno_directivo.pdf
Ministerio de Educacion de Peru (2014) Anexo N 01 Plan de Segunda Especialidad. available at: http://www.
minedu.gob.pe/DeInteres/pdf/anexos_a_los_terminos_de_referencia_de_las_entidades_formadoras.pdf
Monarca H (2013) Fundamentos de las polı́ticas educativas para el liderazgo organizacional. Análisis de un
caso. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 19(3): 523–535.
Montt P (2012) Polı́ticas educativas y liderazgo pedagógico en Chile: Una lectura de dos décadas de desar-
rollo (1990-2011). In: Weinstein J and Muñoz G (eds) ¿Que´ Sabemos Sobre Los Directores de Escuela en
Chile?, Santiago, Chile: Centro de Innovación en Educación de Fundación Chile y Centro de Estudios de
Polı́ticas y Prácticas en Educación (CEPPE), pp. 397–425.
Mourshed M, Chijioke C and Barber M (2010) How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting
Better. New York: McKinsey and Company. Available at: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/
reports/Education/How-the-Worlds-Most-Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-
version_Final.pdf (accessed 3 August 2016).
Muñoz G and Marfán J (2011) Competencias y formación para un liderazgo escolar efectivo en Chile.
Pensamiento Educativo: Revista de Investigacioń Educacional Latinoamericana 48(1): 63–80.
Murillo FJ (2006) Una dirección escolar para el cambio: Del liderazgo transformacional al liderazgo
ditribuido. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad Eficiencia y Cambio en Educación – REICE 4(4):
1–11.
Murillo FJ (2008) (Coord.) Investigacioń Iberoamericana Sobre Eficacia Escolar. Bogotá, Colombia: Con-
venio Andrés Bello.
Murillo FJ (2012) La dirección escolar en Chile: Una visión en el contexto de América Latina. In: Weinstein J
and Muñoz G (eds) ¿Que´ Sabemos Sobre Los Directores de Escuela en Chile? Santiago, Chile: Centro de
Innovación en Educación de Fundación Chile y Centro de Estudios de Polı́ticas y Prácticas en Educación
(CEPPE), pp. 19–40.
Murillo FJ and Martı́nez-Garrido C (2015) La formación de directores y directoras, un factor (más) de
inequidad escolar en América Latina. Revista Iberoamericana de Educacioń 69: 241–266.
Murillo FJ and Roman M (2013) La distribución del tiempo de los directores de escuelas de Educación
Primaria en América Latina y su incidencia en el desempeño de los estudiantes. Revista de Educacioń 361:
141–170.
Neumerski C (2012) Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher,
and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration
Quarterly 49(2): 310–347.
Oplatka I (2004) The principalship in developing countries: Context, characteristics and reality. Comparative
Education 40(3): 427–448.
Oplatka I (2016) El surgimiento de la gestión educativa como campo de estudio en América Latina: Reflex-
iones sobre la cultura, la sociedad y la investigación. In Weinstein J (ed) Liderazgo Educativo en Las
Escuelas. Nueve Miradas. Santiago: Ediciones UDP.
Oplatka I (2006) Women in educational administration within developing countries. Journal of Educational
Administration 44(6): 604–624.
OECD (2014) New Insights from TALIS 2013 Teaching and Learning in Primary and Upper Secondary
Education. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/new-insights-from-talis-2013-9789264226319-
en.htm (accessed 14 August 2016).
Palamidessi M (2003) Sindicatos docentes y gobiernos: Conflictos y diálogos en torno a la Reforma Educativa
en América Latina. PREAL 28. Available at: http://www.oei.es/historico/docentes/articulos/sindicatos_
docentes_gobierno_conflictos_reforma_AL_palamidessi.pdf (accessed 14 August 2016).
Pashiardis P and Johansson O (2016) Introduction: What is successful and effective school leadership. In:
Pashiardis P and Johansson O (eds) Successful School Leadership: International Perspectives. London:
Bloomsbury, pp. 1–13.
Patrón R and Cisneros E (2011) Estudio diagnostico de directores de primaria para la mejora de la calidad
educativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educacioń 56(1): 1–10.
Pérez F (2012) Competencias de liderazgo transformacional subyacentes en los directores de las instituciones
de educación básica de la parroquia Escuque. Revista Arbritrada del Centro de Investigacioń y Estudios
Gerenciales A.C.2(4): 1–19.
Pollock K and Cameron Hauseman D (2016) Canada: Principal leadership in Canada. In: Ärlestig H,
Day C and Johansson O (eds) A Decade of Research on School Principals. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.
211–244.
Pont B, Nusche D and Moorman H (2006) Mejorar el Liderazgo Escolar, Volumen 1: Politica y Practica.
OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/44374937.pdf (accessed 28 June 2017).
Pozner P, Ravela P and Fernandez T (2000) Gestioń Educativa Estrate´gica: Diez Módulos Destinados a Los
Responsables de Los Procesos de Transformación Educativa. IIPE. Buenos Aires: UNESCO.
Rivas A (2015) America Latina Despue´s de PISA Lecciones Aprendidas de la Educación En Siete Paises
2000-2015. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Fundación CIPPEC.
Rodriguez A and Hovde K (2002) The Challenge of School Autonomy: Supporting Principals. World Bank.
Available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/contacts#publications (accessed 28 June 2017).
Rodriguez N and Meza M (2006) La dirección escolar en Venezuela. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad
Eficiencia y Cambio en Educacioń – REICE 4(4): 137–157.
Rodriguez-Molina G (2011) Funciones y rasgos del liderazgo pedagógico en los centros de enseñanza.
Educacioń y Educadores 14(2): 253–267.
Rojas G (2006) Bases Del Liderazgo En Educacioń. UNESCO. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0014/001470/147055s.pdf (accessed 28 June 2017)
Santiesteban Pupo R and Valiente Sandó P (2011) La actividad profesional de dirección de los directores escolares
zonales: referente orientador de su formación permanente. Ciencias Holguıń Revista Trimestral 17: 1–8.
Schwartzman S (2015) Introduction: Regional overview. In: Schwartzman S (ed) Education in South Amer-
ica. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–20.
Scott J (2016) The Politics of Market-Based Education Reform. In: Mathis W and Trujillo T (eds) Learning
From the Federal Market-based Reforms: Lessons From ESSA. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publish-
ing, pp. 9–35.
Secretaria de Educación Publica Mexico, SEP (2016) Etapas, aspectos, metodos e instrumentos (concurso
puestos directivos). Available at: http://servicioprofesionaldocente.sep.gob.mx/content/ba/docs/2016/pro
mocion/etapas_aspectos/EAMI_PROMOCION_2016.pdf (accessed 7 August 2016).
Steiner-Khamsi G (2012) Understanding policy borrowing and lending: Building comparative policy studies.
In: Steiner-Ghamsi G and Waldrow F (eds) World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy Borrowing and
Lending in Education. London and NY: Routledge, pp. 24–40.
Steiner-Khamsi G (2016) New directions in policy borrowing research. Asia Pacific Education Review 17(3):
381.
Stone D (2012) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making, 3rd edition. NY: WW Norton.
Tedesco JC and Tenti Fanfani F (2002) Nuevos tiempos y nuevos docentes. Conferencia regional El desem-
peño de los maestros en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe: Nuevas prioridades. Available at: http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0013/001346/134675so.pdf (accessed 20 August 2016).
Telles E and Bailey S (2013) Understanding Latin American beliefs about racial inequality. American Journal
of Sociology 118(6): 1559–1595.
Tiramonti G and Nobile M (2013) State, civil society, and market in the configuration of school systems in
the south cone of Latin America: The Argentine, Chilean, and Brazilian cases. In: Slater C and Nelson
SW (eds) Understanding the Principalship: An International Guide to Principal Preparation,Chapter
15 (Series: Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 19). Bingley: Emerald, pp. 345–364.
Torres-Arcadia C, Ruiz-Cantisani I and Garcı́a-Garduño JM (2016) Research on principals of public schools
in Mexico. In: Ärlestig H, Day C and Johansson O (eds) A Decade of Research on School Principals:
Cases from 24 Countries (Chapter 23: Mexico). Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 483–502.
Treviño E, Valdés H, Castro M, et al. (2010) Factores Asociados al Logro Cognitivo de Los Estudiantes de
Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe. UNESCO. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001867/
186769 S.pdf (accessed 21 August 2016).
Vaillant D (2011) Improving and supporting principals’ leadership in Latin America. In: MacBeath JY and
Townsend T (eds) International Handbook of Leadership for Learning. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 572–585.
Vaillant D (2015) Liderazgo Escolar, Evolución de Polı´ticas y Prácticas y Mejora de la Calidad Educativa.
UNESCO. Available at: http://www.maestro100puntos.org.gt/sites/default/files/liderazgo-escolar-evolu
cion-de-politicas-mejora-de-la-calidad-unesco.pdf (accessed 28 June 2017).
Vaillant D and Rodrı́guez Zidán E (2015) Prácticas de liderazgo para el aprendizaje en América Latina: Un
análisis a partir de PISA 2012. DOI:10.1590/S0104-40362016000200001. Available at: http://denisevail
lant.com/articulos/2016/liderazgo_AL.pdf (accessed 28 June 2017).
Valiente Sandó P, González Ramirez J, Santiesteban Pupo R and del Toro Prada JJ (2013) Aproximacioń a
Una Concepcioń Teo´rico-Metodolo´gica de la Formación Del Director Escolar. Curso 16. La Habana:
Sello Editor Educación Cubana.
Valenzuela P and Horn A (2012) Influencia del liderazgo directivo en los resultados de los estudiantes. In:
Weinstein and Muñoz (eds) ¿Que´ sabemos sobre los directores de escuela en Chile? Santiago: Centro de
Innovación en Educación de Fundación Chile y Centro de Estudios de Polı́ticas y Prácticas en Educación
(CEPPE), pp. 325–348.
Vargas I (2010) ¿Por qué es esencial discutir acerca del liderazgo en la gestión escolar? Revista Electrónica
Educare 14(1): 59–66.
Volante P (2010) Influencia Instruccional de la Dirección Escolar En Los Logros Acade´micos. Tesis de
Doctorado en Psicologı́a. Santiago: Pontifica Universidad Católica de Chile (Biblioteca UC: TUC 2010
V899i).
Waldrow F (2012) Standardisation and legitimacy: Two central concepts in research on educational borrow-
ing and lending. In: Steiner-Ghamsi G and Waldrow F (eds) World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy
Borrowing and Lending in Education. London and NY: Routledge, pp. 432–448.
Ward S (2011) The machinations of managerialism: New public management and the diminishing power of
professionals. Journal of Cultural Economy 4(2): 205–215.
Weinstein J, Hernández M, Cuéllar C, et al. (2015) Liderazgo Escolar en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe:
Experiencias Innovadoras de Formación de Directivos Escolares En la Region. Santiago: UNESCO/
OREALC.
Weinstein J, Marfán J, Horn A, et al. (2016) School leadership challenged by double accountability towards
schools. In: Easley J and Tulowitzki P (eds) Educational accountability: International Perspectives on
Challenges and Possibilities for School Leadership. NY: Routledge, pp. 54–72.
Weinstein J and Muñoz G (2012) ¿Que´ Sabemos Sobe Los Directores De Escuela En Chile?. Santiago, Chile:
Centro de Innovación en Educación de Fundación Chile y Centro de Estudios de Polı́ticas y Prácticas en
Educación (CEPPE).
Weinstein J and Muñoz G (2013) When duties are not enough: Principal leadership and public or private
school management in Chile. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal.
25(4): 651–670.
Weinstein J, Muñoz G and Hernández M (2014) El Liderazgo Escolar en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe:
Un Estado Del Arte Con Base En Ocho Sistemas Escolares de la Region. Santiago: UNESCO/OREALC.
Author biographies
Joseph Flessa, Associate Professor, Educational Leadership and Policy, Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Daniela Bramwell, PhD student in Educational Leadership and Policy, Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Magdalena Fernández, PhD Candidate in Educational Leadership and Policy, Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
José Weinstein, Professor at Universidad Diego Portales and Director of the Centre for Devel-
opment of Educational Leadership, CEDLE, Chile.

School Leadership in Latin America 2000-2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Leadership in Latin America 2000-2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original Article

America 2000–2016 Reprints and permission:

Joseph Flessa, Daniela Bramwell,

Regional background and educational context

Attention to school level leadership in the region

Figure 1. School leadership research, number of publications between 2000–2016.

What we learned about research on school leadership in Latin America

Figure 2. Number of publications on school leadership research by country.

Countries with prolific research production: Chile, Brazil, and Mexico

Countries with an emerging interest in school site leadership

Countries with little or no apparent research on school leadership

Multi-country research on school leadership

Policy development: school leadership in Latin American countries

Table 1. Summary of policies affecting school leaders in Latin America, 2016.

Frameworks and standards X2 X X X3 X

Professional development and supports

Analysis and discussion: understanding the state of the field

Baseline: low attention to leadership in research and practice

Do system centralization and decentralization explain regional trends in

Leadership and a system’s ‘developmental stage’

Instructional leadership as technocratic problem-solving

Neoliberal accountability leads to a focus on principals

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like