Leading and Learning: Collaboration in rehabilitation services in Ontario schools
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation explores how Ontario's leaders in education, health and the community envision effective collaboration in rehabilitation services in schools. First, superintendents of special education from 15 District School Boards (DSBs), directors/managers of 14 Children’s Treatment Centres (CTCs) and seven Special Education Advisory Committees (SEAC) representatives participated in seven like-role focus groups. Subsequently, a mixed role focus group comprised of representatives of the seven previous groups validated the findings derived through thematic analysis. Findings indicated there was no common understanding of the purpose and mandate of the school-based rehabilitation program which hampered work of leaders from rehabilitation and education as partners in co-serving children with or at risk of disabilities and their families. Furthermore, findings suggested that effective collaboration should be an intentional and relational process that enables partners to work together as equals, assume a learning stance, align a shared vision, include parents as partners and be child/family focused, and close communication gaps. Skills and qualities of leaders important to effective collaboration were identified as well as the beliefs of belonging, inclusion and the primacy of needs of child and family. Education, health, and community leaders identified their desire for change in policies governing rehabilitation services, the need for provincial guidelines and standards for services as well as knowledge building to support evidence-based service delivery models. \nFollowing the qualitative study, I developed a briefing note for policy and program decisionmakers in the provincial government. Subsequent presentations to government leaders positioned the findings within aims of the ministries responsible for rehabilitation services in schools. The article, \n“Building Back Better, Together,” presented findings relevant to education leaders on the collaboration of DSBs and CTCs during the COVID-19 pandemic to support children with rehabilitation needs, highlighting the urgency of working with CTC partners to reduce growing waitlists for services. The practice-oriented implications of this dissertation pertain to leaders creating a shared vision for services with all partners and aligning policy and services in accordance with this vision. Implications for research include exploring how leaders define shared responsibility in rehabilitation services in schools to clarify expectations and roles of partners.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».