Parental Engagement In School Improvement Planning: Perceptions Of A Principal And Parents In A Secondary School Setting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Despite extensive research and funding dedicated toward promoting effective parent engagement policies in Ontario public schools, there is a lack of detailed information “about the best ways to involve parents and other members of the community in school improvement planning” (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 2). The Ontario Ministry of Education has established numerous policies aimed at promoting parent engagement within schools and, more specifically, within school improvement planning; these policies can be found in Ministry policy documents such as the School Effectiveness Framework (2013) and the Parent Engagement Policy for Ontario Schools (2010). While policy documents and policies aimed at promoting effective parent engagement are numerous, they often set forth terms of parent engagement that are defined by the Ministry or school board rather than being co-created with parents and families. Therefore, this study aimed at addressing the gap that exists in educational policy and academic research about how to mostly effectively engage parents in school improvement planning by exploring Ministry, board, and school level improvement planning policy along with a principal's and parents’ perceptions of the phenomenon.\n\nA qualitative case study methodology was used to examine the school improvement planning process within a secondary public school in Southeastern Ontario. An analysis of publicly accessible school improvement planning policy documents and transcripts from semi-stuctured interviews was conducted to reveal how parent engagement policy in school improvement planning was actualized at the school level. \n\nA synthesized set of findings revealed that parents are most significantly involved in school improvement planning through communication. While the school that served as the case study of the research worked towards communicating their school improvement plan to parents, they lacked means of engaging parents through other critical areas like decision-making and collaboration with the community (Epstein, 2011). Meanwhile, parents demonstrated a general understanding of school improvement planning; however, they lacked an understanding regarding their unique role in improvement planning and the value of their engagement in the process.
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 | 0,000 | 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 ».