A black-focused school : black Canadian youth and the mainstream curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT \nWhen asked about the proposal for a black-focused school, black youth from the Greater \nToronto Area (GTA) voiced their agreement with elements of the proposal, but resisted the idea \nof implementing the proposal by creating a separate school. Although media representations and \nDei (1996, 2006) provide insight into what Torontonians' reactions are to the proposed blackfocused \nschool there has been no such information documented on what black youth in the GTA \nthink about the project. This is the first known study that attempts to fill that gap by providing a \nrepresentation of black youths' voices obtained via focus groups. The study examines what \nblack youth know and think about the proposal, and why they largely disagree with the blackfocused \nschool proposal. While the findings of this study indicate that the participants saw many \npositive elements of the proposal, they did not support the implementation of a black-focused \nschool as they saw the creation of a separate space for the school as a negative thing. The youth \nhad trouble conceptualizing 'black-focused schooling' as an alternative approach to mainstream \neducation, which had an impact on whether they choose to, or could, respond to questions that \nprecisely related to the black-focused school project. The study concludes that the youth could \nnot visualize what the school would look like and how it would operate because they draw on \nliberal racist discourses (e.g. colour-blindness, blaming the victim, and equal opportunity) when \nthinking about their educational experiences; however, there was a clear contradiction in the \nway the youths' voices reflected an awareness of the role of race in education experiences. It \nwas evident when they talked about fear of stigmatization, but when using liberal discourses the \nyouth discounted the role of race, and seemed not to be aware of its role in educational \nexperiences. These findings pose important implications for educators, would-be educators, \nadministrators, the TDSB and proponents of the black-focused school.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".