Leadership Practices in Effective Schools in Disadvantaged Areas of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this paper was to examine leadership practices in effective schools located in economically disadvantaged areas of three Canadian provinces: Ontario, Québec, and New Brunswick. Research Design. Our study was conducted in five successful schools selected on the basis of student outcomes on province-wide standardized exams, as well as on some risk factors such as rural area, low socioeconomic level, and proportion of Francophones (Ontario and New Brunswick). To increase the study’s validity, we used triangulation and various data sources: (1) individual interviews; (2) observation of school principals; (3) field documentation; (4) student essays; (5) internal school documents such as mission statement, rules, and directives. Participants. Participants included Department of Education heads and school board administrators, school principals and vice principals, teachers, school counsellors, educational psychologists, parent school board members, and students. Findings. Results show that leadership practices in effective schools can be grouped together around five dimensions: establishing goals and expectations; strategic resourcing; curriculum planning, coordination, and evaluation; promoting and participating in teacher supervision and development; ensuring order and support.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".