Leadership and School Boards: Guarding the Trust in an Era of Community Engagement, 2nd Edition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Leadership and School Boards: Guarding the Trust in an Era of Community Engagement, 2nd Edition by Laura A. Reimer Lanham, MD/USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015, 149 pages ISBN: 978-1-4758-1506-1 (paperback) In Leadership and School Boards: Guiding the Trust in an Era of Community Engagement, 2nd Edition, Dr. Laura E. Reimer provides a guide for school board governance premised on the notion that school boards play a unique and critical role in the preservation and promotion of democracy in North America. Reimer's work begins with a historical discussion of the evolution of school boards in North America. The author considers the original vision for school boards, in which commonly held values were perpetuated through school systems that understood the sacred trust between the educational institution and the student, and the duty owed by school boards to ensure the common good. Through local representation and the oversight of education in our communities, school board trustees possess the power to affect the future of our children and hence the future of our society. Despite these awesome responsibilities, the author posits that modern trends have resulted in diminished confidence in school boards and their elected trustees. The last twenty years or so have seen an increasing number of amalgamations among boards, resulting in greater responsibility for smaller numbers of elected trustees. This trend has been coupled with the implementation of legislation and policy aimed at promoting the centralization of education in many districts. As the author aptly identifies in her work, for many communities, larger constituencies and reduced powers have contributed to a decline in communication among school board trustees and the people they serve. Reimer underscores the need for steadfast governance by school boards in light of the many influences that affect the modern-day work of boards. Reimer analyzes how, for example, pressure from various employee unions for improved working conditions, bureaucratic systems, and hierarchical structures, can result in a lack of focused efforts by trustees to achieve the democratic goals of the public education system. Similarly, administration may seek to influence trustees to make decisions that do not best serve the community, while outspoken interest groups lobby to achieve their often unattainable goals. The great challenge arising from this environment, from my perspective as a school board superintendent, lies is the ability or inability of trustees to develop and sustain visionary leadership, inspired by a shared commitment to improved educational achievement and responsible stewardship of board resources that inspires trust in the community. As Reimer asserts, this type of leadership can only be attained through good and steadfast governance, which assures wise decisions that are responsive to the needs of students and the community. Good governance depends on the trustees' understanding of the difference between governing and administering/managing the school board through a clarity of roles and responsibilities of all board personnel as demonstrated by a board agenda that focuses on the district vision and governance matters as defined in board policy. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».