District Administrator Perspectives on Student Learning in an Era of Standards and Accountability: A Collective Frame Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our analysis explores the agenda for student learning communicated in interviews with school district officials from four Ontario districts. Using research methods drawn from collective action framing theory, we identified six core frames and one broader frame in the discourse on student learning: (a) measureable academic achievement, (b) personalized preparation for post‐secondary destinations, (c) a well‐rounded education, (d) personal development, (e) faith/values‐based education, (f) social identity development, and (g) developing the whole child (the broader frame). The analysis highlights the administrators’ advocacy for a more encompassing educa‐ tional agenda than that mandated by government curriculum and accountability policies, and the utility of framing theory for education policy analysis. Key words: school district administrators, accountability, learning, policy analysis, curriculum analysis Les auteurs analysent les priorités des administrateurs de commissions scolaires quant à l’apprentissage des élèves telles qu’elles ressortent des entrevues menées dans quatre commis‐ sions scolaires en Ontario. À l’aide de méthodes de recherche tirées de la théorie du cadrage de l’action collective, les auteurs ont identifié six cadres clés et un cadre plus vaste dans le discours des administrateurs de commissions scolaires sur l’apprentissage des élèves : (a) le rendement scolaire mesurable, (b) la préparation personnalisée pour le postsecondaire, (c) une éducation complète, (d) le développement personnel, (e) une éducation reposant sur la foi/des valeurs, (f) le développement de l’identité personnelle et (g) le développement de l’enfant dans toutes ses di‐ mensions (le cadre plus vaste). L’analyse met en lumière le combat des administrateurs pour une orientation plus englobante que celle que prescrit le gouvernement dans les curriculums et les politiques en matière d’imputabilité ainsi que l’utilité de la théorie du cadrage dans l’étude des politiques en matière d’éducation. Mots clés : administrateurs d’arrondissement scolaire, imputabilité, apprentissage, analyse de politiques, analyse d’un curriculum.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".