Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Alberta Accredited International Schools: Bridging Modern and Traditional Societal Perspectives in Educational Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International schools accredited by Western-based educational paradigms encounter specific challenges within the theoretical framework of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), as perceived through the lens of social justice in education. This Organizational Improvement Plan (OIP) considers, from the context of modern and traditional societies, the change readiness of the Alberta Accredited International Schools program (AAIS) surrounding the practice of EDI. Generalized expectations of universal application present with factors that may provide educational leaders with the framework to deliberate critical theory motivating practice. Modernist and traditionalist societal views of EDI, and the translation of pedagogical frameworks through educational reform, are considered. My agency as an external educational psychologist and EDI consultant provides a practical, site-based context of change with a worldview of transformative leadership. As an external consultant, I proposed a blended change model, including Cawsey et al.’s (2016) Change Path Model through the lens of Capper’s (2019) critical theory for organizational improvement. The proposal of an EDI policy analyst change driver to inform a transformative worldview and associated theoretical resolutions is presented. Solutions are offered to influence current and future alignment within varied contexts between the provincial agency and the AAIS program sites. Informed by social justice in educational leadership, this OIP accepts a theoretically based challenge to apply a transformative leadership model of EDI practice to AAIS leaders. The outcome includes an alternative conceptualization of EDI practice demands within schools existing in a traditional society aligned with a Western-based educational pedagogy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".