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.

Ruth Sutton on Rethinking Accountability

This was written by Ruth Sutton as the Forward for the Alberta Assessment Consortium's research update A New Look at Public Assurance: Imagining the Possibilities for Alberta Students. I had the pleasure of speaking with Ruth Sutton years ago when I was initially going through my own personal teaching formation. She won't likely remember me, but my short time with her left a lasting impression on me.

by Ruth Sutton

In 1988, a quarter of a century ago, the first meta-analysis of global research on educational assessment was published. 

This study of the links between assessment, learning and achievement revealed for the first time what many people interested in this field – myself included – had always suspected. To use an agricultural analogy, ‘Weighing the pig doesn’t make it grow.’ 

Since then the evidence about what kinds of educational assessment have the most positive impact on educational outcomes has kept coming, inexorably. Whole cohort testing, once the norm in many jurisdictions, has been questioned, adapted, reviewed, and questioned again. The issue is not whether we need information about the learning and achievement of our children and young people, but what kind of information we need, and how best to gather it. The first requirement of world-class public assurance and accountability is world-class information about student achievement.

On the large scale of a province, or the small scale of a school, we must pursue valid information about student learning. How accurate is the information relative to the kind of learning we aspire to achieve? Secondly, and most importantly when assessment information may be used to compare outcomes from one place to another, one group to another, or a cohort of students compared with the same cohort previously, we need to reduce the variables that infuse educational assessment. Thirdly, we must pay attention to the cost and logistical implications of information gathering. Is the benefit to be derived from the assessment process worth the cost, in terms of both dollars and time? To use another North American phrase, ‘How do we get more bang for our buck’?

This very timely paper reviews the decisions facing Alberta, and how other states and jurisdictions are currently finding their way through the maze. It identifies the skills and capacities our students need to be successful learners and earners in the twenty-first century, different in many respects from the skills of previous decades. Many of these skills do not lend themselves to ‘data capture’ through traditional forms of testing: they are manifest not in answers to a pencil and paper test but in student responses to on-going classroom challenges, observed by their teachers. Time and money spent on using inappropriate methods of data capture could be time and money wasted.

To satisfy public assurance without relying on outdated testing procedures, we will need to look carefully at the variables involved and find new ways of reducing their impact, using proven strategies from elsewhere around the world. The two greatest variables are the design of the assessment task itself, and the interpretation of assessment outcomes. The design of tasks can be supported by central professional expertise, and through specific training for teachers in this aspect of their work. The problem of variable interpretation of results is tackled by requiring teachers to share their expectations and evidence of learning, and then to ‘moderate’ their judgements, reaching a collective rather than an individual decision.

Information about student achievement provides the building blocks for the structure of public assurance. If the information is of poor quality, the structure will always be weak. Once the quality of information is assured, then desirable and effective structures can be built. 

These aspirations are worthy in themselves, but the proposals in this paper go further. Learning from others’ experience, Alberta can develop a system of public assurance that not only measures the impact of schooling but actually strengthens both classroom learning and the schools and local organizations that provide it. 

Involving teachers collectively in assessment and evaluation provides highly effective professional development, as teachers learn from each other and share successful practice. Involving schools and their communities in the process of school and district review and evaluation serves the same purpose, sharing the most successful and effective strategies for improving educational outcomes for all our students.

Research and experience over the last twenty-five years has shown the way forward. Now we need to help our communities and our tax-payers understand these irresistible messages. Involving teachers, parents, students and the community in the process of assessment and evaluation is the key to a form of public assurance that serves to improve and develop our students and our schools, not just to measure them.