Push Out or Drop Out? Taking a Critical Look at the Poor Performance and Drop-Out of Students of the JSS/JHS Programme in Ghana
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 1974, new educational reforms aimed at laying a solid educational foundation for children were launched in Ghana. Amongst other things, the reforms recommended the establishment of a three-year Junior Secondary School (JSS) system later renamed the Junior High School system which sought to provide more practical educational skills to students. It aimed to be proactive to the needs of Ghanaians by introducing pre-technical and pre-vocational skills to empower pupils with skills to work with after completion of the JHS program if they are not academically inclined to go further through the Senior Secondary/Senior High School system. After several years of implementation, the success rates of students from the JSS/JHS system have been abysmally poor. The situation is even more abysmal in the rural areas of Ghana where most schools lack basic teaching and learning tools. This paper, from a study of some JSS/JHS schools in some rural and urban settings in Ghana, takes a critical look at some of the factors in this educational system that has pushed many pupils to drop out of the school system hence making the system ineffective and incapable of meeting its intended purpose. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n1p409
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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