EXAMINING EDUCATION LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON SCHOOL CALENDAR AND DAILY SCHEDULE MODELS IN ONTARIO: IMPACTS, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario, Canada, September and June signify more than just months—they mark the beginning and end of the school year for most students. The familiar ringing of bells and the structure of four-period days dictate the rhythm of each student’s classes in secondary schools. These frameworks, established in the early twentieth century, have remained largely unchanged, even as education has evolved in countless other ways. This study leverages the voices of 7 secondary school leaders through semi-structured interviews to understand how these individuals in power perceive the school calendar and daily schedule models based on their experiences in leadership. Ultimately, unveiling the impacts school calendar and daily schedule models have on students, the obstacles these leaders experience when seeking change to improve these outdated models, and most significantly, the solutions that these leaders view as viable ways to improve the current calendar and schedule models in place. The literature explores the historical effects of different school calendar and daily schedule models, including both traditional and modified versions used around the world. This study used Applied Critical Leadership (ACL) and Organizational Theory (OT) to understand how educational leaders influence the reform of these models and the challenges within the system that limit their ability to bring about change. Ultimately, these findings culminated in the formulation of 10 "Calls to Action" directed at the Ontario Ministry of Education, providing critical considerations for policy development regarding school calendars and daily schedules in Ontario secondary schools.Keywords: calendar, daily schedule, leadership, traditional models, alternative models
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".