Twenty Years and Counting: An Examination of the Development of Equity and Inclusive Education Policy in Ontario (1990-2010).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the oft-cited inadequacies of the policies and pedagogies of multicultural education, the Ontario Ministry of Education mandated that school boards develop equity and inclusive education policies, as specified in Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119 [2009 version]: “Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education Policies in Ontario Schools.” Relying on document analysis and policy analysis as methods of data collection, this study examined the ideological, socio-cultural, political, legal, and economic context from which PPM No. 119 [2009] developed in order to understand what groups of stakeholders were included in the policy development and whose values the policy document ultimately represents. Collected documents that represent both the federal and provincial level of policy making and a variety of regional stakeholders and policy actors illustrated that, despite a shift to focus on equity, conceptions of liberal multiculturalism continue to influence education policy in Ontario. This study concluded that the process of equity education policy development must be made a more inclusive process, reflecting the identities, values, and experiences of school administrators, teachers, and students.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".