Leadership and School Boards: Guarding the Trust in an Era of Community Engagement, 2nd Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leadership and School Boards: Guarding the Trust in an Era of Community Engagement, 2nd Edition by Laura A. Reimer Lanham, MD/USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015, 149 pages ISBN: 978-1-4758-1506-1 (paperback) In Leadership and School Boards: Guiding the Trust in an Era of Community Engagement, 2nd Edition, Dr. Laura E. Reimer provides a guide for school board governance premised on the notion that school boards play a unique and critical role in the preservation and promotion of democracy in North America. Reimer's work begins with a historical discussion of the evolution of school boards in North America. The author considers the original vision for school boards, in which commonly held values were perpetuated through school systems that understood the sacred trust between the educational institution and the student, and the duty owed by school boards to ensure the common good. Through local representation and the oversight of education in our communities, school board trustees possess the power to affect the future of our children and hence the future of our society. Despite these awesome responsibilities, the author posits that modern trends have resulted in diminished confidence in school boards and their elected trustees. The last twenty years or so have seen an increasing number of amalgamations among boards, resulting in greater responsibility for smaller numbers of elected trustees. This trend has been coupled with the implementation of legislation and policy aimed at promoting the centralization of education in many districts. As the author aptly identifies in her work, for many communities, larger constituencies and reduced powers have contributed to a decline in communication among school board trustees and the people they serve. Reimer underscores the need for steadfast governance by school boards in light of the many influences that affect the modern-day work of boards. Reimer analyzes how, for example, pressure from various employee unions for improved working conditions, bureaucratic systems, and hierarchical structures, can result in a lack of focused efforts by trustees to achieve the democratic goals of the public education system. Similarly, administration may seek to influence trustees to make decisions that do not best serve the community, while outspoken interest groups lobby to achieve their often unattainable goals. The great challenge arising from this environment, from my perspective as a school board superintendent, lies is the ability or inability of trustees to develop and sustain visionary leadership, inspired by a shared commitment to improved educational achievement and responsible stewardship of board resources that inspires trust in the community. As Reimer asserts, this type of leadership can only be attained through good and steadfast governance, which assures wise decisions that are responsive to the needs of students and the community. Good governance depends on the trustees' understanding of the difference between governing and administering/managing the school board through a clarity of roles and responsibilities of all board personnel as demonstrated by a board agenda that focuses on the district vision and governance matters as defined in board policy. …
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".