MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7014243313

One Quarter of Californiaâs Teachers for English Learners Not Fully Certified

2003· article· en· W7014243313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificateCertificationEconomic shortageEnglish-language learnerQuarter (Canadian coin)English languagePropositionEnglish as a second language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the passage of Proposition 227 reduced the demand for bilingual teachers, an acute shortage of teachers qualified to deliver needed instructional services to English learners remains. In 1998, prior to the passage of 227, 43 percent of the teachers providing instructional services to English learners were not fully certified to provide those services—33 percent of teachers were in training to provide English language development (ELD) or Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) and 10 percent were in training to provide primary language instruction. By 2001-02, 25 percent of teachers providing instructional services to English learners were not fully certified. Statewide, almost 14 percent of all teachers do not hold a full credential. So English learners are almost twice as likely as students generally to be taught by a teacher who is not fully certified. That figure is even higher if you include another 14 percent of teachers who have other than a California Teacher Commission (CTC) authorization, which can be obtained with less rigorous training through a SB1969 certificate or a district designation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)→Same topicMultilingual Education and Policy→French-language works237,207→