paraphrasing

instructional leadership:-

According to Hallinger, Instructional principals utilizing approaches of coordination and control to adjust the school's academic mission with strategy and action. Therefore, instructional leaders concentrated on leading, as well as on managing. Their administrative parts included organizing, controlling, and directing educational programs and guideline. (Hallinger, 2009)

· Hallinger, P. (2009). Leadership for 21st century schools: From instructional leadership to leadership for learning. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

The Keefe and Jenkins’ definition of instructional leadership firmly affirm the role of the school leaders as an individual that advocate improvement in teaching and learning (Keefe & Jenkins, 1984). The duty of an effective instructional principal is identifyed in four domains: formative, planning, implementation and evaluation. The formative domain shows the need for the principal to establish an comprehensive knowledge of curriculum trends, strategys, school organization and instructional media. The planning domain needs that the principal promote educators’ goal setting and instructional organization. Moreover, principals should be able to synthesize information about instruction into appropriate decision-making actions in the area of programming, school structure and budget. Academics are emphasized in the implementation domain, which includes teacher selection, deployment of resources, and setting high expectations for teachers and students. Lastly, school achievement data such as class pass rates, advanced courses, graduation rates and school demographic data are elements of the evaluation domain (Keefe & Jenkins, 1984).

Pravicy

1. Philosopher Herman Tavani provides an insightful phrase that is a useful starting point for considering privacy matters: “Privacy is a concept that is neither clearly understood nor easily defined” (Tavani, 1999, p. 11).

1. The author claimed that public schools had to strictly control the personal infor- mation of students, which could be widely spread, in view of the fact that public schools have more information of stu- dents than do their parents.

1.

a right to privacy is neither a right to secrecy nor a right to control but a right to appropriate flow of personal information … Privacy may still be posited as an important human right or value worth protecting through law and other means, but what this amounts to is contextual integrity and what this amounts to varies from context to context. (Nissenbaum, 2010, p. 127)

The idea that privacy implies a limitation of access by others is similar to Nissenbaum’s concept of an informational norm. In Nissenbaum’s theory, diminishment of access is just one way that information flow may be governed. She defines transmission principles as “a constraint on the flow of information from party to party in a context” and the “terms and conditions under which such transfers should occur” (p. 132). In the two contexts described above, student administration and learning‐management system context, the students enter into a tacit agreement regarding the transmission principles. For example, by submitting an assignment in a learning management system, students are allowing the information to flow from themselves to the academic staff member who will provide feedback on the assessment item. The flow of information is from the student to the responsible academic and back again. The terms and conditions under which this information flows is an information norm when engaged in a learning context facilitated by a learning management system.

The transmission principles related to the flow of information from individual students to information technology professionals or University administrators is not necessarily an information norm. Terms and conditions under which these transfers should occur begin to assist in unpacking the complex ethics and privacy issues surrounding learning analytics. Transmission principles regarding the provision of a student’s personal demographic data in the student application, admission, and administration context do not necessarily apply in any other context. If a student agrees to the flow of student equity‐related data to support admission

processes, he or she is not necessarily agreeing to the same terms and conditions of information flow in another context, such as secondary use of data for learning analytics activities.

The two following scenarios, using the above‐described four key parameters, illustrate the variations that can occur across learning analytics initiatives and hence the variation in the breadth and depth of privacy matters:

Scenario #1: Analytics visualization for student use. Colour‐coded indicators displayed to

individual students to provide clear visualization of their progress in completion of

assessments within a subject.

Context: Provision of personalized information to individual students during semester using

the academic data for specific subjects typically available in learning management systems.

Actors: Sender of Information is the teaching academic, Recipient of Information is the individual student, and the Subject of Information is the individual student.

Attributes: Assessment data (e.g., name, due date, learning outcomes), Student assessment

progress data (e.g., date submitted, assessment mark, days overdue, learning outcome achievement).

Transmission Principles: Data flow terms and conditions: Tacit within the teaching‐learning relationship that exists between academic and student. No change in context affects this scenario as the data is generated and used within the one context, which is the learning within a particular subject instance.

Scenario #2: “At risk” student modelling and associated interventions. Informed by predictive analytics modelling that includes diverse datasets from multiple university transaction processing systems, including student demographics, admission pathway, engagement with support services (including student well‐being and academic type support services), attendance records from labs, tutorials, and myriad of data captured when student engages with the learning management system.

Context: Broad use of transaction processing information generated as student engages with mandatory and optional administrative and support services across the university environment.

Actors: Senders of Information are the custodians of diverse information systems, Recipients of Information are the academic or professional staff responsible for using “at risk” predictive models and initiating the interventions for individual students; Subjects of Information are the individual students.

Attributes: The data comprises all the “electronic breadcrumbs” left by students as their higher education journey moves from application to admissions, enrolments, and engagement across the institution.

Transmission Principles: Data flow terms and conditions from the original context where information systems gathered student data say at the application stage where potential students provide demographic data are quite different from the data flow terms and conditions that must be considered in the context involving building “at risk” models and encouraging staff to intervene with students. As the data subjects, the students should, ideally, have influence over the data flow terms and conditions, including options to remove themselves from this modelling and intervention scenario.

The descriptions above are a first step in unpacking the potential for Nissenbaum’s contemporary

privacy theory to assist in the analysis of privacy scenarios in the learning analytics domain.

Heath, J. (2014). Contemporary Privacy Theory Contributions to Learning Analytics. Journal Of Learning Analytics, 1(1), 140-149.

Saudi Education:-

The Ministry of Education (MOE) is the government appointed body that oversees K-12 education in Saudi Arabia. Each parts of Saudi Arabia has a separate General Director of Education under the Ministry of Education (MOE). 

According to the Saudi Ministry of Education, "General education in the Kingdom consists of kindergarten, six years of primary school and three years each of intermediate and high school" (Education in the Kingdom)

Secondary school students study a general curriculum the first year and the remaining two years may choose to specialize in 1 of 3 major areas: Administration and Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, or Shariah and Arabic Studies. Vocational and technical education and training are alternatives for intermediate school graduates. The choices available are: 1. industrial, 2. commercial, or 3. agriculture. Post secondary public or government education is free to all students who obtain admission. Admission is based on both secondary school results and college and university exams. Private university education is also available. 

Ministry states the vision of education:

Engendering of a new generation of male and female youth who embody the Islamic values in their persons, both theoretical as well as practical, are equipped with necessary knowledge, skills, and endowed with ease and comfort. They should be able to face international competition both at the scientific as well as technological levels to be able to meaningfully participate in overall growth and development.

This is to be achieved through an effective and practical system of education which is capable of discovering the potentials and predispositions, and, create the spirit of action. All this, in an environment of education and training, charged with the spirit of instruction and edification (Our Vision).

Educational Leadership in Saudi Arabia:-

The minimum requirements for a school principal include having a bachelor's degree, eight years experience either as a teacher or administrator, and a performance evaluation of excellent for the two years proceeding application for the position. The candidate must demonstrate ability for leadership as perceived by the committee charged with interviewing the candidates. According to Dr. Al Tayar most people prefer the position of assistant principal to that of principal because it is less responsibility. If candidates are both available and willing, the committee prefers to nominate assistant principals for the position of principal because of prior training. 

Dr. Al Tayar (personal communication, March 17, 2010) explained that once a candidate is placed in the position as school principal, she receives ongoing training; but the training is not a pre-requisite for securing the position of school principal. In addition, a newly appointed school principal will visit other more experienced principals for mentoring. All government school principals are rotated out of their positions every four years. According to Dr. Al Tayar, "Training and experience are better than education." 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Ethics:-

The term ethics is a fashionable term and it is possible to see it in almost every profession. Ethics in education especially in school administration deals with educational actions which take place in school. Schools are educational organizations and school administrators have the vital role in managing schools. The success of a school and the degree of reaching educational aims depends on the principal and their effective governance. To be able to create an effective school and manage it fairly is possible with codes of ethics.

Kocaba, Ibrahim & Karaköse, Turgut. (2009). Ethics in school administration. African Journal of Business Management. 3. 126-130.

The word ethics may be simply defined as the science of right and wrong, the science of moral principles, the science of moral judgment and conduct. It not only analyzes, classifies, describes and explains human actions as good or bad but also helps us know why and on what beses our judgment of human action is justified ( Kizza, 2007)

Kizza JM (2007). “Ethical and social issues in the information age’,Third Edition. New York, NY:Springer-Veriog.

In terms of educational organizations, ethics can be considered as a system of values that defines the ethical behaviours to be complied with at school. In educational organizations, education should be in line with universal ethical values; everybody should be treated equally without any discrimination of race, language, religion or gender.

Karaköse, T., & Kocabaş, I. ( october 2009 ). An investigation of ethical culture in educational organizations. African Journal of Business Management, 3 (10), 504-510. doi: 10.5897/AJBM09.060

It is expected from educational executives to observe the professional ethics as well as laws and regulations. Therefore, ethical values and principles form a solid base in shaping the behaviours of executives because ethical understanding of affects organizational decisions and actions (Taymaz, 2003).

Taymaz H (2003). “School management for primary and secondary schools administrators”, Pegem A Publications: Ankara.

Negligence:-

The general test for determining whether one person has acted negligently towards another in Canada is contained in the dual concepts of duty of care and standard of care – that is, the hurt party has to show that the party they think is responsible for their harm was under a legal obligation to protect them from or prevent that harm. The Supreme Court of Canada recently looked at the different categories of duty of care in its decision Childs v Desormeaux.

The language the court used to describe duty of care is as follows: “A positive duty of care may

exist if foreseeability of harm is present and if other aspects of the relationship between the

plaintiff and the defendant establish a special link or proximity.” (Childs v Desormeaux 2006 SCC 18 at para 34) Once that link has been established, the standard of care kicks in, dictating how much the individual is required to step in and prevent an injury from occurring.

To establish negligence the following five elements are required: (1) an established duty

of care; (2) breach of the standard of care; (3) causation; (4) remoteness of damages/

reasonable foreseeability of harm; and (5) actual loss. Even if all of those elements are present,

a defendant may still be able to avail him or herself of the various defences available at common

law to avoid liability in negligence.

Duty of Care

A duty of care will be found when it can be demonstrated that parties have a sufficiently close relationship that one ought to be liable to the other at law. The common law Anns-Cooper

Test 2 that determines whether a duty of care exists contains two-steps and a threshold

consideration. The threshold consideration is whether the relationship in question between the

parties has already been established to give rise to a duty of care. If the Courts have, then the

case will move on to the standard of care portion of a negligence analysis. If not, there is a twostep test for establishing a new category of duty of care. First, it must be established that there is a “sufficiently close relationship between the parties” or “proximity” that would justify imposing a duty. If this can be shown, then, secondly, it must be determined whether or not there is an overriding policy consideration that would serve to cancel out or restrict the scope of the duty (Supra, note 1 at para 11) If no such policy consideration can be shown, then a duty of care is established and the analysis will advance to the next stage.

Standard of Care

The standard of care expected of a certain actor will vary with the relationship that actor

had with the injured individual. Simply put, the standard of care is how the person should have

acted and a breach happens when the person did not act with the necessary amount of care.4

Different relationships will give rise to different standards of care. As a general rule, the closer

the relationship between the parties, the higher the standard of care. However, as will be

demonstrated below, often teachers have a higher standard of care in regards to the injured

child than the child’s parents do.

Teachers

Teachers are entrusted with helping to form society’s next generation, and as such,

society has high expectations of them in this regard. However, accidents do happen. The courts

have struggled with differentiating between a true accident and one that could have been

prevented.

 Teachers have legal responsibility for the safety of their students. They are expected to act with caution, sensible leadership, and wise guidance. Their legal brief is to assess the foreseeable dangers, to guard against risk, to take reasonable precaution against injury and, above all, to generally behave as superior parents would be expected to act in the nurture and training of their own children (Tronc 1996, p. 19).

 Tronc, K. (1996), You, your school and the law .Brisbane: Fernfawn:

In Gym Class and School Sports Teams There is a considerable amount of litigation concerning accidents in gym classes and while students are playing on sports teams. The very essence of sports is that there is a risk that on occasion people are injured. The courts, as with recess, are not looking for all injuries to be avoided. What they are looking for is a supervisor who is reasonably prudent in instructing and overseeing his or her pupils. While field trips also it is true that many students are injured while on trips outside of the classroom, many of these trips are undertaken with a letter of permission or waiver provided by the students’ parents.

Conclusions

The direction of case law has demonstrated that the standard of care of teachers is

moving towards a ‘supraparental’ standard. Teachers and other individuals who supervise

children in a school setting need to be alive to the lessons learned from the recent case law, that

teachers are required, through their standard of care, to give students enough time to internalize

rules and prohibitions. Teachers would be well advised that just stating rules to students will not

suffice to discharge their standard of care. They will need to provide students time to practice

their skills before a potentially dangerous game is commenced. In this way, students will learn

what is expected of them on the field and know how to behave accordingly.

Tomlinson, J. (2013). KIDS MAY BE KIDS, BUT ADULTS OVERSEE: THE LIABILITY OF ADULT SUPERVISORS FOR CHILD INJURIES. McCague Borlack LLP, 16-51. Retrieved September 11, 2013, from http://mccagueborlack.com/uploads/articles/149/liability-child-injuries.pdf?1382629874

 Negligence in terms of physical injury suffered by students is only one aspect of litigation, which a teacher may face. Nevertheless, it is suggested that it is the most likely reason a teacher will face legal action. It is therefore of great importance that teachers and school authorities are aware of how the law of negligence operates and what is acceptable and unacceptable

practice. Cotton (1995) writes that while physical educators have some basic knowledge of negligence most are unaware of how the law operates and the liability of teachers.  As litigation increases within the education sector and society in general it is the responsibility of schools and teachers, not only in an effort to reduce the risk of harm to students by a greater awareness of potential hazards but also by a knowledge of how the law of negligence operates.

 Negligence is part of tort law and deals with grievances between individuals where one party has suffered as a result of something the other

party did or did not do. The purpose of negligence is to receive compensation for the injuries sustained.

Newnham, H. (2000). When is a teacher or school liable in negligence?. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 25(1).

 Cotton, D. (1995). Liability of education for the negligence of others (substitutes, aides, student teachers and new teachers) Physical Educator . 52, pp. 70-77.

Safty:-

Background Section 177 of the School Act prohibits the disturbance or interruption of school proceedings or official school functions, and authorizes principals and other school administrators to direct individuals to leave school property and to call for assistance from a peace officer if necessary. Persons directed to leave school property under this section of the Act may not return without the prior approval of the principal or other administrator. The contravention of this section of the Act constitutes an offence. The disruption of schools and school functions has been prohibited by legislation since at least the 1950s. At that time, the Public Schools Act authorized school principals to require assistance from a peace officer in restoring order to school property, and provided that individuals who disturbed or interrupted school proceedings committed an offence against the Act. In the 1980s, this provision was amended to add the requirement that persons directed to leave school property must not return without prior approval of a person authorized by the board. This provision has remained essentially unchanged since that time. The purpose of providing this authority to principals and other administrators is to maintain order on school premises and to ensure the protection of students and staff. Section 177 may be used, for example, to prevent a stranger who presents a threat to student safety from accessing school property. However, there may also be circumstances where persons associated with the school, such as parents, employees, or volunteers, are denied access to school property under section 177. It is important to note that this section is intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances, where there is a risk to student/staff safety or significant and ongoing disruption to the educational programs offered by the school. (British Columbia Ministry of Education Provincial Guidelines, 2015)

British Columbia Ministry of Education Provincial Guidelines: Maintenance of Order under section 177 of the School Act. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2015, from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20S%20--/05_School%20Act%20%5BRSBC%201996%5D%20c.%20412/00_Act/96412_11.xml

The problem of school violence is of widespread concern in Canadian communities, reflecting increased alarm over societal violence. A survey of police services and school boards across Canada (Gabor, 1995) found that 80% of respondents felt that there was more violence in schools now than what existed 10 years ago. Thirty percent considered the situation "much worse" and none believed that the incidence of school violence was lessening.

This concern over school violence and serious disruptive behaviors has initiated somewhat sporadic Canadian research about the nature and extent of the problem.

A survey of 231 Edmonton area junior high school students (MacDonald, 1995), found that over one-half of students had experienced physical forms of violence (e.g., fights, bullying, punching, hitting, grabbing), verbal threats and theft or damage of property. One-fifth of male students indicated that they had been threatened with a weapon at school. Sexual harassment was experienced by over 25% of female students, and ethnic conflict affected one-quarter of the student participants.

By examining the beliefs, values and biases that are practiced in schools, we recognize that schools themselves may be partly responsible for either fostering or rejecting a culture of violence. For example, students often perceive that current school practices do not reflect the fundamental principles of justice or that the school climate cultivates a culture of violence through the lack of empathy and caring towards students. This perception is important to explore further. Students are indicating that they are not perceiving the effectiveness of a traditional model of discipline: monitor, judge acceptability, and punish when deemed necessary. Such practices do not empower students to take responsibility for regulating their own behavior, or offered alternatives to fear, rejection or retaliation. Thus, maintaining school safety should require a comprehensive strategy which should not be limited to just responding to violence when it occurs, through sanctions (e.g., detentions, suspensions, expulsions). Discipline, when necessary, should be regarded as an opportunity to teach students social skills, rather than a way of punishing social illiteracy.

References

MacDonald, I. (1997). The "De-Meaning" of Schools: Seeking a Safe and Caring Environment.

In summary, school administrators have a legislated responsibility to maintain a Safe School environment and respond to incidents of harassment and discrimination if they impact the safe school culture. School leaders are also ideally situated to access online communications to investigate incidents and to meet with students and their parents in a setting familiar to both. For these multiple reasons, schools are considered to be well-situated to respond to bullying and online aggression.

References

Corrigan, L., & Robertson, L. (2015). Inside the Digital Wild West: How School Leaders Both Access and Avoid Social Media.

A good study climate, safety and enjoyment are assumed to be necessary conditions for a good learning environment (Rosén et al., 2005).

Rosén, M, Gustafsson, J.-E,, & Myrberg, E. (2003). Läskompetens i skolår 3 och 4. Nationell rapport från PIRLS 2001 i Sverige. The IEA Progress in International reading literacy study. Goteborg’s studies in educational sciences 236: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Safe relationships, a safe teaching climate and a feeling of not being threatened in the activities that take place outside of the classroom has also been found to be important for children’s learning (Garbarino et al., 1992).

Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K. & Pardo, C. (1992). Children in danger. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

In Saudi Arabia, a number of regulations have been introduced in recent years in a bold attempt to rapidly improve school safety performance. For instance, the Ministry of Education put in place regulations that enforce heightened expectations of student safety and ultimately reduced rates of accidents and incidents. These regulations included several aspects, such as compulsory first aid courses for teachers, laboratory safety guidelines and student supervision, to name a few. However, while stricter regulations have now been implemented, safety performance has not improved to the expected degree because there still are no enforcement practices and no ongoing safety performance evaluation.

The findings showed that male schools had a higher level of overall safety performance compared to that of female schools, which is contrary to prior reported studies. Primary schools had a poorer overall safety performance when compared to that of elementary and secondary schools; secondary schools had the highest safety performance. There might be a greater appreciation for safety by teachers and executives in secondary schools, and the cohort of older students might be more likely to engage in safer behaviours and better understand safety policies and procedures set by the school. Finally, the safety performance of the more affluent eastern and central regions was higher than that of the more densely populated and less affluent northern and southern regions.

Alolah, Turki; Stewart, Rodney; Panuwatwanich, Kriengsak; Mohamed, Sherif (CIB World Building Congress 2013, 2013)

Alolah, T., Stewart,, R., Panuwatwanich, K., & Mohamed, S. (2013). Benchmarking Saudi Public Schools Using a Safety Balanced ... Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.bing.com/cr?IG=692614D91B014D49AB5D4BF57887AA0D&CID=1F6EBD4E5D536CC207D8B60C5C556D5B&rd=1&h=7v1XH17rVv8l0hK4pRecaKwXP3SLUt00ewTD4-vsefw&v=1&r=https%3a%2f%2fresearch-repository.griffith.edu.au%2fbitstream%2fhandle%2f10072%2f54435%2f86058_1.pdf%253bsequence%3d1&p=DevEx,5063.1