The Key Role of Administrators in Supporting Teacher Leadership and Professionalism in Southern Mexico

Abstract

This work uses the results of three research studies conducted in southeastern Mexico to identify critical issues for teacher leadership and professionalism. The results indicate that educational reforms during more than twenty years have not always considered the socio-cultural and economic context of the schools, nor the preparation needs of the main actors at the school level. Likewise, the traditional power structure in schools has influenced the success of educational reforms promoting teacher participation and leadership. It was also found that, although there are challenges and limited resources, it is necessary to improve the preparation of school administrators and supervisors, since they have a high influence on the training of in-service teachers, as well as on the implementation of new educational practices and policies It is also necessary to improve the preparation of in-service teachers, to increase their possibilities for teacher leadership. Moreover, findings from the study identified important aspects that can facilitate teacher leadership and professionalism ineffective secondary schools: a sense of ownership among stakeholders at the school level, leadership that supports change, strong discipline policies, emphasis on student success, not only in academics but also in music and sports, teacher professional development focused not only on improving teaching and learning but also on how to support student personal development. Lessons from the three studies indicate the important role of the context as well as the key role of authorities, administrators, and school supervisors in facilitating or inhibiting teacher leadership and professionalism.

Keywords

• Teacher leadership
• Educational administrators
• School supervisor

References

1. Brandon, P. R., & Fukunaga, L. (2014). A review of the findings of empirical studies of stakeholder involvement in program evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 35, 26–44.