“I am here for the students”: principals’ perception of accountability amid work intensification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increasing job duties and responsibilities associated with the changing role of school principals have prompted even greater accountability. As a result, principals are faced with competing demands and expectations in various forms of accountability from multiple stakeholders. This study examines principals’ perception of accountability in the context of work intensification with a particular focus on the question of “accountable to whom and why.” A total of 1434 practicing principals responded to an online survey that sought to determine the groups and individuals to whom principals feel accountable, and why principals feel accountable to those particular individuals or groups. The survey achieved a response rate of 52.68%. The research results show balancing competing accountabilities concerning students has become a daunting task for school principals. The competing if not conflicting expectations from (federal and state/provincial) educational authorities, teachers, parents, students, and various interest groups often pose significant challenges to principals’ work and add to the complexity of principals’ role. The unrealistic expectations imposed on principals make it imperative to critically examine the changing role of school principals and identify essential and legislatively mandated duties and responsibilities of principalship to better reflect and address their intensified work realities.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".