If I were asked to wager money on where the prickly points would be in the new agreements currently being negotiated between the Ontario Government and its teacher unions, I would have definitely placed most of my money on the reduction of sick day benefits. There doesn’t seem to be much hoopla, however, over the fact that teachers will have 10 instead of 20 days from which to draw each year. There don’t seem to be many fists raised in anger over the fact that there will be no banking of any portion of those unused days from year to year. And people don’t seem to be jumping up and down over the loss of a large percentage of the available Professional Development Days through the imposed “Dalton Day’s” in the second year of the contract.
I really thought that I would hear more reaction to these parts of the agreement.
Instead, the real thorny issue has to do with the idea that individual teachers will now have individual control of the assessment practice in their individual classrooms.
At first blush, this doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal. After all, assessment has always been a major responsibility of the teaching professional: it is meant to be continuous, ongoing, and responsive to the needs of individual students.
The problem is that, over the past several years, we’ve created a very tightly woven and complex ball of school, district and ministry-based expectations around what it means to be a successful student. And if you begin to unravel the ball, layer by layer, eventually you’re going to come to the very centre—the core—which is the annual EQAO test report. The Grade 3, 6, and 9 data sets that are released each year, reported in the media and used by organizations like the Frazer Institute to report on school quality, have become the official raison d’etre of each and every district, school and teacher in this province.
So, in looking more closely at the issue that threatens peace and stability in Ontario schools this fall, it really isn’t about teachers deciding which assessment might be best for their particular class at a given time in the year. It’s really about school districts losing control over one of the important components of that ball—one that allows them to hold pretty tight reigns on the educational agenda and their sense of confidence that teachers are focusing on what is going to result in improved test scores.
In most Ontario elementary schools two rather formal assessments are administered by each teacher each year. The results of these assessments may or may not be factored into term reporting, but they are collected and analyzed at both the school and district level in order to assist in the selection of teaching strategies, the setting of multi-level plans and as benchmarks for school improvement cycles. Not only is the type of assessment determined (in most cases) at the district level, but the assessment schedules are currently decided by someone other than the classroom teacher.
Many teachers complain that the rigid parameters around the type and timing of these assessments interferes with the flow of their classroom program.They complain that they are forced to take time away from other curriculum areas in order to complete testing in literacy and math.
Principals and school districts, while acknowleding the fact that these assessments may be intrusive, will also argue that the assessments represent a way to takethe temperature of the system and ensure that everyone is tracking accurately towards the ultimate goal: EQAO success!
There are so many other elements that are wrapped up in the discussion about control of how teachers assess students, too many to tackle in one post. But I will return to this topic in the next few days, as we march closer and closer to the August 31st contract deadlines.
A seemingly innocuous point about who has ultimate control of this part of current classroom practice has, rather unexpectedly (for me, at least) turned into a major issue that could, in the end, contribute to a season of unrest in Ontario schools.
Your insights, clarifications and opinions are important!
If, when ETFO signs an agreement (or has one imposed) I don’t HAVE to use diagnostic tests I will still do so. I always have and I find them a useful part of figuring out where my students are “at” so I can plan for their growth. However I welcome the fact that I’ll be able to choose which test works best for me and my students and be able to decide when it is best to administer the test. It currently seems like the system is the tail wagging the dog. I’ve never seen or heard of any use of the results of these centrally collated tests other than to prove to the MOE that we are doing them. We use the results at a school level for programming purposes but that’s it.
Refreshing attitude Andrew. The question, I think, that remains is what diagnostic tests will teachers be able to choose from that are not already part of our current regime? On paper it is wonderful that the government appears to have have negotiated teachers the latitude to select the diagnostic assessment they wish to use. However beyond PM benchmarks and CASI, what else is there? In my board that’s it…so I wonder what choice really exists?
To be honest, the first thought that came to my mind was the debate that could likely be launched around the nature of EQAO testing. At its core, is it not intended to be diagnostic? That it is characterized as evaluative/summative by some should not override the basic premise that this assessment is a key diagnostic of student achievement at particular checkpoints in their academic careers.
” However I welcome the fact that I’ll be able to choose which test works best for me and my students and be able to decide when it is best to administer the test. It currently seems like the system is the tail wagging the dog. I’ve never seen or heard of any use of the results of these centrally collated tests other than to prove to the MOE that we are doing them. We use the results at a school level for programming purposes but that’s it.”
In the Star, the paper that seems to be reporting on education, alerting the public on things the public does not know about.
“The deal hammered out between the Ontario government and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association gives teachers the right to choose which of several approved assessments to use, and how often.
However, most school boards have said they want to keep their right to require all elementary teachers use the same tools, such as the popular Diagnostic Reading Assessment (DRA), in which a teacher sits down with a student for part of a morning or afternoon to examine a raft of reading skills — typically twice a year, from Grades 1 to 3, with a similar test from Grades 4 to 6.
Education Minister Laurel Broten says the deal with the Catholic teachers is based on a “core commitment to student achievement.”
She said the assessments will be maintained, teachers can’t opt out of all of them, but “we don’t currently have the balance right when it comes to the ability of the classroom teacher to make decisions about what makes the most sense for the little person in front of them … instead of testing for the sake of testing, we’ll ensure that these assessments inform the instruction of their students.”
The results of such tests don’t show up on report cards and are not public like the EQAO tests. But these annual, highly detailed snapshots help teachers know where each child needs to improve, said Goodman.”
On the Toronto School Board site – “The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) has been implemented Board-wide, Grades 1-3. This assessment tool provides diagnostic information on reading comprehension, fluency, accuracy, phrasing, expression, and attention to punctuation. Using the information collected during the assessment, the teacher identifies what the student needs to learn next and the specific skills that will be the focus of instruction. The DRA
is primarily a resource that is intended to support the classroom teacher. However, it is also being used to collect data on a sample of students to monitor reading skills in Grades One, Two and Three across the Board.”
http://www.tdsb.on.ca/educators/eqao_results/documents/literacy.pdf
Of course the DRA is a Pearson product, and no surprise there. “Features and Benefits
Assesses student performance in these areas of reading proficiency: reading engagement, oral reading, fluency, comprehension
Features new and familar fiction and non-fictino Benchmark Assessment Books
Helps teachers determine each student’s instructional requirements
Pinpoints student strengths, abilities, and needs”
http://www.pearsoncanadaschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PS1zOw&PMDBSUBCATEGORYID=26107&PMDBSITEID=2621&PMDBSUBSOLUTIONID=&PMDBSOLUTIONID=25862&PMDBSUBJECTAREAID=&PMDBCATEGORYID=25873&elementType=mergedNavGroup&navGroupName=Features%20and%20Benefits&PMDbProgramID=46951
As in Ontario, quite a few American school districts have mandated the DRA, and all teachers must used them like their counterparts in Ontario. Perhaps it is time to buy shares, because the DRA are simply a way for the school board along with the trustees, to take the data gleamed from the DRA assessments, and planned the budget according to the numbers.
But first, the how-tos on the DRA assessment, and it is highly likely, the hard copies of the assessments are spirited into the school board, never to be seen again by a teacher.
http://connect.pearsonlearning.com/c2dra/media/DRA06_K3_TG_Components.pdf
According to the research of the last 30 years or so, 33 percent of a grade 1 will have difficulties in learning to read, and it has been replicated over and over again. The bottom 33 percent are the students that are in need of remediation, and for some it will be intensive remediation. The DRA assessment “is primarily a resource that is intended to support the classroom teacher. However, it is also being used to collect data on a sample of students to monitor reading skills in Grades One, Two and Three across the Board.”, as the Toronto Board has stated.
Back to the 33 percent, there is another one-third of a typical grade 1 class sitting in the middle, having issues with reading, but with a little bit of support in the classroom, this set of students are declared not needing attention. As for the top one-third, these are the students who know how to decode, and in other words, they have figured out the code. The top one-third will sailed through the DRA assessment, and likely are the students who will sailed through school. That leaves approximately 66 percent of students with reading issues from mild to severe and everything in between. The administrators and bean counters at the school board, go to work to keep the 66 percent of students in the inclusive classroom, by a number of measures, that actually prevents remediation in reading and extends into writing and numeracy. At the grade 1 stage, the school board staff already have a pretty good idea where the students stand considering the assessments that have taken place in JK and SK.. At the grade 1 stage, the bottom 33 percent the odds are in their favour that they will received the support inside and outside of the classroom, without extra costs and resources.
Everything changes when the students are in grade 2, and the bottom 66 percent of students who have issues with reading, the only support is in the inclusive classroom. The teacher now has to decide who are the students in the greatest need for extra reading support, and than go to work to evaluate the students, gather up the paper work and present it to the principal, and than the school board steps in. Keep in mind the school board staff already know in advance some students will need the extra reading support, the funding is in place and the resources. BUT there is seating caps put on to control costs and the number of students. People for Education, in their 2012 Special Education Report, of the caps put on each school, of only 3 psycho-educational assessments. As well as other caps to restrict access to education services beyond the classroom, and ergo at the very best only about 10 percent of the bottom 33 percent meet the criteria for the extra help outside of the inclusive classroom.
It is the main reasons, why the dyslexics in any classroom of the mild to moderate kind rarely get identified well after grade 4. By the end of grade 3, the bottom 33 percent of students, are now at 40 percent with difficulties in reading sitting just at the beginning of grade 3 reading and the rest falling below grade 3 level. By the end of grade 12, instead of the 40-60 split, the ratio has reverse where 60 percent of the grade 12 graduates have issues in either basic reading, writing and numeracy and/or in all three. The other 40 percent of grade 12 graduates do not have any issues with the 3 Rs, and can be considered proficient in the basic 3 Rs.
Now Stephen, there is a reason I have gone to the bother of explaining the numbers, the patterns within the data and school boards playing politics. As for the teachers, come clean instead of dancing around. Tell it like it is, and what teachers observed year in and year out. In the middle of Stephen’s post, he became brave – “So, in looking more closely at the issue that threatens peace and stability in Ontario schools this fall, it really isn’t about teachers deciding which assessment might be best for their particular class at a given time in the year. It’s really about school districts losing control over one of the important components of that ball—one that allows them to hold pretty tight reigns on the educational agenda and their sense of confidence that teachers are focusing on what is going to result in improved test scores.
In most Ontario elementary schools two rather formal assessments are administered by each teacher each year. The results of these assessments may or may not be factored into term reporting, but they are collected and analyzed at both the school and district level in order to assist in the selection of teaching strategies, the setting of multi-level plans and as benchmarks for school improvement cycles. Not only is the type of assessment determined (in most cases) at the district level, but the assessment schedules are currently decided by someone other than the classroom teacher.”
Well teachers, how about telling the public what the DRA assessments are all about as the benefits to the students. No benefits as I can see, and no teacher needs a DRA assessment to know what students in his or her class have issues with reading. A teacher would have to be blind, deaf and mute not to see approximately 1/3 of the classroom have issues with reading, and it is impacting learning in a big way. Throw in a couple of dyslexics, and one or two with ADHD, the teachers are caught in the middle doing the bidding of the school board, even though by doing their bidding, the students pay the price, along with the parents.
“Many teachers complain that the rigid parameters around the type and timing of these assessments interferes with the flow of their classroom program.They complain that they are forced to take time away from other curriculum areas in order to complete testing in literacy and math.
Principals and school districts, while acknowleding the fact that these assessments may be intrusive, will also argue that the assessments represent a way to takethe temperature of the system and ensure that everyone is tracking accurately towards the ultimate goal: EQAO success!”
The school board made their own bed, including the principals with their three binders of rules/regulations doing the bidding of the school board at the expense of the students. Time to put the truth on the table, and the teachers’ unions and members can act for the very first time, for the benefit of the students. The DRA assessment is a tool, that is being used to evaluate teachers, and not as the school board claims to assess reading of students. It is quite evident the school boards reaction because they are now losing control and their ability to control and micro-managed the schools to the percentages according to the costs and capping methods. When teachers have the decision, I bet the bottom 33 percent of students will actually get the assessments needed that specifically targets the problem areas, and received timely remediation. Who knows, just maybe by the end of grade 3, 95 percent of students are at grade 3 reading level or above, and all the students can actually decode, instead of guessing.
Time to put the truth on the table. Perhaps the teachers will have the school districts and the ministry of education turning themselves inside out, and than you can call in the cavalry – the parents such as myself to tell their stories along with the accompany documentation, and all the tricks that have been used by the principals and the school districts to prevent “Little Suzie” to achieve. There is thousands of veteran parents, just waiting for an opportunity to say all they wanted for their children……………………….and all I got was excuses from the school board.
I have found the simplest way to apply this is directly after bathing.
Jojoba treatment can get rid of acne pimples, eliminate the eruption of acne
and clear impurities. Active ingredients are needed in smaller quantities than base ingredients and are considered to have a more
targeted and therapeutic effects.
Cottonseed oil is the edible oil which is used for cooking as well as for salad dressing.
There are many more benefits of grapeseed oil which include effective treatments for acne and pimples, improved blood circulation, better vision and so
forth. Grapeseed oil has regenerative and restructuring properties and
has excellent skin moisturizing properties.