Teacher Supervision through Professional Growth Plans: Balancing Contradictions and Opening Possibilities
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 uses a micropolitical perspective to analyze the mandatory implementation of teacher professional growth plans (TPGPs) in Alberta, Canada, drawing upon findings of a qualitative study. Teachers and principals interviewed after 3 years of implementing this policy appeared to work within three basic contradictions related to the intersections of power and knowledge: (a) promoting teacher self-direction while increasing surveillance; (b) honoring individual teachers’ ways of knowing while narrowing teacher learning to a technicist model; and (c) focusing on teacher risk taking, creativity, and personally meaningful learning while increasing alignment with school and district goals and provincial teaching standards. However, principals and teachers found productive ways to balance these three tensions or work around them. This article describes strategies exercised particularly by administrators to implement the policy within these tensions, and it concludes by discussing this model of TPGPs in terms of negotiation of control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it