Investigating School-Based Leaders’ Concrete Steps Towards Wîtaskêwin in Treaty 6 Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This five-paper organizational improvement plan building understanding through a critical analysis of how school-based leaders engage with policy and implement the Inspiring Success (IS) educational policy (Government of Saskatchewan, 2018) to support the improvement of educational outcomes of Indigenous children learning in Treaty 6 territory? I conducted an instrumental case study with seven school-based leaders (SBLs) from public schools in Treaty 6 territory in Saskatchewan in 2024 that specifically examined their attempts to engage the government of Saskatchewan’s Inspiring Success educational policy. In preparation for the case study, I completed a reviewed of the literature which identified four major topics that framed the study; the treaty legacy and historic relationship with Indigenous peoples on Turtle Island, in Canada, and in Saskatchewan, the social context in which educational policy must thrive, principals as educational policy leaders, and public education and educational policy. The seven semi-structured interviews generated rich participant data that often closely aligned itself to the literature reviewed for this study. The participant data, generated from ten questions delivered during one-hour semi-structured interviews, was carefully analyzed using a strategic four-stage process. As a result of the analysis I identified eight categories; policy, place, people, relationships, change, action, barriers, and needs, and three overarching themes; roles, relationships, and responsibilities. SBLs were identified in the participant data and the literature to have unique roles, responsibilities, and relationships and were entrusted to act in the best interest of many stakeholders with unique needs, wants, and worldviews. Although SBLs are responsible to bring about change through the provincial Inspiring Success educational policy, bringing the Inspiring Success policy to life and achieving the five goals requires all members of the policy chain and stakeholders to uphold their roles and responsibilities through dynamic relationships. The five goals listed on p. 14 of the Inspiring Success Educational Policy Framework (Government of Saskatchewan, 2018) are: 1. First Nations and Métis languages and cultures are valued and supported. 2. Equitable opportunities and outcomes for First Nations and Métis learners. 3. Shared management of the provincial education system by ensuring respectful relationships and equitable partnerships with First Nations and Métis peoples at the provincial and local level. 4. Culturally appropriate and authentic assessment measures that foster improved educational opportunities and outcomes. 5. All learners demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the worldviews and historical impact of First Nations and the Métis Nation. I affirm that Wîtaskêwin (Cardinal & Hildebrandt, 2000); getting along on the land, as the outcome sought and the pathway forward for all treaty people, including the policy chain. The findings of the study, such as deep systems leadership and systems thinking, seeking relationships and partnerships that would improve educational outcomes, and rigorous investigation into the policy chain were offered to improve the efficacy of the system and to remedy the research practice gap identified. Also suggested was a unified response between stakeholders and the policy chain to end the settler colonial project which would address the policy imperatives identified in the IS policy document. Although this is easily suggested, the literature has identified that bringing about this type of societal change would take multiple generations of concerted and dedicated effort. Finally, to begin this work, I suggest that the policy chain should immediately advocate and communicate the needs of the system to stakeholders so that adequate reinvestments in public education can be made allowing school boards to improve the quality of its services, including instruction and assessment practises, so that learning outcomes can be improved and the educational gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students can be eliminated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".