Assess, Sort, Classify: “Othering” of Indigenous Students in Manitoba’s Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the province of Manitoba, Canada, there is a gap between the rhetoric of inclusive education and its practical implementation. In the absence of inclusive educational policies and guidelines, deficit-based approaches such as categorical labels for students who are deemed to have a severe emotional and behavioural disorder, segregated classrooms, and self-contained programs are prevalent and change is needed. This paper provides a critical perspective on how the paradigm of special education contributes to the social construction of disability; how, for Indigenous students, it too often positions behavioural difference as disability; and further, why this practice is systemically discriminatory. In our examination, we seek to expose the exclusion (Slee & Allen, 2001) that exists in nominally inclusive schools as a way to promote social change and redirect education toward truly inclusive practices. To that end, we suggest the following strategies that may reduce educational inequity for Indigenous students: (a) developing clearly articulated inclusive educational policies along with indicators of inclusivity; (b) reporting the number of Indigenous students who are identified as emotionally and behaviourally disordered, and segregated in self-contained settings; (c) establishing needs-based models of support at all levels (e.g., province, division, and school); (d) creating new narratives of assessment and pedagogy; and (e) reconceptualizing teachers’ training. We hope that by critically examining the structures and processes of special education that, in fact, disable Indigenous students from educational success, inclusion might encompass more than a provincial philosophy and include transformative educational change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".