The Role of School Leaders in Securing STEM Education for Black Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cross-case analysis endeavored to examine the perspectives and practices of middle school principals who were leading schools in which a federally-funded, design-based science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education grant was being implemented. In the context of a majority minoritized school district, the researcher operationalized the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) (Leithwood, 2012) using an intersectional (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991) lens to explore the ways that Black girls’ positionality in the STEM pipeline influenced school leaders. First, the researcher found evidence of principals guiding the direction of their schools in vision-centered ways that uplifted the needs of historically marginalized student populations. Specifically, school leaders operated from equitable dispositions by creating high expectations among teachers and school staff on behalf of Black girls’ academic and social advancement. Secondly, the researcher identified strategies middle principals used to prioritize the intersectional positionality of Black girls in the STEM pipeline. Principals demonstrated social justice leadership orientations by engaging external partners in their school community including research-focused university experts as well as STEM professionals of color. The work of the school leaders also aligned with, and even exceeded, the stated STEM education goals of the school district. This study was a situated exploration of leadership that attended to obvious gaps in the educational leadership, Black girlhood, and STEM education literature. The research aimed to fill the evident lacunae in scholarship focused on the constellation of these important subjects, and simultaneously provide guidance to practicing school leaders regarding ways that they can support and embolden Black girls in educational spaces. To achieve both goals, this research study concludes by proffering an articulated definition of intersectional leadership: to operationalize visionary strategies that privilege the experiences of followers who live the realities of more than one historically oppressed identifier.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".