Leadership Development Practices of School-Based Administrators: The Impact of Trust and Humility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How school principals support assistant principals aspiring to the role of the principal is of critical importance in educational leadership. The purpose of this case study was to investigate how principals within one urban school district identify leadership potential and nurture the growth of assistant principals aspiring to the principalship. The rationale for examining this topic was to explore how principals understand their role in leadership development within a public-school setting. Supporting the development of aspiring leaders within a school setting is of great importance for the future of school leadership, especially in the Canadian province of Alberta where this study was conducted. The Alberta School Leadership Framework (Alberta Education, 2010) indicated that 49% of school leaders would reach the average retirement age of 57 years in 2015 and that 32% of new school leaders relinquished their role within three years. The study used qualitative case study methodology involving semi-structured interviews with six principals to gather data on how they were supported when they were assistant principals and how they have subsequently supported others in developing their leadership ability. The use of case study was based on the theoretical perspective of interpretivism that “looks for culturally-derived and historically-situated interpretations of the social-life world” (Crotty, 2015, p. 67). The guiding research questions for this case study focused on how principals identify and nurture potential leadership ability in others and how they mentor assistant principals who aspire to the principalship. The findings of this inquiry revealed trust and humility as common themes shared among the six participating principals. The majority of research investigating trust and humility in schools has focused on the interaction of school principals and teachers rather than the unique working relationship between principals and assistant principals. This inquiry provides insight into the beliefs and practices of current principals and the manner in which trust and humility influence the interaction between principals and assistant principals engaged in leadership development. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge related to leadership development with a focus on the relationship between the school principal and assistant principal.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".