Principals Facing Inclusive Schooling or Integration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents part of the results of a large research project on favorable conditions to academic development and achievement of students with learning difficulties in regular classes in Grades 5 and 6. More particularly, it focuses on the subjective views of three school principals who participated in this research about inclusive education or integration of students with exceptional learning needs and how these views connect with actions initiated and obstacles encountered within their schools respectively. Physical integration of students with learning challenges in the regular classroom can be expanded to full membership and programming for all students given an inclusive philosophy and practice. The principals’ discourses, recorded during individual interviews, have been analyzed in light of the most important elements within our frame of reference. Three different approaches (academic integration, social integration, and inclusion) and three distinct leadership styles (organizational, transactional, and a third leadership style based on the “reculturing” principle) have been identified and question the type of leadership that is most likely to favor necessary changes in views and practices of inclusive education within their establishments. In the belief that a school’s evolution toward a philosophy and principles of inclusion is consistent with a long process of coconstruction of meanings shared among individuals from that community, this study puts forward the idea that these principals are guided by adaptability to their environment and act according to principles that agree with their staff members. These findings provide insight into the ways that principals integrate their approaches and beliefs about including students with difficulties into their overall work as leaders and provide ideas for further study.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it