EDUCATIONAL GOVERNANCE: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Purpose: The purpose of this study to achieve territorial governance in the educational field, the practice of sustainable development and correct social responsibility are required. Method: For this reason, this study used a quantitative approach, a non-experimental design, and a causal correlation scope. The population included 261 directors of a local educational entity, while the sample considered 120 directors, after the intentional non-probabilistic test. Results and Conclusions: The instruments were validated with results in the Cronbach's Alpha test of 0.961 for sustainable development and 0.991 for social responsibility. It was possible to conclude that the variables significantly influence territorial educational governance. This could be demonstrated with the Nagelkerke R2 value of 0.981. Research implications: Through this study it was shown that training in sustainable development and university social responsibility affect the territorial educational governance of the directors of an Educational Management Unit, by 98.1%. Originality/value: The social justice dimension implies instructing citizens to combat gaps such as poverty, discrimination, and lack of attention to the most vulnerable sectors.


INTRODUCTION
For territorial educational governance to exist, the authorities of the sector need to demonstrate their commitment to generating cultural and political changes. In this sense, it is important that these protagonists know what real sustainable development means and review the edges of social responsibility. Both aspects are still being considered in the university area. Therefore, this research is important.
People in charge of promoting public policies are prioritizing territorial governance, which is defined as the joint work of the members of a society so that territorial capital is developed in a non-destructive way and cohesion in the territory is improved (Petersen, 2016).
To reinforce the definition of territorial governance, this is the result of citizen participation in problem-solving processes, considering government guidelines (Ferrão, 2013). With this, it is understood that it is necessary to develop and reinforce social responsibility in those involved. Only then will there be an improvement in the care of socioeconomic and educational problems, among others.
One of the approaches to territorial governance is smart specialization. Its objective is to promote the formulation of work policies for local knowledge. With this, regional disparities can be combated (Moodie et al., 2021). This is how a better level of training is guaranteed in the authorities for their sustainability and social responsibility practices.
Territorial governance in Peru is one of the most dysfunctional in Latin America, due to its low level in public institutions. Unfortunately, the Peruvian State presents deficiencies that affect the population, due to poor management, the reduction of authenticity in the legislatures and the carelessness within the framework of the popular government. Given this reality, it is necessary to modernize public management, seeking that the benefit of the efforts is for each of the citizens (Bao and Delgado, 2020). As soon as this is achieved, the population will have a better perception of the performance of the authorities regarding governability in the country.
It is true that the Peruvian government continues to act so that the regions reflect the effort that exists on inclusion and public administration reforms. Despite this, actions must still be taken to meet the needs of citizens and improve the public education sector (OECD, 2016).

3
The territorial approach supports decentralization and allows support at the intersectoral and intergovernmental level, with educational efficiency for the territory.
After evaluating the situation of educational institutions of regular basic education of a local educational management unit, the analysis is that there are problems regarding the management of sustainable development, since the study plans of the universities do not reflect activities that demonstrate the relationship between this aspect and social responsibility. This means that a commitment is required from the authorities to improve the quality in this aspect (Ríos, 2020).
According to the reality, it is important to clarify that sustainable development is related to ethics, looking for the community participation by social or culture dynamics that promote empathy and tolerance. Those aspects are essential for citizen training (Martínez and Juárez, 2019).
The first dimension of sustainable development is the appropriation of knowledge. This refers to the acquisition of knowledge about the actions, benefits and contributions generated by the environmental environment to sustainability. The second dimension is university relationship. This indicates that there must be a vast knowledge about sustainability that seeks sustainable development. The third dimension is university education, which implies including sustainability issues in the corresponding study plan, in addition to the fact that teachers comply with the promotion of sustainability in the training of students. The socioeconomic impact dimension encompasses connecting organizations to carry out sustainable projects, considering the optimization of the economy, the social and environmental spheres (Martínez and Juárez, 2019).
About social responsibility, Bolio and Pinzón (2019) assure that it is characterized by a broad spectrum, considering that equitable realities must be built through the participation of communities. This, too, looks at societal change and the promotion of leadership. For this reason, it is developed through commitments, collaboration, and common objectives (Konives, 2017).
The first dimension of social responsibility is awareness. This considers the aspects that the person can develop with others; for example, the aspirations, limitations, and intentions of generating a more just society. The second dimension responds to commitment, which requires including social justice and the ability to help others. The third dimension is the controversy with civility that implies acting according to reality, making decisions through dialogue. The dimension respect for diversity, which requires respect for each of the members of a community, considering interculturality and multiculturalism (Bolio and Pinzón, 2019).
Another of the dimensions is the citizen, which allows observing and analyzing the actions as part of the management for a community. This also includes participation in the projects that are worked on. The social justice dimension implies instructing citizens to combat gaps such as poverty, discrimination, and lack of attention to the most vulnerable sectors. The change dimension admits working so that society can live in a fair environment, with greater opportunities (Bolio and Pinzón, 2019).
Regarding territorial educational governance (Duarte dos Santos; 2021), this is worked through the power to manage the economic and social resources of an entity. Also, it turns out to be the result of work on public policies adapted to education (López et al., 2017). Then, this variable is defined as a process that involves organizing and coordinating actions for the development of territorial capital and thus improving territorial cohesion (Davoudi et al., 2008). As for the Ugeles, governance is divided into two areas: those responsible for their budget and those that occur in the sector (Ferreira Neto;2021).This means that quality must be guaranteed in the teaching-learning process, at the level of work with quality materials (Ríos, 2020).
Considering the above, it is understood that educational governance refers to the management of resources for the development of an institution. This implies having the ability to assess the context and adapt public policies to it, considering the operating system. For Gerged and Flhedd (2020), national governance allows for a better level of educational quality, if the Local Educational Management Units act in a timely manner.
The first dimension of territorial educational governance is governance with a holistic and multilevel approach. This consists of understanding the difference that exists between the individual, institutional and governmental systems. The second dimension is governance with leadership capacity, which offers the possibility of selecting those in charge of carrying out or improving policies to improve educational quality. The governance dimension focused on processes is the one that invites to manage resources correctly, based on the regulations that are going to be implemented. The knowledge-based governance dimension refers to the construction of policies that have research as a characteristic. The governance dimension based on capacity development allows for the exchange of ideas on educational policies with those involved in the sector. Finally, governance linked to accountability is the one that requires transparency in the processes that are executed (López et al., 2017).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study revolved around the quantitative approach, through the collection of data by statistical means (Hernández and Mendoza, 2018). The design was non-experimental due to the manipulation of the variables. The level of the investigation was causal correlational. The hypothetical deductive method was obtained, which allowed formulating hypotheses and contrasting them to issue conclusions about the results. The population added 261 managers and the sample only 120 of them, who belong to a Local Educational Management Unit. The instrument that was built for variable training in sustainable development had 26 elements, while the instrument to measure social responsibility had 40 elements. The territorial educational governance instrument differs by having 60 items. The three instruments were validated through Cronbach's Alpha with indicators of 0.961, 0.958 and 0.991, respectively.

RESULTS
The first table presents the percentage results in the levels of the variable training in sustainable development and its dimensions. As predominant data, 40.8% was found in the low formation of the variable. The second table shows the levels of the university social responsibility dimension. As a predominant result, it was found that managers have 20.8% of the adequate level of the variable. The third table shows the percentage results in the levels of the territorial educational governance variable. It was found that 22.5% of managers have a high level in this variable. The fourth table shown below shows that training in sustainable development and university social responsibility impact territorial educational governance by 98.1%, considering the value of Nagelkerke's Pseudo R2 of 0.981.

DISCUSSION
Through this study it was shown that training in sustainable development and university social responsibility affect the territorial educational governance of the directors of an Educational Management Unit, by 98.1%. This coincides with what Torres (2020) found, stating that the development of territorial governance and governance are related to the achievement of objectives for a society. Likewise, there is a coincidence with what was stated by Gerged and Flhedd (2020), in relation to the improvement of educational quality and the results reflected in the entities of the sector. For his part, Ríos (2020) considers that educational entities should oversee managing economic resources to ensure good performance in the teaching-learning process.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION
To have a society that reflects educational governance, professionals or stakeholders are required to manage sustainable development and are constantly trained in the actions that such work implies. In this sense, greater citizen participation and commitment to reform organizations are needed. Social responsibility must not only be worked on as a personal aspect, but at the service of the community, acting with responsibility and permanent participation.