The Ethical Transformative Leadership of Mid-level District Leaders in Ontario Working to Advance Educational Equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, the advancement of equity dominates the reform and policy agenda of educational jurisdictions around the world. School districts are thus charged with advancing educational equity. In the United States, as in some Canadian provinces, school district staff report to a chief executive officer who is referred to as the “superintendent.” However, in publicly-funded districts in the province of Ontario, with the exception of small districts, groups of “superintendents” report to the director of education who occupies the role of chief executive officer in their district. In Ontario, the term “superintendents” therefore refers to mid-level district leaders. The extant American and Canadian literature and current Ontario professional standards, provincial education policy and leadership frameworks, and professional associations offer little guidance to mid-level district leaders on how to advance equity. In recognizing how educational leaders are struggling to advance equity, Dr. Carolyn Shields (2003, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017) positioned her theory of ethical transformative leadership as being more conducive to the advancement of equity than transformational leadership theory which has dominated the field of educational leadership and educational reform efforts since the 1990s. Shields has conducted two studies of ethical transformative American superintendents working to advance equity, but no research has been conducted to explore the utility of her theory in relation to mid-level district leaders or how they work to advance equity. In response to these gaps in the literature, the purpose of this qualitative project was to study how eleven ethical transformative Ontario superintendents, identified by reputation and drawn across seven districts, work to advance equity by exploring their adherence to Shields’ theory and their praxis. Qualitative interview data suggested that participants adhered to ethical principles and lenses and transformative leadership principles inherent in Shields’ theory. Findings also identified that participants enacted praxis to advance equity in their districts which can be categorized into six areas of practice. This study forms the beginning of a knowledge base on ethical transformative Ontario superintendents and how they work to advance educational equity. It concludes with a discussion of implications and recommendations related to professional standards, policy, practice, theory and research.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".