Originally Posted by gryphea

It does attempt to take into account of abilities of students. It does this by assessing average parental income within catchment area together with average level of education achieved by parents. It also , if I remember rightly, provides an added value figure, forgotten how it comes to it, but think its some combination of parental income, parental educational level and grade 3 vs grade 6 results. Eg a school that has added value will show significant imporvement from 3 to 6

Originally Posted by Oink

There's nothing wrong with conducting research in public policy if it is fair and as objective as possible but the Fraser Institute uses research to mask and justify its ideological positions. Positions which are very loosely based on some twisted notion of right-wing Lockian frontier libertarianism but in reality they simply want to peruse personal and corporate economic wealth without any oversight or taxation from the wider populace. They want liberty, but liberty to, discriminate, subjugate and consolidate. So when such "institutes" exist to simply promote a narrow ideological agenda, one distrusts any and all their so-called research.

Originally Posted by gryphea

It does attempt to take into account of abilities of students. It does this by assessing average parental income within catchment area together with average level of education achieved by parents. It also , if I remember rightly, provides an added value figure, forgotten how it comes to it, but think its some combination of parental income, parental educational level and grade 3 vs grade 6 results. Eg a school that has added value will show significant imporvement from 3 to 6

I actually found the FI report cards useful, obviously only one facet of a particular picture of course; but my general rule in life is arm yourself with all the information and then dissect it. Here in Calgary some schools in very similar areas (in terms of parental level of education) have very different results and I am still not sure I would send my child to a significantly underperforming school (why would I?) given its catchment. That said, on balance we chose the area to live based on the school, but we had a different criteria to frasercard and chose a school that doesn't even appear in it as it stops before grade 6. Was it useful reading it? yes absolutely. Did we take it as gospel? of course not.

Originally Posted by Oink

There's nothing wrong with conducting research in public policy if it is fair and as objective as possible but the Fraser Institute uses research to mask and justify its ideological positions. Positions which are very loosely based on some twisted notion of right-wing Lockian frontier libertarianism but in reality they simply want to peruse personal and corporate economic wealth without any oversight or taxation from the wider populace. They want liberty, but liberty to, discriminate, subjugate and consolidate. So when such "institutes" exist to simply promote a narrow ideological agenda, one distrusts any and all their so-called research.

Originally Posted by JonboyE

I didn't know this, so I tried to find out how they weight the socio-economic factors. Unfortunately they don't list their methodology on their website. At least, not where I can find it.

Originally Posted by jimf

Overall I think the testing and publishing of results is reasonable enough. If unions can campaign and pursuade parents not to support them well fair enough but it does seem blatent self interest on their part and naivety on the part of the parents going along with it.

Originally Posted by Oink

A dash xenophobia, a smidge of racism, lots of self interest and a quasi-experimental desire to be rid of public (tax sucking black holes) schools. Why anyone in their right mind would give these clowns more than two seconds of their own time is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Oink

A dash xenophobia, a smidge of racism, lots of self interest and a quasi-experimental desire to be rid of public (tax sucking black holes) schools. Why anyone in their right mind would give these clowns more than two seconds of their own time is beyond me.

Originally Posted by JonboyE

I didn't know this, so I tried to find out how they weight the socio-economic factors. Unfortunately they don't list their methodology on their website. At least, not where I can find it.

Originally Posted by Kiwilass

But do Calgary schools administer the same test as Vancouver's?

Originally Posted by gryphea

Some are so large that there has to be an element of teaching to only one style, which may preferentially suit different genders.

Originally Posted by JonboyE

I didn't know this, so I tried to find out how they weight the socio-economic factors. Unfortunately they don't list their methodology on their website. At least, not where I can find it.

Originally Posted by lmartin999

Do you mean gender or sex and what makes you think any of what you have written is remotely true (though I don't really understand what you are saying)?

Originally Posted by gryphea

OK, so because I actually read a frasercard that makes me incapable of telling truths does it or interpreting between the lines of some publication? Like I said, I didn't base my school selection on it, FFS.

I have two kids in the alberta system, I speak to parents and know why they withdraw children from testing. I have some background in education. I have a PGCLTHE.

What is it exactly you are accusing me of lieing about?

Originally Posted by lmartin999

I didn't accuse you of lying. I was merely asking what you meant by 'teaching to one style' and 'preferentially suiting one gender' and how you were able to make what seems like quite a drastic inference from dodgy test results. Having kids in the system doesn't make one an expert unfortunately.