Indigenous Student Success in Public Schools: A “We” Approach for Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What does Indigenous student success look like in public school boards? Seven urban Indigenous educators’ interview responses to this question were interpreted and reported by the lead author, a teacher and researcher of English, Irish, and Scottish heritage—a Settler Canadian. The “Connected Beads Model” is the result of these educator-to-educator interviews. It shows how Indigenous students’ success can be promoted when Settler and Indigenous educators take a “We” stance alongside students, families, and communities through honoring story, relationship, and holism in school. The concepts embedded in the model and its practical applications are explored through participants’ quotations and considered alongside related literature on Indigenous education. À quoi ressemble la réussite des élèves autochtones dans les conseils scolaires publics ? Les réponses en entrevues des sept éducateurs autochtones en milieu urbain ont été interprétées et dévoilées par l’auteur principal, un enseignant et chercheur d’origine anglaise, irlandaise et écossaise—un Canadien « de souche ». De ces entrevues entre enseignants découle le modèle dit des « perles liées » qui démontre l’effet positif sur la réussite des élèves autochtones qui se crée lorsque les éducateurs « canadiens de souche » et les éducateurs autochtones adoptent une attitude de solidarité avec les élèves, les familles et les communautés et qu’ils rendent hommage aux récits, aux relations et à l’holisme à l’école. Les concepts incorporés au modèle et les applications pratiques de celui-ci sont explorés par le biais des commentaires des participants et dans le contexte de la littérature connexe portant sur l’éducation autochtone.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".