The evaluation of school-based community conferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a school-based Community Conferencing program utilized in response to student acts of misconduct or violence. The satisfaction levels of the various participants involved, the effects on suspension and expulsion rates, the rates of recidivism, the types and follow through of restoration agreements made, and the offences that respond best to Community Conferences were examined. Role-specific surveys were administered to the various participants in 12 Community Conferences with 105 surveys completed immediately following the Conference and 70 surveys completed via telephone four weeks after the completion of the Conference. Data were analyzed using descriptive, qualitative, and chi-square methods of analyses. This study provides evidence for the success and satisfaction of incorporating this type of restorative programming into current philosophies and policies within school divisions as an alternative to zero tolerance policies. Participants in various roles reported satisfaction with several aspects of the Conference and its outcome, positive personal changes resulting from the Conference, and positive experiences overall regarding participation. Additionally, a potential decrease in the use of suspension and expulsion, provides further support for its use. The findings of this study provide a baseline for satisfaction levels, types of restoration agreements made, and rates of recidivism regarding school-based Community Conferences. Results can aid in the process of decision-making for those considering the use of restorative programming in schools. Due to the high rates of overall satisfaction, the model used in this research by the Edmonton Public School Division, along with the suggestions made by the researcher, can provide a representation upon which others can base implementation of a similar program.
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 | 0.014 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".