MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1183236981 · doi:10.15760/etd.2454

Leadership and Decision-Making Skills of High Poverty Elementary School Principals in an Era of Reduced Resources

2000· report· en· W1183236981 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Spooner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHaute école Spécialisée de Suisse Occidentale
KeywordsPovertyPrincipal (computer security)PsychologyNarrativeMathematics educationEducational leadershipAffect (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)PedagogyPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, a great deal of interest has been generated around the role of principal and its effectiveness, especially its impact on improving teacher instruction and student learning. Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) concluded that one quarter of all "school effects" on achievement can be attributed to principals. While there is general agreement on the principal's importance and affect, do we understand how principals have adapted to changes in schools with reduced resources and increased learning needs of students? How have principals made decisions in an environment where resources have been reduced over time? Given the stories of retired principals from high poverty elementary schools, the purpose of this narrative inquiry is to understand how principals made sense of their experience when having to respond to decreasing resources and the need for increased student achievement. Participants in the study included retired principals from high poverty elementary schools who were employed during the time period extending from 2008 through 2014. Findings from the study make sense of the meanings elementary principals have constructed and attached to the phenomena of decision -making in times of financial reduction in order to help other principals who have been challenged by similar circumstances. Three categories of leadership styles and seven skill areas emerged in the study. Principals made use of these styles and skills in their responses to the crisis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207