Leadership as Love Supporting Teaching Practices Through the Enabling Constraints of Alberta’s Teaching Quality Standard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School leadership roles and responsibilities are changing, subsuming managerial expectations and increasing focus on the priorities of school-based collaboration, collective culture, and community engagement by seeking stakeholder consolation and trust. Ultimately, school leadership is now, more than ever, about pedagogical responsibility and relationality—the art and science of modeling effective practice in relation to teachers, learners, and the community. Changes in Alberta's Teaching Quality Standard (TQS) (Alberta Education, 2017b) from a checklist to that of a growth-focused continuum have necessitated an evolution of the supervision and evaluation practices by school leaders. Seemingly objective evaluation practices are no longer adequate for the determination of teacher ability relative to competencies and their indicators. By shifting evaluation and supervisory paradigms from the safe and objective toward the messy and dialogical it is possible for school leaders to better understand the interconnected and complex nature of teacher practice and identity. By enacting pedagogies of love as defined by bell hooks (2001) as a combination of care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect, and trust it is possible to better understand teacher practice and pedagogy through a lens that provides the space for failure and struggles and ultimately growth and success—something stronger and more robust, something different that could not have been there before. It is the enactment of pedagogies of love that may allow for teacher personal and collective growth through relationality.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".