An examination of issues surrounding fund-raising in Ontario public education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Public education in Ontario has undergone several political changes over the last few decades with the promise of improving our education system. However, none of these changes has reduced the lack of contentment with the state of affairs in public education. In fact, publicly funded schools now find the pursuit of private sources of revenues, commonly referred to as fund-raising, essential in order to provide basics such as textbooks, classroom supplies and library books (People for Education, 2002; Fine, 2001; and Tymko, 1996). Interviewed principals stated that fund-raising was an activity that would never cease in schools, even with the insertion of extra revenue. Even more disturbing are the findings of Molnar (2000; 2001; 2002; 2003) in which he states that schools in the United States are attempting to raise these supplementary sources of revenues by engaging in activities that undermine their curricular message and, in some cases, promote unhealthy lifestyles for students. The purposes of this paper are to provide insight into the policies, degree, level, pattern, motivation, perception, amount, typology, and effects of fund-raising in publicly funded elementary and secondary schools across Ontario by focusing on certain schools in southwestern Ontario as case studies. This study uses a mixed method research approach in the form of qualitative and quantitative comparisons among multiple or comparative case studies involving the use of interviews, questionnaires and public documents. The relationship between fund-raising revenues and the overall government expenditures is explored in this study, which provides an in depth look at fund-raising in southwestern Ontario publicly funded schools. The results indicate that the government has very little involvement in the regulation and control of fund-raising in publicly funded schools. In fact, the government has left the responsibility for regulating school fund-raising in the hands of school boards of Ontario. The school boards in turn, have passed the majority of the responsibility of regulation and control of fund-raising onto the principals of each school. Each board has developed policies relating to the collection of supplementary resources within schools. However, these policies vary considerably in their depth and breadth.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».