Doretty, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t McGuinty lower the academic standards for the grades 3 and 6 tests? 
Also, some of the really old tests in Ontario that we have records of show a huge dip in academic standards, so I think they’ve been progressively lowering academic standards for decades.

Bev, 
I can’t really say if the test standards were lowered, per se.  The test reflects the content of the curriculum.  Since it is a criterion-referenced test and not a normed “standardized” test such as a CAT, if the curriculum changes, then the test would change. That being said, if the curriculum was made easier, then it would follow that the test would appear to be easier—the bar would be lowered.

Readers may like to know that the Ontario Ministry of Education is quietly asking for feedback on whether or not the curriculum is “too crowded”.
I suspect that the answer will be “yes” and we will see a further erosion of standards and the consequent changes reflected in the testing.

The curriculum may be crowded, but SQE thinks it is a matter of being cluttered with too many of the kinds of things that might not make a difference in academic achievement.

Hi Again Doretta,
That’s pretty scarey if they lower the standards again.  I’ve been reading the curricula online and it’s pretty vague.  It’s so obvious that children need drill in the basics, which the ministry doesn’t want to deliver.  Instead they’ll offer courses in self-esteem building; anti-bullying.  What’s going to happen to these kids?

That Bev, is the million dollar, or should I say today, the billion dollar question.

The main change the McGuinty government has made is to shorten the length of the test, and to make the time of testing later in the year. These were both reasonable moves. 

You can’t tell from the tests themselves if they have been dumbed down or not. The devil is in the details, mainly the scoring rubrics that EQAO uses.  These change every year. The criteria for the different “levels” also change every year.  The people who mark the tests have to sign an oath of confidentiality never to reveal the rubrics.

The effect is to push the distribution towards the middle. It is almost impossible for a student to get below a Level 1 on the EQAO and true level 1 kids will get a 2 or 3. It is also difficult to get a 4. Mostly kids have to write a lot and use a lot of technical vocabulary to get a 4.

I marked the Grade 3 math and there were plenty of students who should have gotten a 1 or below who got 2’s, or even 3’s. While the test itself was fairly well aligned with the curriculum, the marking process was manipulated.People who marked the other subjects and grade levels have told me the same was true at their sites.

Also other math teachers I know who were in different marking groups were given different instructions as to what had to be present for a grade of 3 or 4, so there was a lack of consistency.

Given all that it is hard to say what the results prove. Maybe not much of anything. I think the test writers try to make the test a reasonable assessment of curriculum expectations.  The dumbing down, if that is happening, is at the marking level.

Essay-type tests are famous for being rather subjective when it comes to grading, and a large part of EQAO is essay-type.  Students do not need to know any math facts. Calculators are used. Spelling counts but not very much.

Yes, under NCLB, many states lower their standards or soon all schools will fail to make AYP and will receive consequences. The Americans do have a test, the Neap which is given to all students. It shows no progress whatsoever since the NCLB test and punish regime has been instituted. The lunatic, human capital agenda of testing and charters is going nowhere and making no difference.

They have tried everything from the right wing play book.

1) If you fail the students can go to other schools.

Result? The students don’t want to move.

OK

2) If you fail, we will replace the principal and the whole staff with hand picked teachers.
Result? It made no difference.

OK

3) We will close poor performing schools?
Result? They simply moved to other schools and the new schools became poor performing schools.

None of this nonsense works because none of them address the central problem. The poor performance comes overwhelmingly from poor students. America must switch to focus all of its resources on poor schools while it radically reduces poverty at the same time. The only solution.