School division/district amalgamation in Manitoba: a case study of a public policy decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On November 8, 2001, the Government of Manitoba announced that the number of school divisions and districts in the province would be reduced from 54 to 37. With that policy announcement, Manitoba embarked upon the most significant restructuring of school board governance arrangements since the late 1950s.\nThe purpose of the research was to examine the school division amalgamation initiative as a case study in policy-making by the Government of Manitoba. The study investigated the nature of this initiative, including its origin, development, eventual conclusion and implementation. The fundamental question addressed by the study was this: Why was school division amalgamation an idea whose time had come in Manitoba? Discussion of amalgamation had been active within the Progressive Conservative administration of Gary Filmon since the early 1990s, but despite the recommendation in 1995 of a provincially established Boundaries Review Commission to move forward with government directed amalgamation, the idea languished until a newly-elected provincial government under Gary Doer, leader of the New Democratic Party, assumed power in 1999.\nThe theoretical framework used in addressing the question posed relied primarily upon the work of John Kingdon (Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies) who contends that there must be a timely convergence of three key aspects of policy formation: problems, solutions and politics. Therefore, the study examined the key role of elected officials in promoting certain policy ideas and their impact on the decisions of government at specific times. It also compared and contrasted the differing policy approaches taken by the Filmon and Doer regimes on this question, and assesses the opportunities and constraints which explain the differences found.\nThe study relied on extant public documents and other primary sources, and especially the expressed view or position of certain elected officials and supporting staff gained through one-on-one in-depth interviews. The focus of the analysis was an attempt to assess the interplay of problem, solution, and politics, and whether or not it reveals what Kingdon has called a “window of opportunity” for decisive action by government.\nThe study showed that, indeed, the window of opportunity for amalgamation occurred with the convergence of three forces by 2001: pervasive indicators of a problem; promotion of amalgamation as a policy solution previously tried in Manitoba and elsewhere; and the election of a new government in 1999 which was receptive to pursuing some degree of change with respect to school division governance and organization.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".