Women secondary school administrators in the province of Ontario: reflections on the past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall purpose of this qualitative study is to examine how retired or soon to be retired women principals, vice-principals, and heads of departments have come to understand their professional experiences as high school administrators and what unique challenges and problems they have encountered. Acknowledging a gap in the literature on women and educational administration, this study focuses on a specific cohort of women who began teaching within the mid to late 1960s, early 1970s and subsequently attained administrative positions during the 1980s and 1990s in high schools within the province of Ontario. Drawing on the interview responses of ten women administrators, heard against a growing body of literature on women educational administrators, this research problematizes existing understandings of women as secondary school administrators. Their narrative accounts are numerous but key areas include the complex constructions of their identities as teachers and administrators, and as women and mothers; the tensions existing between their experiences of power and powerlessness, and of autonomy and subjugation; their interpretations of and responses to gendered processes and practices in both the educational and the wider social sphere. What is called into question here is one uniform narrative of the administrative experience. To accommodate these multivalent experiences, a post-structuralist theoretical framework was used. These women, however, also recall the various structural constraints which have limited and shaped their professional lives, and more recently, the ways in which massive restructuring and changes to Ontario's educational system have produced schisms and conflicts to their professional identities. A structuralist theory acknowledges how, at the macro level, institutional barriers and social, political and educational forces affect people's lives in profound ways. Consequently, while not without tensions, this thesis draws from both theoretical positions. Finally, recently proposed changes to existing administrative models are given, redefining the terms and conditions upon which women are expected to function as school administrators. Based on these reforms and on these women's experiences, recommendations are provided for women seeking administrative posts and implications for policy, practice and research are proposed. Although these recommendations continue to emphasize the importance of promoting and supporting women as educational leaders, we need to begin to theorize differently about women in educational administration in light of these reforms and restructuring trends.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".