Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Canadian provinces are looking to Alberta for guidance about charter schools. This case study examines the closure of one charter school to identify the obstacles other schools may face. This study uses critical policy analysis and the politics of interpretation to examine the political context of educational policy issues. While linear models of policy analysis fail to allow for feedback, the approach used here includes a consideration of implicit and explicit rules and values, the interests of diverse groups, and the assumptions embodied in contrasting educational paradigms. Alberta's political climate, coupled with budget austerity during hard economic times, created pressures for reform driven by key stakeholders from the Ministry of Education and the community. There were no organized parental groups participating in the push toward charter schools, and legislation enabling pilot programs was advanced before substantial opposition emerged. A lack of clear regulations and changing government pronouncements complicated the efforts of early applicants. Factors that led to the demise of one of Alberta's first charter schools include confusion regarding the stated purpose of the charter mandate, a lack of training for charter board members, poor external monitoring, and an absence of fiscal accountability. The closure of this school shows how confusion stemming from Alberta's political context, a lack of clear regulations, and inadequate financial assistance contribute to the instability of the charter-school movement in Canada. (Contains 43 references.)(TEJ) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. THE CHARTER SCHOOL COLLAPSE: A CASE STUDY Dianne Gereluk University of Calgary 1776-6 Ave. N.W. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2N OW2 (403) 266-6870 Email: dtgerelu@ucalgary.ca
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".