I was reading the article "Top grade for private schools" in Monday's Daily Courier and walked away insulted.
The statement "There is a relationship between income parents have and how well the school does, but not a strong influence" is an utter fallacy.
The Fraser Institute's Peter Cowley obviously is skewed in his thinking. His assumption is that the less money a family has, the worse a student does is not true.
I was raised by a single mother until my mom remarried when I was 13. Granted, my father was around and to this day is very supportive, but my mother worked a decent job and did an excellent job of providing for my sister and myself.
She instilled in us a drive to do better, to achieve greatness.
It was never about what we didn't have. It was, and is to this day, what we do with what we have.
I was always in the top five students in all my classes. and I never had to try because school came easily.
The primary reason that private schools fare better than public schools is because when parents sign their kids up for private education they do so with the understanding that there is a higher expectation.
Public schools derive their funding on a per-student basis, so they consistently lower the standard to keep more kids in school. It leaves the children like me unchallenged and bored, and the overall quality of education lacking.
It's nice that The Daily Courier can examine half of a story while completely missing the root cause of an issue.
Money isn't the issue. It's the drive an individual student's parents instil in their child and the standards a child is held to.
Every child has the ability to do well in school and move on to a fulfilling life and
career, but it requires parents to inspire their children with a solid work ethic and the school system to build a standard of knowledge.