ROLE OF HEAD TEACHER IN THE WHOLE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Role of head teacher in the whole school development plan is very crucial and pivotal. All the activities of the school development revolve around the role of the head teacher. The dynamic and effective role of the head teacher materializes the concepts of Whole School Development into reality. The role of head teacher is important as he/she sets clear goals, manages time, effectively utilizes the instructional and non-instructional material; involve community and family for the inclusive betterment of the child and shares best practices of other institutes for whole school improvement. However, human and material resources and their sufficient availability are necessary to materialize the concept of whole school development theme. Keywords : School development Plan, head teacher, effective role, instructional and non-instructional material and inclusive betterment. REFERENCES Alexander, R. J. (1997). Policy and practice in primary education: local initiative, national agenda . Psychology Press. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bender, S. P., & Bryk, A. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan , 81 , 440-449. Brent, D. (2005). Learning to lead in the secondary school – becoming an effective head of department. International Journal of Educational Management , 19 (3), 268 – 269. Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping: the role of the principal in teacher. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8 (1), 37 -63, DOI: 10.1080/15700760701817371. Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing school for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91 (7), 23-30. Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2002). School leadership: Concepts and evidence . Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Chapman, D. W. (2002). Trends in educational administration in developing Asia. Educational Administration Quarterly , 36 (2), 283-308. Coea, R. (2009). School improvement: reality and illusion. British Journal of Educational Studies , 57 (4), 363-379, DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2009.00444.x. Memon, M., Ali, R. N., Simkins, T., & Garret, V. (2000). Understanding the headteachers’ role in Pakistan: Emerging role demands, constraints and choices. International Studies in Educational Administration Journal , 28 (2), 48. Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional Improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 19 (1), 83-93. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading Schools in Times of Change: Buckingham . Open University Press. Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43 (4), 338 – 356. Farah, I., Mehmood, T., & Amna, J. R. (1996). Road to success: Self-sustaining primary school change in rural Pakistan. Oslo, Norway: IMTEL, Karachi Pakistan, Institute for Educational Development Aga Khan University. Fullan, M. (1998). Change Forces: the Sequel . London: Falmer. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change . CA: Jossy Bass. Fullan, M. (2002). Leadership and sustainability . Principal leadership, 3(4), 1- 8. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change . New York: Teachers College Press. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence . NY: Bantam Books. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School organization, 30 (2), 95-110. DOI: 10.1080/13632431003663214. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What is Worth Fighting for out their? Guidelines for principals . Toronto: OISE. Harris, A. (2003). The changing context of leadership, in A. Harris, C. Day, D. Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman.(Eds.). Effective Leadership for School Improvement . London: Routledge Falmer. Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in education , 22 (1), 31-34. Hatcher, R. (2004). Distributed Leadership and Managerial Power in Schools: University of Central England, Birmingham, UK. Paper presented at the Society for Educational Studies and BERA Social Justice SIG Annual Seminar, School Leadership and Social Justice, London. Hunter, J. (2012). From school improvement to sustained capacity. Professional Development in Education, 38 (4), 693-694. Jaffer, K. G. H. (2000). The head teachers’ changing role and training requirements: A comparative study . Unpublished Masters‟ Dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK. Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational leadership , 44 (6), 9-11.
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 | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,032 | 0,008 |
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 ».