My Thoughts on Workshop #1 & 2
After reading through all of the articles there were a couple of aspects that really stuck out for me. One point that really resonated with me as a Special Education Teacher was that about uncertainty and the certainty that lies within standardized testing. Currently, I have been helping out with the grade 3 and grade 6 teachers with the preparation and administration of the EQAO testing. Having done so for the past couple of years, one cannot help but notice the amount of pressure and stress that is applied to both the students and the teachers. Although our school has scored very well in the past, there is always this pressure to do better and achieve better results. Personally, I do not believe that the EQAO is important enough to stress out nine and twelve year olds and I do not believe that it paints a very accurate picture of the academic standards of these children. After all, EQAO decides the academic ability of children based on their performance on one test. A snapshot of a child’s life is used to predetermine what their abilities or disabilities are. More importantly, it is the methodology used to assess this test that truly concerns me. How accurate is the assessment when it has been altered over a period of years, weeks, and even hours?
When one begins to prepare for the EQAO test, past test booklets and other extra questions are used. However, when reviewing these worksheets, many educators will disagree as to what the best response or answer should be. Hence, with a test that is so subjective, how can it produce such objective results??
Out of pure curiosity, I joined the masses of teachers and agreed to mark and assess the EQAO booklets for the government. What I noticed while marking the booklets was the complete inconsistency of the marking scheme. Within a period of 3 hours, the expectations for a level 1, 2, 3, and 4 were altered. In addition, about half way through the second week marking period, the expectations that clearly indicated a level three result were changed to score a level four. Now, how accurate was the assessment of the booklets? There were many students that have already been marked and given a level three that should have gotten a level four!?! With such a discrepancy in the marking how can anyone hold the results with such great value? Now, do not get me wrong, I do think that the EQAO testing is valuable, yet it should not be treated as an excellent high source of information, for it is far from that in my opinion.
The one other discussion that really hit home for me from these articles was about the underachievers not being able to get out from ‘under’. An article discussed that fate of children of ‘underachievers’ who eventually find it difficult to change the realities of their lives. Thus, the article basically ironed out that these children will and do find it difficult to change their surroundings and escape the bad neighbourhoods. I feel that we as educators are not necessarily helping this cause. Students are labelled on a consistent basis and although their behaviour may change from worse to better, they will always be that kid that did that thing back in grade four.
I would like to propose that every year, these children, all children, be given a fresh start where possible. Sure it is hard to forget those exhibiting defiant behaviour, but what about the child who is really trying to change?? Although this would be ideal, I truthfully do not see it happening just yet. Even as class lists are being made for next year, teachers propose strong arguments for not having a certain individual in their class based on their behaviour and performance from previous years. Where is the fairness?? How can a child climb out of the ‘rut’ that they may have been born in, when we as educators are placing further obstacles in their paths?
