Implementation of Anti-Racist, Anti-Oppressive Strategic Plans and Policies in School Divisions: An Organizational Improvement Plan
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Across Canada, many school divisions’ recent and emerging strategic plans are equity-focused and marked by the discourses of anti-racism and anti-oppression. These documents identify the systemic practices as the root cause of the persistent educational inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners and among intersectionally dominant and marginalized students. These practices issue from and adhere to the systemic logic(s) of intergenerational settler colonialism in Canada. Typically, while these documents clearly articulate core principles and end goals, they leave the “how” – the corresponding procedural tools of strategic plan actualization and policy implementation -- up to systems and system actors. \nMany school divisions have chosen an ideological implementation approach (Matland, 1995) which begins with immersing school-based and division-office administrators in anti-racist, anti-oppressive professional learning. While qualitative data reveals that this approach yields positive results for the first two stages of Thomas Guskey’s model (2008) for evaluating professional development, it does not (yet) extend to identify specific division and school-based structures, processes, and collective efficacies which will reliably produce the policies’ intended effects in the lives of diversly diverse student bodies. \nTwo significant barriers to anti-racist policy implementation have been identified: first, the resistance of internal and external stakeholders to a decolonial framing of the issue and its (re)solution; second, the challenge of determining the policy structures and instruments required to effect the systemic change these documents describe.\nThe methodology the researcher chose to investigate and respond to this problem of practice is an Organizational Improvement Plan (OIP). The purpose of this research was to develop an OIP which mitigates the barriers and forms of resistance common to ideological implementation efforts and provides procedural tools to meet the specific demands of decolonial organizational change. \nThe result is twofold: the System of Tools for Equitable Schools, grounded in the principles and practices of culturally sustaining, justice-oriented pedagogy, and a three-year Organizational Improvement Plan for schools and school divisions, grounded in the critical action research paradigm and consistent with adaptive and distributed models of educational leadership. The OIP’s theory of action positions educators’ collective practices, not their beliefs, as the starting point of decolonial organizational change, and, furthermore, posits that changing patterns of inequity at the classroom level is the key to “closing the gaps” at the school and division levels. \nThe plan describes how the entire staff of educators and administrators will engage in iterative cycles of critical action research as they implement The System of Tools for Equitable Schools over a three year period. The plan can be implemented in a single school, a group of schools, or an entire division. The goal of the research and intervention design in this dissertation is to evaluate the potential of a process approach (Matland, 1995) to accelerate systemic change in decolonizing school divisions.
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 | 0,024 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 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 ».