Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction For the school principal, recent trends--such as increasing student diversity, achievement disparities, democratic schooling, and accountability testing--have created a perfect storm, one that promotes research, reflection, and dialogue. Evidence, for instance, is beginning emerge that principals with accomplished careers in the state of Texas are losing their jobs because of low test scores, and those Texas principals who serve as leaders of schools with diverse student populations are especially vulnerable (McGhee & Nelson, 2005). In defining the worth of students, teachers, and principals by test scores, education is turning further away from the very substantive qualities--like responsiveness, equality, and respect for civil and political freedoms--which are necessary for a healthy democracy. Such inattention leaves a democracy vulnerable, for as Dewey reminds us, What nutrition and reproduction are physiological life, education is social life (1916, 9). At no other time in the field's history have educational leaders been so aware of the importance of leadership the enduring good health of education and that of democracy (Goldring & Greenfield, 2002). Westbrook believes that as a result of decades of educational neglect, the American democracy has weakened, and its prospects are dim (1996). Bracey writes that No Child Left Behind has produced academic atrophy in the social sciences, languages, and the arts. little more of this and we can declare 'No Education Left' (Bracey, 2004, 17). For long-established democracies like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the psychological and political advantages of linking educational leadership democracy are obvious, especially in light of our own vulnerability and our realization that the most potent influence against outside forces is a populace that understands democracy and the effort needed make democracy work. As Westheimer and Kahne (2003) note, the lesson that many are learning is that democracy is not self-winding. Cultural Context Executing democratic leadership within schools is an essential task, although not an easy one. Many of today's schools have lost recognition of their central purpose, educate future citizens live in a democracy. And they have done so because of public pressure. A Nation at Risk held schools accountable for maintaining America's economic vitality and global standing rather than stimulating interest in democratic ideals (Chubb et al., 2003). Although it is true that democracy frequently thrives in societies that are economically viable, should schools be held accountable over that which they have no control? We have too often and unrealistically expected public schools to compensate for the shortcomings of our society (Reyes, Wagstaff, & Fusarelli, 1999, 183). Eliminating poverty, reducing crime and lowering unemployment, while helpful, does not by itself sustain a democracy. For example, three fourths of high school students take the First Amendment for granted, and only one adult in 100 can name the five freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution (Yalef & Dautrich, 2005). Furthermore, the business community plus state and federal governments are now major players in education. This involvement often chips away at the foundation of democracy, its grass roots. Another reason for concern is that even as democracy spreads in parts of the world and more people are liberated from tyranny and oppression through gaining their right vote (Diamond & Morlino, 2004), the United States seems have lost a sense of its democratic self. During the recent presidential election, that awareness showed itself in three venues. The three major television networks used the national spotlight of morning and evening news programs urge people vote. Advertisements and campaigns from private citizens urged others vote. …
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 | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».