Supporting transgender and gender diverse students in Ontario schools: Educators’ responses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report details the findings of an Ontario-wide survey of 1194 school educators which is part of a larger study funded by funded by the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The survey was developed in consultation with trans educators, school board officials, and community members and included a mix of qualitative and quantitative questions. The report is structured according to educators’ responses to questions about trans-inclusive policies, self-rated knowledge, and understanding of trans inclusion and gender diversity, training received, use of resources and the barriers to fostering gender diversity in schools. Educators’ recommendations and advice on improving education about trans inclusivity in schools are also reported. Key findings revealed that there continue to be systemic and structural impediments to supporting trans inclusion and gender diversity in schools, in terms of both the failure to enact policy and to provide adequate support, education, and resourcing for educators. Recommendations are outlined which relate to the need for further development of policies that identify the allocation of resources for both professional development and curriculum development as central to the necessary provision of support for trans students and creating gender-affirming schools. The report also stipulates the necessity for sustained accountability measures to be established by governing bodies, such as the Ontario Ministry of Education, for supporting gender diversity and trans inclusion with the explicit objective of supporting school boards fiscally in the provision of professional development and development of resources. Teacher Education faculties also need to be committed to ensuring that teacher candidates are provided with the knowledge and understanding of trans inclusion and what trans affirmative education entails.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".