Less Testing: Education Partners for Less Testing

Comment by Sheila Stewart on September 11, 2009 at 12:20pm

Thank you for this info here too, Sam. When you said the "simplistic view" regarding EQAO, I thought this: It is simplistic, and therefore, convenient. In the very busy world of education and the various things that must be attended to, it may also be validating in some strange way. With pressure and a need to focus on something (human nature?), and the need to have something to report on, or the "pressure" to provide "results" on to a school council or a community or the public, or what have you......well, it satisfies that...maybe? Are we only "about" literacy and numeracy"? It's not simplistic to support the many things that support "academic achievement", in my opinion.

Comment by Sheila Stewart on September 11, 2009 at 12:25pm

And when parents are so busy and can't/don't have the time to take in what makes a great school, well, we can always quickly look up the EQAO data......human nature maybe too, but not necessarily a valid way to make a judgement. Complex lives can crave simplicity....!

Comment by Adam Davidson-Harden on September 29, 2009 at 9:09pm

Hello folks, I thought I'd throw my two cents in here. I'm opposed to the testing, particularly at the elementary level but also in general.. I've been beginning to knock on some doors about it (including P4E's, because I wish they would take a firm stance on it as they have with funding).

This discussion group is fabulous, but it would be much more powerful for P4E to collectively take up that banner (while the union affiliates have taken the lead - does P4E want to keep its distance from the affiliates?). So... I must presume that the issue is divisive for P4E leadership/membership. P4E has taken a good stance on funding (linking to the CCPA's great Hugh Mackenzie's work on that topic), and I challenge it to take up a firm stance on testing. It's not helping the kids. There are two publications I would suggest on this - one from the CCPA entitled 'passing the test':

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/reports/2003/05/reportsstudies799/?pa=

And another, a literature review, entitled 'assessment and social justice'. I've copied an excerpt from this latter work below..

"Most examinations and tests are designed primarily to assess whether a student has made a particular grade or to identify what grade they have achieved, according to some standardised or tailored scale Their primary purpose, therefore, is not to support learning but to categorise the learner – arguably to identify what they cannot do rather than what they can do. We recognise that it is legitimate for assessment to have a variety of purposes, for example to contribute to assessing school performance (accountability), enabling entry to a university (selection) or to enable the award of qualifi cations (the US ‘credentialling’). However, we see it as being at least as important to ensure these relatively stressful events have a positive impact in students’ lives through supporting improvements in their learning, motivation and self-esteem. Indeed, there are strongly held views that in these respects national and
standardised testing can have signifi cantly detrimental effects (see, for example: ARG 2002; Johnston and McClune 2000; Leonard and Davey 2001; Remedios et al 2005; and Putwain 2007). If we accept that some forms of assessment, notably tests and examinations, may have negative effects on students, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that such effects may be magnified for those who enter the process already labouring under disadvantage." (p. 8)

I know from research I've done with focus groups of retired and active, career elementary teachers that the stress of the test and its effect on the culture of classrooms has been destructive and negative (often reducing kids to tears), and certainly not contributive to learning.. though the unions have taken the best stance on this so far, one does not need to be an activist in the union affiliates to see the necessity of opposing the tests and the Harris-created EQAO...

Comment by Sheila Stewart on September 29, 2009 at 11:46pm

Thank you for joining in here, Adam! Good points and references! The "passing the test" link didn't work for me though....I look forward to reviewing that one and the rest here some more.

Comment by Lori Lukinuk on September 30, 2009 at 8:41am

I believe there is alot of stress not only on the students, but also on the teachers. I'm all for teachers finding better and different methods of teaching to reach students with different styles of learning. I believe that was the initial thought behind EQAO testing...finding ways to improve student achievement. It has morphed into much more.....a pressure tool continuously telling everyone to do better. That in itself is not the problem. We should all strive to and want to do better. The problem seems to be that by default the message is you're not doing good enough. The public disclosure of all school results, and the media and Fraser Institute and C.D. Howe reporting have resulted in a public shame and blame behaviour modification technique that has done nothing for public confidence, not to mention system and staff confidence.

Comment by Adam Davidson-Harden on September 30, 2009 at 10:05am

That's a good point about pressure on teachers.. yes, my main beef is the question of whether the EQAO tests contribute to student learning - and fundamentally I believe forms of continuous assessment (rather than these high-stakes, pressure-cooker types of long exams for children) is a far more powerful route more rooted in the students' (and teachers') experience in the classroom. Sorry about the bad links! Try these

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/passingthetest.pdf

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/editorials/2003/05/editorial627/?pa=pa

Comment by Annie Kidder on October 16, 2009 at 2:26pm

You should all come to the conference - where there are going to be LOTS of discussions about testing.

Comment by Sheila Stewart on November 9, 2009 at 4:57pm

You were right, Annie, and the discussions and presentations were great!

Sorry we missed you this year, Tanya, but thanks for joining here! Can't wait to listen to the panel again LIVE on TVO!

Comment by Adam Davidson-Harden on November 9, 2009 at 8:03pm

I wasn't able to be at the conference - what was the gist of things as far as attitudes toward testing at the conference - is their clear division, or do people think that p4e is moving toward a consensus position?

Add a Comment