Fraser Institute fireworks!

The always controversial Fraser Institute rankings of the provinces high schools have been released, and it has not been a good survey year for both of Prince Rupert’s high schools. Both Charles Hays and PRSS trended lower than years past, in fact the rankings this year, are among some of the worst ever recorded by the Rupert schools in the nine years of the survey.

The Institute a think tank on the right wing of the spectrum, examines a number of academic factors while determining it’s rankings, inevitably resulting in some pretty acrimonious discussions upon their release, unless of course your school happens to be in the top echelon of the provinces schools.

Not surprisingly the more successful of the schools appear to be in the heavily urbanized areas and would appear to be in the upper to upper middle class sectors of society, the rural and inner city schools for the most part, tend to congregate in the bottom layers of the Institute’s accountings. There are exceptions of course, but for the most part the Fraser Institute’s findings tend to highlight more than an educational divide, but indeed a divide between the urbanized areas and what the Liberals once trumpeted as the heartland areas, a term they don’t use as much anymore, possibly because they’ve lost interest in many of those less populated areas.

The results should provide an interesting bit of research for both the Institute and the provincial government, that perhaps more attention to the needs of the rural communities should be investigated. Not just funding mind you, but an entire examination of what is being done and what has worked and what has not. If there’s a problem as the report suggests, then perhaps the disenfranchised areas could use a bit less tsk tsking and bit more in the way of tangible assistance. Pitting one school against another, doesn’t seem like a particularly constructive way of addressing what is truly a pressing concern.

It’s not hard to figure out that outside circumstances might skew the numbers, especially in communities that have suffered economically over the last decade, communities which have seen family units splinter as fathers or mothers have to leave town to seek work, leaving the families at home to pick up the slack. In many homes across this province not living the economic boom trumpeted by other Fraser Institute reports, there is a disconnect from what passes for the normal life of the booming big cities. It’s certainly not a surprise then if the academic pursuits of the children affected might not be at their optimum.

This is not to make an excuse for poor academic results, for surely a standard is a standard and must be accepted as such. But just as important are the factors involved in the student’s entire persona, not just the cut and dried bean counting of the testing and marking of the Institute.

The Fraser Institute doesn’t seem to make any connection between the demographic base of say top seeded Crofton House or Little Flower academy, which no doubt benefit not only from high performing students and teachers, but from a socio economic structure that the public institutions at the bottom of the list can only dream of. The comparisons of the two ends of the list seem to define an education system that has more to do with social class, than classroom education. Which gives us a nice picture of the province’s class foundation, but not much of a base to judge an education system on.

It’s a talking point that doesn’t seem to factor into the occasionally condescending sounds of the Fraser Institutes report. Frequently in quotes given to the Daily News, the Institute’s Public relations rep came across as a tad smarmy with his deliberations on the state of the Rupert schools. One wonders if he has even strayed away from the high altitude of the Fraser Institute campus to examine the rest of the provinces schools and the challenges faced by administrators, teachers and students. It’s easy to take the shots from the tall towers, but for a real overview of any situation it’s best to get right on the ground, into the classrooms and see for yourself.

Base fundamentals are an important test for any education system, and while the Fraser Institute’s rankings test that key component, there is much more to the educational system that needs to be addressed. It might be worth their while to try and find out why the schools that don’t fare so well on their scale, perform as they do.

The Fraser Institute rankings rather than being perceived as the definitive word on education in BC should merely be a discussion point. Now obviously the results don’t paint a good picture for many of the rural schools across the province. That in the end should be the warning shot for the Provincial government to address the issue.

I’m not sure that the rankings don’t already tell us what we already knew. For the most part, areas of affluence will tend to have schools with better academic results, the other areas will muddle along as best they can, with what they have. The key for the province is to make sure that all students are provided with all that they need to achieve as best they can. A suggestion that I didn’t see anywhere in the Fraser Institute’s annual rankings, they’ve been doing this for nine years now, perhaps they can offer up some constructive suggestions to go along with their numeric bafflegab.

If nothing else the Fraser numbers show that some of BC’s children are being left behind in the pursuit of academic success, for whatever the reason. That should be what we take from this and not much else. The solution is not to point fingers, but rather to point the way to solving what is an unacceptable situation across many parts of this province

For those that wish to explore the report on their own, the entire project is found here, while the section pertaining to the Coast schools including Prince Rupert, Terrace and Kitimat can be found here.

As well, below we provide the front page story from yesterday’s Daily News in Podunkicized form.



SCHOOLS HANDED POOR GRADES
By James Vassallo
The Daily News
Monday, April 10, 2006
Page One

Prince Rupert’s high schools have fallen to some of their worst levels ever in the Fraser Institute’s annual report card.

Prince Rupert Secondary School hit 239 (4.6 out of 10) after averaging a ranking of 176 (5.7 out of 10) over the last five years. Charles Hays dropped to 259 (3.8 out of 10) after averaging a ranking 228 (4.7 out of 10).

In 2005, PRSS hit 182 and Charles Hays 219.

“It really doesn’t matter where you are on the list, its how have you been doing over time,” said Peter Cowley, director of School Performance Studies, The Fraser Institute.”

“The question is, have you tried every avenue to improve?”

Prince Rupert schools are in the midst of a slide after ranking in the top half of schools ranked – the report considers everything from exams taken, scores and failure rate to graduation rates – a few years ago. This slide has been particularly pronounced at PRSS, which scored 6.7 in both 2000 and 2002.

”It seems to me the wrong thing to do, in the case of PRSS, is to say we’re a ‘5’ school and that’s the way we’re always going to be,” said Cowley. “Maybe it’s an issue of expectations. If the principals of these two schools simply don’t know what to do they have to figure it out.”

Cowley explained that it’s not unusual for educators to be unsure of where to go, but identifying schools in similar circumstances and following their practices may yield success. He notes Creston’s Prince Charles school was tied with PRSS in 2001, but has gone the exact opposite direction and is now ranked 80.

“They’ve brought themselves up,” he said, noting failure rates have dropped at the school, graduation rates are up and exam marks have risen. “In some senses, there’s a disappointing lack of improvement (in Prince Rupert).

Schools need to ask themselves if these indicators of traditional academic performance are of interest to them, said Cowley, adding that there are many other things that schools might be good at outside of that realm such as sports, fine arts or trades.

But if traditional academics are important, he asks schools to consider if they are doing well enough, and in the case of Rupert, that means is a 66-67 per cent average test score acceptable.

“If you think it’s acceptable, then close the report card, “he said. But I think that traditional academics are becoming more and more important.”

The annual ranking of schools raises the ire of many in the education field such as the professions who consider the report to attack their profession.

“It kills morale,” said Marty Bowles, Prince Rupert District Teachers’ Union (PRDTU) president. “ It kills morale in the schools, not just with teachers but with administrators and students, whether you believe the rankings or not.”

Bowles fits in the ‘not’ category, saying that a number of factors can explain an apparent poor ranking.

“Simply because not everyone may write the test, the tests are culturally-biased (and) it may be given on a day when a student doesn’t feel well,” said Bowles, adding he doesn’t even read the rankings. “Teachers test on a regular basis and students are tested on an accumulation of knowledge (unlike) government exams and (Foundation Skills Assessments.)”

For example, on thing that may have sunk PRSS is the delayed advancement rate, a factor that looks at students who entered Grade 10 and took more than three years to complete their diploma.

At PRSS, 41 per cent of students take longer than those three years.

“A lot of students don’t study full time, many have to support themselves,” said Bowles. “Where is it written you have to finish in three years?”

For his part, Cowley hopes the low rankings motivate rather than discourage educators.

“If being ranked at the bottom hurts, and I’m sure it does, what are you going to do about it?” he said.

“Are you going to say ‘poor us’ – or will you find new ways to do things better?”

This is the Fraser Institute’s ninth annual ranking of B. C. and Yukon secondary schools.