One of OQE’s recurring messages has been that public educators are setting the bar far too low with respect to learning expectations. Just how low has the bar sunk?

Well, a few months ago I was on TVO debating a high school principal on the merits of the grade 10 literacy test. He was saying that the test was unfair because many of his students could not demonstrate their literacy skills in a highstakes, pencil-and-paper test of this sort. He spoke of multiple intelligences and different learning styles and the need to use alternative evaluative methods such as portfolios for these students. I pressed him for an estimate of how many students shouldn’t be expected to pass the literacy test and was more than a little shocked by his response: 30 percent! In his world, and that of many other public educators, it is acceptable that three out of every ten students leave Ontario high schools functionally illiterate.

Educators will, of course, strongly disagree with the assertion that failing the literacy test is an indication of functional literacy. They will tell you that these students learn in “different” ways and that marking portfolios is a better way of determining their literacy skills. But the literacy test isn’t some esoteric academic instrument. It was developed with the participation, among others, of teachers who work with students at all levels. It is pitched at the level of literacy required to read an election pamphlet or an announcement on an employee bulletin board. Literacy specialists who have analyzed the sample passages on the EQAO website have concluded that it is at about a grade 6 level. Despite assertions to the contrary, anyone who can’t pass this test IS func-tionally illiterate.

Portfolios may be an appropriate evaluative tool for creative writing and visual arts, but they are a highly-questionable tool for basic literacy skills. First, the evaluation of portfolios is far more subjective than a standardized