Marginality and exclusion: teachers’ involvement in the formulation of Ghana's Free Senior High School Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, the Government of Ghana introduced the Free Senior High School Policy (FSHSP) to universalise access to secondary education. Although this policy has received substantial attention from scholars, limited attention has been paid to the role of teachers in the policy formulation process. To fill this lacuna, I draw on an ethnography of three distinct schools to explore teachers’ views regarding their involvement in the policymaking process in Ghana and how teachers understand their role in policy formulation vis-à-vis the government. I argue that the government, seen as an all-powerful policy actor, excluded teachers from the policy formulation stage, yet teachers were charged with implementing the policy. Teachers attributed their marginalisation to the politicisation of education and the practice of policy borrowing. Teachers argued that their involvement and insight could have averted or mitigated implementation challenges. This paper contributes to understanding teachers’ marginalisation in the education policy process.
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".