English, Tracking, and Neoliberalization of Education in South Korea
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
Drawing upon the experiences and dilemmas of the author, a middle school English teacher in South Korea, this article illuminates the ways in which neoliberal reforms in education intersect with English, and how such links have entailed the class‐based polarization of education in Korean society. Given the prominent role that English plays in neoliberal policies—namely, serving as a direct index of elite schools and track placement—unequal access to English across the class spectrum restricts the prospects of disadvantaged students in the neoliberal education market. Tracking is one way in which this unequal access is manifest in the Korean educational landscape. Tracking refers to placing students in accordance with their academic abilities in order to tailor instruction to best meet students' needs (Oakes, ). Contrary to its intended purpose, however, tracking has been vehemently criticized for exacerbating educational inequalities (Gamoran, ; Hallam & Ireson, ; Oakes, ; Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, ). By locating the tracking policy against the backdrop of the local significance of English, this article identifies hidden agendas underlying tracking practices surrounding English, and further highlights how the interplay of English and neoliberalism mediates relations of class and inequality while justifying policies and practices surrounding English as the imperatives of globalization.
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 | 0.000 | 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