Is educational screening practical, or politics?

Does Bill 225 pass the screening test?

Bill 225 was narrowed significantly from universal screening for “learning disabilities” eight times per student before Grade 4, to “early reading screening for pupils in kindergarten to Grade 4…” two times “in at least three of the school years.”

The practical prospect of over 100,000 screenings annually for issues that might interfere broadly with learning eight times for each student, whether there was evidence of need or not, hit home and was reasonably corralled.

Will this still-sweeping, legislated approach likely make a difference? Two primary reasons behind it are: to ensure students needing special attention to learn to read receive it; and to respond to low so-called literacy rates (“so-called” because being literate extends beyond reading skill to include having a range of knowledge and exposure that enables discernment for credibility and making coherent judgments and decisions).

Regarding the first reason, several assessments relate the proportion of students experiencing more serious learning difficulties, based on teacher observations. One is the early development instrument, a questionnaire-based evaluation of students at kindergarten. It addresses health, well-being, emotional maturity, social competence, language, cognition, communication and general knowledge.

Others are provincial policy- and classroom-based assessments of certain skills in reading and numeracy at grades 3 (4 for French immersion reading in French), 7 (numeracy) and 8 (reading and writing).

According to online reports — up to 2022/23 for the early development instrument and from the last decade for grades 3/4, 7 and 8 — these teacher-based assessments fairly consistently find that between 15 and 20 per cent of students are at risk of, or are having, difficulty with learning that merits some special attention.

This is corroborated by the Pan-Canadian Assessment Program which periodically assesses students at Grade 8 in science, mathematics and reading. From the 2016 assessment program, the last time reading was the focus, 17 per cent of Manitoba students were below “the expected or baseline level of reading proficiency.”

This consistency suggests that teachers recognize when their students experience learning difficulties, as we would hope and expect. Given this, Bill 225 may have an effect if accompanied by expanded capacity for followup when needed, such as diagnosis and programming.

Regarding the latter reason — poor general achievement in reading — Manitoba’s reading scores have, indeed, been trending down over the past 10 to 15 years. This is the case, however, across several provinces and widely across countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Canada is one of the 33 mostly developed countries, currently.

According to the OECD’s 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment — a periodic assessment of reading, mathematics and science for students turning 16 in the calendar year of administration — 20 per cent of Manitoba students performed below the level needed “to take advantage of further learning opportunities and to participate fully in modern society.” The range across provinces was from 12 per cent to 22 per cent, with an average across the OECD of 23 per cent, slightly higher than in Manitoba.

While one does not wish to dismiss concerns over reading achievement, Manitoba does not stand out in terms of students with very low reading proficiency. There are plausible reasons apart from education system issues (e.g., child poverty). Bill 225 does not address these, of course, and so little impact on overall reading achievement should be expected.

Presuming that educators already recognize when students have learning difficulties — as the evidence suggests — then inform parents as required by policy, and take steps to support these students, Bill 225 is perhaps more accurately seen as a political enterprise to this point.

Like the class-size cap, its superficial appeal (all disabilities diagnosed and addressed) make it a relatively easy political win. Also like class-size caps, little should be expected, barring difference-making increases in funding and resources to support it.

The education sector is prone to such political impositions, including when well-meaning. This can have positive outcomes, such as universal nutrition programming in response to high rates of child poverty.

But it becomes interference when those impositions lack evidence or a plausible mechanism for improving student outcomes.

Ken Clark, retired in Winnipeg, specialized in large-scale assessment and assessment policy while in the field of education.