This is old news.

In a typical upper-middle-class neighborhood in Burlington, Ontario, three interesting pictures emerge from a study (now a few years old but unlikely to change dramatically) of SES vs EQAO rankings of schools.

Picture #1:  Yes, there is an observable slope to the barcharts; increasing SES is correlated with better EQAO scores, BUT:

Picture #2:  Scattered among the low-ESE schools are schools that do as well as the best, AND:

Picture #2:  Scattered among the high-SES schools are schools that do as poorly as the poorest in the group.

What is this picture trying to tell us?  What do other jurisdictions find?

This picture tells me that the expected notion that kids in lower socio-economic neighbourhoods and schools can so learn and learn well, while some in those presumed “have” schools pretty much suck.

How’s that Mr. Gue?

I see the picture of schools that are doing well, are doing things differently than other schools. Such as excellent communication with parents, role models for the students, being pro-active with students learning problems, rather than reactive, when it is sometimes too late, effective teaching methods, and thinking outside the box, to overcome problems.
I believe these things above, are factors that can overcome any outside variables, that are influencing the school in negative ways.

Reply to notasheep from Frank Gue

You got it.

My hypothesis about the reasons that underlie this is:

(a)  Some schools are good, some not so good, independent of SES and:

(b)  Some good, some not-so-good, teachers gravitate toward respectively good and not-so-good schools, and:

(c)  Some principals are simply better managers than others, cuz management is management wherever you go and whatever you are doing.  A useful principle is a short one (the good ones are always the short ones)j, viz:

Every enterprise has only three problems:  quantity, quality, and cost.

Notice: No mention at all of car manufacture, or mining, or finance, or any other KIND of enterprise.  It’s a universal principle.  Some principals get it, some don’t.

F.

Frank Gue.

You are not correct Frank. There are zero poor schools that do as well as middle class schools or rich schools and there are zero rich or middle class schools that do as badly as poor schools.

The most you can possibly say is that some poor schools do better than other poor schools and some middle class schools do not do as well as other middle class schools but unless we are going to have a massive number of statistical ties this is totally predictable. The question is, is it statistically significant. The answer is no.

No, Doug, not so.

The FACTS are as I stated.  The numbers are not zero.

I didn’t claim statistical significance.  But since you brought it up, note that important decisions get made on the basis of small samples, as in SPC.

Back to the point:  I carefully hedged my CORRECT statements by asking if this picture appears in other jurisdictions, using, as I did, EQAO results.  Now, if you question those that is another whole subject we could discuss sometime.

I emphasize CORECT because they are simply numbers on the public record.  “Better” and “worse” are of course my value judgments, which we could argue until the cows come home.

F.

I go over those numbers with a fine tooth comb. Show me the poor ses school that did better than the high ses school. Doesn’t happen.

In the UK they call them the league tables because they resemble the football tables Division 1 etc.

In USA NCLB showed overwhelming absolute correspondence between ses and test scores. Same is true in every country on Earth unless someone can show me a country I have missed where the rich do very badly and the poor are on top.

OK, I can show you but not on this blog - blogs won’t handle attachments.

Give me your email addr and I will send you the chart.

Open note to anyone else listening: If you want to see a barchart showing the dramatic discontinuities in family income vs. scholastic accomplishment, send me a request at
<[email protected]> and I’ll send it to you.  Or i f you don’t want your addr publicized fax it to me at 905 634 9538.

BTW, Doug, at my regular costing rate you owe me for one quarter hour or $45.  Well, no, I guess not, cuz I should have this chart scanned and in my library anyway.

Cheers,

F.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)