Ideologically Informed: A Policy Archaeology of Special Education in Ontario, 1965-1980
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waves of education reform in Ontario since the 1960s have resulted in widespread changes to curriculum, governance, and policy directives. Despite these continual reforms the structures and the practices of special education have changed very little since the early twentieth century. This dissertation looks at special education policy historically (1965-1980) in Ontario and offers an explanation for this resistance to change. \nPolicy archaeology is developed in this study to map policy texts backwards through time and to interpret the meaning of policy discourses in these texts. The discourses produced by various policy actors are interpreted within the historical context to illuminate the ideologically informed beliefs of society about children with disabilities and their education. \nThe ideologies of conservatism, liberalism, and scientific rationalism continue to construct the identities of children with disabilities as deviant from “normal” children. These differences are scientifically measured and quantified by medical and psychological professionals. The hierarchical organization of schooling sorts students into homogeneous groups according to ability. The constructed identities and segregated placements marginalize children with disabilities from the opportunities available to children in the regular classroom. Ideologies are stable and enduring and contribute to the stability of beliefs about special education in spite of extensive and continuous reforms in other areas of education.\n\nThis dissertation builds on the earlier theories of the policy web (Joshee & Johnson, 2005). The large policy web of special education is composed of individual webs of meaning that represent the condensation symbols of disability, education, professionalism, management, and equality in particular ways that support the marginalization of children with disabilities. These webs are internally cohesive and related to each other by shared discourses. These interconnections give the web an intricate, irregular design but also give the web strength.\nBased on Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of capital, the members of the Ontario Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, and its members as individuals, held high forms of capital that were used as power. This association shaped policy discourses in particular ways that influenced beliefs about learning disabilities, acquired resources for children with learning disabilities, and reproduced privilege for the association.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".