Educational
project management to optimize institutional processes in the academic
dimension and influence the improvement of educational quality
Gestión de
proyectos educativos para optimizar los procesos institucionales en la
dimensión académica e incidir en el mejoramiento de la calidad educativa
Valentina Medina1, Julie Katherine Sequeda2,
Roger Esteven Albarracin Silva3
Abstract
Educational project management at Soacha Avanza La Unidad
School arises from the need to transform institutional processes in the
academic sphere, the problem begins with gaps in access, retention and
relevance in a context of high vulnerability, the main objective is to
establish an effective academic management model, for this purpose a mixed
approach is used combining documentary analysis, interviews, focus groups and
direct observation, the methodology bets on triangulation to understand the educational
system as a living and changing organism, the results show the importance of
linking pedagogical management with institutional culture and continuous
improvement, tensions emerge between what is planned and what is implemented,
new paths appear for building an evaluative and collaborative culture, the
conclusion argues that institutional change depends on the collective
appropriation of flexible models capable of adapting and reinventing themselves
amid the restrictions and challenges of public education, thus academic
management emerges as an engine for transformation and a possible horizon for
other schools seeking quality pathways.
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 the 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; and 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 highlighted the importance of a curriculum centered on
scientific competencies and the use of participatory strategies; and 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 contextual adaptation and active leadership
by 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 review of the literature 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
reflection 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
enable the overcoming of 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 contextualized academic management models are established,
built upon the identification and analysis of 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 setting. 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 instruments 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 in which conceptual cohesion, contextual relevance,
and institutional culture act as fundamental drivers of 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 required a broad perspective. 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 requires
rigor, but also flexibility; this 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
consistent practice, 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, and understanding management
within its context. Quantitative instruments provided robustness, while qualitative
techniques added depth. On balance, management could not be explained by a
single approach; 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 us, in a sense, to
observe 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 time points; 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
showed 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 perspectives; 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 practices; trends required context.
Semi-structured interviews
provided narratives; these narratives added nuances; these nuances made it possible
to identify tensions; in some cases, the interviews revealed recurring themes;
this repetition served as 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 intended merely to create 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 the
data and the 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 central to credibility—triangulation of sources, techniques, and
stakeholders. Consistencies strengthened findings; inconsistencies forced a
reevaluation of interpretations; biases were identified and corrected; the key
was not merely to confirm but also to question
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 context, was a process, never a mere formality
Ethical management was the
guiding principle; participants took part with informed consent,
confidentiality was guaranteed, and autonomy was respected. The ethical
protocol was approved 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 reporting 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 meaning. Ethics,
in this context, was more than a requirement; it was a management
practice—ethical management and participatory management.
Results
Tabla 1. Presentación de resultados.
|
Eje |
Hallazgos |
Retos/Oportunidades |
|
Modelo
Institucional |
Triangulación
documental y de actores. |
Alineación
contextual, evitar diagnóstico superficial. |
|
Relación
Pedagógica |
Gestión vista como red,
no como línea. |
Requiere coordinación
real, cultura colaborativa. |
|
Herramientas
de Gestión |
Uso
incipiente de Cuadro de Mando Integral. |
Formalización
de indicadores y seguimiento efectivo. |
|
Planeación
Académica |
Plan de estudios
estructurado, pero poco actualizado. |
Necesidad de revisión
contextual permanente. |
|
Apropiación
Docente |
Planeación
migrando de lo individual a lo colectivo. |
Desigualdad
en apropiación, oportunidad para fortalecer equipo. |
|
Evaluación
y Datos |
Evaluaciones poco
usadas para ajustar el currículo. |
Implantar cultura de
datos para decisiones. |
|
Inclusión
y Equidad |
Apoyos
dispersos, desigualdad entre sedes y estudiantes. |
Sistematizar
apoyos, cerrar brechas. |
|
Participación |
Instancias normativas,
poco espacio para reflexión pedagógica. |
Potenciar espacios de
diálogo y mejora colectiva. |
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 present day; in a way, the systematic review of the
literature and comparison with international benchmarks highlighted the need to
contextualize the 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 helped 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.
With
regard to 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 disparities 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 institutional participation forums played a largely
regulatory role, leaving the creation of spaces for pedagogical dialogue and
collective improvement unaddressed.
Figure 1. Institutional Perception.
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 be at minimal levels,
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 areas
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, fostering 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 within 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 made it possible to align classroom practices 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 regular meetings with families demonstrated an adaptable
system; the model’s efficiency was sustained by the institution’s 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 helped 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.
With
regard to 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 disparities 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 institutional participation forums 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-assessment and external evaluation of the components of academic
management; each axis represents a fundamental process within the school’s
structure, showing how internal recognition tends to be 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 areas
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 currently underway; thus, the
illustration underscores the importance of incorporating different perspectives
in the assessment of educational processes, fostering 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 made it possible to align classroom practices 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 regular meetings with families
demonstrated an adaptable system; the model’s efficiency was sustained by the institution’s
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.
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 foster innovation.
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-evaluation 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
indicators and responsible parties visible but failed to establish a culture of
effective monitoring. Collective participation remained a challenge; the
academic council and school administration fulfilled their regulatory functions
but provided little opportunity for joint analysis of pedagogical processes, as
seen in meetings where time is spent on administrative procedures rather than
on pedagogical debate.
Conclusions
The research made it possible to characterize the
institution’s academic management, identify the gap between regulatory guidelines
and their actual adoption by teaching teams, and demonstrate that the lack of
systematic monitoring represents a weakness that affects the consistency
between what is planned and what is implemented; 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 curriculum 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; and 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). Estrategias
docentes para un aprendizaje significativo. 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). La gestión de los
centros educativos. Editorial La Muralla.
Bolívar,
A. (2016). Cultura escolar, cambio y mejora. 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.
Guía
34. (2008). Guía para el mejoramiento institucional de la autoevaluación al plan
de mejoramiento. Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Colombia.
Imbernón,
F. (2007). La formación y el
desarrollo profesional del profesorado. Graó.
MEN
(Ministerio de Educación Nacional). (2008). Guía 34. Guía para el mejoramiento
institucional de la autoevaluación al plan de mejoramiento. MEN.
MEN
(Ministerio de Educación Nacional). (2016). Lineamientos curriculares y
estándares básicos de competencias. Bogotá: MEN.
MEN
(Ministerio de Educación Nacional). (2021). Orientaciones para el seguimiento académico
y la permanencia escolar.
Murillo,
F. J. (2011). La mejora de la escuela: una revisión actualizada de sus
fundamentos. Revista de Educación,
355, 23-43.
Poveda
Fernando, & Quintero Ortiz, N. R. (2023). Revisión sistemática de carácter
hermenéutico del análisis del proceso de la gestión académica, en cohesión a la
gestión escolar, la calidad educativa y la eficiencia y eficacia, para el
mejoramiento institucional de un colegio público en Antioquia, Colom. ID EST - Revista
Investigación, Desarrollo, Educación, Servicio Y Trabajo, 3(2), 156–175.
https://doi.org/10.31876/idest.v3i2.231
Ramos
Almanza, A. M., & Vásquez Vidal, A. T. (2023). Revisión sistemática con
enfoque hermenéutico de los terminantes para la transmisión de resultados de la
investigación, gestión académica, gestión escolar, calidad educativa,
eficiencia y eficacia, para el mejoramiento institucional en el Colegio Talita
“. ID EST - Revista Investigación,
Desarrollo, Educación, Servicio Y Trabajo, 3(2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.31876/idest.v3i2.230
Sánchez
Prias, E. J. (2022). El rol de la cultura de calidad académica como estrategia
de gestión académico administrativa para instituciones educativas rurales, caso
estudio institución educativa técnica la voz de la tierra Roncesvalles Tolima
Colombia. ID EST - Revista
Investigación, Desarrollo, Educación, Servicio Y Trabajo, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.31876/idest.v2i1.36
Santos
Guerra, M. (2014). La gestión
democrática de la escuela. Octaedro.
Shepard, L. (2000).
The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
Stenhouse,
L. (1987). Investigación y
desarrollo del currículo. 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.