Superintendents' leadership in Alberta schools: Influencing school improvement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the link between superintendents' leadership and its influence on school improvement practice in small and medium sized Alberta school jurisdictions (student populations fewer than 30 000).Principals' perceptions were used to determine if the superintendent's influence was the sam e as internal factors such as school council, school culture, school goals, and student needs.In addition this study determined if the superintendents' influence was the same as all of the internal factors when combined.The study used Alberta Education reports to identify school restructuring components that were key to the school reform movement in Alberta in 1994.A review of the literature revealed that Leithwood (1995) had identified the main internal influencing factors in school improvement, thereby providing a basis for the comparison.Descriptive statistics were used to track the data and to compare the respective influence of all factors.These comparisons were validated using a chi-squared calculation on each influencing factor.The study found that the superintendent's influence in Alberta schools exceeded each of the internal factors in its impact on school improvement practice in a restructured setting.The study also determined that the superintendent's influence was at least equal to that of all the internal factors combined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".