In GED We Trust? A Critical Examination of the Rhetoric and Reality of the General Educational Development Diploma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the ways in which the General Education Development diploma (or GED) is presented by the formal and informal curriculum, teachers, and learners in two basic educational programs serving welfare recipients. I examine the rhetoric surrounding the GED, focusing on the GED's ability to achieve positive impacts in learners' lives. Findings from the two programs show that the taken-for-granted assumptions about the GED as presented in these two classrooms promote the message that getting a GED is the way to a better life. The two outcomes stressed most frequently were that getting the GED opens up "new possibilities" and that getting the GED can solve economic problems. The almost magical power of the GED to transform lives was highlighted in these classrooms, and there was very little day-to-day questioning of this rhetoric. After a presentation of the rhetoric of the GED, I discuss how this rhetoric matches what we know about the impact of the GED from various outcome studies. I conclude that the rhetoric of the GED and the findings from outcome studies present a mismatch that should be problematized by adult education researchers and teachers. Résumé Dans cet article, nous abordons la façon dont le diplôme d'équivalences d'études secondaires (ou GED) est présenté par le programme d'études formel et informel, les professeurs et les apprenants de deux centre d'éducation des adultes desservant des bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale. Nous analysons le discours entourant le GED, qui insiste son impact positif dans la vie des apprenants. Les resultats de la recherche montrent que les prétentions sur le GED de ces deux centres répandent l'idée que le diplôme d'équivalences d'études secondaires mène à une vie meilleure. Les deux avantages les plus fréquemment mentionnés sont qu'avoir son GED ouvre des portes et élimine les problèmes d'ordre financier. Les deux centres insistaient sur le pouvoir quasi magique du GED de transformer une vie, et cette idée n'a presque jamais été remise en question par les apprenants. Après une présentation du discours entourant le GED, nous analyserons comment ce discours correspond aux résultats de diverses études sur l'impact du GED dans la vie des apprenants. En conclusion, le discours entourant le GED et les resultats de la recherche sur son impact divergent et il serait souhaitable que des chercheurs et des professeurs en andragogie s'y attardent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".