Page 26 - Educational Leadership in a Changing World

Marta Ambite et al.

ing technology into schools, which have captured the attention, ef-
forts, and resources of many educators, researchers, administrators,
and politicians in recent years, relegating other fundamental issues of
education to the background. However, there seems to be a decline, or
at least a slowdown, in the placement of technology at the centre of
learning. It does not seem reasonable to follow the pendulum’s logic
and make an anti-technology shift, but rather to warn of the need for
a thoughtful reflection on the role of education in society. Perhaps the
third challenge examined here allows for the introduction of this ele-
ment of balance into the debate on educational leadership, by raising a
controversial and even uncomfortable issue due to its complexity, but
one that raises profound questions as necessary as those posed by the
previous two.
Secondly, we have studied the emotional aspect of educational lead-
ership as an essential task for generating a sense of belonging to a com-
munity among group members, as it promotes a deeper and more stable
interpersonal commitment to the common good than strictly instru-
mental and utilitarian reasons. Considering this, two reflections can be
raised. On the one hand, there is a risk of placing emotions at the cen-
tre of education as a priority reference in decision-making. There is no
doubt that an emotionally safe and comfortable environment provides
well-being and fosters the mental health of individuals, as well as the
development of numerous capacities linked to creative thinking (Csik-
szentmihalyi, 2013). Furthermore, attention to emotions allows for the
complementing of other essentially intellectual capacities such as crit-
ical thinking, generating what has been called an extended reason, as
an essential resource against current forms of indoctrination (Ibáñez-
Martín, 2021). However, we have once again swung towards a context
where emotions seem to be against academic rigour as two antagonis-
tic poles, whose confrontation can lead to a clearly anti-pedagogical
position, especially serious in childhood. Authors such as Kristjánsson
(2015) warn of the consequences of what has been called The Vulner-
able Child Paradigm, as an effect of an excessive psychologization and
subjectivation of well-being and education. In his own words: ‘The core
rationale here turned on the need for schools to mend children’s fragile
emotional selves and boost their self-esteem – under the banners of ef-
ficiency and adaptability – thereby furnishing them with the requisite
motivation and self-efficacy to behave pro-socially’ (Kristjánsson 2015,
p. 10). This shift has also been accompanied at the social level by a sen-

26