"School shopping" in Ontario based on income and ethnicity

Well, it is publicly-available information: give me a postal code and a bit of time, and I can get it for you. And peer effects - which depend on income and ethnicity - are very important in determining education outcomes. That's how and why we target resources to schools where these factors make it difficult to generate good outcomes.

It's true that it's publicly available information, Stephen, but the issue is, whether the government should be encouraging parents - who would probably not otherwise bother - to look up this information in order to compare schools in their area and decide where to send their kids.

In a racist, classist society, how do you think parents would use such information, all neatly compiled and put at their fingertips?  And what message does it send to people to present such information in such a manner?  To me, the message is, "Here, we want to help you pick the school with the richest, whitest kids, so your kids can associate with only the best!"

Michelle wrote:

It's not like our neighbourhoods aren't already divided enough on racial and income lines. But I discovered that the neighbourhood divisions of race and class are way more pronounced in the US than it is here - it was quite startling to see. I don't want to see that trend encouraged here.

Very well said Michelle. It was scary to observe the last time I was in the US too. Even extends to divisions between big-box stores, those frequented by minorities and those frequented by whites... I really don't want this thinking to become typical here, though I don't doubt it already is in some ways/areas.

None of that determines the quality of the education in the school. 

It might, and it is a big frikkin might, effect how ready kids are to learn when they step in the doors of the school but that is all. 

It is not just poor and non-white schools that get targeted under this approach, it is also small and rural schools too, although they should often fit into the poor category, most people don't see it that way.  There are lots of good schools in the 'bad' areas and lots of crappy schools in the 'good' areas.  What matters is how involved the teachers and administration are, how supportive the Board is and how involved parents actually are in the life of their kids.  And  none of that has to do with who goes to the school.

Supporting this kind of bean counter approach in education is exactly why American schools are failing.

Perhaps, but if you're not well-off, it doesn't really help you to learn that schools in rich neighbourhoods give good outcomes: it's not as if the solution for a low-income family that is concerned for their children's education is to buy a house in Rosedale.

More generally, just the fact of giving parents choices can improve outcomes. For example, here's a recent NBER study on how and why the separate school system generates better outcomes, even though it gets the same funding as public schools:

Quote:

The province of Ontario has two publicly funded school systems: secular schools (known as public schools) that are open to all students, and separate schools that are open to children with Catholic backgrounds. The systems are administered independently and receive equal funding per student. In this paper we use detailed school and student-level data to assess whether competition between the systems leads to improved efficiency. Building on a simple model of school choice, we argue that incentives for effort will be greater in areas where there are more Catholic families, and where these families are less committed to a particular system. To measure the local determinants of cross-system competition we study the effects of school openings on enrollment growth at nearby elementary schools. We find significant cross-system responses to school openings, with a magnitude that is proportional to the fraction of Catholics in the area, and is higher in more rapidly growing areas. We then test whether schools that face greater cross-system competition have higher productivity, as measured by test score gains between 3rd and 6th grade. We estimate a statistically significant but modest-sized impact of potential competition on the growth rate of student achievement. The estimates suggest that extending competition to all students would raise average test scores in 6th grade by 6-8% of a standard deviation.

That's sort of the point of the school choice story I cited. Separate school administrators in Ontario don't have any extra resources, but they do face the prospect of being shut down if they can't deliver decent results - Catholics don't *have* to send their kids to separate schools. That incentive seems to be enough to generate statistically significant results.

Interesting cross-issues in this thread:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/private-schools-under-investi...

In terms of public schools I think it was Maclean's that did a huge piece on the TDSB about a year ago about this issue of not only shopping for schools, but parents doing all kinds of wacky, illegal stunts to get their kids qualified to go to a certain school, Jackman Public School, in Riverdale. Anyone else remember that? Both my mom and my sister teach in the public system (one at the high school level and one at the middle/elementary level) so we talk about this issue a fair bit.

And, thread drift, but I feel the need to say this: even though schools are funded on a per student basis, schools in richer neighbourhoods have more resources than schools that aren't. Parents in schools in higher income neighbourhoods carry more influence, etc.

A group of  Upper Middle Class parents in SJ supported a restructuring plan supported by the District Education Council. The plan would have seen the closure of two community schools in vulnerable communities and the transfer of students from the middle school to an under-utilized  physical plant in the upper middle class neighbourhood. The Minister rejected the plan in support of continuing the Community Schools model wityh their attendant extra resources. These parents aren't taking no for answer and are trying to convince the DEC to create a Community School for middle school in their affluent neighbourhood. Of course, this makes a mockery of the community school model. They just don't want their children being bussed into a vulnerable neighbourhood and studying with kids from the lower class. I was one of these lower class kids at the school over 30 years ago so this cuts close to the bone.

Interesting thread. Sorry I'm just getting to it now.

There are two interesting questions that it seems to raise: the first is whether the demographic makeup of the student body (ethnicity, income, etc.) is corelated to the quality of education within a school. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Without a data set in front of me and a graduate degree in sociology, I don't really feel qualified to comment on it one way or another.

The second question is: assuming that there IS a corelation between student body makeup and school quality, is it ethical for parents to "shop around" and try to get their kids into what they think is a better school? And the answer to me is a resounding YES. Some people seem to be disparaging parents who would shop around for a school. I, for one, applaud them. One of your primary responsibilities as a parent is to get your child the best possible education that you can, and to provide them with the best opportunity to be successful in life (however you want to define success).

It sucks that there are such disparities within the school system. I'd love to see the day when all schools are great and every student has the same opportunities no matter which school they attend. But we don't ahve that today and so I'm gonna make damn sure that MY son gets the best that I can provide them. Are tehre any parents on this board who would deliberately send their kids to what they consider an inferior school jsut to make some sort of point or because they don't want to be accused of endorsing discrimination.

I really took offence when people attacked the Obamas for choosing to send their daughters to an expensive private school instead of a D.C. public school. First of all, I think that criticizing a president's performance as president is obviously fair game. Criticizing decisions the Obamas make as a mother and father should be off-limits. But what really was troublesome was that nobody suggested that by going to the private school in question the Obama girls would NOT get a great education. People jsut thought it would be "symbolically important" to send them to public school. Well, these aren't symbols. They're kids and they deserve the best education that their parents are able to provide them. I would actually have LOST respect for the Obamas if they were willing to sacrifice teh quality of their daughters' education in order to score political points.

caissa, in terms of how I'd define quality...  it's not a single variable, it encompasses a lot of different things and it can also vary based on what your child's interests and needs are. So if one kids wants to be a doctor and one kid wants to be an artist the "quality of education" offered by one school could differ for each kid. if one child is gifted and another has a learning disability, again, the same school might offer very different quality.

In general, were I to be looking at a school (we're years away from that point still), I'd look at academic factors like average grades, average test scores, SAT scores, graduation rates, the percentage who are accepted to college, etc. Then there are the "extras" offered: is there a music program? Theatre program? Sports teams? That could be important if your kid is into those things.  You've got issues of faculty: how experienced are the teachers? How long has the average teacher been at the school? (If teachers are leaving every couple years, that may raise a red flag). Then there are the "socio/cultural" factors: is violence a problem at the school? Drugs? Are parents generally involved in the school, etc.

The ethnicity and income of the student body are not a factor...UNLESS these things can be corelated to the quality of the school. I can see scenarios in which they make absolutely no difference. I can also see scenarios where they could play a major factor.

Even so, I would imagine that there would be certain schools that you wouldn't send them to in a million years. My best friend from back in Toronto is a teacher at an inner-city public high high school and I cant believe the shit he has to put up with. A very small percentage of students are actually interested in learning. THe drop out rate is close to 50% The percentage who go on to university is negligible. Teachers are routinely cursed at and have even been spat on and pushed. Breaking up fights has come to be part of a teacher's job description. In a million years, I wouldn't let my son go to that school.

I don't think seeking out the best school is endorsing "social fragmentation." The best school could be incredibly diverse and it could be very homogenous. I'm sure that Stanford University is vastly more diverse than a community college in Utah and is also vastly superior. You may think polarization is bad but it ahs become reality. And I have no intention of sacrificing my son's education to make some stand against polarization.

SSC: I don't know what school in TO you're referring to in post #23 but I'd venture to guess, with a 50% drop-out rate and few students going on to college, this school is in a low-income community. Have you stopped to consider why the kids there drop out and never make it to university? Most likely they never had much of a chance of getting there anyway, given the cost; by assuming these stats mean the parents/students don't care you're missing the real reason behind the stats, that people have no hope. I'm not advocating for dropping out but if you're in highschool and poor, and you have a choice between finishing highschool and then getting a crummy job, or quitting highschool and getting a crummy job right away, I can certainly see the systemic incentive to drop-out. Blaming the parents/students for this situation is a way of deflecting blame from a system which provides incentive to drop-out and little incentive to stay in.

I don't buy that argument, D. I mean, it may very well be factually accurate but it's not compelling enough to me. As a father, my first priority is my children. I'm always gonna do what is best for him, no matter what. It sucks if other people's kids don't have the same opportunities that I can provide to mine but I'm still unwilling to sacrifice my own child as a gesture of solidarity. I mean, some kids don't ahve access to medical treatment. that's absolutely tragic. But I'm not gonna deny medical treatment to MY son because not all kids get it. Some kids live in horrible housing conditions but I'm not gonna move MY son out of the nice home that we're providing him. And some kids are stuck in really terrible schools. Again, that's horrible. But I will never feel guilty about providing my son with the very best that I am possibly able to give him.

Perhaps one of you could explain why you think social polarization would be bad for YOUR sons.

It's Me D wrote:

I can certainly see the systemic incentive to drop-out. Blaming the parents/students for this situation is a way of deflecting blame from a system which provides incentive to drop-out and little incentive to stay in.

Oh, I'm not trying to "blame" anyone. I'm merely recognizing the reality that any single child's education doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Students are affected by the environment that they're in. If the environment is such that a child is around a large number of students not interested in learning, where rudeness to teachers is the norm, where violence is common, that will affect them. And I'm unwilling to put my son into such an environment.

I have two sons in the school system and i couldn't agree more with riffraffrenegade.

It's Me D wrote:

 If the school in your community lacks resources but you among all the parents have the means to move your kids and choose to, instead of fighting to improve the quality of education in your community, you've condemned all the other kids in your community to a fate you don't believe your kids deserve, why do all the other kids deserve this fate? How about using those same means that allow you to cherry-pick the best school for your kids to instead help improve the quality of your community's school for ALL the kids in the community.

The others kids DON'T "deserve" this fate and i never suggested that they did. I think every kid deserves the best education that society can provide. I'm pointing out that that is not the present reality. As to why I don't work to improve the overall quality of schools for ALL kids instead of focusing on mine, the two aren't mutually exclusive. that's certainly a noble goal and one that we all SHOULD engage in. But change doesn't happen overnight and in the meantime, the kids (mine among them) stuck in bad schools would continue to suffer while we wait for this transformation. I'm not willing to subject my son to that.

Let me try the following analogy: a person who lives in Canada and makes a decent income gets diagnosed with HIV. Because of his location and income, he has access to anti retroviral medications that will keep his symptoms at bay, largely maintain his existing quality of life and dramatically extend the length of his life. Obviously, there are people in the world who, through accident of birth, do not have the same access to these meds. They can look forward to intense illness, suffering and an early death. Do ethics demand that our well-off Canadian not take these life-saving drugs cause not everyone has access? Is it selfish for him to focus on his own health instead of working to change the system so that everyone gets access to the same drugs that he has? Is it noble for him to sacrifice himself in the name of equality? If YOU were in this situation would you ahve any guilt about taking the drugs? how about if it were your son?

Yeah, that's exactly what I will do. I make no pretense of being a perfect person by any means and there are many things about that can be easily criticized but my committment to my son is not one of them. I will never feel guilty about doing everything I can for him.

What was the flaw in the example I used? Let's try another that is from my actual life. Here where I live, we ahve a two-tier healthcare system. Because of my job, I (and my family) get access to the absolute best healthcare available. Other people (through no fault of their own) aren't as fortunate. If my son gets sick, I'm getting him the best treatment I can. Without even an ounce of guilt. Would it be more ethical to deny him the best medicine because not everyone gets it? It's very easy to support abstract principles of equality in theory. it's quite another thing when push actually comes to shove.

Yeah, Tommy, cause most of our economy today is about running machines....

Its common knowledge that school performance on standardized tests is almost perfectly correlated to the average household income of the zone the school draws from. Why do people even need to look at these statistics about the demographic makeup of each school - all you need to do is look at what census tract the school is in, go to the Statscan website and see what the average income is in that census tract.

If I had kids, I'm not sure what I would do. Not having kids, I can live wherever I want. I could find some neat loft in an industrial park that had some very poor areas around it and maybe was on a street with heavy traffic and it wouldn't matter to me because not having kids - I don't have to give any consideration at all to what environment I want my kids to grow up in. I suppose that some people here seem to be arguing that if I have school age kids, the "politically correct" thing to do would be to move to the Jane-Finch corridor and send my kids to a school where (to quote SSC) "an inner-city public high high school and I cant believe the shit he has to put up with. A very small percentage of students are actually interested in learning. THe drop out rate is close to 50% The percentage who go on to university is negligible. Teachers are routinely cursed at and have even been spat on and pushed. Breaking up fights has come to be part of a teacher's job description."...and maybe I'd wave goodbye to my son or daughter every morning and say "you're getting a great cultural experience and just remember when you get beaten up every day in the school yard by all the thugs that at least you are doing your part to reduce social segregation in the school system".

I'm just not sure if i would be willing to make that sacrifice.

May be the only solution would be to bring busing to Canada. Back in the 60s and 70s they did busing to reduce de facto racial segregation in schools and they bused black kids to heavily white schools and vice versa. Of course it also led to riots in places like Boston and almost singlehandedly catapulted George Wallace to a position of power in American politics etc... But getting back to the point - what about busing kids from rich and poor neighbourhoods to schools across town so that every school in Toronto would have the same average household income?

Stochkolm, the busing policies in the U.S. were a miserable failure. They did absolutely nothing to improve educational outcomes among the students it was designed to help. All it did was increase racial tensions and force kids to ride a bus for two hours a day even though there was a school 5 minutes from their house. And it also basically led virtually every family with the means to do so to abandon the public school system en masse. many abandoned urban centres entirely and fled to the suburbs creating the "donut cities" that you see in palces like Detroit and Atlanta.

And what is maybe MOST interesting about the busing phenomenon was that some of the biggest advocates of the policy, like ted Kennedy made damn sure to send THEIR kids to pricey private schools. People are very eager to push for "progressive" policies that promote "tolerance" and "equality" as long as it's other people's kids who are bearing the consequences.

SSC: No one has called for parents to arbitrarily harm their kids just for the hell of it, please stop posting examples of such; do you support two-tiered healthcare?

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

It's Me D wrote:

 do you support two-tiered healthcare?

I do, yes. Based on my experiences both as a patient and a physician.

Unionist: I was shocked at first, because of some assumptions that Babble is a progressive board; don't worry though they are on route to being shattered these days