On Monday September 10, trustees received an important
report called Equity of Opportunity, Access and Outcomes. As one of the social determinants of health,
along with housing, employment and income, education has an important role. Educational
achievement is linked to improved health. It also provides a route out of poverty, as
greater completion of education is linked to improved income; those who gain
university degrees will earn considerably more over their life-time than those
who do not. Without greater equity in
education, Hamilton will not achieve higher general levels of student
achievement. Those schools that have a
large concentration of children from poor homes--- Hamilton’s high-needs schools----
typically have lower levels of student achievement than those schools whose students
are from families that are more affluent.
Equity within education is therefore important on many
levels, and it can contribute to creating a society which is more open,
inclusive and fair.
For many years there has been a consistent gap in student achievement
between high-needs and low- needs schools, and this has remained, even though
scores in both sets of schools have been rising. Students from poor homes are
capable of achieving as much as any other student, with the right educational
supports in place. This continued gap in
achievement is not acceptable, as it means, in general, students in high-needs schools
will never achieve as well as those in other schools.
Average meeting levels 3 and 4 in high needs and all
other schools 2004-05, 2008-09, 2010-11
|
EQAO
|
YEAR
|
All other schools
|
High Needs Schools
|
GAP
|
|
Reading Grade 3
|
2004
|
59%
|
36%
|
23%
|
|
|
2008
|
61%
|
39%
|
22%
|
|
|
2010
|
66%
|
47%
|
19%
|
|
Reading Grade 6
|
2004
|
61%
|
40%
|
21%
|
|
|
2008
|
65%
|
44%
|
21%
|
|
|
2010
|
70%
|
48%
|
22%
|
|
OSSLT
|
2004
|
85%
|
67%
|
18%
|
|
|
2008
|
79%
|
65%
|
14%
|
|
|
2010
|
76%
|
43%
|
33%
|
Source HWDSB’s
E Best 2006, 2012
In Hamilton, the needs of students in high-needs schools
have been long recognised and numerous attempts have been made to address their
needs. The 1970s program called Educational Needs of the Old City (ENOC) added
junior kindergarten, full-time social workers, smaller class sizes and additional
resources to these schools. Reports followed in 1984, 1989, 1991, a pilot in
2001 after amalgamation with Wentworth County, and a 2005 plan. None of these
attempts have brought average student achievement in high-needs schools up to
the same levels as those of other schools.
The Equity of Opportunity, Access and Outcomes Report
recommends a new, more comprehensive approach, based on the work of Dr. Doug
Willms at the University of New Brunswick. Rather than solely concentrating on Compensatory
schools, so leaving out other students who have needs but are not located in
the identified high-needs schools, Willms supports a broader approach. He
recommends five different educational interventions: universal interventions; additional interventions
that are targeted at students in low socio-economic schools; interventions targeted
towards basic needs; interventions targeted at all students who are not
achieving; and interventions that strive to include all students in mainstream schools.
The Report recommends an Action plan for 2012-13 that focuses
on
1. “Implementing a secondary Program Strategy
which considers equity of opportunity and access and continues to review and
implement an elementary program strategy
2. Creating the Terms of Reference ( including a sustainability plan) for the
HWDSB Equity Fund
3. Continue to modify how we allocate human and
material resources while reflecting an equity of outcomes framework
4. Finalize a review of school and program fees
and make changes in alignment with the equity framework.”
This plan has many strengths and, in conjunction with
Willms’ five principles, will provide a strong approach to this equity area. I
will comment on three of the actions mentioned:
Implementing a secondary Program Strategy which considers
equity of opportunity and access and continues to review and implement an
elementary program strategy.
Work has already begun on the secondary school Program
Strategy which has a focus on providing “relevant programs that meet particular
needs and goals and reflect student strengths and interests.” (Program Strategy
2011). This includes preparing students for all pathways: community, work,
apprenticeship, college, and university.
Work has not begun on an elementary school program strategy.
Consideration will be needed of the current discrepancies in the provision of the arts and physical
education as there are not standard expectations for them in grades 6 to 8. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board has a
school offering two phys. ed. teachers for these students while another school
has physical education being provided by the classroom teachers in grade 6 to
8. The latter is a high-needs school,
and these students may not have out-of-school opportunities to gain athletic
skills. They may not go to high school prepared with the skills for competitive
sports, placing them at a disadvantage in relation to other students. In
addition some schools offer four periods and others only two periods of phys. ed.
a week. Regarding the arts, there are schools with a specialist arts teacher
and a music teacher, two bands, a jazz band and a choir. Another high-needs school has no instrumental
program, no music teacher and no art teacher for grades 6 to 8. Unlike many students from more affluent
families, most of these students in the high-needs school will not have
opportunities to experience arts and music out of school.
Continue to modify how we allocate human and material
resources while reflecting equity of outcomes framework
This is a difficult area, where there are currently
inequities. The Report lists some areas
where there have been changes to provide a more equitable approach to the
provision of resources. Further work is needed. Even where resources are given,
they may fall short as they are not commensurate with the needs. For example,
one high-needs school last year identified that 48% of its students were at-risk
in grades 6 to 8. They still only had one resource teacher (LRT) to support 162
at-risk students (since increased by .5 to 1.5 LRTS). Another school, not identified
as high-needs, had 40 (12%) of its students identified as at-risk, and also had
1.5 LRTs.
Where big attempts have been made to provide a range of
supports for students from kindergarten to grade 2 across the district, with
support for all, there are still inequities. A high-needs school last year had
60 grade 1 students who were at risk in the language area. Twenty of the students
were a stage 1 or 2 English Language learner (ELL), which means that they were
at the early stages of learning English, and there were ESL teachers to provide
support. Seventeen of the students were provided
with the Leveled Literacy program (LLI) provided by the Board for those
students who need extra support. However, 23 students were left with no real additional
support program. In schools with less need, all at risk students can be provided
with additional support. Another example
is a school with 32 grade 2 at-risk students in language : 19 are stage 1 or 2
ELL and have ESL teacher support, 10 students are provided with the Empower
Program, intended for these students at risk, but 8 students had no program to
address their needs. Again, in schools
with less need, all students who require the Empower program or other programs are
accommodated.
Without increased resources and funding, HWDSB has difficult
decisions to make regarding the allocation of human and other resources. From
an equity perspective, schools with the highest student needs should be those where
most resources are placed.
Finalize a review of school and program fees and make
changes in alignment with the equity framework.
Currently there are many different practices across schools,
and some programs are not accessible to all students, as they cannot afford
them. There are in-school resources sometimes to assist students, such as the
International Baccalaureate program, but there is no consistent district approach
to determining need or signalling the assistance available. A study of schools and program fees will raise
questions as to HWDSB’s expectations regarding the programs and extra-curricular
activities that all students will be able to access, regardless of family
income.
Fees need to be considered in conjunction with school-generated
funds. For example, high-needs secondary schools typically raise more money
from grants and charities for nutrition and school benefits than other schools.
However, in high-needs schools only $18.31 per student is raised for athletics,
while all other schools raise an average of $63.93 per student, or $45,620 more
per thousand students. This must have an impact on what is offered to students.
Overall, per thousand students, other schools raise $122,720 more than high–needs
schools do.
Finally equity of opportunity, access and outcomes, so
important to our students and our community, cannot be achieved by the HWDSB
alone. The community partners who work with us are truly valued for the
assistance they provide us. However, we
need more quality early-childhood education, as this can help prepare children
on a more level playing-field for school. We need more affordable and adequate
housing for families so that families do not have to move from place to place, disrupting
their children’s schooling---family mobility is a big issue in high-needs
schools. We need a Hamilton recreation plan that provides equity of provision
for children and youth. We need
adequate health-prevention services, including those that support nutrition of
mothers and babies---most very low-birth-weight babies will need special
education services for all their school years. We need adequate income supports
for families on assistance with children. Then we would not have to provide
clothing, bus fares and food to many of our students. We need healthy, safe and
diverse neighborhoods so that our schools have the mixture of students that
supports higher achievement for all. All these needs indicate that the City must
develop and implement a Children’s Plan.
“Children do not
divide themselves into winners and losers unless we choose to divide them so”[i]
