The Role of School Leaders in Promoting Successful Home–School Partnerships in Singapore’s Special Education Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective home–school partnerships are deemed highly important for the academic success and well-being of students with disabilities (Beveridge, 2005; Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Shelden et al., 2010). Findings of a qualitative case study of parents’ perspectives about the relationship between the home and Singapore’s special education (SPED) schools revealed that school leadership is a key contributor to positive and productive partnerships. Specifically, participants focused on the importance of leaders being welcoming and approachable, practicing strong communication skills and strategies, and having positive perceptions about parents and their role in the school. These findings suggest that school leaders who trust parents and can foster trust in their leadership can be key players in promoting positive relationships for successful home–school partnerships. While the study was conducted in Singapore, the findings are transferable to any K-12 education context, as they offer school leaders insights on how to foster a successful collaboration with the families.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".