Special Education in Ontario, Canada: A case study of market-based reforms
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
In 1995 the Government of Ontario commenced educational reforms that have broad implications for students with special educational needs. The reforms reflect governmental shifts in defining education in terms of economic accountability and market-driven demand and away from concerns for social justice. Five principles of educational reform under market-driven policies are drawn from the literature; diversification and decentralisation (distributing responsibility for implementation, decision making and funding and outsourcing tasks), contestability (competition for resources), prescription/surveillance (through standards-based reform) and accountability to parents. The special education reform initiatives in Ontario are analysed to see how and to what extent they reflect these principles. The results are then compared with the ways in which the principles have played out in other jurisdictions which have longer histories of implementing economics-based models, notably England and Wales, the USA and New Zealand. The purpose of the comparison is to see what difficulties have arisen from the experiences of others which might be anticipated in the case of the Ontario reforms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it