How secondary schools promote themselves: the case of Catholic schools in Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 1997, the Ontario government introduced new legislation for secondary schools. This new legislation cascaded into a series of educational changes that came to be known as Secondary School Reform. This study deals with the promotion of secondary schools within the context of educational reform. The research questions are aimed at investigating what schools are actually doing to promote themselves, whether participants make a distinction between school promotion, public relations and marketing, and what strategies facilitate or inhibit schools' promotional efforts. The study also attempts to investigate the sphere of "reputation management" with possible applications to schools needing to manage public perceptions in the context of educational reforms. This study is based on the notion that schools need to engage in school promotion to make the general public feel that they are being responsive to current government reform initiatives. The design of the study is a case study analysis of two Catholic secondary schools engaged in promotional efforts. The research study involved semi-structured interviews of two principals, five parents from each school, five teachers from each school, five students from each school, five members of the business community, the two priests associated with the schools in the study, and the school board's Public Relations Officer. This study also includes a review of documents and observations of school Open Houses. School board policy on enrollment exists that defines schools with catchment areas. However, Catholic schools seem to attract non-Catholic students as well as Catholic students because both Catholic and public feeder schools exist within the same catchment areas. Both Catholic Schools in the study engaged in school promotion, public relations and marketing techniques at different times of the school year and through different events. However, the participants in the study, even within each school, differed in their perception of what they were doing with regard to school promotion, public relations or marketing. Some participants felt that they were engaging in promotional efforts to attract good students, while some thought that they were building the public perception of the school, and others thought that they were engaged in promotional efforts to make students, parents and the general community feel good about belonging to the school-community. Further studies need to be conducted on mechanisms by which the educational community might inform the political community, which is the current policy-making body. Further studies also need to be done to include the voice of the trustees as a stakeholder group in policy promotion. This study has implications for school practitioners and policy makers.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| 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 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 ».