Politicizing Equity: Ghana’s Free Senior High School Policy and its Implications for Teachers Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, the Government of Ghana adopted a Free Senior High School Policy (FSHSP) to universalize secondary education access across the country by removing cost barriers. The policy originated as a campaign promise by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and has since dominated political debates. While FSHSP increased enrollment significantly, little is known about how its politicization has shaped its implementation and its implications for equity and teachers’ work. This dissertation considers power through FSHSP policy, particularly how it operates at two scales/moments. In Part One of the dissertation, I focus on the broader context of influence in which FSHSP was justified and promoted. Drawing on a Critical Discourse Analysis of the pronouncements and documents circulated by political figures of Ghana's two major political parties—the NPP and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), I consider the political context and debates surrounding the FSHSP. This helped me understand the broader discursive terrain around FSHSP to set the stage for school-based research. In Part Two of my study, I draw on an Anthropology of Policy Frame, four months of school-based participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups to understand how teachers made sense of and experienced FSHSP, paying particular attention to their role in the policy process, and the implications of the policy for teachers’ work and equity. I argue that the government excluded teachers from the policy formulation process while increasing teachers’ workload significantly, adversely affecting teachers’ health and social life, and restricting opportunities to engage in secondary employment beyond for-profit tutoring. While the policy affected all teachers, it disproportionally impacted female teachers and teachers in less-resourced schools. At the same time, I argue that the government’s new student placement system and non-targeted approach to reform across differently resourced schools exacerbated previous inequities, including those born from the colonial era. For these reasons, a policy justified by its commitment to equity perpetuated existing forms and differences and created new ones along gender, region, and class. Together, I demonstrate how a multi-scalar analysis of education policy reveals how power operates in the education policy arena and the resultant effect on teachers and students.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".