Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a revised version of a paper I was asked to prepare for the International Scholars’ Breakfast held during the recent University Council for Educational Administration conference (Goddard, 2000). I was asked to provide a Canadian perspective on the flight of the middle class from the public school system. This I was happy to do. As a self-confessed news junkie, I had been inundated with stories of burgeoning private schools, multitudes of charter alternatives, and the like. I was certain that this paper would provide me with the opportunity to deliver a clear expose of the problems facing Canadian public schools as they struggle to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse public. As I began to research the topic further, however, I began to feel rather a fraud. In Canada, the flight of the middle class from the public to the private system is an issue worthy of Don Quixote. There is , in essence, no such issue. That is not to say that we do not have private schools in Canada, nor that there are not many vocal proponents of such schools. Rather, it appears that most Canadians would rather fix the current system than flee it for another. In this article I first provide an overview of the governance of Canadian education. I then describe five versions of private education found across the country. Following a review of the enrolment of students outside the public system, I present a discussion of the alternate strategies used by Canadians in their quest to facilitate the educational success of their children. Although I have tried to draw my examples from across Canada, the governance of education in Canada is a provincial rather than a national affair. Thus, there is no certainty that laws or regulations similar to those of one province will be found in other provinces or territories. Because Alberta is the context with which I am most familiar, the majority of the examples cited here are drawn from that province.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".