Fraser Institute Elementary Report Card Released

Saturday, February 07, 2009 07:01 AM

Prince George, B.C. - The Fraser Institute has released its annual ranking of elementary schools in BC. Prince George did not come home with an impressive report card.

Director of School Performance Studies with the right-leaning think tank Peter Cowley says Prince George elementary schools received an average of 5.1 out of 10. The provincial average is 6.0. Cowley says, of the 32 Prince George schools ranked in the report, only 7 are above the provincial average.

"When we look through the individual list of schools, we find that only one of them has actually shown any statistically significant improvement over the last five years, that's Spruceland. On the other side, only one of them, Pineview, has shown statistically significant decline over the last five years. The rest, unfortunately, seem to be going along as they have in the past with no improvement."

The Fraser Institute uses data from Foundation Skills Assessment tests to come up with its annual ranking, something that has raised the ire of BC Teachers. BCTF members had decided that teachers would not administer the tests this year, based mainly on their objection to the data being used to rank schools individually. Teachers voted to administer the test this week after a ruling from the Labour Relations Board.

Peter Cowley says the Fraser Institute also uses key demographic information in its report, like the number of ESL and special needs students and the average parental income at individual schools.

"In the case of Beaverly public school, they have relatively high parental income in the families, but they don't do very well. This year, they got a 5.4 out of 10 for there overall rating. Now we expected them to get a 7.1 based on the level of income of the parents."

The full report can be viewed at the Fraser Institute website.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2009 07:01 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lunarguy on February 7 2009 7:27 AM

Not that this report is actually worth anything but how is this possible when the children are just writing the FSA's now. Is this last years data ?

Posted by: ammonra on February 7 2009 7:59 AM

"we expected them to get a 7.1 based on the level of income of the parents."

If that doesn't make the Fraser Institute elitist, I don't know what could. If you are rich, you must be more intelligent, is that the message?

Posted by: diplomat on February 7 2009 9:01 AM

No, what you say is beside the point. The factual argument is that children from families with lower incomes are disadvantaged economically, often don't eat enough high quality food as compared to those with higher incomes and often don't have access to other beneficial activities because of lack of money etc. Often they don't have a separate room to study in at home and experience other stresses, like family stresses and insecurity arising from financial difficulties.

Family income does make a difference in overall quality of life of the whole family including the children's educational opportunities.

Obviously you did not get the message, otherwise you wouldn't ask sarcastically if intelligence and wealth go hand in hand.

As far as wealth and education goes: yes, education costs money and a family with a higher income can have a beneficial effect on a child's overall educational performance and manifestation of intelligence.

That's why every family should have the economic resources to adequately support the physical, emotional and educational needs of their children.

The Fraser Institute is not elitist, otherwise it would have excluded the criterium of family income from its report.

I always thought that especially the NDP sees family income or the lack of it as a very important aspect of educational equality but perhaps it is seen as too elitism now to mention it.

Posted by: gus on February 7 2009 10:16 AM

So, with the economic downturn, children will learn less??

PG has one of the highest average disposable incomes in the province. So why, if economics has a significant impact on the ability of children to learn, does PG rank so low in the province? Let the Fraser Institute of mentally retarded statisticians explain that.

I think we all understand that PG has one of the worst air qualities in the province.

The correlation between air quality, air flow to the brain, and the ability for children to learn is rather obvious.

The Fraser Institute is barking up the wrong tree.

BTW, what is this business of studying at home? I really thought that was a thing of the past.

Posted by: NMG on February 7 2009 11:23 AM

They should also incorporate a comparison between kids with parents who went to college or university versus kids with parents who didn't. and see how that impacts the overall scores. My bet is that, on average, they would be higher for the former.

Higher education usually does result in higher overall wages, which in turn may help to explain part of the trends noted above and the factors that diplomat speaks of. There is no doubt PG has high average wages but historically it was likely due to the nature of the work in the city not the overall education level of the workforce.

I'd hazard a guess that the overall education level of the average PG resident has been steadily increasing in the last 10-20 years and that should result in higher overall scores in the future when the trends work themselves out and the kids of these folks start to get measured.

Posted by: ammonra on February 7 2009 11:34 AM

No, what they said was reported to be, "In the case of Beaverly public school, they have relatively high parental income in the families, but they don't do very well."

I agree that deprived children often do less well than those not poor, but once an appropriate family income level is reached this ceases to be a factor. The inference in the above statement is that high income level should bring about better performance, and I do not believe that is necessarily correct.

I also note that the article is about performance on educational scoring tests, not about quality of life. It's nice to take a trip to Paris if the parents can affor it, but it has no bearing on answering questions in an exam, does it?

As I said, the Fraser Institute is elitist. If it were not, they would have done correlation studies of family income levels to educational attainment levels of the children and presented the objective conclusions, whatever they were, not preconceived the results by expecting higher family income to translate into better performance, as they did.

Posted by: diplomat on February 7 2009 12:30 PM

"...not preconceived the results by expecting higher family income to translate into better performance, as they did."

However, if sufficient past statistical data justifies the making of such an expectation than there is nothing wrong with doing so. How else can any conclusions about anything be reached?

Preconceived ideas that are not based on any data but purely on emotion and hearsay exist everywhere, especially in politics and even in B.C.

Good comments, NMG.

Posted by: MrPG on February 7 2009 1:46 PM

Really good comments. I agree that higher education attainment of the parents, and not necessarily their income plays a big factor in the success of the children in school, although having both a higher income and a higher parental education level would be the best scenario.

Posted by: gus on February 7 2009 3:25 PM

It is apparently even more selective than the parents' level of education. The mother's level of education appears to be the stronger correlation, which makes a lot of sense. In addition, the amount of time families spend with the child is also a strong indicator of success at school.

Thus the family where both parents work so that the family can have a large house, several cars, motorized toys, etc. etc. and can therefore be judged to be financially well off, may have poor parenting skills, especially as measured by their availability to help their child(ren) through their formative schooling years.

Posted by: ammonra on February 7 2009 4:34 PM

"Preconceived ideas that are not based on any data but purely on emotion and hearsay exist everywhere, especially in politics and even in B.C."

I agree, and that was the point I was making about the Fraser Institute.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on February 7 2009 11:23 PM

I agree, and that would be the point I'd make about the BCTF.

Posted by: lunarguy on February 8 2009 9:03 AM

The thing that makes the most amount of change in your child's education, is you being involved with it. Help out with homework, go to their school not only for PAC meetings but ask to attend their classes on occasion. Encourage them to be involved with school based sports, music, drama. Drive them and their friends to field trips and take in the day. Yes I know it means taking time off work on occasion but your investment will be worth it.