Two-pronged approach needed in education
One of the first commitments of the provincial Liberal government was to deliver a better education system, with solutions based on facts such as the following Statistics Canada data from 2003 to 2016.
1. Nova Scotia student enrollment fell by 21.4 per cent, vs. 5.8 per cent across Canada. The number of fulltime teachers also fell, but only by 5.8 per cent, while teacher numbers across Canada increased by 11.8 per cent.
2. The student-teacher ratio in Nova Scotia improved from 15.7 students per teacher to 13.1 students per teacher. The ratio across Canada is 15.1 students per teacher.
3. The 52.6 per cent increased spending per school in Nova Scotia was lower than the 60.1 per cent, per school across Canada, but, spending, per student, in Nova Scotia, was 92.8 per cent vs.71.8 per cent per student across Canada.
Obviously, this wasn’t simply a money problem, but a more comprehensive, systemic problem. More money was needed, but it had to be spent smarter and solve problems. Panels, councils and commissions were enacted to identify problem areas and provide blueprints for change.
Classroom environment, instruction (teaching and assessment methods), curriculum and student home environment have the greatest impact on student performance. With the introduction of inclusion, the classroom environment slowly deteriorated from high-support environments, to mixed support environments and eventually to low-support environments. Society has changed and schools are microcosms of that society. Today’s classroom challenges reflect those differences and solutions must address those challenges.
Educational psychologist and linguist Catherine Snow has done considerable research on predicting how successful children will be in learning to read. One such study in 1991 compared the combined effects of classroom support levels and home support levels. The predicted success rates were: 100 per cent for children in highsupport classrooms, from either high-support homes or low-support homes. There was also 100 per cent success rate prediction for students in mixed-support classrooms for children from high-support homes, but that dropped to 25 per cent for children from low-support homes. The predicted success rate for children in low-support classrooms from high-support homes dropped to 60 per cent and to 0 per cent for children from lowsupport homes. Although home support levels had the greatest negative effect, classroom support levels had the greatest positive effect. Therefore, a twopronged approach was needed.
To combat the negative effects of low-support homes, government created the preprimary program, free to all, and increased the breakfast program budget. Results from studies such as the Perry High Scope Preschool Project showed the greatest gains in educational spending occurred at the early childhood level. The $ 7.50 benefit to cost ratio cited for that program was later recalculated by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota as 17 to 1 for every dollar spent.
To raise classroom support levels, government funded the Council to Improve Classroom Conditions and implemented all of their recommendations. It created the Inclusion Commission with a mandate to produce a new inclusive education model. They have also hired approximately 450 new teachers.
The recommendations of the inclusion commission seem to be right on the money, and should produce an education system far more capable of dealing with the diverse challenges of today’s classrooms. Amazingly, other than Jim Vibert’s column, there hasn’t been a single comment on those recommendations. Obviously, the local political vultures don’t like the taste of crow! Al Moore Glace Bay