A study of the inclusion of students' perspectives in Ontario school board improvement planning through student trustee representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students are the largest stakeholders in education and school board improvement plans have a direct impact on their educational experience. This study examined the inclusion of students’ perspectives in improvement planning as represented by student trustees. Based on an adaptation of Fielding’s (2012) framework for student engagement. The study was guided by the assumption that the nature of student trustee engagement in the improvement planning process related to the ways in which education leaders created the conditions to invite students’ input. Responses to on-line questionnaires completed by a sample of 26 English school board supervisory officers and 28 former student trustees all of whom served in their respective roles prior to September 2014 in English school boards in the province of Ontario provided the primary source of data. Both supervisory officers and former student trustees indicated a high level of agreement about the importance of including students’ perspectives in improvement planning. However, overall, across all phases of the board improvement planning process, both supervisory officers and former student trustees indicated that student trustees were not very involved. The study concluded that both supervisory officers and former student trustees would like to see a more participatory role of student trustees in informing the improvement planning process. To do so would require overcoming the challenges identified by these groups. Articulating an appropriate and meaningful role for student trustees in an improvement planning process will be an important consideration when thinking about modifications to existing practices. Provision should be given for enhanced interaction between student trustees and their fellow peers and between student trustees and school board staff when developing improvement plans. Education leaders are encouraged to use an expanded framework for student trustee representation to include opportunities for student trustees to co-lead and co-learn with their fellow peers and staff. Student trustees are encouraged to advocate locally within school boards and provincially through student trustee organizations to elevate the importance of including students’ perspectives in the improvement planning process from students themselves in order to achieve a more authentic response to improving student achievement and well-being in Ontario’s publically funded school system.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".