Education reform in the Eastern Caribbean : implications of a policy and decision-making program by an external donor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the participation of foreign donors in long-term education reform in the small countries of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). Central to this reform is the development of suitable and sustainable policy and decision-making structures, a relatively new activity for the sub-region's planners and educators. This research seeks to investigate how Canada's input into strengthening and supporting these key policy and decision-making structures of the education reform project may affect the sub-region's expectations for a more indigenous and relevant education system. The background for these issues arose out of my familiarity with the challenges facing OECS Ministries of Education in reconciling their own needs in education with the interests of the donor community. In addition, in colonial times, Britain had considerable influence on every aspect of education in the Caribbean, and, in the post-colonial period, Canada had long-term involvement in human-resource development in the sub-region. This raises questions of the viability of reform of the OECS education system to reflect its own development priority needs, culture and values, when a foreign force is significantly involved in funding the development of the key policy and decision-making structures. How dependent are the OECS countries on Canadian assistance to implement their education reform agenda? The dynamics between aid and sovereignty are also of critical importance, given the Eastern Caribbean's history of colonialism and dependency. These issues have frequently been debated in the context of international assistance in the OECS but, to date, there has not been much in-depth qualitative research on such topics, from the academic community. Drawing on dependency theory, and on qualitative research techniques, this thesis critically examines the historical, social, and international development factors of significance in such an inquiry. The study also makes recommendations for future relationships between the donor community and the OECS in the education sector.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".