School principals in Canada: context, profil and work, Pancanadian surveys of principals and teachers in elementary and secondary schools (2005-2006)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last ten years, the educational systems in Canada’s various provinces have undergone several important changes (Lessard and Brassard, 2006; Riopel and Tardif, 2005). While certain general trends (such as the emphasis on accountability or the desire to professionalize teachers) seemed to be transversal or common to the various regions, each province undertook specific educational reforms and demonstrated a particular type of academic governance (Ben Jaafar and Anderson, 2004; Lessard and Brassard, 2006; Lessard and Grimmett, 2004).\n\nWith these changes in mind, it is important to analyze the effects that a transformed educational system and new educational policy can have on the conditions and nature of the work performed by personnel working in the field of education. The specific objective of the present report is to examine the restructuring of the profession of principal and its relationship to changes in the way Canada’s educational systems are regulated. It will do this by analyzing the way principals have dealt with changes in education,and the way they view and claim to practise their profession. At the same time, it will compare occupational experiences in the various Canadian provinces.\n\nThe report is based on a questionnaire survey carried out in the year 2005 on 2144 primary school and secondary school principals throughout Canada1. In the introduction, we will present the research problem and the survey carried out (its principal objectives, its validity, the questionnaire designed for the principals and the main aspects of the applied statistical analysis). We will also clarify the principle features of the sample from the standpoint of educational variables (level and system of education) and\nregional variables (the urban or rural locality of schools, breakdown according to province and region).\n\nIn the following chapters, we will present the main findings of the survey. First, Chapter 1 will provide the social and professional profile of the principals, in terms of their gender, age, ethnicity, education and career. Chapter 2 will examine the educational environments in which the principals worked, by describing the main characteristics of the student body and the personnel in the schools they managed. Chapter 3 will pay special attention to educational orientation in the schools: the educational objectives to which they attached importance, as well as the various services provided to support students with problems. In Chapter 4, we will examine the way the principals experienced changes in the educational system. We will see that most principals feel that many changes have had a significant and often negative impact on their working conditions and their tasks, though this varied according to the province. In Chapter 5, we will analyze the way the principals described and claimed to perform their work, by endeavouring to understand any tensions – linked to changes in the educational system -- that may exist between their “actual” job and their “ideal” job. We will see that from the principals’ standpoint their\noccupation is comprised of numerous responsibilities and roles, and that it provides them with job satisfaction in many ways. Lastly, Chapter 6 will pay special attention to the conditions in which the principals and teachers were inducted into their work. In the Conclusion, we will return to the survey’s most significant findings, recalling the principal differences revealed according to working context (region, province, teaching level and sector, and student profiles) and according to the social and\nprofessional profile of the directors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".