Policies governing community use of school facilities for recreational purposes in selected school districts: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was the purpose of this study to determine the nature of the policies governing community use of school facilities for recreational purposes in a selected sample of communities; and further, to identify the problems relating thereto. The sample was composed off our urban communities situated in "the lower mainland area of British Columbia". All were within a twenty-mile radius of the University of British Columbia campus. The communities themselves were Coquitlam, North Vancouver, Richmond, and Vancouver as defined by the irrespective school district boundaries. The required date, were obtained as a result of interviews conducted with both education and community recreation personnel. In addition, copies of the actual written policy statements of the respective school boards were acquired. The relevant data for each community were separately analyzed, classified, and discussed on the basis often principal topics. These were: philosophies held; obstacles encountered in implementing or promoting community use; administrative methods used; use of written policies; facilities used and restrictions or priorities there in involved; supervision; liability; financial aspects; and a summary of progress attained to date as well as proposed plans for the future. Interviews were also conducted with the officials of several provincial organizations having possible interest, or influence, in the problem area. These interviews indicate a general consensus of agreement with the policies presently in effect in the sample communities. The results of the study indicated that a number of factors were hampering the attainment of an optimal degree of community use of school facilities for recreational purposes . These factors were evidenced in various restrictions and limitations incorporated into the school boards' policies. One of the most important factors was the lack of communication evident between educators and recreators. This was based primarily on the failure of educators to recognize both the place of recreation in today's society, and its relationships with education. Additional factors were: (1) the need for increased provincial financial aid; (2) the need for more reciprocal sharing of available community educational and recreational facilities; and (3) a need for a broader basis than local experience only from which to derive school board policies in this area. Progress towards the solution of these problems was evident in all four communities. There was, nevertheless, also evidence that plans, for future community use of school facilities for recreational purposes, would continue to be relatively limited and narrow in scope. This was particularly true when such plans were viewed with anticipated future community needs and desires in recreation in mind.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".