**2. Methodology**

A qualitative design was applied that attempts to detect the importance and meaning of group discourse within a sociocultural context, making explicit the perspective of the subjects within the framework of their global discourse [20].

## **2.1 Sample**

A total of 828 teachers from 1st to 4th grade of the elementary school in the regions of La Araucanía (IVE1 : 85.5%) and Los Lagos (IVE: 81.1%) in the southern part of Chile, and Metropolitan (IVE 65.5%), in the center of the country, participated. The sample is representative, proportional to the national percentage of schools that had the following characteristics: 1) received state subsidy (municipal: 59.6% and subsidized: 40.4%); 2) belonged to the low and lower-middle SES, classified as Type A and B respectively; and 3) achieved performance above and below the average of schools in their same group and region according to national standardized tests (SIMCE). All participants signed an informed consent form after receiving information about the study.

The average age was 40 years (SD: 16.3) and 13 years of teaching experience (SD: 11.4). 83*%* of the sample were female teachers. A total of 88.3% had a basic education teaching degree. **Table 2** shows the distribution of the participating teachers by region.

## **2.2 Instrument**

In order to collect teachers' beliefs about vulnerable schools, we asked, in the context of a broader questionnaire, the following open-ended question: "State four characteristics of a vulnerable school", which were to be completed in four blank rows provided for this purpose.

<sup>1</sup> Index of educational vulnerability of the Region.


#### **Table 2.**

*Number and percentage of participating teachers according to the region, SES, and performance of their schools.*

#### **2.3 Analysis**

The responses were processed through thematic analysis and semantic field analysis, in order to configure their beliefs. First, the corpus to be studied was established, namely "the four characteristics of the vulnerable school pointed out by teachers from four types of schools". Next, three evaluators read the transcripts and lifted the categories that emerged from the characteristics mentioned by the teachers. These were "students", "families", "teachers", "schools" and "social system". In addition, the textual extracts that exemplify them were selected. After comparison and establishment of coincidences, the extracts belonging to each category were joined and these were renamed using new labels to nominate each semantic nucleus (e.g., "low motivation to learn", "students with behavioral problems") included in the theme "students". Finally, the meanings attributed by the participants were discussed and the semantic field representing the narratives about the vulnerable school underlying the teachers' ideas was established.

#### **3. Results**

As shown in **Table 3** more than half of the mentions refer to families, with teachers and the system being the least mentioned. Students and schools are in between the two trends. We were interested to know what specifically they say about these clusters, are positive or negative characteristics mentioned? These questions motivated us to a second analysis of the data, which we carried out with thematic analysis and semantic field analysis**.**

The themes that emerged from the analysis of teachers' responses regarding students, families, and schools are presented in **Tables 4**–**6**, respectively. It is worth mentioning that there were no differences in the themes among the four types of schools. It is also observed that the teachers coincided in the order of importance given to each theme, which is reflected in the tables in the arrangement of these from left to right. Each table includes the distinctive features that describe each theme. Thus, for example, we have that the family (see **Table 3**) was the most mentioned actor, and of this, the theme most emphasized by teachers was the educational level of parents. A review of the features attributed to each theme allows us to see a rather negative conception of the children's group of origin.

**Table 4** shows that what stands out most for the teachers is the educational level of the parents and the negative characteristics of the families.


#### **Table 3.**

*Frequency and percentage of teacher references in each category of analysis.*


#### **Table 4.**

*Themes and characteristics attributed to families in vulnerable schools.*

**Table 5** presents the themes and traits mentioned by teachers with respect to students. There is a tension between the recognition of negative dispositional aspects of the children, such as problems in learning and low motivation, in contrast with others that would be the product of external forces that would be causing great and serious damage to them. This tension could provoke contradictory feelings in teachers, perceiving them as difficult children, on the one hand, and as children worthy of compassion and pity, on the other.

The themes shown in **Table 6** reveal that teachers perceive their schools to be under constant threat from the conditions that surround them and that they feel are beyond their control.

Something interesting to note here is that teachers hardly mention themselves within the characteristics of a vulnerable school. Since there is no clear theme that can be attributed to a particular type of school, it is not possible to condense them into a table due to their low frequency. However, task overload, lack of professional development activities, and lack of collaborative work could be noted as some themes mentioned.

The great coincidence in the themes, the order of importance, and the features attributed to each theme led us to explore whether there is a semantic network that explains how teachers working in different types of vulnerable schools conceive of vulnerable schools. After analyzing the responses, we were able to identify a shared narrative on the topic (see **Figure 1**). In the first place, it can be seen that the school appears as a victim of the environment in which it is located and as the result of

**Socio-emotional dimensionSocioeconomic characteristic** Parental neglect; loneliness; taken in by other family members; rights violated Social risk; vulnerability; malnutrition; multiple deprivations


**Component/ Theme**

Students

High absence; school dropout

Demotivation; low expectations, no vision of the future/

Bad discipline; aggressiveness; lack of manners and norms

life project; Lack of compromise

lack of habits; Special educational needs; Learning problems; low concentration; poor vocabulary; lack of early stimulation; study

**School retention**

**Readiness to learn**

**Motivation to learn**

**Behavioral aspect**

*Topics and characteristics attributed to students in vulnerable schools.*

**327**
