Parental Engagement In School Improvement Planning: Perceptions Of A Principal And Parents In A Secondary School Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite extensive research and funding dedicated toward promoting effective parent engagement policies in Ontario public schools, there is a lack of detailed information “about the best ways to involve parents and other members of the community in school improvement planning” (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 2). The Ontario Ministry of Education has established numerous policies aimed at promoting parent engagement within schools and, more specifically, within school improvement planning; these policies can be found in Ministry policy documents such as the School Effectiveness Framework (2013) and the Parent Engagement Policy for Ontario Schools (2010). While policy documents and policies aimed at promoting effective parent engagement are numerous, they often set forth terms of parent engagement that are defined by the Ministry or school board rather than being co-created with parents and families. Therefore, this study aimed at addressing the gap that exists in educational policy and academic research about how to mostly effectively engage parents in school improvement planning by exploring Ministry, board, and school level improvement planning policy along with a principal's and parents’ perceptions of the phenomenon.\n\nA qualitative case study methodology was used to examine the school improvement planning process within a secondary public school in Southeastern Ontario. An analysis of publicly accessible school improvement planning policy documents and transcripts from semi-stuctured interviews was conducted to reveal how parent engagement policy in school improvement planning was actualized at the school level. \n\nA synthesized set of findings revealed that parents are most significantly involved in school improvement planning through communication. While the school that served as the case study of the research worked towards communicating their school improvement plan to parents, they lacked means of engaging parents through other critical areas like decision-making and collaboration with the community (Epstein, 2011). Meanwhile, parents demonstrated a general understanding of school improvement planning; however, they lacked an understanding regarding their unique role in improvement planning and the value of their engagement in the process.
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) | 0.000 | 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".