Education Minister Liz Sandals, when asked whether she thinks local boards are doing enough to improve outcomes for at-risk and low-achieving kids, says:

“I think that in some cases it varies a bit from school to school. That’s why we keep working with school leaders and school staff to make sure they fully understand everything they can do to support kids.”

The achievement gap isn’t a new problem.

For years, local boards have worked hard to tackle it, funneling extra funding and resources into the city’s most challenged schools.

The top-ups are intended to offset some of the obstacles facing at-risk students, such as poverty, hunger and language barriers. In many cases, they’ve worked.

Breakfast programs have made it easier for students to concentrate in class. After the bell, homework clubs offer support mom and dad can’t always provide.

In-school interventions, such as specialized teachers and smaller class sizes, help target students’ unique learning needs. And technology initiatives allow kids to have access to gadgets like iPads and computers their families might not be able to afford.

There are also less tangible things contributing to higher achievement. High expectations make a difference, educators say, as does a high level of trust among parents, teacher and kids.

The improvements at St. Patrick, one of the downtown schools profiled on Day 1 of the series, offer evidence that these types of interventions can help level the playing field for less advantaged students.

But money and resources are no magic bullet. In fact, some schools continue to fall further behind, in spite of the interventions and additional cash.

“It’s a multifaceted challenge,” Cooke, the Hamilton Community Foundation CEO, says when asked why the top-ups aren’t enough.

He goes on to explain.

In vulnerable schools, it’s not unusual for parents to have a high school diploma at best. It’s also not unusual for them to have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

“It certainly can translate to the amount of time they’re able to spend with their kids,” says Cooke, “and also the premium they would place on education.”

The extras can’t always make up for that.

Jeff Kugler, the executive director of the University of Toronto’s Centre for Urban Schooling, has a different answer. It could be rooted in administrators who aren’t prepared to make the difficult decisions really needed to bring about change.

“I don’t want to teacher-bash at all, because I think there are some really hard-working and committed, wonderful teachers,” he says. “But there are also teachers who clearly shouldn’t be teaching” as well as those who shouldn’t be teaching in certain places.

Principals, Kugler adds, have a duty to rectify that.

“I mean the union is supposed to fight it — that’s their job,” he continues. “But it’s the administration of the school’s job to say ‘this isn’t good enough for our kids and we’re going to make sure that changes.’

“It’s everybody sort of needing to do their job and be held accountable by somebody at the top.”

The Spectator asked education leaders what they make of the persisting differences in achievement between their students and schools.

They admit there’s more work ahead.

“Generally, what we’ve seen is improvement, which is obviously our goal,” says Pat Daly, the Catholic board chair. “In saying that, we understand and appreciate that the challenges are significant, particularly with respect to severe socio-economic situations in some children and some schools and that, perhaps, even additional resources and programs are necessary.”

“I don’t think any of us expected this would be done overnight,” he adds.

Jessica Brennan, Daly’s counterpart at the public board, is more blunt in her response.

“We still have work to do,” she says. “And we will continue to do that, no question.”

There’s consensus among educators, officials and experts that more must be done to level the score for local kids.

The consequences could be grim otherwise.

Consider a new report by the Education Quality and Accountability Office showing that students who fail to meet the provincial standard in elementary school are much less likely to pass Ontario’s high school literacy test, which is mandatory for graduation.

If they don’t graduate, a cascade of poor outcomes can follow.

At its best, public education can break down barriers, offering children, regardless of gender, religion or personal circumstance, a fair shake at success.

In Hamilton, however, we're not there yet.

Interventions and supports are improving outcomes for children in the city's most vulnerable schools, but more can — and should — be done to level the playing field.

Here are five ideas educators and experts say could help raise the bar and close the gap in local schools.

Five years ago, the Auditor General of Ontario looked into the province's Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) as part of his annual report. His primary criticism was that significant changes in year-to-year results by schools and school boards weren't being investigated.

Paul Bennett, the Schoolhouse Consulting director, says he'd take it a step further.

He's yet to be convinced that educators are using the results to develop remediation plans and improve student learning. “In other words,” he adds,” they're not capitalizing on the data.”

Supporting teachers in all grades to understand and examine the annual test results is a good first step toward identifying problem areas.

“Dealing with the difference and looking at the difference among kids, that's really useful,” says People for Education's Annie Kidder “Not just so you can get the scores up, but so you can actually make sure those kids who are struggling have what they need.”

It's not fair to expect the education system to take on this challenge alone. After all, much of what matters in achievement happens outside class, in the home.

“Schools shouldn't be doing it all, and they can't afford to,” says Kidder. “So we have to be willing to take that on and make systems that make it easier to work together.”

The province's mental health strategy is a good example, she adds. The Ministry of Children and Youth Services works with the health and education ministries so that kids can access the help they need directly through their schools.

Streamlining other services, such as child care, could have the same benefits.

“Kids don't care what ministry it comes from or what level of government,” Kidder says. “And when you're a family you don't care either.

“You want the things to work together.”

In 1995, a groundbreaking study by a pair of University of Kansas researchers showed that by age three, a child in a high-income family will be exposed to 30 million more words than a child whose family is on welfare.

The discrepancy can lead to significant differences in knowledge, skills and experience before a child even enters a classroom. It can also have lasting effects on academic achievement and other outcomes later in life.

By intervening earlier, through early childhood education and other family supports, school boards, municipalities and the province could head off poor outcomes long before they show up on Grade 3 tests — and save money by doing so.

“Once a child is at school it's almost too late,” says Magdalena Janus of the Offord Centre for Child Studies. “We should really put our resources into stopping the difficulties occurring in the first place. That's more efficient, and it will be more cost-effective.”

Mixed-income schools have been shown to be one of the most effective interventions when it comes to improving achievement for low-income kids — in part, because they're more likely than high-poverty schools to have a climate that emphasizes high academic success and supports.

Local education officials know this, and have taken some steps, such as boundary changes, as a result.

But they can do better.

Through transportation policies and magnet programs, which draw elite athletes, artists or academic achievers to more vulnerable schools, Hamilton school boards could strike an even greater socioeconomic balance.

They should also strive to collaborate with the city on municipal housing policies, such as inclusionary zoning, to further reduce economic disparities between neighbourhoods.

“It's important to remain focused on what we're doing everyday in the classroom and provide wherever possible additional resources to those places that have greater challenges,” says Terry Cooke, the community foundation CEO. “It's also important to think about the broader systemic changes that need to happen if we're going to have a more equitable and better performing society in the future.”

“In general, schools teach to a middle class experience,” says Jeff Kugler, the U of T prof. “And middle class kids do well in that kind of environment, because it's reflective of everything they know.”

By striving to better understand students' unique cultures and needs, teachers could help improve their pupils' chances for success. The key, says Kugler, is to place the kids' experiences at the centre of the class and curriculum, so they can connect and engage with what they're learning.

The EQAO could benefit from similar advice.

“I remember when I was a principal,” says Kugler. “There was a whole section of the EQAO that year that was based on zucchini and most of the kids in my school had never seen or heard of a zucchini. That's just a simple example.”

Teri Pecoskie

The Hamilton Spectator