Discussion of the evils of school comparisons and finger-pointing at ignorant parents is a popular edu-past time, especially with the recent release of the Fraser Institute Report Card on Ontario elementary schools.
Here’s the typical sentiment: if it weren’t for those status-grasping, advantaged parents climbing all over each other to get their kids into so-called “good” schools we would have a bucolic, egalitarian public school system where every school got what it needed and nobody would be blemished with a bad reputation.
Educator Sachin Maharaj touched on this territory in his Feb. 14 opinion piece in the Toronto Star, “Put an end to two-tiered public education.”
Maharaj, an OISE graduate student and assistant curriculum leader for the Toronto District School Board, commented that it’s “troubling” to see recent reports that parents are willing to lie and cheat to get their kids into “good” schools in the public system. This is evidence, he wrote, that many parents view public education in the city as a “two-tiered system,” using provincial test scores to compare and assess schools, something many educators criticize. Maharaj also commented that the fact some parents are willing to do anything to get their kids into schools they believe to be better “is an indictment of public education.”
But this phenomenon is not new, just as two-tiered health care is not new and is here to stay. More than 30 years ago, when I was a student at a fledgling public Scarborough alternative high school, we had students from outside the district using their grandparents’ addresses so that they would be geographically eligible for admission to the school. The students, not their parents. We had students from Pickering, students from Uxbridge – places that did not have an alternative school like ours, with its emphasis on independent study and focus on self-motivated, interested learners. And that was long before we had provincial testing (which I suspect many at my school would have opposed anyway). The point is, people were looking – shopping, if you will – for a school that fit their wants and needs. We had many students who felt the school was a lifesaver, because they did not “fit in” at regular high schools.
My own concern when people are trying to make choices about schools is not that they are attempting to exercise choice, but that they don’t always make those choices based on complete information. That’s why I think the more information available about schools and their quality, the better, instead of the typical proposal that everything would be much better if we just didn’t release any information at all.
Provincial test scores are one such piece of information, but they have their limits. Ditto for Fraser Institute report cards, which are limited to churning out ratings based on those very same scores. Parents need to size up their own kid and think about what they need, how they learn, what gets them engaged and consider which school looks best poised to accommodate them. I know parents who sent their son off to a prestigious all boys private school because, well, it was prestigious. It must be good, right? Not for that kid. He was soft-spoken, artistic and didn’t like the very expensive school his parents were paying for. It was not a good fit.
Parents should call the school and ask to visit it, or even attend a school council meeting so they can meet other parents and hear about what’s going on at the school. If a school is not open to even these modest meet-and-greets that might tell you something about how the school will respond when you’re a parent there. I’ll even say that so-called “bad” schools sometimes are maligned by an inaccurate reputation, when in fact they are schools that happen to be in needy neighbourhoods but are truly contributing value to a student’s development. When looking at test scores, don’t just look at the score itself, but how much that has improved (or not) over time. These tests have been done for long enough that it is possible to see which schools are able to sustain their gains, or lose them. That can tell far more than just a single year’s results.
At the same time, it’s common to hear it’s unfair to compare schools that are located amid very different populations of students – e.g. as Maharaj points out, you can’t compare a school in Lawrence Park to a school near Jane and Finch. And frankly, I can’t see that being a realistic real estate decision quandary for a family in any case. But we should be able to compare schools serving the same or similar groups of kids, such as schools with high ESL populations and high poverty, with each other. Is one adding more value than the other? How come? What is that school doing differently? This is where data becomes valuable.
More thought-provoking in Maharaj’s column is his comment that a highly effective teacher is the single-most important factor to an “at-risk” student’s success. I agree, just as I’d say the same for any student. However he goes on to say that “there is no systematic effort to encourage” the recruitment of such teachers to needy neighbourhood schools. The province’s still relatively new teacher performance appraisal system is limited, he writes, and there are no additional incentives to attract these teachers into high-needs schools. One option Maharaj suggests, which has been mentioned before, is creating a “master teacher” category, which would require teachers to undergo a tougher and more complete assessment of their teaching.
These are interesting ideas and kudos to Maharaj for having the courage to put them out in the open. But if he doesn’t like the idea that parents see public schooling as a “two-tiered system,” just wait until he hears what people think about a two-tiered teacher credentialing system.