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.

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.

Ranking and Ruining our Schools

When it comes to the Fraser Institute's Schools Rankings, there is little disagreement between the Alberta Government, the Alberta School Board Association and the Alberta Teachers' Association. Talk to a politician, school board trustee or teacher in Alberta and you are likely to hear why it is wrong to rank and sort schools via standardized test scores. In fact, in 2001, the Alberta Government, Alberta School Boards' Association and the Alberta Teachers' Association released a joint statement that said:

Alberta Learning, the Alberta School Boards Association and the Alberta Teachers' Association do not support comparing schools exclusively on the basis of test scores because this provides an incomplete picture of the education provided in any given school. As groups committed to education, we believe strongly in ensuring that parents and students are provided good and complete information as they make the important decisions about which school to attend—how well students do on achievement tests is just one piece of the puzzle.

Years ago, Alberta's then Education Minister Gene Zwozdesky said that it's, "patently unfair to make comparisons between schools based on scores," and last year, Alberta's then Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk said, "The Provincial Achievement Tests were suppose to inform the province about how well the curriculum is taught, but there are third parties who use the results to rank and sort and blame and shame schools."

If there is so much agreement over why it is wrong to rank and sort schools via standardized test scores, why is the Fraser Institute allowed to continue misusing test scores to mislead the public with their rankings?

It's true, the Fraser Institute is not doing anything illegal, after all, the Provincial Achievement Test scores are public information. But just because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right. 

The Alberta Teachers' Association has been an outspoken critic of standardized tests and has fuelled the argument for more authentic alternatives to public assurance. 

What is the Alberta Government and Alberta School Board Association doing to make sure schools like Braemar are not victimized by school rankings?

Why does the Alberta Government and Alberta School Board Association pursue policies that help third party organizations rank and sort our schools? The silence you hear from the Alberta Government and the Alberta School Board Association is a combination of assent for the rankings and a betrayal to our children.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke, all that is necessary for the misuse of test scores to prevail is for good people to do nothing.

Moving beyond standardized testing in Alberta

This is the preamble from the Alberta Assessment Consortium's research update A New Look at Public Assurance: Imagining the Possibilities for Alberta Students.

by the Alberta Assessment Consortium

Although the conversation about educational accountability in Alberta is not new, recent events have sparked a renewed interest in the topic.

• In March of 2009 the Alberta Legislature passed Motion 503, recommending the elimination of the Grade 3 Provincial Achievement Tests (PATs) and giving consideration for alternative methods to assess student achievement at the grade three level. Although the motion was passed, it was a private member’s motion and as such, the government is not obligated to act on it.

• In the spring of 2011, Alison Redford, while campaigning for the leadership of the Conservative party and ultimately the office of Premier stated her position in support of finding an alternative to the grade three tests.

• In January of 2012, Education Minister Thomas Lukaszuk in his 10 Point Plan for Education committed to “reviewing provincial achievement tests, first so that we can find better ways to understand how students, schools and the system are doing and then so we can use that knowledge to improve students’ success”.

• Alison Redford, newly elected Premier of Alberta responded to a question in regard to eliminating Grade 3 and Grade 6 Provincial Achievement Tests by stating that “…we’re going to transition out of those. We want to make sure we have a system in place so that we can track progress in students, so that if there are students that are falling behind, we can identify that, but I don’t think Provincial Achievement Tests are the way forward for us, and we’ve asked Education to look at what alternative models we could put in place”.

• Jeff Johnson, Alberta’s new Education Minister stated that “…as we slowly transform the educational system, that has a lot of implications for how you assess ... The PATs, in their current form, will not be what we are using 10 years from now, is my prediction, but there’s still an important requirement to have some form of standardized assessment across the province”.

Three years have elapsed since Motion 503 was passed. Although numerous questions have been raised in the Legislature in regard to when some action would be taken in response to the motion, former Education Minister David Hancock frequently stated that an alternative would have to be found before the tests would be eliminated. Alberta’s new Premier and Education Minister both indicate that the need for some level of public assurance remains, while acknowledging that the current model is insufficient. The vision of what that new framework might look like has yet to be articulated.


Alberta has much to gain by ensuring that our young learners acquire the requisite knowledge, skills and attitudes to ensure a solid foundation for future learning. Yet how can we know that students are ‘ready’ for grade four? Is it possible to design alternative assessments that can both support learning and at the same time, assure the public that Alberta students are receiving a high quality, world class education? It is the view of the Alberta Assessment Consortium (AAC) that it is not only possible, but highly desirable. Assessment authors and researchers from around the world agree.

Founded in 1994 as a not-for-profit organization, the AAC is dedicated to the enhancement of quality classroom assessment practices. AAC occupies a unique position among the education partners in Alberta as it is not funded by government but rather by membership. As such, AAC is able to offer an independent voice, providing informed responses to assessment topics that impact student learning. AAC contributes to assessment literacy in Alberta by developing a broad range of classroom assessment resources and professional learning materials; facilitating lateral networks among school jurisdictions and education partners; and engaging in action research and inquiry.

This discussion paper is offered as an invitation to explore possibilities for a new look at public assurance through a classroom based diagnostic assessment approach to replace the current grade three Provincial Achievement Tests. It is not intended to be prescriptive nor does it suggest that the views expressed herein represent the views of individual members of the consortium. The intent of this paper is to promote public dialogue in regard to this important topic.

The paper begins with an exploration of the notion of accountability, and then considers the limitations of existing large scale assessment practices. Credible alternative assessment measures are presented, along with a proposed implementation sequence to ensure success. Samples of these classroom based assessment measures in action will be available on the AAC website at www.aac.ab.ca under the Advocacy and Research tab.

As we embark on the transformation of education in Alberta, it stands to reason that changes to curriculum and pedagogy will require corresponding changes to assessment practices. In the spirit of inquiry, we invite you to explore with us some new possibilities for assuring the public that our students are receiving the very best education possible. New ideas and information will surely prompt further questions and subsequent explorations. We invite you to join the inquiry by imagining the possibilities for Alberta students.

Provincial Achievement Tests as final exams for the Report Card

There are lots of reasons to like Twitter. Today I want to show how Twitter can provide anyone a direct, public line of communication with your local representatives and politicians.

The other day, I tweeted a question to Alberta's Education Minister, Thomas Lukaszuk:

Should teachers use the grade 3, 6 and 9 Provincial Achievement Tests as their final exam on the report card? @LukaszukMLA #abed
— Joe Bower (@joe_bower) January 6, 2012

Thomas Lukaszuk responded with this: 

@joe_bower This is not what #abed designed the test for.This would be another misuse of these tests.
— Thomas Lukaszuk (@LukaszukMLA) January 7, 2012

I agree with Lukaszuk that it is a misuse of grade 3, 6 and 9 Provincial Achievement Tests to include them as a part of the students' report card.

In light of this, I have a couple follow up questions for Thomas Lukaszuk:

• If Alberta Education never designed Provincial Achievement Tests to be used as a part of the students' report card, why does Alberta Education provide a form letter for schools and teachers to inform parents that the Provincial Achievement Tests will be used as a percentage on the report card? The letter can be found here on page 12. (I blogged about this two years ago, here.)

• I know of schools in Alberta that mandate teachers to use the Provincial Achievement Tests as a final exam and a percentage of the students' report card. I also know of Alberta teachers who do this voluntarily. According to Minister Lukaszuk, this is an inappropriate practice that Alberta Education never intended to have happen, so what will the government do to make this right?

In response to some of my questions, Lukaszuk responded with:

@joe_bower that is why I am reviewing the exam and practices surrounding it...
— Thomas Lukaszuk (@LukaszukMLA) January 8, 2012

I am eager to see how Provincial Achievement Tests will change.

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?

#takethetest

Here is a two part story where a School Board Trustee in Florida took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, commonly known as the FCAT.

Part 1: When an adult took standardized test forced on kids

Part 2: Revealed: The school board member who took standardized test

This story reminds me of an excerpt from Alfie Kohn's Confusing Harder With Better:

How many adults could pass these exams? How many high school teachers possess the requisite stock of information outside their own subjects? How many college professors, for that matter, or business executives, or state legislators could confidently write an essay about Mayan agricultural practices or divergent plate boundaries? We would do well to adopt (Deborah) Meier's Mandate: No student should be expected to meet an academic requirement that a cross section of successful adults in the community cannot. 

(In the same spirit, I propose Kohn's Corollary to Meier's Mandate: All persons given to pious rhetoric about the need to "raise standards" and produce "world-class academic performance for the 21st century" not only should be required to take these exams themselves but must agree to have their scores published in the newspaper.)

On Tuesday, I came across this Will Richardson Tweet:

Richardson's tweet inspired my brief Twitter discussion with Alberta's Minister of Education Thomas Lukaszuk:

Join #takethetest and invite your politicians to take your state or province's standardized tests and publicize their results.