Factors that Influence the Preparedness of Teachers for the Vice-Principal Role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leadership succession is a major problem in many school districts due to retirements, fewer teachers entering administration, and administrators leaving the position owing to dissatisfaction or disillusionment with the job. Studies indicate that novice administrators are often ill-prepared for their roles by the formal preparation courses required by the school districts. In response to this finding, many postsecondary institutions and school districts are reviewing the content of certification courses, including soliciting information from users and other stakeholders. For example, in the United States, a study was commissioned in Tennessee to examine how well principals and viceprincipals felt they had been prepared for their roles as administrators by the state institutions (Petzko, 2008). In Canada, the Ontario College of Teachers conducted a review of the content, clarity, and structure of the Principal’s Qualification Program (PQP) through a survey of members. While there is a growing body of literature on novice administrators, very little is written specifically about vice-principals. This pilot study examined the activities undertaken by novice vice-principals while they were working as teachers and which of these activities prepared them for their new roles as administrators. It was restricted to facets of the vice-principal’s role involving well-developed interpersonal skills. In this pilot study, novice vice-principals completed surveys that listed activities in which they engaged while teachers, then ranked and reflected on their usefulness in preparing for an administrative role. It was found that the most influential preparatory activities for assuming the vice-principal’s role were service as curriculum leader or assistant curriculum leader, teaching, and completion of the PQP. Both incidental and deliberate learning about leadership are important to the novice vice-principal, however deliberate learning (such as completion of PQP Parts I and II) were more useful in certain situations, such as dealing with the police and social services. Having a subject specialty gave vice-principals legitimacy in their roles as instructional leaders within their schools.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".