This positive spin is typical of newspapers who vote Liberal;rather than challenge this press release and come up with exactly what Malkin has revealed here,they spin a positive message on what has become a very sad state of affairs.

Yesterday`s post linked to the Toronto Sun had 350 comments last time I looked and the businessmen and parents writing in were stating students are not learning to spell and write a coherent well structured sentence.This was the major dissatisfaction in deducing that school outcomes were deteriorating.I believe many citizens want change in the public education sector,more hours,fewer paid PD days, a reduction in all those summer hours,more accountability.Those are the themes.

more on this topic here - at least amid the positive spin the truth comes out.  The comments are interesting.

Oh, but don’t worry, be happy because once again parents are having the wool pulled over their eyes as more children fall through the cracks.

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1004651—83-of-grade-10-students-pass-literacy-test#comments

Actually Ms. Dare, the math is quite easy to do with all the information you were given:

1)  143,246 is 93% of what number? - cross multiply

143,246   93
—————-  = —-
    x       100

x = 154028 - the total number of students who could have written the test

2)  How many actually passed?  83% of those who wrote:

143,246 x 0.83 = 118,984 - the number of students who passed the test.

3)  What percent of the total eligible does that number represent?

118,984
—————— =  77%
154,028

Therefore, your estimate of 60% is out by just a little bit - in fact by an order of magnitude of 3.8 or 380%.  But, heck, why should we let real data interfere with real good propaganda?

Negative spin is just as damaging as positive.  It would appear that parents have had the wool pulled over their eyes by more than just EQAO.

So, who are parents supposed to trust Wayne, Malkin?

Greetings from Tokyo. You’re right, Mr. Wainscotting, I made a mistake, but not the one you think. The numbers are very confusing, perhaps deliberately so.

The 93% participation rate cited by the EQAO refers to the percentage of students who were eligible to take the test for the first time who actually took the test. The EQAO reports that 2% of fully-participating students were absent and 5% of fully-participating students had their participation deferred.

In my blog I mistakenly referred to the absentees as being “unfully-participating students”. But I stand by my estimate of a 60% pass rate.

I agree with Wayne that about 77% of fully-participating first-time eligible students passed. But my 60% pass rate also took into consideration the unfully-participating students - those who have already dropped out of school and those who are ineligible to write the test because they are not fluent in English or French or enrolled in locally-developed programs or are disabled in some way. My 60% pass rate estimate was made on the basis of all 14-year-old students in the province.

Very roughly, if 20% of Ontario 14-year-olds fall into one or more of these categories (drop-outs, locally-developed programs, ESL/FSL, or disabled), then only 80% of students were deemed fully-participating students by the EQAO. If 93% of them participated in the test, that means about 74% of all 14-year-olds participated, and if 83% of them passed the test, then about 60% of all 14-year-olds passed.

Of course, it’s only a very rough guess, and it doesn’t try to take into account the students who were writing the test for the second or third time, and of course you have to remember that a tenth of all test-takers were granted “accommodations”, making their success on the test questionable.

I hope I made myself clearer! Murky waters indeed.

I see, Ms. Dare - it wasn’t propaganda, but omniscience.  You know more than Stats Canada.  No one but you knows how many 14 year olds there are in Ontario.  You also ought to know then, that a significant portion of grade 9’s are 15.  Therefore, since we’re just pulling numbers out of the air - let’s say only 50% passed.  Aw, why not just say 25% - one quarter sounds so much better.

So much for research-based educational strategies.

It all depends on what numbers one is looking at.

I spent some time on this, to figure out the number of students eligible regardless if it was the first time or onto the next round. That number is 207,878 students.

Out of 207,878 students, 74,310 students did not take the test, failed the test, or took the credited course.

The number of successful outcomes, came in at 133,568 students.

Percentage that failed or did not take the test is at 36 % mark, out of 207,878 students that are eligible to take the test.

Or there was a 64 % pass rate for the grade 10 literacy test.

In this case, it was better to break apart the numbers into separate categories, breaking up the components for a better press release. And the numbers do look better, than the overall numbers.

By the way The 118,961 first time eligible students who were successful and the previously eligible 14,607 students who were successful, adds up to a total of 133,568 students who took the test and were successful.

The students who took the credited course for literacy, are not counted as a pass in the numbers that is presented in the press release. And I think, students that go this way, EQAO does not count these students as being successful in passing the literacy test. Only students who wrote the test.

So with a 64 % success rate for the 2010-2011 literacy test, there is 36 % of the students missing in action, who are not being tested or have failed the test.

EQAO, would not be working in their best interests if they presented this set of numbers to the public.

Thank you, Nancy.  Finally someone with some answers.  May I ask where these numbers come from?

The numbers come from the press release on the EQAO site. As well as the link from the SQE post, to check if the numbers were the same. Both press releases the numbers are the same, but both state it differently. One is more confusing than the other, and as well as poorly written. But perhaps that was the goal, to point at the numbers as being half-full, rather than half-empty.

Thanks Nancy,

I have now looked up the EQAO press release.  I assume that you arrived at the figure of 207878 by adding the currently eligible 153,635 grade 10 students with the 54,243 previously eligible.  The press release is actually quite illuminating.

The bone of contention appears to be the lack of congruence between 83% success rate stated for this year’s crop of grade 10 students and the apparent success rate when previously eligible students are factored in.  There are many reasons why they are not included in this year’s numbers:

1)  Chiefly, they were eligible last year or the year before and either did not write the test or failed it.  Therefore, they have already shown up in last year’s numbers as the 16% gap between those that were eligible to write and those were successful.  You can’t honestly ‘double count’ them.

2)  There are no fourth or tenth time takers as Ms. Dare would suggest.  The test is given once per year - students are not allowed 10 years to complete high school.  Generally, when a student is not successful writing the exam in their first two attempts, they must take a literacy course in addition to their English requirements and attempt to pass in that manner.  In fact, the numbers you read included those that were successful in passing the course - 11,918 this year.  It’s laughable how out of touch Ms. Dare seems.  She thinks that those students re-writing the exam are 14 years old (read her reply).  No, they are in grade 11 or 12.  In fact, it shows how little I was paying attention.  I’m so wrapped up preparing my classes for the Grade 9 Math exam, I wasn’t thinking.  Students 14 and 15 years old are in Grade 9.  The literacy test is in grade 10 - 15 and 16 year olds.

3)  Some of your numbers include those that were eligible to write last year, but didn’t because they were absent.  They don’t post numbers from last year, but this year 3,237 were absent the day the exam was given.  Short of sending armed police into people’s homes, I can’t see any way of ensuring 100% attendance.

4)  The numbers also include those that had their exam ‘deferred’ (put off for another year).  Who might that be?  - those students who are not capable of being successful.  Overwhelmingly, these students fall into these categories:  ‘developmental learners’ (or whatever the current jargon is - for those that don’t understand:  people who lack the mental capacity to be considered having ‘normal’ intelligence); special education kids, and immigrants whose mother tongue is not English.  Really, Nancy, for such a passionate advocate of SE to infer that EQAO should somehow be ‘embarrassed’ by these kids - I admit, I can find no words.

It all goes to show that thoughtless speculation and the carefree throwing around of a number like 60% is not only reckless, but an outright lie.  In fact, the EQAO has been quite upfront with its numbers and correct in its math.  Except, the right wing tea pots can’t believe that - too bad.

I believe in a previous post about the unions, I said that there was so much that they could be criticized for, that Ms. Dare didn’t need to make up tales. The same holds true here.  What is the real story?  84%, 84%, 85%, 83% - sounds pretty consistent to me.  Students have had virtually the same success rate for the past four or five years.  Hold it - did McGuinty say he was going to IMPROVE test scores?

Look Wayne, I agree that Malkin’s original post was unclear.

However look again at her explantions.
She did not assume that she knows the total number of 14 year olds; yeah it should have been 15 or 16 olds and not 14!
Whatever ...

Her only assumption, if you re-read her explanation is that 20% of the total number of students in grade 10 fall into one or more of these categories (drop-outs, locally-developed programs, ESL/FSL, or disabled).

Are you saying that this 20% estimation is not reasonable? Or that the students in these categories have been actually counted by EQAO as fully participating students?

Most high schools in Toronto seem to have at least 10% of their students in locally developed programs. Some high schools are as high as 40%.

PS: I think Malkin has posted from Japan where she went for her son’s wedding; Japan has what - 10 hours time zone difference ..

Europe,

I respect you and enjoy reading your posts, but you need to understand that I am saying that her entire premise is wrong.  Furthermore, it is distasteful and extremely myopic and falls outside the stated purpose of this website and organization - unfounded opinions hardly count as research.

Wayne, there is missing numbers in the press release.

For example the total number of grade 10 students for year 2010 to 2011. The latest number in Quick Facts, is for the year 2007 to 2008, if I remember correctly. Not up to date, nor did I have the time to search the MOE to confirmed the numbers of EQAO, or the number of eligible students that could take the test. And there is other missing numbers, such as the number of tests that were disqualified, and is a number that should be there as well. Another missing figure, is the number of students using accommodations, and types of accommodations.

Actually there is missing pieces of data that concerns me, as well as the actual test questions, if the test sample is anything to go by. Comments by former students on the articles published by the news, are of interest. Many of them run along the line, I had to take the test, but many of my friends did not have to, or it was way too easy, so I never tried my best.

And the number of 207878 of grade 10 students eligible to take the test. This is when EQAO breaks it down into two subgroups, and starts the process who will take the test, Which brings it down to the total of 168661 students taking the test. The difference between my numbers and the numbers of the press statement of EQAO, is 1668661 - 172785 = 4097 students. The 4097 students have not been accounted until after the test for whatever reason, Note here that my number is the exact number of students that took the test, regardless of pass or fail, subtracting the number of students who where deferred, absent, or took the literacy credit. The only logical conclusion, is that 4097 students were removed after testing, for whatever reasons, and not before. Which brings the total who were not successful, were deferred, absent for the day, to the total of 74,310 students.

The only way to confirm the numbers, is the total number of students enrolled in grade 10, less the numbers of students who are repeating grade 10 courses, but passed the literacy test first time around. Than start deducting students who are not counted or are ineligible for the test, since they are suspended, sitting at home, dropped out, kids sitting in juvenile detention, etc. The missing data, is the problem.

I bet there are covering the numbers of LD students which is the largest sub-group of SE. The large majority would have difficulties in passing the test, with or without accommodations. How many identified LD students are in academic courses or higher, maintaining a solid B average or higher in high school?  I would loved to see the breakdown of that concerning the public education system, that rather keep the numbers hidden from the public, and parents who have LD children. The system should be embarrassed about it, since it would confirmed many parents who have LD students, that the system is not doing right for this group of students. I lived and breathe that world, where my youngest has one foot in the LD world and the other foot in the academic world.  And where the practices of the public education system, are forever trying to move both of my youngest feet, to either the LD world or the academic world.

Which brings me to the final point, is the results of standard testing, and how the boards and schools addresses the ones who have failed or did not take the test. Where’s the beef, since I see very little of effective help, even if it is a year later after the test. Isn’t that what school is all about, educating the children to their full potential, even if it means proper grammar, spelling, and other mechanics in writing?  I really despise educrats using the excuse for my own child’s failure to passed the 3 and 6 assessment, and her lack-lustered performance in grade 9, just barely passing on her LD mind, and the lack of knowledge. It is not the lack of knowledge that is the problem, but rather the inability to expressed in clear writing the knowledge that she processes. Than turned around, when I raised the poor writing skills, than declare that she failed the CRT for other reasons than her writing skills, based on her high B or A average..

My point is, the standard testing since the late 1990s, is still pointing to the lack of a solid foundation in the 3Rs. Even more so, since data streams of the last 10 years or so can be compared more easily, to identified the students whose educational needs are not being met. Which would include students who just barely passed a standard test, but can easily passed a classroom test, if the student has the information before hand to study and learn it. .

Wayne,

I have found your posts very interesting, especially since you teach math and I am an engineer.

Guessing about what you consider a wrong premise I think it is the fact that Malkins suggests that the students that fall into one or more of these categories (drop-outs, locally-developed programs, ESL/FSL, or disabled) should be included in the total percentage, while you think this is not fair.

I agree with Malkin and I think they should be included and here is why.

Elementary schools repeat ad nauseaum that all students are equal, that all can achieve the same results and that as long as we keep everybody together by socially promotion somehow the weaker students would catch up.
It is beautiful magical thinking or BS whichever term you prefer, has nothing to do with reality.

The system has tried to solve what it seems was a real problem: the fact that the segregated special education from the past was not helping the students.

So what was the solution? Integrate everybody into a regular classroom with little or no support and hope that by keeping everybody together and by not having the same and clear expectations for all the students would somehow have the students with disabilities catch up.

I believe you have an eight year old. How well do you think it works with children this young to ask more of one than his buddy sitting at the next desk? What happens is that even the able and perfectly normal students learn to do the minimum acceptable. Even that minimum is fuzzy. Compound this year after year for eight years and what you get is able children that got used to not having to work hard and that are generally at least one or two years behind of where they could have been.

So the students with problems that would have been in special education have not been helped; the regular students have learned less than their potential and moreover have not learned the habits of concentration and persistence because they never had to work hard enough.

Think about it. Your high school students that are now in the locally developed stream, the work stream and the academic stream may have been together in the same class in grade 8!
What did their grade 8 teacher go through?

So I’d like an end to the politically correct lies.
Right now we are not helping the ones that need help because we deny there’s anything wrong with them in the first place.
Then we get some normal ability kids to get learning disabilities by incompetent teaching.
And then we get the rest of the normal ability kids to learn way less then their potential and to have bad school attitudes and habits.

Also, I’d like to see figures about the learning disabilities in black and white. I think a small percentage of us will always be a bit slower or learn with difficulty in certain areas. But that should probably be around 5% and not 20%!

Only in North America there is such a high percentage of students that have learning disabilities.

So yeah, .. in any results I’d like to see all the students accounted for with explanations.

Europe,

I agree with you 100% - elementary students and teachers have an extremely difficult time coping with the wide variability within the classroom and the situation needs to be corrected.  However, making up fake statistics isn’t the solution.  There are a large number of serious parents legitimately concerned about their children’s future on this blog.  They are ill-served by Ms. Dare’s overt extreme right-wing political agenda.  You and other parents want to be taken seriously by the ‘educrats’.  Blogs like this undermine all credibility you might have.  Just look at the number of videos posted recently poking fun at the jargon and dismissive attitude of the educational elite towards parents.  Why would educators do that?  - blogs like this.

Let’s take a look a Ms. Dare’s group of miscreants you listed should be included in the statistics:

1) Dropouts - problem is omniscience

Nobody, not Ms. Dare nor the EQAO know who they are.  I have the sneaking suspicion that Ms. Dare doesn’t know how this works.  The EQAO is required to send out a test packet to every student enrolled in Grade 10 in Ontario - dropouts by definition are not enrolled in school.  Therefore, unlike a blog where anybody can spout off about anything they want (like a 60% success rate), an official body like the EQAO can only report what it knows to be true - not assumptions.  Therefore, no, they cannot be included in the success rate statistics.

Furthermore, Ms. Dare (and now yourself by extension) is making the classic right wing mistake - dropouts are dummies.  By lumping them into the failure rate - you assume that they can’t read.  Albert Einstein was a dropout - he published his Theory of Relativity while working at a customs office.  My experience is that of those who drop out of school for every one that leaves because they cannot cope while the level of difficulty in the classroom, two or three others dropout because they are bored.  How do I know?  - they were at some point in their school life labelled as gifted.  Remember this is a LITERACY test, not a test of attendance.  Know one but God knows how many dropouts there are and of those how many can’t read.

2)  ESL - problem is anglocentrism

Again, by lumping all ESL students into the failing group you are assuming they can’t read.  No, they just can’t read English - yet.  They are quite literate in Cantonese, Urdu, or Ukrainian.  Probably more literate than the average Ontario student is in English.  You are ‘FromEurope’, how would you like it if your child was defined as a failure because he or she could not read English?

3) Disabled Students - fairness

Yes, like you, I would like an end to political correctness.  First you need to understand that although disabled students are in the same school, they are not necessarily in the same class.  Even out here in the boonies, our school has an entire wing devoted to these students - they integrate only in the social aspect of school (hallways and cafeteria).  Secondly, it is not just politically correct not to include these students in the failure rate - it is just fair.  For example, I will never have the physical prowess or body (trust me on this one!) to be an NHL superstar - does that make me a failure?  To lump someone who has no hope of competing into a group of failures is just not morally right.  Hence my use of the term ‘distasteful’ above.

4)  SE Students - moral correctness

I’ll try to wrap up quickly.  For much the same reason I just illustrated above, I find it repugnant to brand these kids failures.  Just ask Nancy about the stigma they already face being branded SE.  Just ask yourself, since you stated we have an inordinate amount of students labelled SE in North America, is it fair to label a kid a failure who was failed by the system?

It is my sincere hope that all of you can get over this political horse hockey.  I, and many teachers are like me are trying to change the system from within.  Blogs like this make our task enormously more difficult.  Just look at Doug - he labelled me conservative.  We become more marginalized every time someone like Ms. Dare spouts off irresponsibly like this.

I can assure you Wayne,there is great respect for teachers on this blog.You are hurt by the harsh criticism of Literacy success in Grade 10 and your daily effort to help your kids succeed.I am not patronizing you here,I get it.You feel the numbers are exaggerated,personally I don`t know.However,the research on Reading all states that if the child has not learned to read proficiently by end of Grade 3 there is a 75% chance he or she will never catch up;this is supported science from pretty well all sources who do Reading research,no matter the country.

If we go from there,on average 63% of kids are learning to read by Grade 3,47% are struggling.The identification process then begins and several of the kids will be excused from the test because they are now identified LD.

We appreciate the fact you are trying to change things from within,I was always convinced we should go that route.
Instead,I now see the level of inner workings and old boys club rule the outfit and the hopes of changing the system without major outside pressure and reforms are zero.
Here is an example of a research credentialed organization from Toronto that dictates most pedagogy
in Canada,in fact they were just hired to opine on Nova Scotia,seeing as the root of most failure at school is poor literacy,here is what they want us to be doing.
I challenged Dr.Levin on his theories and see how many educators agree with me.

The problems are greatly exacerbated in K-3 and could be reduced by proper instruction ,they won`t have it but many many teachers agree with us.

http://www.cea-ace.ca/blog/michael-sefcik/2011/02/2/facts-education-how-children-learn-read

Wayne,my apologies,37%.
Also,in many boards it`s as high as 50%,the excuse,First Nations.
TDSB-the excuses are a mile long.
That`s the trouble,why always go the excuse route,why not truly challenge themselves to do better!

Thanks Jo-Anne,

I’m not hurt by, nor am I implying any disrespect of teachers on this blog - quite the opposite.  You ask, “... why always go the excuse route,why not truly challenge themselves to do better!”  Blogs like this. 

Have you watched the latest version of Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution?  You should - it depicts this whole situation in a nutshell.  He is trying to get into the LA school district and is absolutely being shut out.  The latest episode shows him getting 3 minutes to present to the board.  It was his misfortune to follow a religious extremist ranting on about the apocalypse and how the world will end in May.  Then Jamie gets up - you could see the same disdain and dismissive attitude on the faces of the board members for him as for his predecessor.

At the beginning of this blog you asked “Why don’t the papers report these ‘truths’ that [Ms. Dare] has uncovered?  Because they are not true - and papers cannot knowingly pass on misinformation.  Rather than just fessing up, it is interesting to see the mental hoops that all of you are willing to go through to justify a position that is untenable.

Sorry, I see absolutely no difference between what is going on here and the kinds of misinformation Doug dishes out on a regular basis.  None of this - from the left or the right - is doing the children of Canada any good.

Just look at the number of videos posted recently poking fun at the jargon and dismissive attitude of the educational elite towards parents.  Why would educators do that?  - blogs like this.”

I am a little puzzled about this statement. What do you mean. I watch the videos for comic relief, a sense of humor is needed to deal with educrats and their edubabble. Edubabble a whole new language that parents are exposed to, when parents are questioning the rationale behind it. Actually, when I look back knowing what I do know now, wishing I had the knowledge back than and the confidence to take on the educrat who said I had no business in questioning grade one math curriculum, since I had no degree in math. We are talking about grade one math, and how hard can that be!  Apparently, I was wrong seeing a few boards in the United Stated, sending out explicit instructions to the parents on the how-tos so they can help their children do their grade one math homework. Explicit instructions, so parents will not used the more sensible approaches,such as a number line. But there is good news though, number lines are back in for now, at least in some districts. That little method for my child, was not to be used in grade one, nor counting on fingers, and a host of other little methods that would have made her math work a whole lot less painful.  There is humor looking back now, although not at all funny at the time.

As for parents being taken seriously by the educrats, especially for parents who advocate for their child, we are called various names by the educrats. Trouble maker is a favourite, and there is a ton of information on the educrats blogs, within the government education sites, union sites, teacher forums, on how to handle the difficult parent. Calling parents difficult, when questioning the practices or seeking remediation, and using tactics to intimidate and silence the parents, rather than a two-way conversation exchanging information and seeking agreement, in open honest dialogue. It does not happen much with educrats, but if the teachers had more autonomy and freedom, parents would have no need to deal with the contempt of the educrats, who think they know what is best for your child.

As for the standard testing results, and how it is presented, all the data should be presented, and not the ones that puts the best face forward. I would like to see the total breakdown and reasons why the students are not taking the test. It make perfect sense to list the number of ESL students who are not taking the test, as well as listing the ESL students who are taking the test. Ditto for all the other groupings. Just putting down SE students, does not cut it, especially when ESL students in some provinces are counted under the SE umbrella. .

”  I, and many teachers are like me are trying to change the system from within.  Blogs like this make our task enormously more difficult.”

I agree with the first statement, and as I see it, it is the political mine fields that is awaiting for teachers seeking change that is not in the same thought patterns as the ones in the upper levels of the education system. One just has to mentioned systematic explicit instruction, to see how politicized the public education system is on instruction and curriculum. As for the second statement, blogs like SQE are few and far in between in Canada, compared to the Americans, There is not too many places that a parent can go on, seeking good solid advice, along with confirmation of a few things that are bugging parents. . A favourite ploy used by our education system, to keep parents quiet, by stating we are the only ones complaining. A form of isolation, in my eyes, that only serves to decrease open honest dialogue. Blogs like this, are serving a purpose of open honest dialogue for one and all. 

In closing Wayne, are the educrats actually reading blogs like this?  Perhaps so, since the educrats are known to track parents who are deem and seen as difficult parents. If so, why have they not moved to change a system, that works against the students and parents at every opportunity? Or do parents represent a threat to the status-quo, and remember parents who for the most part are seeking a solid foundation in the 3Rs for their children. At least that is what I was seeking, but got the run-around and the blame for my child’s learning difficulties. I than had to get educated, on all things that is the public education system, a long journey filled with with snags and mine fields, just to bring my child up to standards in the 3 Rs, so she would no longer see herself as being dumb

The Grade 3 EQAO scores are real and published by EQAO-Take a look at Sunshine on schools data and see the lack of success on average of 40% of students.I watch those numbers be published positively by newspapers-Grade 10 at 83%,I read that and knew at least 15% of kids were absent or exempt so I thought,around a 30% problem.
These kids in Grade 3 are then passed on year to year and the curriculum teachers go through very difficult classroom time with the varied levels in the classrooms.

Shutting up is not an option and for that fact Jamie Oliver is recommending prevention of obesity through healthy eating and exercise,what`s wrong with that?

Just like,what`s wrong with prevention of literacy problems so kids do better in school over the long haul?

Jo-Anne,

Of course I agree that there are real problems both with obesity and literacy and they must be addressed.  My point about Jamie is that by pursuing these imaginary problems, by pulling numbers like 60% out of thin air, you people are condemning yourselves to be viewed as pariahs on the lunatic fringe.  Let me be clear - not that I think you are.  Many of you have wondered why groups like P4E are media darlings while SQE languishes - this is why.

Why keep going on about something that you cannot prove?  Why not tackle the real problem posed by EQAO data?  - that despite our ‘Education Premier’, despite his promises of improving test scores, despite pouring billions of new dollars in to the system, the success rate has not changed one iota.  Why not tackle those issues?  As it is, the debate raised by Ms. Dare here is akin to mideval scholars debating the number of angels that could fit on the head of a pin.

Wayne,I will let Malkin address this.

I agree the numbers have to be real,we are in full agreement.

It`s tough,very hard to figure out how to change the literacy instruction so we can get 90% success.

I met with Pathways for Education 3 weeks ago,they state the biggest barrier for the kids they help is their difficulty reading…they are teachers,they said,did you know when we went to University,we graduated without learning how to teach Reading.Yes,we know this.

It`s political,akin to religious conversion and very tough to get them to agree to teach the teachers about phonemes,phonics,and all the jazz we go on and on about-it isn`t teacher`s fault,it`s above teachers who are the conductors of the symphony.
How do you stop it?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Yes, Jo-anne,

That is exactly the issue that you need to tackle.  Who teaches the teachers and who sets the rules.  The EQAO results (or lack of results) becomes your proof that there is a big problem that needs to be addressed.

Ok, let’s be very specific.

Here’s how the results were presented in the media.

The Toronto Star article is titled:
“More than 80 per cent of Grade 10 students pass literacy test”
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1004651—more-than-80-per-cent-of-grade-10-students-pass-literacy-test

It says 83%, it does not say 77% and it does not say 77% of the fully participating students.
It does not explain that fully participating students excludes: drop-outs, locally-developed programs, ESL/FSL, or disabled.

So anybody reading the newspaper article would think 83% percent of all our students pass this literacy test when we have so many immigrant children and so many children that have problems learning then we must be doing pretty good!

Wow, it means that the 30-40% who did not pass the grade 3 EQAO test did catch up!

Read the comments and you will see that that’s exactly how the readers understood the article.

You may argue that that’s the reader’s problem, not EQAO’s. Maybe.
If EQAO wanted to be clear couldn’t it have presented the exact same results in a different way so there would be no room for incorrect interpretations?

Speaking about ESL. ESL students are made into a scapegoat in Toronto. A big part of the stagnating results in Toronto is explained away by the fact that the overall results are held low by the immigrant students.
I don’t know what the truth is. I think they are probably neutral or even slightly positive to the system overall.
In my area it is the immigrant students that have much better results than the canadian-born students to non-immigrant parents by a high margin.

So I think that the least EQAO could do when publishing its results would be to say in black and white that:
- ESL students that have been attending school in Canada for less than 3 years (or whatever the criteria is) are not considered fully participating
- SE students that have disabilities over a certain threshold (and specifiy what that is) are not considered fully participating
- there is also a percentage of dropouts estimated at .... that obviously are not considered fully participating.

My point about SE students is that whatever criteria of fairness applies then it should apply the same way across the board.
If the system makes excuses for poor results because of SE students then they should tell us when the SE students are excluded from results.

If the SE students are considered to be able to achieve almost the same results as everybody else - after all that’s the reason for full inclusion and very little support, then by all means they need to be tested the same way.

If on the other hand we say that hold on, we can’t have the same expectations for them then by all means, support them right from the beginning when it does the most good with programs appropriate to them and group them so that you can deliver these programs without lowering the expectations for everybody.

And speaking about dropouts. I have no doubt that as you say some of the dropouts are smart enough and that some of them may be able to read very well. I think they are a small percentage of the total dropout percentage but that’s just my opinion and it’s beside the point.

All in all what I’m trying to say is that when results are presented this way most newpaper readers will think: wow 83% of the grade 10 kids is literate!

When actually it means - out of the 100% of this generation:
x% have learning disabilites so they are not expected to pass this test
y% have not made to grade 10 and we don’t know how well they know how to read
z% don’t yes speak English well enough so they are not expected to pass this test.

Out of the remaining (100 - x% - y% -z%) 7% did not write the test because they were absent.

Of the (100 - x% - y% - z%) * 93% that were expected to write this test and did write this test 83% passed.

I think the above are very important distinctions to make.
And yes, I do wonder, why did EQAO choose to present the results this way?

Because let’s face it if 83% of students of a given age were at least literate enough to pass this test, I would be happy, you Wayne would be happy and SQE would not exist.

PS: Passing this test is a good step forward, but just to pass it is an easy test.
Passing this test most likely proves adequacy to manage daily life but it doesn’t prove academic mastery of the English language.

Correction .. grade 10 kids are literate.

Europe,

You have made some excellent points.  The only thing I would recommend is that you read the actual EQAO report, not a newspaper article.  They do attempt to make it clear where their figures come from.

As for your other point about the criteria used for determining when and why a student would be deferred, that too, would be nice to know.  It took me a little time, but I did find it here:  http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/10/Sacg_Xe_0311_web.pdf -> page 8.  It’s as appropriately vague as I thought it would be.  I suspected as much considering that this year alone, 7152 were deferred.  ‘Big Brother’ aside, there is no way for EQAO to know each of the individual students well enough to make a decision.  Therefore, the wording centers around ‘principal’s discretion’.  However, specifically for SE students, it does mention that they must have gone through the normal diagnostic process and have an IEP and be deemed to be unable to be successful even with the supports their IEP allows.  Which only goes to make sense.  Their self-esteem is fragile enough, why make them write an exam that you know in advance they will fail?

As for ESL students, I did find a longitudinal study of the 2006 exam, where they did mention that this group made up 18% of the cohort - not a large amount - but they are probably not distributed evenly across Ontario.  This report also makes for good reading, you will find it at:  http://www.eqao.com/Research/pdf/E/Keeping_An_Eye_on_Literacy_English_Research_Paper.pdf

Europe, and other readers, you will find lots of interesting and useful information on the EQAO website - they really aren’t hiding anything.  I have been pleasantly surprised with what I have found so far.

” Why not tackle the real problem posed by EQAO data?  - that despite our ‘Education Premier’, despite his promises of improving test scores, despite pouring billions of new dollars in to the system, the success rate has not changed one iota.  Why not tackle those issues? “

That in itself poses dangers, where union heads may used it as their rallying cry of eliminating testing, based on the outcry from groups such as SQE. It is in the union’s best interests to make the EQAO go away, as it was coming on the band wagon to support inclusive education. Increase jobs, increase membership. A school about 45 kms away from me, has a population of less than 160, with 4 SE teachers. Increase jobs in the support side, and yet as I watched, I seen very few changes that would actually impact achievement at least for my child, and other children in her class.

How about opening up the hard copies of the EQAO tests, and let others judge on the writing skills. That is where the evidence is, to support the claims of weak writing skills and in part reading. It is what I have been pushing for, because the educrats state no problem. It is all about the knowledge. Perhaps concerning prior knowledge on a demand written piece, that some children may know very little about. Such as the one that was posed on the grade 6 CRT, asking to outlined the favourite character in Peter Pan. Captain Hook, turned into Captain Hood and Tinker Bell turned into Tiker Bell. My child and I laugh about it today, but she was really upset that day, because she so wanted to passed. Peter Pan was never a book my child wanted to read, nor was it part of my collection. She didn’t even like the TV show or the movie. She had very little knowledge about Peter Pan, and I would be very curious as to the grading of a paper, where it is obvious a child knows nothing about Peter Pan. Too much subjective grading for my taste.

The biggest elephant is the standard testing, especially the written portion that will tell the tale of many different levels of reading and writing. It is why the Ontario Grade 10 literacy test puzzles me so much. It is easy, and I am sure my 15 year could passed this test with ease the first time around, if the sample test is anything to go by. As Europe states, “Passing this test most likely proves adequacy to manage daily life but it doesn’t prove academic mastery of the English language. “

As Wayne has stated, ” The EQAO results (or lack of results) becomes your proof that there is a big problem that needs to be addressed.”  And the proof is sitting in the EQAO hard copies that would crack open the other petrified elephant in the room, curriculum and instruction. Too many children do not reach mastery of the foundation skills, and as I have observed, I have edited enough of my child’s friends papers, before I pressed print.

Good points as usual, Nancy.

In fact, it reminded me of something else I was going to say to Europe.  It seems that the three of us are in agreement that the test is very easy.  Because of that, I would say that 83% is not something to cheer about.  Since it is so basic as Europe suggests, why isn’t it closer to 98% or 99%?  Many of you have shown the effectiveness of early reading intervention.  Surely, nearly every student (except for the disabled) should be able to perform at this very basic level - why aren’t they?

Wayne, let’s look at the title of the EQAO news release:

“83% of Ontario’s Grade 10 students pass the 2011 literacy test”

That’s incorrect; that does not summarize the data presented.
And since the title is supposed to be the most important piece of information, a high level summary of the text that follows I think it is very reasonable to question why that title was chosen.
By the way ... look up on the web, ... every newspaper had the same title, 83%.. over 80%.
Sorry, it is not the newpapers fault it is after all EQAO’s own title.

At best it is bad writing at worst it is an attempt to have us feel better than the test data would warrant.

I was not suggesting in any way that EQAO can determine case by case who was deemed eligible to take the test.
But surely the information of how many students were in grade 10 in Ontario in 2011 must be available.
From a clarity and corectness point of view the minimum additional information that should have been included either in the press release or in the information on the web would have been:

a) The definition of a student eligible to write the test for the first time. This term was used in the text of the release.
Plus, how many students from the total number of grade 10 students were eligible to write the test for the first time.

b) The definition of a fully participating student used in the graph illustration.
Plus, how many students from the total number of grade 10 students were eligible to write the test for the first time.

Really, for an organization for which a big part of its job is collecting and distributing statistical information the failure to define the terms and the failure to quantify them is lack of professionalism.

The most important thing when you describe something is to define meaning of the terms you use. Sorry, this is just basic.

Does anybody know how many students were enrolled in grade 10 in Ontario in 2011?

Not with the current curriculum and instruction that is in place. Take my child, before entry of school she was well prepared to enter school, with two nursery schools, one 5 one-half days and another 3 days 1/2 days. Along with intensive speech therapy twice a week for a year starting at about 18 months, and the following year down to once a week up to the age of 4. Although she was never much of a talker, she had full command of verbal speech, along with strong vocabulary that was unusually high. She also knew simple addition and subtraction up to and around to the number 12, and could print her name neatly, using the pencil in the correct position. As a parent, I thought this was the path to hold her steady in the primary grades, and I never suspected that within two months after the start of grade 1, to see my child regressed to not being able to spell her name neatly to no longer being able to count to 20 to having serious struggles with reading. I had no knowledge, besides my mother’s instinct hitting into overdrive, and observing that other children in her classroom almost half, were struggling as well. It did not sit well with me, considering I had been through this in the 70s and 80s with my other children, now adults. The difference was the curriculum and instruction, So, I went like a bull in a china shop and was introduced to the educrats early on, because I was the first parent to bring up the math curriculum. Naive I was, but I can tell you - school has change a lot since the 80s, and none of it is really benefiting the kids and their education.

The education system preaches school readiness, and yet there is children that is quite well prepared, and the system fails to picked up this set of children who are struggling, but does not meet the criteria of a struggling child. In my child’s case, she did not meet it, because she had strong vocabulary, and therefore did not need tutoring in reading, like a handful of children in her class. That handful in my eyes, now looking back, met all the criteria of the struggling child. As for behaviour, the awful claw grip that developed early on in grade 1, and the painful work produced was treated as a behavioural issue, rather than a learning issue. But she was not alone and there was others like her, but it was the beginning of the nightmare. The time where a parent can be lulled into thinking things will work out, Meanwhile, you see your child fall further behind or developed new puzzling traits, and the educrats blaming the parents. In my case, if it was not for the teachers, who spent their own money, they were also the more experienced teachers who help her in school, because the teachers are hamstrung by the administrative rules and the systemic fault lines.

Wayne, it lies at the fault lines of curriculum, and instruction. My child, and a good deal more can be assessed before entry into grade one, fairly quickly that would point to or ring bells so loud, at risk for reading failure. With a DIEBELS assessment, low phonemic awareness, for my child which is not unusual for a child with delayed speech, according to the science. Systematic grammar and spelling up to at least grade 6, and even here, I still can see my child’s grade 4 teacher who bemoaned the lack of proper handwriting and spelling books. At that meeting she give me the blessing, of using the italic handwriting method, which was not the approved curriculum. That was one teacher that saw so much potential in my child, but was also ham-strung like the other teachers. Or the more recent example of yesterday, where my youngest who announced, that in next year’s grade 11 academic english class, the teacher will be teaching grammar lessons, along with the required curriculum. Glad to see it, but why does the high school have to clean up the mess, that should have been taught from the beginning in grade school? 

Basic level, where is the cut-off point. Is it 50? Too low for my taste, Wouldn’t a 65 be a more suitable cut-off point, as it was when I went to school. But before any of that can happen, the curriculum and instruction has to change, that is based on the science.

Re-reading the posts I would like to clarify something.

I did not in any shape or form suggest that recent ESL students be forced to take the literacy test and therefore fail.
When I said they should be reflected in the statistics I meant that the results should state the number of the ESL students that were not eligible to write the test and what percentage of the total grade 10 student population they represent.

Same point for SE. If they were not eligible to write the test we want to know how many they are.

Only to point out the idiocy of keeping together moderately or even severely disabled children with normally able children and somehow expecting both groups to learn effectively I suggested that if SE students are considered able enough to be in regular elementary classes then they by all means should be tested the same way.

The other reason I would like to see the numbers and the percentage of SE students who were not eligible to write the grade 10 test is because I am almost sure there is a bigger story behind it. Some of the students that struggle in grade 10 and are no longer required to write the test may have been early on normally able students who were simply not taught well. 

From all my experience so far as a parent and remembering all my school experience, struggling and not being able to keep up gets increasingly worse if nothing is done to adress it.

Where do the approximately 40% of the students that cannot read well in grade 3 dissapear?
What happened to them? While I think that perhaps a small percentage got lucky and got extensive remediation, I also think that others that passed the grade 3 on the edge might not have been able to keep up.

We doom some children in the first few elementary years and then we try to cover up.
And then we doom their initially competent classmates from learning what they could learn by dumbing them down in “differentiated instruction” classes.
Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous!

Really, Wayne, wait until your first conversation with your child’s teacher when she will be telling you how she could not possibly have her students write X, or study Z because ... “you know .. some kids in the class may not be able to do it .. and we don’t want to make them feel bad”. The teacher will neither teach X or Z nor work on preparing the children who are not ready to become ready for X or Z so that they can all do it.
It all goes downhill from there!

All so very true from my outlook.

“We doom some children in the first few elementary years and then we try to cover up.
And then we doom their initially competent classmates from learning what they could learn by dumbing them down in “differentiated instruction” classes.
Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous!”

I went on the P4E site, here is a bit of information on the EQAO. It might just blow your mind, at least it did with me.

“Grade 9, Level 1 (50–59%)
The student has demonstrated a passable level of achievement.
Achievement is much below the provincial standard.

Primary and Junior, Level 1
The student has demonstrated the required knowledge and
skills in limited ways. Achievement falls much below the
provincial standard.
http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/08/369e_ProvincialReport_08_web.pdf

Level 1 for the Grade 10 literacy test is a pass?  Than the ones who failed, are below level one? How does that work out in grading, and more importantly the reading and writing levels of high school students.

Did you know that the EQAO testing has a level 0?

Below is a link, of a report made by the people who do the stats.

PRAXIS REPORTS
The Level Lowdown
by C. Robert Clements

http://api.ning.com/files/RRnKDJojW8ym82qY3gEg11-bC72kZ5zsQmF-CrC9XBW9hDKuDzCa5RLlEqLcRfkTzO5iNUz0cjIlX9FXgkuu2tTqnb8MUVFy/PRAXISREPORTS1.pdf

On the P4E site - “I’ve attached an item I published more than a decade ago. The Level Lowdown might provide additional insight into the meaning .”

I wonder if it remains the same. An peek inside the EQAO.

Checking EQAO information from past years, it seems that they just have a case of bad writing.

http://www.eqao.com/pdf_e/10/EQAO_ProvincialReport_Secondary2010.pdf

Towards the bottom, there is the definition of terms. The organization of the information is very convoluted in my opinion, but it is there.

First time eligible students means everybody who has first entered grade 10 in that year that is working towards an Ontario high school diploma.
That’s fair, totally fair.

Which means that yes, first time eligible students include all SE students and include all ESL students.
In both the SE and ESL categories a certain percentage of students receive accomodation but they are all included in the results.

So yes, essentially 77% of all grade 10 students working towards an Ontario diploma have passed, which personally I think it’s an ok result (since both SE and ESL are included).

It is indeed an interesting site. There is now enough history to show what we all say holds true: the first few years are essential. Your grade 3 results predict to a high degree how you will be doing in high school.

Testing - even the grade 3 and grade 6 EQAO tests that I personally think leaves a lot for interpretation - as long as it is reasonably consistent shows patterns.

Yes, even with the types of tests employed today we are much better off with EQAO than without.

A clarification - Bob Clements is not with EQAO.  He wrote the Level Lowdown to help parents and educators understand the process.  The article was published and included in the packages of those who attended the hugely successful, joint Teachers for Excellence/ParentNetwork Ontario conference in 1999.

It’s an excellent resource - I’m glad that Bob’s still getting mileage from it because too many STILL don’t understand how to use this test to actually improve learning.

Level Lowdown was written before the introduction of the Gr. 10 Literacy tests.

Nancy - I’m quite sure that in an election year the title of the news release was designed to do what it did - make the results appear better than they were.

In reading Malkin’s initial post, I got that.

Wonderful spin that 83% of studetns passed, EXCEPT that the last I heard the test was designed to a Grade 7 level. 

That 83% of Gr. 10s passed a Gr. 7 level test isn’t very encouraging.

How would these soon to be graduates do if the test were an actually Gr. 10 level test?

What’s more interesting is that in some schools the Gr. 9s actually write a “practice” test when the Gr. 10s to theirs.

Also, in our school, on several occasions, students in grades 11 & 12 are asked to stay home on the day the Literacy test is administered so that the kids will not be disturbed but also so staff are used for that purpose only - great use of our tax dollars?

I’d like to clarify a myth being spun here by Wayne that those who question the validity of the results and in fact the truths the system would like us to believe are conservative or right-leaning.  Simply untrue. That Wayne has morphed into that makes him more akin to Doug, by moving that untruth.

Don`t disparage good teachers Chuck.This is where I disagree.A good talk with Wayne amongst all of us came to a resolution and insight which we all needed.

This is not the way to go,teachers are not your enemy.

The Unions and curriculum gurus and other misaligned individuals and dictators disinterested in student outcomes we can discuss but good teachers who work with the kids and try hard to accomplish learning and goals shouldn`t read this:)$^%* on this blog.

“Don`t disparage good teachers Chuck”

And don’t put words in my mouth Jo-Anne. I wrote nothing to indicate anything disparaging toward teachers or anyone else.

Accusations were made - some inappropriate in my view - that needed correcting.

If we’re looking to correct wrongs let’s also include those offered by all.

I just feel that we need help with the mission;Europe and Nancy worked for hours to get the right numbers and discuss with Wayne.It all ended well when Europe got us the final numbers.

There are horrible teachers who dont give a *$%^& and are political animals,there are those like Wayne who is here with us and would like to see a better system.I remember some of his old posts,he isn`t a Doug.

You guys are good.

All that stuff you are digging up is great.  Europe, I agree, the way that EQAO reports its findings is way too convoluted and confusing.  As I said, it took me some time just to find that definition of deferred.  As you have found out, there is a lot of material there - and lot of things that you can criticize the system for.  Yes, the test is very basic and 83% (if you take their initial figure) is of itself way too low. 

That is why I took up the debate here Chuck.  I wasn’t telling people not to criticize or question.  In fact, I intended exactly the opposite.  Teachers like me want you to make the system accountable - when ‘the blob’ (as I believe some one called it)  gets it from both the inside and the outside, it will eventually have to respond.  My concern throughout this debate has been Ms. Dare’s artificial (I’m assuming to make it seem worse) and untenable ‘fact’ of a 60% rate.  When someone uses fakery to jig the numbers, or speak out of opinion and not fact - it gives the blob the excuse to tune you out and not listen.  And then, the blob tunes the teachers out too.  As I said, there is a lot of information on that website - hit the blob with its own facts and figures and it cannot dismiss you.  I’m sorry if you or Ms. Dare felt personally offended, that wasn’t my intention.

Joanne - I’m aware that Wayne is not Doug but the way he pulled the old left vs right analogy was oddly similar to the what Doug pulled and what he’s still pulling over at Educhatter.

You’re attributing something to me that I didn’t write.

Wonderful that Nancy, and Europe and yourself are just discovering EQAO and the info. contained there, but guess what?  Many parents and teachers have done that legwork. It’s information that before the Harris gov’t installed the EQAO wasn’t available for parents OR teachers to use as a measurement.

That said the EQAO and gov’t aren’t above spinning headlines to massage the way the public feels about the job that’s being done….or not.

Wayne’s now given you all a nice pat on the head for being great busy bees. All is well with the world.

Wayne - you torqued the discussion and inserted accusations about those on the right, specifically Ms. Dare’s post and her explanation. 

I made no mention or criticized teachers whatsoever, so on that Joanne is just plain wrong.

Chuck,

It may well be that others have learned this long ago, but Nancy, Europe and others here, myself included, obviously needed to find out for ourselves.  By your reckoning, my Grade 9 math students could just as easily say that they don’t need to learn the material since the class last year already did it.

As for accusations, no one: not myself, nor Ms Dare is infallible.  I have been mistaken, it happens to everyone.  However as the moderator and chief editor of this blog, Ms. Dare does bear a greater burden of responsibility to ensure that she does not spread misinformation.  If you look above, until I jumped in and ‘torqued’ the discussion, no one was even questioning her opinion.

In regard to the ‘left/right’ discussion, Ms. Dare has shown by her choice of articles in the past, as well as the editorial comments introducing them, that her views come from the far right.  I have mentioned it before and she has never denied it.  Everyone is entitled to their view, but what you need to be concerned about is how your views are perceived by others.  Look at the way you treat Doug.  People use the term ‘progressive’ as an excuse to dismiss his views outright.  The Dougs of the system read some of the articles here, use the term ‘Tea Party’ and dismiss them just as easily.  You are quite welcome to throw around Ms. Dare’s number of 60%.  Go to the newspaper, tell them you uncovered a secret that EQAO doesn’t want people to know - see how far you get.  You may not like the ‘Tea Party’ accusation, but to borrow the phrase from George HW Bush, “If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ...”

By all means. Coddle the union types Wayne. Here’s a great place to continue the myth that parents and educators who challenge the system are just plain wrong.
http://cruxofthematternews.wordpress.com/

“If you look above, until I jumped in and ‘torqued’ the discussion, no one was even questioning her opinion.”

That’s true, but you also didn’t accept her explanation, and as I see it you’re arguing about two very different ways of looking at the same problem.

If we’re all infallible so too may the numbers and EQAO be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time they’ve tried to fly a better result past the public when it was undeserving.

“the way you treat Doug” -  Doug dug his own hole here Wayne - we were all witness to it. It’s the same hole he’s dug himself elsewhere. 

MY point to Joanne was the she put words in my mouth and that like it or not the right and left of things THIS time began with you.

Dan, I am assuming that you are being obtuse on purpose - that is clearly not what I said.

Yes Chuck, I did start it this time.  Why does this make you so uncomfortable?  You bristle every time someone mentions the Tea Party.

When someone uses fakery to jig the numbers, or speak out of opinion and not fact - it gives the blob the excuse to tune you out and not listen.  And then, the blob tunes the teachers out too.”

So very true, especially if it is the parents against the blob. In the first place, parents are at a great disadvantage, since we do not processed the knowledge that the blob has, and is able to effectively ignored parents. By gaining the knowledge, parents begin to asked for services and start to question the education policies of the blob. Only to find out services are the services the blob is willing to grant, and not what is in the best interest of the child.  In the education blob, the last thing that the blob is willing to grant, is remediation of the cognitive weaknesses that are impacting achievement of their children.

As I learned enough knowledge, I was finally able to hit the blob with their own facts and figures, and the blob could no longer dismiss me. The pretty coloured charts of my child’s achievement and cognitive strengths and weaknesses, clearly showed the weaknesses of the education policies, and how they prevent LD children from succeeding. to be successful in school work. The blob has receded in the background, and is no longer micro-managing my child’s school files, and the space has been filled by the high school teachers.

Wayne is right, because in my case, the teachers were better able to advocate, question the theories and policies at meetings that impacts school achievement and the individual success of students. .

Hit the blob with facts and figures, plus hard copies of tests. As I did, from grade 1 throughout to the end of grade 7, my child never passed a written LA test, quiz, or exam. The average was 47 %, and throughout it all, the blob dismissed any remediation in my child’s writing skills. And this is on top of the assessments’ recommendation stating remediation in writing skills. Rather a humbling experience for the educrats to see the hard copies of the tests, and than asked a question, “Why didn’t she get the help?”. That was when I stepped in, and said the board denied the services for various reasons. Mind you this is the short version, and I had a lot more to say and it was my chance of going after the educrats who simply written off my child a long time ago.

As for the political aspects, I can see the importance of what Wayne is pointing out. But, the other side is just as guilty weaving political ideology and dogma throughout policies, and thinking. It is sometimes hard to separate the politics, dogma and facts and even more difficult when educrats based decisions on dogma rather than the facts. The EQAO, like other standard testing came about, to bring more accountability to the education system. And yet, I get a feeling the EQAO is being used by the educrats to benefit and pushed their agenda and dogma, and have no intentions of using the results, as an effective way to identified students who are in need of remediation in the 3 Rs. On P4E, over 200 comments so far on EQAO results, and even though I have only read 3 pages of comments, the major theme coming from parents, and some teachers the EQAO results are not being used to identified students in need of remediation. Of course not, when a teacher thinks a I is a pass. Or the Grade 10 literacy test - a 1 through 4 are all passes. Most parents would think the opposite that a 1 is not a passed. The overall reason why my child never did get effective help, was the overall belief structure of the educrats and the dogma, that formed all decisions of what my child needed or did not need. And none of it was based on the results of the CRTs, the assessments, and actual hard copies of tests.

I do think all the many multi-facets of the public education system must be presented, and most of them are coloured with dogma, ideology and pure politics, masking the facts. As an outsider, it is a daunting task to uncovered the facts when the system is so good at keeping the facts hidden. What is stated in their statements, procedures, and protocols are one thing, and the actions may be in direct opposition of the statements, procedures and protocols.  But first to uncovered the facts, I had to start learning and that took 9 years, to gain enough knowledge, and the ability to uncovered the facts that are so well hidden in the public education system. If only I knew what I know now, when my child was in grade 1 - I would have done the sensible thing, homeschooled my child. And skipped the dogma and politics of the public education system, that does a poor job on the foundations of the 3 Rs.

“Yes Chuck, I did start it this time.  Why does this make you so uncomfortable?  You bristle every time someone mentions the Tea Party.”

Try to stay with me Wayne and read what I wrote. You did what too many educators do - divide and conquer.. and you did using comments about what you believe those to the right of centre believe or don’t believe.

As I stated in my first post where I raised this, I wanted to debunk a myth that those right of centre think about educations in the sweeping way you suggest, when truly you have no idea from what political leanings anyone here may be, do you? 

I see you doing here similar type of baiting that Doug did to not add to the discussion but shift it.

No Chuck, I don’t know your political leaning, nor do I care, nor is it germane to the discussion.  I clearly wrote about perceptions, not realities and that duck was quacking pretty loudly at the beginning of this article.

Are you really trying to posit that my asking for truth and accuracy, is an attempt to divide and conquer?  Come on Chuck, if that’s the case, then it doesn’t say much about the level of discussion on this blog does it?

“On P4E, over 200 comments so far on EQAO results, and even though I have only read 3 pages of comments….

- a group that has NEVER supported testing
- is in lockstep with the teacher unions

Those 200 comments Nancy under the heading “Get Rid of the EQAO” span two years beginning in Feb. 2009 to the present.

“If only I knew what I know now, when my child was in grade 1 - I would have done the sensible thing, homeschooled my child. And skipped the dogma and politics of the public education system, that does a poor job on the foundations of the 3 Rs.”

That says it all for me Nancy.

Do you think Malkin faked the numbers in her post then? Where was her lie exactly?

“Do you think Malkin faked the numbers in her post then? Where was her lie exactly?”

Yes and already answered above.  I’m not going back through it again.

Nancy,

From what you know about the EQAO tests, do you think they could be used as a diagnostic tool as you say people suggested.  I know you said that the confusion over the marks makes it impossible.  However, I would think that the literacy tests are so general and basic that you couldn’t do much with it other than noting that a student who failed has problems.  It really wouldn’t be helpful in pinpointing the problem would it?

My question isn’t directed at you Wayne. 

I’d like Nancy to answer the question.

And I bet I can guess the answer to your question of Nancy too.

Yes it would.

Putting some pages of a failing student up on the wall for all to see,a workshop would explain to the teachers the 6 symptoms that plague a student who struggles with reading,spelling and writing.
Then,they would be taught how to change that.
The problems are as such-
A-weak phonemic awareness
B-weak phoneme grapheme correspondence
C-phoneme segmentation and sequencing problems
D-auditory discrimination problems
E-Auditory processing difficulties-clues are everywhere in written work..
F-A difficulty writing the lettrs that represent the sounds and words in their minds,instruction required..first we circle all the print.

When teachers are trained to know about reading,they can look at work and be enlightened at what they see and in return,remediate the problems.They are all processing difficulties.

Some come from legitimate LD,most comes from lack of instruction and kids living in the world of guessing.

Thanks Jo-Anne,

That surprises me, so these exams could be useful in other ways.  I would suppose that the only way to practically implement using EQAO exams diagnostically would be to train the teachers in the workshops you describe.  Then have them go through their students exams before they are sent off.  There’s no way even a team of experts in Toronto would have time to go through 100,000 exams.

It also raises another interesting question:  if they could be useful as diagnostic tools, then why aren’t they used?

Because sadly,we test the children for a number or data,not to be of assistance or rectify.

Why do you think all of us are here?

We could be doing so much,there is so much the empirical research and MRI`s have shown us-we do not do it because the Universities and Literacy Secretariat have different agendas.

No, I do not think that Malkin fake her numbers. She was simply pointing out the missing data streams, and she was estimating. I arrived at a 64 %, but I do admit that there is missing data there as well. And now since learning that a 1 through 4 all represented passes, and than reading the Crux posting on EQAO, which is mostly on the quality of the test and what is being tested for, throw in P4E postings, I am throughly convinced that EQAO and other like organizations is simply there to satisfied the political fractions, and not to improved overall learning and achievement of students.

If anyone has to wonder, just asked a parent who wanted to see a hard copy of the test, to prove that there child is in need of remediation in writing. How the whole system moves against the parent. Or when I called down my child from her studying, to asked her what she thought of the sample test for the Grade 10 literacy test. She thought it was an easy test, to pass, compared to the English class tests. She also was wondering whether spelling, grammar mistakes were graded, and I told her I don’t know. I am pretty sure she would get a solid 3 on the Ontario test, but that still does not mean she is not in need of remediation in writing.

As for lies, no. I have the same problem, holding   two mutually-contradictory concepts and accept both as the truth. But I put it down to poor writing of the press release, and wondering why all the data is not laid out for one and all to see.

“The EQAO’s remarkable pronouncement reminds me of the concept of doublethink as coined by George Orwell in his book 1984 - the ability to accept two mutually-contradictory concepts in your mind at the same time. And this from a supposedly-neutral arms-length testing organization!

Actually the book 1984 should be reread, many of the things in 1984 are reality in today’s world.

“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”

http://alternativereel.com/includes/cult-fiction/display_review.php?id=00001

I can see why Malkin would used the book of 1984, but than was it not the most popular book in a high school library back in the 1960s and the 1970s?  At least it was for my high school. You weren’t well read, until you read 1984.

To Wayne’s question -  It is the same answer as Joanne. A gold mine for a teacher, even if the results come a year later. They would be better off delivering the hard copies back to the school, so teachers would have actual work of the student, rather than a bunch of numbers, that mean different things to people. It would not be too long, before the teachers would start to demand spelling, grammar and yes probably better reading instruction.  Or take it another way, a LD student making the same mistakes consistently over the time span of 3 EQAO tests, and how it directly relates to the cognitive weaknesses picked up in the psycho-educational assessment. And yet the student had hours upon hours of SE services, and no improvement. Take another LD student where their is steady improvement in writing over the time span of the 3 EQAO. The difference is the second LD student, had their cognitive weaknesses addressed, other than the public school. Yes the EQAO can be used as a diagnostic tool for teachers and greatly benefit parents as well.

Take note Wayne, check the higher income schools, and one will see this reflected. Most LD kids problems can be corrected, but the education system refuses to do so. It is than left up to the teachers and the school to do what they can, with the limited resources that are handed to the school. And here is a new stat, and it appears that Ontario has a lower percentage of LD students going to universities.

. “There were 5,546 university students with learning disabilities in the most recent statistics from Ontario’s ministry of training, colleges and universities from 2007-08. This was a 17.9 per cent increase over five years, but students with learning disabilities made up only 2.24 per cent of the total post-secondary student population. “
http://cupwire.hotink.net/articles/45065

How much do you want to bet, all of the LD students going to university had parents who had the means to pay for the tutors, and/or taught them at home?  And it is a real shame, the young man with the rare learning disability was not picked up until grade 9. Now that one would stick out like a sore thumb, starting in grade 1.

”

Something still bugs meEQAO grade 10 literacy test.
(You can tell I like all my ducks in very straigth row, don’t you? )  )

This is a pass/fail test. What constitutes a pass?
Other than the declaration that a pass is the expert’s consensus about a pass should be I wasn’t able to find what the description of pass for this specific test means.
75% overall?
50% overall?
At least 50% on the multiple choice comprehension and at least 50% on the writing part?

What constitues a pass for this test?

Hi Europe, 

This is a pure guess, so if anyone knows the answer, please chime in.  Again, the fudging on my part comes from the convoluted make up of the EQAO website.  There is a pamphlet in PDF format explaining the tests to parents.  In that pamphlet, they talk about the Grade 9 Math exam where they state that they look at ‘meeting or exceeding the provincial standard’.  That is MOE jargon for a level 3 or 4 - or an A or a B in our lingo.  Therefore, for the Grade 9 math exam, they are looking at 75% or above.  They don’t use that terminology when discussing the Literacy test - there they use the term ‘passing’.  A pass in an Ontario school is 50%.  So, I think that is what they mean.  I would assume a pass is a pass - in other words there would be no distinction made between the multiple choice and written answers.  Again, these are assumptions on my part, if anyone knows definitively, please help out.

Could not find anything as yet in grading, but I did run into a few articles from the union side.

Rather interesting to see the different takes, and yet as parents and the students, we are still being told, as opposed to giving all information, and let us determined what the EQAO testing means to us.

http://www.straightgoods.com/item427.shtml

http://www.maritamoll.ca/webmom/content/uriate.htm

http://www.etfo.ca/issuesineducation/eqaotesting/pages/default.aspx

Thanks for your response Nancy. You’ve made yourself very clear.

Suggesting that someone is deliberately lying is a serious accusation. Threading the political pap through it all as Wayne did (and yes, how Doug did once) is a total turn off to any discussion around education initiatives.

To Joanne - I’m still not sure about you. That you’re passionate about getting the right tools to students and teachers is clear.  You also sell a program and have a vested interest in moving that message.

Thank You
I certainly agree that it may seem suspicious.

I really feel that SQE is going the wrong way,not getting the support of teachers and posts like yours.

As Dragons say on the Den,
I`m out.

Instead of being “out” Joanne, why not simply tell us your story? We’re not all as familiar with you or the reasons behind why you’re doing what you’re doing as the SQE folks may be.

From SQE’s perspective what can they be doing differently? If we’re learning a thing or two it’s that forums like this one get ideas rolling.