Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has shown that two-thirds of Jewish Day School Heads of School plan to retire or transition out of independent schools in the next 10 years while twenty-two percent of school administrators are not interested in pursuing the Head of School position. This is especially true in Jewish Day Schools where half of those who participated in a recent study have been in their leadership position for three or less years. Recognizing that new Heads of School are hired each year, many of whom have never served in that type of position, this study uses Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to analyze data collected from interviews with fifteen Novice Heads of School at Jewish Day Schools in the United States and Canada. This study examines the career trajectory, training, and preparation that these Heads of School experienced as they transitioned into the role. Individual participant profiles were analyzed and used to highlight five themes of the study: (1) Jewish Leadership Preparation and Succession Planning, (2) The Political Role: Managing Boards, Budgets, High Demands of the Job, (3) Support for Role Socialization, (4) Balancing Personal and Professional, and (5) Heads of School as Reflective Practitioners. Insights gleaned from this study will be useful to Jewish Day School Boards, Head Support and Evaluation Committees, leadership training programs such as You Lead and DSLTI, Prizmah: Center for Jewish Day Schools, and school leaders who may be aspiring to become a Head of School.--Author's abstract
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".