David Berliner is a retired Professor of Education from the
University of Arizona, a distinguished and respected scholar and a gentleman.
He was in Alberta this week speaking at teacher conventions. His point was
simple: teachers make a huge difference
to the lives and minds of their students, but have no significant impact on
standardized test scores. The most significant impact on such scores –
Provincial Achievement Tests, PISA scores, etc. – are the social and economic
conditions of the families of students. Poor families do not do as well as rich
families on standardized tests. More to the point, teachers and schools can not
compensate for poverty. He backed all of this up with significant data.
One example of this significant data is the table below.
This table, which uses Australian data from PISA, looks at the socio economic
status of the students coming into the school (these are the rows on this
column) and the social composition of the school (the columns). So row 1,
column 1 are poor kids in schools full of poor kids and row 5 column 5 is rich
kids in schools full of other rich kids. The three digit numbers in each cell
are the scores of these students in that cell on the PISA assessments.
There is a lot of difference between scores of 455 and
scores of 607 (1.5 standard deviations). What is more, the chances of a child
in square 1/1 achieving the same kind of score as a child in square 5/5 are
very low – around 6% - 8% do (it is around 8% in Canada). Given that we live in
a knowledge economy where knowledge provides the basis for income and social
mobility, this is a very important table.
Remember, teachers have very little influence over these
scores. In fact, the OECD itself (which collects the PISA data) observes that
some 46% of the variance in scores on its PISA tests of mathematics, science
and reading competence were related to social factors, especially poverty (Ash,
2014; OECD 2013)
. This
all fits with David Berliner’s earlier analysis of this same issue: socioeconomic
conditions account for some sixty percent of the variance in student
performance in the US, with a further twenty percent due to schools and half of
that due to teacher practice (Berliner, 2009)
.
So what has this to do with Alberta? First, remember that
Alberta is the leader in schooling in
the English speaking world. We are excellent at what we do. But if we want to
remain excellent, we need to work at some things to make sure we stay at the
forefront of educational quality performance. Given these findings, key to this
is the reduction of poverty and income inequality. Here the signs are not good.
Here is the most recent data from Public Interest Alberta relevant to this
issue:
• 143,200 Albertan children lived in
poverty – this is the wealthiest Province (measured by GDP per capita) in
Canada
• Most
low income families - families in
poverty – are working poor
• Most
Albertans working for low wages are older adults, many with family
responsibilities.
• There
is also a significant gender disparity when it comes to low wage work. Over
two-thirds of low wage workers (68.8%) 25 years or older are women
• While
Alberta has almost full employment, youth unemployment is high (8.9%) and
growing.
• Unemployment
amongst First Nations youth is also high (8.3%)
• Single
parents are especially vulnerable (especially female single parents) as are
recent immigrants
• Over
the past 30 years, income inequality in Alberta has increased at a rate
exceeding national trends: the top 1% of taxfilers saw a 65% increase in their
real after-tax incomes compared to only a 5.5% gain for the bottom 99% of
taxfilers over the period from 1982 to 2011.
• But
it gets worse: the top 0.1% of
taxfilers experienced a 136% increase in their real incomes, compared to only a
3.4% increase in the real incomes of the bottom 50% of taxfilers
So on indicators of equity, we are going in the wrong direction.
This will have an impact on educational outcomes.
It is also the case that conditions of practice – class size,
the investment in special needs education, school food programs, health care
for school age students – all need to be improved if we are to stop the trend
of poverty and inequality.
Pasi Sahlberg, author of Finnish Lessons 2.0 and a Visiting
Professor at Harvard, suggested that there were five things we should look at
to ensure we retain our global position as a leader in educational quality and
equity:
- Focus on our resource strategy for schools and
community development – what do we need to do to create the conditions of
practice in schools to enable teachers to be outstanding? What else do we need
to invest in for students - school
meals, health and dental care, inclusion, special needs supports, First Nations
outreach sports and clubs, safe school environments – for schools to be able to
focus on education.
- Early Childhood Care and Learning – universal access
to child care offered by highly skilled, professional child educators.
- Investments in child health and wellbeing.
Whether these are in terms of community programs, support for parents in
providing nutrition, community dental programs (the largest single reason for
school absenteeism in the City of New York is dental care and dental emergency)
or other health supports, these need to be there and maintained.
- . Clear and focused strategies and appropriate
supports for special education (students who need differentiated help to be
successful) and inclusion of students with disabilities.
- . Balanced curriculum which gives just as much
emphasis to the arts, music, dance and design as it does to science,
technology, engineering and mathematics. 60% of the students in Grade 1 right
now will apply for jobs on leaving school which do not yet exist and many of
these jobs will not be in STEM occupations (where there is also growing
unemployment).
So what is Alberta doing? It intends to reduce expenditure
across the board by between 9% and 12% (depending on the rate of population
growth and inflation) while hoping that this does not affect “front line” services.
Will these enable Sahlberg’s five action areas to be areas for investment,
development or improvement? No. Will these have an impact on the educational performance
of our schools? Yes. Will the “cuts” impact our economic future? Absolutely?
Is this smart? No.