School-Based Management in Alberta: Perceptions of Public School Leaders, 1994–1997
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1994, the Government of Alberta, Canada, instituted major fiscal measures designed to reduce operating costs and a large provincial debt. In tandem, Alberta Education restructured public education by: reducing the number of school districts, redefining the role of school boards, increasing the involvement of parents, initiating Charter schools, expanding student testing, downsizing Alberta Education, improving delivery of services to children, and mandating the implementation of school-based management in all public schools (Alberta Education News Release, January 18, 1994). The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of how the implementation of school-based management, through the first three year plan (1994–97), shaped the roles, functions, and attitudes of participant school leaders. School leaders were defined as lead teachers, principals and school council chairpersons. A case study methodology was used to describe, and examine, interviews with the eighteen participants from three elementary and three secondary schools, on site observations and school and district documents. The findings provide a description of the collective and individual roles of participant school leaders and how they accommodate staff and parent input, decision-making, increased community involvement and improved communications. Stewardship was the style of leadership which evolved during the Three year Plan (1994–97). Participants reported a high degree of satisfaction with school-based management, in spite of conflicting restructuring measures, and placed a heightened value on collaborative decision-making. Implications of the study include changing leadership styles that occurred as a result of collaborative decision-making which help refocus school attention on school-based management. School leaders, particularly the principal, used collaborative decision-making, mentoring and power sharing to strengthen school-based initiatives and redefine stakeholder values which resulted in school leadership which was transforming and encouraged collaborators and leaders to be stewards of the process.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".