Who is school fundraising desirable for? Understanding social class differences in parental fundraising
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores how parents engage with school fundraising in the public education system; specifically, it examines parental fundraising at elementary schools in River North School Division (pseudonym), a large public school division in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Previous research has shown that fundraising allows parents to engage and hold influence in schools, but it also creates inequities between communities of different socioeconomic status and fundraising capacity. However, few explored the question: Why and how does parental engagement with fundraising differ between elementary schools, especially in the prairie provinces of Canada? This dissertation focuses on four major aspects of fundraising: (1) the relationships parent fundraisers have with administrators and staff at their schools, (2) parents’ motivations for getting involved, (3) the resources parents draw from to be successful, and (4) the barriers parents face in their fundraising efforts. Drawing on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Annette Lareau, and using a comparative case study approach, data was gathered by interviewing nine individuals associated with River North Division elementary schools, analyzing over 200 documents related to fundraising in these schools, and using Statistics Canada census data to create community profiles for each school’s catchment. While there were some similarities across all River North schools, clear social class differences in fundraising practices emerged. Parental fundraising is becoming an increasingly normalized way for parents to engage with schools in the highest socio-economic communities, allowing them to generate significantly greater resources for their schools. This dissertation argues that more must be done to ensure that community wealth and parental contributions do not determine what resources and supports students can access in the public education system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".