Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research exists that examines the exercise of discretion by principals in their disciplinary decision making. This study sought to understand the application of values by principals as they engage in student disciplinary decision making within legally fixed parameters of their administrative discretion. This qualitative methodology used semistructured in-depth interviews of 10 urban elementary school principals in western Canada. Data were analyzed through coding into data segments and then by grouping segments into categories, patterns, and themes. The principals appeared to understand discretion as being part of larger, more complex issues or a gray area; the exercise of good judgment; and necessary in order for them to be fair and reasonable in their disciplinary decision making. Influences upon their decision making included pressure from their superiors, the expectations of parents and staff, and the threat of legal action. The principals understood discretion as allowing them to differentiate in order to be fair and to adapt rules for their personal definitions of equity. Discretion delegated to school leaders should be structured through clear and specific discipline plans and policies and limited by restricting the circumstances and context under which it will be considered. Discretionary decisions also should be subject to review by the appropriate stakeholders. Elementary principals should gain a greater understanding of applicable case law in order that their decision making aligns with current jurisprudence. Future directions for research include examining students’ perception of fairness of principals’ discretionary decision making in disciplinary matters.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".