Decolonizing Calgary Catholic Schools: Perspectives of Upper Administrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School districts in Alberta are increasingly called to do the work of decolonization as a response to differential educational outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. In this thesis I explore the role of upper administrators in Calgary Catholic School District (CCSD) in advancing the work of decolonization in its district. The study is underpinned by the following research question: “What decolonizing initiatives are currently being developed and implemented within Calgary Catholic Schools for the benefit of Indigenous and other students?” The research explored the wise practices of CCSD in this work and how they mobilize these successes for the benefit of others, while also identifying areas for growth. \nA large body of literature was reviewed to provide necessary background for the inquiry. This included research on colonial education and the Catholic church’s role in residential schools, the ongoing education debt resulting in inequitable outcomes for Indigenous students and recent innovations to decolonize schools including anti-oppressive and culturally sustaining approaches. \nSituated within the interpretivist paradigm, I conducted research examining CCSD’s decolonizing practices, utilizing an appreciative inquiry lens. Research questions were answered through qualitative data generated via semi-structured interviews. Wherever possible, Indigenous protocols and research methodologies were followed. Critical theory was applied as my theoretical framework with critical race theory being applied to educational contexts. Participants included eight senior administrators at CCSD and the data emerging from the interviews were analyzed and interpreted using a two-step coding method. Findings included both the presence of many promising decolonizing initiatives in place CCSD and ongoing structural neocolonial power dynamics that prevent greater levels of decolonization from happening.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".