Arguments for provincial tests don’t stand up

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 09/04/2024 (891 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

From the Dec. 2, 1999 minutes of the Legislative Assembly, an interaction between Joy Smith (Conservative; Fort Garry) and new Education and Training Minister Drew Caldwell of the Gary Doer government, shortly after an NDP election win:

Smith: “I would like to address my question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister of education. During the provincial election, Today’s NDP stated that every child would be reading and writing fluently in their Grade 3 year. This was what we called the Grade 3 guarantee. This makes pressure, puts tremendous pressure on teachers across Manitoba.

“My question: I would like to ask the minister of education to explain in detail, to please define this guarantee and explain to us how teachers can make this happen.”

Caldwell: “It will not be by cutting funding to the public school system; that is a cinch, Mr. Speaker. It will not be by ignoring outcomes and benefits for students by making a standardized test at the end of the school year providing no opportunity for growth and future development of the students. It will be by working closely with parents and teachers with the children in the school system to develop programs to help the child grow in terms of literacy throughout the school year.”

The election campaign “guarantee” was, of course, ridiculous or, if believed, delusional. Yet on its back rode an agenda to move away from provincial end-of-year comprehensive tests and towards provincial classroom-based assessment policies that would never, and could never, deliver on the promise. This was politics of a certain class, and an example of how provincial assessment programming decisions can arise.

In place of provincial tests at grades 3, 6 and 9 in place at the time, classroom-based provincial assessment policies were introduced at Grade 3 (certain skills in reading and numeracy; Grade 4 for French immersion reading in French) in pursuit of the guarantee, and then, in the mid-2000s, at Grade 7 (certain number skills) and Grade 8 (certain reading and writing skills). They are classified as “formative” assessments, meaning strictly to inform teaching, not for grades or marks. They are based on teacher-selected assessment strategies and involve no provincewide tests.

They remain in place today, along with the Grade 12 provincial tests in language arts and mathematics.

Grade 12 provincial tests (mathematics and language arts) were re-enacted in March after being cancelled in February based on, according to the current minister, reaction to their cancellation. This appears to be hitting well beyond its weight, so whether they stay “on” is a fair question. After all, there was no hesitancy, initially, in having no home-grown provincial testing at all for as many of the “multiple years” as it would take for the planned review of provincial assessment programming described in the February 2024 letter to school system leaders.

Furthermore, the large majority of students across Canada do not face provincial tests at Grade 12. Therefore, Manitoba students are graded and subsequently judged differently in this sense on a national scale. This is particularly notable for mathematics where most students need not even take mathematics at Grade 12 (it is required in Manitoba), let alone write a provincial test.

It follows, then, that arguments about students needing provincial tests for the “exam experience” don’t stand up. Students from Ontario and British Columbia, for example, graduate and populate colleges and universities without them, and the high-stakes exam experience can be created at the school level.

Finally, most students do not go to university after high school. The decision to reinstate the Grade 12 tests appears to be based narrowly on the minority of students who do, yet weighs on all students. It has an elitist tinge to it, and lacks nuance. The current graduating class, having navigated the pandemic and now taking Grade 12 tests that were between junked and parked for three years and then back on at highway speed with very little for an on-ramp, might feel a bit hard done by, all considered.

When it comes to large-scale testing, there are no categorically right answers, as a scan of provincial assessment programming across provinces also makes evident. A variety of approaches in terms of subject areas, topics, grades, and type of test or assessment, can all play a role according to a clear purpose. Things can be very wrong, however, when there is a misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of a large-scale assessment, unrealistic or incoherent expectations (such as described at the start of this piece), and misinterpretation and misuse of results.

In addition to curriculum-specific academic achievement, today there is deserved attention in public schools on diversity, reconciliation and ways of knowing, mental health, sustainability and the environment, information technology such as artificial intelligence and social media, social justice and equity, citizenship, and foundational knowledge and skills for everyday living, among other matters.

What we decide to measure on a large scale and, by implication, prioritize, properly considers these.

How we decide is properly based on a consensus of priorities and needs, and then discerning if and how a large-scale assessment can make a meaningful contribution. This sounds like a political process, largely, hopefully one that favours reason over something that rhymes. This test is on.

Ken Clark writes from Winnipeg. Most of his time in education was focused on student assessment policy and large-scale assessment.