The translation of leadership standards into leadership practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The guiding question of this study is: how is the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) translated into practices in elementary and secondary schools in the province of Ontario? The purpose of this paper is to provide a contextual account of the processes by which school leadership standards are incorporated into the practices of school administrators in the province of Ontario, Canada. Design/methodology/approach – This qualitative exploratory case study focusses on the incorporation of the OLF into the practices of school administrators in four secondary and five elementary schools in two large school boards. The data were collected through document analysis, observations registered in a field notes journal, and semi-structured interviews with principals and vice-principals. The data were coded into analytical categories and analyzed to identify emerging themes and patterns. Findings – The analysis identified two emerging themes that illustrated how school leaders translate leadership standards into practices: the first theme, the school leader as an emergent identity, demonstrated the intersections between standards and professional identities. The analysis showed that standards contribute to the configuration of the leader as a political actor in the school. The second theme, standards, and the configuration of leadership practices, offered insights about the intersections and disconnections between standards and leadership practices in the participant schools. Originality/value – This study aims to inform conversations between policy makers, practitioners, and scholars about leadership standards in schools. Given the saliency of the topic, this research aims to illuminate the often-unexplored nexus, policy-leadership, as well as to expand and enrich theoretical understandings of educational leadership by recasting leadership as a policy-bounded phenomenon.
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 | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".