McGuinty’s take

“The agency responsible for Ontario’s standardized school tests needs to review its safeguards after revelations of cheating and other irregularities in last year’s tests, Premier Dalton McGuinty told reporters yesterday. “I think it will make EQAO [Education Quality and Accountability Office] ask a few questions of the kind you’re asking right now—whether we have the appropriate checks and balances in place to make sure that we can have continuing confidence in a very important testing system,” he said. Yesterday, the EQAO confirmed 10 schools—including Quaker Village Public School in Uxbridge—are being investigated for possible infractions by teachers.”

Not bad I guess, but when I read that the EQAO was conducting its own internal investigation, we can be guaranteed that they’ll say that it was a) a misunderstanding by teacher of rules/process, b) a technical error or something else to excuse those who purposely set out to cheat (few that they were).

“But the only good reason to be shocked and appalled is if someone tries to use the fact of cheating to justify an end to testing.

We?d never buy that from students. Why allow it from grown-ups?”

A lot of this is coming from the teachers’ unions to end testing. Than we have others putting on their own spin, to justify an end to testing, staying on the moral high ground, that cheating should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

“Annie Kidder, of the advocacy group People for Education, says cheating by teachers sends a horrible message to students and can’t be condoned.

But she said she has some sympathy for teachers who must administer the one-size-fits-all test, especially those at schools with large numbers of students with learning difficulties or for whom English is a second language.”

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/09/21/ontario-schools-standardized-testing-eqao.html#ixzz10H8I4C48

What is never talk about is why there is so much pressure about students doing well on the test, in all directions, and yet the teachers themselves just let it go, and whatever the results are, just maybe they might just look into the matter of flaw pedagogy and teaching practices/methods that are the cause of lack-lustre and slow improvement in achievement rates. It is really hard to express oneself or comprehend when their lack the essential basics such as grammar and spelling rules, and are essential to pass any criterion reference testing. It is not the lack of knowledge, but the sub-set of skills that are not addressed at any level of the education system. Instead, parents get more spin.

I must say as a former testing supporter, the bloom seems to be off the rose. We are getting nothing for our testing efforts just like the USA.

what do you expect to get for your testing efforts Dean?

Nancy,

I may be reading your post incorrectly, but if you are implying that the union is outright telling the teachers to flub the tests, you are wrong.  The union may be many things, but never in all my years of teaching has it ever told me to lie or cheat - in anything.  In fact, as far as the EQAO testing is concerned, they are very clear to tell all teachers to follow the rules to the letter, otherwise such teachers may face a tribunal at the college.  However, I have been told numerous times by principals and superintendents to lie about the marks I am reporting (things like pegged marks - changing a 0 into a 20 and the like).

Doretta,

Since you spent some time at the EQAO, maybe you can answer this question for me?  (I’ve asked four different teachers and got five answers!) Part of the charges include situations where students were given photocopies of the previous year’s exam.  I’ve been to the EQAO website.  They provide PDF copies of previous exams for parents, students and teachers to use.  Why charge a teacher for providing support material to students that is freely accessible 24/7 on the WWW?

Wayne, sorry about not making it clear. Too much going around me, Igor and the aftermath.

I want the teachers to ignore the pressures of the test from all directions, and just teach according to MOE and board mandates. From my viewpoint, and living in a different province, but still have family and friends in Ontario, the grades when the testing is done, are years when the kids come home, I need to learn this, because it will be on “the test”. Or the other reason, I don’t need to learn this, because it will not be on “the test”.  The latter reason, is the one that came up the most in my home, because of the re-teaching being done at home. Another thing directed at parents, that “the test”, there is no need for your children to study for the test. Our children are stressing the importance of the test, and communication that is directed to parents, are de-emphasizing the importance of the test.

The teacher’s union, the top brass are taking advantage of weaknesses of the testing, and exploiting them to end the testing. Front-line teachers are caught up in a trap-22 situation, and where they feel compelled to stress throughout the year the importance and what material must be known. Better to do this, than the other alternative, facing many parents who are unhappy campers.

Just take a look at the unions’ sites, why the top brass wants to get rid of testing. One of their reasons is that teachers will teach to the test, out of many reasons. There is no reason for the teachers’ union to tell the teachers to cheat, they are not caught in the trap, where the inherent weaknesses, the design of the test, will do the job for them. So what the union writes about, they do have valid points, as does the pro side.

What is being ignored, on both sides, is why the kids who are failing in part or all sections of the test?  I would say, the majority of kids that are doing poorly,  getting 1or 2, or barely making a 3, are kids who need a lot of work on the basics in language. It is being ignored in favour of other methods, that has little to do with improving language skills.

Why would teaching to thcurriculum and “teaching to the test” be mutually exclusive?

If the test is a reasonably close version of what kids are expected to be capable of there shouldn’t be too much need for teachers to alter what they do for the test,  IMO.

This looks more a power struggle than a legitimate concern

Thanks Nancy,

I might have misread that a little too.  BTW: Hope you’re OK.

John, the big word in your post is ‘if’.  Your assumption holds true for the mathematics tests.  I have gone to the site before (as I mentioned above) and cherry-picked questions from previous years simply because they are good questions and illustrate the content of the course very well.

The literacy test - not so much.  If you read the curriculum documents for English, they are still heavily weighted to fiction, Shakespeare, poetry, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Now, let’s ask the question - SHOULD the documents for English emphasize more spelling, grammar, paragraph structure (heck, I would dearly love to throw in penmanship!), and so on? I would say yes.

Wayne,

Common sense tells me that anything that EQAO posted on its website is public and available for teachers to use.  The websited material is likely NOT the previous year’s test, but older material.

It is my understanding that photocopying a test, is not permitted.  That would mean that in May 2009 the teacher would have opened the bundles of tests and copied one (Not OK).  All the tests are supposed to be returned.  He/she then used that copy to prepare for the 2010 test.  It may be possible that the same test questions may be used in the subsequent year—hence the cheating.

What WOULD be OK is for the teacher to used the old test posted on the EQAO website to prep. 
Make sense?’

John,
The style of the Ontario test is such that teaching to the test is exactly what should be happening.
You are right.  It is a power struggle.

Based on what I have read, is that teachers have too much too cover. I believe they do, and either end up rushing to cover it all, or go the other way rush in some sections, slow down depending on difficulties. I have been asked to help my child from time to time, because the teacher needed to move on, and be on schedule that is mandated by the ministry. Of late, I have seen teachers complain to parents as well as the teenagers, that there is too many outcomes, and not enough time to do it.

If it is a power struggle, why make the front line teacher’s life difficult?  Between the teachers’ union and the ministry of education, it sure looks like each are proving that they are right, and forgetting about the teachers, long with the kids, the difficulties that they are enduring.

“If the test is a reasonably close version of what kids are expected to be capable of there shouldn?t be too much need for teachers to alter what they do for the test,  IMO.”

Providing the test is a reasonable close version. A lot of parents would beg to differ, and the teenagers who have done the tests,  could tell a tale or two about the questions on the test. None of them would be too complimentary. 

Here is a link, not one of my favourites, but it is an excellent article on standard testing, and the problems associated with it.
http://www.edutopia.org/f-for-assessment

My first-hand experience has been that teachers never get around to teaching curricula, period.
Because testing is only done every few years, there are oftentimes years of neglect in the core subjects.  Before retiring, when I would drive to work, my route went by a school where test scores were as low as 10, but, as soon as the nice weather would hit, the teachers would be marching the kids off to the park, every single morning!  The kids didn’t have a backpack, nor a book nor a pencil with them.  What were they doing?  For grade seven English, my daughter and her pals made stick men out of popsicle sticks for two solid weeks.  This was their English class!  Fog days, translated into spending the day in the gym for those who attended school.  How can teachers say that they’re pressed for time, yet idle away so many hours?  For grade five, I had to get my ‘gifted’ (the gifted part, don’t get me started!) daughter caught up in math because they were working at the grade two level.  It took three hours/night for 2 1/2 years!  At the time, any Ontario parent whom I spoke to had children just as far behind (I began asking out of curiosity).  A complete lack of accountability spawns this sort of nonsense.  Add to the mix the countless hours spent on ‘feel good’ material, and bad curricula in core subjects, and the shocking results are seen in the grade 10 literacy test, and 15-yr-olds kids thinking that 1/4 is larger than 1/2. 
My daughter wants to move to Finland.  While studying, she lived there for a year.  One of her main reasons is to get her children a good education, and the other is to live in what she thinks is a far better society.  In Finland, adults have the freedom to concentrate on their own careers rather than having to home school, or do hours of tutoring after school because the vast majority of the educrats here don’t do their jobs.

Doretta,

Thanks for the reply.  However, I just went to the EQAO site again.  The following is a link to last year’s test booklets online (Grade 9 math):
http://www.eqao.com/Educators/Secondary/09/BookletsandGuides.aspx?Lang=E&gr=09&yr=10

Wayne, read today’s editorial in the Globe and Mail.  This is where the problem lies—just plain cheating.

If only reading and math are tested and principals pressure teachers for higher scores, teachers still control what happens in elementary schools a great deal. Time is stolen from the arts humanities PE, and all other areas to give more time to what is tested. This is what is meant by “narrowing the curriculum” You need to actually be a teacher to see the damage that testing is doing inside classrooms and schools. I was all for it. Now I am moving away from it. 20 yer of testing in the USA and no improvement.

Bev,

Yes, you’re absolutely correct - there is some plain cheating.  From a personal standpoint I was concerned about the photocopying part.  To put it plainly - am I breaking the rules by giving test questions from previous year’s test by downloading the from the internet?  Seems ludicrous to posit that copying what is freely available is against their rules - and I still have yet to get a clear answer.

Dean,

Though I am not a huge fan of testing either, you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw.  Standardized testing is meant to be a diagnostic tool - for both the students and the system.  The beginning of September was very cold - I watched my thermometer for about 10 days, and the temperature never got any warmer - but I didn’t blame the thermometer for the cold weather.

Wayne, I agree with you, that it’s ludicrous to think that sample tests can’t be used by teachers.  I don’t think that this has anything to do with the current issue.  It is when the teachers and principals are blatantly cheating. 

Dean, of course nothing’s going to improve if tests are given, but neither incentives nor consequences to staff follow based on how well the children do!  It would be like saying, why test drivers if all drivers were given a licence regardless of their competency behind the wheel!  Like the tests for students, the stats would give us knowledge of how good/bad drivers were, but there would be no incentive for improvement.  Student testing doesn’t stand on its own, and needs proper follow-up—consequences for teachers, admin and boards; examining currucula and classroom time spent on the same, etc.

Dean (Doug) writes “If only reading and math are tested and principals pressure teachers for higher scores, teachers still control what happens in elementary schools a great deal. Time is stolen from the arts humanities PE, and all other areas to give more time to what is tested. This is what is meant by ?narrowing the curriculum? You need to actually be a teacher to see the damage that testing is doing inside classrooms and schools. I was all for it. Now I am moving away from it. 20 yer of testing in the USA and no improvement.”

Please answer my question I posed to you earlier when you wrote that you got nothing for your testing efforts.

What is it you want.

“20 yer of testing in the USA and no improvement.” you must either be Doug Little or subscribe to his philosophy because he says the exact same thing.

lol!  I only thought that Dean was another teacher who strongly supported the status quo, and was here to gently sway opinion, but, Chuck, you say he’s Dean, aka Doug?  It’s possible.

it’s just a guess Bev but Dean’s word are the same as Doug’s.

There are some interesting ideas about testing and EQAO being discussed over at a the Retired Educator’s blog (linked here) that I think has changed its name. Ideas like a moratorium on testing, a review and move to another form of skills based testing.

Yah, I know that Dean may not be Doug.  So many members of the teachers’ unions sound exactly the same.  You’ve heard the saying, Chuck, that you don’t speak to the teacher—you speak to the union.

If I had more time, I’d ck out the retired educator’s blog and see what they say about putting in another form of ‘skills based testing’, however I’d bet tht skills would have nothing to do with their way of wanting to test—eg, it would all be about how one feels about math!  Most of today’s educators want to stay as far away from the academia as possible.

On the Retired Educator, talking about the Canadian Test of Basic Skills or CTBS. This is the assessment that was done every year, and I believed it started in grade 6 when I was in school in 1966. To me it was never a big deal, and I saw it as a general knowledge test. Parents were informed, but my parents were in disbelief that the teachers or guidance counselors would tell them, that I was in the top 5 % when it comes to math. My grades reflected it, only when I had good math teachers.

SQE, has an article on this test.
/newsletter/archives/canadian.pdf

Titled The Canadian Tests of Basic Skills

“In 1992, the Economic Council of Canada report, Education and Training in Canada, noted the overall decline of CTBS scores for grade eight students (English language schools only, excluding Quebec). It was found that 1992 grade eight students were almost one year behind their 1966 counterparts. Meanwhile, these same grade eight students were going on to high school where they were receiving higher marks than ever. Dr. Kenneth Williams of Carleton University tracked grade 13 Ontario Scholars (80% or higher average) from 1964 to 1981. During this time, the percentage of grade 13 students who were Ontario Scholars rose from 7% to 27%!
Is it any wonder that parents and employers are confused about academic standards and the marks that are used for reporting these standards?”

I always thought our generation did received a high quality education, compared to today, or even in the 80s.

Here is the Nelson site.
http://www.assess.nelson.com/group/ctbs-khs.html

My memory of the tests, brings up an image, of the guidance counselor giving the yearly sermon, asking me why my math grades do not reflect the results of the CTBS. In my high school, it was also used to identified students that were at risk for failing.

Dead on Bev, about the educrats wanting to check on how students feel about math, rather than checking on the basics. Feelings about subjects seem to be far more important than the actual grade result.  I did not look forward to math class, but at least my brain was not working hard, compared to high school English class and they never asked me about my feelings. Last year, my child was asked about her feelings toward school and her classes? She responded to the guidance counselor, you drag me out of class to ask me this question?  She went on to say, the only problem I have is reading and writing, and you still have not done anything about it. When she came home, she ranted for about a hour to me, how dare they, and how stupid do they think we are, in a rant-like fashion. I praise her for her response, and if at all possible remind them everyday of not helping back in the primary grades.

The marks are arbitrary, because we have no standards.

R e the 75% comment… Wake up
and smell the coffee.. 75% could be huge challenge for some schools yet 74% could be a monumental achievement (i.e. progress relative previous years). Someone is missing the point…..

There are 6 reasons why a child is not reading and spelling at grade level-the teachers have zero education in this and are not knowledgeable in analyzing the problem and solving it.

Universities don`t train them because each Prof does her/his own thing.The blind leading the blind.
With the flawed pedagogy used to teach I sincerely doubt there has been 1 percent improvement since McGuinty-I believe the manipulation in test scores is rampant-it has to be.

Could someone fill me in on why, if the Canadian Skills test was so good, did they stop it?

I do not know why, the CTBS was stopped. But I do know, not every board or school, used it. None of my older children, even had this test. I do think, when it started in grade 6 back in 1966, our group was followed every year, including the ones that were one grade behind us. CTBS has some deep data, showing that there is serious problems in today’s schools, showing the decrease in basic skills, starting in 1980s.

Now I have a question. Does the testing authorities in the provinces, ever take advantage of the data of the CTBS, by using it and comparing it with present stats?  In my day, I can tell you I got enough lectures from teachers who was always pushing me to get higher grades. Most lectures took place in the classroom, where certain kids was single out for either disappointing the teacher, or telling students the 75 % could have been an 85 %  or higher, if one took the time to study. I think the teachers at my high school, used the results of the CTBS, to inform them on students who were quite capable of achieving excellent grades, because there was a solid foundation in the basics.

As a result, there was no excuse for poorly written material. for students in my day. Anywhere between 5 to 10 % was taken off for grammar and spelling errors. Getting an A + was a rare event, when one only had a dictionary and a parent who became the editor, combing the essay for errors.

My bet would be that, if someone dug deep enough, that they would find out that the teachers’ unions wanted the above tests got rid of—the tests would show hard data on how badly the skills in Canadian children have declined.  The unions want no data out there whatsoever that makes them accountable.

The decline probably started in the late 70s, where there was a wholesale shift moving away from grammar and spelling lessons. My oldest never received a spelling or grammar lesson throughout her years in K to 8. It was at home, where she learned her grammar and spelling rules. What little that has been re-introduced in the last 10 years or so, does little to improved the foundation that is needed in writing.

Union leadership can be implicated here, long with teachers’ college, and the crazy education theories based on ideology and dogma,  rather than solid research and methodology.

There has been some talk about narrowed curriculum from the unions and the reasons. They mention the arts and music are cut, to make more room for language arts and math. What is never mentioned, is the narrowing of the language arts and math, where grammar, spelling, and basic arithmetic facts, are cut based on ideology and dogma, in favour of other methods, that are based on some mumbo-jumbo, that is derived from the same ideology and dogma.

I remembered the pressure with my youngest in grade 1, where the goal was to read or begin to read Harry Potter, at the end of grade 1. The majority of kids never succeeded, but it sure cause confusion among the kids, and began for many in my child’s class, to develop an aversion to reading.  It sure took a long time, for my child to pick up a book and read it for pleasure. But I do know, she has a hatred for Harry Potter books even now, that she is capable of reading them. None of her children, will ever be exposed to Harry Potter books in her home. As for writing, it was the same thing. Unrealistic goals, without taking into account what is needed to achieve the goals. The goal is more important, than the quality and instruction, and the negative outcomes are never seen in the light of what was missing, that cause the negative outcome in the first place.