Dale Wallace
The Fraser Institute has released its annual rankings of Alberta elementary schools. To rank the schools the Fraser Institute obtains the results of schools’ diploma exam results and rank the schools based on how well the students do on the exams.
Along with the results, the Fraser Institute also rolls out its justification for ranking schools. They argue that education at schools improves because parents will choose to send their children to schools with higher rankings. Therefore, schools will strive to educate kids better, so their test results will be better, so their ranking will be higher, and thus attract more and better students.
After a closer look at the data that the Fraser In statute provides, an interesting conclusion can be drawn. In reality, what the Fraser Institute ranking system really demonstrates is that a school’s ranking pretty well equates to the parental income of the students that attend that school.
In 2008 the top three ranked schools in the Calgary area had some of the highest parent average income. Webber Academy (ranked #1) had a per parent yearly income of $225,928. Second ranked Strathcona-Tweedsmuir had a per-parent average income of $376,076, and third ranked Rundle Academy had a per-parent income of $310,747.
Two other schools, Rideau Park ($296,583) and Earl Grey ($250,628) both had high per-parent incomes, but they only ranked nineteenth and twenty-fifth. However, these schools had populations of ESL and special education students, which bring down test scores and their placement on the Fraser Institutes’ ranking. Webber Academy, Strathcona-Tweedsmuir, and Rundle College have no ESL or special education students to decrease their scores and ranking.
In contrast, two of the lowest scoring schools in Calgary are Erin Woods, which had a per parent average income of $50,979, and Holy Redeemer, whose parental average income was $42, 619. The pattern is pretty clear: the higher the per-parent average annual income, the higher the ranking.
To use an old cliché: “It’s time to stop beating around the bush” when talking about the Fraser Institute’s rankings: they are deplorable. Year-after-year the same schools are atop the rankings and the reason is rich parents can provide a richer educational experience for their children.
Parents pay big money to make sure their kids get small class sizes, extra programs, and the best facilities. Plus, in higher income homes parents can generally enrich their children’s home lives and thus help their kids do better in school.
All these extras equal better performance on provincial tests, which equals a higher ranking. So what the Fraser Institute ranking system really shows is the difference between the haves and have-nots of our world and what education is available to each.
The rankings have zero educational value. Alberta Education staff, School Board Officials, school administrators, and teachers all reject them as a terrible measure of education success.
That the rankings are universally rejected by almost everybody involved with education invalidates them.
In the world of science when a theory or idea is proposed, for it to be valid it must be examined, re-examined, and re-examined again by professionals in the field. For the theory of idea to be considered fact, it must be endorsed, endorsed again, and endorsed yet again by people in the profession.
The exact opposite is happening with the Fraser Institute’s rankings; they are whole-heartedly rejected by educators. Therefore, they can whole-heartedly be rejected as having any validity.
So what should Albertans do about the Fraser Institute’s rankings? They should be taken to task for implying schools like Erin Woods and Holy Redeemer teach their students poorly.
The information they spew in their rankings is definitely “junk science.”
Related posts:
- STOLEN EXAMS INVALIDATE FRASER INSTITUTE’S AB. SCHOOL RANKINGS By Dale Wallace, Meet the Teacher In my last column...
- SCHOOL BEST PLACE FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS TO LEARN TO GET ALONG By Dale Wallace Recently, Barb Gustafson’s asked in her Saska-tuned...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I disagree. To quote you, “parents can generally enrich their children’s home lives and thus help their kids do better in school.” I WANT to be involved in a school where the parents DO care and can help their kids do better in school. This doesn’t necessarily mean they have to have a lot of money. A lot of charter schools (which are free to attend) have high rankings because the parents care enough to actually think about the type of teaching/environment their children would be in. Any school will do well if the parents are more involved. We shouldn’t be relying on formal education to take care of the learning of our children. Parents are the first and foremost teacher in a child’s life.
I went to a poorer highschool because my parents earned a lower income. I agree with what the author had to say to an extent. I found that at poorer schools, campus violence was higher. There was a culture among more kids that gangs and guns were cool, and inorder to be cool, you had to fight. My cousin went to a rich school and they didnt have this problem there.