Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practices of Principals with Respect to Hiring Diverse Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the beliefs, attitudes, and practices of principals with regard to equity and inclusion specific to hiring teachers from diverse backgrounds. A qualitative design and narrative analysis guided this study. Twelve principals and vice-principals from six high schools in one school district in Ontario participated in the study by answering questions on a self-completion web questionnaire. The findings were analyzed using four categories with regard to hiring diverse teachers: 1) current understanding of diversity in the school community; 2) current practices for diversity hiring; 3) beliefs and attitudes for diversity hiring and existing barriers; 4) solutions and future learning opportunities. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The overall themes that emerged from the data were: a) valuing the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion; b) not valuing diversity and providing rationale for not considering diversity and equity. The findings revealed that principals were able to define diversity in their own words. However, principals did not always value diversity in teacher candidates in their hiring practices. The questions used by principals to interview teachers – based on those recommended by the school board’s interview questions – did not include questions that would elicit and support responses from teacher candidates with regard to teaching diverse students or that reveal the value of their own diversity. The findings revealed that there are various barriers due to biases, hiring attitudes and current practices. Finally, the findings revealed that some principals are resistant to additional learning and professional development activities, saying they see no barriers for diverse teacher candidates being hired. However, some principals are open to more training and learning opportunities and see professional development as a catalyst in bringing positive change with respect to hiring practices and valuing diversity. A discussion of the findings with reference to current literature is provided. In conclusion, questions and approaches for further studies are identified.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 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".