Inclusive Leadership Processes and Practices that Improve Educational Social Justice Outcomes for Manitoba’s Children in Care – An Exploratory Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded in a critical transformative paradigm, this case study examined how Manitoba public school principals worked to support social justice goals in education for Manitoba’s children in care. A qualitative case study methodology was used to investigate how inclusive school principals develop processes and practices to work towards improved social justice outcomes for children in care. Social justice outcomes and inclusive leadership, as it is operationalized through processes and practices in schools, comprised the study’s conceptual framework. Data were collected using document analysis of government documents, semi-structured interviews with principals/vice principals from six Winnipeg school districts, and focus groups with former youth in care. Findings based on analysis using the conceptual framework indicate that principals and vice principals do not yet have a common starting point in their understanding of how different systems, i.e., education, child welfare, and lived experiences affect the children. The complexity of the children’s experiences, e.g., trauma, transitions etc., coupled with siloed processes/practices in education and other support organizations, create misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions that lead to inappropriate programming. In response, inclusive educational leaders successfully use processes and practices to flex boundaries within the education system and intentionally built relationships with the children and interorganizational stakeholders to improve social justice outcomes for children in care. At this time, all school leaders should consider a focus on planning for intentional relationships and differentiated environments for children in care. At the provincial level, there appears to be a critical need for an interorganizational supervisory body under the umbrella of the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet (HCCC) to centralize collaboration, implementation of information, and measures of success for children in care based on government protocols, while also supporting the development of a shared digital platform for the dissemination of information about what it means to be a child in care and resources to support school leaders. Further implications for policy, practice and suggestions for future study are also discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".