Johnson's latest attack is deliberately irresponsible

This was written by Jonathan Teghtmeyer who is with the Alberta Teachers' Association. Jonathan tweets here. This post first appeared on the Alberta Teachers` Association website.

by Jonathan Teghtmeyer

Education Minister Jeff Johnson has continued his attack on teachers and the teaching profession. While he will publicly suggest that he has no intention of splitting up the ATA, his tactics are designed to undermine the capacity of the Association to perform its professional functions. The only intended result is to create support for splitting the ATA.

His actions bring his words into question.

In late May, the minister pushed out into the media four reports on cases of unprofessional conduct in which he overturned the decision of a hearing committee of the Association’s Professional Conduct Committee. While the hearing committee recommended teaching certificate suspension in each case, the minister believed that the appropriate penalty should be cancellation of the certificate.

The minister is apparently within his right to make these arbitrary decisions, because he holds the certificate-granting power, and that is why the committee only makes a recommendation on that penalty. If he has concerns about the penalty, I can see why he would reject the recommendation. What I find interesting is that instead of taking the issue up with the Association he ­decided to splash it onto the front pages of papers across the province.

The minister did this intentionally, knowing that salacious stories grab attention and sell papers. He did this while intentionally leaving out key information about the other eight cases that crossed his desk where the hearing committee recommended cancellation. He did this intentionally, knowing that explaining the truth through media channels would be virtually impossible against a sensational and sticky story.

The public was reasonably and predictably disturbed. MLAs publicly accused the Association of wanting to put perverts in classrooms, and others accused us of protecting pedophiles.

The minister did not underestimate the vitriolic reaction—he set out to create it.

Unfortunately, as a result, the Association is smeared, the profession is smeared and, frankly, the entire system is smeared. This was simply irresponsible.

This attack was clearly motivated by politics and has not only served to undermine the Association, but it has undermined the minister himself and it has undermined acting Premier Hancock, who as education minister reviewed suspension and cancellation recommendations without overturning them.

If there is such a fundamental flaw with the process, why has the Government of Alberta allowed it to continue for 78 years? Why have successive PC ministers signed off on the precedent reports that informed these decisions for 43 years?

The answer is less about the truth and the reality of the situation and more about the ideological vindictive drive behind this minister.

At the end of the day, the Association-managed process is good. It is free from political interference. It has worked well for 78 years. And it ensures that teachers who are not fit for the classroom never teach again.

Essay-marking software gives high marks for gibberish, U.S. expert warns Alberta

This was written by Andrea Sands who is a journalist with the Edmonton Journal. Sands tweets here. This post was originally found here.

by Andrea Sands

Alberta Education should not allow high-stakes Grade 12 diploma exams to be marked by computer because today’s essay-marking software is terribly flawed, says a retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) professor and writing-assessment expert.

Les Perelman has been an outspoken critic of automated essay marking and worked with MIT students to invent computer software called BABEL (Basic Automatic B.S. Essay Language Generator), designed to trick today’s essay-scoring programs. BABEL generates gibberish essays which, nonetheless, get high marks from so-called “robo graders.”

“I realized very early on that machine grading of writing really is, essentially, impossible,” Perelman said from Massachusetts.

“I can guarantee you, smart 18-year-olds will try to trick it. If they find out it favours certain things like word length, obscure words and pretentious language, then that is exactly what is going to be probably taught in schools.”

Last fall, Alberta Education paid U.S. company LightSide $5,000 to do a feasibility assessment on whether computers could accurately mark Grade 12 diploma-exam essay questions. Every year, about 190,000 Alberta students write the exams, worth 50 per cent of a student’s final mark.

The LightSide report concluded its software could reliably grade student essays and, in the test analysis, did so more accurately than teachers.

Perelman said the report is “fudging” because of the way data was analyzed and because there’s not enough information and explanation in the report. “I’m a pro at this and there were tables I could not understand.”

Computers can’t analyze meaning and essay-grading software usually inflates grades for essays that are longer and use uncommon words — “egregious” instead of “bad,” or “plethora” instead of many, Perelman said.

“They’re counting word length, or they’re counting types of words, or they’re counting sentence length, or they’re counting connective words like ‘consequently,’ ‘moreover,’ things like that, that show cohesion. But all those things are very mechanical.”

About nine big companies sell essay-marking programs, including Pearson, ETS, CTB/McGraw-Hill, Measurement Inc. and LightSide, which is a fairly new company.

They are lining up to win “the big prize,” said Perelman — contracts to machine-score the increasing number of tests that will result from the new Common Core State Standards Initiative. Almost all U.S. states are now implementing new standards for kindergarten through Grade 12 in English language arts/literacy and mathematics that will require annual testing.

According to LightSide’s website, the Common Core “will require more writing in every classroom, meaning more time grading and even less time for teachers to work directly with students.”

Perelman does, however, credit LightSide as being one of the more reputable companies. Company founder Elijah Mayfield, who led the Alberta study, has responded to Perelman’s criticisms by trying to improve LightSide’s products and acknowledges the limitations of computerized grading, Perelman said.

“He’s an engineer. Most of the other companies are salesmen. I still think he’s wrong.”

Mayfield, who headed up the Alberta feasibility assessment, said a confidentiality agreement prohibits him from speaking to the Journal about the report.

The U.S. National Council of Teachers of English argues the Common Core initiative is pushing companies, testing agencies and education organizations to use automated essay grading because it’s cheaper than paying people to mark tests.


Alberta Teachers’ Association president Mark Ramsankar said it’s unfair to have students spend hours writing an exam that’s marked by a machine.

“How does a machine look at the symbolism contained in a piece of writing and interpret that as symbolism?” Ramsankar said. “I’d like to see how Shakespeare stacks up in a computer-generated mark.”

Both the ATA and the Canadian Teachers’ Federation oppose machine marking of essays, particularly on diploma examinations that are the culmination of a year’s worth of students’ learning.

“Again, we’re seeing practices that we’re looking at importing from the United States,” said federation president Dianne Woloschuk. “Their education system is in a crisis. Their students are not doing well.”

Alberta Education continues to evaluate whether machine-scoring of essays could be useful here. However, Premier Dave Hancock and Education Minister Jeff Johnson have said there are no plans to pursue it at this time.

asands@edmontonjournal.com

Twitter.com/Ansands

‘Mankind will always conduct prejudice’


English 30-1 students in Alberta study the novel Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen, so retired MIT professor Les Perelman entered the key words “pride, prejudice” and “father” into his essay generator, BABEL. The program creates mechanically correct but “completely incoherent” essays that have fooled automated-marking programs.

Perelman’s sample was declared “off-topic,” but scored 88 per cent when Perelman ran it through the home-schooling version of IntelliMetric, under the software’s category “challenges of parenthood.”

IntelliMetric technology is used in the United States to score the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT), which graduate students take to get into management programs in business schools.

Here is the text from the BABEL-generated essay:

Keywords:

pride: [‘pridefulness’, u’pride’]

prejudice: [‘preconception’, ‘bias’, u’prejudice’]

father: [‘begetter’, u’father’, ‘male parent’]

Essay:

Pridefulness with decency has not, and in all likelihood never will be malevolent, humane, and considerate. Mankind will always conduct prejudice; many for an advance but a few on pulchritude. a quantity of pride lies in the study of reality as well as the area of semantics. Why is pride so efficacious to depreciation? The reply to this query is that male parent is rivetingly and gregariously febrile.

Rationale, usually by appreciation, might feign prejudice. If nearly all of the appendages adjure an explanation of the erratically or idolatrously pagan disparagement, the haphazard preconception can be more falteringly sublimated. Additionally, an orbital is not the only thing simulation reacts; it also spins at male parent. Our personal altruist on the exposure we arrange can surprisingly be an interloper. Be that as it may, knowing that executioner can be the assassination, most of the comments to my accusation civilize irrelevant scrutinizations. In my philosophy class, all of the advancements by our personal allusion of the demarcation we decry accede amplifications which deliberate with analyses but masticate veracity that should inconsistently be a contradiction and occlude circumspections for expositions. Begetter which is mimicking in how much we cavort ousts whiner of our personal inquiry to the apprentice we propagate as well. an accession will enthusiastically be a concurrence on the insinuation, not an intercession. In my experience, none of the reprimands by our personal advocate at the sophist we substantiate contemplate postulation that blusters but append. a abundance of father changes culmination for bias.


As I have learned in my literature class, humanity will always depreciate father. Even though the brain counteracts a gamma ray to contentment, the same pendulum may catalyze two different neutrinoes with the remarkably accumulated culpability. Although the same neuron may receive two different brains, radiation processes orbitals of disenfranchisements on a taunt. The plasma is not the only thing a gamma ray oscillates; it also transmits neutrinoes for abandonment at the trope by father. The diagnosis of begetter changes a plethora of preconception. The less eventual allocutions pledge thermostats, the more an organism inaugurates those in question.

Malcontent, normally on the assumption, demolishes father. As a result of scintillating, all of the adjurations hobble equally with prejudice. Also, male parent to speculations will always be an experience of humankind. In my theory of knowledge class, some of the juggernauts of my scenario assimilate probes by the search for semiotics. Still yet, armed with the knowledge that propaganda can be a demonstration or homogenizes, many of the lamentations for my dictum abandon periodicity and voyage. In my philosophy class, almost all of the domains at our personal denouncement by the comment we admonish explain demolishers which declare the demolisher with the quip on gluttony that enthrals speculations or disparage agriculturalists. Pride which utters substantiation may boastfully be propinquity or is avowed but not impartial of my advancement also. a fetishistic fulmination belittles the people involved, not assemblage. Our personal conveyance to the reprobate we implore should be the analysis. The tendentiously vast prejudice changes a quantity of pridefulness.

Bias has not, and undoubtedly never will be reticent yet somehow gluttonous. However, armed with the knowledge that a report with assemblies accounts, all of the tyroes for my amplification shriek. By the fact that gratuitous dictators are articulated at pride, most of the amplifications confide too by pride. Prejudice will always be a part of human society. Pridefulness is the most feckless proclamation of human life.

Algorithms marking essays? That diploma idea deserves a failing grade

This was written by Paula Simons who is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal. Simons tweets here. This post was originally found here.

by Paula Simons

The word “essay” comes from a Latin root, meaning to put something on trial, to put something to the test. That’s why we ask students sitting Grade 12 diploma exams in Language Arts and Social Studies to write timed essays as part of their test. Composing an essay doesn’t just test your ability to use correct English. It tests your ability to think critically. It tests your ability to make an argument, supported with facts. It tests your ability to critique conventional wisdom and articulate original insights.

Learning to write a cogent essay in an hour isn’t just excellent training for would-be newspaper columnists. Not every graduate will need to do trigonometry or balance a chemical equation in adult life. But we all need to know how to marshal facts to advance a convincing argument, whether we’re fighting a traffic ticket, negotiating a raise, or convincing skeptical friends to try a new restaurant.

Nonetheless, Alberta Education is apparently giving serious consideration to contracting out the marking of diploma essays to an American computer program that uses complex algorithms to predict and assign student grades. A number of American states are already using such programs to assess “high stakes” essay tests.

In January, LightSide, a company founded by graduate students from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, presented a research report to Alberta Education. The confidential report, obtained by the Journal’s Andrea Sands, claims its software was 20 per cent more reliable than Alberta’s human markers.

LightSide’s system doesn’t detect grammatical errors. It has no capacity to fact-check, nor to analyze critical thinking.

“We cannot evaluate whether the points made in a series of claims lead naturally from one to another,” reads the study, written by LightSide CEO Elijah Mayfield. As well, says Mayfield, “on-topic responses that fail to address subtle factual nuances, misinterpret a particular relationship between ideas, or other factual errors will likely be scored highly if they are otherwise well-written.”

How does the computer know if something is well-written? It compares the essay it's evaluating to the hundreds of “training samples” in its memory.

“Computers can’t read a student’s essay, but they’re excellent at making lists — compiling, for a given essay, all of the words, phrases, parts of speech, and other features that characterize a student’s work,” says LightSide’s website. “Our software compares the differences in the features of a weak essay and a strong essay — as evaluated by a human reader. It then identifies the small things that might only appear in the strongest essays — vocabulary keywords, structural patterns of sentences, use of transition sentences ... If the writer has all of the little things right, just like the previously high-scoring example essays, they probably should receive the same score.”

In other words, if the essay’s style, vocabulary and syntax pattern match those of sample essays that earned high grades from human markers, the software will award similar grades, even if an essay is ungrammatical, illogical, or full of factual errors.

It’s quite fascinating, linguistically speaking. Certainly, we shouldn’t romanticize human markers, who bring their own biases, incompetencies, and idiosyncrasies to the grading process. A tired or frustrated or overwhelmed marker may not give consistent scores. Over thousands and thousands of student essays, machine marking may indeed offer statistical superiority.

But writing for a human marker, however flawed, is different than writing for a soulless algorithm. Writing is an intimate act of communication. When you write an essay, you write for an audience. You write to be understood, to entertain, to provoke, to connect, to share your insights and passions. Young essayists deserve the dignity of writing for sentient readers. Even if we accept the premise that machine marking yields more “accurate” results, it robs students of the relationship between writer and reader, of the right to be heard and understood.

How serious is Alberta Education about this? It depends on whom you ask — and when. Premier Dave Hancock praised the notion in the legislature last month, lambasted it at an Edmonton Journal editorial board Wednesday, then gave it guarded approval in an interview Thursday. Given the current Sturm und Drang in the Education portfolio it would seem madness for Hancock and beleaguered Education Minister Jeff Johnston to start another fight with Alberta teachers right now. But who knows what a new premier (or new education minister) might decide next fall?

If diploma exams need more consistent scoring, perhaps Alberta Education should invest in better marker recruitment, training and compensation. If we expect Alberta students to take diploma exams seriously, we should all do the same.

Whatever Happened to Transforming Education in Alberta?

This was written by Stephen Murgatroyd who is an author, consultant, imaginer - engaged in a wide range of activities around the world. Fun, imaginative, witty... and available for consulting and writing assignments. This post first appeared on his blog here. Murgatroyd tweets here and blogs here.

by Stephen Murgatroyd

A colleague and friend from the United States asked me yesterday a simple question: “what happened to the momentum for equity, transformation and change in Alberta education?”. Made me think. Here is my response.

First, we lost an important champion. Hon Dave Hancock was the Minister of Education (now Deputy Premier and Minister for Innovation and Advanced Education) who engendered trust and spurred innovation and collaboration. Its his style. He sought labour peace, developed a process to listen and understand the need for change and set an agenda for change which teachers, principals and superintendents could buy into. He was replaced by a Minister – Hon Thomas (“hit me”) Lucasuk – who made no attempt to understand the opportunity left by his predecessor, alienated teachers and school administrators and was generally a poor substitute for leadership. Realizing this, the Premier moved him to the role of Deputy Premier without portfolio as part of her “keep you enemies close” strategy. He is now Minister for Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour. He was replaced by Hon. Jeff Johnson, a former sales person for Xerox. He too has alienated teachers and school administrators and is widely seen as a proponent of market based tools and instruments for schooling.

These changes are more than symbolic – an activist Minister like Johnson can do a great deal of harm to an emerging movement in a very short period of time. It is widely understood that this Government wishes to split the Alberta Teachers Association by separating its negotiation/union function from its professional support and development function. It is also rumoured that the Minister wants to remove those with managerial roles (Principals and Superintendents) from the union. Also under attack are public sector pensions, as can be seen from recent announcement from the Minister of Finance, Hon Doug Horner (see here).

Transformative change depends on trust and collaboration. Two successive Ministers appear not to understand this and have either deliberately or unintentionally set out to damage trust between those who will enable transformation (teachers) and those who will support transformation (school and Board administrators) and those who will guide transformation (the leadership of the ATA and the Government of Alberta and Superintendents). Until trust is returned, transformation will be piecemeal, fraught and stalled.

Second, the key to turning ideas into action is to create the right conditions of practice for teachers – class size, time for professional development, engagement in curriculum change, the right kind of preparation for teaching, support for the inclusion of those with special needs. Almost all of these conditions are in poor shape. Classes in many schools are large because Alberta is growing faster than investment in physical capacity and teachers permits. In Calgary, classes average 30 when the Province recommends 27 (see here) – the highest they have ever been in modern times. Some have classes of 38-40 with 3-4 special needs students included. School Boards have requested portable buildings to accommodate growth in student numbers, but the Government cannot meet these demands (here).

School budgets are tight – with teachers being laid off (here) or not hired, even though demand is growing. The forthcoming Provincial budget will, it is rumoured, add to the austerity context in which schools are operating. Some school Boards have to consider reducing the school week (here) so as to balance budgets. Requests for replacement technology, for professional development or funds for innovation are becoming less likely to be approved, especially now that a major engine for innovation in schools – The Alberta Initiative for School Improvement – has been abolished (here).

In these circumstances, the conditions of practice are threatened not supported. But wait, it gets worse. The Hon Jeff Johnson initiated a review of teacher excellence in 2013, which is due to report shortly. The Task Force he established did not include any serving teachers (no wonder there are trust issues) and its processes were very questionable. Hon. Jeff Johnson has several times suggested that there should be merit pay for teachers – this despite compelling evidence that this has no impact on the learning experiences of learners or learning outcomes: it may work in Xerox, but not in schools (for a review of the argument see here, for evidence of consequence see here, here, here, and here).

Third, the transformation journey remains unfocused. This may be about to change. The Hon Jeff Johnson is about to announce some curriculum prototyping work across Alberta which will “be the engine of transformation”. Without revealing too much, the change in schools will be driven by changes to curriculum. In particular, a shift from “content and process” based learning to “competencies” and a focus on Provincial frameworks for competency with teachers having much more freedom, in partnership with others, to create appropriate learning for these competencies will be a major change. Teachers are nervous about these developments for several reasons. First, there are the conditions of practice issues and investment issues just mentioned. Second, parents have not been engaged in the conversation about these changes since the broad consultations associated with Inspiring Education, which took place in 2008-2010 and even then only a small number were involved. Third, investments have not been made in appropriate professional development to enable the transition to competencies by school systems (see here). The prototyping work will “surface” many of these issues, but they will also be challenging politically at a time when austerity is about to become more severe.

Finally, there is a strong sense that the present Government may not be the next government. Amongst the literati and politerati the conversation is not whether or not the Redford government will win the next election, but rather what kind of Government will be in place after the next election, due in 2016. It is clear that the Alberta Liberal Party and the NDP are both unlikely to form the Government or a coalition. It is also clear that the fledgling Alberta Party has yet to find the right kind of leadership to position themselves as serious players in the 2016 election. The choice is between the Wild Rose, led by Danielle Smith, or the current government either led by Alison (“in wonderland”) Redford or someone else. Two scenarios are emerging as bar talk favourites. A modest win for the Wild Rose or a minority government continuing the current party in power.

Whichever scenario turns out to be the case – and a week, never eighteen to twenty months is a long time in politics – it is leading to the current government seeking to demonstrate its right wing credentials. Hence its systematic pursuit of austerity and “no new taxes and no increase in taxes”, despite a deficit. Hence its systematic persecution of public sector unions through Bill 45 (bans public sector workers from striking, despite this being a labour right) and Bill 46 (muzzles freedom of speech) and an assault on pensions (see here). Hence its unfettered support for employers, despite growing concerns over cumulative environmental impacts of their activities. Hence the growing right wing nature of many of the actions we currently see and anticipate, such as a pending assault on the Alberta Teachers’ Association. What is happening is Alison Redford’s party is trying to occupy the space they think the Wildrose Party occupies.

But all this misses the point: no one trusts Alison Redford to do what she said she would do or her government to behave in a way that engenders community support. She and her colleagues no longer have the trust of the electorate. When this occurs, political parties become increasingly desperate to “win back” the voter. The problem for teachers and educators is that so few Albertan’s vote - 1,290,218 from a potential pool of 2,265,169 (57%), and so few vote for the party that wins. These facts lead the parties to work to attract small sub-sets of the electorate by appealing to what they suspect will appeal to them – no tax increases, take on these “fat cat” public sector people and punish those who challenge the status quo. The irony is that many teachers voted for this government so as to keep out the Wildrose. It is very doubtful that they will do this in 2016.

What might be a surprise in 2016 is that we could get a very high turnout – say 80-85% - who want to see an end to this government. In 1935 some 82 per cent of eligible voters turned out and the electorate turfed the United Farmers of Alberta from power in favour of Social Credit.

Transformation is not dead in Alberta education. It will occur one school at a time because courageous teachers, Principals and community leaders working together will make it so. But the overarching conditions are not in place for a system wide or Province wide transformation. It is a real shame: they were, and not that long ago either.

Editorial: Doing it with us or doing it to us?

This was written by Jonathan Teghtmeyer who is with the Alberta Teachers` Association. Jonathan tweets here. This post first appeared on the Alberta Teachers` Association website. I also wrote about Alberta's new Task Force on Teacher Excellence here.

by Jonathan Teghtmeyer

If Education Minister Jeff Johnson is serious about educational change, he could learn something from past experience—Johnson served as cochair of the Inspiring Education committee.

In 2009, then education minister Dave Hancock embarked on an ambitious project to listen to Albertans about their hopes, dreams and aspirations for public education in the 21st century. The project generated rich conversations about the goals and purposes of public education to create a vision for education, which is articulated in the Inspiring Education Steering Committee Report.

Many of us were at the table during the regional consultations—we completed the online survey and participated in open discussion boards on a variety of topics. The engagement process took time, but it was meaningful and authentic. When I read the steering committee’s report, I heard my voice in it and I heard the voices of others, some of whom I don’t necessarily agree with but the voices were there. In fact, if there’s one criticism, it’s that the report is so broadly worded that everyone can find ways to support competing ideas on where to take education.

However, it’s precisely because of careful and purposeful engagement that the process and the resulting document enjoy so much support. Minister Hancock (now Alberta’s minister of human services) is a coalition builder; he ensured that a variety of people and organizations would commit to the process and champion it. To that end, one of the first groups to guide the process was the Inspiring Education Working Committee. This group of 29 diverse people represented 13 ministries within the government and 12 education stakeholder organizations. The diversity of voices included government officials, ranging from a deputy minister to a crown prosecutor. Stakeholders, sometimes with competing interests, were brought to the table, including private schools, school boards, superintendents and teachers. These people found a way to work together on a project they all believed in.

I suspect that at the time, Minister Hancock realized that educational change could only happen if the people most responsible for implementing changes were actively engaged in the process.

The Inspiring Education Working Committee defined the processes and provided input into the tools needed, and committee members reported to their representative groups on the success of the initiative.

The open-arms invitations, collaborative spirit and clear window into process that stood as hallmarks of Inspiring Education stand in stark contrast to the approach adopted by the Task Force for Teaching Excellence.

First, information about the task force isn’t readily available. What is available is housed on the servers of a private contractor that does marketing and branding work. Second, stakeholders weren’t invited to participate in developing the project and were told about it just days before it was publicly launched. Third, information about dates and times for regional consultations were released less than a week before the first public meeting occurred. Last, the survey tools and focus group questions were developed without any input from stakeholders.

It’s puzzling why the Task Force for Teaching Excellence would exclude the voice, input and buy-in of teachers. It’s unconscionable that ATA President Ramsankar was excluded from speaking at the launch of the task force, yet the president of the Alberta School Councils’ Association was invited to bring greetings. Puzzling indeed—after all, this isn’t the Task Force for School Council Excellence.

The absence of clear and readily available information raises many questions, the first of which is, “Is the Task Force for Teaching Excellence about bringing about change with teachers or bringing in changes toteachers?”

Is Alberta changing their standardized tests?

Alberta's Education Minister Jeff Johnson has talked for some time now about how Alberta's Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs) are going to change. Information about how they will change is hard to come by and only occasional musings in the press from Minister Johnson provide any insight. Expectations are high but details are scant.

Here's what we know so far:

• These new provincial tests (replacing grades 3, 6, and 9) will evaluate students' abilities more broadly. The shift is being described as a change from evaluating content coverage to something vaguely defined as "competencies" with a focus on numeracy and literacy.

• No changes will be made this year but prototype tests could roll out as early as next year. It is likely that grade 3 PATs will be the first to change.

• "We don't want to abandon standardized testing. We just want to modernize it," says Minister Johnson.

• The new tests would focus less on regurgitating facts and more on providing students with an opportunity to show how they can apply what they understand. In other words, the new tests would care less about what students remember and care more about what students can actually do.

• Parents want quality information on how their child is learning.

Here are my thoughts:

Assessing Competencies

The move from assessing content coverage to competencies is a sound one backed by research. Alberta Education and former Education Minister Dave Hancock should be applauded for such a move. However, Minister Johnson's somewhat confused messaging regarding sound assessment practices becomes glaringly evident when he asks for standardized tests that assess competencies. No matter where one looks where competencies have taken hold (now a twenty year old idea that Alberta claims is 'new') - there is no such thing as a standardized test that assesses competencies. The best way to assess competencies is via performance assessments collected in learning portfolios, and The Alberta Assessment Consortium and Alberta Teachers' Association have some excellent research on this topic here. Hopefully some of this thinking will inform the ministry.

Reporting Real Learning

Authentic accountability means that the public can access the information they need to know about their schools. In other words, accountability is really about transparency; and yet accountability begins and ends with standardized test scores which are anything but transparent.

If 70% of tax payers in Alberta do not have children in school, will they take the time to look beyond the limited and superficial information that a standardized test score can provide?
The best feedback parents can receive about their children's learning is for them to see their children learning.

No reductionist data or convoluted edu-jargon required. When we are offered the choice between the inconvenience of spending the time and effort required for observing the messiness of real learning with the arbitrarily convenient tidy test scores, I fear we are too often seduced by the spurious precision of the numbers.

Instead of moving beyond standardized test scores in favour of more authentic alternatives, we get Education Ministers who settle for merely "modernizing" standardized tests -- after all, it's safer and easier.

Inspiring Education and Standardized Tests

Through Inspiring Education, Albertans told the Alberta Government that they wanted "to inspire and enable students to achieve success and fulfillment as engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit within an inclusive education system." Firstly, there are no standardized tests that assess engaged thinking, ethical citizenship and/or entrepreneurial spirit. 

Secondly, Albertans made it clear that they don't just want to "modernize" their education system -- Albertans want to transform it, and this requires courageous and collaborative leadership.

Ignoring The Profession

There is a big difference between keeping teachers passively informed and encouraging them to actively participate in the changes to Alberta's Provincial Achievement Tests.

The best decisions for the child are made by the child in collaboration with a safe and caring adult who actually spends time with them. Those adults are not bureaucrats or politicians -- they are the classroom teachers. Now is the time for the Government to work with teachers to develop alternatives to Provincial Achievement Tests. Again, here are two brilliant documents: Transforming Education in Alberta and A New Look at Public Assurance: Imagine the Possibilities for Alberta Students.

Johnson is Reckless

Trusting the profession means the minister must change his messages regarding the profession. Too often it appears Johnson tries to make change by imposing his will on those who have less power. First, he threw around the idea of merit pay (the bad idea that won't die). He threatened to remove teachers' collective bargaining rights with legislation. Using the teachers' registrar certification contact list, he sent an e-mail to 30,000 teachers, and now is being investigated by the privacy commissioner. He orchestrated an agreement with Alberta Teachers without including School Boards. And now Johnson thinks that Inspiring Education and transformation can be achieved by merely "modernizing" the government's current standardized tests.

Like his predecessor Thomas Lukaszuk, Johnson's strategy for transformation seems to be at best whimsical and unsophisticated and at worst inept. If aliens landed to observe Johnson's leadership, they might assume his strategy for enforcing his ignorance with the force of law to be: ready, fire, AIM!

Thanks to former Minister Hancock who set the stage for Inspiring Education, many of the conditions that will support informed transformation are now in place. What Alberta needs now is an Education Minister who is courageous enough to collaboratively create the conditions provincially so that local schools can be inspired and empowered to construct great schools for all.

Misuse of Provincial Achievement Tests

I was listening to Alberta's Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk speak about the misuses of standardized test scores when I thought of a time I saw with my own eyes how standardized test scores are misused by high schools.

For nine years I taught at a middle school. Every April, we took our grade 8 students to the high school for an orientation in preparation for their transition to high school. Every year, the gym was packed with anxious grade 8 students. Every year, the slideshow presentation went through all the cool extra-curricular clubs and interesting courses the students could choose from.

Every year, one of those slides was a graph showing how this high school outperformed other high schools in the city on the Provincial Achievement and Diploma Exams. The narrative went something like this:

Come to our school because we have good test scores which means we take academics seriously and you'll get a better education here.

Every time I had to endure this rhetoric, I would look around the gymnasium to see if others were as disgusted by this misuse of test score data as I was, and colleagues of mine (who have a very good idea how I feel about all this) would look my way and give me a smirk and a shrug.

When I shared this experience with our former Education Minister Dave Hancock, he immediately asked me:

That is ridiculous. Who is holding them accountability for this misuse of scores?

My response:

No one. But I am talking to you.

After listening to our new Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk talk about how third parties like the Fraser Institute misuse standardized test scores, and seeing for myself how even schools misuse them -- my question to Lukaszuk is this:

Keeping in mind that asking the Fraser Institute to use standardized test scores responsibly is like asking an alcoholic to drink responsibly, what are you prepared to do to ensure that standardized test scores are not misused?

Is changing school an act of unprofessionalism?

Sir Ken Robinson has said countless times that "schools kill creativity."

Alberta's Minister of Education Dave Hancock said recently "the current [Alberta] School Act is out of step with today's reality."

The purpose of this post is not to question whether Minister Hancock or Sir Ken Robinson are right or wrong (for the record, I think they are both right).

Rather, the purpose of this post is to ask:

If Minister Hancock or Sir Ken Robinson were teachers and they continued to make this kind of publicly critical commentary related to education and education policy, could their comments be interpreted as undermining confidence in the teaching profession and therefore in breech of the Alberta Teachers Code of Conduct?

Could it be argued their statements are critical of teachers and ultimately not upholding the noble profession of teaching? Are Minister Hancock and Sir Ken Robinson undermining the confidence of the teaching profession?

What if a teacher were to question and challenge school? What if a teacher openly and actively engaged in a dialogue around rethinking school? Would that teacher be undermining their colleagues? Would that teacher be in breach of their fidelity to their employer?

Needless to say, these questions and their corresponding answers carry enormous ramifications for educators who choose to speak up and lobby for change.

Are Provincial Achievement Tests in Alberta High Stakes Exams?

I had a very cool conversation the other day with Alberta's Minister of Education, Dave Hancock. I have a lot of respect for Dave. I think he's an Education Minister that gets "it". His tireless work on Inspiring Action is showing the province and the world that Alberta takes progressive education seriously. For more on how on this, the Inspiring Action: A Discussion Paper is an excellent read.

Despite my accolades for Minister Hancock, I have to admit that I was disheartened to hear him say to me that "Provincial Achievement Tests are not high stakes tests." This is consistent with what he has written on his blog:

I am well aware of suggestions that Alberta's testing programs are "high stakes tests" that place undue stress on students. In the case of Grade 3, 6 and 9 Provincial Achievement Tests, these assertions are simply untrue. Those tests do not drive curriculum (as with the diploma exams, assessments are constructed after the curriculum has been prepared), and they have no impact on students' progress or teachers' pay or promotion. They exist solely to provide to teachers, parents, principals, superintendents and Alberta Education information that can be used to formulate improvement strategies. 

It is a matter of concern if, as a result of outcomes on achievement tests or diploma exams, superintendents put pressure on principals who then pressure teachers to improve test results by inappropriate means. There is, however, nothing wrong with a superintendent or principal recognizing jurisdiction or school-wide problems and endeavouring to effect strategies or supports which address the problem. I am very interested in hearing from teachers and principals who have been pressured to improve test results by inappropriate means, but while I have heard a lot of second hand stories, no one has yet come forward to describe a personal experience of this nature. (Please contact me if this has happened to you!)

Minister Hancock and I talked at length about this, and I am very pleased to say he was very open to hearing what I had to say. I tried to make two points:

Firstly, I challenged Minister Hancock to speak directly to grade 3, 6 and 9 teachers, students and parents and ask them if they felt like Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs) are high stakes. I assured him that an overwhelming majority of people would say that PATs are indeed high stakes and high pressure exams. The high stakes for teachers is evident from the Alberta Teachers' Association member survey data which shows that approximately one-third of teachers have either been discouraged from teaching grade 3, 6 or 9 or have opted out. And for the students, many schools through out Alberta count the PAT as a part of the students final grade - which serves to further heighten the PATs stakes.

Secondly, I explained to Minister Hancock that schools' guidance councilors and Alberta's mental health professionals experience more demand from students for their support and services during Provincial Achievement Test season. Unfortunately, my conversation with the Minister had to come to an end, but he assured me that he wanted to hear more about this.

And so this brings me to the purpose of my post. I wish to ask Alberta teachers, parents and students to leave a comment on this post that answers the question:

Are Provincial Achievement Tests in Alberta high stakes exams?

Crisis or Opportunity

I've written about how Alberta has shifted away from standardized testing and how Alberta Education's abolishment of the Accountability and Reporting Division has left some serious uncertainties regarding grading and analyzing of this year's Provincial Achievement Tests, and Alberta Education's release of the Inspiring Education Steering Report throws even more fuel on the change fire.

David King, Executive Director of the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, left a very profound comment:

Good post -- epitaph -- Joe. But we shouldn't stand over the grave too long. Someone, somewhere, is planning the next foray into provincial government exams.

We might all be better off if teachers and locals led on student assessment. 

David's point is well taken. A victory has been scored in the name of real learning, but just as every crisis brings great opportunity, so does every opportunity have the potential for crisis.

Many school districts in Alberta have come to define their successes and failures on Provincial Achievement Test results, but now that these tests are on the way out, many school districts are (or will be) experiencing a kind of existential vertigo - how else can they define themselves if not by fancy bargraphs and shiny pie charts depicting their test results.

Some school districts may pick up the testing torch and carry on where the province left off, creating their own local versions of standardized testing. The crisis here is that local school districts will typically have neither the money or manpower to create, field test, maintain and analyze proper standardized tests.

What could this look like?

Local school districts might ask for local teacher volunteers to attend local school district sponsored standardized test workshops where the teachers are trained in a blue-printing process for creating multiple choice questions. Then, they include diagrams, tables and pictures in the form that the kids may see again in future Provincial Acheivement Tests. Questions might be analyzed with such statistical tools as the Discrimination Index which is a useful measure of item quality when the purpose of the test is to produce a spread of scores or in other words ensure a kind of bell curve.

While Provincial Achievement Tests still exist, these locally developed tests would best be implimented in the grades where PATs don't exist - grades 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11. Once PATs are gone, it would then only make sense for grades 3, 6 and 9 to have the same locally developed standardized tests.

Before we know it, we've potentially gone from having standardized tests at three grade levels to all grade levels.

I'm painting a potentially gloomy picture. Hence the name of the post: Crisis or Opportunity...

During the June 2 Inspring Education press conference, the minister of education Dave Hancock was asked about the future of the grade 3, 6 and 9 Provincial Achievement Tests. His comments were smothered by hesitation which, in my opinion, provides two messages: he would be happy to remove them, but he needs an alternative.

David King's comment should play as both advice and warning - if teachers don't lead the way with replacing Provincial Achievment Tests with the kinds of authentic performance assessments we know exhibit real learning, someone else will crfeate a replacement - but like Provincial Achievement Tests, it might not measure real learning.

Will this be a crisis or an opportunity?

You may have more of say in this than you think.