Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts

Monday, May 24, 2021

My mother was a social justice warrior

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

Education is one of the means for achieving social justice: ensuring that everyone in society is treated fairly, that the dignity and rights of all human beings are respected, and that resources are equitably distributed. That is why education is sometimes called the great equalizer.

It is not surprising that Mother’s Day prompted me to think about my mother, who has been dead for almost 25 years. She was an elementary school teacher who taught for several years when she first completed her teacher preparation in the 1920s and again from 1960 until her retirement in the late 1970s. She was well into her 70s when she retired.

Although most of my mother’s generation of elementary teachers had only one year of preparation beyond high school, my mother had two years of teacher preparation beyond her high school degree.

My mother taught grade one for almost her entire career. Her last grade one class enrolled 35 students. Many of the students lived in publicly subsidized housing because their parents were receiving income assistance. Many of the children in the area had little exposure to reading before coming to school.

My mother was proud that year-in and year-out all of the children leaving her inner-city grade one classroom were reading at grade level. I recall asking her about her teaching, she said plainly, “I’ve never met a child I couldn’t teach to read. It may have been difficult for them and for me, but all of the children in my classes began grade two reading at grade level.”

I asked her what she thought accounted for her success. She replied, “On the first day of school, I would tell the children that they were very lucky to be in school because they would learn a very powerful secret – they would learn how to read. I’d say, ‘Once you learn to read, no one can hide anything from you. Learning to read will be very hard, but I will help you. I have never met a child who couldn’t learn to read.’ Then I would read them a story that I knew they would like.”

The methods my mother used were the ones she was taught during her two years of teacher preparation in the 1920s. “I read to the children every day, often twice a day. Who doesn’t like to have someone read to them?” she asked.

“We used basal readers,” my mother explained. “You know, the readers with Dick, Jane, Spot, and all of that. But every child also had a library card. Each week, beginning in September, I would take them to the school library to select their books. In my last few years of teaching, during choosing time the children might select a cassette tape with a story that they could listen to while they followed along in the book.”

I asked her whether many of the children struggled with reading. “It varied from year to year, but there were always children who struggled. Some might not have had much opportunity to hear and handle books. Others – even the ones with books at home – struggled too. But they all learned to read at grade level by the end of the year.”

Reading – perhaps more than any other capacity – is life changing. Those who can read are more apt to succeed in school, graduate, and make a life for themselves afterward. It is a capacity that often distinguishes them from those who do not achieve success in school, often leave school early, and have diminished life chances.

The priority my mother placed on learning to read meant that she did not always address all the topics recommended for grade one students. “None of the principals I worked for ever complained that the children were short-changed.”

My mother would describe herself as an ordinary classroom teacher, but I think she was a social justice warrior for having taught all the students in her grade one class to read at grade level. If I had told her that, she would have said, “Oh, go on!”

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

The fallacies of a sampling approach to student assessment

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

My previous blog examined some of the claims made about large scale student assessment: that they prompt teachers to teach to the test; waste valuable time and resources; do not assess everything that is important; are stressful for students and teachers; do not take into account differences among students; and allow some individuals and organizations to make invidious comparisons among schools.

Another argument that opponents make about large scale student assessment is that they should be administered to a percentage of students (a sample) rather than all the students at a particular level (census approach). That, it is argued, would save resources, and prevent those who misuse the results from doing so. It is doubtful that a sample approach to large scale student assessment would achieve those desired outcomes. But there is a more serious problem: sampling will not work if one is really concerned about equity of outcomes for all students because it reduces the ability to identify factors that impede success for each and every student.

 A sampling approach (as opposed to a census approach) has other deficiencies. Sampling prevents examining the trajectories of students. In other words, with a sample, it is almost impossible to tell whether the students who performed poorly at grade 3 had improved by grade 6. Sampling doesn’t allow the system to see what has happened to transient students, a particularly vulnerable population that is easy to overlook. It also increases imprecision by increasing measurement error. If you want to know how students’ prior performance relates to their subsequent performance, you need to survey all students.

I can illustrate the benefits of a census approach from a study in British Columbia. In 2006, the Minister of Education described high school completion rates of students for whom English was a second language (ESL) to be better than any other group the Ministry assessed (Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, p. 3530). After a closer examination of the data, Bruce Garnett and I (Garnett and Ungerleider, 2008) confirmed the accuracy of the Minister’s statement, but found that the high achievement of the numerous Chinese speakers masked the fact that smaller subgroups of the ESL population were faring poorly in the school system. We found that the strong performance of Chinese speakers (the largest ESL group in the data set) pulled the aggregate ESL graduation rates upwards. The graduation rates of all groups except Chinese speakers were very low, generally below 60%. The worst outcomes were among ESL speakers of Spanish, Vietnamese and Filipino languages. Identifying the differential success of various ESL groups would not have been possible if the data set had been generated on a sample basis. You cannot systematically address problems that you cannot identify.

Another advantage of a census approach is that it permits analyses that can help to identify factors over which the system exerts influence that facilitate or impede educational progress of groups of learners (for example, First Nations, Metis, and Inuit students, second language learners, students with special needs, etc.).

Most important, if equity among students is a priority, samples simply do not work. Even with carefully drawn samples it is difficult to detect small sub-populations of students to support meaningful analyses. I can illustrate this with reference to British Columbia’s student population which, at the time of the calculations below, was about 40,848 students at grade 4. With a student population of that size, we could draw a sample of 1,481 student, a number sufficient to meet the requirements for sound statistical analyses of the grade level population.

However, if you wanted to break down results by school board or wanted to study the performance of sub-groups of students, the sample would not work. Here is an illustration of why it doesn’t. The illustration assumes that the assessment is intended to produce results that fall within a confidence interval of +/- 2.5% 95 times out of 100 at the school board level.

School Boards

Number of Students available for assessment in 2019/20

Number of students required for a sample with a confidence interval of 2.5 at a 95% level of confidence

Abbotsford

1524

765

Alberni

294

247

Arrow Lakes

34

33

Boundary

99

93

Bulkley Valley

144

132

Burnaby

1740

816

Campbell River

397

316

Cariboo-Chilcotin

305

255

Central Coast

26

26

Central Okanagan

1690

805

Chilliwack

1022

614

Coast Mountains

271

230

Comox Valley

631

448

Conseil Scolaire francophone

601

432

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table truncated*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richmond

1377

726

Rocky Mountain

288

243

Saanich

484

368

Sea to Sky

409

323

Sooke

868

555

Southeast Kootenay

466

358

Stikine

15

15

Sunshine Coast

235

204

Surrey

5459

1199

Vancouver

3493

1067

Vancouver Island North

94

89

Vancouver Island West

35

34

Vernon

610

437

West Vancouver

501

378

Grand Total

40,848

22,200

*FULL TABLE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

         

In very large boards such as the Surrey School Board, the number of students sampled (1199) would be a relatively small proportion of the grade 4 student population (5,459). In a smaller board such as Vancouver Island North, the sample required (89) would encompass almost all the 94 grade 4 students in the Board. In the Conseil Scolaire Francophone Board the sample required would be more than two-thirds (432) of the 601 grade 4 students.

Overall, if you wanted to break down results by school board or wanted to study the performance of sub-groups of students, you would need to sample more than half of the total number of students at grade 4.

It is inconsistent for those concerned about the role education plays in helping to achieve social justice to want to restrict large scale student assessments by arguing in favour of sampling students. Those determined to achieve social justice ought to want to shine a light on discrepancies, not obscure them. My hunch is that, when considering the evidence of the limitation posed by sampling, advocates for social justice will see the benefits of a census approach to large scale student assessment.