The historical development of inclusive special education in a large urban Manitoba school division (2002-2015)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative research study is to examine the evolution of inclusive special education policies and practices within an amalgamated urban school division between the years of 2002 and 2015. An historical case study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Gillham, 2000; Lapan & Quartaroli, 2009; and Yin, 1997, 2004) is used as a methodology. Conceptually, the study is informed by a great wealth of local and international research on inclusive special education. Moreover, a two-dimensional theoretical framework is used to illuminate the concepts of inclusive special education/appropriate educational programming and divisional leadership to examine how these concepts may have contributed to the evolution of the policies and practices of inclusive special education in this amalgamated school division. Eight key themes were established from the findings and are related to both inclusive special education leadership research and the three basic tenets of successful leadership practice espoused by Leithwood, Seashore Lewis, Anderson & Wahlstrom (2004). Five key recommendations are suggested for school-based administrators to consider as they envision a model of student support services that aligns with the concepts of inclusive special education and appropriate educational programming.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".