So, we are finally talking about EQAO and possibly how we can do better.
Last week we started some interesting conversations on Voiced Radio spurred on by the call to get involved in the provincial consultation on assessment. The first conversation was a great panel discussion and you can listen to it here.
Next, Derek Rhodenizer added to the conversation with another podcast on Sunday Night. Because of the varied nature of this conversation I have been really interested in following the evolving discussions. These are really useful broadcasts. A good panel discussion captures so much. Real radio makes a big difference.
Twitter does too. I have Storified a portion of the conversation using the hashtag #ontedassessment. You can see the conversation here.
While it is not part of the mandate to get rid of EQAO, I am most interested in comments like the one above. While we may want to discuss how we can arrange the provincial deck chairs on the Titanic, I like the comments that challenge the entire testing system.
Andrew Campbell may have said it best when he suggested we look at the reality of EQAO’s role in our education system:
EQAO isn’t an assessment tool. It’s an accountability tool.
People have used some interesting words and phrases over the past week – ancient, industrial era, what EQAO doesn’t know, invasive, ranking, wicked problem. Pretty strong words for a test we are not even considering getting rid of!
The Twitter conversation is really worth reading through. It is impossible to summarize here but there are is a great deal to consider.
One theme has to do with diverting some of the vast resources assigned to EQAO into teacher research:
This point has been made very well over the past few weeks. While we do get a static report on how the student has done, we only get the results the following year. How does this actually do anything useful? How do students and teachers learn anything from results that take months to get back to the school?
The tweet above speaks volumes to me. I think we are sowing a huge amount of distrust in the province. The test discriminates against poor schools, ELL learners, students in the Far North. It pits urban schools against suburban schools. It gives some schools a false sense of security while it blames others.
Why not start over? Why not do as Lynne Hollingshead suggests?
Let’s be a global leader, let’s begin again.