Differentiated Access to Teaching: Teacher Recruitment Agencies and Flexible Work Arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the differential way in which employment practices utilized by Teacher Recruitment Agencies (TRAs) in England generate inequitable access to the teaching profession. Specifically, this paper critically examines the ways in which the present labour practices of TRAs impacts particular groups of women and marginalized people. The paper first describes the teacher recruitment agency phenomena, followed by an account of the feminist perspective that I use and the impact of educational reform on work arrangements. Next, I discuss flexible work and gender. Finally, I describe the place of foreign-born teachers and professional development issues in these new employment practices. Cet article explore les différentes venues que les pratiques d'emploi utilisées par les agences de recrutement des enseignants (TRA) en Angleterre, pratiques qui engendrent un accès inéquitable à la profession des enseignants. Particulièrement cet article examine en critique les effets créés sur les groupes particuliers des femmes et des personnes marginalisées par les pratiques de travail de ces agences de recrutement. L'article décrit d'abord le phénomène de ces agences, suivi par le compte du point de vue féministe ulilisé par l'auteur, puis l'effet de la réforme de l'éducation sur les arrangements de travail. Ensuite, l'auteur discute le travail flexible et le sexe. En dernier lieu, l'auteur décrit la place tenue par les problèmes ayant trait aux enseignants étrangers en Angleterre et au développement professionnel dans ces nouvelles pratiques d' emploi.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".