MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992618511 · doi:10.1080/00220380903002939

Making the Grade? Private Education in Northern India

2010· article· en· W1992618511 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Johnson, Michael Bowles

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Development Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Government (linguistics)AccountabilityCastePrivate sectorEconomic growthPaymentPolitical scienceQuality (philosophy)Public relationsSociologyBusinessEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efforts to promote literacy and other forms of educational achievement in India have in recent years entailed policy reforms aimed at de-regulating the provision of primary and secondary education, especially in rural areas. In many States, deregulation has entailed the active promotion of privately-funded education, raising concerns about the motivations and qualifications of private schools and teachers, about social streaming and about the impact that privately-funded schools will have on the government system. Drawing upon a case study of private education in the Indian State of Madhya Pradesh, the following paper explores the ways in which the establishment of four privately-funded schools affected the socio-economic composition of students, the quality of teaching, the involvement of parents and caregivers and the performance and accountability of private school teachers and administrators. As we might expect, enrolment was biased strongly in favour of boys from forward castes, especially after Grade 5. However, the evidence also reveals that the private schools provided important opportunities for girls and children from lower caste families. Moreover, and on the basis of surveys and interviews we conducted with teachers, administrators and parents, the combination of temporary contracts and private payments appears to have created a situation in which teachers and administrators were explicitly concerned about the perceptions and expectations of parents, and parents were involved – or at least interested in – the education of their children. Whether such findings reflect the miracle of ‘market-based approaches’– as opposed to the values and aspirations of higher income families – the findings provide ample justification for further empirical study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Development StudiesSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207