Practical ethical leadership: Alberta-based research studies on instructional leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a synthesis of an Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) sponsored case study of five highly-effective elementary schools in Alberta. Researchers spent time in these schools asking teachers, principals, and support staff two questions: (a) what makes this school such a good place for teaching and learning; and (b) what does the administration do to help? Data were gathered through interviews; and comprehensive notes were made, organised, analysed, and synthesised into case studies for each of the five schools. While the original study asked and answered three questions: (1) what (what did we find); (2) so what (what do these findings mean); and, (3) now what (what should we do after we make sense of the findings), this paper focuses on analysing and sharing findings about question (3). Because this practical conceptual framework suggests principal best practices, the paper we offer here is not intended to report specific findings as much as to thoughtfully consider what our research findings suggest for the ethical and practical actions of principals. Our book Living Leadership for Learning: Case Studies of Five Alberta Elementary School Principals (Parsons and Beauchamp, 2011) outlines our findings in detail.
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 | 0.018 | 0.202 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".