“There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistic.” Benjamin Disraeli said it; Mark Twain liked to repeat it but the Toronto District School Board developed some interesting stats it in its report: 2008 Parent Census, Kindergarten – Grade 6: System Overview.
The Report shows simply that poverty effects school performance.
It shows that while kids do worse on the provincial standardized tests for a variety of reasons like immigration status, family structure, ethnicity and parental education; each of those factors influence family income and family income is the factor that most reliably reflects on academic success.
Student coming from well off families that are ‘just of the boat’ usually have little problems adapting to our schools. Single parent families earning over the $50,000 a year also do not seem to be struggling with the system.
But two-parent, well settled and well educated families struggling below the poverty line have more in common with the stereotypical ‘welfare mother’ when it comes to academic success.
The issue is class. It will always be class.
The report suggests that breakfast and lunch programs would help and that is undoubtably true however there are many more ideas that could help like smaller class sizes, aggressive music and art programs and annual out door education trips.
The standard that is used is provincial standardized testing. The tests show that poorer children do not do that well on standardized tests and probably not well in school. Ok. That is interesting. But any teacher could have told you that for free if you just asks them.
Consider that to test all the students in Toronto cost over $12,000,000 a year, you could wonder if it is worth the effort. I do. How many hot student lunches could that buy.
The school system has always struggled to deal with working and lower economic class families. It did not matter too much with a booming economy. Children, cast off the academic wagon could always go on to an industrial or clerical job that could support them.
But today, with a shrinking economic system, these students have an uncertain future.
Parents, today believe that breakfast and lunch programs could improve children’s chances. At one point, education in England had nutrition programs. It was just considered part of their budget.
Some poorer children, of course, will do well in spite of their economic status just as some ‘rich kids’ will not. But we are dealing in statistics and statistics never relates directly to individuals.
That is why the blame for systemic school failures can always be individualized.
What is disappointing is the waste of human potential. The chances of finding the next Mozart or Einstein among the few rich kids is minimal. They are, most likely, in the many poorer kids who are having problems getting a basic education.
This report not only proved the obvious that poor children are struggling in our schools, it showed how expensive the standardized tests are in proving this.
