Why we need the Foundation Skills Assessment

 Charles Ungerleider. Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

British Columbia is administering its annual assessment of numeracy and literacy, the Foundation Skills Assessment (FSA), in October and November of this school year. Its administration will generate useful information about how well the system is preparing students in those key areas. But the administration of the FSA will also generate much misinformation that deserves to be corrected.

 Those who argue that the FSA should not be administered during COVID have it wrong. COVID is an event that has had a significant impact on student learning, the magnitude of which is unknown. Based upon evidence from elsewhere, it is likely that the most vulnerable students have suffered disproportionately. We should find out! The FSA is the only tool that will provide a province-wide picture of COVID’s impact on students. It is hard to fix a problem if you don’t know its scope.

 As is the case with most large-scale student assessments, the Foundation Skills Assessment is a tool for decision-making at the provincial, school board, and school levels. The FSA provides useful information about system performance and program effectiveness and about equitable performance and outcomes. Assessments like the FSA make it possible to monitor the performance of groups of students (racialized, Indigenous, boys and girls) to ensure equity of outcomes.

 Although used for different purposes, both classroom and large-scale assessments are valuable. The information from large scale assessments can help to inform plans that schools make for improving student performance that teachers appraise using classroom assessments.

Classroom assessments are specific to classroom conditions and student characteristics. Classroom assessments, while valuable for individual learning, do not provide robust, reliable information at a system-wide level using common benchmarks. Classroom assessment is different from large-scale testing in many ways: purposes, techniques, frequency, timing, consequences.

Large-scale assessments are designed to produce province-wide information based upon standardization of administration, scoring, and reporting. Assessment at the classroom, school district, or provincial level do not use a common measurement scale. The meaning of a C+ assigned by grade 8 teachers means different things in Surrey, Smithers, and Saanich.

The FSA is a ‘no stakes’ assessment. The results have no bearing on any individual student or teacher. The FSA is not used to make decisions about individual students or teachers. The information about student performance is not used to assign marks (grades), determine whether a student is promoted to the next grade or retained in grade, or influence any other aspect of a student’s school experience. The same is true for teachers. The results do not affect their salary, job security, or anything else.  

Nonetheless, like many experiences – making a new friend, flying in an airplane, taking an amusement park ride - the FSA sometimes creates anxiety. Educators and parents play an important role in alleviating assessment anxiety. Teachers can help prevent anxiety about the FSA by explaining the use of the assessments.

The FSA assesses dimensions of student performance in reading, writing, and numeracy that are regarded by teachers, parents, and the broader society as being fundamental or foundational to student learning. It is therefore no surprise that teachers feel they should “teach to the test.” The no-stakes nature of the FSA should eliminate any perceived need to teach to the test, but there is nothing wrong in teachers teaching to a test that assesses important foundational skills. It is especially important for teachers to give students an orientation to the kinds of questions and tasks they will encounter on the assessment so that confusion or misunderstanding aren't the cause of less than representative performance.

Schools teach more than reading, writing, and numeracy. They teach personal and social development, citizenship and social responsibility, science, the arts, languages, etc.  If what counts is measured, I think we should create assessments for all the areas to which we devote our scarce time and resources.

Reconciliation Requires Transformation

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

I am surprised at the number of Indigenous students whose families allow them to attend public schools in Canada. If I was a parent whose ancestors attended residential schools and was suffering from the inter-generational trauma that taking children from their families created, I would think twice about sending my children or grandchildren to schools established by settlers.

Most Canadians consider residential schooling as abhorrent, if not criminal. In fact, given their intent and the mistreatment of children and youth in their care, we should not call them schools. Although residential schools no longer exist, the public schools Indigenous children attend are settler institutions that do not reflect Indigenous epistemologies, language, or culture.  As recognized by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

Much of the current state of troubled relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians is attributable to educational institutions and what they have taught, or failed to teach, over many generations. Despite that history, or, perhaps more correctly, because of its potential, the Commission believes that education is also the key to reconciliation. (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future p. 234)

There are schools and school systems that are trying to shed the negative teachings of the past and incorporate Indigenous ways of knowing and being, but the efforts are nascent and sporadic.

Even if curricula reflecting Indigenous perspectives were widely available (which they are not), most non-Indigenous teachers do not understand Indigenous epistemologies sufficiently well to be able to adapt to new pedagogies and curricula to include them

An increasing number of schools are trying to incorporate Indigenous symbols, but I suspect that most Indigenous learners do not see themselves reflected in schools because the symbolism is not complemented by Indigenous content. My hunch is that there are Indigenous learners whose parents conceal the identities of their children because they are fearful of mistreatment.

Although the intentions are different, in rural and remote communities without a secondary school, there are students who must live away from their families and communities to attend school. I would not be comfortable sending my children away to school. But, if I did not send them, a social service agency would likely threaten to take them from me and make them Crown wards.

These are but a few of the impediments facing Indigenous learners that schools and the broader society must remove. But, unless they are removed, Indigenous parents are justified to distrust settler schools and only reluctantly allow their children to attend. Addressing the historic mistreatment of Indigenous people by settlers and the part that residential schools played in attempting to systematically eradicate Indigenous language and culture is a necessary step but one that is not sufficient.

Schools must acknowledge and value the knowledge that Indigenous children and youth bring to school. Instead of disregarding such knowledge, and in the process disparaging it, schools must use that knowledge as a foundation upon which to build. Children and youth, Indigenous and non-Indigenous are more likely to succeed when the knowledge they possess and the competencies they have are incorporated in the fabric of schools.

If Indigenous elders and knowledge-keepers were formally invited to participate in schools, they could help educate both students and the professional staff. That would be another step toward reconciliation. Land and nature play important parts in the lives of Indigenous people. Using land-based learning as the staging point for instruction rather than an extension to current approaches would recognize its value.

We need to fast-track the preparation and hiring of Indigenous teachers. Doing so won’t transform the curriculum and pedagogy but it will provide students with models of Indigenous leadership. There are examples of Indigenously focussed teacher education programs in existence for some time. While those continue, the registrars of teacher certification at the provincial level should authorize graduated certification to enable Indigenous people to combine employment with study to earn laddered certification.

The preparation of non-Indigenous teachers has improved in recent years in most faculties of education, but there is room for improvement. But improvements will remain limited until there are Indigenous faculty members who can help transform teacher preparation in more fundamental ways.

None of the suggestions I have made are new or radical. However, they are not part of the fabric of public schooling. Until they and other changes are incorporated, Indigenous parents will reluctantly allow their children to attend school, but they are unlikely to fully embrace schooling in settler institutions.

Good intentions are not good enough

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Concerned about equity, some school boards differentiate the allocation of resources among schools. The underlying assumption is that, in some schools, there will be significant numbers of students facing challenges that require additional resources.

There is little doubt that there are additional costs associated with educating students with developmental disabilities whose conditions necessitate the assistance of personnel in addition to the classroom teacher. Students with extreme externalizing behaviour often need placements in  designated classrooms with fewer students and the assistance of additional staff. Students who are deaf or blind often require specialized equipment or additional classroom personnel to enable them to benefit from the instructional program.

Equity allocations often extend beyond the resources provided for such students. Some school boards provide additional resources to schools in catchments with large numbers of children whose families live below the poverty line, or where there are high rates of student mobility, absenteeism, early school leaving (dropouts), or where there are students for whom English or French is an additional language. The thinking is that such challenges require extraordinary effort to ensure that students’ educational progress is commensurate with their peers who do not face such challenges.

The schools receiving additional resources for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph are typically afforded considerable discretion about how those resources can be used. The decisions on resource use are typically idiosyncratic. Some use the resources to increase their staffing, purchase proprietary educational programs to enrich the educational experience, and/or put the resources to other uses in aid of improving outcomes for students and reducing gaps among identifiable groups of learners. We should always remember that scarce resources allocated to one place take resources away from another. If the other activities are not offered, students are deprived of the opportunities afforded by those activities.

Improving outcomes and reducing inequalities are, arguably, the two most important goals of education. It is very important to know if additional resources help in achieving those goals and the best applications of those additional funds. Because resources are scarce, it is important to understand their impact. Program evaluation is crucial. Boards must evaluate the impact of their efforts to improve outcomes and eliminate inequalities. But, in the absence of systematic assessment, it is difficult to know what difference, if any, the additional resources make, or to tell if the resources might be applied to greater advantage in some other way. Most schools and school boards do not systematically assess student performance or outcomes and, thus, are unable to determine the absolute impact of the additional resources, or their impact upon reducing gaps.

Moreover, even if schools and boards did assess performance and gaps systematically, the idiosyncratic application of resources across schools would make it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the relationship between the resources and outcomes. However, the idiosyncratic use of resources at the school level is often justified with the argument that those closest to students are in a better position to know what will work. Educators should welcome systematic evaluation of programs so that they can demonstrate the impact of the additional resources for which they advocate.

By devising and applying formulas for the allocation of resources to students who face challenges, school boards can persuade themselves that they are addressing inequities. Perhaps they are. They can claim having tried to provide for ‘equality of opportunity’ for students – whatever that might mean. But, in the absence of evidence of impact on outcomes, we simply do not know.  That is not good enough.  

Schools might be asked to demonstrate the impact of the resources they have received: how have student outcomes improved because of the new programs, or staffing, or infrastructure. A school might say that it needs the additional resources because, in the absence of those resources, student outcomes would deteriorate. Again, school boards would want evidence that is the case.

And what would a school board do if the schools were unable to demonstrate impact? A school might argue that the problems for which it receives additional resources are beyond the control of the school. It might say that poverty, homelessness, and food insecurity are things over which school have little control. Making such a statement would be tantamount to saying that schools are unable to teach children from such environments, an insupportable claim. If it were true, why would school boards provide the additional resources in the first place.     

My point is that school boards that have an equity allocation formula but fail to assess the impact of the formula on student outcomes are not making effective use of their scarce resources. Some might say that such a gesture was, in today’s terminology, ‘performative’ or ‘virtue signalling.’

When Affirming the Obvious is Necessary

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 Apparently common sense is not so common. I wrote last year about a school denying an application from 17-year-old who sought to repeat Grade 11 because he felt that school interruptions from COVID-19 were putting his aspirations in jeopardy.

I was impressed by the student’s mature judgement and dismayed by the decision of the school to deny him the opportunity to further his education and by the lack of procedural fairness. I thought that the incident was an unfortunate one-off. I was wrong.

The California State Legislature is obviously concerned that such requests will be ignored or denied out of hand. It recently approved a bill amending the Education Code requiring a school district to formally respond to a consultation request from a parent that their child be retained in grade if s/he had significant deficiencies in their coursework during the pandemic. The ensuing discussion is designed to consider the recovery learning options, the perils and benefits of grade retention, the student’s academic record, and anything else relevant to a decision about whether grade retention is in the student’s best academic or social interests.

You would think that, at a minimum, such consultation would simply be common sense. The California legislature is taking no chances that common sense will prevail in its schools.

Under what we once called normal conditions, many schools engage in what is sometimes called credit rescue. ‘Credit rescue’ is the provision of extra help to students at risk of failing a course. Assistance takes many forms: additional one-to-one instruction or small group instruction; help with assignments that have been missed or handled unsuccessfully; formulating a plan to help a student improve, often in consultation with parents or guardians. In essence, credit rescue aims to help students to overcome obstacles to their successful completion of the course.

Some schools offer ‘credit recovery’ to students who may have completed a course, but not fully satisfied the curricular expectations at an acceptable, passing level. This typically means that students are permitted to repeat only those units or material that they have not mastered rather than the entire course.

The variation among students at any grade level will be greater post-pandemic than it was prior. This means that schools will need to make extraordinary effort to help students recover from its impact. This will require more frequent diagnostic assessments of student learning, more one-to-one and small-group instruction, closer monitoring of student progress, more finely tuned and tailored assignments linking prior knowledge to the new material to be learned, more opportunity to redo assignments and make-up units that were not successfully completed.

Teaching is always challenging, but post-pandemic teaching will prove more challenging than at any time in the past for teachers.  Closing the gaps and improving results will be more important than ever. Schools and teachers will need to make adjustments that they might not otherwise have made in the absence of the pandemic. The California legislation signals that fact indirectly and, in the process, exposes a truth about schools that many of us avoid discussing: that school structure and the convenience of the instructional staff too often take precedence over student welfare.  

A tap dance worthy of the Nicolas Brothers

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

I, like many others, have been impressed with the way the BC government has handled its response to COVID-19. British Columbia Premier John Horgan and Minister of Health Adrian Dix were smart to allow Dr. Bonnie Henry to take the communications lead. While both Horgan and Dix speak with authority and sincerity, both are outshone by Dr. Henry.

However, like many others to whom I’ve talked, I was blind-sided by the verbal choreography of the August 24^th announcement of the mask mandate for schools. I haven’t seen tap dancing like the answers to the questions at the press conference since I saw the Nicolas Brothers! It took me a while to figure out the dance routine, a variation on the 8-beat riff walk (I think) Here is my paraphrase of what I heard:

The most effective protection from COVID-19 (and the current Delta variant) is to have had two vaccinations. However, Government is not mandating vaccinations because there have been very high vaccination rates among teachers and staff. Nonetheless, Government is being cautious, so masks are mandated in schools (grade 4 and up). Moreover, to check the spread of the Delta variant, Government is requiring vaccine passports for people who wish to voluntarily attend and congregate at sporting events and in restaurants. But as far as schools and universities – places where people are congregated – Government is not requiring vaccinations because the risk of infection is low (and the political risk of requiring vaccinations is high).

I don’t have a clue about the political calculus, if any, but, like everyone else, I can speculate. Issuing a vaccination mandate might appear straight forward, but on closer inspection might prove more challenging for government. If the government or school boards mandate vaccinations, their employees, or the representatives of the employees (in most cases unions like the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), could argue that the mandate breaches the Charter rights of their members.  Whether the employees or unions would prevail in court in the face of a health pandemic is questionable. But government’s response is puzzling, nonetheless.

Governments don’t like dustups with anyone, especially those perceived to be friendly to the current regime. However, the BCTF has been calling upon government to “mask-up.” Surely the Federation is not hesitant about mandating vaccinations for its members. Especially since, as we were told, almost 80% of teachers and support staff are said to have been vaccinated. I’m no lawyer, but I doubt that the courts would grant a stay of a vaccination mandate while the issue was adjudicated.

It appears to me that the BCTF is doing a bit of tapdancing of its own. On August 24^th, Terri Mooring, President of the BCTF, said that the Federation would not be opposed to making vaccinations mandatory for its member. Four days earlier, the BCTF launched a petition urging on government to do a variety of things. The petition reads, in part:

Given what we know about the highly contagious Delta variant, we need to err on the side of caution and return to schools with everyone wearing masks. Vaccinations are integral to safer schools, but can’t be our only line of defense. We know for certain that none of the students 11 years old or younger will be vaccinated, and the vaccination rate for eligible youth still isn’t as high as we would all hope to see.

We need more than vaccines. 

The BCTF is also urging government to implement the following measures ahead of the new school year:

·         School-based clinics to allow easy access to vaccinations for ages eligible students.

·         Funding for ventilation system upgrades to meet the minimum standards of MERV 13 filters, and HEPA filters in workspaces where MERV 13 filters are not possible.

·         N95 and/or medical-grade masks available for all students and staff upon request.

·         Comprehensive COVID-19 testing strategy that includes asymptomatic testing.

·         Designated time for health and safety training at all schools and worksites.

Readers will no doubt note what I noticed: The Federation says more than vaccines are needed, but it never calls upon government to mandate vaccines.

The members of the BCTF hold the organization in high regard, but I wonder whether members will be scratching their heads as I am, wondering why the Federation did not call upon government to issue a vaccine mandate instead of declaring it would not oppose one.