Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the complicated nature of safeguarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students. First, this paper will address the issues that LGBT students face as a minoritized group in their school system, which inhibits their opportunities to reach their full potential when it comes to emotional and academic growth. Second, this paper will be used to discuss how leadership is vital in order for school communities to help address the issues that their LGBT population face. Third, the author will make the case that a lack of leadership self-efficacy can hinder the process. Design/methodology/approach Three different research studies were used to highlight the needs of LGBT students. However, there is additional research that is used as well to illustrate the need for leadership self-efficacy to support LGBT safeguards. When it comes to LGBT research the research of GLSEN (formerly known as the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) was used. GLSEN’s research consisted of 7,898 students between the ages of 13 and 21. Second, data from the Every Teachers Project by the Manitoba Teachers’ Society were used which involved 3,400 teachers around Canada. Although there are certain nuances between international examples which include those LGBT students living in the dominant culture as well as within indigenous populations, the author builds the case that the harassment and bullying has a common theme and can be addressed through common methods. Additionally, qualitative doctoral research was used, which consisted of 20 interviews of school leaders from three different school districts in New York State. Lastly, for the purpose of this paper the author will use the acronym LGBT to identify those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. There are many acronyms (e.g. LGBTQ, LGBTI, etc.) representing the community, and only when the research use those other acronyms, will those be used to highlight subgroup populations. Findings Findings indicate that, as a minoritized population, LGBT students are highly at risk for being verbally and physically harassed at school, and go unprotected by the adults who are in charge of keeping them safe. School leadership is instrumental in the safeguarding of LGBT students. Additionally, safeguarding is not nearly enough. It is important to understand that LGBT students should not just be safeguarded, but should also be surrounded by curriculum and images that will help them feel accepted into the greater school community, which takes an increased level of self-efficacy on the part of the leader. Originality/value The topic of engaging LGBT students in the school community is sparse at best. Additionally, this paper provides the case for safeguarding and engaging LGBT students, as well as all minoritized populations, but also discusses why it is the moral purpose of leaders to do so. However, the author believes that the addition of understanding leadership actions around safeguarding LGBT students through the lens of leadership self-efficacy and building collective efficacy is an important one, and will add to the originality of this paper.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,040 | 0,060 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,019 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».