It was really interesting to read Gutierrez's critique of 'gap-gazing' right after reading the EQAO report on mathematics achievement in Ontario. Specifically, I found that even though the EQAO is not really presented as an analysis of gaps, and the authors don't explicitly articulate a stance on equity, a lot of the analysis in the report is about the gaps.
On the one hand, I appreciate the way the report focuses on excellence by looking at how many students from various groups achieved levels 3 and 4 (achieved expectations). This is in contrast with just looking at gaps between groups. So, for example, the problem for applied students is that not many of them are achieving proficiency - rather than articulating the problem as being that they don't achieve as well as the academic students (on average). This focus on excellence matches Gutierrez's recommendation for equity research.
However, I think Gutierrez would critique the recommendations that were made for teachers (the last few pages of the selection we read). These definitely treat problems of achievement as 'technical' problems - ones that can be saved by a few changes to pedagogy, a little tweaking, but no real fundamental change. There was no mention of sexism or gender bias in the section on gender, and no mention of racism or xenophobia in the section on English Language Learners. But I believe (as Gutierrez also articulated) that the political and social contexts of schools have a big impact on the learning that is made possible, and I don't believe that small cosmetic changes in teaching (like using Universal Design or differentiated instruction, or mixed-gender group work) will make the kinds of changes that are required.
Hello Indigo,
ReplyDeleteI felt the same with regards to the EQAO report and agree that the information provided here does not give enough insight to help our students achieve better results. Even with the recommendations at the end are very general and does not address the individual groups. For example, it is clear that girls continue to feel that they do not like math, will not be successful in it, and yet EQAO states in its summary that these two things have improved over the last five years. And if we really look closely at that statistics, the percentage went down and then up by only 1 %, I do not feel that this is enough of an improvement to state that girls are saying that they like and are successful in mathematics.
Also with respect to ESL students, I did query to myself as to what accommodations are provided for these students on this tests? How many students does this involve? What level of English are these students at? etc. Surely these issues would have an impact on the results.
Talk more on Wednesday.
I agree, Indigo that the analysis of the reports is about gaps. In previous years, the TDSB have focused on the achievement gap between Grade 9 Academic and Grade 9 Applied students. However, our attention is fixed on Grade 9 Applied students this year. The Grade 9 Applied scores for the TDSB have been significantly lower than that of the province for the past five years (14-18% below). In response to this, our director (Chris Spence) has created an initiative to address this gap called the Grade 9 Math Strategy. This project suggests that groups of teachers engaged in discussions about the three-part lesson format and co-teaching can make a difference in the Grade 9 Applied Math scores. However, this project, similar to the EQAO report recommendations, suggest that the problems in the Grade 9 Applied Math scores are ‘technical’ and can be addressed between now and June. I think Gutierrez would definitely critique it!
ReplyDeleteAs Gutierrez reminds us, ‘decades of research have shown that certain factors (e.g., class size, per pupil expenditure, teacher expectations, teacher knowledge) clearly contribute to the gap”. So why are we not having conversations about these factors? What about the way we stream our Grade 9 students? Once part of the EQAO report that shocked me was the percentage of Special Education students in Grade 9 Applied classes. Is this not an issue of equity? Why is this not being addressed by the major stakeholders?
Sadly, as much as Gutierrez calls for us to focus on ‘advancement, on excellence, and on gains”, we (the major stakeholders in education) do not have the patience to see it through. Cosmetic changes are immediate and fulfill political agendas.
The issues we are trying to address are so systemic that I get overwhelmed thinking about a starting place.
Devika
"There was no mention of sexism or gender bias in the section on gender, and no mention of racism or xenophobia in the section on English Language Learners."
ReplyDeleteYou answered one of my questions, Indigo - as I was reading Lubienski's article she mentioned that "existing analyses of mathematics achievement tended to focus on race, gender, and occasionally SES but rarely their intersections and rarely in conjunction with factors that might have shaped achievement" (351). I was wondering what some of those other factors would be, but you answered my question with some of the suggestions above. Looking at this, it appears that Lubienski and Guttierez would at least agree that more studies with more variables/factors added need to be done in the area of mathematics achievement, no?
Vivien, I think the kinds of factors that Gutierrez was referring to would be more like, whether students had highly qualified teachers, what kinds of teaching took place, what extracurricular activities students took part in, what languages were spoken at home and in the school, etc. Basically, aspects of the experience of being in school that aren't captured by categorical variables.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the recommendations at the end of the section were very general. For example, the chart seems to imply that we can help all English Language Learners or all Students with Special Needs by using one or two technical strategies, instead of recognizing that not all students within each category learn the same way. I think Lubienski would agree that the EQAO report could do with a “more skilled and nuanced analyses”.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Gutiérrez on the importance of studying factors that cause differences in achievement within groups, and the need to look at advancement and excellence, I think that gap analysis also has a place in, as Lubeinski states, “helping researchers and practitioners more effectively target their efforts towards equity, illuminating which groups to target and what aspects of instruction to address”(353).
I also think it’s important to highlight what Lubeinski says about the political side of education. Unfortunately the people with the most experience in education (teachers) are not the ones who make educational decisions. Gap analysis still has an important place in shaping public opinion and educational policy. Gap analysis is still necessary, but needs to involve a more detailed analysis (“a richer set of contextual factors and outcomes” (Lubeinski, 354)).
Rohini
I was surprised not to see any data about race but then again I don't even think it is collected- I will have to look at the test when it is administrated at my school next week.
ReplyDeleteIs it that the government doesn't believe race is an issue here in Canada, or is it politically correct to not talk about race.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dianne in that there hasn't been much of analysis with intersectionality in mind.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if the goal is to identify factors that affect interest and achievement in certain groups. Various factors need to be taken into consideration which is where the concept of intersectionality becomes key. Gender, race, class, age and various more factors define an individual and therefore it would be very rewarding to observe how various combinations of identity influence understanding and excellence.
Also, I feel that the context which includes where, when and how the teaching is taking place can have a huge impact not only on the level of interest but also on level of understanding amongst the student population.
I understand the importance of gap-gazing as emphasized by Lubienski as offering us a generalized sense of strengths and weakness of our students based on statistical data but somehow I fear that if we were to take these statistics to seriously it might lead into creating biases and stereotypes.
I could therefore relate more effectively to what Gutierrez outlined in his article with respect to the four dimensions of equity (access, achievement, identity, power). I feel that each dimension is played out with respect to how a student performs.