While The Journal sort son Rankings of Quebec secondary schoolsMinister Drainville took the opportunity to reiterate his intention to publish a government “prize list” schools with its dashboard. We understand, Mr. Drainville wants to stand out by centralizing the data under an official banner, and not through journalistic work. But what is the relevance and above all the real impact of such an initiative?
An unnecessary distraction
Mr. Drainville’s track record will not find teachers to fill vacant positions. It will not provide support to students in difficulty. It won’t fix leaking roofs or failing ventilation and heating systems (as teacher Simon Bucci-Wheaton reminds us). It will not reduce delays for speech therapy or remedial education diagnoses.
To believe that a ranking reflects the efforts of a school is absurd. The rankings would focus on data that is easy to manipulate: the results of ministerial exams. But is this the only objective of education? What is happening to the three fundamental missions of Quebec schools: to educate, to socialize, to qualify?
School staff in the heart solutions
Teachers do not recognize themselves in these figures: reducing a school to a percentage of students who have passed a ministerial exam is to brush aside the 80% of the work that is not seen in a classification.
This kind of ranking would create enormous pressure on school principals. Forced to maintain results to avoid a bad place, they must also juggle the challenges of the field, often ignored in the rankings. Every bad number becomes a negative mark, damaging their reputation.
In this quest for performance, priorities change: instead of listening to staff and students, schools are chasing numbers!
Schools in disadvantaged areas, already stretched thin, find themselves labeled as “bad” no matter how hard they try. These results, presented out of context, are reused to justify divestment speeches.
On the other hand, advantaged schools, better supported and often with selective programs, unsurprisingly shine at the top of the ranking. These rankings reflect social inequalities more than they measure the quality of educational services or the commitment of school staff.
Drainville wants a “culture change”? Perfect. But it is not with beautiful tables of figures that we change a system. What our schools need is qualified staff, support for vulnerable students, and investment in decent infrastructure. The priority is to reduce inequalities, not to highlight them in a ranking.
Education is not a competition. It is an essential service, a fundamental right. Rather than trying to flatter fans of numbers and rankings, Mr. Drainville should ask himself: what do students and teachers really need, today, to succeed tomorrow?
