Whole School Evaluation and Inclusion: How Elementary School Participants Perceive Their Learning Community
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The field of special education has seen numerous promising developments in both theory and research over the past five decades (Andrews & Lupart, 2000; Skrtic, 1995). Many gains have been achieved in our schools and in the provisions to support students with exceptional learning needs. The widely adopted special education approach was embraced in the 1960sand 1970s and has continued to be a strong element in present day schools. Recently, educational leaders have charged that the approach simply perpetuates the isolation and discrimination of students with exceptional learning needs (Andrews & Lupart, 2000; Lupart & Webber, 2002; Skrtic, 1996). The special education approach, in practice, allowed schools and regular educators to carry on the way they always have. When certain students were considered to require something different from what was offered in regular education classrooms, they were simply decoupled from regular education and put in a special class with a special teacher, and not much else had to change (Skrtic, 1996). This arrangement was successfully practiced for about three decades in Canadian schools, with the apparent satisfaction of regular and special education stakeholders. However, with increasing emphasis on inclusion and the mass return of exceptional students to regular education classrooms in the 1990s, alarms began to sound. Teachers became confused and overwhelmed about their changing roles and responsibilities. Students and parents were raising their concerns about a watered down curriculum and the lack of services for students with exceptional learning needs. Moreover, the boundaries of students considered to be at-risk in our schools spread over to non-traditional special education categories such as students from cultural minorities, students who are culturally different, students who are ESL, and students who are from poverty backgrounds (Lupart & Odishaw, 2003). Clearly, radical change in our educational systems is required. Several gaps and limitations can be found in current educational provisions for students with exceptional learning needs (Andrews & Lupart, 2000; Bunch, Lupart & Brown, 1997; Bunch & Valeo, 1998; Friend, Bursuck & Hutchinson, 1998; Lupart & Odishaw, 2003; Lupart, McKeough & Yewchuk, 1996; Lupart & Webber, 2002). Schools 1) Regular class teachers have not changed their teaching practices to provide appropriate instruction for all students. 2) School systems are ambiguous about regular class teachers being responsible for the learning progress of students with exceptional learning needs. 3) Regular class teachers have not been adequately prepared to work with students with exceptional learning needs. 4) Regular class teachers have not been provided with adequate supports such as lowered pupil/teacher ratio and educational assistants. 5) Regular classroom teachers do not have sufficient time to consult and collaborate with special education teachers and parents. 6) The role expectations for regular and special education teachers are not clear. 7) School administrators rarely have an adequate knowledge base in special education and/or inclusion. 8) School policies and practices continue to be aimed at the mythical average child and minimum standards keep being raised. Students 1) Students still need to be identified as exceptional needs before they receive special programming and instruction. 2) Students with special needs must successfully proceed through the 5-boxes of the special education approach (i.e., referral, testing, diagnosis, placement, programming) before they receive something that is different from regular class instruction. 3) The time period from initial referral to actual programming change can take up to six months, and even longer. …
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it