ROLE OF HEAD TEACHER IN THE WHOLE SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Role of head teacher in the whole school development plan is very crucial and pivotal. All the activities of the school development revolve around the role of the head teacher. The dynamic and effective role of the head teacher materializes the concepts of Whole School Development into reality. The role of head teacher is important as he/she sets clear goals, manages time, effectively utilizes the instructional and non-instructional material; involve community and family for the inclusive betterment of the child and shares best practices of other institutes for whole school improvement. However, human and material resources and their sufficient availability are necessary to materialize the concept of whole school development theme. Keywords : School development Plan, head teacher, effective role, instructional and non-instructional material and inclusive betterment. REFERENCES Alexander, R. J. (1997). Policy and practice in primary education: local initiative, national agenda . Psychology Press. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bender, S. P., & Bryk, A. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan , 81 , 440-449. Brent, D. (2005). Learning to lead in the secondary school – becoming an effective head of department. International Journal of Educational Management , 19 (3), 268 – 269. Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping: the role of the principal in teacher. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8 (1), 37 -63, DOI: 10.1080/15700760701817371. Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing school for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91 (7), 23-30. Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2002). School leadership: Concepts and evidence . Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Chapman, D. W. (2002). Trends in educational administration in developing Asia. Educational Administration Quarterly , 36 (2), 283-308. Coea, R. (2009). School improvement: reality and illusion. British Journal of Educational Studies , 57 (4), 363-379, DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2009.00444.x. Memon, M., Ali, R. N., Simkins, T., & Garret, V. (2000). Understanding the headteachers’ role in Pakistan: Emerging role demands, constraints and choices. International Studies in Educational Administration Journal , 28 (2), 48. Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional Improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 19 (1), 83-93. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading Schools in Times of Change: Buckingham . Open University Press. Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43 (4), 338 – 356. Farah, I., Mehmood, T., & Amna, J. R. (1996). Road to success: Self-sustaining primary school change in rural Pakistan. Oslo, Norway: IMTEL, Karachi Pakistan, Institute for Educational Development Aga Khan University. Fullan, M. (1998). Change Forces: the Sequel . London: Falmer. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change . CA: Jossy Bass. Fullan, M. (2002). Leadership and sustainability . Principal leadership, 3(4), 1- 8. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change . New York: Teachers College Press. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence . NY: Bantam Books. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School organization, 30 (2), 95-110. DOI: 10.1080/13632431003663214. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What is Worth Fighting for out their? Guidelines for principals . Toronto: OISE. Harris, A. (2003). The changing context of leadership, in A. Harris, C. Day, D. Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman.(Eds.). Effective Leadership for School Improvement . London: Routledge Falmer. Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in education , 22 (1), 31-34. Hatcher, R. (2004). Distributed Leadership and Managerial Power in Schools: University of Central England, Birmingham, UK. Paper presented at the Society for Educational Studies and BERA Social Justice SIG Annual Seminar, School Leadership and Social Justice, London. Hunter, J. (2012). From school improvement to sustained capacity. Professional Development in Education, 38 (4), 693-694. Jaffer, K. G. H. (2000). The head teachers’ changing role and training requirements: A comparative study . Unpublished Masters‟ Dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK. Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational leadership , 44 (6), 9-11.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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".