"It's Farcical!": Theories, Models, and Recommendations to Improve Public Consultations During Ontario School Closure Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School closure review processes in Ontario are highly contested and deeply divisive. Though schools are central to their host communities, the closure review process largely ignores the community impacts. Existing research largely agrees the public consultation component of school closure reviews is flawed and insufficient. The general research question of this thesis asks, Why is there a continuation of conflict in the consultation process for school closure reviews? The thesis aims to take the models and theories of consultation from the field of planning and elsewhere to understand the problems and provide viable recommendations, but ultimately finds that the conflicts continue because school reviews are practices of governmentality that severely constrain the effect public inputs have on final decisions. \nInterviews were conducted with nine people involved in the consultation process during two school closure reviews. These interviews reveal that much of the planning literature on consultations is only somewhat applicable. To help think through the deeply flawed and often hostile consultation process, this thesis presents a sustained engagement with the theories of Michel Foucault and to a lesser extent Jürgen Habermas. Habermas provides the foundation for the optimistic “communicative turn” of collaborative planning, which is a worthy if idealistic goal for planners. Foucault’s historical analysis allows us to see how planning and consultation are caught up in power, power-knowledge, governmentality, and biopolitics. While this thesis finds that planning and consultation are practices of governmentality and biopolitics, this is a critique, not a criticism. Understanding school closure reviews as a practice of governmentality allows us to identify what aspects of these reviews are predetermined and not open to consultation. It also allows us to see an area irreducible to the logic of governmentality, namely the meaning of a school to a community, and it is this aspect that should be subject to community consultation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".