Psychological Safety of School Administrators: A Dual Reality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School administrators are often seen as the middle managers who are held accountable not only to their schools and communities but also to their employers. In order to successfully carry out their duties and responsibilities, school administrators must feel psychologically safe to speak up or speak out, ask a difficult question, voice an opinion, express a dissent, talk about a mistake, stand out for a position, or take a risk at work without fear of negative consequences. Psychologically precarious situations can compromise school administrators' ability to think, feel, speak, and act, and ultimately impact their leadership, performance, and commitment to their work. Regrettably, school administrators' psychological safety has been overlooked over the years. This research provides much-needed insights into their psychological safety in navigating this dual reality between schools and districts. The survey research garnered data from public school administrators in British Columbia, Canada, and explored school administrators' perceptions of psychological safety at their schools and districts and its manifestation across different demographics. The multiple logit regression models show that school administrators felt less psychologically safe in their district than at their schools. The research evidence points to the importance of fostering a psychologically safe and healthy work environment in which school administrators feel psychologically safe to say: "The emperor has no clothes".
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it