Principals' Engagement with The Ontario Leadership Framework to Enact Social Justice Leadership: Reflection, Resistance, and Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Now, more than ever, leadership — principal leadership — is needed to address the increasing diversity and marginalization in Ontario schools. In 2009, Realizing the Promise of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy policy was released. While The Ontario Leadership Framework was developed to support and sustain quality leadership in schools and districts across the province, it contains little to connect it to the 2009 document. Lying at the crossroads of education policy, educational leadership theory, and the practice of social justice leadership, this study aims to understand how principals engage in the OLF to enact social justice leadership. Using critical theory to conceptualize leadership for social justice, and a qualitative design, semi-structured interviews from 14 principals were analyzed using a constant comparative analysis method. This study found the OLF does not support social justice leadership. Through their own reflections on power and privilege, principals choose to engage in the OLF, not by trying to fit it into their social justice leadership, but rather by viewing it through the lens of social justice and social justice leadership. The power of reflection threads throughout the findings as does the need for principals to employ resistance and resilience to engage in the OLF to enact social justice leadership. It argues that if practicing and aspiring principals are earnest about closing the achievement gap of marginalized students, then they need to have experience with marginalization, with reflecting on their privilege and power, with resisting the status quo — all the while working subversively and with political savvy so that they can resist the dominant versions of leadership and actually make a change in schools that empower individuals against the structural injustices found in the greater society and within our schools. Given Ontario’s commitment to equity and inclusive education, if all students are truly to benefit from schooling, then this research indicates to policy makers that changes to the OLF are needed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".