Parental Vigilance and the Discursive Construction of Local School Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how a small group of high-socioeconomic status (high-SES) parents organized community opposition to the integration of a special-needs student into a grade 3 classroom in an urban elementary school in Ontario. Using data gathered in a participant observation study, this article shows hoiv parents came to believe that existing special education policy placed the individual needs of the special education student over the needs of the collective. It explicates parents' subsequent efforts to enter into a social discursive process to challenge the policy and ultimately co-construct unofficial integration guidelines specific to the local school. In forcing the school board to explicate special education policy and practice, the parents underscored the nature of schools as contested sites of policy negotiation and established themselves as players in the policy development arena. Furthermore, this article highlights the importance of both history and local context in policy development and implementation and suggests that special education initiatives are best conceptualized as nested in local communities. The article concludes with a suggestion for future research on special education policy and community responses to integration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".