“Beg, Borrow, and Steal”: School Division Perspectives of Assessment Policy Creation in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on school division needs pertaining to classroom-based assessment policies in Saskatchewan. Using a critical policy analysis framework, this project narrowed in on the creation of assessment policies within school divisions in the province through the lens of superintendents (n = 16). Applying Verhoest et al.’s (2004) organizational autonomy framework, school divisions were interpreted as having both a minimum level of financial autonomy and a higher (though ultimately ambiguous) level of policy autonomy. Interviews revealed a tension between policy creation at the school-division level and within the Ministry, highlighted the impact of higher policy autonomy and lower financial autonomy on policy development and implementation at the division level, and called attention to a desire from school divisions for provincial guidance. Keywords: Classroom-based assessment; policy; school divisions; Saskatchewan; Ministry of Education Cette étude a porté sur les besoins des divisions scolaires en matière de politiques d'évaluation en classe en Saskatchewan. À l'aide d'un cadre d'analyse critique des politiques, ce projet s'est concentré sur la création de politiques d'évaluation au sein des divisions scolaires de la province dans l'optique des directions générales (n = 16). En appliquant le cadre d'autonomie organisationnelle de Verhoest et al. (2004),on a perçu les divisions scolaires comme ayant à la fois un niveau minimum d'autonomie financière et un niveau plus élevé (bien qu'en fin de compte ambigu) d'autonomie en matière de politiques. Les entrevues ont révélé une tension entre la création de politiques au niveau de la division scolaire et au sein du ministère, ont mis en évidence l'impact d'une autonomie politique plus élevée et d'une autonomie financière plus faible sur l'élaboration et la mise en œuvre de politiques au niveau de la division et ont attiré l'attention sur le désir des divisions scolaires d'obtenir une orientation de la part de la province. Mots clés : évaluation en classe ; politique ; divisions scolaires ; Saskatchewan ; ministère de l'Éducation
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".