At Odds: School Achievement -- Pan-Canadian Assessments, the Setting the Record Straight

Ms. Robertson's In Canada column last May demonstrated a wish to discredit an organization and its processes for ideological and personal reasons, Mr. Fournier charges. THE TITLE Bogus Points is indeed appropriate for Heather-jane Robertson's May 1999 article on the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC) and its School Achievement Indicators Program (SAIP). The article contains many misconceptions and inaccuracies and demonstrates a lack of knowledge or understanding about a process that the author should have researched adequately before making a judgment. It becomes quite apparent when reading the article that Robertson wishes to discredit an organization and its processes for ideological and personal reasons. Corrections and clarifications are in order. The initial reference to testing as a game is quite surprising, coming from a director of professional development services with a federation that wishes to represent the views of Canadian teachers. Testing is not a game, and it is one of the primary activities teachers engage in with their students. A pan-Canadian assessment program provides insight into the factors affecting student performance. Why does Robertson not find value in informing and training teachers to assess their pupils properly? It is sincerely hoped that teachers are not playing with our children's lives when assessing their efforts. If so, students participating in assessments should be forewarned about these games, so that they can make the necessary effort to amuse their keepers. Robertson's article goes on to imply that, because of the introduction of a pan-Canadian assessment program by CMEC, Canadian provinces and territories have ceded their autonomy in the evaluation of student performance. This is not the case, nor has any recent activity on the part of CMEC implied the relinquishing of provincial or territorial authority concerning matters related to education. A clarification as to the nature and role of CMEC might be instructive. Since education in Canada falls within the jurisdiction of individual provinces and territories, no federal agency exists to coordinate and report on educational activities from a pan-Canadian perspective. Founded more than 30 years ago as a means by which Canadian provinces and territories can work together on a variety of projects, CMEC is the body that speaks for education as it relates to pan-Canadian interests. Therefore, the preparation of a set of indicators of Canadian student performance falls under CMEC's mandate, as originally intended by the ministers of education; no abdication of jurisdictional rights has taken place. Contrary to what Robertson asserts, the need for accountability in education is not a U.S.-led initiative. Many countries - including France, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, and England, to name a few - have adopted some form of testing on a national level. In response to the growing need for a comparative measure of student performance, the ministers of education established a testing program, developed with Canadian students and priorities in mind, to assess achievement in various academic subjects. The SAIP was established in 1989. The first assessment, in mathematics, was administered in 1993 to a sample of 13- and 16-year-old Canadian students. An assessment of reading and writing skills followed in 1994, and another, in science literacy and practical task skills, took place in 1996. While the assessments did not reflect the curriculum of any one jurisdiction, SAIP was designed as a measure of the general skills expected of students in those particular age groups. SAIP was not designed to be used as a national exit exam. To imply that this activity was an initiative of the business community, partially funded by it, is entirely erroneous. When SAIP was first established, outside funding sources were sought. Private enterprise provided less than 0.1% of the total funds for the project, and this for only three years. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.