A Case Review: Reframing School-Based Practices Using a Critical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established in the literature that school-based practice is fraught with challenges such as acquisition of appropriate and sufficient resources, communication barriers among professionals, parental burden, and redundancies and gaps in services. The purpose of this perspective paper is to reframe potentially problematic school-based practices using a critical social science perspective, suggesting a vision and strategies for therapists working in the context of school-based practice. We illustrate our approach with a case example. To reframe school-based practices, we begin with Jill's case, exploring it through a critical lens to identify potential issues and opportunities for change. We then trace these findings to our larger dataset from an ongoing program of research to ensure relevance to the broader context of school-based practice. Reframing of three school-based practice issues is discussed from: (a) advocacy by proxy to collaborative dialogue, (b) governing texts to guiding texts, and (c) playing the "right" part to having a voice. Although this is a perspective paper based on a case exemplar, we posit how we may reframe and rethink school-based practices in pediatric rehabilitation. We suggest that only with a genuine shift in our professional values will we see the enactment of collaborative practice in school-based settings.
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 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".