From Anti-Racism to Critical Race Theory in Ontario Public Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distortion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in American popular media has spread to Canada, where the word “race” has traditionally been avoided in education, but where incidents involving race and “anti-racism” now garner considerable attention. We outline CRT in education and the context surrounding anti-racism work in Ontario. We then analyze important initiatives, such as Ontario’s proposed Bill 16 and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board’s “Learn. Disrupt. Rebuild.” module, in terms of their relevance within the CRT theoretical framework. Basic qualitative content analysis shows that the much-discussed provincial-level Bill 16 does not reflect the tenets of CRT—despite what its opponents, notably organizations such as Parents As First Educators (PAFE), have argued. However, the district-level “Learn. Disrupt. Rebuild.” initiative does reflect some tenets of CRT. This latter equity initiative is suggested as a model, starting from the local level in school districts, that other Canadian educators supportive of CRT should feel justified in following, as progressive Canadian districts move from anti-racism towards the next phase of district reform.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".