INTRODUCING A MARKET ELEMENT INTO THE FUNDING MECHANISM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: A CRITICAL POLICY ANALYSIS OF PART 6.1 OF THE SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 2002(BILL 34)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. This policy study explores origins of part 6.1 of Bill 34 ( School Amendment Act , 2002) and its impacts on the institutional behaviour of two public school districts in British Columbia. Part 6.1 permits school districts to raise funds through for-profit school district business companies (SDBC). The analysis found several consequences of the policy: lack of accountability of SDBCs, increased fiscal inequity among school districts, and greater responsiveness of school districts to the needs of a globally rather than locally situated community of students. INTRODUIRE UN ELEMENT DE MARCHE AU SEIN DES MECANISMES DE FINANCEMENT DE L’EDUCATION PUBLI Q UE EN COLOMBIE-BRITANNI Q UE: UNE ANALYSE CRITI Q UE DES POLITI Q UES AU SEIN DU SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT DE 2002 RESUME. Cette etude est une analyse critique qui examine l’origine de la section 6.1 des modifications apportees a la loi scolaire en 2002 ( School Amendment Act, 2002 ) et ses repercussions sur la culture organisationnelle de deux conseils scolaires en Colombie Britannique. La section 6.1 permet aux conseils scolaires de creer des organismes a but lucratif dans le but de generer une partie du financement de leurs operations. L’analyse demontre plusieurs consequences de cette politique : la faiblesse de l’imputabilite de ces organismes a but lucratif; la diminution de l’equite entre les conseils scolaires en matiere de financement; et la propension des conseils scolaires a s’interesser davantage aux besoins de diverses clienteles internationales au detriment des clienteles locales.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".