MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088627716 · doi:10.1177/003172170108300211

No Best Way: The Case for Differentiated Schooling

2001· article· en· W2088627716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ron Brandt

Bibliographic record

VenuePhi Delta Kappan · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

School districts should not make decisions for everyone but should offer a variety of programs chosen for their conceptual strength and evidence of effectiveness, Mr. Brandt maintains. EDUCATION is so critically important that people will always have different opinions about it, but today's bitter battles are debilitating and unnecessary. I believe some forms of schooling are better than others, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, I wouldn't want all schools to do things my way, because that would inevitably foreclose other possibilities. What I favor instead is intentional differentiation of schooling. The Edmonton Example An example of such differentiation is the Edmonton, Alberta, school system, which began experimenting with site-based budgeting in the 1970s and in the last decade expanded the concept by offering a variety of school programs along with extensive parent choice.1 The role of the governing board and administration in such a system is to monitor the effectiveness of existing schools, each of which has distinctive goals, and to develop new schools in response to need and parent demand. Political and economic circumstances in Canada may be slightly different from those in the United States, but that does not prevent other school systems in North America from doing what Edmonton does. In fact, a commission convened in 1999 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) recommended that American schools adopt Edmonton's model of school governance.2 I was encouraged by the ECS report, but so far I've seen little change in response to it, which suggests that most policy makers do not favor diversification. Some of them may have tried site-based management as a reform strategy in the 1980s but lost confidence when it didn't raise student achievement.3 Parental choice doesn't necessarily raise achievement either. And though some versions of choice continue to attract support, choice inevitably raises the issue of equity.4 In my view, American education's short-lived affair with site-based management was doomed by confusion with participatory management, which may also be desirable but is not the same. Ironically, in the name of site-based management, some states and districts required schools to use externally imposed decision-making structures. Naturally, it had little positive effect. Edmonton makes principals responsible for the management of their schools and expects them to determine how best to involve others. Equity clearly is an important consideration because differentiated schooling is by definition not completely equal. With appropriate safeguards, however, diversification can be fairer than superficial uniformity. In Edmonton, for example, a committee of principals makes annual adjustments in the formula by which resources are allocated to schools (taking into consideration such factors as students' special needs and school size). Then, in consultation with members of their school communities, individual principals decide how to use available resources most effectively, including what types of staff members to hire and even what services to buy from the central office. But What About Test Scores? One of the factors that currently restricts diversification is preoccupation with accountability, narrowly defined. Student achievement on standardized tests has become the single most important factor by which government officials evaluate policy initiatives.5 If higher scores are the only measure of success, diversification is probably not an appropriate strategy. The obvious reason is that, while some programs stress traditional academic achievement, others have different priorities. A school for the performing arts or a school devoted to building character or citizenship may have acceptable, but not exceptional, test results. Many charter schools face this same dilemma: regardless of their special mission, they are judged on how well they teach conventional content. …

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.127
Scholarly communication0.0200.032
Open science0.0040.018
Research integrity0.0170.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhi Delta KappanSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207