Management of
Educational Projects to Optimize Institutional Processes in the Academic Domain
Gestión de
proyectos educativos para optimizar los procesos institucionales en la
dimensión académica
Valentina Medina1 , Julie Katherine Sequeda2
, Roger Esteven Albarracin Silva3
Abstract
The management of educational projects at the Soacha
Avanza Educational Institution addresses the need to transform institutional
processes in the academic sphere; the problem stems from gaps in access,
retention, and educational relevance within a context of high vulnerability.
The central objective is to establish an effective academic management model.
To this end, a mixed-methods approach is employed that integrates document
analysis, interviews, focus groups, and direct observation. The methodology relies
on triangulation to understand the educational system as a living,
ever-changing organism. The results reveal the importance of connecting
pedagogical management with institutional culture and continuous improvement;
tensions are identified between what is planned and what is implemented, and
pathways emerge for consolidating an evaluative and collaborative culture. The
conclusion argues that institutional change depends on the collective adoption
of flexible models capable of adapting and reinventing themselves amid the
constraints and challenges of public education. Thus, academic management
emerges as a driver of transformation and a possible model for other schools
seeking paths to quality.
Keywords: educational management, quality of education,
pedagogical innovation, educational leadership, institutional development
Resumen
La gestión de proyectos educativos en la Institución
Educativa Soacha Avanza La Unidad responde a la necesidad de transformar los
procesos institucionales en el ámbito académico, la problemática se origina en
las brechas presentes en el acceso, la permanencia y la pertinencia escolar en
un contexto de alta vulnerabilidad, el objetivo central se dirige a establecer
un modelo de gestión académica eficaz, para esto, se articula un enfoque mixto
que integra análisis documental, entrevistas, grupos focales y observación
directa, la metodología apuesta por la triangulación para entender el sistema
educativo como un organismo vivo y mutable, los resultados revelan la
importancia de conectar la gestión pedagógica con la cultura institucional y la
mejora continua, se identifican tensiones entre lo planeado y lo ejecutado,
emergen rutas para la consolidación de una cultura evaluativa y colaborativa,
la conclusión sostiene que el cambio institucional depende de la apropiación
colectiva de modelos flexibles, capaces de adaptarse y reinventarse en medio de
las restricciones y desafíos de la educación pública, así, la gestión académica
se perfila como un motor de transformación y horizonte posible para otras
escuelas que buscan caminos de calidad.
Palabras clave: gestión educativa, calidad de la educación,
innovación pedagógica, liderazgo educativo, desarrollo institucional
Introduction
The institutional analysis revealed a significant gap
between what was planned and what was implemented in the academic management of
the Soacha Avanza La Unidad Educational Institution. The 2023 internal
self-assessment identified gaps in school processes and revealed that
participation by the educational community was low; in particular,
institutional dynamics were affected by social vulnerability, a lack of
resources, and the diversity of the student population (MEN, 2020). What
mattered was not merely the existence of plans or models, but rather the
stakeholders’ ownership of them. In a sense, the study highlighted that
evaluation and monitoring systems failed to effectively contribute to
continuous improvement, according to Pimienta et al. (2018).
Educational problems do not always arise from a new
situation but rather become entrenched when a lack of intervention perpetuates
existing gaps. It is worth noting that, according to McMillan and Schumacher
(2005), school management required questions focused on actual practices rather
than merely on regulations. The urgency of strengthening management and
evaluation processes became evident in the information gathered from teachers,
administrators, and families
The rationale was based on the recognition of a school
context characterized by high absenteeism rates, low family and student
participation, and a social environment marked by unemployment and informality
(institutional profile, 2023), the proposal to optimize academic management was
grounded in the need to guarantee the right to quality, equitable, and relevant
education, as established by UNESCO (2010, 2021); the school undertook the task
of diversifying its educational offerings by integrating environmental,
technological, and artistic components.
The “inter-structuring pedagogical model based on a
dialogic approach” emerged in response to demands for inclusion and holistic
education. The contextual analysis aligned with UNESCO’s (2005) position that
educational quality depends not only on coverage but also on the institutional
capacity to respond to environmental challenges. management was justified by
the urgency of establishing mechanisms for self-evaluation and continuous
improvement (MEN, 2018); the lack of clear life plans and students’ low self-esteem
reinforced the importance of a holistic approach; it became evident that
improvements in management could positively impact educational processes and
student retention
A review of the international literature revealed that
proposals such as the “Academic Management Iceberg” model in Panama (Ríos,
2021) emphasized management as a pathway for reflection and institutional
improvement; school climate was recognized as a predictor of effectiveness, as
demonstrated by Ozgenel (2020) in Turkey; the use of organizational climate
scales and relational research methods contributed relevant insights to the
local study; Romero’s (2019) dissertation in Peru underscored the importance of
a curriculum centered on scientific competencies and the use of participatory
strategies; in Colombia, studies such as those by Sánchez and Lache (2017) and
Vargas et al. (2022) agreed that pedagogical management and teacher leadership
were key drivers of transformation; what mattered was not only the existence of
guidelines and directives, but also their contextual adaptation and the active
leadership of school teams. In this regard, national educational management
responded both to the Ministry of Education’s (MEN) public policies and to the
reality of each institution; the analysis of the background information
revealed that the effectiveness of management depended on the integration of
curriculum, institutional culture, and monitoring practices (MEN, 2008)
The conceptual framework was constructed based on
total quality approaches, continuous improvement models, and theories of
pedagogical leadership. In line with Bolívar (2006), Santos Guerra (2014), and
Murillo (2011), academic management was understood as the system that
integrates pedagogical design, teaching practices, classroom management,
assessment, academic monitoring, and institutional culture; Each construct was
operationalized in the study. Pedagogical design, according to Stenhouse (1987)
and MEN (2016), focused on curricular organization and the articulation of
content and methodologies; pedagogical practices were analyzed as the point of
implementation of the curriculum and teacher mediation (Goodson, 2014;
Imbernón, 2007).
Classroom management was addressed in terms of
inclusive and adaptive environments, drawing on Evertson and Weinstein (2012);
assessment, in line with Black and Wiliam (2009) and Shepard (2000), was viewed
as a comprehensive and feedback-driven process; academic monitoring was defined
as a systematic action to anticipate risks and guide intervention (Tinto, 1997;
MEN, 2021); institutional culture, as conceptualized by Fullan (2007) and
Bolívar (2016), formed the basis for the adoption of change; continuous improvement
was structured based on Deming’s (1986) PDCA cycle and MEN Guideline 34 (2008);
international and national literature provided the foundation for interpreting
results and formulating recommendations; in summary, the study showed that
academic management did not depend on isolated actions but rather on genuine
and sustained coordination among the various components of the school system.
Furthermore, in recent reflections on academic
management, it has become evident that effective coordination between school
management, educational quality, efficiency, and effectiveness remains an
unresolved challenge in many institutional contexts. Fernando Augusto and
Quintero Ortiz (2023) analyzed academic management at a public school in
Antioquia through a hermeneutic review, finding that, although the conceptual
categories are widely recognized in the literature, a lack of cohesion persists
in institutional practice, especially at the elementary and middle school
levels, where academic management is often reduced to mere organization and
lacks strategic coordination with institutional improvement. Their analysis
underscores the need to consolidate integrative models that allow for
overcoming conceptual and operational barriers to move toward scenarios of
sustained quality.
Along these lines, Ramos and Vásquez (2023) propose
that ensuring educational quality is only possible if effective and
context-specific academic management models are established, built upon the
identification and analysis of the institutional, regulatory, and social
determinants. Their systematic review, applied to the Talita “Cumi” School,
demonstrates that pedagogical innovation and continuous improvement require a
deep understanding of institutional contexts and the implementation of flexible
models capable of responding to the unique dynamics of each educational
context. The authors also highlight the importance of grounding management in a
solid conceptual and legal framework that guides collective work and promotes
the active participation of all school stakeholders.
For his part, Sánchez Prias (2022) emphasizes the role
of a culture of academic quality as a central strategy in academic and
administrative management, especially in rural contexts. His case study in
Tolima reveals that the consolidation of self-assessment and improvement
processes—guided by tools such as the Ministry of Education’s (MEN) Guide
34—enables the structuring of administrative and teaching practices oriented
toward continuous improvement. However, he cautions that the sustainability of
these practices depends on the effective integration of the various components
of management and the collective adoption of an organizational culture that
values institutional learning and self-regulation as cornerstones of
educational development.
These recent contributions reinforce the premise that
academic management cannot be understood as a sum of isolated actions, but
rather as an interconnected system where conceptual cohesion, contextual
relevance, and institutional culture act as fundamental drivers for educational
improvement and innovation.
Methodology
The study adopted an evaluative approach; the research
was guided by a mixed-methods paradigm, integrating quantitative and
qualitative methods in each phase. This choice was not arbitrary; the context
demanded a broad perspective, and the evaluative nature of the study allowed
for the analysis of processes, the assessment of practices, and the
identification of gaps. The results were compelling; though at times ambiguous.
The parameters of MEN Guideline 34 served as a reference, yes, but also as a
constraint. The comparison was made in relation to national standards, never to
external models. The methodological decision was justified, to a certain
extent, by the need for the findings to be transferable. Educational management
demands rigor, but also flexibility. Flexibility was evident in the choice of
the unit of analysis; the case study was the approach selected—one case, one
institution, multiple stakeholders
The logic of methodological integration was based on
the triangulation of sources; triangulation was a constant, never a whim. The
aim was to contrast quantitative data with qualitative perceptions; what
mattered was not just measuring, but understanding—understanding the processes,
understanding the resistance, understanding management within its context.
Quantitative instruments provided robustness, while qualitative techniques
added depth. On balance, management was not explained through a single lens; it
was analyzed from both structural and experiential perspectives. Management was
analyzed, but it was also evaluated.
It is worth noting that the transfer of results was
not immediate; the transfer required contextual validation. Evaluative
management was not limited to comparing data; evaluative management involved
interpretation—interpretation of trends, interpretation of gaps, and
interpretation of patterns. The case study allowed, in a sense, for observing
management in action; it was more than a methodological snapshot; it was a
strategy for capturing institutional complexity.
The mixed-methods approach took the form of the
simultaneous collection of quantitative and qualitative data; quantitative data
were collected using scales, forms, and matrices, while qualitative data were
obtained through interviews, focus groups, and participant observation.
Triangulation was key—time and again—triangulation of instruments,
triangulation of actors, and triangulation of moments; what was relevant was
not just the instrument itself, but the cross-referencing—the cross-referencing
of sources, the cross-referencing of perspectives. To a certain extent, this
cross-referencing allowed us to discover patterns—patterns that are not
revealed on a single level; management, in this context, always revealed more
than one facet.
Explanatory logic guided the interpretation; the
interpretation sought to go beyond immediate results, beyond the data. The
explanation was based on comparison—comparison between what was planned and
what was implemented, between norms and practice, and between formal management
and lived management. What mattered was not just the record, but the
understanding of the process—a process that, at times, moved forward and, at
others, stagnated
An integrative approach—yes, an integrative
approach—because educational management does not allow for partial views;
systemic analysis became essential; management was broken down into dimensions,
which were then integrated; management was observed sequentially but also as a
whole; the results, at times, showed coherence, and at other times,
contradiction; that contradiction was considered input for the analysis, never
an obstacle
Data collection was based on instruments adapted to
institutional management criteria; characterization forms, self-assessment
matrices, and rating scales were used. Quantitative instruments made it
possible to systematize data on practices and progress—systematization, but
also differentiation: differentiation of strengths and differentiation of
opportunities. Quantitative data revealed trends, but trends alone did not
explain management; trends required context.
Semi-structured interviews provided narratives; these
narratives added nuances; these nuances made it possible to capture tensions;
in some cases, the interviews repeated themes; this repetition was an
indication—an indication of collective concern; focus groups validated
findings—not only results but also meanings; participant observation allowed us
to see the invisible—behavioral patterns not recorded in documents; observation
was key; it made the management culture visible.
It should be noted that the use of combined research
methods was not merely for redundancy; redundancy, in this context, was a
strategy—a strategy to identify commonalities, to detect silences, and to
confirm patterns. What mattered was not only what was said but also what was
omitted; educational management was revealed through both data and discourse.
The research process proceeded in five phases, each
with its own logic and justification. The first phase was documentary: an
exhaustive review, literature analysis, and initial assessment. The literature
did not provide all the answers but offered guidance; the documentary review
defined the starting point, and the initial assessment revealed critical areas
as well as strengths.
The second phase was quantitative, involving the
application of instruments, the evaluation of processes, and the identification
of patterns. The third phase was qualitative, consisting of interviews, focus
groups, and observation. Triangulation emerged here; it integrated data,
corrected biases, and strengthened findings. What was relevant was not just the
method, but the combination of methods.
The fourth phase prioritized validation and
multivariate analysis; expert judgment was decisive. The experts not only
validated but also challenged the findings. Multivariate analysis—including
PCA—allowed us to visualize correlations. The fifth phase involved modeling
results, creating relational diagrams, and projecting improvement pathways; the
process did not end with the data but continued with the proposal.
Instrument validation was conducted through expert
judgment; validation was not automatic but involved adjustments. Experts
assessed relevance and suggested changes; the instruments were adjusted before
being applied. Contextual appropriateness was a prerequisite, and validation
sought to ensure relevance.
Methodological triangulation was the core of
credibility: triangulation of sources, triangulation of techniques, and
triangulation of actors. Consistencies strengthened findings; inconsistencies
forced a reevaluation of interpretations; biases were identified and corrected;
what mattered was not only confirmation but also questioning
Constant review of records, continuous feedback from
participants, and comparison with national and international standards
consolidated validity and reliability; the conclusions were context-specific,
and the recommendations were tailored to the institutional reality; validation,
in this case, was a process, never a mere formality
Ethical management was the guiding principle;
participants took part with informed consent, guaranteed confidentiality, and
respected autonomy. The ethical protocol was validated by the institutional
committee; data protection was a priority, guided by Law 1581 of 2012. There
was no coercion, no manipulation, and participation was voluntary.
It is worth noting that transparency characterized the
process—transparency in communication and transparency in reporting results.
Ethical management was not merely a formality; ethics structured the
relationship with the community. Respect for the diversity of voices was a
prerequisite, and the reporting of findings back to the institution was a
systematic practice. Ethical commitment was evident in the willingness to
share, in openness to dialogue, and in the co-construction of meanings; ethics,
in this context, was more than a requirement—it was a management practice:
ethical management and participatory management.
Results
Models identified based on the variables
|
Axis |
Findings |
Challenges/Opportunities |
|
Institutional
Model |
Documentary and
stakeholder triangulation. |
Contextual alignment; avoiding superficial diagnosis. |
|
Pedagogical
Relationship |
Management viewed as a network, not a linear process. |
Requires genuine coordination and a collaborative culture. |
|
Management
Tools |
Emerging use of the Balanced Scorecard. |
Formalization of indicators and effective monitoring. |
|
Academic
Planning |
Structured curriculum, but not very up-to-date. |
The need for ongoing contextual review. |
|
Teacher
Ownership |
Planning shifting from individual to collective approaches. |
Inequality in ownership—an opportunity to strengthen the team. |
|
Assessment and
Data |
Assessments are rarely used to adjust the curriculum. |
Establish a data-driven culture for decision-making. |
|
Inclusion and
Equity |
Support is scattered; there is inequality among campuses and students. |
Systematize support measures; close gaps. |
|
Participation |
Regulatory bodies, little room for pedagogical reflection. |
Foster spaces for dialogue and collective improvement. |
It is worth noting that the
analysis of the institutional model was based on a triangulation of documents,
specialized literature, and interviews with key stakeholders; to a certain
extent, this procedure made it possible to reconstruct the development of
academic administration from its origins to the current conditions; in a way,
the systematic review of the literature and comparison with international
benchmarks highlighted the need to contextualize models and avoid mechanical
transplants; thus, the institutional characterization was not limited to formal
aspects but addressed the actual processes involved in administration.
Regarding the pedagogical
relationship, it could be said that management was conceived as a network of
interdependent relationships among classroom practices, academic monitoring,
time management, and organizational culture. It is worth noting that the network
perspective allowed us to identify a lack of coordination and the need to
strengthen a culture of collaboration. To some extent, the fragmentation of
processes revealed obstacles to coordination among the various dimensions of
educational management.
Regarding the use of
management tools, an incipient implementation of the Balanced Scorecard was
observed. To a certain extent, this resource facilitated the organization and
monitoring of processes, although its impact depended on the teaching team’s adoption
of it. It should be noted that the formalization of indicators represented
progress, but the effective use of data was limited by the absence of an
institutional culture of systematization and analysis.
Regarding academic planning
and teacher ownership, it could be said that the existence of a structured
curriculum laid the foundation for pedagogical work; however, the updating and
relevance of the curriculum lagged behind contextual needs. To some extent, the
transition from individual planning to collective pathways revealed
inequalities in faculty buy-in; it is worth noting that this situation created
opportunities to strengthen teamwork and joint reflection.
Finally, regarding
assessment, inclusion, and participation, it was found that institutional
evaluations and monitoring mechanisms were not used systematically to provide
feedback on the curriculum or to guide adjustments. To some extent, the
scattered nature of support and the disparities among campuses underscored the
urgency of systematizing strategies and closing gaps; It is worth noting that
opportunities for institutional participation remained largely regulatory in
nature, leaving the creation of spaces for pedagogical dialogue and collective
improvement unaddressed.
Figure 1.
Discrepancy Between
Institutional Perception
The illustration clearly
shows the gap between institutional self-assessment and external evaluation of
the components of academic management; each axis represents a fundamental
process within the school’s structure, demonstrating how internal recognition
tends to be minimal, merely acknowledging the formal existence of the evaluated
elements, whereas observations by external agents identify partial progress or
incipient adoption in pedagogical design, revealing the presence of dynamics
that go beyond the institution’s self-perception.
The graph shows, in the
case of pedagogical design, a significant difference between what the
institution reports and what the research confirms; in this component, external
evaluators recognize a higher level of adoption in aspects such as the
curriculum and the school day, which indicates that there are practices not
recorded in the self-assessment and that the external perspective makes it
possible to highlight processes in development; thus, the illustration
underscores the importance of incorporating different perspectives in the
assessment of educational processes, promoting a dialogue between
self-assessment and external evaluation.
In the components of
teaching practices, classroom management, and academic monitoring, the
illustration reveals the absence of systematic records in both institutional
documentation and external observations; this information gap prevents a clear
identification of the level of adoption of these practices, limiting
evidence-based decision-making and hindering the consolidation of continuous
improvement processes. By highlighting these discontinuities, the graph
underscores the need to strengthen the culture of record-keeping and analysis
within the educational institution.
The analysis of specific
objective three focused on establishing an efficient academic management model,
in which the integration of mission, pedagogical objectives, and monitoring
mechanisms aligned processes under a framework of continuous improvement. the
use of the Balanced Scorecard and the institutional improvement plan made it
possible to link goals, responsible parties, and periodic measurement, which
facilitated the adaptation and adjustment of academic processes based on
results; the model’s effectiveness was found in the functionality of feedback
loops and in the ownership of the processes by teaching and administrative
teams; The Balanced Scorecard linked planning and execution, identified
priorities, assigned responsibilities, and projected improvements based on the
systematic analysis of data.
The illustration
demonstrated how efficiency and effectiveness in academic management depended
on the direct and operational link between institutional components and
pedagogical processes; the mission informed the pedagogical design and
continuously connected it to practices, classroom management, and academic
monitoring; the articulation between instructional planning and the graduate
profile allowed classroom practices to be aligned with institutional goals;
this model required a continuous evaluation cycle in which each level received
feedback based on results and systematic analysis; the impact of the
institutional mission was verified in each process through monitoring and
feedback mechanisms.
The institutional
improvement plan featured a structure that linked directly to the strategic map
and the logic of the efficient academic management model. Each process included
strategies, responsible parties, timelines, and evaluation mechanisms, which
facilitated the traceability of actions and the measurement of progress. The
systematization of feedback, the use of external evaluations, and the holding
of periodic meetings with families demonstrated an adaptable system. The
model’s efficiency was sustained by the institutional capacity to monitor,
provide feedback, and adjust processes according to the needs and outcomes of
the context.
The operational plan
revealed the intention to systematize academic management under a framework of
continuous improvement, integrating actions, strategies, goals, indicators,
responsible parties, and alignment with policies. It allowed for the identification
of strengths and gaps; the fragmentation of responsibility and the uneven
ownership of processes depended on the individual commitment of each
institutional actor. the timeline highlighted the tension between academic
cycles and implementation timelines, which required prioritizing activities and
adjusting expectations in light of constraints; monitoring revealed clear
indicators, but the challenge of systematizing data collection and use
persisted; the need to strengthen self-assessment, documentation, and feedback
remained an institutional priority.
It is worth noting that the analysis of the
institutional model was based on a triangulation of documents, specialized
literature, and interviews with key stakeholders; to a certain extent, this
procedure made it possible to reconstruct the development of academic
management from its origins to the current situation. In a way, the systematic
review of the literature and comparison with international benchmarks
highlighted the need to contextualize models and avoid mechanical transplants;
thus, the institutional characterization was not limited to formal aspects but
addressed the actual processes involved in management.
Regarding the pedagogical relationship, it could be
said that management was conceived as a network of interdependent relationships
among classroom practices, academic monitoring, time management, and
organizational culture. It is worth noting that the network perspective allowed
us to identify a lack of coordination and the need to strengthen a culture of
collaboration. To some extent, the fragmentation of processes revealed
obstacles to coordination among the various dimensions of educational management.
Regarding the use of management tools, an incipient
implementation of the Balanced Scorecard was observed. To a certain extent,
this resource facilitated the organization and monitoring of processes,
although its impact depended on the teaching team’s adoption of it. It should
be noted that the formalization of indicators represented progress, but the
effective use of data remained limited by the absence of an institutional
culture of systematization and analysis.
Regarding academic planning and teacher ownership, it
could be said that the existence of a structured curriculum laid the foundation
for pedagogical work; however, the updating and relevance of the curriculum
lagged behind contextual needs. To some extent, the transition from individual
planning to collective pathways revealed inequalities in faculty buy-in; it is
worth noting that this situation created opportunities to strengthen teamwork
and joint reflection.
Finally, with regard to evaluation, inclusion, and
participation, it was found that institutional evaluations and monitoring
mechanisms were not used systematically to inform the curriculum or guide
adjustments; in a way, the scattered nature of support and the inequality among
campuses underscored the urgency of systematizing strategies and closing gaps,
It is worth noting that institutional participation bodies played a largely
regulatory role, leaving the creation of spaces for pedagogical dialogue and collective
improvement unaddressed.
The illustration allows for a precise observation of
the gap between institutional self-evaluation and external assessment of the
components of academic management; each axis represents a fundamental process
within the school’s structure, showing how internal recognition tends to remain
at minimal levels, merely stating the formal existence of the evaluated
elements, whereas observations by external agents identify partial progress or
incipient adoption in pedagogical design, revealing the presence of dynamics
that go beyond the institution’s self-perception.
The graph shows, in the case of pedagogical design, a
significant difference between what the institution reports and what the
research confirms; in this component, external evaluators recognize a higher
level of adoption in aspects such as the curriculum and the school day, which
indicates that there are practices not recorded in the self-assessment and that
the external perspective makes it possible to highlight processes in
development; thus, the illustration underscores the importance of incorporating
different perspectives in the assessment of educational processes, promoting a
dialogue between self-assessment and external evaluation.
In the components of teaching practices, classroom
management, and academic monitoring, the illustration reveals the absence of
systematic records in both institutional documentation and external
observation; this information gap prevents a clear identification of the level
of adoption of these practices, limiting evidence-based decision-making and
hindering the consolidation of continuous improvement processes. By
highlighting these discontinuities, the graph underscores the need to
strengthen the culture of record-keeping and analysis within the educational
institution.
The analysis of specific objective three focused on
establishing an efficient academic management model, in which the integration
of mission, pedagogical objectives, and monitoring mechanisms aligned processes
under a framework of continuous improvement. the use of the Balanced Scorecard
and the institutional improvement plan made it possible to link goals,
responsible parties, and periodic measurement, which facilitated the adaptation
and adjustment of academic processes based on results; the model’s effectiveness
was found in the functionality of feedback loops and in the ownership of the
processes by teaching and administrative teams; The Balanced Scorecard linked
planning and execution, identified priorities, assigned responsibilities, and
projected improvements based on the systematic analysis of data.
The illustration demonstrated how efficiency and
effectiveness in academic management depended on the direct and operational
link between institutional components and pedagogical processes; the mission
informed the pedagogical design and continuously connected it to practices,
classroom management, and academic monitoring; the articulation between
instructional planning and the graduate profile allowed classroom practices to
be aligned with institutional goals; this model required a continuous evaluation
cycle in which each level received feedback from the results and systematic
analysis; the impact of the institutional mission was verified in each process
through monitoring and feedback mechanisms.
The institutional improvement plan featured a
structure that linked directly to the strategic map and the logic of the
efficient academic management model. Each process included strategies,
responsible parties, timelines, and evaluation mechanisms, which facilitated
the traceability of actions and the measurement of progress. The
systematization of feedback, the use of external evaluations, and the holding
of periodic meetings with families demonstrated an adaptable system; the
model’s efficiency was sustained by the institution’s capacity to monitor,
provide feedback on, and adjust processes according to the needs and outcomes
of the context.
The operational plan revealed the intention to
systematize academic management under a framework of continuous improvement,
integrating actions, strategies, goals, indicators, responsible parties, and
alignment with policies; it allowed for the identification of strengths and
gaps. The fragmentation of responsibility and the uneven ownership of processes
depended on the individual commitment of each institutional actor. the timeline
highlighted the tension between academic cycles and implementation timelines,
which required prioritizing activities and adjusting expectations in light of
constraints; monitoring revealed clear indicators, but the challenge of
systematizing data collection and use persisted; the need to strengthen
self-assessment, documentation, and feedback remained an institutional
priority.
The discussion of the results allowed for an
understanding of academic management as a system of interdependent
relationships, consistent with the views of Fernando Augusto and Quintero Ortiz
(2023), who identified the need for cohesion among school management, quality,
and efficiency. The study showed that the actual coordination between planning,
teacher ownership, and data use was limited; although formal structures
existed, operational functioning depended on individual initiative and
context—just as happens when the curriculum is up-to-date on paper but its
day-to-day implementation reveals gaps and resistance.
Ramos and
Vásquez (2023) emphasized the importance of developing academic management
models tailored to institutional determinants. The research at Soacha Avanza La
Unidad demonstrated that monitoring tools, although standardized, lacked
ownership; one example was the existence of self-assessment matrices with low
teacher participation, which led to results that were not very representative
and of limited use for decision-making. The culture of information use followed
the same pattern: data was collected but not systematized or used to adjust
practices or innovate.
Sánchez et al. (2022) argued that a culture of
academic quality is a prerequisite for improvement in rural contexts; the case
of this institution showed that, although progress was made on some indicators,
the institutional culture had not yet integrated self-assessment or
self-regulation as standard practices. For example, marked differences were
identified among campuses regarding the equitable distribution of resources and
student support, with no policy in place to standardize practices or outcomes.
The nascent use of tools such as the Balanced
Scorecard highlighted another relevant aspect: its implementation made it
possible to identify indicators and those responsible for them, but it failed
to establish a culture of effective monitoring. Collective participation
remained a challenge; the academic council and school administration fulfilled
regulatory functions but offered little opportunity for joint, y analysis of
pedagogical processes, as seen in meetings where time is spent on
administrative procedures rather than pedagogical debate.
Conclusions
The research made it possible to characterize the
institution’s academic management, identify the gap between regulatory
guidelines and actual adoption by teaching teams, and demonstrate that
systematic monitoring represents a weakness that impacts the coherence between
what is planned and what is executed. A comparison with theoretical frameworks
showed that efficient models are based on flexible networks and the use of
data, collective reflection, and well-being, which poses challenges in contexts
of diversity and vulnerability.
The triangulation of data and institutional voices
revealed that the components of design, classroom practices, assessment, and
monitoring exist but operate in isolation; pedagogical decision-making is not
always grounded in empirical evidence, which weakens the model’s consistency;
the diagnosis of critical nodes served as the basis for defining conditions for
transformation and developing a monitoring system geared toward progressive
improvement. The analysis of academic management highlighted the need to
address pedagogical design, practices, classroom management, and follow-up as
interdependent links; the relational model made it possible to visualize
functional dependencies and organize the improvement cycle; the transition from
a formalistic management approach to one guided by evidence and coordinated
action established itself as a driver of change and reinforced the idea of the
school as an adaptive system.
The formalization of the model and the development of
the Balanced Scorecard facilitated decision-making and periodic evaluation.
Progress was observed in planning and evaluation, but gaps persisted in
resources, academic remediation, and student support. The integration of
quantitative and qualitative data made it possible to validate results and
prioritize actions.
References
Barriga, F., & Hernández, G. (2012). Teaching
Strategies for Meaningful Learning. Editorial Trillas.
Black, P.,
& Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and
Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Bolívar,
A. (2006). School management.
Editorial La Muralla.
Bolívar,
A. (2016). School culture, change, and improvement. Revista de Educación, 370, 13–32.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L.
(2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond,
L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2020). Effective
Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy
Institute.
Deming, W.
E. (1986). Out of the Crisis.
MIT Press.
Evertson,
C. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (2012). Handbook
of Classroom Management. Routledge.
Fullan, M.
(2007). The New Meaning of
Educational Change. Teachers College Press.
Goodson,
I. (2014). Curriculum, Personal
Narrative, and the Social Future. Routledge.
Guide 34.
(2008). Guide for Institutional Improvement: From Self-Assessment to the
Improvement Plan. Ministry of National Education, Colombia.
Imbernón,
F. (2007). Teacher Training and
Professional Development. Graó.
MEN
(Ministry of National Education). (2008). Guide 34. Guide for Institutional
Improvement: From Self-Assessment to the Improvement Plan. MEN.
MEN
(Ministry of National Education). (2016). Curriculum Guidelines and Basic
Competency Standards. Bogotá: MEN.
MEN
(Ministry of National Education). (2021). Guidelines for Academic Monitoring
and School Retention.
Murillo,
F. J. (2011). School improvement: An updated review of its foundations. Revista de Educación, 355, 23–43.
Poveda,
Fernando, & Quintero Ortiz, N. R. (2023). A hermeneutic systematic review
of the analysis of the academic management process, in relation to school
management, educational quality, and efficiency and effectiveness, for the
institutional improvement of a public school in Antioquia, Colombia. ID
EST—Journal of Research, Development, Education, Service, and Work, 3(2),
156–175. https://doi.org/10.31876/idest.v3i2.231
Ramos Almanza, A. M., & Vásquez Vidal, A.
T. (2023). A systematic review with a hermeneutic approach to the criteria for
disseminating research findings on academic management, school management,
educational quality, efficiency, and effectiveness, for institutional
improvement at Talita School. ID
EST - Journal of Research, Development, Education, Service, and Work, 3(2),
120–139. https://doi.org/10.31876/idest.v3i2.230
Sánchez
Prias, E. J. (2022). The role of a culture of academic quality as an academic
and administrative management strategy for rural educational institutions: A
case study of the technical educational institution La Voz de la Tierra in
Roncesvalles, Tolima, Colombia. ID
EST - Journal of Research, Development, Education, Service, and Work, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.31876/idest.v2i1.36
Santos
Guerra, M. (2014). Democratic
School Management. Octaedro.
Shepard,
L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7),
4–14.
Stenhouse,
L. (1987). Curriculum Research and
Development. Morata.
Tinto, V.
(1997). Classrooms as Communities: Exploring the Educational Character of
Student Persistence. The Journal of
Higher Education, 68(6), 599–623.
UNESCO.
(2005). Quality Education for All:
Education for Sustainable Development. UNESCO.
UNESCO.
(2010). Reaching the Marginalized:
Education for All Global Monitoring Report. UNESCO.
UNESCO.
(2021). Reimagining our futures
together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO.