Unlocking the Schoolhouse Doors: Institutional Constraints on Parent and Community Involvement in a School Improvement Initiative.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational change often reflects shifts in social, political, and economic conditions. The launch of Sputnik in 1957 for example, has been cited as pivotal in amplifying the dialogue on educational reform in the United States (Ogawa, Crowson & Goldring, 1999; Young & Levin, 2002). Similarly, the release of A Nation at Risk in 1983 led to a proliferation of research on characteristics of effective schools (Owens, 2001). Waves of innovation have characterized North American schools since at least then, with Canadian schools echoing many of the American concerns and adopting their approaches (Young & Levin, 2002). Despite this and other developments in scholarship and practice, there is a growing recognition of the immutability of schools (Ogawa, Crowson & Goldring, 1999; Rowan, 2002; Thomas, 2002; Young & Levin, 2002). One particular area that has enjoyed increasing consideration within schools and among researchers is collaborative, or participative, decision making which aims to engage educational stakeholders including teachers, students, parents, and community members. School improvement literature emphasizes parent involvement as a key strategy to achieving school effectiveness and increasing student performance. This challenges schools to involve parents and others in their organizational structures and processes. The purpose of this paper is to investigate through the lens of institutional theory the organizational resistance to including parents and others in one Alberta jurisdiction involved in the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI) project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".