MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2090860180 · doi:10.1177/003172170808900919

Fix the Flawed Funding Formula!

2008· article· en· W2090860180 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ben Levin

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhi Delta Kappan · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Policy and Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMathematics educationPolitical sciencePublic administrationLaw and economicsEconomicsPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

SPRING is season for announcing funding to schools in Canadian provinces. Some provinces, such as Manitoba, announce funding early in calendar year for following school year, but in most provinces funding for schools is announced following release of provincial budget. This, in turn, usually follows release of federal budget, which occurred in Canada this year late in February, just as I was writing this column. By time you read this in May, just about all provinces will have announced their 2008-09 school funding. Schools in Canada today are funded at reasonable, though not extravagant, levels. However, level does vary significantly from one province to another. Canada now spends about $50 billion per year on its schools, which is about $10,000 per student per year or about 3.5% of our gross domestic product. On most international measures, our spending is about at middle among OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. Given Canadian students' excellent results on international tests, Canadian school system provides good value for money. Almost all money for Canadian public schools comes from provincial governments. In only two provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, is a significant share of school funding still derived from property taxes levied by local school boards, though substantial local funding was norm in Canada until 1980s and 1990s. Because school districts get their money from provincial governments, not only does total amount of money matter, but so does formula through which it is allocated. Provincial governments give a great deal of attention to their annual decisions on education funding. After all, this is one of biggest single items in their budgets and also one that gets a lot of public attention because many people are connected with schools in one way or another--as students, parents, extended family, or staff. Making funding decisions and announcements were among most important things I did as a senior official in two Canadian governments. Yet no matter what announcement was, dominant reaction from education sector always seemed to be disappointment. And same result holds in every other province today. When it comes to funding schools, it's hard to please anyone, let alone everyone. In both provinces where I worked in government, Manitoba and Ontario, education sector argued that funding formula used by province was problem and had to be changed. In making this claim education groups were aided and abetted by media, who liked stories on conflict over funding and whose understanding of real mechanics of school funding tended to be quite limited. In Manitoba, provincial funding formula was usually described by a major newspaper as the complex and convoluted funding formula, as if that were its official name. I could imagine minister intoning, Today I am pleased to announce our Complex and Convoluted Funding known as CCFF for short. In Ontario in last two years, media have often referred to provincial funding formula as Flawed Funding Formula, based on constant repetition of this assertion by various parties in education system. In reality there are several reasons why no funding formula and no funding announcement will ever satisfy education sector. And there are some big reasons why this endless dispute over money is a problem for whole education sector. Let's start with inherent inadequacy of any school funding scheme. Schools as human service organizations will never have enough money to do everything they would like to do for their students. No matter how much is currently being done, it's easy to see how a new program, or some more staff, or better facilities would help even more. No matter how much is spent on schools--and whether purely for reasons of selfinterest or not-- people in education will want and see need for more. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,025
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,171
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,982
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,336

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0250,171
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,008
Communication savante0,0140,015
Science ouverte0,0040,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0120,023
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0490,035

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,074
Tête enseignante GPT0,313
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePhi Delta KappanMême sujetCanadian Policy and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207