Les inégalités provinciales aux tests internationaux-nationaux de littéracie : Québec, Ontario et autres provinces canadiennes 1993-2018 [Provincial achievement gaps from literacy surveys conducted from years 1993 to 2018]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(in French) Cet article presente les resultats a des tests standardises en litteracie, de 19 enquetes internationales ou provinciales conduites en education de 1993 a 2018 aupres d?etudiants du Quebec et de provinces canadiennes. L?analyse s?appuie sur les scores a trois stages d?etudes, 4e annee au primaire, 8e annee au secondaire et aux etudiants de 13, 15 ou 16 ans (en secondaire II a V). Les domaines de litteracie sont lecture, math et science. Plusieurs types de statistiques sont calculees (nombre de repondants, moyenne, ecart-type, scores a divers points de la distribution centile des scores) ainsi que les ecarts entre les scores (C90-C10 et C75-25), ainsi que des differences centiles entre le Quebec et les entites participantes. L?analyse presente aussi la distribution des etudiants dans les echelles de competences. Les liens entre scores et les caracteristiques du statut social des eleves, mesurees par l?education et les professions parentales, sont documentes pour chaque enquete. Les resultats sont compares avec ceux partiels du Conseil superieur de l?education. Il apparait que les eleves quebecois, le plus souvent, performent mieux ou aussi bien que ceux des autres provinces aux plans des scores, des ecarts centiles et des differences selon le statut social. La discussion finale porte sur quelques options de politique publique en education susceptibles de reduire les ecarts de litteracie selon le statut social des eleves. Abstract (in English, working paper is in French) This paper presents standardised test scores results in literacy from 19 provincial and international surveys in education conducted over years 1993 to 2018. The analysis draws on students in Canadian provinces, mainly in Quebec and Ontario, at three stages of education, grade 4 in primary school, grade 8 in secondary school, and -13, -15 and -16-year-olds in grades 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The tree domains of literacy are reading, math, and science. A diversity of summary statistics are computed (number of respondents, mean, standard deviation, percentile scores), as well as gaps (P90-P10 and P75-P25) between scores and differences between Quebec and other participant group entities. The investigation also displays the distribution of proficiency scale scores. The socio-economic gradients in scores as measured by parental educational and occupational categories are also displayed and discussed in the paper. The results contradict the conclusion of an independent Council in Education, and imply that Quebec?s students in particular the less skilled perform as well or better than students in the other provinces system, most of the time with less inequality in literacy domains. The assessment reviews briefly why students in independent schools are more successful and identifies some policy options in education policy addressing social inequities in the skills and knowledge of students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".