The Impact of ESL Funding Restrictions on Student Academic Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ESL instruction is an important issue in Canada due to the large number of immigrants and has potentially impacts on both student academic progress and educational expenditures. In 1999, the province of British Columbia limited funding for ESL to five years per student but increased the annual ESL supplement. We explore the educational impact of these reforms using the results of standardized tests of numeracy, reading and writing proficiency for Grade 7 students. We compare differences in test scores, both before and after the policy change, among the following groups of Grade 7 students in the GVA: students with 5 or more years of ESL (those constrained by the new policy); students with one to four years of ESL; non-ESL students with a non-official home language; and non-ESL students with an official home language. No group of students experiences large changes in test scores due to the reform. The changes we do observe are usually increases for ESL students, and the few decreases are very small. Moreover, both before and after the reform, score differences between groups of students with different experiences of ESL, different neighbourhood socio-economic characteristics, and different home languages are modest in size.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".