What is measured matters

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 There are variations on a common theme in the discussion of large-scale student assessment. One version is “what is measured matters.” Another is “what matters is measured.” Those who argue that confining large-scale student assessment to literacy and numeracy gives prominence to those capacities and diminishes the other contributions that schools make. 

It is important to give prominence to literacy and numeracy because they are so fundamental to learning in school and out. There are, however, many important contributions of schooling that are not systematically measured across the education system.

Consider the school system where I live. British Columbia’s school system is designed to “enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy.” To that end, it strives to develop educated citizens who are:

·         thoughtful, able to learn and to think critically, and who can communicate information from a broad knowledge base;

·         creative, flexible, self-motivated and who have a positive self image;

·         capable of making independent decisions;

·         skilled and who can contribute to society generally, including the world of work;

·         productive, who gain satisfaction through achievement and who strive for physical wellbeing;

·         cooperative, principled, and respectful of others regardless of differences; and

·         aware of the rights and prepared to exercise the responsibilities of an individual within the family, the community, Canada, and the world.[1]

In recent years, the British Columbia Ministry of Education has revised the provincial curriculum to better reflect these goals. Now it is time for the Ministry to revise its assessments to align with its vision of the educated citizen and the curricula designed to help students realize that vision. To that end, the Ministry should develop and implement a new suite of provincial assessments:

Print and media literacy: Literacy is the foundation for school success and success later in life. Literacy is essential for developing numeracy, critical thinking, problem-solving, and almost every other human capacity. When students do not acquire a strong literacy foundation early in their school careers, they are more likely to experience failure in school and lack the foundation for productive, adult citizenship.

Using communication technologies is ubiquitous. Misinformation and dis-information are major societal problems. Being media literate is as important as being print literate and is as crucial to critical thinking.

Numeracy: Understanding and working with numbers is fundamental to everyone’s life. Thought and action depend on understanding and using numbers. Deciphering a recipe, reading a climate graph, computing interest, sequencing an argument, dancing, playing an instrument, and constructing an historical timeline are illustrative activities that require an understanding of numbers and the ability to apply them.

Critical thinking: The ability to formulate a question, analyze an argument, ask and answer challenging questions, judge the credibility of sources, make inferences, and identify unstated assumptions are among the abilities that critical thinkers possess and use in every aspect of life.

Communicating: Representing and presenting ideas, arguments, and emotions in ways that are coherent and understandable to others are essential to effective communication.

Social and personal competence: We use our abilities to self-regulate, empathize, motivate, read social situations, and develop relationships to work with others productively, settle disputes, and cooperate with others every day.

 These are examples of assessments that the revised BC curriculum requires to realize its promise to society. These assessments should have NO consequences for individual students or teachers; in other words, they will be no stakes assessments. They should be designed to provide information:

•                    about how well students have mastered the curriculum.

•                    about equity among sub-populations of students.

•                    to parents about the progress their children are making.

•                    for developing policy, allocating resources, and providing opportunities for professional learning.

•                    about how well the education system is fulfilling its mandate.

•                    to improve public confidence in the education system.

Provincial assessments that give teachers information about their students provide an opportunity for a rich discussion among educators about their own expectations and those of others.  In these discussions teachers can learn from one another about their instructional practices, what Andy Hargreaves calls the “derivatization” of the classroom. If each teacher operates within her/his own bundle of expectations for students, with no reference to others inside and outside the school, there is no reason for the teacher to challenge her or his assumptions and expectations. Such discussions are essential to the collaboration among professionals that can lead to greater equity of performance and, ultimately, outcomes. 

There is much more to schooling than what we currently measure on a system-wide basis. Schools develop capacities for thinking critically, for communicating ideas and emotions in a variety of media, and for developing us as human beings and teaching us to relate to others respectfully . . . and much more. Those capacities matter and they should be measured systematically.

---

[1] Statement of Education Policy Order, OIC 1280/89. British Columbia Ministry of Education. https://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/365524/oic_1280-89.pdf

Can it happen here?

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The university of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Anti-racism, sex education, gender identity, health and safety, and climate science are just some of the issues dividing candidates for school trustee positions in the United States. The rudeness and crudeness of electoral contests at the national and state levels are increasingly infecting local school board electoral contests.

That such issues are arising in the US signals to me that citizens there lack a fundamental understanding of the responsibilities of school boards as stewards of the public school system. The division among candidates about the issues indicates that they believe it is the job of a school board to determine the course of study and classroom instruction. However, in many – if not all – states in the US, responsibility for policy regarding such matters as academic standards, curriculum, instructional materials, assessments, and accountability typically resides in a state board of education not with local school boards.

School board candidates in Canada hold similar misapprehensions about the responsibilities of school trustees. You can see this from their campaign material. Candidates who appeal for support by promising to “fix the schools” or to “take back the schools” or offer more arts and music or STEM are promising what they cannot deliver. As is the case in most US states, responsibility for curriculum rests with provincial and territorial ministries or departments of education - not with local boards of education.

In fact, most school or education acts stipulate that it is the responsibility of school boards to ensure that all students within the region served by the board receive the basic education program. The basic program is usually spelled out in provincial regulation, supported by a curriculum framework of goals and objectives with delineated required topics or alternatives, approved instructional support material, and specified time and credit allocations. Trustees do not determine these; they provide oversight to the superintendent or director whose responsibility it is to ensure compliance with provincial or state directives.

When newly elected trustees take office, they are often surprised to discover that matters such as those being contested by school board candidates in the United States are beyond their control. Many are frustrated by this discovery. Some come to understand the role of trustee better and can acclimate to the demands of the office. Others complain about the constraints and condemn those – often the superintendent or the director of education – who attempt to educate the trustees about the constraints and opportunities of the office. Some believe that they can overcome the guardrails established for the position by publicly chastising school board staff and criticizing their fellow trustees who attempt to enforce the rules and regulations.

I’ve written that, while some Canadian school board elections are fiercely competitive, most receive little attention from eligible voters. Voter turnout in municipal elections is modest. Voter turnout for school boards even more so. Low voter turn out makes it easier for a renegade group to sweep control of a school board.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, has 72 school boards that have a total of 688 trustees. In 2018, there were slightly more than two candidates for each available seat. But only two thirds of the seats were contested (436/688). The remaining third of the seats (247) was filled (“acclaimed” in electoral terms) by trustees who ran unopposed, of whom more than three-quarters (192) were incumbents.

2018 Ontario School Board Election Results	Totals
available seats	688
candidates seeking election	1527
trustees acclaimed	247
trustees elected	436
returning trustees	429
new trustees	254
trustees newly elected who were unopposed	55
returning trustees elected who were unopposed	192
newly elected trustees	199
returning elected trustees.	237

 I’ll be interested to see if the contests for school boards begin to mimic those in the United States. My hunch is that they won’t.

Several things distinguish Canada from the US. For instance, the vaccination roll-out and safety protocols, while not always handled well or uniformly across jurisdictions, seem to be less contentious in Canada. While some politicians, most notably in Alberta and Saskatchewan, have bowed to pressure from their vocal political supporters to resist the imposition of either the vaccines or the masks, most of the electorate in both provinces seem united in support of those measures. At the Federal level, one candidate attempted to define vaccination and personal protection as a matter of individual liberty. He increased his vote marginally over the previous election but did not win the seat for which he was running.

Another difference between Canada and the United States is that Canadians are generally more accepting and trusting of government institutions. They are also more willing to accept that individual interests must be balanced by collective responsibilities. A third is that public policy differences are relatively more nuanced than sharply divisive. Canadian policy preferences are decidedly centrist as evidenced by the similarities among the policies of most of Canada’s major parties. For example, racism is more polarizing in the United States than it is in Canada and Canadian citizens are seemingly more willing to acknowledge institutional racism than those in the US.

If it were not for some of these moderating factors, rudeness, crudeness, and polarization could eventually become characteristic of Canadian politics at the school board level. But first, they would become evident at the federal and provincial levels. Canada is not there, yet. Fortunately.

An amber alert is needed now

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

 It is around this time of year that school boards report to their provincial and state agencies the numbers of students enrolled. Student numbers affect everything: school board funding, meal preparation and distribution, the organization of classrooms, the deployment of teachers and more. When students are missing from school it has consequences for them, their families, and the communities in which they live. It is global concern and fundamentally a child protection issue.

While missing students are obviously absent from school, students who are absent may not be missing (unaccounted for). I have expressed my concern about absent students in an earlier blog. The one you are reading now is about the students who have not shown up for school this year.

I read an article from October 9^th about the NYC Department of Education issuing a directive to principals to find the missing children and youth. Why such a directive is necessary boggles the mind, but, if it is needed, I’m for it. Finding the missing students should obviously involve the schools in which the students are enrolled, because schools presumably have a relationship with the student and the student’s family. But efforts should be a top priority for every level of the education system and beyond.

While there are many things the education system can do to find the missing students. The education system will need the cooperation of other agencies, including social welfare and income assistance, public housing authorities, justice, health and mental health, sport and recreation, etc. I fear that agencies beyond the education system will be hesitant to cooperate with the education system because of the protection of privacy.

Protection of privacy for the students and their families is not a trivial concern. When privacy is breached, its impact can range from stigmatization of the child and her family to the use of student and family information to perpetrate criminal activity. Governments cannot leave to school boards alone the responsibility of negotiating the complex privacy issues that pertain to finding the missing students.

Students missing from school is a child and youth protection issue that has been magnified by COVID-19. It is a social emergency. Governments must respond as they do when there are large scale natural disasters. Governments must use the power that is vested in them to ensure that privacy concerns are not a barrier to finding the missing students. Using those powers and working with their protection of privacy personnel, governments can craft emergency powers that remove the obstacles to information sharing among agencies.

Governments should create a provincial or state body with the authority to oversee the efforts to find the missing students, removing bureaucratic and other barriers, ensuring rapid communication, and accountability. At a minimum, the coordinating body should include senior officials from ministries and departments of education, social welfare and income assistance, public housing authorities, justice, health and mental health, sport and recreation, etc.

An amber alert is issued when a child is suspected of having been abducted in the community where I live. Its purpose, among others, is to alert the entire community and engage every citizen in attempting to locate the child or youth. We need similar signals and efforts until we can locate and return every student who should have been in school this school year.

What is equity in education?

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permissions to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Shortly after posting my blog Good Intentions are not Enough I received an email from a reader asking about my conception of equity. Here is my response:

The promise of education is that who one is, where one lives, and with whom one lives should not affect the educational outcomes one achieves. That means that, all other things being equal, students should receive the same treatment, the same resources, and achieve the same outcomes unless there are good (justifiable) reasons why they should not.

There are two considerations in this assertion. One is all other things being equal (i.e., the same). Obviously no two persons are the same. So, what becomes important is on what relevant dimensions should there be equivalence or sameness.

The second consideration in the assertion is unless there are good (justifiable) reasons why they should not be treated in the same way, receive the same resources, or achieve the same outcomes. The key is what counts as good (justifiable) reasons.

Canadian education is heavily influenced by the United States. Two US documents influenced Canadian thought and discourse about inequities (inequalities) in educational opportunity. One is that the assignment to separate facilities based on the pigmentation of one’s skin is inherently unequal.[1] Notwithstanding the considerable differences of opinion that have emerged about it over the past fifty plus years, another influential document was Equality of Educational Opportunity by the sociologist James S. Coleman and others.[2] A central assertion of the Report was that the educational and economic backgrounds of the parents of Black students (and students of other ethnicities) and White students was the main influence on their achievement.

Those ideas – especially the second - helped enshrine the notion that children from families living in impoverished circumstances and whose caregivers are less well educated enter school at a disadvantage relative to their more affluent peers whose parents are better educated. Provincial practice and the practice of school boards reflect that assumption in their efforts to mitigate that disadvantage.

Many provincial governments have an index of economic and social conditions that they use to allocate funding to school boards, for example. School boards that routinely provide half-day kindergarten have justified providing full-day kindergarten in schools located in impoverished communities.  Arguments for the provision of early childhood education often refer to the notion that such programs will help ameliorate the differences between children living in poverty and their more affluent peers. There are other practices that are justified in the name of equity or equality of educational opportunity that argue that differences in economic and social capital justify the differential opportunities and treatment of students. I have written elsewhere that the educational impact of the additional resources is rarely evaluated.

The provision of additional educational support to children whose behaviour is different from most of their peers is justified based on those differences (intellectual and learning disabilities; behavioural needs or mental illness; physically dependent, physical disabilities or chronic health impairments; deafness or hearing impairment; blindness or visual impairment, etc.). These differences are deemed relevant to ensuring the educational success of these students. A key question is: which, if any, of these differences justifies adjusting one’s expectations regarding the outcomes of education?

Justifying differential outcomes for students whose intellectual capacity is severely impaired is not difficult, though how much of a difference in outcome is more problematic.   Should similar adjustments be made for students who are deaf (or hearing impaired) and or blind (visually impaired)? What, if any, learning disability justifies lowering educational expectations? These questions are not often asked. Nor do we evaluate whether the additional supports are making a measurable difference in performance or outcomes for these students.

In education, there appears to be little difficulty in discriminating among students and arguing that such discriminations are made for good reasons. Justifying differential outcomes is more complicated. Differential outcomes are too often justified in terms of the differences that were used to justify additional resources. That seems a bit circular to me. It makes me wonder whether the additional resources make a difference and in what ways. I am not arguing for the elimination of such resources, just careful evaluation of their impact.

---

[1] Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[2] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf