Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the levels of parent and guardian understanding and support for British Columbia’s New Curriculum. An electronic survey administered to parents and guardians in the Qualicum School District on Vancouver Island, asking them to select their level of understanding and support using Likert-style scales and to offer comments. Questions to delineate between demographic groups and political alignment were used as means to ascertain differences amongst respondent preferences. Information gathered will support School District staff with further planning and communication, as well as potentially inform the British Columbia Ministry of Education and Childcare with future curriculum direction. Results from the 210 respondents suggested that parent and guardian understanding of the New Curriculum is modest, with a mean understanding score out of 5 of just 2.32, but support was somewhat stronger with a mean score of 3.13 out of 5. While groups of respondents who expressed higher levels of understanding also indicated higher levels of support, a Pearson test showed little correlation between specific individual responses, with only Big Ideas at 0.15 and Core Competencies at 0.22 indicating statistical significance. Data from a number of demographic sub-groups also suggested some differences in support, but again, the Pearson correlation tests indicated that amongst the demographic categories considered, only female parent figure education met or exceeded the threshold of statistical significance of .15 when indicating support for Big Ideas, Core Competencies, and Student Choice and Control, but Indigenous content and the new Graduation Assessments fell below the threshold of significance. An HSD Tukey test confirmed significant differences in support of the New Curriculum by political alignment, with those who identified as “moderate” or “liberal” being significantly more supportive than those who identified as “conservative” in all five areas of the curriculum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".