On 13 november 2015 CPEIP (Centro de Perfeccionamiento, Experimentación e Investigaciones Pedagogical) presented their new version of the ‘Marco’. What follows are the comments I presented to some of the stakeholders. (Some minor changes are made to the text to depersonalize the comments).
I consider this document to be one of the bests, maybe the best I have seen of these kinds of documents.
What I like especially is that a very good selection of literature is chosen and that in the document one does not go any further than the research on which it is based.
The document carefully states that it is not meant to be prescriptive (Although that will happen rather quickly while being used by others). The document refers to the growing demand to have such a document that fits the need for local adjustment and I think that is indeed necessary.
Furthermore I like the focus on:
- The outer circle with ‘los Recursos personales’ especially the attention for ‘Principios’;
- The focus on ‘inclusion y equidad’ not only in the ‘Principios-Justicia Social’ but also in the values to be expressed in the vision; in equity in the results and in ‘la convivencia’;
- 'Liderazgo efectivo es contextual y contingente’;
- A definition of leadership that might be shared;
- The importance of leadership in vulnerable schools;
- The importance of pedagogical leadership for doing ‘gestión’ the right way;
- Ambiguity and emergent situations as being normal in schools;
- The different goals and possibilities to use the 'Marco';
- A strategic vision that is understood and shared;
- Cooperation at systemic level.
The document is based on much discussion with stakeholders In the first phase of designing the 'Marco' CIDE investigated ‘la Brecha’ and in the third phase regional authorities of MINEDUC were consulted.
Nevertheless I could imagine a study that tries to characterize the current educational system of Chile and its future challenges and compare that with the global assumptions about and characteristics of (the future of) education. Assumptions and characteristics that ‘hide’ behind the international literature on educational leadership. (Examples might be the economic orientation of the OECD in its publications about education or the focus of the World Bank in collecting much detailed information about all aspects of education in stead of promoting certain kinds of educational innovation, but also the Finnish way of innovating focussing more on strengthening the professionals than on strengthening the management, with planning and planning products less important).
Part of such a study could also be creative thinking about future concepts of schools and school leadership (including a strong influence of ICT) because almost all international research is about schools that in essence look the same and have the same kind of organization as in the past two centuries.
One reason for mentioning such a study is that in my experience in general (of course with exceptions) head teachers and principals hardly can predict what the effect will be for their position (and needed ‘Dimensions de prácticas’ and ‘Recursos personals’) of grand and minor system changes initiated by their government.