Facts in Education

Why Separate Schools are Out Performing Public Boards

2011-10-17T15:53:00.000-07:00

Published in the Globe and Mail
October 12, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/why-separate-schools-are-outperforming-public-boards/article2198221/

The article makes the claim that, "the Ontario education system has set up a remarkably clean and ongoing experiment in the effects of school choice", and argues that, “…competitive pressures on separate school administrators [provide] stronger incentives to provide better education outcomes.” This conclusion is not substantiated by the evidence provided for several reasons.

First, the ‘effect’ is very small; much smaller than other effects such as improving the quality of teaching or using better assessment methods. Second, choice in Ontario is not a ‘clean’ experiment; it is primarily based on religion, so the study cannot rule out other factors that might explain the differences, such as values related to religious education that lead parents to Catholic schools. Third, a very large literature on school choice around the world has produced quite equivocal results and certainly has not consistently reported positive effects of school choice. While there may be many reasons to support school choice, it would be an error to support choice as a primary means of improving school quality.

Sincerely,

Ruth Baumann
Ron Canuel, CEO, Canadian Education Association
Gerry Connelly, Co Director Education Sustainability Development Academy, York University
Lorna Earl, Director, Aporia Consulting Ltd. and President of the International Congress of School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Kathleen Gallagher, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Avis Glaze, President, Edu-quest International Inc.
Joan M. Green, Former Director of Education, Founding CEO of EQAO, International Consultant on Public Policy and Performance
Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Penny Milton, former CEO, Canadian Education Association
Karen Mundy, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Jim Slotta, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Charles Ungerleider, Professor Sociology of Education (The University of British Columbia) and Director Research (Directions Evidence and Policy Research Group, LLP.)

Please see the following for further information on School Choice:

Fuller, B., Elmore, R., and Orfield, G. (eds.). (1996). Who chooses, who loses? New York: Teachers College Press.

Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2002). Market Forces and Standards in Education: A Preliminary Consideration. British Journal of Sociology in Education, 23(1), 5-18.

Lubienski, Chris. (2001). The relationship of competition and choice to innovation in education markets: A review of research on four cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Retrieved April 2010, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/14/ec.pdf

Whitty, G., Power, S. & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and Choice in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Education vital to Canada’s future: An open letter from the Facts in Education panel

2011-09-16T07:36:00.000-07:00

There are provincial elections this fall in several provinces with a couple more possible in the spring of 2012. Provinces are responsible for providing high quality public education, and elections are a good time to remind Canadian voters of several facts about education in this country:

Canada has one of the best school systems in the world; we perform very well in all international comparisons both on the quality of students’ work and in having less inequity in education than do many other countries. In particular, we significantly outperform the U S, our main economic partner. However we cannot be complacent. Education is a field in which one could always do better and there are still many Canadian students, in particular those from poor families or some minority groups, who are not reaching the levels of education we would want them to have. So while we should be very proud of our schools, we should also be striving for continued improvement; we can do even better.

While nobody knows for certain why our system performs so well, among the likely factors are skilled and committed teachers, a well resourced system that does not have large inequities in funding or in human capital, and supportive economic and social programs for parents and families.

In general, Canada has a long tradition of partnership and collaborative work among governments, school boards, teachers, parents and the broader community. Education systems do best for children when stakeholders develop and agree on goals for public education, and when conflict is minimized and differences are resolved through dialogue.

Improvement in outcomes for all children requires systematic attention to helping educators steadily improve their work. The international evidence shows that single and simple measures such as more competition or more testing do not themselves improve outcomes.

Canadians should be asking political parties and provincial governments for sustained and comprehensive strategies that will:

- focus on raising achievement for all students while also working to reduce the gaps in achievement among different groups

- help our educators continue to strengthen their skills

- maintain a positive and collaborative approach to education policy and practice that will attract and retain skilled and committed staff

- ensure that education policy is consistent with the best available research evidence

- provide regular public information on the progress of the education system

Governments that adopt this approach to education are most likely to generate good outcomes for all children, thus meeting the country’s needs and the desires of citizens.

Sincerely,

Ruth Baumann
Harold Brathwaite, Executive Director, The Retired Teachers of Ontario
Ron Canuel, CEO, Canadian Education Association
Gerry Connelly, Co Director Education Sustainability Development Academy, York University
Lorna Earl, Director, Aporia Consulting Ltd. and President of the International Congress of School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Sue Ferguson, Coordinator, The Learning Consortium, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education
Kathleen Gallagher, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Jane Gaskell, Professor and former dean, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Avis Glaze, President, Edu-quest International Inc.
Joan M. Green, Former Director of Education, Founding CEO of EQAO, International Consultant on Public Policy and Performance
Bill Hogarth, Retired Director of Education, Education Consultant
Ken Leithwood, Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Penny Milton, former CEO, Canadian Education Association
Karen Mundy, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Charles E. Pascal, Professor, University of Toronto, Former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education
Jim Slotta, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Charles Ungerleider, Professor Sociology of Education (The University of British Columbia) and Director Research (Directions Evidence and Policy Research Group, LLP.)

The Facts in Education panel is a group of education leaders and researchers that works to ensure that media reporting of education in Canada is accurate and factual. For more information, please visit http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe/Facts_in_Education.

Ontario education: More teachers college does not a teacher make

2011-09-09T18:10:00.000-07:00

Ontario education: More teachers college does not a teacher make

Published in the Globe and Mail
Friday September 9, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/ontario-education-more-teachers-college-does-not-a-teacher-make/article2158466/

The piece by Rory Gifillan, Ontario education: More teachers college does not a teacher make, cites no evidence whatsoever in support of his position even though there is quite a bit of research on teacher education. It also contains several leaps of logic – for example that if more education is not helpful, less education might be good, or that one person’s opinion (in this case Kurt Hahn) is a good guide to public policy. People can legitimately disagree on the implications of the evidence and on what to do about teacher education, but to offer an opinion without any consideration of the research does not seem likely to enhance informed public debate.

Sincerely,

Ruth Baumann
Harold Brathwaite
Lorna Earl
Kathleen Gallagher, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Joan Green, Former Director of Education, Founding CEO of EQAO, International Consultant on Public Policy and Performance
Bill Hogarth, Retired Director of Education, Education Consultant
Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Penny Milton, Former CEO, Canadian Education Association
Charles E. Pascal, Professor, University of Toronto, Former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education
Charles Ungerleider, Professor Sociology of Education (The University of British Columbia) and Director Research (Directions Evidence and Policy Research Group, LLP.)

For those interested in further research on this issue some suggested resources include:

Crocker, R., & Dibbon, D. (2008). Teacher Education in Canada: A baseline study. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Available at: http://saee.ca/upload/Teacher_Education_in_Canada.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000 ). How Teacher Education Matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51:3 (166-173).

Pratt, D. (1977). Predicting Teacher Survival. The Journal of Educational Research, 71:1 (12-18).

Believe or not: Less educated legislators do a better job

2011-08-31T07:20:00.000-07:00

Believe or not: Less educated legislators do a better job

Published in the Globe and Mail
Monday August 29, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/believe-it-or-not-less-educated-legislators-do-a-better-job/article2143984/

The claim that less educated legislators in the U S do a better job than more educated legislators because their states have lower unemployment is a logical fallacy. One of the first things taught in statistics is that a correlation between two factors does not mean that one causes the other. States with lower unemployment are also more likely to be in the southern part of the US, but this does not suggest that being in the north causes unemployment. Writers, editors and readers should guard against the desire to draw simplistic conclusions by the misapplication of statistical correlations.

Sincerely,

Ruth Baumann
Gerry Connelly, Co Director Education Sustainability Development Academy, York University
Kathleen Gallagher, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Avis Glaze, President, Edu-quest International Inc.
Joan M. Green, Former Director of Education, Founding CEO of EQAO, International Education Consultant
Bill Hogarth
Ken Leithwood, Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Karen Mundy, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Jim Slotta, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Charles Ungerleider, Professor, Sociology of Education, The University of British Columbia

2010-12-10T06:21:00.000-08:00

How Canada is becoming outclassed in school
Published in the Globe and Mail
Wed. December 8, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-canada-is-becoming-outclassed-in-school/article1829259/

and

Canada slipping in math, science and reading skills
Published in the National Post
Tues. December 7, 2010
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/12/07/canada-slipping-in-math-science-and-reading-skills/#ixzz17S8ZkeSI

Both these articles make claims that the recent PISA test results show that Canada’s students are slipping in the international rankings. While rankings are not the main point to the PISA results, this claim is not accurate. Our 2009 ranking in reading of 6th out of 65 (2 of those ahead of us are cities, not countries) is actually better than our 2000 result of 3rd out of 30, and roughly equivalent to our 2006 ranking of 4th out of 56. In understanding the Canadian results it is also important to consider the significant variation in results among provinces.

Sincerely,
· Gerry Connelly, Co Director Education Sustainability Development Academy, York University
· Ruth Baumann

· Harold Brathwaite
· Lorna Earl
· Kathleen Gallagher, Professor and Canadian Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
· Jane Gaskell, Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
· Avis Glaze, President, Edu-quest International Inc.
· Joan M. Green, Former Director of Education, Founding CEO of EQAO, International Education Consultant
· Sue Herbert, former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education
· Bill Hogarth, Retired Director of Education, Education Consultant
· Ken Leithwood, Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
· Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
· Penny Milton, Former CEO Canadian Education Association
· Karen Mundy, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
· Charles Ungerleider, Professor, Sociology of Education, The University of British Columbia

2010-05-18T04:03:00.000-07:00

‘Class size is the biggest dead end in the world,’ writer tells provincial Liberal think-tank
Published in the Toronto Star
Sun. May 16, 2010.
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/810122---class-size-is-the-biggest-dead-end-in-the-world-writer-tells-provincial-liberal-think-tank#comments

Malcolm Gladwell’s reported claim on the impact of class size reduction is an unfortunate piece of hyperbole, undoubtedly intended to provoke but misleading as stated. In fact there is solid evidence that smaller classes in primary grades can have positive impacts on student outcomes if they are part of an overall plan to improve teaching practices. As a general principle and unhappily for the widespread desire for simple answers to complex questions, improving outcomes in education requires attention to many factors, as Gladwell himself acknowledged in his address. The quality of teaching, while very important as Gladwell suggests, is not independent of the context.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

- Gerry Connelly, Co Director Education Sustainability Development Academy, York University
- Sue Ferguson, Coordinator, The Learning Consortium, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education
- Michael Fullan, Special Policy Adviser in Education to the Premier of Ontario
- Joan M. Green, Former Director of Education, Founding CEO of EQAO, International Education Consultant
- Bill Hogarth, Retired Director of Education, Education Consultant
- Ken Leithwood, Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
- Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
- Penny Milton, CEO Canadian Education Association
- Jim Slotta, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
- Charles Ungerleider, Professor, Sociology of Education, The University of British Columbia

Please see the following for further information on the issue of class size:

Canadian Council on Learning. (2005, September 14). Making sense of the class size debate. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/Sep-14-05-Making-sense-of-the-class-size-debate.pdf

Canadian Education Association. (2008). Class size reduction: What the literature suggests about what works. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/media/en/ClassSizeReduction.pdf

The Facts on School Choice and Decentralization

2010-04-07T11:41:00.000-07:00

Why school boards should follow Edmonton's lead: Allowing parents more choice is a welcome change from the “one size fits all” model imposed on neighbourhoods by public school boards

Published in the Globe and Mail

Thurs. April 1, 2010.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-school-boards-should-follow-edmontons-lead/article1520481/

This article makes the claim that, “If Toronto and other urban school boards follow Edmonton's lead, Canadians could see a revolution take place in the quality of education provided to our children.” Although there are many reasons to support, or not support decentralization and school choice in Canada, the body of evidence does not support the view that either decentralization or school choice alone will produce significant improvements in student outcomes.

Sincerely,

· Gerry Connelly, Co Director Education Sustainability Development Academy, York University

· Lorna Earl

· Sue Ferguson, Coordinator, The Learning Consortium, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education

· Kathleen Gallagher, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

· Sue Herbert, former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education

· Ben Levin, Professor and Canada Research Chair, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

· Penny Milton, CEO Canadian Education Association

· Charles E. Pascal, Professor, University of Toronto, Former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education

· Charles Ungerleider, Professor, Sociology of Education, The University of British Columbia

Please see the following on the issue of Decentralization:

Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A review. Educational Policy , 12(3), 325-346.

Simkins, Tim. (1993). The consequences of school-based management in England and Wales: a review of some evidence from an economic perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Thomas, H., & Martin, J.(1996). Managing resources for school improvement: Creating a cost-effective school. London: Routledge.

Piercey, D.(2010). Unintended consequences of cost recovery. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6). 46-49.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Education reform: School-based management results in changes in instruction and budgeting (Publication No.GAO/HEHS-94-135 School-Based Management). Retrieved April 2010, from http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152372.pdf

Please see the following for on School Choice:

Fuller, B., Elmore, R., and Orfield, G. (eds.). (1996). Who chooses, who loses? New York: Teachers College Press.

Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2002). Market Forces and Standards in Education: A Preliminary Consideration. British Journal of Sociology in Education, 23(1), 5-18.

Lubienski, Chris. (2001). The relationship of competition and choice to innovation in education markets: A review of research on four cases. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Retrieved April 2010, from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/14/ec.pdf

Whitty, G., Power, S. & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and Choice in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.