MB Students A Product of Their Society, Not Their Schools
Yesterday the Manitoba funding announcement for the 2021-2022 school year was released which will see a 1.56% increase for a total of $1.35 billion; the highest in the history of our province. However, this marks the fifth year in a row in which the funding allocation has failed to meet the rate of inflation or account for the increasing needs of our provinces’ students. What is perhaps more upsetting for those involved in education is that this announcement was coupled with critiques from the newly appointed education minister, Cliff Cullen, who voiced his displeasure over the academic achievement, or lack thereof, of Manitoba students.
It is true that while Manitoba has the third highest education allocation per student, at $14,815, our PISA scores are among the worst in Canada. Education reform within the province has been on the table in some capacity for years, with the highly anticipated education review expected to be made public sometime this spring. Conversations from both Cliff Cullen, and his predecessor Kelvin Goertzen, center on broad-sweeping changes to the Manitoba education system which hints at reduced admin positions and increased funds for classrooms and a modernization of pedagogical practices. The overall goal to ultimately increase Manitoba’s achievement results while educators have been stretched to their limits teaching students in two-three locations, in various environments, simultaneously; often without the required support due to staff shortages.
What appears to be absent from the conversation, however, is the role poverty plays in education. Manitoba is home to some of the highest child poverty levels in Canada; with four ridings in the Canadian top-30 list. The Campaign 2000 spring 2020 report, Broken Promise Stolen Futures: Child and Family Poverty in Manitoba, indicates that there are 85,000 children living in poverty in Manitoba (Campaign 2000 MB Report Card, pg. 4); almost 45,000 of these are among the highest risk in Canada (Campaign 2000 Riding by Riding Comparison, pg. 5). When coupled with research indicating that, “the home background of pupils is the single most important factor influencing educational outcomes” (van der Berg, pg. 9) one is left to question if a change in our education system is what is required. In fact, Raffo et. al (pg. 50, 2007) argued that multi-tier support strategies are required throughout a society before other education interventions could have a strong and long-lasting effect.
It is clear that any desired shift in education within Manitoba needs to be accompained by a targeted reduction in our provincial poverty levels. An emphasis on education funding and reform alone not only fails to meet the needs of Manitoba students but continues to place stress on both educators and families who lack the supports they require.
For more information on the role of poverty on society, including an overview of how a guaranteed minimum income successfully impacted education in Dauphin, Manitoba check out the video embedded here.
Edit – February 7th. The article originally included research completed by Benjamin Levin. Upon familiarizing myself with Levin, his quotations were removed from the writing as his personal actions are not something I condone.
References
Campaign 2020. (2020). “Broken Promise Stolen Futures: Child and Family Poverty in Manitoba”. Retrieved September 14, 2020: https://spcw.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Manitoba-Child-and-Family-Poverty-Report-2020.pdf
Campaign 2020. (2018). “Riding by Riding Analysais Shows Child Poverty in Canada Knows No Boundaries”. Retrieved September 14, 2020: https://campaign2000.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Campaign-2000-Riding-by-Riding-Child-Poverty-Report.pdf
Manitoba Education. (2019). “Enrollment Report”. Retrieved September 14, 2020: https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/finance/sch_enrol/enrolment_2019.pdf
Raffo, C., Dyson, A., Gunter, H., Hall, D., Jones, L., & Kalambouka, A. (2007). Education and poverty: a critical review of theory, policy and practice.
Manchester: Joseph Rowntree Foundation & University of Manchester.
van der Berg, Servaas. (2008). “Poverty and education”. Education Policy Series. Vol. 10. Retrieved February 6, 2021: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.9607&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hi Kirsten. It’s great to see you tackling the tough questions. Indeed, several researchers have come to the similar conclustions:
“The single greatest predictor of academic success that exists is the emotional stability of the home, it’s not the classroom. And if you really wanted to do education reform, you would start with the home, darn it, you wouldn’t start with the classroom, because it is the greatest predictor.”
(John Medina, CBC Ideas Podcast, All in the Family, Part 2: 34: 01) from https://blog.donnamillerfry.com/education-leadership/be-that-one-person/
Pasi Sahlberg also frequently talks about how when Finland was at the top of the PISA ranks (and this is not an endorsement of that indicator), educators from around the world came to examine schools in Finland, completely missing the societal factors that led to success in school, including support for new mothers.
Genetics and geography should not impact future success. The public school system IS the equalizer.
So as educators, what can we do? Well, we also know that the quality of classroom instruction is the best predictor of student outcomes, and in fact, this is FAR more true for children from low socioeconomic backgrounds (I’ll post the references for this research on my blog and in my newsletter shortly – just working on that now). Three years after a year with a poor teacher, the effects of that year are still evident.
So, how do we get the best teachers into the places where they are most needed? How do we ensure that the best teachers (not the least qualified in the system – the educational assistants – who have a very important role but not to be teaching the most needy learners) work with the students who have the biggest learning challenges? How do we make remote schools irresistible to the teachers who self-direct their learning based on the needs of students? How do we ensure education funding goes directly to making an improvement in classroom learning?
Manitoba has the lowest support for early learning of any jurisdiction in Canada. Ontario has full-time kindergarten for 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds. Ontario children have had 2 full years full-day with a teacher and ECE before grade 1, with a curriculum that values children and their learning: http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesCurrImpl/OntCurriculum/kindergarten_english.pdf
Structures to ensure constant improvement of teacher practice to improve student outcomes is the highest-yield strategy to do better work for kids.
Quality learning must be an urgent societal demand. Education is an investment, not an expense. But throwing money at bad practice won’t work either. As educators, we have to insist on high pedagogical standards, the rights of all children to the learning pathways they need, and an end to looking the other way at practices that do not lead to learning.
Keep doing your amazing work to ensure all kids – ALL kids – are learning in our schools.