7 of 8: Decreased Planning Time as a Barrier to Reconciliation Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the way neoliberal reductions in teacher planning time work to impede progress in reconciliatory education. Methodologically informed by phenomenology, the study described here was qualitative in nature and featured interviews with six Nova Scotia high school teachers who were teaching the social studies course Mi’kmaw Studies 11. This paper represents one consideration from the larger study. It focusses on the ways participants pointed to the restrictions on planning time in their workload as a direct impediment to actualizing reconciliatory work in education. Drawing together the literatures of time and neoliberalism in education, the authors argue that without time to engage with colleagues, to connect with students, and to just think about the process of course building, teachers—both in Nova Scotia and internationally—are being moved away from Giroux’s (2025) idea of educators as transformatory intellectuals. Teachers need time and space to think and feel their way through the complex histories and contemporary contexts involved in reconciliation, and the data presented in this study suggest that Nova Scotia high school teachers currently have neither. To conclude, the authors call on governments, particularly those that profess a commitment to truth and reconciliation in and through education, to make truth and then reconciliation education more than a discursive shift by abating policies that reduce teacher planning time. Keywords: reconciliation, reconciliation education, teaching time, neoliberalism
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".