The Ontario Leadership Framework for Catholic Principals and Vice-Principals: Purpose versus Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education is a field that experiences a number of policy initiatives and changes all in an effort to improve the system. The success of these initiatives is dependent in large part on the way the policies have been received by those expected to implement the changes. This study explored the experiences of seven Catholic secondary principals and seven Catholic secondary vice-principals with the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) in one school district of Ontario. As a provincially mandated policy change, the OLF was part of an initiative to support and sustain current school leaders in their work by providing a catalogue of leadership practices and competencies that have been found to be highly effective both in the research literature of educational leadership and from current practitioners. A review of the policy implementation and educational change literature was used to provide a perspective on how innovations can be understood to go through a process that involves 3 phases: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization. Of particular interest to this study is the presence of factors that influence how an innovation is implemented. This conceptual framework was used to explore and understand the presence of these factors in the experiences of this study's participants. Qualitative data were collected through personal interviews with participants and provided opportunities for them to reflect on their experiences with the OLF.Findings suggest that participants' experiences were largely influenced by the way their school district unpacked the OLF. More specifically, participants identified the framework as a tool for performance appraisals, a reference for job interviews, and a source of a common leadership language. Despite the intent to embed core leadership practices and competencies into the professional learning and daily practices of school leaders, study participants only used the framework to complete two administrative tasks. Further, principals and vice-principals noted aspects of their work that were not reflected in the framework. Results of this study suggest a number of implications for practice for governments, school districts, and for principals and vice-principals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".