Simply throwing more money at schools will not increase student test scores

Alberta, Quebec and Ontario had the highest average test scores, with each spending markedly less per student than Manitoba (C$15,473) and Saskatchewan (C$17,194), the two highest-spending provinces who both had significantly lower test scores than lowest-spending B.C. (C$12,132).

“If you think education is expensive, try ignorance” was a popular bumper sticker back in the day. These days there’s broad acceptance of the need for adequate spending on this inherently expensive process. But do we get our money’s worth? Do Canada and the provinces get a good return on their education spending or should we spend more?

To help answer that question, it helps to broaden our perspective beyond Canada’s borders. According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, in 2018 (the latest year of complete and comparable data) there was a wide range of K-12 education spending among 33 high-income countries, ranging from Luxembourg (US$21,968 per student) to Lithuania, (US$6,551 per student). Canada (US$11,771) ranked 14th-lowest, just above the average and well below higher-spending Norway, Austria, Korea, Denmark and the United States.

There was less variation in provincial spending, with highest-spending Saskatchewan and Manitoba spending similar amounts to the U.S. and Germany, and British Columbia spending notably less, close to amounts spent by Finland and Japan.

So, Canada’s K-12 spending was in the mid-range of spending among high-income countries. What did we get, in terms of student performance, for this level of spending?

Based on results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which tests 15-year-old students worldwide every three years on reading, math and science, Canada’s average test performance was significantly higher than most other countries—specifically, Canada’s 15-year-olds had higher average scores than their peers in 11 higher-spending countries including Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom and the U.S.

There was a similar pattern between school spending and student performance in the provinces. Alberta, Quebec and Ontario had the highest average test scores, with each spending markedly less per student than Manitoba (C$15,473) and Saskatchewan (C$17,194), the two highest-spending provinces who both had significantly lower test scores than lowest-spending B.C. (C$12,132).

Of course, due to the many differences between education systems in different countries, global comparisons are less than precise, but clearly higher K-12 spending is not reliably associated with higher test scores. And there’s obviously a lot more to good education than doing well on standardized tests. Yet doing well in reading, math and science—the core PISA subjects—is important because these subjects provide a necessary foundation for future higher-level study and employment.

These findings raise a fundamental question. How can we close the gaps between test scores among countries and provinces if poorer-performing systems already spend more than those achieving higher scores? Given the poor track record of popular and expensive reforms such as smaller class sizes and extended teacher education, there’s no obvious answer to this question. Simply shovelling more money into school budgets will not, by itself, make a difference unless effective ways to improve student performance can be found.

Instead, education systems should encourage greater school-level decision-making to better serve local circumstances. And there’s also much to gain by paying at least as much attention to student performance as spending.

Author:

Derek J. Allison

Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education, The University of Western Ontario

Related Topics:#DerekAllison #EducationFunding #FraserInstitute

Up Next

WHO claims bird flu strain infected human for first time, has ‘potential for high public health impact’

Don't Miss

Australian Senate launches landmark excess death inquiry following COVID shot rollout

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

The Snack Attack: Are Major Food Brands Making Kids Addicted?

Business / 11 hours ago

Solving the Housing Affordability Crisis With This One Cool Trick

Censorship Industrial Complex / 20 hours ago

WEF Pushes Public-Private Collaboration to Accelerate Digital ID and Censorship

Censorship Industrial Complex

TDF and James Kitchen appeal Monique LaGrange decision to Alberta Court of Appeal

Published on January 23, 2025

Todayville

Written by TDF’s Legal Team

The Democracy Fund (TDF), together with lawyer James Kitchen, will appeal a recent Alberta Court decision involving school trustee Monique LaGrange. Mrs. LaGrange was a trustee of the Red Deer Catholic school board until the board disqualified her as a result of memes she posted and media interviews she gave, of which a majority of the trustees disapproved.

Mr. Kitchen has now filed his Notices of Appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal, which can be read here and here.

In 2023, Mrs. LaGrange shared a meme on her personal Facebook account outlining her concerns about the increasing indoctrination of students into Queer theory and transgender ideology. The meme featured two side-by-side images: one of young children holding swastika flags and the other of young children holding pride progress flags, accompanied by the caption, “Brainwashing is brainwashing.” The post garnered support but also criticism, especially from teachers and other school trustees. One of the trustees submitted a complaint alleging that by posting the meme Mrs. LaGrange had violated many sections of the new trustee code of conduct.

Following a hearing in September 2023, a majority of the board of trustees determined Mrs. LaGrange had breached the code of conduct. The board imposed several sanctions, including that she cease making any public statements in areas touching upon or relating to the 2SLGBTQ+ community, issue a public apology, and complete sensitivity training at her own expense.

Mrs. LaGrange refused to issue an apology and maintained that her actions were consistent with her commitment to protecting children, stating, “I was elected to stand up and protect our children, and that is what I am doing.”

Shortly thereafter, another trustee submitted a complaint about Mrs. LaGrange, alleging that she had again violated the code of conduct and also breached the sanctions by posting another meme and doing two media interviews. The meme was a popular one depicting a wolf with colourful make-up with the caption, “I just want to read some books to your chickens”.

After a second hearing, a majority of the trustees again determined Mrs. LaGrange had breached the code of conduct and the sanction regarding public comments. The board then disqualified her as a trustee, effectively kicking her off the board.

The lawyer for Mrs. LaGrange, James Kitchen, said:

“This case is the first of its kind. Never before has an Alberta board of school trustees kicked another trustee off the board for what effectively amounts to a disagreement regarding expressed political and religious beliefs (disguised, in our view, as trustee misconduct). Such an outcome has been made possible by the recent adoption of trustee codes of conduct by Alberta school boards. These new codes enable a majority of trustees to censor and cancel individual trustees with whom they politically disagree. In this case, it appears that a majority of politically left-leaning school trustees applied the code of conduct to a politically disfavoured trustee in order to censure, humiliate, and remove Monique for her outspoken opposition to the sexualization and indoctrination of young students.”

TDF and Mr. Kitchen challenged the board’s decision at a judicial review at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. The Court varied the board’s apology requirement but otherwise upheld all of the board’s findings.

TDF litigation director Mark Joseph expressed concern over the broader implications of the case, stating:

“Disqualifying a democratically-elected representative based on public comments sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines free speech rights, tolerance for political diversity, and representative democracy by allowing officials to impose ideological purity tests on electoral candidates. The proper response to allegations of bad policy is repudiation at the ballot box rather than official disqualification. If upheld, this decision will pose a significant threat to democratic rights in Canada.”

About The Democracy Fund

Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund (TDF) is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty. TDF promotes constitutional rights through litigation and public education. TDF supports an access to justice initiative for Canadians whose civil liberties have been infringed by government lockdowns and other public policy responses to the pandemic.

Education

Parents should oppose any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology in schools

Published on January 2, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson

According to a recent poll, the vast majority of parents in Canada easily understand letter grades on report cards but are confused by the nouveau “descriptive” grading adopted in British Columbia. This should serve as a warning to any province or school board thinking about adopting this type of convoluted descriptive grading.

In September 2023, despite overwhelming opposition from British Columbians, the B.C. government replaced letter grades—such as A, B, C, D, etc.—on K-9 report cards with a “proficiency scale,” which includes the descriptive terms “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.” If these four terms seem confusing to you, you’re not alone.

According to the recent poll (conducted by Leger and commissioned by the Fraser Institute), 93 per cent of Canadian parents from coast to coast said the letter grade “A” was “clear and easy” to understand while 83 per cent said the letter grade “C” was “clear and easy” to understand. (For the sake of brevity, the poll only asked respondents about these two letter grades.)

By contrast, 58 per cent of Canadian parents said the descriptive grade “extending” was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 26 per cent could correctly identify what “extending” means on a report card.

It was a similar story for the descriptive grade “emerging,” as 57 per cent of Canadian parents said the term was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 28 per cent could correctly identify what “emerging” means on a report card.

It’s also worth noting that the poll simplified the definitions of the four “descriptive” grading terms. The B.C. government’s official definitions, which can be found on the government’s website, speak for themselves. For example: “Extending is not synonymous with perfection. A student is Extending when they demonstrate learning, in relation to learning standards, with increasing depth and complexity. Extending is not a bonus or a reward and does not necessarily require that students do a greater volume of work or work at a higher grade level. Extending is not the goal for all students; Proficient is. Therefore, if a student turns in all their work and demonstrates evidence of learning in all learning standards for an area of learning, they are not automatically assigned Extending.”

So, what are the consequences of this confusing gobbledygook? Well, we already have some anecdotes.

Before the B.C. government made the changes provincewide, the Surrey School District participated in a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of descriptive grading. According to Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA in Surrey and mother of three, for three years her daughter’s report cards said she was “emerging” rather than clearly stating she was failing. Sturko was unaware there was a problem until the child’s Third Grade teacher called to tell Sturko that her daughter was reading at a Kindergarten level.

Former B.C. education minister Rachna Singh tried to justify the change saying descriptive grading would help students become “better prepared for the outside world” where you “don’t get feedback in letters.” But parents in B.C. clearly aren’t happy.

Of course, other provinces also use terms in their grading systems (meeting expectations, exceeding expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, etc.) in addition to letter grades. But based on this polling data, the descriptive grading now used in B.C.—which again, has completely replaced letter grades—makes it much harder for B.C. parents to understand how their children are doing in school. The B.C. government should take a red pen to this confusing new policy before it does any more damage. And parents across the country should keep a watchful eye on their local school boards for any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology open to interpretation.