Education reforms for inclusion? Interrogating policy-practice disjunctions in early childhood education in Bulgaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines how early childhood educators, as policy implementers, perceive reforms in Bulgaria’s education system that occurred between 2008 and 2018. Both Roma and non-Roma educators participated in this project that compares perceptions of Bulgarian teachers in public schools and Roma educators in informal educational settings operated by NGOs and religious institutions. Applying intersectionality as a framework, the study draws from anti-Romaism as a particular form of racism that militates against the inclusion of Roma to examine whether and to what extent discourses of minoritized and racialised children are evident in the views held by the Bulgarian educators, resulting, in spite of educational reforms, in practices of pathologizing Roma children. All but one of the participating non-Roma teachers expressed anti-Roma views related to support for school segregation and perceptions of Roma children’s inherent academic inability and language deficiency. These views contrast with those of Roma educators, who pointed to major structural problems, such as poverty and segregation, that remain intact despite the reforms and thus have failed to reduce educational disadvantage.
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 | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".