The Politics of Standardized Testing in Ontario: Critically Assessing the Impact on Learners, Teachers, and Administrators

Sharmin Dadani

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Social Justice Education University of Toronto

The Politics of Standardized Testing in Ontario: Critically Assessing the Impact on Learners, Teachers, and Administrators

Sharmin Dadani

Doctor of Education

Department of Social Justice Education University of Toronto

2019

Abstract

This study examines the historical origins and educational and political objectives of the Ontario

Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT). It argues that ultimately, standardized tests, such as the OSSLT, advance neoliberal agendas reflecting the interests of the Canadian state and capital, rather than those of diverse learners, teachers, and society at large. The study traces the ways in which Ontario and state educational policies have infused neoliberal values of individuality, self- discipline, accounting, and work preparedness into public education through standardized testing, in order to foster students who can find placement in the local and global economies as workers and consumers. The study also illuminates how the OSSLT has functioned as a hegemonic tool for measuring teacher and learner ‘success’.

The study uses a qualitative methodology, including personal interviews with teachers and school administrators in the Greater Toronto Area, and an examination of primary and secondary sources that include educational policy documents. The interpretation of the data utilizes a critical discourse analysis approach and a constellation of theories pertaining to educational

ii policy, neoliberalism, racial and cultural difference, and theories related to modes of governmentality and educational systems that shape the rationale, design, and implementation of standardized testing tools in public education.

The major findings of this study note the elimination of community, segregating stakeholders where school administrators and teachers view the test and its purpose in very distinct ways. The

OSSLT has shifted the purpose of education from sorting students for human capital as a priority over educating them as democratic citizens. The role of administrators has altered from leaders to managers of data, and teachers’ loss of power changed their role to that of facilitators. Finally, a myriad of negative emotional effects were noted for all stakeholders especially students who are racialized and marginalized.

The study moves from critique to resolutions by offering three possible ways to re-imagine and re-shape the test: altering the rules of the test; incorporating multiple aspects of learning and knowing by using an inclusive design model of holistic assessment; and resisting the test, thus undermining its credibility and function altogether.

iii

Acknowledgments

Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim.

Mom and dad – we made it! Your unconditional love and support during every step on this path helped me reach the end of this journey. I am so lucky and so proud to have you as my parents, and I hope I have made you proud as well! Farhan, the real Dr. Dadani! Your sense of humor and light hearted spirit helped me through some of the hardest parts of this journey. You are truly an amazing brother. Let us also remember to thank all of the Ruhani who, with their blessings, we are able to move forward.

To all of my family, friends, colleagues, to those who allowed me to interview them, and to my editor Alison, thank you for your part in my journey.

Professor Wane, Professor Bialystok, and Professor Rezai-Rashti, thank you for offering your support, feedback and everything in between.

Professor Todorova, You led me safely through this labyrinth of academia. I can honestly say that I would not be here today if it wasn’t for you. You were my thesis supervisor, mentor, and guide all in one. You taught me so many lessons, but the most important of them all was the idea that we lift as we climb, and paying it forward to others is an exponential way to make sure that we all arrive at the end of this journey together.

Thank you all for allowing me to stand on your shoulders!

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Appendices ...... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Significance and Limitations of the Study ...... 1

The Debate About Standardized Tests and the OSSLT ...... 2

Defining Key Terms ...... 5

Map of the Study ...... 9

Chapter 2: Methods ...... 12

Data Collection and Demographic Sample ...... 12

Summary of Participant Information ...... 14

Recruitment of Study Participants ...... 16

Method of Data Analysis ...... 16

Researcher Self-positionality ...... 18

Theoretical Framework ...... 19

Chapter 3: The Roots of Educational Testing...... 22

Language, Power, and School ...... 23

A Brief History of the Evolution of High-stakes Standardized Testing in America ...... 24

The OSSLT as a High-stakes, Norm-referenced, Standardized Test ...... 28

Infusing the Values of Industries into Public Education ...... 29

Tracing Privilege to and from the OSSLT ...... 33

Conclusion...... 35

Chapter 4: The Infusion of Neoliberal Values in Ontario’s Education System ...... 36

How Politics has Pushed Education Towards Neoliberal Values ...... 37

Privatization and Competition: Building Educational Enterprises in Ontario ...... 38 v

The Difference Between Private and Public Schools ...... 40

The Fraser Institute: Fueling Privatization and Competition Through Standardized Testing ...... 43

Privatization of Post-secondary Institutions ...... 46

Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) ...... 48

Corporate Forays into Public Education ...... 49

Efficiency: An Assembly Line Education ...... 50

The Implementation of a Factory Model Education ...... 51

The Government’s Cost Cutting Agenda and Secondary School Reform ...... 54

Centralization: Placing Power in the Hands of the Few at the Top ...... 56

Political Reasons to Centralize Education ...... 56

The Government’s Centralization Agenda...... 57

Deregulation and Privatization of Public Education and Social Welfare ...... 60

Community: Eliminating the Concept of the Public Good ...... 64

Accountability: Teacher Professionalization ...... 68

The Government’s Agenda on Accountability in Education ...... 69

Policies That Held Teachers Accountable ...... 70

Standards of Excellence over Excellent Standards...... 72

The Government’s Agenda on Standards of Excellence ...... 74

“Production Outcomes” and “Measuring of Outcomes” ...... 75

Conclusion...... 78

Chapter 5: Educators’ Experiences of Neoliberal Education through the OSSLT ..80

Pedagogical Testing: Competing Perspectives Related to the OSSLT ...... 82

Administrators’ Perspective ...... 83

Teachers’ Perspectives ...... 89

OSSLT versus Daily Classroom Instruction ...... 93

Content of the OSSLT Versus the Content in Daily Classroom Teaching ...... 93

Format of the OSSLT Versus the Format of Daily Classroom Teaching ...... 97

Process of the OSSLT Versus the Process in Daily Classroom Teaching ...... 98

The Purpose of Education: Economic Benefit Versus Democracy ...... 101

The Neoliberal Agenda ...... 101

Limitations of the OSSLT—Lacking a Connection to the Real World ...... 105

How Teachers and School Administrators Experience the OSSLT ...... 107

Values of Neoliberalism that Appeared in Interviewee Responses ...... 108

Privatization and the Production and Measuring of Outcomes ...... 109

Accountability and Standards of Excellence ...... 112

Competition ...... 119

Elimination of Community ...... 121

Centralization of Power ...... 124

Chapter 6: Interviewee Perspectives of Student Experiences of Neoliberal Education Through the OSSLT ...... 126

Inequity of the OSSLT for Marginalized Students ...... 132

Equity Redefined ...... 135

English Language Learners ...... 137

Special Education Students ...... 141

Socioeconomic Status ...... 142

Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course ...... 143

Student Tracking ...... 145

Conclusion...... 147

Chapter 7: Re-imagining Educational Testing ...... 149

Possible Solutions ...... 149

The First Solution: Remove the Power, Change the Rules ...... 152

vii

The Second Solution: A Cascade of Holistic Assessments ...... 154

Defining Holistic Assessment ...... 154

Holistic Assessment Methods ...... 155

Critical Thinking...... 157

Open-Source Learning ...... 158

Inclusive Design ...... 160

The Third Solution: Resist the Test ...... 162

Conclusion...... 164

References ...... 168

viii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Email to Participate ...... 183

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ...... 184

Appendix C: Interview Questions ...... 186

Chapter 1: Introduction

This study investigates the social, cultural, and political origins of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT), focusing specifically on the links between the test and the needs of Canadian industries and capital. The study examines the perceptions and effects of this standardized testing tool amongst major stakeholders, mainly school administrators, Kindergarten to 12 (K12) teachers, and students from racialized and marginalized social groups. In pursuing these objectives, the study is guided by the following questions: What and whose notions of literacy are embedded in the OSSLT? How do historical and social relations of power shape the views and experiences of those impacted by the standardized test, mainly students, teachers, and school administrators?

Using a qualitative method including personal interviews with teachers and school administrators, student feedback, and archival and secondary sources related to the history of the test, this study argues that the OSSLT embodies the logics of Canadian and global capitalism by preparing students to be efficient workers and consumers, rather than active and fulfilled citizens in a democratic society (Ricci, 2004). The study further suggests that the OSSLT enforces a normative Eurocentric public sphere, which is dominated by English and French— the official languages in Canada. This reality erases the multiplicity of cultural and linguistic backgrounds and knowledges that are embodied by the racially and culturally diverse Indigenous, immigrant, diasporic, refugee, and native school children who populate Ontario classrooms (McNeil, 2000).

Against the backdrop of the findings, the study proposes a number of practices and ideological shifts, including diminishing the high-stakes nature of the test, reconfiguring its content to a student point of view, and incorporating multiple aspects of literacy into both learning and testing. This study suggests that both teachers and students would embrace these changes, resulting in a public education for Ontario that considers personal and societal well-being, along with student success.

Significance and Limitations of the Study

This research contributes original data related to standardized testing in Ontario and beyond. It especially highlights teachers’ and administrators’ experiences with this kind of testing, thus enriching and deepening our understanding of how these stakeholders perceive, embrace, or

1 2

resist standardized testing as professionals and citizens who are invested in public education and committed to societal well-being. Overwhelmingly, the literature in the area of school tests focuses on the student experience and how students cope with the pressure of exams. This study shifts scholarly attention to teachers and administrators, thereby extending the literature in the field of educational testing. Studying the experiences of teachers and administrators was also crucial because it illuminated how they can appropriate and subvert the neoliberal logic of standardized tests while at the same time advancing professional ethics that support the success and learning of racially and socially unequal students.

This thesis uses a social justice lens to address the issue of standardized testing—an approach that has not been yet considered in this field of research. Prior to this research, data and theories tended to focus on: testing results amongst various groups of students; determining pedagogical approaches that position learners to pass the test; and establishing links between the testing, educational trajectories of students, and their eventual occupations in the economy. This study contributes to the literature by voicing the experiences of educators who are responsible for preparing students to pass the test successfully. Given that institutional and social blame is placed on these individuals when students do not meet politically determined targets, understanding their experiences is a central issue that remains understudied in the literature.

It is also in the interests of the society to speak about the intertwined paths of public education and industry. By documenting and analyzing the links between the OSSLT and the economic agenda of the Ontario government and local capital, this research exposes the test as a tool that pushes the neoliberal agenda.

Finally, as an educator who has served as both an administrator and teacher, I found engaging in conversations about the emotional side of standardized testing to be very important and empowering for teachers. It allowed them to voice their feelings, frustrations, and concerns about testing practices and uses.

The Debate About Standardized Tests and the OSSLT

It is essential to mention that the analysis of these interviews is not meant to stage claims on behalf of all teachers and school administrators who are involved with the test in Ontario. Yet, the interviews provide a much-needed snapshot of how the study participants felt about the test

3 at a particular moment in time. These limitations do not undermine the political and social importance of continuous debates regarding the usefulness of the test or its impact on teachers and their students. Testing, as an educational and social practice, has been deliberated by educators, parents, politicians, and scholars alike. High-stakes and norm-referenced standardized tests, such as the OSSLT, have been praised in the literature as essential tools that measure the level of skills and knowledge of many learners simultaneously (Kohn, 2000a). Such assessments are indeed vital, especially in relation to educational policies, which rely on standardized tests to determine overarching educational, social, or economic trends across broad segments of society—in this case, cohorts of K12 students (Covaleskie, 2002). As Heubert and Hauser (1999) claimed, high-stakes standardized tests are “increasingly seen as a means of raising academic standards, holding educators and students accountable for meeting those standards, and thereby boosting public confidence in schools” (p. 1).

Given that large amounts of tax dollars are spent on education, standardized testing can be used to provide information which could, in principle, hold teachers accountable for doing their job of educating students (Chomsky & Smith, 2000). It can also help inform teaching practice by providing educators with a structure through which to determine curriculum gaps and needs. Standardized testing assists school administrators in generating benchmarks to create new or improve existing programs geared toward increasing student success. The data generated from these tests also assist school boards in setting targets and improvement planning. It can be used to make school-to-school comparisons and board-to-board comparisons. Such comparisons help parents to assess the education of their children (Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2018). Finally, the most plausible justification for having these tests is that those who do well on them will have more doors open to them, be better prepared to excel in university, etc. (Parekh, Killoran, & Crawford, 2011). Unfortunately, on the flip side, those who are not successful are seen as and felt to be failures.

These beneficial aspects of standardized testing should not gloss over the limitations, including a widely-spread belief that all students—at any cost—must pass the tests to prove that public funds are well spent. Critics of standardized testing have pointed out that we should take the testing for what it is designed to do, that is, to gather objective data about students’ skills and abilities to determine if they have met government standards of literacy (Emery, 2007). Yet, we must also consider how, because of its standardized nature, the test does not and cannot capture the unique

4 cultural and social capital of highly diverse students and highly multicultural regions, such as the province of Ontario (Bracey, 2001; Chase, 2001; Lewis, 2001; Merrow, 2001). In light of such cultural and linguistic differences, and the social and racial inequalities which are also part of the Canadian social landscape, the OSSLT demands a critical examination of other obligations, namely social equity and citizenship. Social justice and multiculturalism are essential political features of Canadian identity and politics, but these Canadian values have not been extended to standardized testing so that we may evaluate and valorize testing for its capacity to foster equity, active citizens, and a vibrant and expanding democracy (Covaleskie, 2002).

Standardized testing gives the government the ability to control public education, but it is not carried out in an equitable way (Anderson & Jafaar, 2006). There is an assumption that all students start at the same place of learning and knowing when in reality, learners in Ontario are racially and culturally diverse. Many are from immigrant, diasporic, and racialized communities and are economically marginalized. In light of such inequalities, studies have shown that students do not enter the classroom as equals and their engagement with the curriculum is determined by their ethno-racial background, gender, sexuality, and economic status (Harris & Mercier, 2000; Nezavdal, 2003; Tremblay, Ross, & Berthelot, 2001). Moreover, standardized tests such as the OSSLT do not and cannot measure student traits such as creativity, enthusiasm, empathy, curiosity, or resourcefulness. Yet, these untested traits are highly desirable and necessary in modern societies that are marked by digital communication, creative technologies, group and teamwork, and increased connectivity.

The OSSLT narrows the curriculum because it results in more focus on test items and less emphasis on the social and cultural capital that supports well-being in a digital and global world. The value of education is to develop citizens and future leaders who will give back to society. With a multitude of traits not measured by the test, otherwise talented students are deemed to be lagging or incapable. As a result, social marginalization is extended onto a path of self-prophecy; Black, Indigenous, refugee, immigrant, low-income, female gendered, differently-abled, and differently creative learners are perceived as less successful, needy, and underperforming—based solely on testing that cannot measure the complexity of human experience, learning, and skills (Gatto, 2009). Indeed, data shows that students who fail the test are more likely to be minorities, boys, special education students, English language learners, and/or in applied level courses (Rezai-Rashti, Segeren, & Martino, 2017). The Eurocentric nature of the OSSLT does not allow

5 many of such learners to showcase their talents and knowledge adequately. The OSSLT puts enormous pressure on all students and causes them anxiety in the rush to perform.

This study suggests that the OSSLT has pushed some students into the margins. It also argues that data collected through the OSSLT is not serving social equity. Instead, it serves political and business agendas, framed as accountability (Ontario Federation of Labour, 2001). The data collected from the OSSLT provides thin and limited information that provides an image of education’s public responsibility; it does not add any real value to student learning. These limitations continue to fuel a scholarly and open debate about the usefulness and impact of standardized testing in public education.

This dissertation contributes to this debate with new knowledge about teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives. This information adds to the conversation and resolution of issues related to this kind of testing—not just in Ontario, but globally.

Defining Key Terms

To provide clarity and a shared understanding of terms and definitions used in this study, the following glossary outlines commonly used terms, such as ‘standardized testing,’ ‘education,’ ‘schooling,’ and ‘educational managers.’ It is also important to explain the parallel between standardized testing in Ontario, Canada and in the United States of America (USA), as comparisons between the two are made. Finally, explaining the Ontario government’s turn towards neoliberalism concerning education is outlined.

Education: is seen as the result of a process of learning. This goes beyond teaching students the prescribed curriculum they are mandated to learn and includes teaching students to have good character traits, values, and life skills necessary to be productive and positive members of society who live up to their full potential. As they learn, students should ask questions, problem solve, think critically, and experience authentic lifelong learning. The importance of providing an education, rather than merely putting students through school and testing them, is relayed throughout this thesis (Dolan, 2006a).

Educational Managers: a term used in this thesis to describe the role of school administrators, specifically as it relates to the OSSLT. Principals and Vice Principals are provided with policy and procedures from the Educational Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), coupled with

6 instructions from the directors of their school boards, which they must follow during the testing. Administrators have little room to veer from these instructions, as standardized testing requires everyone to follow the same rules and take the same actions (Robinson, 2010). The managerial role of the administrator is to carry out the vision and mission of the organization by ensuring school results increase. The pressure to raise their school ranking was the main focus of the administrator interview responses.

One historical action carried out by the Ontario government was to remove administrators from the teachers’ unions. This divide and conquer tactic created an “us versus them” mentality, which is the new norm. In the business world, the creation of a top-down managerial system is effective at ensuring workers are doing their jobs and managers are overseeing effectively. This system requires minimal supervision from the owners, president, or top tier group. Schools have essentially become this kind of system of bureaucracy; school administrators supervise teachers and teachers manage students who are "the end product.”

Factory Model of Education: is modelled after and in the image of industrialization. The factory model of the early 20th century socialized new immigrant labor into the new business model of education. The purpose of using the factory model in school is to produce human capital, ready to work, and with the proper skills. The factory model of education also makes schooling more efficient; it takes students and molds them into what the government and business elite require to sustain the middle-class worker. Homogenization, uniformity, standardization, productivity, and using cost-effective methods are all values that have been taken from business models and infused into educational reforms to make education more efficient. In school, this idea of a factory model is used in two significant ways. First, the factory model refers to how students are educated today, specifically through the use of standardized curriculum, testing, and report cards. Second, the factory model refers to the way that the physical building and space of schools resembles an active assembly line, all to meet the end goal of schooling, which is to transform students into workers (Watters, 2015).

Leaders: School-based leadership comes from administrators—Principals and Vice Principals— in the school. Robinson (2010) emphasized that good leadership “involves not blindly following procedures and policies, but perhaps interpreting those for the good of those you serve” (para 3). Leadership refers to an individual's ability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute

7 to organizational success. Influence and inspiration, not power and control, are what separates leaders from managers. When it comes to the OSSLT, administrators are meant to assume the role of manager, e.g., by managing data, instructing on the process, reporting, and improving results.

Learning: Hampe (2017) eloquently stated that “Learning (as opposed to schooling) is something that happens inside the mind of a person. It is not dependent on classrooms or teachers. It usually starts with curiosity and a search for information. Schooling rarely encourages this” (p. 1). In the Ontario context, the OSSLT is a tool of the government to sort students. The focus is on schooling/indoctrinating workers for the global economy. As such, learning to become critical and independent thinkers is put on the backburner.

Neoliberalism: This study traces the intertwining of public education policy and the interests of Canadian capital and refers throughout to processes of neoliberalism in education. Cultural and social theorists have defined neoliberalism as powerful and sophisticated economic, political, and cultural processes that infuse all spheres of social, cultural, and material life with the values, needs, and ideals of capitalism. It operates on the values of privatization and competition, efficiency, centralization of power, deregulation, the elimination of community, accountability, standards of excellence, and the production and measuring of outcomes. Neoliberalism is not just an ideology or a political and economic system; it is a totality which affects all realms of social life, including the education system (Monboit, 2016).

The Ontario Government: the political parties in power at the time that specific bills and policies were implemented will be distinguished throughout this dissertation; however, the argument here will be that historically there has been one significant move towards neoliberalism, regardless of the political party in power at a specific time. Although some provincial administrations (Liberal, Conservative, etc.) had more influence on particular policies and bills that were proposed, passed, and implemented, it was the influence of the corporate elites that infused neoliberal values into education (Emery, 2007).

Schooling: is described as the most effective way to provide a mass number of learners with sufficient skills to become productive labourers, and sometimes takes precedence over learning to one’s full potential. The type of western schooling that we know today is only about 200 years

8 old and originated in 19th century Prussia. It was fashioned in the image of the factory system in order to provide schooling for all workers through the influence of the industrial era, as factory managers required their workers to be literate, but also docile and obedient, following rules of authority without questioning it. Systemic schooling was regimented and grouped many similarly aged students together, leading them through successive years of social and moral training. This factory system was the idea of factory owners in collaboration with the state: It was “impersonal, efficient, and standardised” (Shrager, 2018).

In this thesis, the purpose of schooling refers to the regulation and disciplining of learners. Institutionalized schooling is seen as a creation by the elite, for the elite, and is the product of the relationship between education and power. It is a means to regulate, as a form of supervision and control, through the use of rules (Brown, 2015). Schooling is an institution whose pedagogy and patterns of conduct are continuously related to broader issues of social production and reproduction, to ensure that students conform to the existing social order.

This purpose of schooling has also shifted the conception of equity and social justice in schools (Rezai-Rashti, Segeren, & Martino, 2017). Equity is now linked with academic success, which is tied to the logic of competition and erosion of compassion for those who do not meet the standard. Good students are seen as those who are literate and successful, and those who fail to meet the standard are viewed as deficient. Racial and social class inequalities have also become invisible. Before the influence of neoliberalism, multiculturalism and equity for marginalized groups and individuals such as women, Aboriginals, and racial and cultural minorities were considerations. Now the focus is about outcome measurement and underachievement of boys.

Standardized Testing: The OSSLT is a form of standardized testing. The Glossary of Education Reform (2015) defines standardized testing in two ways. The first instructs test takers to answer the same questions using a consistent and specifically prescribed procedure. The second is that the tests are all marked in the same way so that comparisons can be made from student to student, school to school, and province to province (Standardized Testing, 2015). The OSSLT is a high stakes, standardized test; if students are not successful on the test, they are at risk of not graduating. The format of the OSSLT is multiple choice, short answer, long answer, and a news report. Students write the tests in the traditional paper-and-pencil format; the booklets are sent to EQAO where they are systematically scored.

Standardized testing in Ontario versus the United States: There are some apparent differences between standardized testing in Ontario vs. the United States. According to the EQAO, American students write one standardized test each year from grades 3 to 8 and then one test in high school, for a total of seven tests. In Ontario, students write four tests between Kindergarten and grade 12. So while American students spend 50 hours a year writing standardized tests, Ontario students spend six hours every three years. Commercial testing companies develop American tests. In Ontario, tests are created by teachers in conjunction with international testing experts. The stakes for students are higher in America because test results are used to hold students back or to grant them admission to specific programs or schools. In Ontario, passing the OSSLT is not the only way that a student can graduate; if a student fails the OSSLT, the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC) is an option to fulfill the literacy graduation requirement. In approximately half of America, teacher compensation and evaluation are directly affected by test results. In Ontario, teachers are not directly impacted by the test results (EQAO, 2017a).

Examining the similarities, differences, history, problems, and patterns of standardized testing in both Ontario and the United States is essential. Although the ramifications of standardized testing are not as severe in Ontario as they are in the United States, and despite the fact that the scope, scale, and stakes are different in these jurisdictions, looking at standardized testing in America helps to shed light on the patterns, trends, and perhaps future direction of standardized testing in Ontario (EQAO, 2017a).

Map of the Study

Chapter one provides an outline of this thesis. It speaks to the impetus of this research topic and intent to understand the OSSLT’s social, cultural, and political origins, including its ties to capitalism. The thesis and central questions that guide the study are also shared. The chapter speaks to the significance and limitations of the study and provides a debate on both the pros and cons of standardized testing and the OSSLT. It continues with a list of key terms and definitions and ends with this map of the study, which outlines the subsequent chapters.

Chapter two identifies the methodology that was used in this study, including the one-to-one interviews and use of quantitative data sets. Critical Discourse Analysis, which was the primary analytic method used, is also explained. The participant sample and recruitment methods are

10 outlined, including demographics and social characteristics of the interviewees. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the researcher’s self-positionality to the research topic.

Chapter three speaks to the roots of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test; it provides a historical account of standardized testing and its relation to capitalism. The chapter is divided into three sections. The first section explains the context of the state, the public sphere, and the neoliberal agenda concerning language and power, specifically in school. The second section describes the evolution of high stakes standardized tests in school. The third and final section speaks to how the world of business has been infused into school, to understand whose interests standardized tests best serve. This chapter speaks to how the pressures of global economic competition, coupled with the infusion of neoliberal values into education, serve the needs of the market. The way that standardized testing has been deeply rooted in our political and educational systems and the need for accountability through results-oriented data has resulted in the infusion, normalization, and dependence on the OSSLT.

Chapter four presents an analysis of policy documents, such as bills and acts, to highlight how Ontario has taken a turn towards neoliberalism in education. Policy documents are looked upon as extensions of the politics they are rooted in. It is noted that through the implementation of policy, hegemony and power imbalances are reproduced. The OSSLT is presented as a capitalist tool that furthers a neoliberal agenda for Ontario. This chapter is broken down into each of the seven neoliberal values. Each section illustrates how specific bills, acts, and policies have infused neoliberal values into education, whilst propelling it away from democracy and towards capitalism.

Chapter five analyzes personal interviews conducted with fifteen school administrators and teachers on the topic of the OSSLT. The interviews elicited the opinions on, experiences with, and perceptions of the OSSLT and were used to understand the moral, ethical, and political impact of standardized testing policy. All of the participants spoke to what they thought the purpose of the OSSLT was, what they thought was going on in this test, whether they found the test useful, and what they thought the test was accomplishing. Interviewee responses are shared, in an attempt to capture how they experienced the pressure of this test and to illustrate their specific emotions related to it. Multiple themes emerged which speak to the questions asked of, and raised by, the interviewees. Issues related to how the test impacts teachers and school

11 administrators are explicitly discussed in this chapter. Chapter six discusses how the test impacts students, including equity issues.

Chapter seven re-imagines educational testing and offers three possible solutions to improve it, from aligning the OSSLT more with daily classroom teaching, to making it more inclusive for all students. This would incorporate multiple aspects of literacy, using a broader definition, and recognizing the myriad of ways that students learn. If one understands that the new meaning and purpose of education is to prepare students for the education economy, then the OSSLT should reflect this in its make-up. Of the three solutions, the first would be to remove the power of the test by altering the rules of the OSSLT. The second would be to incorporate multiple aspects of learning including critical thinking, open source learning, and the use of an inclusive design model into more holistic assessments. The final solution would be to simply resist the test.

Chapter 2: Methods

Data Collection and Demographic Sample

This study used a qualitative research method combining one-on-one interviews with stakeholders and personal observations, as well as analysis of government documents, which included bills and acts. Specifically, the study included extensive personal conversations with K12 teachers and school administrators working in the Greater Toronto Area. These semi- structured interviews were guided by questions which cued participants to recall impressions, experiences, feelings, observations, and thoughts related to the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT). Follow-up questions probed into the cultural and social origins of these perceptions and experiences by recalling the context and details of testing events, testing spaces, and people involved, paying particular attention to how teachers and school administrators viewed the test impact on their students (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015).

Qualitative interviews were used because it was important for the researcher to “understand the experience of other people and the meaning they make from that experience” (Seidman, 1998, p. 3). In total, 15 interviews were conducted. The sample included five administrators, both active and retired, and ten secondary teachers, who represented a variety of academic subjects and disciplines. The interviewees were explicitly selected for the study because they represented different relationships to and standpoints vis-à-vis the test. Some of the respondents were teachers who prepared students, proctored the test, and counselled students in regards to the test. Others were school administrators who utilized the test data to design school improvement plans, update and assess test practices, and place students in specific levels and courses.

The interviewees spoke from different positions about the issues related to the test and the test itself, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis (See Table below). Of the fifteen interviewees, ten were teachers; three were male, seven were female, and two were self- identified visible minorities, specifically South East Asian and Tamil. The ages of study participants varied from 28 to 58 years of age, with the average age being 39. The interviewees had taught from five to 25 years and held various roles within multiple schools and school boards. Their current roles ranged from being a special education teacher to head of special education, student education resource teacher (SERT), guidance counsellor, English teacher, literacy teacher, literacy consultant, curriculum consultant, and administrative designate. Their

13 roles related to the OSSLT included: having no part directly related to the test; observing, proctoring, and supervising the test as mandated by the school board; being hired, trained, and paid by EQAO to mark the test; making necessary provisions and accommodations for special education students and English language learners who were writing the test, tracking them when they were writing the test, and reporting accommodations to EQAO; speaking to students about the test and providing accommodations on test day; training teachers and providing professional development on topics related to the test, such as supporting special education students; assisting literacy teachers who were administering the test; managing the pre-, post-, and test day operations, e.g., by organizing rooms with proper staffing; planning lessons, activities, and review related to the test; scheduling and running after-school literacy preparation courses; counselling students who were anxious about the test; facilitating timetable changes for students who needed them; and helping to place students into the literacy course in regular school, virtual school, or summer school. One teacher’s experience with the test even included being a student who wrote the first OSSLT in Ontario.

The remaining five interviewees were administrators; four were male, and one was female. One male was a visible minority identifying as South East Asian, while the other five participants self-identified as Caucasian or white-passing. They ranged from retired to active school principals and vice principals and had various experiences as teachers and school administrators at multiple schools. Of these five administrators, two were active principals, two were active vice-principals, and one was retired. They were aged 41 to 62, with the average age being 50. Their roles pertaining to the OSSLT were mainly logistical and operations/management-based and included being in charge of the test under their vice principal portfolio; providing test administration; preparing students through activities and classes around the OSSLT, specifically the Literacy Blitz and after school literacy prep course; providing a list to EQAO outlining who would be writing the test and who would be deferred; organizing classrooms; coordinating the test by following EQAO procedures to administer the test, providing instructions to teachers, and sending the test booklets back to EQAO; being in a support role for a co-vice principal and assisting with preparations for test day; and looking at the school improvement plan and data with the school team to determine improvement foci and strategies. All fifteen educators—who voluntarily participated in this one-to-one interview and shared their opinions and experiences— assisted in capturing what is happening with high stakes standardized testing in Ontario, and

14 provided insight into the need to look at this debate from a social justice perspective in order to find solutions that ensure students are not subjected to biased testing.

Summary of Participant Information

Profession and Pseudonym Role OSSLT Connection Age Gender Visible Neighbourhood Minority setting Teacher B.S. English  Proctors test 58 Male No (Middle Class) Teacher  Teaches after school prep course (Rural) Teacher M.P. English  Proctors test 34 Male No (Middle Class) Teacher Teacher D.V. Special  Proctors test for special education 28 Female No (Middle Class) Education (IEP) students Teacher &  Emotionally supports IEP students SERT  Was one of the first students to write the literacy test after trial year Teacher L.T. Student  Supporting (IEP) students and 37 Female No (Middle Class) Success & those with social/emotional needs Admin or academically at risk Designate  Tracks students, provides accommodations, and submits accommodations through the EQAO website  Assists VP with literacy portfolio duties Teacher C.C. Head of  An observer 53 Female No (Middle Class) Guidance  Proctors test at times (Rural)  Places students who fail into Literacy Course (OSSLC)  Speaks to parents/students who feel stressed or anxious before/after test Teacher A.B. Special  Proctors test for special education 42 Female No (Middle Class) Education (IEP) students (Upper class- Assistant  Assists with room set up, Private) Head allocation, set up of accommodations for special education students (IEPs) Teacher D.G. Special  Works with VP to defer students 34 Female No (Middle Class) Education who are not ready to write this year (Rural – ESL Head  Provides accommodations to Magnet school) special education (IEP) students  Room set up and proctoring of test (set up of computers and organization of scribes) for students with special education needs (IEPs)  Sets up staffing supervision duties and trains teachers

Profession and Pseudonym Role  OSSLT Connection Age Gender Visible Neighbourhood Minority setting Teacher P.D. Librarian  Provides a safe space for students 27 Female No (Middle Class) to work on literacy test prep

Teacher S.H. French  Provides professional learning for 42 Female Yes (Middle Class) Board literacy teachers and other staff (South (Rural) Consultant administering the test East Asian) Teacher S.S. Literacy  Consultant responsible for 35 Male Yes (Middle Class) Board secondary literacy portfolio (Tamil) (Urban) Consultant Trains teachers on administration of the test  Trains teachers on the content of the test regarding literacy skills to deliver to students Administrator S.M. Vice  Does not have literacy portfolio 43 Female No (Middle Class) Principal  Speaks to parents about questions they may have about OSSLT scores and preparation activities for students  Uses OSSLT data to inform school practice Administrator R.G. Vice  In charge of OSSLT administration 43 Male Yes (Middle Class) Principal (has literacy portfolio): “The whole (South (Urban) administration of the test is what East I’m responsible for” Asian)  Sets up literacy initiatives e.g. Literacy Blitz (practicing for the test/ mock test), after school literacy courses  Registering, updating and adding all students who will – put them on list and recorded by the EQAO Office  Organizes all of the classrooms, instructions for teachers Administrator R.W. Principal  Speaks to students who have high 49 Male No (Middle Class) anxiety or stress related to the test, (Rural) then refers them to either Student Success Teacher or Special Education head  Speaks to parents about the test  Deals with deferrals of English Language Learners, special education (IEP) students and informs EQAO Administrator J.F. Principal  Focuses on the data of OSSLT to 53 Male No (Upper Middle inform programing Class)  Speaks to parents about test results and school performance Administrator J.T. Principal  Previous years helped with 62 Male No (Middle Class) (Retired) administration duties related to test (Urban) to keep scores high

Recruitment of Study Participants

Recruitment of participants relied on a “snowball recruitment method” (Morgan, 2008). Convenience sampling using an email requesting voluntary participation was distributed across various public schools that are part of my personal and professional network (see Appendix A for Email to Participate). Individuals were asked to forward the invitation for participation in this study so that potential interviewees could contact me if they were interested in participating. Prior to the interview, participants were presented with a written consent form, which they signed (see Appendix B for Informed Consent Form).

All interviews took place in a public space, mainly the Library at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. The interviews were transcribed in written form and then coded using analytical categories which were generated after a review of both the literature and original documents related to the institutionalization of standardized testing in Ontario during the early 20th century. Interviewees were asked questions that solicited their ideas and beliefs related to educational testing, specifically the OSSLT (see Appendix C for the Interview Questions). Socio- demographic characteristics of the interviewees were collected and recorded, including self- identified gender, age, race, current professional position, and rank. Some participants were eager to voice their opinions, some were curious, and some were nervous and shy. Pseudonyms are given to the interviewees in this thesis to ensure their anonymity (see Appendix D for Participant Information Chart).

Method of Data Analysis

The data collected through personal interviews and secondary literature was assessed and analyzed using a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach. CDA was used to discern common themes and arrive at the key findings of this dissertation. This method of analysis assisted in identifying the differences between the responses of school administrators versus those of teachers. By coding and understanding the interviewee’s words and narratives, this process helped shed light on structures of inequality. Coding the interviews also helped to identify stakeholder power relations and how it is that the interviewees both shape and are shaped by the education system. The use of CDA also helped to surface the resistance of teachers towards the OSSLT and the need for administrators to enforce the importance of data generated by it. Word counting and the examination of emotionally charged phrases shed light on the

17 emotions and perceptions of the interviewees and the effects they experienced as a result of the literacy test.

CDA is an interdisciplinary framework for studying discourse or text, which views language as a form of social practice: “Scholars working in the tradition of CDA generally argue that (non- linguistic) social practice and linguistic practice constitute one another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and reinforced through language use” (Audiopedia, 2015, 11:00). It is for this reason that CDA serves as the chief analytical method used in this study. CDA aids in understanding the interconnections between ideology and power relations involved in discourses pertaining to educational testing and helps to reveal societal power relations established and reinforced through texts and documents. As James Gee, a leading scholar of this approach suggested, “social practices such as teaching and learning are mediated by structures and events and are networked in particular ways through orders of discourse” (Fairclough, 2011, p. xii). Hence, discourses illuminate reproduction of society and its transformation, especially in the area of education.

CDA generates insights into the way that discourse reproduces social and political inequalities. For this study, critical analysis was conducted at the micro, meso, and macro levels of interpretation. At the micro level, the OSSLT was examined as a form of text and narrative. At the meso level, the discursive practices of producing and consuming the test were considered by asking which institutions construct and legitimate the test, for what purposes, and for whom. Finally, at the macro level, the intertextual and interdiscursive elements of the test were analyzed, taking into account the “broad societal currents” that are affecting the OSSLT (Audiopedia, 2015, 11:00).

The coding of the interviews proceeded in stages. In qualitative inquiry, a code is “most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or visual data” (Saldana, 2008, p.3). Simultaneous coding involves the application of two or more codes for a single excerpt. Coding is an interpretive act and not a precise science (Ibid., 2008). In this study, initial codes emerged from the perspectives of the school administrators and teachers and their experiences with educational testing. These codes are akin to “first impressions” (Ibid., 2008, p. 4). Strauss and Corbin (1998) described this process of initial coding as breaking down qualitative data into

18 discrete parts, carefully examining and comparing them for similarities and differences. Thus, this initial coding of the data captured my reactions to the narratives and allowed for reflexive analysis, while being mindful of my preconceptions, theoretical positioning, and professional experience-shaped interpretations.

The descriptive coding that followed highlighted essential themes within the interviews that anchored the analysis. Descriptive coding involves summarizing a primary passage of qualitative data with a word or noun (Seidman, 1998). This was accomplished using both In vivo and process coding. “In vivo coding” refers to coding with a word or short phrase from actual language found in the qualitative data record (Patel, 2014). These codes capture behaviours or processes and reveal how a basic problem or issue is resolved or processed (Strauss, 1987). This process keeps the data rooted in the participant’s language and allows the researcher to prioritize and honour the participant’s voice (Saldana, 2008). The In vivo codes captured the interviewees’ emotions, perceptions, and experiences of the test. In contrast, “process coding” captures action using words or phrases (Ibid., 2008). Dey (2004) explained that this process reflects movement and changes over time so that a more dynamic account of events can develop. In this research, process coding allowed for mapping the timelines of unfolding events and structures and helped to organize the personal narratives of those who experienced the test. Together, the coding techniques revealed significant aspects of the data upon which this study is based.

Researcher Self-positionality

This study reflects the researcher’s professional path and life philosophy rooted in the notions of pluralism, equity, and inclusivity. As an educator, I have been a part of the education system in one capacity or another for over a decade now, in the roles of the English department head, special education teacher, English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, student success teacher, literacy teacher, and summer school principal / vice principal. I have gained much experience, both locally and internationally, from this fulfilling career. I am lucky to have two of my greatest passions—teaching and ongoing learning—encompass a large part of my life.

The impetus for this dissertation is a focus on anti-oppression, coupled with the theme of power and privilege. There have been many important moments in my teaching career that have led me to question different types of oppression in multiple ways. The notions of equity and inclusivity have come to the forefront in my day to day activities, especially with my experience of the

OSSLT. From the first time I proctored the OSSLT, I have felt unsettled about the test. Conversations with colleagues, students, parents, and administrators have only intensified this feeling. It was for this reason that the topics of standardized testing and equity intrigued me. When I began my master’s research into the drive behind standardized testing, I did so with the belief that equity played a vital role in all aspects of our education system. However, as I delved into the literature about equity, conducted my research, and reviewed the responses of my participants, I slowly began to question the claim that the test supports equity.

This study reflects that doubt. It focuses on the intersection of provincial standardized testing with equity and inclusive education policies, to explore how they might support one another. This research further examines the experiences with testing that students, teachers, and school administrators have had and builds on their insights to propose practices and changes that would better support students and the goal of equity while maintaining the integrity of standardized testing.

Equity and inclusivity in public education are vital; it brings with it tolerance, compassion, and love. The role of equity and inclusivity in education, and in society, is pivotal to enabling our students to understand who they truly are. Adolescents need direction about how and why equity and inclusivity impact their personal, communal, and global lives. Yet, provincial standardized testing does not look at students as individuals, but as future workers. It results in the comparison and rating of students based on their performance, and regardless of individual differences and needs. Individual tests are evaluated equally, posing an essential contrast to the lens of equity and inclusivity. It is with these complete and contradictory understandings in mind that I explored this issue as my dissertation topic. I have gained a deeper understanding of society’s struggle with equality, equity, and inclusivity, and most importantly, the importance of putting students on a level playing field.

Theoretical Framework

This dissertation was shaped by a theoretical framework which drew upon multiple perspectives and philosophies on educational policy, neoliberalism, racial and cultural difference, as well as theories related to the rationale, design, and implementation of standardized testing in public education.

The primary theories lending direction to this dissertation speak to power and resistance. Specifically, Mitchel Foucault who spoke about the power relations in society which are seen, experienced, and expressed through language and practice, transcending politics. His ideas about power and how it is exerted over people, specifically through disciplinary control and regulation of the individual inform this work, as does his ideas of state created and governed institutions used to protect the upper class from revolution. Foucault’s theories aid in understanding the specific power positions of stakeholders, specifically school administrators, teachers, and students. It also illuminates the idea of school as a place to discipline and control students, training them for labour, instead of educating them as democratic citizens, and removing elements of education that enable them to become critical thinkers, problem solvers and citizens who can effect change. Instead, students are made to follow rules, regulated by bells, and are put through an education system that sorts them using capitalistic values. The most important of Foucault’s teachings is the idea that “where there is power there is resistance”, and that it is possible to change the system through resistance from within this system. This lesson lends itself to a recommendation of this thesis to resist the current political direction of education and the OSSLT itself.

Paulo Freire, who noted that education and politics could not be divided from one another, felt teaching and learning were political acts in and of themselves. Therefore he believed in making teachers and students aware of the politics of education. He noted the need to give voice to the marginalized and oppressed through education and not just schooling, where students would learn critical thinking and questioning—becoming action-oriented, instead of simply remaining as passive members of society.

Finally, Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital helps one to understand the power and privilege of the test. It illuminates the idea that there are those who succeed and those who are marginalized by it and that the promotion of some comes with the demotion of others.

Although the sociology of education is not named as a theoretical framework, it is used as the primary lens in order to understand the relationships between the state and its stakeholders, as well as how they navigate one another and the system they are in. The relationships between stakeholders, their positions and perceptions of the OSSLT, and educational testing is also viewed from this lens.

The three main theories in education: the functionalist theory, the conflict theory, and the symbolic interactionist theory contribute to understanding the core values of the education system and the way that students are socialized and schooled for the work force. Ideas of sorting and social placement are juxtaposed with the notion that the greatest value of education should be to enlighten the individual, contribute to their happiness, self- and social-esteem, and result in well-roundedF individuals. Neoliberal values, the way that they are infused into the education system, and their effects on stakeholders are also considered using these multiple lenses.

Chapter 3: The Roots of Educational Testing

The premise of this study is based on research on the social, cultural, and historical contexts of high-stakes standardized tests, in an attempt to understand the rationale for use of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) in Ontario today.

In a democratic society, a government’s laws and policies should be influenced by the will of the people. Habermas (1989) put forward the notion of the public sphere, which is the realm within social life where public opinion is debated and formed. This public sphere, he argued, is a product of democracy. However, as democracy has shifted in favour of capital interests, industry and business have become more powerful and influential than ordinary private citizens in impacting the policies and laws created by the government. Furthermore, Habermas noted the lack of access to the public sphere for some due to race, class position, gender, and other forms of marginalization. He considered the public sphere to be in decline because of what he termed the “refeudalisation” of power. Participation in the public sphere requires both social and cultural capital, and so, unfortunately, those who have less or no social capital are unable to participate. As powerful organizations exert their influence on the state, the poor and middle-class are increasingly disempowered (Van Krieken, 2016). And as Monbiot (2016) put it, “Disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics” (p. 5).

The OSSLT has been mandated by the state as a tool of accountability. As Emery (2007) pointed out, it provides a means of data collection that allows the government to justify its policies. Yet, by the very nature of the test, some students are given more value than others, and one needs to ask why. The very logic of capitalism is echoed by the attempt to normalize the test, reaffirm it, and capitalize on its cultural construction of competition. When guided by Habermas’ theory, one might ask what element of society wanted the OSSLT and in whose interests.

This chapter is divided into three sections: the first explains the context of the state, the public sphere, and the neoliberal agenda related to language and power, specifically in schools. The second section describes the evolution of high-stakes standardized tests in schools. The third and final section speaks to how business values have been infused into schools to serve the capitalist agenda.

Language, Power, and School

Language is political, powerful, and reflects power relations. Fussell (1992) explained that language is key to having a public sphere and that communication in the public sphere depends on it. Access to language and media platforms make the voices of the citizens heard. Those who do not speak, read, or write the dominant language, therefore, experience a loss of power. As a case in point, Indigenous languages have long been excluded in Ontario society, and those who speak them are not treated as equals in the public sphere. Furthermore, in a society as diverse as Ontario, there can never be one single voice and language that represents the public sphere. Yet, there is only one high-stakes standardized literacy test that is used to assess the ‘literacy’ skills of grade ten students in public schools.

Schooling practices have been guided by psychological theories to structure how individuals are seen, defined, and evaluated (O’Donnell, 1985). This influence is evident in how classroom didactics are organized, the choice of school subjects that children learn, and the curriculum that guides the potential of the child (Goodson, 1987). It is also vital to mention statistics in relation to psychology and high-stakes standardized testing:

Statistics was a state strategy of the nineteenth century. Applying a calculus of probability… it constructed social groupings and interests by reference to statistical aggregates of populations. Population reasoning divided people into specific units that could be calculated, organized and reflected on through the administration of the state… (Hacking, 1991, p. 142)

Carothers (2010) discussed how the OSSLT has become a tool to rank and sort students as either high achievers or poor achieving. It has become a measure of success. Furthermore, the rhetoric in the public sphere leads the citizenry to believe that because the test is mandatory and measures a critical skill, i.e., literacy, it must be doing some good. However, the OSSLT may also be considered as an example of what Bourdieu (1984) called “violent assimilation,” in the sense that it awards the highest value to those who have the most cultural capital. The values and ideas of the ruling classes tend to be the ideas of society because, by their sheer economic power, economic elites dominate education, cultural production, and other spheres of public life. Schools are known as the space to normalize elite ideas; the state has normalized standardized tests by infusing them into the school system and making them seem special and required (Gallagher, 2003). When attempting to understand the relationship between education and

24 power, Popkewitz (1997) discussed schooling as having two purposes: regulating and disciplining the individual. He explained regulation as a form of supervision and control through rules and noted that discipline was a form of training students to obey these rules. He noted that “since the Protestant Reformation, schools have been institutions that relate state, civil, and religious authority with moral discipline” (Ibid., 1997, p140). Therefore, they are the ideal site to transform students into desired citizens and workers. Culture is key to capitalism; the economic attitude of capitalism organizes and creates social relations and the society that feeds it. As such, the OSSLT is the perfect tool to sort students for the labour market before they even graduate.

A Brief History of the Evolution of High-stakes Standardized Testing in America

To understand the onset of standardized testing in Ontario, this section carefully examines how standardized testing developed in the United States of America (America). In both the U.S. and Canada, the education system is supervised by the state and funded through taxation. Gaffield (2013) explained that “the establishment of school systems across Canada during the 19th century followed a strikingly similar form and chronology to that of its American neighbour.” Given this parallel evolution and to understand the dawn and legacy of the OSSLT, standardized testing in America should be considered and followed to provide insight into the Ontario context. This includes the history of standardized testing, its impact, and consequent trends:

Both school systems were created in order to solve a wide variety of issues which ranged from crime to poverty, and from idleness to vagrancy. Growth in the education sector has resulted from concern about cultural, moral, and political behaviour, the emergence of a wage-labour economy, changing concepts of childhood and the family, and the general reorganization of society into institutions. There are three main reasons that gave rise to the use of standardised tests: the impact of constant and substantial immigration; the transition from agricultural to industrial capitalism; and the exertion of political power by the citizenry (Gaffield, 2013).

Commencing from a point in history where oral examinations in school were replaced with written exams seems like a highly appropriate place to begin explaining how high-stakes standardized tests were quickly infused into American schools. Gallagher (2003) demonstrated that in the mid-nineteenth century, Boston politician and education reformer Horace Mann re- visioned American education with his idea that schools should “become vehicles for social advancement, enabling all citizens to live educated lives” (p. 84). To set the stage, it is essential to understand the genesis of the American public-school system. The reason that Mann wanted to create a state board of education and a state school system is that he felt both systems would

“produce disciplined and obedient adults by teaching every White child to obey the law and evince the Christian morals of hard work and thrift” (Spring, 1986, p. 84). Though organized workingmen associations opposed this idea, a state board of education was established in 1837. After that, the ‘common’ school system was developed and designed to be uniform and centralized bureaucracy: “Standardized textbooks, graded classes, and administrative supervision of acquiescent teachers became defining characteristics of the American public-school system” (Tyack, 1967, p. 314). The first superintendent was appointed in 1866 and with that came the imposition of a uniform curriculum, age-grading, and a defined course of study for each grade (Spring, 1986). “Systematizing teacher training soon followed, in order to control the training of the teachers more closely” (Emery, 2007, p. 27).

Mann administered written exams in lieu of the oral exams that were standard at the time. He hoped to provide “objective information about the quality of teaching and learning in urban schools, monitor the quality of instruction, and compare schools and teachers within each school” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 85). The results indicated wide gaps in students’ knowledge, and so Mann’s proposal for more testing was approved. By 1865, competitive written exams were developed and implemented in almost all U.S. cities, and the New York Regents Exams emerged, based on Mann’s assessment concepts (Ibid., 2003). From its inception, the purpose of high-stakes standardized tests was to sort students:

At a time when the need for universal education was developed, the testing movement flourished both on an ideological and an instrumental basis for the practice of school and colleges in sorting students rather than educating them…it promoted the simplistic notion that important outcomes of schooling could be adequately appraised by achievement tests. (Ibid., 2003, p. 17)

This was also a period during which there was “an influx of immigrants, compulsory school attendance mandates, restrictive child labour laws, and a rising cost of living” (Ibid., 2003, p. 85). These conditions gave scientists the push to find more effective ways to sort students in crowded classrooms.

By the late nineteenth century, stakeholders were aware that “written test scores could also be misleading in that instructors may attempt to influence the process in their favour by teaching to the test” (Hanson, 1993, p. 199). However, “the convenience of using objective tests outweighed this skepticism, and school administrators began systemically collecting data to construct

26 comprehensive and comparable portraits of student learning” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 85). In 1898, Columbia University’s Professor E. L. Thorndike was “experimenting with objective tests, quantifiable scales, and efficient surveys” (Ibid., p. 86). He believed that society would benefit from scientific principles in education that aided the “systemic identification and segregation of students according to their intellectual abilities” (Hanson, 1993, p. 199).

Alfred Binet, a French physiologist/psychologist, also created a “test of intelligence for use in identifying deficiencies in slow children who would not profit significantly from schooling” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 86). He developed a scale to allow the mental age of children to be identified, graphed, and compared. In 1911, H. H. Goddard brought this test into the school system, hoping “to convince public school officials to incorporate student intelligence testing into their decision-making process” (Ibid., p. 86). He would become “the main advocate for the use of intelligence testing in societal institutions including hospitals, schools, the legal system, and the military” (“Henry H. Goddard,” n.d.).

Shortly thereafter in 1912, Stern developed the present Intelligence Quotient (IQ) formula. In 1916, Stanford’s Lewis Terman expanded this IQ test and renamed it the Stanford-Binet Test of Intelligence (Gallagher, 2003). Although previously used to identify students who were “feebleminded,” he used the test to facilitate educational placement and career tracking (Terman, 1916). Along similar lines, Otis and Yates created the Army Alpha Test, a paper-and-pencil, multiple choice test designed to measure a soldier’s mental abilities (Gallagher, 2003). This test was thought to be the most effective way to test large groups of people, and it would become the model for all subsequent standardized tests (Rothman, 1995). Furthermore, a means of objectively scoring these tests was devised so that results could be recorded and disseminated efficiently (Gallagher, 2007). The use of these kinds of standardized tests quickly became a legitimate means of making decisions about the achievements and aptitudes of normal people (Hanson, 1993).

In 1919, Terman transformed the Army Alpha into the National Intelligence Tests for schoolchildren and “by 1929, more than five million tests were administered annually” (Thorndike & Bregman, 1934); results were used to segregate those who had learned from those who had not. As Gould (1981) observed, a new technology had been developed for testing all pupils, and the era of mass testing had begun. And Gallagher (2003) noted, “Increasing

27 industrialization and bureaucratization, flourishing capitalism, a second world war, economic depression, and a behaviourist physiological paradigm conspired to create a climate of academic urgency within America’s schools” (p. 90). Hanson (1993) described that in this climate, there was a need for high-stakes standardized tests to be administered in as standard a way as possible so that student results could be compared across schools:

A standardized protocol was created to guide the administration of all large scale tests. Rigid instructions called for the isolation of a group of testees, the precise following of standardized administrative instructions, use of a nationally endorsed set of multiple-choice questions about a broad survey of skills and knowledge, and external scoring of tests. (p. 89)

Given these conditions, educators began to see the results of standardized testing as scientific evidence that pointed to individual differences, allowing conclusions to be drawn that poor performance must reflect an inherent lack of ability (Gallagher, 2003). As such, standardized tests would be used increasingly to determine which students should be promoted or retained, who should be assigned remedial or special education placements, and who should receive academic honours. Tests began to legitimize the technical division of labor by sorting individuals to fill specialized positions (Ibid., 2003). As Zanderland (1998) put it:

Academic tracking became entrenched in schools as scores from intelligence tests dramatically changed the ways in which students were classified. Standardized tests were used to stratify students of different abilities into different curricular paths, thereby restricting their academic and social choices. (p. 87)

Going even further, the (American) College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) began to administer college entrance exams in 1923. These evolved to become what is now known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT. In 1947, the Educational Testing Service—a non- profit agency—was created to oversee CEEB and the American College Test (ACT), which became the two most common tests for college entry and financial aid qualification (Gallagher, 2003). Both tests underwent frequent revision processes and checks to assure internal validity and reliability (Ibid., 2003). This is a noted parallel to how the OSSLT is managed in the current Ontario context.

A 1966 study commissioned by the National Center for Education brought attention to inequality in schools. Better known as the Coleman Report, this study examined issues of equity amongst racially and ethnically diverse student populations that had surfaced through standardized testing.

An attempt was made to re-evaluate the design, content, administration, and grading of high stakes standardized tests. However, this bid was not supported by the powerful business elite, nor the government (Ibid., 2003). In fact, in 1974, the U.S. Congress recommended expanding standardized assessment in schools for program improvement purposes and by 1989, state-wide testing programs were implemented (Ibid., 2003). One might say that given curriculum and teaching strategies would align themselves to these tests, standardized test scores were now framing education.

The OSSLT as a High-stakes, Norm-referenced, Standardized Test

The OSSLT is a norm-referenced standardized test. By definition, this is a test that measures student performance against norms that are defined by statistical samples of students who take it. Such tests measure to rank students against one another. A consequence of using this type of test lies in flawed calculations. Covaleskie (2002) reported that only 10 percent of students would place in the top ninth percentile while half of them would be below the fiftieth percentile. Once that score is changed into a grade level, half of the students will be seen as being below grade level, which is perceived as a failure. “These kinds of norm-referenced tests were never intended to measure the quality of learning or teaching… they were designed to rank students and schools by spreading out scores” (Kohn, 2000a).

Furthermore, norm-referenced tests are biased in nature because they test a set of knowledge and skills that are largely acquired through cultural capital. For instance, non-instructional factors such as “the number of parents residing at home, the level of education of parents, the community and poverty rates explain most of the variance among standardized test scores” (Ibid., 2000a). Therefore, affluent students have a powerful advantage on standardized tests. Kohn (2000a) concluded that “far from improving education, high-stakes testing marks a major retreat from fairness, from accuracy, from quality and equity.”

Along this same line, standardized tests have been described as classist and racist because they discriminate against poor and minority students. “Obstacles such as racism, poverty, fear of crime, low teacher salaries, inadequate facilities, and language barriers are often given as excuses for underperformance on standardized tests” (Covaleskie, 2000, para 14). Such excuses blame the students or their circumstance, instead of the system which has failed them. This reality can have dire consequences for students who have little hope of passing and will ultimately be

“denied diplomas because of it. Many will simply give up and drop out before test day” (Kohn, 2000a).

Research (Harris & Mercier, 2000; Nezavdal, 2003; Tremblay, Ross, & Berthelot, 2001) has demonstrated that when standardized testing is in play, the quality of instruction declines most of all for those students who have the most to lose (i.e., those who have the least). In a test prep environment, drill and skill lessons predominate, and learning becomes preoccupied with rote memorization, the skill of test taking itself, and a shallow approach to learning. The result is most detrimental to minority and low income students who become the most pressured in the push for higher achievement. And as a result, they fall more and more behind affluent kids. As Kohn (2000a) pointed out, “as they are being asked to bubble-in more and more ovals, their wealthier peers are pursuing more engaging projects that aim to promote sophisticated thinking.”

Many educators have railed against standardized tests, claiming that they are discriminatory, anti-democratic, and anti-educational. They recognize the pressure to teach to the test, instead of more essential parts of the curriculum. Those who believe that school’s purpose is to prepare students for democratic citizenship may face a crisis of conscience when they have to administer standardized tests, especially when they are high-stakes, like the OSSLT (Covaleskie, 2002).

Infusing the Values of Industries into Public Education

Although the previous section spoke explicitly to the history and evolution of high-stakes standardized testing, it is important also to explain how schools altered their function from educating students to sorting them as well. This shift went hand in hand with the need to rank students for the labour market, as Emery (2007) described:

When job categories in the US economy undergo a fundamental realignment, business leaders move to transform the public school system to sort the nation’s children into the new categories and socialize them to accept these arrangements. (p. 25)

In the same way that capitalist values of business and industry were infused into public education in America, they would be later introduced into the Ontario education system with the EQAO and specifically, the OSSLT. It is crucial, therefore, to study this history of our neighbours to draw parallels and discern future trends that may be in store for the OSSLT in the upcoming years.

Three significant structural changes had impacted the American public school system, with the first taking place during the Progressive period from 1890 to 1920 when the U.S. economy shifted from manufacturing to an industrial economy. Scientific management, which was the reigning business model of the day, was applied to school organization to transform students into future labourers. Tests were used to sort them quickly and effectively into their destination in the world of work. “Comprehensive high schools were created and they used standardized tests to create a tracking system” (Ibid., p. 27). Emery (2007) noted that “working-class students were placed into vocational education courses and middle-class students were placed into courses would lead into the emerging middle-management sector” (Ibid., p. 27). Most importantly, this model also presented a way to deal with new immigrant labour where “this new ‘platoon system’ came to resemble the factory model of the early 20th century” (Ibid., p. 27).

The second significant change evolved because most school boards were elected by ward or district, which allowed the organized working class to make demands, including the “adoption of multicultural curriculum, kindergartens, health facilities, playgrounds, auditoriums, summer schools, and night schools” (Ibid., p. 27). The business elite, feeling threatened by this influence, began to discredit local leaders. In 1885, John Philbrick, who was the “U.S. Commissioner of Education, issued a report on school boards calling them ‘corrupt’ and lacking in expertise, virtue, professionalism, intelligence, and dedication” (Ibid., p. 27). In response, state legislatures rewrote school board charters to make them more organized and more influential (Callahan, 1975). This move effectively ejected working-class representation and therefore impacted school boards in favour of the more powerful (Callahan, 1962; Cuban & Tyack, 1995; Hays, 1983). Now having exclusive power and control across school boards, the business elite began to transform the system to “ensure that schooling both sorted and socialized students to conform to the emerging industrial order” (Emery, 2007, p. 28). An important tool to accomplish this task was:

…the invention and application of standardized testing. The so-called intelligence tests that were being developed at the turn of the century were adapted to the secondary school system, effectively tracking the working class students into vocational education courses and middle class students into college preparatory courses. (Ibid., p. 28)

The third change during this timeframe occurred during the final 20 years of the 20th century when the U.S. economy transitioned from an industrial economy to a service economy. At this

31 time, “corporate CEOs devised a new tracking system so that upper-class students were tracked into college and lower-class students were tracked into the service sector or, conveniently, the prison system” (Emery, 2007, p. 28). For this bureaucratic segregation to occur, the curriculum had to be different for students at different levels.

Not without coincidence, researchers began to report that standardized tests seemed to have an extremely strong correlation to socio-economic status. Urban Black and Brown students were funnelled into ‘low-performing' schools with a correspondingly low socio-economic status. Here, they were subjected to the drill and de-skill, test-prep curriculum typical in these environments (Popham, 2001). In contrast, their middle-class peers were channeled into high performing schools where they received a college-prep curriculum (Emery, 2007). A multitude of phrases speaks to the discrepancy in outcomes that resulted, such as “achievement gap” and “the soft bigotry of low expectations” (Ibid., 2007). Furthermore, “with globalization and the polarization of wealth, the majority of the middle class have sunk into the working class, and many in the working class have sunk into minimum wage and below” (Emery, 2007, p. 28).

Over the past 20 years, the American public education system has faced a multitude of transformations due to high-stakes testing pressures. Emery (2007) explained how standardized tests have legitimized underfunding of schools. The rhetoric is that to improve, only high expectations and high standards are needed—not money. Sadly, the failure of those on the margins is explained away as their lack of trying. This “myth of meritocracy” has resulted in an achievement gap because for the reasons already articulated, upper, middle-class White students “test better” than lower income students of colour (Ibid., 2007). In reality, the gap in large part can be accounted for by low standards and the fact that “White teachers have lower expectations for their students of colour than they have for their White students” (Smith, 2018). It is because of this dangerous view that more teaching time for have-not students is spent on test-taking skills and training. This reality results in them missing the opportunity to obtain a more wholesome education. Moreover, schools with the most significant number of poor and minority students are shifting their already scarce resources into test-prep materials.

Test preparation has also turned into pedagogy for English language learners, who are often exposed to test preparation activities and materials in lieu of the regular curriculum (McNeil,

2000). Further, McNeil (2000) contended that “a technical test-driven curriculum closes out the stories children bring to school” (p. 248) and as such:

The educational losses to minority students created by centralized, standardized system of testing are many. What is taught, how they are taught, how their learning is assessed and represented in school records, what is omitted from their education—all these are factors that are invisible in the system of testing and in the accounting system reporting results. Standardization of educational testing and content is creating a new kind of discrimination—one based not on a blatant stratification of knowledge access through tracking, but one which uses the appearance of sameness to mask persistent inequalities. (McNeil, 2000, p. 355)

Emery (2007) attributed the school reform movement to the Business Roundtable (BRT), discussed earlier. “Comprised of the top CEOs of America, they set out during the summer of 1989 to transform the U.S. public school system through high-stakes testing” (Ibid., 2007, p. 29). Since then, “the BRT has worked to align a wide variety of institutions and organizations behind their reform agenda, resulting in a massive influence of the corporate elite over public policy” (Ibid., 2007, p. 29). The BRT has suggested that the way to address achievement is by instituting rigorous state standards along with tests that reward and sanction (Ibid., 2007). This line of thought places blame on the teacher and diverts attention away from the need for increased funding and smaller class sizes.

Through all of this, the BRT has managed to support the myth that education is the engine to social mobility and that everyone can come out a winner. As Emery (2007) described:

There is something about the meritocratic ideal: most people are willing to accept wide inequalities if they are coupled with equality of opportunity. The best way to head off backlash (against the current growing inequality of wealth) is to give everybody a fair chance…toughen up their schools. (p. 31)

So long as the poor buy into the notion that schools are delivering the same curriculum, in the same manner, “they will accept declining wages and disappearing benefits, which are the major characteristics of the new service economy” (Ibid., 2007, p. 31). Ironically, the BRT has convinced everyone that the best way to provide equal opportunity for all (i.e., close the achievement gap) is to implement high-stakes testing. From an equity standpoint, however, it has been proven that standardized testing is not the answer. McNeil (2000) argued that quite to the contrary, standardized tests teach students to simplify their thinking:

While test-score inflation through concentrated test-preps give the impression that teaching and learning are improving, in fact teaching and learning may be severely compromised by the relentless effort to raise test scores. (p. 259)

As they are generally against a high-stakes testing agenda, teachers were caught in the middle of the BRT’s transformation. “This defensive position allowed high-stakes advocates to paint teachers as defending a system that has never served the needs of poor students, students of colour, and their parents and guardians” (Emery, 2007, p. 38). Teachers are left with little choice but to agree that they are for “high standards,” against the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” and by default aligned to the high-stakes testing agenda (Popkewitz, 1997).

However, these views are not necessarily compatible. Just because there is compliance with the established testing regime does not mean that there is agreement that it is the right thing to do. This research sought to hear the voices of ordinary teachers on the topic of how the OSSLT, has impacted them as educators, employees, and individuals.

Tracing Privilege to and from the OSSLT

This dissertation argues that standardized testing, specifically the OSSLT, does not serve all members of society equitably. Understanding this is a lofty claim, this chapter has traced the privilege of those who are behind standardized testing to demonstrate how the position and neoliberal values of the elite, White male are reflected and perpetuated in the test.

Neoliberalism values universal competition. The universal quantification and comparison of institutions and people stems from it. Therefore, the very design of the OSSLT, as a standardized test to score and rank, results in identifying and rewarding the winners and inversely, identifying and punishing the losers. An impact of neoliberalism is the internalization and reproduction of certain creeds, such that the rich convince themselves that their wealth has been obtained through their own merits and not through the advantages of education, inheritance, and class provided to them. Similarly, the poor place blame on themselves for their shortcomings. They see their failures as being their own doing, and not because of the circumstances they are unable to change (Monbiot, 2016).

In 1947, Friedrich Hayek founded the Mont Pelerin Society, which was the first organization to spread the doctrine of neoliberalism. To paint a picture, Hayek had the financial backing of millionaires including academics, businessmen, journalists, and activists as well as their

34 foundations, which included “the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Adam Smith Institute” (Monbiot, 2016). In the 1970s, neoliberalism was adopted by Jimmy Carter in the USA and Jim Callaghan in The United Kingdom. Those who held the banner for neoliberalism were the upper echelon of society, not your ordinary citizen. Over time and with successive governments, they wielded their influence to diminish trade unions, impose deregulation, invent outsourcing, institute privatization, and establish public service through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty, and the World Trade Organization (Monbiot, 2016).

In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein (2008) noted that using crisis was the primary way used to impose the neoliberal ideology, as distracted citizens would be none the wiser. One such example was Hurricane Katrina, which presented an opportunity to radically reform the educational system in New Orleans (Monbiot, 2016). Neoliberal governments use crisis as both an excuse and a chance to “cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens” (Monbiot, 2016, p. 5).

With the same neoliberal ideals that founded Hayek’s Mont Pelerin Society, there also came a barrage of high stakes standardized tests that were used as tools in education to sort those who fit the mold of those who created and scored these tests from those who did not. In a similar light, the OSSLT is also a test that comes from and perpetuates privilege. In his 2004 essay, Ricci noted that his objective is to encourage citizens to continue the fight for a meaningful democracy through the eradication of marginalization due to socio economic status, gender, race, etc. Referencing specifically the OSSLT, he noted that standardized testing is a tool used by the government to maintain control, power, and privilege because it allows central authorities to ensure that their direction is being implemented (Ricci, 2004). He stressed that “We must continuously strive toward the melioration of society by participating in the democratic process, and not allow profits to take precedence over human, nonhuman, and environmental concerns” (p. 340). Ricci (2004) explained that power has shifted from the role of the teacher as an expert to the teacher as a facilitator of the government mandated curriculum and that “standardized testing is a way for central authorities to ensure that their direction is being implemented” (p. 342). Ricci (2004) concluded his essay by noting that these tests are created by the elite, in their image, and for this reason those who are successful on the tests are also those who fit this image.

Much like standardized tests in the U.S., the OSSLT is far from objective, because it “embodies someone’s valued knowledge” (McNeil, 2004, p. 214). Ricci (2004) elegantly summarized the elite’s power and control over education in stating, “With standardized tests, citizens within a community are disempowered. The control of schooling is concentrated in the hands of those that create the tests and therefore direct the schooling” (p. 359). Many educators, scholars, parents, and students continue to criticize/question the validity of standardized testing. Ricci (2004) expressed perhaps the most astonishing thing about this:

It is unthinkable to impose a hierarchical power’s vision of knowledge onto students. Not only is it objectionable to manipulate students into learning an imposed curriculum by making the tests so high stakes, but to impose a curriculum that is test-driven and thereby limited in content is abhorrent. (p. 356)

Conclusion

This chapter outlined the social, cultural, and political origins of standardized testing, and focused specifically on the links between the test and the needs of industries and capital. When Mann re-visioned American education, he did so with the idea of implementing standardized testing to quickly and efficiently rank, stream, and sort students and new immigrant labour for the workforce. Business and government have become more and more influential in schooling. At the same time, teachers are becoming more and more conflicted as they are forced to choose between educating citizens and schooling them for the global economy.

This chapter also explained the neoliberalization of education in the US and Canada and discussed how American and Canadian governments are responding more and more to the needs of capital by shaping public policies that advance the interests of business elites and industries.

Neoliberalism as the reigning educational model in schools today does our students a disservice. Standardized tests such as the OSSLT are created in the image of and with the values of hegemony, which is problematic. They are used as a tool for neoliberalism, without questions about what these tests are doing to administrators, teachers, and students who are subjected to them. This chapter investigated standardized testing primarily in America because by understanding these trends it makes it easier to understand and predict future trends with the OSSLT in Ontario. The following chapter will provide a magnification of the neoliberal values that have been infused into Ontario schools.

Chapter 4: The Infusion of Neoliberal Values in Ontario’s Education System

The first chapter of this thesis set the stage by explaining how the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) is used to fuel a neoliberal ideology in the education sector. It spoke to the roots of standardized tests and how they have been methodically infused into the American education system by the strong-arming of the business elite, especially the corporate group known as the Business Round Table (BRT). The replication of standardized testing into Ontario’s education system—and specifically the OSSLT—was also explained as a tool to sort students for the labour market and a means by which corporations and the business elite could justify and normalize changes in education.

In this chapter, Ontario’s turn towards neoliberalism will be examined. It recalls how the actions of parties in power—regardless of political stripe—have moved the province increasingly towards capitalism through the implementation of bills, acts, and policy. This chapter also illustrates that as education took this neoliberal turn towards corporate capitalism, it adopted the logic and goals of capitalism. Consequently, within the sector, human relations are defined by competition and students and schools are viewed as consumers.

This neoliberal ideology rewards the merit of those students who are successful on standardized tests and punishes those who are unsuccessful. As equity has now been redefined, inequality is now viewed as being the fault of the failed individual instead of a systemic issue. Socioeconomic status is the most significant indicator of success on standardized testing. So those who have education, inheritance, and class remain inside the margins while those who do not are pushed further and further away, defined as losers.

To better serve a capitalist economy, the Ontario government actioned this aggressive transformation of its public education system. By doing so, the state has ensured that capitalist values permeate into education through government reforms. This chapter explores how these values become further and further entrenched in education, namely: privatization and competition; efficiency; centralization of power; deregulation; the elimination of community; accountability; standards of excellence; and the production and measuring of outcomes.

How Politics has Pushed Education Towards Neoliberal Values

Neoliberalism is the dominant economic philosophy in the world today. It is a free market philosophy that promotes the elimination of government interaction in favour of corporate control. Neoliberalism is an ideology recognized by scholars as encouraging fierce competition, globalization, and individualism, with an end goal of maximizing profits for the few who create the rules at the top of the corporate ladder. These are the same few who present an illusion that wealth will eventually trickle down to those on the lower rungs. When Ontario shifted its education system to align with the needs of the financial markets, it made a swing to these neoliberal values (Monbiot, 2016).

This shift in Ontario’s educational policy began with the Harris government. When it came to power in 1995, it did so with promises to restore Ontario’s economy and calm the ripple effects of the 1990s recession that had led to rising deficit, a record high 10.6% unemployment rate, and declining confidence in the education system from Ontario parents, teachers, the media, and the influential business sector. The desperate calls for something to be done, coupled with global economic pressures, forced the Conservatives to respond with solutions that would offer prosperity quickly.

Harris’s government believed that eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget, making tax cuts, reducing welfare payments, and reducing the size and cost of government would ensure a rapid recovery of the economy. These solutions needed to be long-term and required aggressive market policy intervention (Newfoundland and Labrador, 1994), including a shift to align the education system with economic demands. This shift was needed to ensure that future labourers, who have to compete globally, were ready to successfully join the workforce. Therefore, the state’s intent to alter the education system was not a malicious one, as some of the changes were truly necessary.

Although there is growing economic insecurity and inequality in the modern-day context, neoliberalism remains the global economic norm (Clarke, 2012). And so, when a government imagines how education should be managed, it quickly heads in this direction. Regardless of the political party in power and the specific changes that have been brought about by different political parties, educational policies universally echo the neoliberal agenda instituted by Harris. By explicitly focusing on the values of capitalism and infusing them into the education system,

38 the very ideology of neoliberalism has been reiterated through education itself. The fundamental values of neoliberalism have been subdivided below to allow for a more in-depth analysis of how capitalist values have been infused into the education system through government bills, acts, and policy.

Privatization and Competition: Building Educational Enterprises in Ontario

In economics, privatization is defined as the transfer of ownership—from the government to the private sector—for operations of an entity, property, or business. With privatization, “the government ceases to be the sole proprietor, and power and control are released to the private entity” (“Privatization”, 2018). The purpose of privatization is to bring more objectivity and efficiency to the company to maximize profits. Efficiency usually means cutting costs for the sake of capital. When a company is privatized, “there is less political involvement from the government and more pressure from shareholders for the company to perform financially” (Ibid., 2018). This usually leads to an “increase in competition and a priority for profits over public interest” (Ibid., 2018), in terms of what is most important for the company.

Brown (1995) explained that the privatization of schools was thought to be the fastest way to implement competition and a shift towards neoliberalism into the education system. In the mass media and public debate, the Ontario government represented new policies to expand private schools as “choices.” In reality, though, private schools cater to the needs of the social classes who can afford them, leaving public schools and the low-income students in them to compete with private institutions for resources and support. The illusion of providing a better choice of schools was a way for the state to implement charter schools (which are publicly-funded private schools), vouchers in the form of tax grants, and subsidy incentives for students who attended these schools. Although public schooling was founded on the values of democracy and the banner of equitable education for all, private investors and corporations have taken a keen interest in school as another way to profit.

Historically, public education in Ontario supported civil and social objectives related to democracy and equal access to basic education for all citizens. The neoliberal shift prioritized the interests of capital by sponsoring an education that was more concerned with producing consumers than citizens, thus catering to the basic tenet of Canadian and global capitalism. Hence, public education that served low income and racially marginalized communities also

39 shifted its curriculum focus from citizenship and collective social well-being to individual prosperity and an increased capacity to consume.

For these reasons, privatizing public education is the state’s most substantial end goal when forging the move towards neoliberalism. Also significant is the fact that placing schooling into the hands of private investors would assist in relieving some of the costs of education, such that the state would not have to bear the financial burden alone. Supporters of privatization hold the belief that introducing private investors would save money, lead to greater efficiency, and fuel competition and consumption. Those who oppose it argue that it is perilous when students are viewed as labour and consumers before they are viewed as citizens and when parents are swayed into spending and consuming education. Some go so far as to say that it is unfair when education is seen as something that can be purchased by those who can afford to do so (Richter, 2006).

When the Harris government came to power, it needed a reason to shift and align the education system with economic demands, and some critics allege that it planned and executed an artificial crisis to make this shift seem urgent (Ontario Federation of Labour [OFL], 2001, p. 1). This ‘invented crisis’ was the birth of the myth of the ‘broken education system’ and represented the start of the state-based turn towards neoliberalism and the promotion of private schools over public schools. Providing parents with school choice was one way to denigrate the public-school system, while simultaneously promoting private schools, alternative schools, and vouchers in the form of tax deductions and financial credits to parents who would opt for private education. Pitting the underfunded public schools against privately funded schools creates competition in the educational market. This can be great for the government, as it would be able to take money out of both sectors; however, far more significant financial gains could come from the private sector.

In the spring of 2001, Harris’s government passed legislation which gave a $300 million tax credit to parents who were sending their children to private schools. Bill 45, The Responsible Choices for Growth and Accountability Act, gave parents $7000 per year for each child attending a private elementary or secondary school. With a $42,000 subsidy available for sending a child to private school from grades 1 through 12, many children were moved from the public to the private school system.

With the passing of Bill 45, the government provided parents with both the incentive and financial means to place their children into private schools (OFL, 2001, p. 9). When public lobby groups and teacher federations questioned why the government was taking public dollars to fund private schools and hurting public education in the process, Ernie Eves (who replaced Harris when he stepped down as premier) replied that tax credits would “make private education more accessible to lower income families and generate competition within the public system…” (Organization for Quality Education, 2003 as cited in Anderson & Jafaar, 2003, p. 33)

The Difference Between Private and Public Schools

There are a few differences between private and public schools. A public school is one that is funded by public tax dollars and falls under the jurisdiction of the government, which oversees curriculum, programming, etc. According to the Education Act of Ontario, a private school is deemed to be “an institution at which instruction is provided at any time between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on any school day for five or more pupils who are of or over compulsory school age in any of the subjects of the elementary or secondary school courses of study…” (Education Act, 1990). In Ontario, “private schools operate as businesses or non-profit organizations and function independently of the Ministry of Education” (Ontario, 2013a). These schools do not receive any funding or other financial support from the Ontario government (Schuman, 2017). The Ministry does not regulate, licence, accredit or otherwise oversee the day-to-day operation of private schools (Ontario, 2018a). Private schools are not required to use the Ontario curriculum unless they are seeking authority to grant credits toward the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (Schuman, 2017). Private school operators set their policies and procedures regarding the operation of their schools; they are also not obliged to comply with the policies and procedures that school boards must follow” (Ibid., 2017). There are several types of private schools in Ontario, some of which include boarding, gifted, special needs, language immersion, faith-based, e.g., Christian or Catholic schools, and alternative schools, such as Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia (Our Kids, 2019). “In Ontario, private schools do not receive any government funding or other financial support” (Above and Beyond Learning, n.d.). They set tuition for admission and are allowed to select students. Corporate involvement is usually prevalent in private schools as they provide financial support and political guidance for these schools.

A charter school is a school which is both contracted and controlled by the government; although it has some freedom in programming, purpose, and rules, a charter school is funded by public tax dollars. It cannot charge tuition and must accept all students who wish to attend. Although there were charter schools in Ontario 20 years ago, none exist today. Charter schools are mainly found in western Canada and the United States. The trend is now moving towards private schools (“Charter Schools”, 2013).

Lastly, vouchers in Ontario exist in the form of federal government tax grants and exemptions for parents who choose to put their children into private schools, including private college or university (Garossino, 2016). Vouchers were created by the government in an attempt to reduce inequalities in education, by giving all students a fair and equitable chance to learn. Vouchers give parents a choice as to where their child goes to school. Although vouchers promise equity and fair opportunity for all students, the reality is that, even with vouchers, only the affluent can afford private schooling. This is because there are other costs associated such as transportation, time, and a lack of cultural capital to successfully navigate through the education system. Many private schools are run by corporations that use schools to turn a profit.

There is a drastic impact of private schools on public schools, as they create a two-tier system, widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Systemically, public schools are made to look inferior in a variety of ways, including the lack of school choice, larger school and class sizes, centralized decision making, and sources of financial support.

The premise that private school education is better than a public education is also under debate. One could argue that private schools perform better because they have the power to select the students who attend. In contrast to public schools that must accept all students who enrol, private schools can hand-pick students, and often students are turned away because they are not the ‘right fit’ for the school. Private schools are also creating a wider gap between the haves and the have-nots because lower income students are unable to afford the fees and thus are excluded.

The rhetoric around private schools would lead one to believe that they provide a superior education to that of public schools. Yet, more and more research indicates that it is not the type of school a child attends, but rather the socio-economic income of their family and the education level of their parents that leads to academic success. A Statistics Canada study explained that the success of private schools was due to the background of students and not the school itself. This is

42 because the student is provided with socio-economic values and resources associated with high achievement, such as technology and private tutors. Students in this environment are also likely to be surrounded by peers who have university educated parents (Frenette & Chan, 2015). As such, private schools are given the luxury of focusing on students who come from a background of high school achievers.

Although private schools in Ontario are not funded through tax dollars via the government, they are permitted to charge students high tuition fees, receive private grants, and frequently fundraise without limitations. Better funding leads to better resources, smaller schools and class sizes, and therefore gives private schools an advantage. In contrast, the money and resources that fund public schools come from taxes and additional fundraising on the part of the parents. Volunteer or activity fees cannot be charged in Ontario schools, because charging tuition is not permitted. The quality of a public-school education is slowly deteriorating as public money is being taken out of schools and put into the pockets of corporations and arm’s length government organizations and affiliated agencies such as the EQAO and Fraser Institute (Gutstein, 2004).

Today there are over 900 private schools in Ontario registered with the Ministry of Education serving over 100,000 students (Conference of Independent Schools, 2014). The government promotes private schools as an alternative to public school to profit from these schools and the tax dollars they pay.

A separate chapter has been dedicated to reporting how racialized, minority, and other marginalized students are affected in public schools. However, it is worth mentioning that students with special needs habitually remain in the public system because private schools seldom offer ESL or special educational services. They tend not to accept students with exceptionalities because of the costs incurred for special assessments, classroom provisions, and the additional time and resources that are needed for students with special needs. Furthermore, students with exceptionalities could impact provincial testing scores, thereby compromising the schools’ reputations.

When a student is identified as needing special education services, an Individual Education Plan (IEP) is created for that child. This document is legally binding, making it difficult for public boards to avoid the additional expenditures required to meet individual needs. The Auditor General of Ontario reported that approximately one-third of students who are receiving special

43 education services had not been adequately identified due to the long wait list; about 75% of Ontario school students await assessment by school board psychologists. Those parents who can afford the cost of over $2000 for a private evaluation are able to move their child to the top of the list which will, in turn, provide the legal right to special education (Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, 2017). Those parents who are unable to afford this cost are forced to wait, leaving their child without additional resources that support success in school.

The Fraser Institute: Fueling Privatization and Competition Through Standardized Testing

The Fraser Institute is a multi-million-dollar, not-for-profit registered charity and Canada’s top ranked think-tank. It was set up in 1974 by a handful of academics and businessmen, including economists Michael Walker and Anthony Fisher, who founded the Institute of Economic Affairs or IEA (The Fraser Institute, 2014). The Fraser Institute’s mission is “to improve the quality of life for Canadians, their families, and future generations by studying, measuring and communicating the effects of government policies, entrepreneurship, and choice on their well- being” (Ibid., 2014). The Fraser Institute describes itself as “an independent, international research and educational organization” which envisions “a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility” (Ibid., 2014). Although it claims that to be “non-partisan (and) non-political” (Ibid., 2014), many journalists claim that the institute is all about right-wing politics, both in its agenda and activities.

The Fraser Institute is known for publishing school rankings, which are based on information from standardized test scores, report cards, and the educational institutions themselves. It is one of the major organizations that report data on the performance of our education system, by ranking schools (and the students in them). By publishing such reports, the Fraser Institute played a small role in creating the false educational crisis described earlier, thereby assisting the government’s planned shift in education. It added fuel to the myth of a broken education system, which in turn created a sense of panic in the public. Yet, the data that the Fraser Institute uses is not an accurate report of schools or student performance, but instead a rapid snapshot of performance at one moment in time.

Being a registered charity, the Fraser Institute relies heavily on contributions from corporations, businesses, and individuals. In turn, these contributors receive tax credits for their aid, which amounts to tax breaks for the wealthy—yet another neoliberal ideology. Journalist David Climenhaga (2017) pointed out that with such donations, these contributors are also able to influence political opinions and attitudes. Furthermore, Gutstein (2004) reported that 100 million dollars were donated to the Fraser Institute in 2004. Four foundations were the primary donors. The Donner Canadian Foundation was the largest, and it is well known for undermining government; it argued that social services are better delivered by the private sector than the public sector (Gutstein, 2004). The Max-Bell Foundation, the second largest donor, is known for financially supporting school choice projects that destabilize public education. The Max-Bell also contributes to charter schools in Alberta and gathers evidence to support for-profit health care (Ibid., 2004). The Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation and the W. Garfield Weston Foundation are the other two major contributors to the Fraser Institute. A few tobacco companies, including Rothmans, British American Tobacco, and Philip Morris, have also provided funding to the Fraser Institute (Hong, 2017). It would stand to reason that the Fraser Institute’s agenda is heavily influenced by the corporate donors who keep it afloat. It is problematic when multi-million-dollar foundations can influence, control, and alter the operation of education indirectly through the Fraser Institute, primarily when the public seeks unbiased information about schools and instead is given data skewed in favour of corporate agendas.

Another concern around the Fraser Institute is that it is heavily influenced by the corporate interests of its board members. These members are CEOs of business corporations, wealthy individuals, and politicians who use the institute to control the public in the direction they see fit, such as the privatization of schools under the facade of school choice. It has been over 30 years since a full list of corporate contributors has been published by the Fraser Institute. However, when examining the trustees and fellows on the board, some remarkable parallels emerge. Pfizer, the world’s largest multinational drug company, has a representative on the board. And Fraser’s pharmaceutical policy division attacks internet pharmaceutical companies that are attempting to provide drugs at a cheaper cost. The institute also speaks negatively of generic medications and policies concerned with distributing HIV/AIDS drugs in Africa and is against the ban on direct consumer advertising for drugs. The Fraser Institute has denied climate change for many years. Ross McKitrick, who is a senior fellow of the institute, wrote a book that denies climate change.

Interestingly, two Calgary, Alberta oil and gas companies—EnCana and Sabre Energy—have seats on the board (Gutstein, 2004). And ExxonMobil also donates to the Institute for work on climate change.

Contributions from two of the wealthiest people in the world—right-wing billionaires Charles and David Koch—were made to the Fraser Institute through the Koch Family Foundations and its subsidiary group, the Claude R. Lambe Foundation. Increased oil imports, specifically through the XL Keystone Pipeline, were the main impetus for their generous contributions (The Fraser Institute, 2017). Two other fellows of the institute that cannot go unmentioned are former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his campaign manager Tom Flanagan (Ibid., 2017).

Oddly, even the media have been unable to provide the public with a clear sense of the connections and intentions of the Fraser Institute and its financial backers. The CBC, Canada’s national public broadcaster, remains exceptionally uncritical. David Asper, a former trustee of the Fraser Institute, now works for the National Post newspaper. The Ottawa Citizen praises the Fraser Institute and calls it a hero for all of its work (Gutstein, 2004). When the Fraser Institute self-identifies as an independent organization and not-for-profit charity with a mission to measure and communicate how government policies are affecting Canadians, the public assumes that this will be done without bias. Yet the institute publishes biased and unfounded research and accepts millions of dollars to move the politically charged agenda of its donors. An invented crisis in education, coupled with the Fraser Reports promoting competition amongst schools, led to parents believing that to obtain the best education, they need to spend money so their children could attend the highest ranked (private) schools. They bought into the notion that the best education translated to the best jobs and a higher standard of living. Neoliberalism created a need for consumption where the demand had not existed before.

The next two sections carefully examine the higher education sector. Although these two sections do not have a direct bearing on the study of the OSSLT, it is essential to include them to shed light on the domino effects of the educational shift towards corporate capitalism.

Privatization of Post-secondary Institutions

The privatization of post-secondary institutions and the Ontario Student Assistant Program (OSAP) provides further evidence of the influence of neoliberalism in Ontario educational policy. The OSSLT serves as a tool that perpetuates neoliberalism, but it does not work in isolation. Many students who write this test will go on to post-secondary education and face more neoliberal-infused instruction.

With government cuts to education, more public tax dollars being put into private education, and corporate involvement in the education system, the Harris government shifted the Ontario education system towards neoliberalism, by making drastic changes at the elementary and high school levels. However, post-secondary education was also turned towards privatization and neoliberal ideologies. In April 2000, post-secondary schools were affected by the passing of Bill 132, also known as the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, which granted private universities and community colleges in Ontario permission to offer applied degrees. This bill pertained to all colleges and universities, both for-profit and not-for-profit (OFL, 2001). This reform, along with an increase in the 18 to 24-year-old age group and market demands for more skilled and educated workers, resulted in an influx of students at post-secondary institutions and for every learner that attended, a profit was turned.

With the elimination of the grade 13 or OAC year, there was a double-cohort who graduated from high school at the same time; the last grade 13 cohort of the old program would graduate simultaneously with the first grade 12 cohort of the new program. This impacted post-secondary institutions; a Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) study estimated an increased student enrolment of about 32,000 in 2006 and a further admission of 90,000 students over the decade that followed (Ibid., 2001, p. 5). As a result of this increased enrolment, over 7000 school administrators and teaching staff would have to be hired. Ironically, as more money was needed to run these institutions from 1995 to 1997, the government cut $400 million in operating funds with a total cumulative loss of approximately $2.4 billion (Ibid., 2001, p. 5). In 1996 the government quickly deregulated fees for degree programs and graduate professional programs, and this resulted in tuition increases as high as 521% (Ibid., 2001, p. 5). Since then, tuition fees have been increasing at an unprecedented rate.

Through the passing of Bill 132, the government was able to disguise the effects of underfunding the education system. With it, Ontario was open to degree-granting private universities and community colleges. However, because no new funding was allocated to the new programs on offer, post-secondary institutions were forced to take money out of existing programs. Spreading resources thin meant that existing programs, which were under-funded to begin with, would be increasingly undermined (Ibid., 2001). The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) president Kate Lawson warned students to be wary of privatizing education when she stated:

We need to recognize the quiet shift of higher education costs away from the public realm and onto students and their families. For the first time ever, tuition fees now account for more than half of university budgets—this is another form of privatization. (Mansour, 2015)

In the 2015 fiscal year, the provincial government allocated $3.49 billion for universities. Although this was an increase from the previous year’s $3.48 billion, one must take into account the projected provincial inflation rate of 1.2%, meaning that the increased funding actually represented a decrease of nearly 1% (Ibid., 2015).

The government did a great job hiding the fact that private universities drew much of their funds from public dollars. Students were granted loans and bursaries funded by public tax dollars. Students also had access to public libraries, as there were none in the private institutions. And those who made donations to private universities were entitled to tax deductions (OFL, 2001). And although the government made it appear that private schools could be afforded by all, enrolment in private institutions would most often come from the elite.

Over-crowded public universities gave the government a means to push students into private universities. This has led to an increased reliance on revenues from the private sector for research. Tuition and other fees have increased, and inversely, there has been a decrease in services (Ibid., 2001). Another ramification is that multiple institutions have claimed ‘university’ status, with low or no standards; the current law states that institutions from outside the province do not have to meet Ontario standards (Ibid., 2001). Accountability of these institutions comes from those who privately fund and control them—not the government, taxpayers, or students. Essentially, this has paved a path for a system where low standards and high tuition give way to the elite purchasing their university degrees.

The most recent example of this is the sweeping U.S. University admissions scam. The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Tuesday, March 12th, 2019 accused dozens of parents, amongst some of whom were celebrities, of spending between $200,000 and $6.5 million US to ensure their children gained entry into some of America's most competitive colleges. The Justice Department explained how the billion dollar business of University application fraud occurred. Wealthy parents paid a consulting firm to have professional test takers write the SAT for their children, posing as them during the examinations. They also went so far as to fake medical conditions so that their children could be provided with extra time on the tests. Some instances of bribing college exam administrators were also mentioned. These parents would stop at nothing to get their children into the college of their choice. (Ketil, 2019). Although this $25 million scam is a prime example of how education is created and perpetuated in favour of the wealthy, it also abolishes the notion of meritocracy, showing all that the SAT—a high-stakes, standardized test—is designed to keep some students in and some students out.

Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP)

Another example of how corporate logics entered into higher education is the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP). Monbiot (2016) explained that the privatization of public services enabled corporations “to set up tollbooths in the form of essential assets and charge rent” (p. 4). One such example was the move from student grants to student loans where the “rent” is interest. With tuition increasing at a high rate, coupled with the demand for a degree to obtain gainful employment after post-secondary school, students who are unable to afford their education are forced to turn to financial assistance.

One of the primary vehicles for such assistance is OSAP. Initially, monetary support through OSAP was assessed based on a student’s financial need. The stipulation for the loan was simple; the money would be loaned to the student interest-free, until six months after graduation at which time interest would begin to accrue until the loan was paid back. There were many cases of students not being able to pay their loans back, declaring bankruptcy, or leaving the country for a few years until the loan was forgotten or forgiven. The government began forgiving these loans seven years after they matured because it cost more money to track down students than to forgive them.

In 2015, changes to OSAP made student aid more challenging to access and harder to avoid repayment. These changes forced more students to pay the money back quickly. The Ontario Student Loan Rehabilitation Program was created to permit students who defaulted on their student loan to return the loan using a partial payment schedule (Mansour, 2015). The government’s goal was to make consumers out of students by having them buy, or borrow to buy, their education. Privatization of education was now a money-making machine.

Corporate Forays into Public Education

When the government cuts educational funding, it opens the doors for corporate involvement through sponsorship. Public and private partnerships are also a common way for public schools to seek funding from corporations. The state expects this practice to occur more frequently over time, which positions corporations to eventually demand more from schools while contributing less money. This includes corporations such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Tim Hortons, as well as banks, and the media. For example, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board signed an exclusive deal with Pepsi; this would provide their secondary schools with approximately $28,000 per year and their elementary schools with $1500 a year. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) signed a similar deal with Coca-Cola that is worth approximately $2 million over three years (Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, [ETFO], 2000). In 2018, the TDSB contemplated extending this deal, even though selling sugary drinks, or their diet versions, had become controversial given possible health risks. Yet such a contract is hard to give up; it is now worth more than $500,000 in annual concession revenues that go towards “funding sports teams, school teams, and repairs on crumbling buildings” (Bascaramurty, 2018).

Another example of a corporation encroaching on education is The Youth News Network (YNN), which is a self-proclaimed broadcasting corporation. It is not licensed by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC), nor is it affiliated with any news or journalist organizations. YNN provides technology, including televisions and computers, in return for approximately ten minutes every morning to broadcast news and commercials to the school population. Five years ago, YNN attempted to come into Ontario schools and was quickly turned away. However, if YNN attempts to return, the school boards will be more enticed because they know that YNN will be able to provide resources that they need.

Although corporate funding may be perceived as useful in providing schools with computers, gym equipment, and other tools for students, schools, and boards, these are goods and services that the government should be funding. This approach also raises questions of ethics, with corporate exposure at any cost, regardless of negative or positive experiences.

YNN claims that about 80% of its revenue comes from advertising (ETFO, 2000, p. 10). Many large corporations have an extreme interest in advertising on YNN. Reaching teenagers through this form of media would be ideal for them; there are about 2.3 million students in high school at approximately 4800 schools across Canada. Although these marketing giants make it seem as though these relationships are partnerships, they are skewed—one side has a marketing opportunity, and the other side is a forced audience (Ibid., 2000). Besides corporate placement of products in schools to market to students, corporations have also infused themselves into the curriculum, lesson plans, school uniforms, tutoring services, and fundraising to make up for lost government funding. Although corporations are striving to generate profits by coming into schools, they are also ensuring that schools produce consumers and employable young adults who will be ready to work and consume once they graduate.

Overall, privatization of schools in Ontario costs the public more, while delivering very little to the student. It is a way to move money from the public purse into the hands of corporations and the business elite. The state-based turn towards neoliberalism, specifically through privatization, is at the top of the government’s agenda for this very reason. Our politicians promote the idea that creating choice will drive efficiency and provide a more exceptional quality of schools for a lower price.

Efficiency: An Assembly Line Education

Efficiency is essential in many facets of industry and the economy. Efficiency, in the business sense, refers to the connection between input (resources such as people, materials, and finances) and output (a specific product and profit), where the amount of input is either held at a constant or decreased, while the production of output is increased. The end goal, when one is attempting to be efficient, is to maximize production and profits with the least amount of input possible (“Efficiency”, 2019). In education, efficiency is seen as the control or reduction of input such as classrooms, buildings, teachers, and curriculum. These are frequently used, in experimental proportions, to increase student and teacher productivity. One issue that the Ontario government

51 has struggled with is determining the right combinations of educational inputs to yield the greatest results (Watters, 2015).

The purpose of education is not something that can readily be measured quantifiably, nor can it be measured by one solidly defined outcome. Measurable outcomes can signify efficiency and the primary measurable outcome used by the Ontario government is standardized tests, and specifically in this case, the OSSLT (EQAO, 2017a). It is through such tests that the public can be provided with specific numerical outcomes that justify reducing inputs. In other words, the government can cut costs by reducing school budgets and using standardized tests to justify that schools, teachers, and students are still performing well, if not better than before. They can make claims that alterations to the input resulted in a more efficient output.

The Implementation of a Factory Model Education

The fundamental value of efficiency in capitalism is synonymous with the infamous metaphor of the factory model. To increase productivity, factories incorporated a moving assembly line that aided in the mass production of goods and saved corporations time, money, and labour, while still meeting or even exceeding production outcomes. The capitalistic value of efficiency in education follows the same formula as the factory model, which prides itself on providing goods and services with less money. The purpose of the factory model is to make schooling more efficient. It is also to take students and mold them into what the Ontario government and business elite require from future citizens and employees to sustain the middle-class. Homogenization, uniformity, standardization, productivity, and using cost-effective methods are all values that have been taken from business models and infused into educational reform to make education more efficient. Whether or not one believes the factory model is the way education should go, educational reforms have been moving it in that direction (Robinson, 2006).

When examining efficiency through neoliberal values, students are the goods that are being sent out into the labour industry and the services are the type of education they are provided with to prepare them for the labour-intensive economy. Under this type of schooling, students are taught skills needed to become the very factory workers that the factory model emulates. This involves preparing students for the workforce through a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of assimilation, amalgamation, and the production of docile and obedient workers.

Human resources and a chain of command are vital when it comes to achieving results in the new educational model, which sets up schools using the same hierarchy as any business would. This is ensured by implementing a new type of management where the director of education acts as the CEO, consulting with trustees, and relaying objectives and outcomes to the superintendents, who supervise school administrators. Administrators then act as managers for the schools. Principals and Vice Principals oversee teachers in the same way that a factory manager manages assembly line workers. They ensure teachers train students (potential workers) while holding them to the highest standards in teaching what the government has mandated them to teach. The purpose of the factory model in school is to, in the most efficient way, produce human capital, ready to work, and with the proper skills (Watters, 2015).

The physical set up of the school system is that of a production line, with children entering school at a specific age. Robinson (2006) spoke of the way that schools are organized like a factory line, with ringing bells, specialized subject departments, and a system for putting children through in batches based on their age group. He noted that education is “increasingly about conformity, looking at the growth of standardized testing, standardized curriculum—about standardization” (Ibid., 2006). Robinson also linked the correlation of the increase of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to the growth of standardized testing and noted that we are getting students through their education by “anesthetizing them or putting them to sleep” (Ibid., 2006). He was referring to the medication that we are now giving our children daily to keep them focused on the curriculum.

In the factory model, students are sorted by ability levels into streams. In Ontario, these streams are ‘locally developed,’ ‘applied,’ ‘college,’ ‘academic,’ and ‘university.’ The students who take grade 9 and 10 applied courses are streamed into college level programs, while the grade 9 and 10 students in academic courses are streamed into universities when they graduate. Students who take locally developed courses are streamed directly into the workplace. It is important to note that once students are sorted into streams, they do not usually move to a different one because of the need for prerequisite courses. For example, a student who takes grade 9 applied mathematics can only take grade 10 applied mathematics. If the student wants to take grade 10 academic mathematics, that student must first take grade 9 academic mathematics or a transfer course. The need for prerequisite courses makes it extremely difficult for students to move between post- secondary destinations. Many students who take locally developed courses will graduate with an

Ontario Secondary School Certificate (OSSC), versus a diploma. Students are streamed through the system as efficiently as possible so that they graduate with either a diploma or certificate; this seal of approval will allow them to move on to more factory-based institutions, be it the workplace or further schooling.

When examining the statistics of students who are successful in public school versus those who are not, it is apparent that more minorities, and specifically boys, are placed in the applied or locally developed streams. Many of these students are recommended to be placed at these levels by their elementary teachers. In these streams, there are more English Language Learners and students on Individual Education Plans with ADHD and other special educational diagnoses. However, the success rate increases for students who have high socio-economic status or who are placed in the academic stream. According to an EQAO infographic that published the 2016 OSSLT results, 19 percent of students were unsuccessful overall. Contrast this to 47 percent of students with special needs that were unsuccessful. When looking at the differences between the grade 9 academic and applied level English courses, eight percent of students in the academic stream were unsuccessful, and 17 percent of them had special education needs. This compares to 53 percent of students in the applied stream being unsuccessful, with 60 percent having special education needs (EQAO, 2016).

The use of standardized test scores has now become the central tool in evaluating student success in the public system. The OSSLT is high stakes because it is a graduation requirement. As such, it has been transformed into the primary measurable output of the educational system. Students who are unsuccessful on the test do have the option to attempt the test again or take the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC), but they must fail before they are permitted entry into the course. The OSSLT has become “a marketing vehicle as opposed to a tool for learning, and school income is directly linked to the number of smart kids taking the test, which is also known as a market-based system” (Berthelot, 2008). Carothers (2010) pointed out that with the factory model system, schools are seen as either highly achieving or poorly achieving based solely on standardized testing, specifically the OSSLT—our main measurable output for school success.

The Government’s Cost Cutting Agenda and Secondary School Reform

To control and minimize input, the Harris conservative government needed to eliminate government services. This would be done by rationalizing the need for services, reducing government spending and bureaucracy, cutting taxes, and eliminating the deficit (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003). When looking specifically at education, the government anticipated cutting $400 million a year through cuts to classroom personnel and administrative costs. Areas that were targeted included administrative costs and preparation time previously given to teachers to mark and plan lessons (Ibid., 2003). It would also eventually cut the secondary program by one year/grade.

In the fall of 1995, the government planned to cut about one billion dollars from school boards. It asked boards to balance their budgets and make the necessary cuts. Board solutions included “teacher layoffs, cuts in programs and services, and drastic property tax increases to offset the cuts in provincial grants” (Ibid., 2003, p. 15). This strategy would “justify more direct government intervention to cut back the costs in education” (Ibid., 2003, p.15). And so, there were many other cost-cutting initiatives that the government had put on the back burner, such as secondary school reform, that could be implemented.

In 1984, a policy document called Ontario Schools: Intermediate and Secondary Divisions (OSIS) was created as a result of a government mandated review of the requirements that were needed for secondary school graduation and the curriculum; together, these were the most significant reforms to secondary education since 1970. In the late 1980s, the Liberal government attempted to amend the 1975 elementary curriculum policy entitled The Formative Years. Nothing resulted from this attempt; however, it set the stage for the reformation of elementary schools under the NDP (Ibid., 2003, p. 6).

Nearly a decade later, in 1994, the New Democratic Party (NDP) government created a committee called the Royal Commission on Learning (RCOL) which suggested the reform of both elementary and secondary education through specified values, goals, school programming, and accountability systems (Ibid., p. 11). The RCOL released a four-volume report called For the Love of Learning. Although this report was not official policy, its recommendations set the stage for a political shift toward a neoliberal economy. It spoke to “four key engines or strategies for large scale reform in education: covering virtually all the programmatic, organizational, and

55 resource dimensions…” (Ibid., 2003, p. 12). These large scale reforms included: instituting a four-year high school program in place of the five year one, a streamed program from grade 9 onwards that would sort students as they entered and exited high school, the implementation of a government mandated “common curriculum” and standardized report cards “linked to provincial curriculum expectations” (Anderson & Jafaar, 2006, p. 42). The NDP would also introduce new and higher requirements for graduation, including 60 hours of community service and a literacy test (OSSLT) requirement. The literacy test requirement would require the establishment of a provincial assessment and an independent accountability agency (EQAO) to develop it, manage the administration, and publish its results. The NDP would also create an Ontario College of Teachers, where teacher accreditation would take longer and require more experience (Ibid, 2006).

With these changes, the teaching profession and the education system would move towards neoliberalism with standardization, deregulation, and centralization of power. However, because of the adverse response from the education community, the actual reforms would not come out until January 1998 under the Harris government. These changes would be fully implemented in the 2002-2003 school year with the double-cohort of students graduating from high school. The new graduation requirements were precisely what had been proposed by the NDP government in 1994 and included the fulfilment of 18 compulsory credits, 12 elective credits, the completion of 40 hours of community service, and fulfilling a literacy requirement (either passing the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test or the grade 12 literacy course) (Ibid., 2003, p. 26).

In 2003, the Conservative government was defeated by Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal party. It won the election based on promises to improve education, health care, and the economy. In a public address, McGuinty remarked that he wanted to be remembered as the “Education Premier” (Zegarac & Franz, 2007, p. 5), implying that the changes he would make to education would be significant. Three key pledges that spoke to fixing the education system were made in the Liberal platform. McGuinty stated that:

Seventy-five percent of students, by age 12 (grade 6), would be performing at or above the provincial standard in reading, writing, and mathematics by 2008, as measured by provincial testing; that class sizes would be reduced to a maximum of 20 students per class for grades K to 3; and that high school dropout rates would be decreased, and graduation rates increased. (Ibid., 2007, p. 5)

These changes would be both made and measured. However, the agency that would hold the government accountable, specifically the EQAO, was run and managed by the government. During the Liberal tenure, the OSSLT, along with other standardized tests, became synonymous with the education system and normalized as the measure of our students and their abilities.

Centralization: Placing Power in the Hands of the Few at the Top

To centralize means to “concentrate or gather around the centre” (Centralize, 2012). In the realm of business, centralization is where a specific group of leaders at the top of an organization make decisions on behalf of it; power is concentrated ‘at the top’ of the company or corporation. The major decisions made by this small and collected group of ‘higher ups’ are communicated effectively and quickly to the rest of the organization. These decisions are almost always homogenous and carried throughout the entire company; this operational efficiency is the main reason centralization occurs in business. This system also helps to ensure homogeneity in the production and result of the product or service itself (“Centralized Organization”, 2012).

There are pros and cons to centralization in an organization. Although implemented to control variables such as cost, efficiency, quality, messaging, and the overall operations of the organization, centralization is not always the best idea. For example, top-down decisions may not suit the community’s needs. Specific stakeholders and customers may not have an opportunity to share their input into decisions, and the bureaucracy of the top-down model may make staff feel as if they are not valued members of the organization (Ibid., 2012).

Shah (2010) outlined three ways in which education in Ontario has become centralized: through the organization itself, through politics, and economics. In specific reference to the OSSLT, McNeil (2000) posited that test design and test preparation material serve the political function of centralizing control over the curriculum (p. 259).

Political Reasons to Centralize Education

When considering the pressures placed on the Ontario government to restore the province’s failing economy, a shift in education was necessary to ensure that future labourers would be ready to successfully join the workforce and contribute to the economy, especially given the impact of globalization. For these reasons, it was only a matter of time before centralization would be implemented into education.

Through centralization, the government took financial control away from the school boards. In turn, it determined how much money would be distributed back into schools. Equality over equity is emphasised with centralization; all public schools are seen to be the same in terms of needs and wants. As such, funds are most often distributed equally amongst all schools in a board. However, this approach can be problematic if one school needs more money than another. Although further funds may be given to the needy schools after basic equal distribution, how much they are given is usually not sufficient enough to raise these schools to the same level of those more affluent ones they are competing against.

Local decision-making power was taken away with centralization; the government was given the power to decide how entire school districts should be run including where, when, how, and what students should learn. Through centralization, the government endeavours to make education homogenous in almost all aspects. For example, all schools are required to follow the same ministry curriculum and mandates, regardless of local circumstances.

With centralization, those at the grassroots levels are often rendered voiceless. They have to obey new mandates that trickle down from the concentrated leadership, even if they don’t agree with them. Quite often the director, superintendents, administrators, and teachers, who represent the local voice, have their tried-and-true solutions to fix issues quickly and cost effectively. However, with centralization, they are not permitted to give this input. Instead, the authority rests with the government, and most decisions will come from above. The decision-makers are not attached to, nor do they have an understanding of the immediate issues at hand. Historically, problems in education were dealt with on a case-by-case basis at the school or board level. With centralization, there is a protocol that needs to be applied, even if a different solution may be warranted. Centralization takes away innovation, flexibility, and creativity in management, for the sake of sameness.

The Government’s Centralization Agenda

The process of centralization began in 1996 when David Crombie, a former mayor of Toronto, Ontario, delivered the Crombie Report. This report served as a ‘who does what’ list to give the government insight on taxation assessment, as well as provincial and municipal responsibilities. The report suggested restricting the amount of decision-making power that school boards had. It also suggested that business functions such as custodial, maintenance, office and clerical work,

58 special education services, and educational assistants be outsourced. Reasons for the recommendations were that they would lead to increased equity of funding for education across the province. They would also centralize financial control and place it in the hands of the province, which facilitated the government’s goal of removing billions from the education budget (OFL, 2001).

On August 23, 1996, the Tory government began a review of Bill 100, The School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. This act had given teachers, since 1975, the right to bargain collectively. The Tory government would now attempt to obtain province-wide bargaining and eliminate teachers’ right to strike. The attempt to revoke this right was one of the most significant moves towards centralizing power into the hands of the government (OFL, 2001, p. 3).

The government’s goal for centralizing education became a reality when Bill 104 (January 1997) and Bill 160 (December 1997) were passed. Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, amalgamated school boards into districts and in the process reduced the number of boards from 129 to 72 (Ibid., 2001). The act also created Francophone school boards, both public and Catholic, and recognized them as separate entities. This act limited the number of trustees in each board and capped their salaries at $5000 each year. Before this, trustee salaries typically ranged from $20,500 to $40,000 per year (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003). Bill 104 also forbade board employees and their spouses from running for trustee positions (OFL, 2001). As Anderson and Jafaar (2003) put it,“The consolidation of the school boards slowly took away the power of local communities to participate in governance and limited teacher and student access to central office support services” (p. 18).

Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, gave the government power over every aspect of the education system—from school boards, to funding, to school councils, to the number of teachers, and amount of time teachers were to spend with students (OFL, 2001). With the passing of Bill 160, the government could now control both educational funding and teacher collective agreement guarantees. Bill 160 allowed the government to control the terms and conditions of teacher employment by regulating teacher preparation time, class sizes, the number of teachers in a school, and other essential bargaining rights. This bill also introduced a new funding formula and impeded the ability of school boards to raise money through taxation (Ibid., 2001). It gave

59 the government power to assume complete control of school boards that were in financial default. This move allowed the government to take billions of dollars out of the education system (Ibid., 2001). It was also at this time that principals were removed from teachers’ collective bargaining units, which would take away their rights to collective bargaining and striking through the teachers’ unions (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003).

The shift in the balance of power from local school boards and teachers to the government, as well as the completely centralized control over educational funding, were significant ways that Ontario began the shift towards the neoliberal value of centralization. A significant result would be the “cost savings of several hundred million dollars, because boards would employ fewer teachers” (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003) and control of their working conditions to suit government needs. The major consequences of Bill 160 were felt in March 1998:

More equal per-pupil funding was distributed to the school boards, as promised by the new equitable funding formula. However, much loss (as much as 10%) was seen in English public boards, as corresponding gains were seen in Catholic and French boards. Raising local taxes to offset costs was no longer an option, so board solutions to save money were seen in the forms of layoffs, school closures, cutbacks in extra-curricular programming, adult education, and other areas. (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003, p. 15)

In the 1998-1999 school year, teachers protested the bill with work-to-rule action, lockouts, and strikes. The TDSB was most affected, as it had to shut down 138 schools. Anderson and Jafaar (2003) explained that “the ramifications of Bill 160 were a focus of ongoing public controversy and eventually led to a government commissioned review of education funding in 2002” (p. 23). Furthermore, in June of 2002, the Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton school boards were unable to run schools without over-spending, as their budgets were in a deficit of $90 million, $18 million, and $1 million respectively. The government responded by taking governing power away from the trustees. It then “appointed ‘supervisors’ to implement and oversee budget cuts and operations in the recalcitrant boards, meaning that in September 2002, the government took direct control of over 20% of the student body in the province” (Ibid., 2003, p. 35).

As school boards crumbled under new policy implementations, the government was forced to review its funding formula. In 2002, the Rozanski Report was commissioned:

It enlisted the support of an Education Equality Task Force, led by Mordechai Rozanski, President and Vice-Chancellor at the University of Guelph. His task

was to review six aspects of the provincial education funding formula: fund distribution between school boards, cost benchmarks, local expenditure flexibility, school renewal, special education, and student transportation… The Equity Task Force’s report entitled Public Education: Advancing the Goal of Continuous Improvement in Student Learning and Achievement was released in December 2002. (Ibid., 2003, p. 23)

“Teacher unions felt that this report confirmed that the funding formula was not working and that the Conservative government was destroying the education system with inadequate funding” (Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, 2003). Consequently, “teachers called for an increase in funding if the system were to catch up and to reflect inflation” (People for Education, 2003, p. 24). In 2003, Leithwood, Fullan, and Watson published The Schools We Need: Recent Education Policy in Ontario and Recommendations for Moving Forward, a position paper in response to the Rozanski Report. Essentially it stated the funding formula had a negative impact on education at the school level (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003).

The Ontario government had succeeded in centralizing the organization, politics, and economics of schools. The process of centralization had taken away power from teachers, given government control of funding and decision-making powers, and created homogeneity under the pretense of equity. Ironically, through the use of tight government control, a space for deregulation would be created through the promotion of private schools and standardized testing.

Deregulation and Privatization of Public Education and Social Welfare

The state had shifted many of its public responsibilities in health, education, transportation, civil services, and other important areas of social life to private corporations. In the process, public money supported these private companies now charged with the delivery and quality of welfare services. In the area of education, privatization has manifested itself in various ways, including student testing, curriculum design, student services, maintenance of school infrastructures, and even data collection and analysis upon which the state designs educational policies. There are multiple private sector companies involved in education, including the Frasier Institute. Transferring service and power to private business ensures more money is made by the government. And as these private sector services amass in high numbers, teacher rights erode.

There are many examples of privatization in public education, such as the way that school testing schemes and practices are dominated by private consultants rather than teachers. On February

14, 2019, the PC government appointed a failed PC candidate as chair of EQAO. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reported that:

The latest appointment prompting accusations of patronage is the government's choice to chair the board of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), the provincial agency that administers standardized tests in Ontario schools. In appointing Montgomery, the Ford government changed the chair's job into a full-time position with a $140,000 annual salary, plus vacation, pension and benefits. Yet, the government campaigned on a promise to find efficiencies (Crawley, 2019)

“In the economic sense of the word, deregulation is the reduction or removal of government power in a particular industry, market, or economy” (“Deregulation”, 2019). It is also the process of removing restrictions or regulations which are usually implemented to create greater competition within that industry. Ajayi and Ekundayo (2008) explained deregulation in education as “breaking the government’s monopoly of the provision and management of education by giving free hand to private participation in the provision and management of education...” (p. 214). They took this definition further to state that, “Deregulation of education means relaxing or dismantling the legal and governmental restrictions on the operations of education business” (Ajayi & Ekundayo, 2008, p. 214). Olatunbosun (2005) described deregulation of education as “a sale of knowledge to the highest bidder, which has the effect of lowering standards for the attraction of customers” (as cited in Ajayi et al., 2008, p. 214).

Although deregulation in education has led to the privatization of education, one must not confuse one for the other. As Ajayi and Ekundayo (2008) described, “As a deregulated sector, education will become a private enterprise undertaken by private individuals or corporate bodies that hope to maximize profit from their investment in education” (p. 214). In the working paper Deregulation of education: What does it mean for efficiency and equality?, the authors explained that, “While some argue that deregulation is a catalyst of social inequality, others contend that it encourages overall educational efficiency” (Schlict-Schmälzle, Raphaela, & Janna, 2011, p. 3). Overall, deregulation reduces government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including keeping sight of the real purpose of education to teach our future generations how to be critical thinkers, instead of just middle management labour.

Some of the main issues that education faces when deregulation occurs are that schools become profit making machines, the social gap is widened increasing inequality, and standards may be

62 lowered for the sake of profit. Underperforming teachers are the excuse for low performance of underfunded schools, which in turn is used as an excuse to implement standardized testing. Deregulation implies that the problem of the broken education system lies with the teachers and not with the system and so the government will institute standardized testing to ensure teachers are meeting specific performance objectives. This further entrenches and normalizes standardized testing.

The strongest way to ensure teachers comply with new policies is to continuously weaken the union. When the Harris government came to power in 1995, it planned on “weakening the power of both the unions that represented education workers, and the local school boards” (OFL, 2001, p. 1). To help do so, it commissioned two reports, which are known as the Paroian Report and the Crombie Report. These reports recommended diminishing bargaining rights of teachers and removing their right to strike altogether. They also suggested limiting the power of school boards, making contracting out of non-teaching jobs mandatory, taking away the ability of school boards to tax, and centralizing education funding with the provincial government. The Paroian Report specifically recommended making the workload of teachers, class size, and other conditions of work non-negotiable, along with excluding administrators from the bargaining unit (Ibid., 2001). All of these moves removed power from the teachers’ unions and ensured compliance. Teachers had no say about the new direction of education or standardized testing.

In May 2000, the Tories passed Bill 74, An Act to Amend the Education Act. This legislation permitted school boards to eliminate teacher participation in extra-curricular activities from collective bargaining. It also required secondary school teachers to teach one additional class a day. The bill also excluded principals from the teacher unions, thereby splitting the two groups. Furthermore, the bill permitted outside informants to investigate school board employees or trustees who were suspected of opposing this new legislation. This bill was a big blow to teachers; it took away their ‘work to rule’ right and further stripped the power of teacher unions to bargain workload and working conditions. Teachers now had no financial control in future negotiations with the government and their right to peacefully protest had been taken away. They were left powerless and voiceless, with the only means for protest being strike action. Moreover, the government was able to keep specific provisions, such as the number of teachers and the amount of teaching and preparation time, as leverage for bargaining in the future (Ibid., 2001).

In September 2000, the government created a task force to focus on the operations of post- secondary education, specifically administrative operations, options for shared services, and the best practices for administrative functions such as information technology, procurement, and data collection. The government stated that this task force would look at giving students continued access to high-quality, affordable education in the 21st century. The task force was comprised of five members: a lawyer, university and college presidents, and CEOs. In its report, the task force recommended decentralizing the collective bargaining of colleges and promoted measures that would provide the state with increased corporate control of community colleges, such as eliminating the Council of Regents (Ibid., 2001). The implementation of this report left the college system weakened and further opened the door to privatization (Ibid., 2001).

The next few acts that were mandated were a diversion from the real problem of underfunded schools. Teachers were now being blamed for the downward spiral of the education system, and the guise of making teachers more apt to deliver the curriculum in a standardized way became the next state-based move. This direction fit in well with entrenching standardized testing into the system. Holding teachers more accountable to the public also sent a message that problems in the education system were because of the teachers, not the system. However, this problem was now being ‘fixed’ by the state, and there was now to be a standard in place to measure not only students but teachers as well. Education was now deregulated, power was relinquished, and schools were being run sufficiently like business organizations.

In September 2019, teachers in Ontario will be asked to engage in talks with the Ford provincial government to negotiate the terms of their new employment contracts. This round of provincial bargaining is being predicted to be one of the worst. The present-day Ford government has already threatened cuts of $4 million in education. Teacher unions are gathering together for strategic planning on how to fight this government. However, it is difficult to plan for problems that are not yet defined. Teachers feel there will be major cutbacks and changes to education, with further erosion of rights and reduction of collective powers. The government is already doing and undoing so much within the education system, propelled by a capitalist agenda.

On Friday, March 15, 2019, the Minister of Education, Lisa Thompson, announced potential changes to education funding. Key reductions include a decrease of approximately 5.88% to the GSN (Grants for Student Needs), which accounts for almost 90% of all school board funding.

Part of this reduction includes a change to the average class size ratio (from 22:1 to 28:1) which is used to determine the number of teachers a school receives. This change will result in each, each district being underfunded by approximately 400 teachers. For no current teacher to be declared redundant, each school board would need about 100 secondary teachers to retire in each of the next 4 years, and enrollment levels would need to remain at least status quo. A drop in enrollment would result in a bigger funding gap and potentially more job losses. Fewer teachers, even if achieved by attrition, will result in bigger classes, increased workload, and less time with each student. Although to date, no technical papers have been issued detailing how boards are to deal with the new funding model, no legislation has been passed and no budget changes have been made. Some other examples of what the Ford government plans to do within the upcoming 2019-2020 school year include merging school boards in order to reduce per school funding, reducing the amount of money provided to autistic children, and giving money to public schools for hundreds of new high-needs students who will enter schools in April 2019. The onus will now be on teachers to support these students. Students, commencing in the following year, will be mandated to take one on-line course per year. This course will be through an independent agency and not the public board of education (Rushowy, 2019).

Teachers are highly invested in protecting high quality public education. Some of the necessary conditions are smaller class sizes, professional student support services, and diverse program offerings that educate the whole child. Their concern is not about class sizes, but cutting the number of teachers and in turn, degrading the education system. An excellent education isn't cheap and shouldn't be cheapened for political gain. Teachers are not pleased with these directions. In the next chapters, light will be shed on how some teachers resist.

Community: Eliminating the Concept of the Public Good

The sense of community in business does not truly exist. In commerce, one understands that in a system that is not polluted by racism, nepotism, or any other form of marginalization, meritocracy is what carries an employee to the top of the corporate ladder. It is this message that is being taught to students in schools; that if one works hard, one will make it to the top and be successful. On the other hand, if one is not successful, then one did not work hard enough. This suggestion is far from the truth. In an article entitled Why Most Companies Fail at Community Management, Jones (2015) explained why most companies fail at building a sense of

65 community. She described that because of the digital age, the definition of community has moved beyond geography/proximity to groups of people who have shared values, goals, interests, and experiences, regardless of where they are located. She also noted that a true sense of community involves members that contribute and not just consume.

When it comes to education, the saying that “It takes a village to raise a child” comes to mind. This expression notes the importance of community when educating a child. When schools were designed, this notion of community was at the forefront of education. However, in moving towards neoliberalism, the notion of community has been quickly lost because investing in community does not equate to profit (Connell, 2013, p. 104).

The adjective “public” means “of, belonging to, or concerning the people as a whole” (“Public”, 2018). As such, public education concerns the entire community. Schools, specifically in the public education system, are created to be part of the community (Gatto, 2009). Eliminating the concept of the public good and replacing it with individual responsibility is another value of capitalism that has permeated into the education system today. Gatto (2009) argued that when the state privatizes schools, the sense of community is lost and the priority shifts from student success to profits. Furthermore, he contended that education should not be subjected to market rules that steer it away from its public purpose in order to make it a product of choices serving the elite few (Ibid., 2009). Ellwood P. Cubberley wrote, "Our schools are ... factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned ... it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down” (as cited in Gatto, 2009, p. xxi). However, this is exactly what the state-based move towards neoliberalism has created.

Although the creation of policy and educational strategies make it seem as if the government is making an attempt to bridge learning gaps to ensure all students are on an equal playing field, this is far from the reality in the day to day lives of students in the public school system. As a case in point, Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy (2009) was developed to help identify at-risk students and level the playing field. Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Education in 2009, identified specific groups of students that were at risk of low achievement. These groups included recent immigrants, children from low-income families, Aboriginal students, boys, and students with special education needs. The policy document stated:

Publicly funded education is a cornerstone of our democratic society. Ontarians share a belief in the need to develop students as learners and prepare them for their role in society as engaged, productive, and responsible citizens.... Education directly influences students’ life chances–and life outcomes. Today’s global, knowledge-based economy makes the ongoing work in our schools critical to our students’ success in life and to Ontario’s economic future. (Ontario, 2014, p. 6)

Wynne, along with the rest of the Ontario government at the time, understood the importance of education and how it prepares a child to be a productive member of society. The most pertinent aspects of the equity strategy included goals for educators to better identify and remove discriminatory biases and systemic barriers so that they could better support the achievement and well-being of all students: “These barriers—related to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination—may prevent some students from reaching their full potential”(Ontario, 2014, p. 61). By introducing diversity and inclusivity into the strategy, the state could assure the public that all visible barriers were addressed.

As long as structural and systemic barriers exist, there will be marginalized students who, regardless of their merit, will not be given the same privileges as their (not marginalized) peers. The state also places pressure on marginalized students to find solutions to their lack of education all by themselves; the blame is placed directly on them if they fail and they are often deemed to be ‘lazy’ or ‘stupid’ (Powell, 2012). Clandfield and Martell (2014) argued that high- stakes standardized testing, public spending cutbacks, and the expansion of private alternatives have exacerbated such inequalities.

Meritocracy is emphasized as the ideal in the Western education system. Here, when students excel, the belief is that they do so because of their individual work ethic, merit, or ability. This idea emphasises the concept of fairness because it is believed that each student has the opportunity to succeed to the best of their ability, without obstacles. However, the reality of multiple barriers within the system makes it rather difficult to make education equitable for all students. Clandfield and Martell (2014) posited that:

From the very beginning, our public school system was designed and developed in order to socialize the young into accepting their status in various levels of a stratified society…. in the midst of increasing social unrest in the mid-1800s, a broader mechanism was needed in order to socialize children of the working classes—public schools’ were developed for this purpose—with prescribed curriculum, textbooks and pedagogy... (p. 4)

They questioned if a child hampered by inequity had any chance of navigating through a system that was itself flawed with inequities. Furthermore, they discussed how “teachers themselves are…products of a highly streamed schooling system and, by definition, have ‘succeeded’ at school” (p. 7). As such, it is rather difficult for teachers to understand how others might struggle to perform well in school. In The Myth of Meritocracy, Powell (2012) explained that although teachers like to think they carry absolutely no bias, they are human, which means they do carry bias; it may be an unconscious bias towards a student’s race, class, gender, or socio economic status. Such biases may, even in a small way, create inequitable spaces for learning.

Another barrier entrenched into the education system is the fact that schools are not created equal, nor are they given equal funding or resources. Those schools that are more affluent have more resources and those that are less affluent, in turn, have less. Closely tied to this is the concept of cultural capital, which comes from students’ social backgrounds. Students with greater cultural capital are better able to navigate the education system and acquire symbolic capital—in the form of a degree, high grades, or scholarships—which equates to better jobs with more pay:

Research shows that students’ cultural capital, from young childhood through to the university-going ages, is strongly linked to the socioeconomic status of their parents, and provides a significant advantage in achieving good grades. In this way, among others, high-status parents pass on their social privilege to their children. (Powell, 2012)

Clandfield and Martell (2014) put forward that the structural components of school, such as the curriculum taught, the streaming of students into specific levels, and the overall political process “continue to embody the interests of powerful business and affluent middle-class groups” (p. 2). For example, they claimed that streaming contributes to the formation of “distinctive identities based on racial and religious differences that become the basis for differential treatment in the system” (p. 5), especially for Aboriginal and racialized students:

Racialization should be seen as an act of social construction that seeks to maintain the dominance (of the) White power structure that uses the ideology of meritocracy to maintain the dominant order in education and society, consistent with the current hierarchy of globalizing capitalism.... the processes of racialization and colonization are mobilized to enable the practice of streaming, and how it manifests within schools and across the education system to deny Aboriginal and racialized students the full benefit of the learning experience. (Clandfield & Martell, 2014, p. 6)

In the move towards neoliberalism, the government has been strategic in eliminating the sense of community in schools. It has echoed the way that businesses segregate and separate employees by separating school administrators, teachers, and parents. One of the first moves was removing administrators from the teachers’ unions. This divide and conquer tactic created an ‘us versus them’ mentality, which has become the new norm. In the business world, the creation of a top- down managerial system is effective at ensuring workers are doing their jobs and managers are overseeing effectively; it runs with minimal supervision from the owners, president, or top tier group. Schools have essentially become this very system of bureaucracy where school administrators now manage teachers and teachers now manage students, who are the end product. The role of the parent is limited.

Weiner spoke of teachers having to face the “full force of neoliberalism’s assault on education for decades” and explained that “it is only in the past few years that they have started to realize that their profession and the ideals that brought them into classrooms may be destroyed” (Weiner, 2012). She spoke of teachers who feel frightened, angry, and alone. However, she also gives the solution where “unions have to reach out to communities and parents, forming mutually respectful alliances” (Ibid., 2012). Furthermore, Weiner (2012) emphasized that there will only be a change for the better when justice and equity are made to be a priority and when teachers and their unions create alliances across national borders.

Accountability: Teacher Professionalization

In economics, accountability is defined as the obligation of a business or an individual employee to account for certain activities in order to further the goals of the organization. The fulfilment of responsibilities, such as assigned tasks, the attainment of goals, and the reporting of results or outcomes in a transparent manner, are used to hold the business and its employees accountable. Worker performance is directly linked to accountability. For instance, if workers are frequently late, surfing the internet, and taking longer than usual breaks, accountability will be enforced through management or higher-ups in the company. As corporations are fairly homogenous, it is easy to implement a mechanism or measuring tool to ensure workers are meeting their goals and held accountable for the quality of work they are doing. This strategy is usually more cost and time effective than using actual people to measure employee accountability; managers can implement the tool while still accomplishing the tasks they need to do. Without accountability, it

69 is difficult to know if the job is being done and if goals have been met. Therefore, accountability is necessary to measure outcomes and rank corporations. It is also important to mention that there are some meaningful accountability mechanisms in public education that ensure the government is accountable to the public. After all, it is public tax dollars that are used to fund education. EQAO’s OSSLT has become one of the main methods of measuring accountability for teachers, students, administrators, and school boards.

Accountability has been one of the major trends in Ontario’s education system for the past 20 years. Standards-based reforms have been infused into the system as the state has moved more closely towards neoliberal values with each passing policy document. With a greater emphasis on standardized testing, school boards, schools, and students are now compared to one another. School administrators and teachers are judged on the scores and parents are conditioned to think that schools ranking highly on the Fraser Report are giving students the best education. Alternatively, those schools that rank lower on the report are questioned, their teachers are seen as underperforming, and the quality of their teaching is questioned. There is much debate about the pros and cons of standardized testing in Ontario; however, when it comes to ensuring that teachers are held accountable for providing quality education to students, using standardized test results is generally used in the media. Many new policies have been implemented to ensure teachers are meeting the required standards that the government has put into place. By holding them accountable for student performance, the government can use teachers as scapegoats for the failure of an underfunded system. Before ensuring teachers were held responsible for every student in their classroom, the government went to great lengths to alter the education system itself. By making changes to the system and implementing standardized testing, teachers are held to account for specific educational mandates.

The Government’s Agenda on Accountability in Education

In 1995, a policy document named New Foundations for Education was released by the NDP government. This document was created in response to the Royal Commission on Learning (RCOL) Report. It mandated the creation of school councils, which were to be comprised of parents, non-parent community members, teachers, and the school principal. This council was to be given advisory powers pertaining to school planning and budgets, but not given authority to make any school-based decisions. Anderson and Jafaar (2003) also explained that:

The NDP Minister of Education also set up committees to plan for the redesign of secondary schools, the establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), and the creation of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), which would manage the provincial accountability system. (p. 13)

Further consolidation of school boards across Ontario was also proposed at this time, and another task force was established to look at the effects of further amalgamating the school boards (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003). Six months later, the Conservatives came into power and established their own Education Commission; nonetheless, they implemented many of the items proposed by the RCOL (Ibid., 2003).

Part of the government’s mandate included requiring schools and districts to submit school improvement plans that reflected results on provincial testing measures, stakeholder surveys, and locally-generated data on school performance and needs (Ibid., 2003, p. 16). This was another strategy on the part of the state to hold both individual schools and boards accountable without having to acknowledge that poor student performance was also due to a lack of funding. If students are not performing as they should be, the state simply says that some students, boards, and districts are not working as hard as others. Competing and pitting schools against each other places pressure on schools, administrators, teachers, and students alike. It also puts the attention on the scapegoats, instead of on those who are actually responsible for the state-based turn and its ramifications. With the establishment of the EQAO, testing became entrenched into the system. This was a major tool that the state could use to reaffirm capitalism and deflect the blame of a failing system away from themselves and on to educators. However, most importantly, this was the way the state could ensure accountability from all who were in the system.

Policies That Held Teachers Accountable

After the state had transformed the system to ensure accountability was in place, it was time for the teachers and their profession to be transformed into bureaucracy. In June 1996, the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) was established in response to Bill 31. The OCT is a self-regulated body, and by law, membership is mandatory for all teachers, who are required to pay fees. With the OCT in place, the government could regulate the teaching profession and pass the duty of disciplining teachers from the provincial teachers’ federations to the OCT. The OCT would also be responsible for the accreditation of teachers using the newly developed Standards of Practice.

This would be the first time in Ontario when a policy would make operational the terms of the professional knowledge and practice of educators. In the upcoming years, the OCT “would serve more as an implementation agency for government policy rather than a self-regulating body” (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003, p. 32).

In May 2000, the government announced that it would be creating an Ontario Teacher Testing Program to promote teaching excellence in the classroom. The program was to include provincial standards for regular teacher evaluation, a qualifying test for teacher certification, and a teacher recertification process.

In June 2001, the Stability and Excellence in Education Act was passed. This bill mandated that teachers be recertified every five years (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003). In 2010, this requirement evolved into the Teacher Performance Appraisal (TPA) process, which consisted of two meetings (pre and post) to bookend a classroom observation, which involved teachers being informally evaluated by their administrator based on specific ‘look-fors’ provided by the Ministry of Education. Although this process was non-evaluative—meaning administrators could not use this process to fire a teacher—it was time consuming and seen by both parties as non- productive when it came to educating students. There would be a similar process for new teachers called the New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP), which occurred twice each year for new teachers during their first two years of teaching. Both processes were highly subjective, judgmental, and ineffective in making teachers increase student success in their classrooms (Barrett, Solomon, Singer, Portelli, & Mujuwamariya, 2009). Both of these teaching tools were said to be implemented in order to help teachers reach their full potential; however, they are currently being used as an accountability tool.

In December 2001, The Quality in the Classroom Act was passed: This act mandated new teachers to successfully pass a standardized Ontario Teacher Qualifying Test (OTQT), in addition to their pre-service teacher education program(Anderson & Jafaar, 2006, p.30): “By January 1st, 2003 passing the OTQT was a requirement of membership into the Ontario College of Teachers” (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003). More than 97% of teacher candidates passed the first round of OTQT testing and because of this high success rate, the public was inclined to believe that teachers had a solid foundation of skills and knowledge. However, this success rate also brought into question the need for the test, as well as its expense. The teacher’s union denounced

72 the outsourced New Jersey-based Educational Testing Service (ETS) because it was facing legal challenges in the United States; allegedly their tests were proven to be culturally-biased and discriminatory towards minority teachers (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003). In 2006, the Education Statute Amendment Act (Student Performance), or Bill 78, cancelled the OTQT. The Liberals introduced a new teacher induction program, which included teacher orientation, mentoring, professional development and training, and an appraisal process.

Bill 78 also affected teachers who transferred to a different school board, the number and content of professional activity days, and the governance of the OCT. The government now had the authority to determine the number of Professional Activity days teachers received, as well as what they would learn. In regards to the OCT, Bill 78 also created a Public Interest Committee that was tasked with overseeing the operation of the OCT. No other regulatory body has a watchdog of this sort. This bill also reduced, from ten to six years, the maximum tenure for an elected or appointed member of the governing council. This makes it difficult to gain the necessary experience needed to take on extra responsibilities, like chair or vice-chair (Rettig & Baumann, 2006).

A second part of the Quality in the Classroom Act spoke to provincially mandated processes for ongoing teacher appraisal. The state-based move to ensure teachers were held accountable for student achievement and success was now made into official government policy. Much like the Teacher Performance Appraisal process, school boards were made to create “evaluation tools to assess teacher competencies against the Standards of Practice” (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003, p. 19). By segregating and then professionalizing the occupation, teachers would be held to a common standard. Teachers were now regulated and governed by the Ontario College of Teachers and measures to ensure all educators met the standard were implemented. If students were not successful now, there would be no mention of the underfunded system. Instead, it would mean that teachers were to blame, as they were not doing their jobs correctly.

Standards of Excellence over Excellent Standards

The term ‘standards of excellence’ can be understood by deconstructing the meanings of the words ‘standard’ and ‘excellence.’ Sidney Gaskins, President and CEO of Enterprising Life explained these meanings in his commentary, A Standard of Excellence. He stated that ‘standard’

73 can be used in many ways, but the truest definition is: “Something set up and established by authority as a rule for measure” (Gaskins, 2016, p. 1).

Standards for things are given by an authority, and although one may be unaware of who has set them, these criteria are understood and obeyed without question (Ibid., 2016). Standards define specific expectations; they provide a framework or structure to achieve specific outcomes or goals and a means for holding one to account when these goals have not been accomplished. They determine one’s level of ability, competency, initiative, behaviour, and rewards, or consequences, depending on one's success or failure.

The word ‘excellence’ is derived from the root word ‘excel’ meaning “to rise, to project” (“Excel”, 2019). Gaskins (2016) stated that, “To excel is to surpass in accomplishments or achievement, to be distinguishable by superiority” (p. 1). He further explained that:

Superiority is not arrogant or egotistical. This superiority speaks for itself…it has integrity, is confident, well put together … moves with purpose…going beyond your stated or implied limit set by an authority or established by a custom or tradition, and even past achievements (p. 1).

In order to excel, one must be able to move beyond what is asked of them, “moving past the norm to reach another level, outdoing my own past, and create competition…continually breaking through the ceiling called standard…to create excellence” (Ibid., 2016, p. 1). Therefore, a standard of excellence is one where the norm is not enough; one must see the norm as being of the highest caliber, while simultaneously trying to reach beyond it. The state creates and controls policy that dictates how standards of excellence in education are defined, and as noted throughout this thesis, this definition is constantly changing based on what is necessary to move more towards neoliberalism.

Historically, although school was originally designed as an interest of the community or a public good, institutionalized schooling is a creation by the elite for the elite. Its intent from inception has been to keep specific students in school and particular students in the margins. Its historical purpose has been to create and maintain the hierarchical order of power and privilege. White, male privilege has created and benefits the most from the system. Over the past twenty years, the government has been heavily influenced by independent organizations and corporations who have invested in the educational market. These businesses and corporations have pushed the

74 education system towards neoliberalism to meet global employment pressures and corporate, profit-based gains. The Fraser Institute, EQAO, and other side organizations have become a part of the educational landscape system today and have been infused into and normalized into education. Notions of White, male privilege create the standards of excellence for education; those who do not identify as such are disadvantaged, even before they enter school.

The Government’s Agenda on Standards of Excellence

Hyslop-Margison (2005) explained that the business community was worried about the creation of a workforce in 1834, so it held a meeting to shift the focus of education:

On the night of June 9, 1834, a group of prominent men "chiefly engaged in commerce" gathered privately in a Boston drawing room to discuss a scheme of universal schooling...the assembled businessmen agreed the present system of schooling allowed too much to depend upon chance. It encouraged more entrepreneurial exuberance than the social system could bear. (Sweet, 2006)

Along similar lines, Michael Ernest Sweet (2006) explained in his paper Standardized testing– Unmasking a threat to democracy, why the business elite and capitalists became interested in education after World War One. He described how Canada’s economy was pressured to keep pace with the American economy; therefore, as workers returned from war, they needed to be trained for the technical industrial economy. Labaree (1997) discussed how this notion of education as a technical industry normalized the idea that education was a means of social mobility and that “education would come to be seen as an investment in building a strong and skilled workforce which would in turn pay handsome dividends to all” (p. 48).

The elite came to realize that if the values of capitalism were infused into the education system, one would be able to make a profit in education itself, so it went about altering the structure of education to reflect the hierarchy in society. Hill (2004) termed this ‘the capitalist agenda.’ With this approach, schooling becomes more and more about selling credentials and less and less about learning or training. These credentials, by way of degrees and diplomas, become ‘cultural currency,’ which can be exchanged later for social position (Sweet, 2006). Labaree (1997) spoke of this notion of ‘social mobility’ as “students climbing the educational ladder, which mirrors the capitalist societal hierarchy, collecting enough cultural currency to reach the upper echelons” (p. 53). One can quickly surmise that not all students will be able to climb the social ladder and that some will be left in the margins. A system of education that supports the values of neoliberalism

75 will promote the streaming and segregation of students, as this will aid in maintaining a parallel image of the society’s social groups in schools:

Stratifying school children into various streams according to academic capability is a market-driven tactic to ensure that only those the market sees eligible for future economic contribution are granted access through training and higher education opportunities. (Parekh, Killoran, & Crawford, 2011, p. 252)

Streaming is “a complex system…embedded within seemingly appropriate modifications to academic expectations such as within English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and within programs where expectations regarding both qualities of work and behaviour are greatly reduced” (Ibid., 2011, p. 252). When looking at who is kept in the margins and denied opportunities, Martell (2009) pointed out that poor and minority students are significantly over-represented in the identification of students with learning and behavioural disabilities and are thus placed in programs and streams that offer fewer academic opportunities.

In neoliberalism, the student is seen as a product—the student who achieves excellence and can do well in school benefits considerably. The value given to this student is much higher than the value given to a student who does not perform well in school, as he will be seen as a far superior product in society. Passing the OSSLT has become a significant way a student is measured, and competition amongst peers is entrenched. Passing this high-stakes standardized test is an indicator for society; those who pass have a higher value than those who are unsuccessful. The impact is such that parents will even move so that their child can attend a school that has been ranked highly in the Fraser Report. The issue with one elite group creating standards of excellence for all is that even the measure of performance is constructed with bias.

“Production Outcomes” and “Measuring of Outcomes”

With the revamping of the education system and the establishment of new standards, the government needed a way to measure these specific performance outcomes to ensure that the standards they set in place would be met by students. This need led to the creation of the EQAO and in turn the implementation of the OSSLT, which is deeply entrenched into the education system today. The state uses the OSSLT as a tool to assess student learning and market its neoliberal ideology.

In Sweet’s (2006) essay, he explained that with standardized assessments, “test content is equivalent across administrations and the conditions under which the test is administered are the same for all test takers” (p. 113). Although it may seem that standardized tests give all students an equal opportunity for success, this is nowhere close to the truth. Educators understand the need to differentiate their instruction because not all students learn in the same manner. Learning is a continual process, and as such, the teacher should not be removed from the evaluation process of their students.

In 1996, Bill 30, an act to establish the Education Quality and Accountability Office was mandated: “The EQAO is a semi-independent government agency, apart from the Ministry of Education” (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003, p. 15). The purpose of establishing it was to develop, manage, administer, mark, and report on standardized testing. The grade 10 Literacy Test (OSSLT) was administered in the fall of 2001 as a pilot and then fully implemented in 2002. It continues to be administered each year. Researching, collecting data, and reporting back to the government is also a major role of the EQAO. This led to the establishment of the Educational Quality Indicators Program (EQUIP), which is an information system that looks at indicators of success, such as “measures of family income, parent education levels, language preferences, family status, and stakeholder satisfactions on school quality and climate” (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003, p. 16).

Part of the government mandate also includes allowing the EQAO to “develop accountability mechanisms to require schools and districts to submit school improvement plans that reflect results on provincial testing measures, stakeholder surveys, and locally-generated data on school performance and needs” (Ibid., 2003, p. 16). This was another manipulative strategy on the part of the state to place blame on individual schools or boards, instead of acknowledging poor student performance due to a lack of funding. If students are not performing as they should be, the state simply says that some students, schools, and boards are not working as hard as others. Competing and pitting schools against each other places pressure on schools, administrators, teachers, and students alike. It also puts the attention on the scapegoats, instead of on those who are actually responsible for the state-based turn and its ramifications. With the establishment of the EQAO, testing has become entrenched into the system. It has also become one of the primary tools that the state uses to reaffirm capitalism and deflect blame for a failing system.

From the beginning, the OSSLT was not received in a positive light by students, teachers, or school administrators. Approximately 30,000 students failed it in the initial two years (Kalinowski, 2003). To provide more recent statistics, in the 2016-2017 school year, of the 127,142 students who wrote the test for the first time, 19% (24 612) were unsuccessful. EQAO touts that over the past five years, the success rate has remained high and relatively unchanged, between 81 to 83 %. It was also mentioned that there was a seven-percentage-point decrease over a five-year period from 2013 through 2017 for those students enrolled in applied level courses. Furthermore, the gap between those in the academic level courses compared to those in the applied level courses was significant. Ninety-two percent of academic students successfully passed the test compared to only 44% of applied students (EQAO, 2017a).

It should also be noted that significant changes to the provincial program policy were made because specific populations of students were unsuccessful, resulting in an inequitable distribution of success rates across streams (Anderson & Jafaar, 2003). As each year passed and more students took the test, the EQAO made alterations to the test to ensure the required results. For example, the test went from being two days in length to being only half a day. Other changes made, such as the length and number of testing booklets, the set up, and the content have all impacted test results.

Even though it is evident that standardized testing is to the detriment of the student, it has been implemented in the school system because it benefits the promotion of capitalistic values and social mobility. As Sweet (2006) pointed out,

Standardized testing is a sorting mechanism that is sensitive to rewarding certain classes, races, and even people with particular ideological dispositions; making sure those at the top believe in the current class distinctions and ways of maintaining and perpetuating them. (p.11)

Although there are plenty of mechanisms to ensure the reproduction of unearned privilege, standardized testing is yet another tool that adds to the replication of social hierarchies. Horace Mann explained that “standardized tests would not only prove useful in defining desired worker abilities and choosing workers, but the tests would also prove the most powerful means of controlling what is done in the school” (Gallagher, 2003, p. 112). And as Gatto (2009) argued “The production of high standardized test scores correlates with almost nothing of value” (Gatto, 2009, p. 148) and test rankings are falsely linked to real word excellence:

…rig the game in advance…if you only license people with high test scores, regardless of actual merit in designing buildings, removing tonsils, or teaching school, then you create a world of self-fulfilling prophecy in regard to test scores. (p.153-154)

Conclusion

This chapter examined policy, such as bills and acts, which were analysed in order to understand why and how education took a state-based turn towards neoliberalism. They were examined as an extension of the politics in which they were rooted. The chapter establishes that standardized testing policies perpetuate capitalism, and reproduce hegemony and power dynamics. The chapter also followed the state-based turn towards neoliberalism and infusion of neoliberal values into the education system, specifically: privatization and competition, efficiency, centralization of power, deregulation, the elimination of community, accountability, standards of excellence, and the production and measuring of outcomes.

In ‘‘No-one Has Ever Grown Taller as a result of Being Measured Revisited,’’ Sharon Murphy (2001) prescribed six lessons for Canadians to remember when understanding standardized testing. These lessons sum up the nuances of this chapter quite eloquently. The first lesson is that “Neither standards nor standardized testing mean excellence or are a guarantee of excellence” (p. 146). Given this, the time and money that are spent pushing standardized testing into the education system should be reconsidered. The second lesson concerns the manipulation of data such that it “takes on a life of its own” (p. 146) with unintended consequences like immense competition. ability, accounting, and outcomes-based measurement where “test results that are reported numerically, despite cautions of the test developers, take on a life of their own” (p.146) and again remind one of the immense competition that it creates. Murphy’s third lesson warns that “Invariably, the media will misuse information from standardized testing to manufacture news and, in doing so, contribute to making the consequences of such testing much weightier than they should be” (Ibid., 2001, p. 146). The perpetuation of such messages is used to create and push more policy, creating a vicious cycle of power and control. Lesson four, which should be lesson 1 and the biggest lesson here, notes the neoliberal shift in education as it states that, “in a time of globalization, business interests and business ways of thinking have infused public policy and contributed to the move toward standardized testing” (p. 146). The fifth lesson notes that inequalities are created when the achievement gap widens between those in the margins and those who are pushed out:

The consequences of standardized testing can have a negative impact on the quality of education students are receiving and the effects can be particularly detrimental to children whose race, culture, or first language is not that of the majority. (p. 146)

The final lesson speaks for itself and, again, accurately summarizes this chapter. Murphy (2001) discussed how inappropriate implementation and interpretation of standardized testing has allowed politicians to misguide the public, a consequence of which is the destabilization of the education system.

Regardless of which political party is in power, Ontario has inched closer and closer towards capitalism through bills, acts, and policy. And as Ontario’s education system moved towards corporate capitalism, so did its goals. Students were seen as competition and consumers. Those who were successful were rewarded, while those who were not were viewed as losers, pushed further into the margins, and blamed for lack of trying to want to help themselves.

Ricci (2004) made a case against the OSSLT, noting that it is undemocratic. In his plea he stated that “we need to stop this damaging, undemocratic practice immediately” (p. 341). He echoed Chornsky (2000), who claimed that standardized testing “directly and negatively impact the teaching, curriculum…students…schools” (p. 9). The next chapter focuses on first-hand accounts of interviewees, and the actual affects that standardized testing has had on administrators, teachers, and students.

Chapter 5: Educators’ Experiences of Neoliberal Education through the OSSLT

The previous chapters of this study have spoken to the pressures of global economic competition, coupled with the infusion of neoliberal values into education. This backdrop—along with the way that standardized testing has been deeply rooted in our political and educational systems since the nineteenth century, and the need for accountability through results-oriented data—gave rise to the infusion of, normalization, and dependence on the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) in Ontario schools today. In the previous chapter, I analyzed educational and social policies in order to map why and how public education in Ontario took a state-led turn towards neoliberalism. The argument framed these policies as extensions of the overarching process of deregulation and privatization of public welfare, including education. The implementation of these policies reproduced capitalist hegemony and ideologies leading to standardized testing policies embodying the logic of capitalism. The nature of the OSSLT test and use of data collected through it is used by the state to support economic and industry needs and interests rather than to serve the social good and promoting active citizens.

This chapter examines the impact of these neoliberal policies and ensuing education testing paradigms on K to 12 school teachers and administrators, whose experiences have not yet been studied extensively in the literature. Specifically, the chapter analyzes personal interviews with fifteen school administrators (principals and vice principals) and teachers, illuminating their views and experiences of educational testing in general, and the OSSLT, in particular.

Several important themes emerged from these interviews related to the pressures associated with neoliberal values in education. The interviews revealed that testing practices put pressure and stress on teachers and administrators who associate the OSSLT with emotional labour and professional anxiety. Moreover, the interviewees questioned the usefulness of the OSSLT and standardized testing policies in general, rejecting further the social ethics, political morals, and social value of these testing techniques in Ontario and Canada. The interviews also highlighted an essential conflict of interest and a political gap between teachers and administrators whose professional aspirations and commitment to learners diverge in important ways, producing conflicts and paradoxes.

The interviews conducted for this study revealed contradictions between how teachers and school administrators view the OSSLT. The way each group perceived and analyzed the importance of the literacy test has led to several juxtapositions, with each having contradictory standpoints on neoliberalism. The interviews illuminated how teachers and school administrators extend the values of capitalism into their given roles and how the OSSLT serves as a tool that holds them to account. Competition and accountability are essential neoliberal values and the OSSLT has become necessary to embedding these values into Ontario’s education system.

The interview data revealed that school administrators valorized the test in connection to the culture of capitalism; they promoted an education that serves the global economy. The school administrators’ main task focused on data, or accounting, and obtaining the highest score possible on the test. This would lead to a job done well for them and bring security to their school and students. This objective promotes a culture of competition through the use of OSSLT data, accounting, and accountability. The school principals saw their role from a managerial perspective; their job was to ensure that teachers and students did their jobs, to achieve results. The government has used the role of the school administrator to push a neoliberal agenda for education. School administrators implement profit and score-based education because they understand education to be an economy of skills for individuals who need to be trained for jobs after high school.

The philosophy of the teachers who were interviewed was different and greatly contrasted that of the school administrators. The teachers believed in education for students who would graduate as successful, happy, and empowered citizens. Such an education involves educating the whole child, in a democratic sense. Throughout the interviews, participating teachers expressed a lack of support and understanding by their administrators. They felt powerless against the test which they felt consumed their time and their lessons but did little to prepare their students for life after high school. This emotional labour on a daily basis—along with feelings of being confused, powerless, and voiceless—demonstrates how massive the impact of the test is for some teachers. After coding and analyzing the interviews, three overarching themes emerged from the responses. Each of the themes reveals a significant juxtaposition of perspectives in the responses given by teachers compared to school administrators.

The first difference involves competing viewpoints on the OSSLT itself. The interviews revealed that school administrators and teachers had two very distinct ways of looking at what students should be learning. The school administrators wanted teachers to teach to the test by covering test material in student lessons and using past student data to inform their teaching to ensure high test scores. In contrast, teachers wanted to educate the whole child in order to prepare them to become good and productive citizens. The second contrast concerns the fact that what happened on and around the OSSLT differed from what students experience in the daily classroom setting, in terms of teaching and testing. This contradiction was voiced mainly by the teachers. The third disparity relates to the purpose of education and this was expressed by both teachers and school administrators. While the government pushes the values of neoliberalism in education through the OSSLT, teachers and school administrators promote the values of democracy. The educators emphasised that successful education builds good character, uplifting both students and society together. The belief that the OSSLT lacked a real-world connection was noted by all participants. There was a general consensus expressed that the test did not foster, nor did it measure many of the skills that are important to being a good worker and a good citizen in the world today. The participants believed the purpose of education is to shape the character of students, enhance their social mobility by providing them with the tools to think critically and problem solve, and enhance their lives. They did not see the OSSLT doing this for students.

Pedagogical Testing: Competing Perspectives Related to the OSSLT

The purpose of the literacy test was deliberated earlier in this thesis. After establishing the infusion of neoliberalism into Ontario education, the OSSLT was discussed as being a tool to further Ontario’s neoliberal agenda. After analyzing the interviews, it became apparent to me that the OSSLT is being used to align teachers and students with the demands, goals, and policies of the Ontario government. It also seems as if school administrators are being directed to ensure this alignment becomes stronger and more normalized each year; the government creates concepts and ideas for public education and then uses these administrators to ensure that their theoretical frameworks become practice in teachers’ classrooms.

Administrators and teachers in this study viewed the OSSLT in two dissimilar ways because they saw different purposes for this test. Administrators saw it as a tool that directly reports on how well or poorly their school compares to others in the province. The testing makes school

83 administrators look in/efficient and keeps them accountable. Hence, administrators’ goals for their schools are data- and consequence-driven. On the other hand, teachers see the test as a one- day inconvenience that hinders them from teaching the curriculum they are mandated to teach and stops them from educating the whole child because they have to teach to the test. This contradiction demonstrates that education philosophies were very different for the school administrators and teachers. However, what is even more important, is that this contradiction has been created by the neoliberal agenda and pushed by the OSSLT.

This theme emerged when exploring how the participating teachers talked about what they expected to happen in education, in contrast to what was actually happening in their daily practice, specifically with their students and within their classrooms. This incoherence was addressed by all of the teachers repeatedly through their interviews. Although this was a theme that all participants spoke to multiple times, there was a distinct difference in the way that school administrators addressed what should be happening in education. They described their educational philosophy, specifically their theoretical ideas and processes, without offering any understanding of what was truly happening with students in the classrooms. The administrators’ views seemed to be informed by the neoliberal agenda coming from government policy demands, e.g., the mandate to improve test scores. The administrators spoke from a place of assumptions and expectations as to what they believed should be happening, instead of what they were actually observing. In contrast, the teachers measured education on individual success and happiness, paying little attention to the neoliberal agenda for education.

Administrators’ Perspective

All of the administrators spoke to how they felt education should look and what they thought teachers should be doing. In doing so, they spoke about the OSSLT and how they used test performance data to guide school practice. For them, it would seem that the one-day literacy test held greater importance than daily classroom teaching. Their voices were similar to those of managers who ensure great results.

Principal J.F. explained that leading up to the OSSLT, “the regular class work that is scheduled for that day is put aside and we do literacy…so that our scores can go up” (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015). This administrator was clearly motivated to increase scores in his school. Many other administrators spoke about test results, a great fear of not performing to

84 standards, and having to pay the consequences of poor test results. For example, they spoke about how students would leave their schools or opt to go elsewhere. Decreased student enrolment leads to a decrease in funding and an accompanying decrease in teachers and teaching support. If a school’s literacy test results decrease, then the principal might have to face this domino effect of consequences. As Principal J.F. described, “A lot of parents look at the results…and compare one school against another …if we want to remain a viable school, we have to do better on the literacy test” (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015). The administrators also spoke with great concern about competition and how scores are used to pit one school against another. This competition is a fear and a burden that teachers do not need to understand or worry about because OSSLT results do not directly impact teacher evaluation or compensation. Yet, administrators must be concerned with it and keep it at the forefront of their management every day, leading up to, and following test day.

For these reasons, administrators may see their role as ensuring teachers are teaching to the test so that their school’s EQAO data will demonstrate to parents and the community that students here are meeting the standard. Administrators understand the optics of test results for their school and so they push teachers to ensure the test is put at the forefront of their teaching. For their part, teachers view administrators as policing or managing them, with demands for more targeted instruction and teaching to the test. All of the administrators felt that the OSSLT was necessary in theory, as this tool was necessary to measure student success and hold educators accountable to high teaching practices. As Principal R.G. put it:

I think it is a good tool. It gives you sort of a temperature measurement as to how students are doing. It’s common throughout the whole province. So I think there is some value to having a common test throughout the province as a measuring stick to see how students are doing. (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015)

High achievement on the test, in the administrators’ view, translates to learners being more scholastically apt and prepared; all of the school principals touted that standards were needed. They also talked about using OSSLT data to examine achievement gaps that could be targeted in their (government mandated) school improvement plan (SIP) for improving results. Ironically, the principals also stated that the OSSLT was not a true reflection of the students’ abilities or performance; they expressed confusion about how measurement and accountability could be fueled by a snapshot of student performance based on a one-day test. They made mention that

85 the test was this massive entity that students had to endure for one day a year and for which they would have to wait in anticipation and apprehension for months until the results came in.

From this understanding that the test was necessary in theory, one primary assumption was identified. Administrators were quick to assume that the data from the OSSLT results would help teachers improve their classroom practice and in turn lead to increased student scores. This assumption was that teachers could readily connect test results to their classroom practice. For instance, if students performed poorly on one section of the test, teachers would then place more emphasis and spend more time teaching that content to the next cohort of students. However, when they were asked if teachers used the OSSLT data to improve their classroom practice, none of the administrators were sure if they did. They were making assumptions that if teachers were provided with past student performance data, they would be able to use it to inform their practice. For example, Principal R.G. stated, “I think we are hoping that teachers are looking at assessment data…making judgments about what areas they need to focus more on in their classrooms…looking at their own practice…so that students can improve…” (R.G., personal interview, 2015).

Again, this was an expectation that administrators had for teachers, but no one was certain about if it was truly occurring. Retired Principal J.T., for example, explained that there was no quantifiable way to ensure that teachers were changing their practice: “I don’t know, it depends on the teacher because we don’t measure it” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015). Another interviewee commented that teachers and administrators view the test differently and that it is not seen as important to teachers: “No. I don’t think they do…many teachers are not too concerned with the level that’s achieved for the school…some teachers may not see the importance of that” (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015).

According to Principal J.F., teachers in his school did connect the test results to classroom practice, but again his response was based on an expectation that it was the responsibility of teachers to help increase students’ scores. His response also came from a place of fear that if his school didn’t meet the provincial standard, they would face consequences for it:

We make literacy our focus in our school…we have been a school with declining enrolment and we are compared and judged with the schools around us, and to think that we are not you would have to be incredibly naïve…it is an entire school responsibility and that we expect everyone to do their part and to

help so that our scores can go up. (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015)

Principal J.T. shared this concern about schools being compared to each other and the consequences for administrators:

It certainly is a big thing that parents look at and determine when they are looking at school districts and look at different schools, if they see a school district or school that has very high literacy scores those schools are much more sought-after … it makes a difference …they equate it to success. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

As evidenced by the quotes above, there was pressure on the administrators to obtain high scores on the literacy test at their schools. Throughout the interviews, they spoke openly about how they would find specific and targeted ways to improve their school’s results. For example, in order to decrease failure rates, some administrators implemented programs, such as practice tests, that would prepare students for the OSSLT. Providing students with a means of practising for the test helped students view the literacy test as more than just a one-day assessment. Other initiatives geared to prepare students for the test included after school literacy programs conducted by a paid teacher, literacy blitzes, assemblies, and professional learning for teachers. Again, though the administrators implemented these kinds of programs, they were not certain of the impact inside classrooms. Vice Principal S.M. explained:

We look at the results of the tests… what kind of program we need to offer… where students are practicing the different activities and they become more familiar with the format of the test…looking at figuring out the needs of our school where the deficits and the overall OSSLT and how does it again compare with our classroom data, what are some common themes we can identify that we can either engage in professional learning or provide additional resources to students. (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

This vice principal, who had literacy in her portfolio, was well versed in the data, needs, and additional programming and strategies that could be used to improve results; however, she was not able to speak to whether teachers were really using the tools and if students were learning from them.

School administrators talked about how far they would go to be successful on the literacy test, or how far they would go in order for their school to ‘win’ the competition. They expressed that there is a lot at stake for them—their jobs and status as an effective administrator, the reputation

87 of their school, and depending on how they fared, a loss or gain in their status, influence, and power. One such example was how they would influence results by deferring students who were not prepared to write the test, or those who would fail because of a lack of language proficiency. Principal J.F. spoke about how he chose to manipulate the system to benefit the ELL students by deferring them from writing the test based on his determination of if they were ready to write. He knew they would not be successful on the test and therefore formulated a way to put them into the literacy course as soon as possible. Principal J.F. understood the system and worked within the EQAO rules to ensure students were serviced appropriately. In turn, his school’s results would not be lowered by students who would fail if they took the test:

We exempt that student in ELL, we do things a little differently. We don't just use a level E as the reason we offered deferral. We work closely with the ESL teachers and the students and students are deferred until the teacher says that they are ready to write the test. That they have language acquisition. It makes no sense to send a person to write the test who has been in Canada for less than a year because then they would likely be unsuccessful. For a lot of those students, we defer them. When we don't do that is sometimes if a student comes to us later in Grade 11 or Grade 12. They need to write the test even if they are unsuccessful so that they can take the literacy course because they want to go on to university and regardless of the fact that those kids (VISA students) and their families are paying a great deal of money for them to come to school. So, we try and expedite things and even maybe if they are not ready to write a test, we will allow them to do it even though it is likely they will not be successful on the test, but that will allow them to take the literacy course. (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015) Vice Principal S.M. also spoke to impacting data by deferring students based on their emotional well-being: “We look at a student's social-emotional well-being…the whole practice of that [OSSLT] causes more damage than any benefit that it would create” (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015). This instance is not something that EQAO guidelines account for when permitting deferrals, but something that administrators feel they are justified in doing when they look at individual learner’s needs. As Principal J.F. put it, “We do whole school initiatives...we also do supporting individuals, we identify those at risk and we provide them with extra support. All of those things help them to be successful” (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015). The general consensus for administrators was that if programming and supports are in place, then they will be carried out by teachers; students would then be successful, which in turn raises scores.

Foucault (1982) stated that “subjectivity constantly changes as we go through spaces that are laced with power” (p. 794). It seems as if the more administrators embraced the test and enforced and perpetuated it, the more they were in agreement with the neoliberal assumptions and values behind it. For example, the administrators expressed the need for having a measuring tool. At the same time, they spoke about the unfairness of some aspects of the test. There was a paradox in the way they felt about the need for the test in theory, but then expressed how flawed it is in application. To illustrate, Principal J.F. spoke about the test as being an important measuring tool. However, when asked if the test was necessary, he responded by saying: “Yes, I guess it's necessary…I don't believe the test it is fair…And I would not make it a graduation requirement” (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015). In theory, he was accepting of the test for accountability purposes; however, when he contemplated the test in practice, he struggled with issues of fairness and the fact that it was high-stakes.

When asked if the test was necessary, Vice Principal R.G. commented, “I don’t know if it’s necessary, but I think it is a good tool.” After echoing government policy, he began to reference the test in terms of data and the reasons that some schools fare lower than others. For example, he made reference to socioeconomic status as being a large factor for student success:

But we always have to keep other factors in mind when you look at literacy test results. Poorer results may indicate other things such as socioeconomic status. Some of the areas that have less access to resources that will help you prepare for the literacy test or even just having parents in the home that are already post-secondary educated can help their children with literacy skills because they themselves have them. (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015)

Vice Principal R.G. then formed his paradoxical conclusion for the necessity of the test:

So the literacy test is good but we also have to keep it in the back of our mind that just because we have an area that has poor results, it’s not just that there is a problem with the school but the school has to work harder because they have to provide the same sort of training and experience that may be in more affluent areas that school doesn’t have to work as hard because the kids get it at home. (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015)

Like other administrators, retired Principal J.T. believed that the test should not be so high stakes or formal, but that it was necessary in theory. He said, “Maybe not as formally done as it is, but I think it is necessary in order to be able to measure at certain time periods through the education

89 system” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015). He then spoke to the neoliberal value of accountability and specifically the need for the data:

I think that the data that you collect helps you address any concerns you might have with the individual student and also it kind of gives a report card for how the system is doing and what direction is it going. It can always be tweaked. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

Even more importantly, Principal J.T. spoke to his initial feelings about the test and how they had changed over time: “At first I was very much opposed to it, but as I kind of went through it after a number of years, I could see the value to it and I could see the importance of it” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015). He went on to mention a political aspect of the test and expressed a gut feeling that it could have been imposed on education for this reason: “At first I thought that it was being imposed politically. It was a political thing in order to advance, you know, a certain political party’s agenda as opposed to, is it the best thing for kids?” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015). I observed (Field Note, November 25, 2015) that Principal J.T. paced the room as he went on to speak about the great standardized testing debate and his views on it: “And there’s always going to be a debate about standardized testing regardless, but I think that standardized testing, as long as it’s not looked at alone but, together with other factors, together with other assessments,…is valuable” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015). Again, he coupled the need for the test in theory with a belief that it should not stand alone when looking at the whole child.

Teachers’ Perspectives

The teachers had no hesitation explaining how they felt about the expectation that they should be changing their classroom practices to improve OSSLT test results. When they were asked what they did with the results, the responses were a unanimous “nothing.” Special Education Teacher D.V. stated, “Absolutely nothing, because we do have very intelligent students who are sometimes not successful on the literacy test. It just depends on the frame of mind that the student is in that day writing the test” (D.V., personal communication, November 17, 2015). English Teacher B.S. simply shook his head and stated, “None” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). Some of the teachers explained why they saw very little use for the OSSLT results in informing their classroom practice. Student Success Teacher LT spoke very candidly

90 stating, “I don’t think any teacher makes an overt effort to do anything related to the OSSLT” (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015).

Teachers consider a multitude of factors when designing a course, creating lessons, and making assessments. However Special Education Department Head D.G. explained that OSSLT test results were not at the forefront of what helped her plan for her courses, nor did she use them to create assessments that would measure her students understanding of the curriculum:

I place very little value on the test results because in the grand scheme of things…they don’t necessarily help drive classroom practice, so as a teacher, they are not as valuable to me when I am actually doing my course planning and my assessments. (D.G., personal interview, November 23, 2015)

The interviews also highlighted the fact that the teachers did not see the necessity of the test in the same way that the administrators did. For example, Special Education Department Head D.G. discussed the impact of the OSSLT in terms of time, money, and the stress placed on students:

The OSSLT is absolutely not necessary. Passing the English courses should be enough. I think the test results often reflect a student population and the pool of students that happen to be in that classroom, in that year, in that situation are only moderately affected by the actual practices of a school. So, the publishing and the preparation of the results and the amount of time and investment that is put into these results is a waste of our public funds. A waste of a whole lot of teacher prep-time and the creation of a lot of unnecessary stress in students’ lives. (D.G., personal interview, November 23, 2015) All of the teachers’ responses revealed that they believed what they were teaching and how they were teaching was for the benefit of students, both in and after high school. They struggled with the OSSLT because they did not see how this test benefited students. Administrators, on the other hand, never mentioned students in their interviews, unless it was superseded by the word ‘data.’ Teachers spoke about students in a parallel way to the way that administrators spoke to data, competition, and accountability. When explicitly asked if the OSSLT was necessary, English Teacher B.S. responded, “No it is not because kids express themselves in a variety of areas especially in today's very multicultural, very Special Ed and ESL environment which is part of any school and at least at any city school” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). This veteran teacher continued his response by comparing the relevance of the standardized literacy test for students to the teacher performance appraisal process: “And what difference does it make if they passed a standardized test? It's just a snapshot on one day. It's about as relevant as

91 a teacher being evaluated. How could one evaluate a teacher in a 20-minute snapshot?” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). Coincidentally, as discussed previously, both of these policies were implemented by Ontario governments in the move towards neoliberalism.

When teachers were asked what value they placed on the OSSLT, an almost unanimous “nothing” was their response. One reason that might account for this sentiment is that if test scores go down, teachers are not accountable in the same way as administrators. They do not see competition as a driving force when educating students. Also, if teachers feel students are intelligent in multiple ways, then a one-day literacy test is not something they put much weight on. Teachers will formulate their own opinions on a student’s abilities, regardless of how they fared on this snapshot-in-time test. Teachers have firsthand knowledge and experience of their students from working with them on a daily basis. They know that students learn in a variety of ways and that there are many factors that contribute to individual success; what a student has learned cannot always be demonstrated on paper in one single day. French Teacher and Board Consultant S.H. said:

I don't place very high value on the test results…there are different ways to measure learning, skill development and knowledge than in a standardized test and I think many teachers feel that way as well… I think we have to look at a number of different inputs in order to determine something like a school ranking or effectiveness of a school or a specific class, or a cohort of kids. (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015)

Assistant Head of Special Education A.B. echoed these remarks in saying:

It’s a tool, one tool. It shouldn’t be the only tool, but there is so much emphasis put on that one thing. I feel that there is an awful lot of emphasis put on the literacy test when it is a single tool in a tool kit. (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015)

Head of Guidance C.C. referenced a number of government policy initiatives that have been implemented specifically to increase graduation rates and decrease failure rates. Programs such as Learn to 18 and Credit Recovery have kept students in school longer and have made it easier for them to pass from one grade to another without developing the foundation they need to be successful post-high school:

I don’t place any value on it. I don’t see that it necessarily makes our students better graduates. There are other things that the province could spend their money on. Learn to 18 has created an entire generation that understands that

there is credit recovery. That you can get a 51% and you can pass. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

C.C. continued her response by discussing the character traits she believes students should possess in order to be successful after high school—something that the literacy test is not able to measure. She ended her interview by questioning the education system and what type of learners are being created with the new government policies:

We are not creating learners with a mind-set that is a growth mind-set. That means that I am going to persevere, I’m going to be responsible, I’m going to work hard, I’m going to meet challenges; in terms of doing my work. We’re not, it’s a scary generation that we’re creating of learners. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

Finally, a Student Success Teacher L.T. commented that she didn’t think that the test had a lot of value in the big picture. She mentioned that various aspects of the test are unfair to students and she doubted the value of the questions on the test, its subjectivity, and the way in which it does not treat all students in an equitable manner:

I think the questions or reading a lot of the times are opinion-based. I don't think that the kids can connect to the readings a lot of the times that are selected…. I think the opinion questions are great, but I think a lot of the times they are almost like the test is there to try and trick them. They are intentionally going out of their way to choose words too, that kids are not going to know or topics that not everyone could connect to…. I don't think it connects to the whole idea of differentiation in education. It doesn't apply on the literacy test. It's a one size fits all literacy test and that's not fair. (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

As mentioned, administrators and teachers saw different purposes for the OSSLT. Teachers noted that the purpose of the test was to provide student performance data for the ministry so that data could support and drive government decision making. They were not as affected by the results of the test and there was no direct impact on them or their jobs if student results were below the provincial standard. Administrators, on the other hand, believed that the test is necessary in theory; however, they did not necessarily agree that it should be high-stakes and formal. They were cognizant of the fact that parents use the OSSLT results to determine the choice of school and district and that they equate high test results to success. They acknowledged that test results have a direct result on their school enrolment and consequences if student success rates are not above average. The OSSLT results elicit judgements on the school from

93 parents, superintendents, trustees, and the rest of the community. The pressure that is placed on school principals to produce high scores is pushed on to their teachers with the edict to teach to the test.

OSSLT versus Daily Classroom Instruction

The second major theme and paradox that emerged from the interview responses concerns how the OSSLT impacts everyday classroom practice and instruction. When interviewees began contrasting the OSSLT to the way teachers provide daily classroom instruction, there seemed to be a large discrepancy between what the administrators and the teachers had to say. The responses of the teachers stemmed from the fact that they are far more closely connected to daily practice than any other educational stakeholders; the direct comparison of the OSSLT to their daily classroom instruction and understanding the impact on students was more evident and even natural for them. Teachers had issues with the content, format, and process of the OSSLT when compared to regular classroom instruction. They also expressed difficulty with seeing the test as an accurate and reliable measurement tool. Teachers understand that students learn in a variety of ways through multiple means, yet they are instructed to prepare them for the OSSLT by teaching specifically to it.

Content of the OSSLT Versus the Content in Daily Classroom Teaching

In order to understand how power is perpetuated through this testing tool of neoliberalism, one must explicitly ask what the OSSLT is really measuring. The paradox that teachers and administrators face is whether the literacy test actually measures literacy, or something else. Based on the ministry’s definition alone, the OSSLT does not meet or measure all of the literacies included in 21st century learning, instead, it only measures the traditional modes of literacy, which are reading and writing on a paper-based test.

EQAO states that the purpose of the OSSLT is to test a student’s literacy skills up until the end of grade 9 (Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2017a). The literacy test is based on the provincial curriculum, wherein the ministry describes literacy as:

The ability to use language and images in rich and varied forms to read, write, listen, speak, view, represent, discuss and think critically about ideas…. Literacy enables us to share information and to interact with others…. (Ontario. Ministry of Education, 2018b)

… the capacity to access, manage, create and evaluate information, think imaginatively and analytically, communicate thoughts and ideas effectively, apply metacognitive knowledge and skills, develop a sense of self-efficacy and an interest in life-long learning.... (Ontario. Ministry of Education, 2013) The development of literacy is a complex process that involves building on prior knowledge, culture, and experiences in order to instill new knowledge and deepen understanding (Ontario, 2013, p. 3). When talking about the OSSLT, teachers stated that it only measures traditional modes of literacy. This test assesses a student’s ability to read, write, effectively communicate, and follow instructions in English, using a paper-based format. English Teacher B.S. explained:

I think in an elementary way, given its standardization, it doesn't measure all the major skills, but it does measure some skills that are foundational to success anywhere…traditional notions of reading, writing, and communicating fluently and competently despite the purpose or context or form. (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015)

Along the same lines, Guidance Counsellor C.C. commented that students no longer read newspaper articles in print format and testing them on how to write one does not necessarily serve the purpose of testing their literacy skills. She stated that it is somewhat confusing to them:

To understand what the difference is between a newspaper report versus what they’re used to actually. Students often will mix up what they think they are to write with what they are asked to write because sometimes is not within their cultural milieu. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

Similarly, an English teacher commented on the validity of the test, because some students have trouble processing or understanding the question being asked of them. This hinders how they respond to and answer the question, and ultimately impacts their performance on the written component. Unfortunately, teachers are not able to provide students with clarification about what test questions are asking. In fact, teachers are not allowed to answer any student questions during the test.

All of the interviewees expressed that there are many things that the test was not measuring and therefore, it cannot truly gauge a student’s literacy skills. They mentioned that the test should include oral, digital, and visual literacies—such as the ability to read and comprehend charts and symbols—in its content. Vice Principal S.M. remarked, “I think the content is a limitation” (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015). She then listed a series of questions that reflected on the content of the test and whether it is equitable for all:

How do you know you are providing students all with the same opportunity on the test based on the content of the articles? It’s a standardized test and there are significant concerns about bias. Who’s writing the test? What is their background? What do they think the students should know? What the students’ experiences are and whether they value the same thing. (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

Many teachers discussed what the test lacked by using their own definition of what literacy truly meant to them. French Teacher and Board Consultant S.H. expressed her definition of literacy as being “the ability to read and express oneself both in written form and oral form, not subject specific but just a citizen of this world” (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015). Similarly, Special Education Teacher D.V. shared:

Literacy would be able to read, speak, write about the world around you, but it can be different for different people, like symbols, or there could be digital literacy for the kids on the spectrum they could be using a whole variety of things so they have different communication systems depending on what level they are at. (D.V., personal interview, November 17, 2015)

As educators expressed what literacy meant to them, it became more and more evident that the OSSLT was missing elements that they felt were important. The teachers talked about multiple ways of being literate and that literacy did not just involve the subject of English. For example, Head of Guidance C.C. said:

There are different kinds of literacy. It isn’t one specific area—writing and reading comprehension—but you can have numerical literacy, scientific literacy. There are a variety of literacy that you can have. It is not just specific to reading and writing English. Literacy has a very wide range. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

Student Success Teacher L.T. spoke to visual literacy and critical thinking:

Literacy is the ability to read. To gather information. To understand and comprehend the information that we are gathering. To visually look at something and understand what that means whether we are talking about a chart and to critically think about that and apply it. (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

French Teacher and Board Consultant S.H. put it very eloquently when she stated, “It’s the way that we learn. I think that sometimes literacy is very narrowly defined as specific to reading and writing, but I think we have to look at a broader definition of literacy…Literacy really means learning” (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015). She moved away from literacy being

96 the end result and looked at it as the entire process of learning as well. Similarly, English Teacher M.P. said that literacy involved:

…being able to interact with the world in a variety of different mediums, whether it be a handheld device, a computer, written form, oral communication, written communication, being able to critically think and analyze, being able to derive at positions or decisions based on interacting with language either verbally or in reading form, in written form or in discussions, and being able to have clarity of expression whether it be in written form or order form to get along in the world and being able to interact at a variety of different levels because literacy is important not only in jobs but also when you interact with situations of government because we all come into contact and have to interact whether it be renewing your driver's license, doing our taxes, whatever it is there’s always that interaction and literacy is all part of that. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

English Teacher B.S. also mentioned that “the love of reading is something that I don't know if the OSSLT mentions, but if you really enjoy reading, it is something that you will do better on in the OSSLT” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015).

Eight of the interviewees specifically spoke to the need for literacy to transcend beyond words to encompass how the student learns from reading and transfers that knowledge in order to better understand and benefit in everyday life. Although this is another theme on its own, it also connects to the way that teachers define literacy and how the OSSLT is not able to measure this aspect. As English Teacher M.P. put it:

Literacy is being able to read, write and communicate independently, be independent in a manner that is demanded by said context and purpose… knowing the purpose of communication, understand the text on its surface, but also the subtext, but also then to be able to pick up on connections or the hypertext, so all those multiple dimensions of a single text which requires engagement of the text as an active reader and active learner. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

Similarly, Special Education Department Head D.G. explained:

I think literacy is your ability to interact with the world around you and so that can be anything. Any different medium that you choose whether it be interacting with technology, with people, with words that are in print, with the verbal communication, it's really just about interacting and responding to communicate within whatever form is necessary (D.G., personal interview, November 23, 2015)

When explicitly asked, none of the participants were aware of the Ministry of Education’s definition of literacy. Many used their own teaching and life experiences to create their own definition of literacy and it is this definition that they worked towards in their classrooms through daily lessons. English Teacher M.P. stated, “I guess in discussions, though, going to presentations and seminars, listening to people talk about it, discussing it in professional groups and developing your own your notion of it, your own experience and background and viewpoint” (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015). The concept of literacy for teachers transcended beyond the classroom to equip students to be successful in the real world. The definition of literacy, for both administrators and teachers, was presented as a fluid one that would change as time progressed. It was also framed by the needs of the labour market at the time. As Guidance Counsellor C.C. explained, “That’s what our goal is for any child who goes through [school] because if you are not literate, if you aren’t able to use those skills, it’s hard to be a life-long learner” (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015). Kearns (2011) interviewed youth who failed the OSSLT. She found that “youth saw literacy as a process that takes place over time in a supportive environment and in relationship with others” (p. 121).

Format of the OSSLT Versus the Format of Daily Classroom Teaching

The format of the OSSLT has changed since its inception in February 2002, and has gone from five hours over two days in the fall (October) to two and a half hours (two 75-minute blocks) on one half-day in the spring (April and May). Initially, two booklets—one each for reading and writing—were used and students would read the questions and record their answers directly below them. Today, the OSSLT is comprised of four booklets—two question booklets, and two other booklets in which students record their responses. On October 20, 2016, there was an attempt to make the test-taking and marking more efficient and cost effective by having students take the test online; however, the server crashed and the attempt was abandoned. The paper-and- pencil test was quickly reinstated for the second round of the test on March 30, 2017.

EQAO makes mention that the test is designed to measure whether or not students are meeting the minimum standard for literacy across all subjects by the end of grade 9 (Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2017a). All of the interviewees noted that there are issues with giving a test of such magnitude in one half day only. They noted that it is not the most conducive way to

98 measure the literacy of a child, nor is it fair or feasible to get accurate results from all of the students who write it. Vice Principal S.M. commented:

It's a pen and paper test on one day on one morning and there's no opportunity for students to ask questions, to seek any sort of clarification; so, if they don't understand or they misunderstand or they misinterpret one thing, it can impact their results. So, I think the format is a limitation. (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

Classroom instruction also covers ministry-mandated curriculum, but has the luxury of time to do so over a period of five months. This time enables the teacher to cover the course content with more focus and emphasis on each expectation that students need to learn; it allows teachers to teach a lesson, assess it, and provide timely and effective feedback on how students can improve and move forward their learning. The literacy test is simply a snapshot in time. In Kearns (2011) interviews with students who failed the OSSLT, one of the students said that she saw classes and teachers as helpful in supporting her and the long-term process of becoming increasingly literate in multiple and complex ways. Kearns explained that, “Her sense of self was affirmed in a relationship with a teacher in the classroom, whereas she perceived a real lack of care from the anonymous feedback of a marker” (p. 120). Another student noted that the OSSLT was not perceived as helpful because the youth did not experience it as meaningful literacy opportunity. As Ellis (2005) confirmed, youth experience opportunities for “positive identity formation” at school when they feel supported and are given the opportunity to feel good about themselves” (p. 120).

Process of the OSSLT Versus the Process in Daily Classroom Teaching

The EQAO claims that educators are involved in all aspects of its assessments. It hires a team of teachers to work on the development of the test using established guidelines. Teachers administer the test using guidelines provided by the EQAO. The EQAO also hires teachers to score the tests using specific scoring methods taught to them by the EQAO. So, although there are claims that teachers have a hand in the process of the OSSLT, their participation is very controlled by the EQAO.

The teachers spoke to the way that the literacy tests are developed, administered, and scored and they stated that subjectivity does exist in the OSSLT. For example, English Teacher M.P., who had the opportunity to mark the OSSLT stated:

The literacy test marking is very subjective. It absolutely depends on who you get… sometimes the person who is marking the test isn’t having a good day. It could probably reflect on how the test was marked. They are given the criteria for all of the questions for what level 1, 2, 3, or 4 looks like so hopefully they’re following those guidelines. Sometimes they don’t. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

On the other hand, Principal J.T. said, “I see a lot of uniformity in departments in terms of structure and approach, which is helpful when you're delivering a common curriculum” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015). He was speaking to the positive aspects of subjectivity, in terms of professional judgement, that actually benefit the learner:

But, there also tends to be room for professional judgment but also room for the student. I think there's always a level of subjectivity in assessment. And we're human. I think that gives us a bit of flexibility to reflect what we know about the student and how they're doing and the gains they are making. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

He went on to explain that subjectivity, when a teacher knows a learner, is a positive thing and that uniformity is not always what is best for the student: “I don't think you can get rid of the subjectivity and I don't think you can impose uniformity because then you're undermining what is good for kids completely” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015).

The expectation of the EQAO is that all students participate in the assessment at least once. However, teachers expressed concern about the validity, fairness, and readiness factors for some students and the effects that writing the test will have on them, specifically special education and English as a Second Language students. If a student is unsuccessful, the ministry states that a plan must be put in place for that student; the student either has to rewrite the test or take the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC). Many teachers feel that the OSSLC is a far better option for those who do not pass the test the first time. As Guidance Counsellor C.C. expressed:

I think the very fact that we have created an Ontario literacy course, says that it is not a high stakes test. I think the Ontario literacy course says in reflection, the province of Ontario has discovered that there are kids that can’t possibly pass that test. It’s not because they are illiterate. It is because in a test situation, they don’t do well. Even given extra time, they don’t do well and they just aren’t capable of passing it. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

100

The EQAO explains that their student achievement information is gathered and compared from year to year. This allows comparison from year to year, so that trends in student literacy performance over time can be determined, e.g., levels of literacy are increasing or decreasing. It also tracks student test-taking cohorts to see if a given cohort has progressed over time, i.e., from Grade 3, to Grade 6, to Grade 10.

The EQAO test booklets contain ‘open response’ questions. There are two ‘long’ answer questions, a one-page news report, and a series of paragraphs (minimum of three) about which students are asked to express an opinion. The test also has about 45 multiple choice questions. There are no ‘true or false’ questions, nor are there any ‘fill-in-the-blank’ questions. Minor changes to the test format are made from year to year; however, this is the extent of the ways that students can demonstrate their understanding. Results are reported as either ‘successful’ or ‘unsuccessful’ and a student must achieve a 75% to pass. In the classroom setting, teachers usually provide a variety of ways for students to demonstrate their learning, such as quizzes, tests, and assignments. They also provide student voice and choice, as Student Success Teacher L.T. described:

I think if I provide an assignment I try and provide options for them whether it's different topics that they can choose from, especially if they are doing an essay, for example, or a series of paragraphs. I almost always give them one or two options or series of options, and a test gives them no options. So, if they don't feel strongly about one, they are out of luck. There is too much riding on those big topics; too many points assigned to that. So that's a problem and the whole fact that in grade 9, for example, when they do the EQAO for Math they have an applied level and an academic level for measuring them at two different standards there, so why not do that again in the literacy skills? (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

The participants spoke to the way in which the OSSLT process was very different than the way teachers deliver the ministry-mandated curriculum in their classrooms on a day to day basis, over the span of a semester. Classroom teachers are given full freedom in teaching the curriculum; they decide how learning and the evaluation of it will look and play out in their classrooms. Teachers create equitable classrooms when they allow students to demonstrate learning in a variety of ways. The lessons, assignments, and assessments are created by them alone or in collaboration with other teachers who know the learning styles and needs of the students they are creating them for. Teachers link lessons to real life and their students’ interests. They create student-centred learning opportunities by planning and delivering lessons that allow for student

101 voice and choice. Students are also given a rubric, or marking scheme, so that they are aware of how they will be evaluated. Teachers are also familiar with student learning needs and provide accommodations to ensure they are able to perform at their best level.

It seems as though the only time teachers were comfortable with the idea of the OSSLT was when students who were not successful were given an alternate avenue; many of them spoke about the literacy course. They seemed more at ease with the fact that if students failed, they could still experience success through this course. They had seen that the success rates for students who took the course were higher than those who took the test. They also felt comfortable in knowing that the literacy course was grounded in classroom-based instruction, over a long period of time. This seemed to be an internal negotiation for the teachers that made student failure on the test become less powerful. Although they did not feel that the course was necessary to establish literacy, the teachers felt that it was one way to loosen the grip of the OSSLT.

The Purpose of Education: Economic Benefit Versus Democracy

A large discrepancy between the Ontario government and the administrators and teachers in schools concerns the idea that achieving success in school (and on the literacy test) somehow equates to success in life and labour after school. While the government pushes neoliberal values through the OSSLT, teachers and school administrators in this study were found to be pushing democratic values through character education and the uplifting of self and society, specifically through the type of real word connections that the OSSLT lacked. Kearns (2016) echoed this the sentiment of teachers, noting that:

In contrast to models of literacy that create and affirm the conditions for people to be free (Freire and Macedo 1987), who advocate for the recognition of multiliteracies (New London Group 1996), who question the dominance of print texts and the devaluation of oral traditions and knowledge, of Indigenous people in particular (López-Gopar 2007), literacy as it is taken up as a state policy, under the umbrella of EQAO’s OSSLT…is rendered administrative and bureaucratic. (p. 122-123)

The Neoliberal Agenda

With the neoliberal shift in education, the purpose of education for the Ontario government has become sorting students into their social positions for life, as required by the business elite and

102 corporations. As such, education continues the cycle of keeping some rich and some poor by perpetuating systemic identification and segregation. Kearns (2011) noted that “current educational policy practices reflect local and global pressures to have a literate workforce” (p. 113). She further explained that other jurisdictions are undergoing a similar change in their education systems “that target youth for testing and monitoring have emerged in other Canadian provinces, and in other countries such as Australia, Britain, New Zealand and the United States” (p. 113). By sorting students for the labour market, education determines the course of a student’s future, while at the same time imposing morals, values, obedience, and socialization into the business model that meet the needs of industrialism. Education has become a system designed in the image of what the elite see as best fit.

The literacy test acts as a tool to fuel these neoliberal values, while ensuring they thrive through education. These values feed into the rhetoric that the world is a globally competitive place and that schools prepare students for life and labour. It also reinforces that poor performance is the result of individual inability, and not a communal responsibility. As such, neoliberal education is normalized and rewarded on an individual basis. This neoliberal agenda clashed strongly with what the school administrators and teachers felt was the true purpose of education. This was one theme where both the administrators and teachers felt the same way. The push for meritocracy and the values of individualism, competition, and accountability through the literacy test were not viewed by the interviewees as being important in preparing students for life after school. Although all interviewees addressed the theme that education is a vehicle to obtaining a successful life and job after schooling, the unanimous belief was that if students focused on having good character, the ability to think critically, and capacity to work collaboratively, they would have success in life, labour, and society.

The interviewees presented a democratic perspective on the purpose of education. All of the participants placed great emphasis on the notion that education should cater to the whole child, meaning that not only should teachers teach the curriculum and prepare students for courses, tests, and assignments, but also prepare them for life by shaping their character. They saw the purpose of education as increasing the social mobility of students to enhance their lives. They believed that education should help students become model citizens and prepare them for the world of work after school. Teachers, specifically, did not see the necessity of the OSSLT; they felt it does not connect to students lives, nor does it link to success in life after school. They did

103 not equate success on the OSSLT to being successful after high school. Therefore, it was difficult for them to see this purpose being fulfilled through the OSSLT.

An ongoing theme in every single interview response about the purpose of education involved character education and linking lifelong learning to social mobility and bettering self and society. More significantly, the interviewees did not express neoliberal values with their answers. Instead, their responses juxtaposed those values. For example, Assistant Head of Special Education A.B. clearly stated that the purpose of education is “to get our students ready to face life. So that's through skills and knowledge and their ability to complete tasks” (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015). She spoke to the knowledge a child should acquire for social mobility, and then she quickly added the character piece noting the importance of “their ability to be strong in who they are and make connections between what they're learning and the real world” (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015). She ended by stating that the role of the teacher was “to help kids reach their goals to where they want to go, you want them to have knowledge to be successful” (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015). Student Success Teacher L.T. echoed the same purpose for education which she stated is “…to prepare students for life in a productive society” (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015). She then added a statement about character: “…the purpose of education then applies to not just learning the skills necessary to be successful in the world, but also the character traits that one likes to see in a society of being able to work together successfully in both social and economic contexts (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015). Vice Principal R.G. held views that were directly in line with the teachers. He shared his belief that “the purpose of education is to have students become well rounded individuals” (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015). He explained that this included “having to be able to read, write, and know content in all areas such as science, math, and anything that they would need to be successful in life” (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015).

Other interviewees spoke to character and knowledge, but expanded on their responses; they spoke about good character leading to good citizenship which could have a positive impact globally, and how combined with critical thinking skills, students could make changes that would help both them and society. For example, when asked about the purpose of education, Assistant Head of Special Education A.B. responded, “to create good citizens for the future…but also making them well-informed.…to have critical thinking where they can make good sound

104 decisions in life and be able to analyze and think about choices that they are making” (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015). She added to this by noting the importance of learning about “making positive choices for themselves for the future….requiring knowledge so then you can learn to use that knowledge in an effective way so that when you go into whatever world you're able to function with different things thrown at you (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015). Along the same lines, Principal J.T. commented that education should provide “…self-discovery of one’s passions and strengths as well as needs to decide on one's own course of life and choices” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015). He emphasised the importance of providing those for each and every individual, so that they are not restricted about their choices due to the lack of literacy skills or any other resource.

English Teacher B.S. bridged the link between education and preparing for society by saying “…beyond the point of giving you basic skills that you need to be an educated human being…. skills in math, English or literacy is to have you see the world …. relate to it as an individual in that society” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). He credited learning by saying that “.... because of your education you can see the world, analyze the world, and make it a better place” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). He concluded by linking the way in which education equates to the quality of life one may have depending on their level of education. He explained that, “studies have shown in parts of the world that have greater education, that area has the prime rate lower, the advancement is higher, their income levels are higher” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). He touted that, “education and success, not only for the individual but for the society itself is very, very important” (Ibid.). This veteran English teacher advised that “if nations or countries don’t invest in education, that’s reflected in the kind of life that their citizens have” (Ibid.).

In a similar way, Guidance Head C.C. commented that the purpose of education is to “make lifelong learners” (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015). She, too, linked education to a better life and social mobility: “I think that in society it’s that connection to a better life” (Ibid.). She posed the important question, “How can you improve your socio-economic status from one generation to another, through an education?” (Ibid.). She then provided an answer to her query by noting that, “The higher level of education that you achieve, it’s seen as connected to a better standard of living” (Ibid.). She then provided an explanation as to why there is a larger student demand to take university compared to college level courses:

105

That’s why I think at schools you see a big push on taking academic classes and getting to University seems to be a goal for almost everybody—even for students for whom maybe that is not the right place for them. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

Guidance Head C.C. also commented that the present education system is failing students because they are simply passed through the system, regardless of how they fair in school. She said, “We fail students…because we don’t allow kids to fail. There is value in failing...value in trying to show kids how to, then search why they failed, and how to overcome it” (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015). She noted that the system does not serve, but rather hinders a child’s education because it lacks character education: “Not all kids are going to be brilliant in all areas, but, if we never allow them to struggle, then they never build up resiliency…between parents who enable them and our inability to fail them, they don’t have resiliency (Ibid.). She went on to speak about the consequences for kids who have no tools to cope: “As a Guidance Counsellor, I see kids who are far more anxious” (Ibid.). She added:

I see parents who are always doing the things for their kids and they are making their kids unable to do them because they haven’t built up the skills to persevere on their own, to be responsible, and to be creative in finding how to solve challenges. (Ibid.)

Limitations of the OSSLT—Lacking a Connection to the Real World

All of the participants spoke to the limitations of the test; however, the teachers also spoke about how the OSSLT is a disservice to students because it does not link to real world applications. For example, Assistant Head of Special Education A.B. commented that the OSSLT “places a lot of emphasis on something like short stories and writing a news report; these are things that you don’t necessarily do in the real world” (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015). Retired Principal J.T. spoke to a hope that teachers could make a connection between the test and real life when he said, “I think the more they see the connection between the test, the more the student is or isn't successful, from the tests they can go and build that into their program... an opportunity to practise and improve those skills” (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015).

There were other comments about what the OSSLT doesn’t capture. French Teacher and Board Consultant S.H. noted that the OSSLT does not test for the love of learning. She commented that education should “instill a sense of lifelong learning in students…a value that we want to leave with our students so that they value learning” (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015).

106

Special Education Teacher D.V. brought up another area for which the OSSLT is silent. This teacher felt that thinking critically is the most important thing education can teach because it allows students to read things, analyze things, and form their own opinions based on their experiences and education. She noted the importance to be able to “learn, to acquire new knowledge, to think critically” (D.V., personal interview, November 17, 2015). Her rationale for this is “…so that in life you can take the knowledge that you have learned and apply it to new situations, that you have a paradigm or model that helps you figure out things learned in school” (Ibid.).

Teachers also spoke to content such as financial literacy, technology, oral proficiency, and creativity that was missing from the OSSLT, but would benefit students in their lives after school. English Teacher B.S., for example, questioned if creativity was or even could be measured on a standardized test like the OSSLT: “I don’t know if creativity is measured on the OSSLT. I think that is something that could be lacking. So, that would definitely be a limit of that test. So how do you measure creativity?” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). A Student Success Teacher reiterated this thinking: “Students aren't able to be creative when completing the literacy test because they have to answer specific questions on certain topics” (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015). She then linked this shortfall as the reason learners are unable to fully demonstrate their learning on this test

Standardized is, by definition, limiting, depending on one's socioeconomic level, one's motivation, one's experiences in school, one’s self identity, and concept and ability, how one feels about oneself in school, and of course as mentioned earlier, it does not allow for them to express oneself orally. (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

Yet, English Teacher M.P. noted that "the limits of the test are based on the structure of the test that doesn’t necessarily reflect real world application. The fact that it is administered in the way that it is” (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015). He went on to explain: “The limits in terms of the time-frame that you have to do so quickly and efficiently and the pressure that it creates by having a time-limit… doesn't necessarily always produce the right result” (Ibid.). He also referenced a mental health component of test anxiety as a factor that may hinder test results noting, “The fact that it is a test and many people deal with test anxiety while they are perfectly capable of performing at a high level outside of a test scenario is also a limit of the OSSLT” (Ibid.).

107

English Teacher B.S. commented that the test does not reflect classroom or real-life situations and that this could impact equity: “The content is a limitation. How do you know you are providing students all with the same opportunity on the test based on the content of the articles? Based on standardization?” He questioned the validity and source of bias on the test:

It’s a standardized test and there are significant concerns about bias. Who’s writing the test? What is their background? What do they think the students should know? What the students’ experiences are and whether they value the same thing. (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015)

Echoing the comments about equity being a limitation, English Teacher M.P. mentioned a few limitations of the test that aren’t considered when it comes to marginalized students:

It can measure your reading and writing and how you can answer questions about certain things, but has limitations. So, for example; you might have a student who has a particular interest. If the question is about that interest they might do really well, but if the next year the question isn’t about their interest, not so good. Same kid, same abilities, but he might do different on different tests. And it would measure with kids on the spectrum who aren’t communicating in different ways. Some of those kids are using iPads to communicate, some sign language to communicate, so they do have a level of literacy but it’s not, it’s obviously not part of the literacy test. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

This lack of real-world connection, the inequity in standardized testing, and confusion about the true purpose of education leaves teachers and school administrators in a very delicate place.

How Teachers and School Administrators Experience the OSSLT

Previous chapters noted that power relations between school administrators and teachers are actually shaped by broader political structures and forces, such as government-mandated educational policies, the neoliberal logic of education, the implementation of standardized testing (specifically the OSSLT) in schools, and the popular public opinion of excellence being based on school rankings as determined by literacy test scores each year. This chapter theorizes that controlling teachers by "policing the curriculum" and testing students represent profound neoliberal turns in education. Educators have experienced this policing and a loss of power, which in turn has impacted their students, both academically and emotionally.

The interview respondents addressed multiple aspects of neoliberal values in education. For example, they commented on the power dynamics between school administrators, teachers, and

108 students in their schools, as well as with parents and the school community at large. Some participants spoke to these power dynamics by explicitly naming the values and effects of neoliberalism in their interviews. Others, while not explicitly naming these values, conversed about them and their impacts. Teachers spoke specifically to the power struggle and conflict they experienced with administrators over the OSSLT. They mentioned that their opposing views over the test impacted the intersectional relationships between administrators, parents, teachers, and students.

The respondents also spoke about the emotions they attached to the OSSLT when they addressed their experiences and those of their students. These emotions were expressed in negative contexts and spoke to the pressures, inequity, and immense loss of power felt by all stakeholders, specifically marginalized students. It is noted that standardized testing, supervision of teachers, and controlling the curriculum constituted a form of policing over creativity and student and teacher behaviour, in order to uphold the neoliberal agenda and interests of capital. Using data and numbers to govern, coupled with an altered definition of the terms ‘equity’ and ‘at risk student’, the new Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum and education is shaped to sort and train workers for the global market economy, not prepare them to be political and critical citizens and subjects.

Values of Neoliberalism that Appeared in Interviewee Responses

Rezai-Rashti, Segeren, and Martino (2017) stated the impact of neoliberalism on education. Globalization in its recent neoliberal articulation has been transforming the social in many parts of the world. In recent years, Global Education Reform Movements, as Sahlberg (2011) has argued, have created significant changes in schooling systems around the globe. The change in curriculum, testing and accountability, governance, private–public partnerships, and more has shifted the meaning of education and the purpose of schooling. Brown (2015) observed that neoliberalism has transformed the main function of secondary and higher education from democratic citizenship to an education system “primarily valuable to human capital development, where human capital is what the individual, the business world, and the state seek to enhance in order to maximize competitiveness” (p. 175–176). The significant changes to the purpose of schooling discussed above have shifted the conception of equity and social justice in

109 schools, and there are clear manifestations of such neoliberal incursions in the Ontario Education policy context (Ibid., 2015).

The reasons and ramifications for the infusion of neoliberalism into education as voiced by these authors was echoed in the interview responses, with the interviewees noting these same effects in their firsthand experiences. They alluded to the fact that the implementation of the OSSLT has reaffirmed and normalized elite and government ideas, by altering education’s purpose. There was a lot of fault placed on government decisions to implement the OSSLT, and the idea that the test is keeping parents, students, and teachers apart; resisting the test in a united manner is difficult because each stakeholder has their own agenda to fulfil.

Interview responses reiterated many words which either explicitly named neoliberal values or used words that described these values in various contexts, i.e., the respondents used negatively or emotionally charged words to describe how the test was affecting them or their students. Specific neoliberal values and emerging themes from the interviews were: privatization; measuring outcomes; accountability; standards of excellence; competition; the elimination of community; the centralization of power; and the inequities faced by marginalized students. Each respondent spoke to significant emotions and experiences and helped to provide a deeper understanding of what this test is actually doing, why it is doing it, and to whom it is doing it to.

Privatization and the Production and Measuring of Outcomes

Privatization and the increase of private schools—usually guided financially and politically by corporate involvement—is reinforced through the production and measuring of outcomes like the OSSLT, as generally these schools outperform public schools. This seems to have been understood and acknowledged by interviewees who made mention of the state’s need for the creation and publication of data based on OSSLT results. Although “private school” was only mentioned four times, the word “data” was used a total of 46 times in these 15 interviews. Administrators referenced the constant analysis and ongoing improvement of data as an integral part of their job. One vice principal furrowed her brow, folded her hands and looked down in pensive thought as she explained what she does with the student OSSLT score data: “We are looking at our school improvement to look at the data with our team and decide on what our needs are and what kind of work we need to see happening in the school” (S.M., personal

110 interview, December 3, 2015). This was said so matter of fact, without questioning the data or how it is derived. She knows her job is to manage the data and that is her primary focus.

This is in great contrast to how the teachers perceived data. C.C., a head of guidance, described her perspective on the validity and use of data in education. Her explanation began with a calm demeanour as she stated:

The Ministry of Education is caught up in creating data because as far as they are concerned, if their data looks good then we are graduating students that are capable. Data can be skewed. Schools can have kids that are high academic learners without any ESL students. So, if I look at a private school, the number of ESL students that they have doesn’t equate to a highly multicultural area in a school. That because of their population, they are going to score low on a literacy test. Is that a true reflection of the school? No, it’s a reflection of the population grappling with just being new to Canada. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

C.C. went on to conclude her statement with a mix of passion, anger, and uncertainty as she questioned the equity and validity of data that is being used to make big plans for students, schools, and the community:

It’s based on a report. And, again, is that fair to the school who has a high-end diverse multi-cultural population where even if they wanted to, they are not going to score as high? Is it fair to a school that is a community school to compete with a private school whose socio-economic ability, or even their ability to filter students out, allows them to score very high. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

In a lecture entitled Neoliberal Education and Neoliberal Education Policy: Are We All Neoliberals Now? held at the University of Hong Kong, Professor Stephen Ball (2016) spoke about the effects of neoliberalism and specifically the state’s use of data to obtain and perpetuate power. He noted “the bologna mode of governance is governance of power through…[producing] an affective politics of naming, shaming, and faming that ignites a competitive mimetic device…” (Ball, 2016). These words echo the sentiments expressed in the teacher interviews about what the test is doing. Ball also spoke of compromise, improvements, and the emotional well-being of teachers and students, which is damaged by the large emphasis on competition brought about by neoliberalism: “Power never ceases its interrogation, its inquisition, its registration of truth: it institutionalises, professionalises and reveals its pursuit” (Ibid., 2016).

111

Citing Foucault, Ball continued to explain that this attainment of power is derived through the language of productivity and the emphasis of the use of numbers or data to support claims. He spoke of the “business of truth,” where policy and educational performance are fuelled by the use of data from the OSSLT and other high stakes standardized tests:

truth in this sense is defused and consumed, and increasingly is produced and transmitted under the central dominant, if not exclusive, great political and economic apparatuses that provide growing access and control to this economy of truth, where data defines policy and drive policy decisions. (Ibid., 2016)

The result is a cyclical perpetuation of power, which is more normalized and more entrenched into the education system with each round of testing. The OSSLT produces results that show the policies implemented in education are working. In turn, the data is used to create more policies that continue in the neoliberal direction to prepare students for the global market economy, moving further and further away from democracy.

Ball pointed out that research is also framed in a capitalist manner. He cited Morely (2016) in asserting, “What is valued in research and scholarship is increasingly becoming shaped by market demands” (Ball, 2016). Furthermore, he used the term “gaming” to label data work and manipulations of data, such as changing and fabricating of data to support a specific agenda. He also used the term “big data,” which is used by big businesses globally. He explained how “evidence-based data” is seen to be part of progress because it is used to reflect, manage, show importance of a population, drive investment, and provide outcomes and returns with civic and economic dynamism (Ibid., 2016). This, in turn, pushes or promotes ongoing policy work. Ball also spoke of how:

Cost effective interventions—research—of certain sorts, is now deployed to identify effective and cost-efficient programs and institutions (…grouping by ability…) which divide up student performance and resource teaching costs and which at the same time displace teachers’ structured decision making. (Ibid., 2016)

He explained this as a model of investment and returns that generate student performance most cheaply. There is a gap between student learning and performance and as more students are tested, the increase in performance will be more, simply because students will learn how to perform better on the test—becoming better test takers. This is what Ball (2016) referred to as an artificial outcome, which he said is misleading: “Research makes the world intelligible in

112 specific ways and in doing so, contributes to the foreclosure of other patterns of intelligibility” (Morley, 2016, p. 52). Testing does not measure all students on an equal playing field and this becomes problematic. Data is used as evidence to provide the cheapest and most effective outcomes. Consequently, the values or purpose of the test are rendered irrelevant and it is only the data that is valued. The purpose becomes technical and decisions are made by evidence. Data matters more than public opinion. As Ball (2016) put it, “Issues of standards and accountability are typically presented by politicians and policy makers as matters of technical efficiency, rather than normative choices.” Though not appearing as such, data-driven decision making is a mode of governing. This decision making is used to measure, rank, compare, and change students into numbers that represent their worth and how they will be managed and positioned. Also worth noting is that although we are governed by numbers, we are also the governors of these numbers when we do work that contribute to higher performance and scores (Ball, 2016). It is this conflict between governing and being governed by data that teachers articulated as an inner conflict within themselves because they saw the emotional impact on students. For example, Guidance Head C.C. commented on the inverse relationship of the lowering educational standards with increasing student anxiety:

I’ve seen kids work less hard. I’ve seen kids become more anxious and at the risk of being an old teacher who says we should go back to the ways that we had, I don’t think that our education system pushes kids to be better learners. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

She continued to explain the ramifications of this move towards “gaming” as described by Ball:

I think as a consequence, our marks in high school are very, very high. They don’t reflect really the abilities of students and it just becomes a market place where the kid who gets the highest mark is going to go out to school, whether we are talking a private school where they can purchase their mark or marks in a high school that are actually really high and it hurts them.... (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

Accountability and Standards of Excellence

“Accountability” was the word that was brought up the greatest number of times in all of the interviews combined. It was used in the contexts of being “held accountable” and “having to account for” the perpetual maintenance of the standards of excellence. In the latter instance, the word “data” quickly followed, but only in school administrator responses; the school principals continuously spoke about improving the standards of student success. Accountability was

113 directly mentioned 65 times in the 15 interviews and all respondents spoke to this neoliberal value. The way in which they spoke about the need to keep account varied. Accountability was used to describe performing their own jobs, as well as in placing blame on others perceived not to be doing their jobs properly. The interviewees understood their and their counterparts’ roles through the lens of standards-based reforms.

In education, standards-based reforms refer to numerical measurement of success and are “systems of instruction, assessment, grading, and academic reporting that are based on students demonstrating understanding or mastery of the knowledge and skills they are expected to learn as they progress through their education” (“Standards-based”, 2018). Such reforms increase accountability. In a special 2002 issue of the Review of Educational Research on standards-based reforms and accountability, a number of researchers discussed the impact of standards-based reforms. Borman, Kromrey, Hines, and Hogarty noted a push for large changes in classroom instruction and behaviours. Chatterji showed how standards-based reforms become systemically entrenched. Wang and Odell discussed how mentoring and teaching novice teachers in ways that support standards brings about reform.

Standards-based reforms attempt to create a market economy out of the education system, whether teachers agree or not. As Lesko (2001) described, such policies are premised on a deviant adolescent requiring state regulation to foster “economic productivity and social unity” and “raise standards in schools” (p. 126). Although explained in greater detail in ‘The Government’s Centralization Agenda’ section of this thesis, one of the most memorable examples of this positioning was Bill 160, The Education Quality Improvement Act. This act, introduced by Ontario’s Premier Harris and his Progressive Conservative government, pushed a series of neoliberal changes that significantly increased standards-based reforms in education. His reforms increased the workload of education workers, created adverse learning conditions for students, and centralized the majority of decision-making power and funding for public education. Teachers and support staff in both the elementary and secondary levels still speak about October 27, 1997, when they, along with school administrators, walked off the job to protest the pending legislation which spelled out these changes to Ontario’s education system. This two-week job action remains the largest demonstration ever by education workers in North America. Despite this, the bill was passed in December of 1997, though not in its entirety. The next series of one-day rotating strikes lasted a few weeks, ending on December 18th, 2012.

114

Ironically this strike was held by teachers in the Toronto, Peel, and Durham public elementary school boards, who were protesting Bill 115, which would “permit the province to impose labour contracts on teachers as well as limit their ability to strike” (Edwards, 2015).

Hill and Bonan (1991) explained the business concept of participatory management, which is used in schools to increase both accountability and decentralization. Here, the initiative moves from school boards, trustees, and superintendents, to the shoulders of school administrators and teachers. This business concept of site-based management is implemented to “improve performance by making those closest to the delivery of services—teachers and principals—more independent and therefore more responsible for the results of their school’s operations” (p. v). This decentralization of the school system came with a culture of accountability, making administrators and teachers directly responsible for producing results in their individual schools. Also with this responsibility came immense pressure to demonstrate success, especially for administrators, through OSSLT results.

The school administrators who were interviewed expressed that they felt accountable to the parents in their schools; they felt that they needed to “produce” high scores on the OSSLT. All of the administrators who were interviewed spoke at great length about parents who consume EQAO test score data and the impact that this had. Parents would transfer their children to higher ranking schools, sell their homes to move to areas with higher ranked schools, or entirely remove their child from the public-school system and place them in a competing private school. S.H., a French Consultant, alluded to this in saying, “the power relation behind the test...in terms of parents and parental pressures, to have some sort of a gauge in terms of a school’s ability to meet their child's needs” (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015). C.C., Head of Guidance, was also familiar with this concept. She explained that “…parents shop. They want to know what your results are. They want to know that they are sending their child to what they perceive is the best school” (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015). Lastly, retired principal J.T. elaborated on the need to be accountable to parents who consume OSSLT data:

It certainly is a big thing that parents look at and determine when they are looking at school districts and look at different schools. If they see a school district or school that has very high literacy scores, those schools are much more sought-after. And I think that rightly or wrongly, but it makes a difference and I think they equate it to success. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

115

School administrators also spoke to being accountable to students and talked about assessing their needs by using the OSSLT data to inform their practice and improve school programming. One vice principal noted:

My connection is to be accountable when we are looking at our school improvement, to look at the data with our team and decide on what are our needs, and what kind of work we need to see happening in the school. (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

The underlying theme from school administrators was that although the OSSLT data made them accountable to students, there were also other factors that needed to be considered when looking at helping students succeed. For example, one administrator stated, “I think that accountability has to take into account a whole bunch of different things. EQAO being one of them, again it provides one form of standardization” (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015). Administrators noted that, although they were unable to quantify it, they were accountable to students on a social and emotional level as well. As one put it,

Accountability in education also needs to take into consideration how students feel when they are at school. How they feel their education is connecting to the world around them and what it looks like. I think we need to be more accountable and I don’t know how you would measure that. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

The administrators did not mention being accountable for how students actually scored on the OSSLT; they felt that the role of the teachers was to prepare them for this test, while their role was to manage the data after the test had been written. Ironically, no administrator held teachers accountable for ensuring that students achieve high test scores. The assumption was that this was already happening. For teachers, the idea of increased accountability led to a feeling of losing power. Foucault argued that “at the heart of the practice of teaching, there is a defined and regulated relation of surveillance which acts to improve its efficiency” (Deacon, 2006, p. 184). Teachers mentioned that the increase in regulation on them as a profession resulted in an inverse loss of power. Hill and Bonan (1991) argued that because they do not feel free to make full use of their professional judgement, many principals and teachers have come to concentrate on discrete, bounded, and noncontroversial tasks. These tasks include the implementation of programming based on data and skills, instead of cognitive development, the integration of ideas, and students’ personal growth.

116

Resisting the OSSLT in subtle, personal ways—both in and outside of their classrooms—has given teachers the opportunity to reflect on their own teaching and what they see as their understanding of the purpose of education. The teachers viewed themselves as professionals, stating that they had a responsibility to their students. Being accountable to learners and their success was extremely important to them. As one of them put it,

We definitely need to be held accountable for what we’re teaching and how we’re teaching and how they [students] are doing. Are we having the impact on them that we need to be having? If we are not, how do we need to change that? (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

Some teachers questioned the purpose of the OSSLT to begin with, believing it has nothing to do with student learning or achievement. Student Success Teacher L.T. put forward that “the purpose of the test is to rank schools and make people feel good about themselves and in theory makes the government look good in the global world” (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015). Perhaps confirming this, Berliner analysed the repercussions of high-stakes testing in 18 states. His findings were that student learning remained at the same level as it was before the policy of high-stakes testing was instituted (Orlich, 2004).

Another theme echoed by teachers in their responses was that they were accountable to students beyond the OSSLT. The teachers felt accountable for student success in life as well. For example, one teacher stated:

I do believe that there should be accountability in education but in the context of accountability, I think that comes down to the success of students in real- world application. Not necessarily on a manufactured test like the OSSLT. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

Finally, teacher interviews came full circle and turned back to the very same system that created the EQAO and implemented the OSSLT. Many stated that test scores and feedback should be shared with students, instead of just telling them they passed or failed:

If we had an educational system that was accountable and the students then had to figure out a way to correct what they’ve done wrong; then there would be a purpose in it [OSSLT] and it would be good to review the test and say this is where you went wrong. This is what you need to work on. (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015)

117

Nezavdal (2003) explained that teachers' efforts are becoming more constrained because they are no longer the primary instruments used to assess children's abilities. His views corroborate the teachers' concerns. For example, he stated, “It is particularly troubling to know that teachers stand to have no input in the promotion decisions about students who have failed the OSSLT” (p. 67). Nezavdal (2003) also explained how the OSSLT is in conflict with the goals of equitable classroom practice: “A single test is being used to decide promotion at the end of high school. Thus, the aims of the EQAO are substantively disconnected from teachers, and their tests offer punitive repercussions for failing students” (p. 68). The teachers expressed similar sentiments. They felt that EQAO needs to be accountable to students. As one teacher explained:

But we don’t give that to kids. We just say oh guess what, you got less than 300 and maybe you got 290, so re-write the test. Oh, you got 230 so you know what, you need to do the course because there is no way you will pass. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

The animosity between teachers and the Ontario government that “polices them” was evident in every teacher interview. Teachers held the government accountable for the way the education budget was being managed and spent, as well as the type of programming and the new Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum being implemented in schools. For example, M.P. stated, “…given that in Ontario education is the second most costly portfolio next to health care, absolutely it should be accountable for the billion-dollar or more resources that are spent on it” (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015). Teachers were quick to criticize the government for developing and implementing the OSSLT, stating that “accounting of the test is a narrow measure of performance” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). Teachers mentioned that the test was not needed because accountability in education already exists in a myriad of ways. As one teacher put it,

I just think there are different ways on doing accountability. What would that look like could be very reflective, it should be self-reflective, it could be peer to peer evaluations, it could be admin to teacher evaluations so there’s different ways that I think we can increase accountability. Standardized tests is not necessarily the only way. (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015)

Other teachers noted the inequality in accountability, stating that it is not the same for all institutions. For example, one stated, “There already is accountability, but it does look different from place to place, like the private schools, when they are evaluated, they are evaluated by

118 completely different bodies than the public schools” (A.B., personal interview, November 30, 2015).

Foucault predicted that universities would become increasingly important politically, because “they multiply and reinforce the power-effects of an expanding stratum of intellectuals and, not least, as a result of new global demands for active, multi-skilled and self-regulated citizens” (Deacon, 2006, p. 184). This same prediction is reflected in Ontario high schools. New government policies and Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum have a large focus on modern learning and transferable skills for the labour economy and this fact had the teachers questioning why the government is not accountable to students. They wondered why learners are taught to be labour market ready, and not critical thinkers. They spoke to the idea that OSSLT is not accurate and that it presents only a snapshot of student performance or ability. An even bigger problem is that the results of this one test can become life-changing for kids. Kearns (2016) noted that, “Several theorists have shown that these policies privilege white, middle class, male perspectives and further marginalise the marginalised” (p. 127).

When it came to being accountable, many emotional impacts of this test were described in the interviews. The words “stress”, “anxiety”, and “pressure” were used multiple times to describe the emotions faced by school administrators, teachers, and students alike. Olrich (2004) made an uncanny parallel between NCLB and the OSSLT when he questioned if the tests can be trusted. This doubting is something that so many interviewees also spoke to. Olrich pointed out that the NCLB is “built on the assumption that a single high-stakes test can determine a child’s, school’s or district’s future…but not one state could show one hundred percent passing!” (p. 9). He spoke to the research conducted by Robert Lynn and Carolyn Haug and their findings from Colorado test scores over four years:

The performance of successive cohorts of students is used in a substantial number of states to estimate the improvement of schools for purposes of accountability. The estimates of improvement, however, are quite volatile. This volatility results in some schools being recognised as outstanding and other schools identified as in need of improvement simply as a result of random fluctuations. It also means that strategies of looking to schools that show large gains for clues of what other schools should do to improve student achievement will have little chance of identifying those practices that are most effective. On the other hand, schools that are identified as ‘in need of improvement’ will generally show increases in scores the year after they are identified simply because of the noise in the estimates of improvement and not

119

because of the effectiveness of the special assistance provided o the schools or pressure that is put on them to improve. (p. 9)

When speaking specifically about standards of excellence in interview responses, the word “standards” was referenced by each participant when speaking to either “professional standards” that teachers have to uphold in their teaching practice, the “standards” or responses students need to give on the OSSLT, what EQAO deems as the “standard” for passing, or comparing how the school is doing in relation to provincial, board, and local “standards.”

Administrators spoke to the way in which high standards and high expectations to perform are placed on students and schools alike. One vice principal spoke to the OSSLT saying, “Given that it is a basic literacy assessment… given that as a developed first world nation, we should have high standards and expectations for literacy that everyone should strive to meet” (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015). Because of the high standards that are placed on them, students who write the OSSLT face the pressure of meeting and exceeding extremely high standards. Finally, one of the special education teachers wrote the OSSLT when she was a student. She commented, “I don't like how it is a requirement to graduate because like I said it places too much stress on the students and when students are writing a test under stress they tend not to be successful” (D.G., personal interview, November 23, 2015).

Competition

Connell (2013) asserted that neoliberalism has created a system of winners and losers and argued that in such a system, “the losing has to be legitimated, it has to be made credible and not appear as a matter of unfair discrimination or bad luck” (p. 282). Foucault (1979) noted how, “Subjects are regulated and disciplined in large institutions, through ‘observation, registration and recording,’ creating ‘a body of knowledge that is accumulated and centralized’” (p. 231). Years later, Lesko (2001) spoke about how youth are increasingly described via the “new technologies of statistics and record-keeping” (p. 47). In 2016, Kearns described how standardized testing fits in:

This process is at work when high-stakes standardized testing is carried out by centralized educational bureaucracies; literacy test scores and results add to a body of knowledge about youth, their schools and communities, publicly ranking them from most literate to least literate. (p. 124-125)

120

Rezai-Rashti et al. (2017) extended this thinking in saying, “The policy as numbers lens makes it possible to document how and why equity is increasingly linked with academic excellence, eclipsing the intrinsic value of equity and relegating it as an instrument for student achievement” (p. 162).

The interviewees also noted that education is being reformed to serve the market needs and that resources, funds, and pathways are being minimized for lower performing students. However, they acknowledged that this sorting and streaming is needed for society to stay competitive in the new ‘knowledge economy’ and that those who were left behind were seen to be an afterthought paid lip service to in the name of equity. Kearns (2016) noted that “the effect of the literacy test is to subjugate marginalised youth in its demand for a standard white, male, middle class ideal citizen literacy requirement” and “literacy is read as white, male, English and middle class” (p. 132). Only 44% of students taking applied level courses passed the OSSLT in 2017. In reflecting on this, Norah Marsh, the Chief Executive Officer of EQAO, explained that "the results of this year's OSSLT are positive overall…The continued decline in achievement among students in the applied course shows the need for further reflection and action" (EQAO, 2017b).

When speaking about the neoliberal value of competition, although the word explicitly came up a total of seven times in all of the interviews, each participant implicitly referenced the way that public schools are competing with other schools, both private and public. A vice principal commented, “As a small school we are compared to the other high schools in our neighbourhood and we must do well on the test in relation to them and in relation to how schools do in the province and the board” (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015). Interviewees repeatedly mentioned—33 times to be exact—that parents are seen to consume the test in terms of shopping for schools and equating test results and school ranking to success. The statement made by a Head of Guidance echoes the sentiment of all interviewees regarding the OSSLT and the competition that it emulates:

It pits schools against schools. It suddenly makes a school a market place. So, in the time that the Fraser Report has come out, what I’ve noticed is that parents shop. They want to know what your results are. They want to know that they are sending their child to what they perceive is the best school. It’s based on a report. And, again, is that fair to the school who has a high-end diverse multi-cultural population where even if they wanted to, they are not going to score as high? (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

121

Elimination of Community

When interviewees mentioned the elimination of community, they did so implicitly. They spoke about the segregation of school administrators, teachers, and parents. They noted that each group was tasked to take on different roles and responsibilities within the neoliberal-infused education system. Each group saw the same system in a different light, including their view of the OSSLT and how they either consumed, supported, or negated it. This separation of groups makes it extremely difficult for the three groups to come and work together for the greater good and success of the students, to make right what is wrong with the test, or even to align themselves to oppose the Ontario government. The infusion of neoliberalism and the use of the OSSLT as a tool has created three distinct groups with their own agendas. Ironically, though, the end goal is the same for each, that being the success of the learner.

Interviewees reported that the parent community consumed the test more than any other group. Parents understand that the global education economy is one that is fiercely competitive and because of this, one needs to be ahead of the competition. This requires being taught by the finest teachers and attending the finest schools, i.e., those that obtain the highest results on the literacy test. To many parents, this is what can bring success for their child. Head of Guidance C.C. commented on her experiences with parents. She speaks with parents almost daily about student success on the OSSLT: “What I’ve noticed is that parents shop. They want to know what your results are. They want to know that they are sending their child to what they perceive is the best school. It’s based on a report” (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015). The French Consultant had similar comments: “Unfortunately parents place a lot of value on standardized tests. Oftentimes it does determine or influence their child's choice in terms of where to send their son or daughter in terms of schools” (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015). And finally, a Vice principal spoke about the ripple effects of the test, which goes beyond the students and school to impact the community at large:

Sometimes the parent community will come into the school and look to see why aren’t our EQAO scores higher. Not because they want their kids to perform at that level, but because it’s affecting their home value. They may not even have kids in the school. (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

Prior to 1997, Ontario teachers and school administrators were both part of the same union, working alongside each other to accomplish the same goals for schools and students alike. The

122 spark of the elimination of community between educators and administrators commenced in 1998. At that time, the Ontario Principal’s Council (OPC) and the Catholic Principal Council of Ontario (CPCO) were formed. The government’s decision to separate teachers and administrators resulted in two major stakeholders who directly interact with students in schools. This separation created a hierarchy with administrators instructed to supervise or manage teachers. Both groups began to see their roles in education and the OSSLT in two very distinct ways.

Interviewees indicated that school administrators strongly support the idea of the OSSLT—not the actual test itself, but the idea. The managerial role of the administrator to ensure that their school data increased was the main focus of the administrator responses. From the interviews, it was noted that one of the primary roles of the school administrator was to use the data gathered from the OSSLT to improve results via student programming. Administrators believed that if specific and targeted school programming was implemented, then students’ OSSLT results would automatically increase. The administrators, in theory, were the biggest supporters of this standardized test. They believed that it was necessary and helped measure and compare how schools and students were doing. As one retired principal put it:

It gives you sort of a temperature measurement as to how students are doing. It’s common throughout the whole province, so I think there is some value to having a common test throughout the province as a measuring stick to see how students are doing. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

A vice principal commented on how the more he went through the education system as an administrator, the more he saw the value of the test, especially for parents:

At first, I was very much opposed to it but as I kind of went through it, after a number of years, I could see the value to it and I could see the importance of it. And it certainly is a big thing that parents look at and determine when they are looking at school districts and look at different schools, if they see a school district or school that has very high literacy scores those schools are much more sought-after and I think that rightly or wrongly it makes a difference and I think they equate it to success. (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015)

Another vice principal commented on the need for the test, because it provides data for him to support student needs:

I think it is necessary while recognizing one measure of the students’ ability to be literate because I do believe that it’s an indicator. It indicates or provides

123

data from an arm’s length educational organization, where there is some accountability for what the education system is, or how it's working or not working, in addition to identifying the needs of the students who need that extra support. And I believe it's a little bit more objective then teacher-based or school-based measures to identify literacy means. (R.G., personal interview, December 2, 2015)

The respondents made it quite evident that the chief group in education that resisted the OSSLT is teachers. A special education teacher expressed that the OSSLT isn’t an accurate measure of a student’s ability:

If a student passes the OSSLT, I don’t think it means that they’re ready for life after high school yet. I don’t think that that’s the factor that identifies that because you may have a student that does really well on the test, but isn’t prepared for life. Whereas another student who fails the literacy test can be very successful in their life after high school, so I don’t think it is necessary. (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015)

The teachers expressed that the test was a waste of resources, money, and time, specifically because they believed that the test was not a just way to measure a student’s literacy skills. They believed that the test does not do the job it is supposed to, which is to accurately measure the literacy skills of learners. In the eyes of the teacher interviewees, the OSSLT is not worth doing. Teachers felt as if they were alone in this opinion. They felt as though they had no support from parents who enabled their children, administrators who faced a lot of stress and anxiety if scores declined and believed in the test in theory, or the Ontario government who created and imposed this standardized test, regardless of how teachers felt about it. The sense of community was truly lost with this group. As one guidance counsellor explained:

Between parents who enable them and our inability to fail them, they don’t have resiliency. As a Guidance Counsellor, I see kids who are far more anxious. I see parents who are always doing the things for their kids and they are making their kids unable to do them because they haven’t built up the skills to persevere on their own. To be responsible. To be creative in finding how to solve challenges. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

Kearns (2016) echoed this the sentiment of teachers, noting that:

124

policy, under the umbrella of EQAO’s OSSLT…is rendered administrative and bureaucratic. (p. 122-123)

There are emotions attached to the elimination of community, and having stakeholders work in isolation places immense pressure on them. Each group indirectly places pressure on themselves, as well as the others. The pressure to perform on the literacy test is overwhelming at times. Although unaware of what teachers are doing in their classrooms, administrators hold them accountable for doing what they need to do in order to increase student scores on the OSSLT. Teachers feel that they do not have the support of administrators and complain about the government implementing the test and policing them through policy documents and new curriculum that does not help students in the long run. Parents question administrators about test scores and are often the leading cause of school enrolment decline.

Centralization of Power

During the interviews, 15 interviewees mentioned the word “power” a total of 25 times. When the interviewees used the word “power,” they used it to speak about the power relations behind the literacy test. The overall consensus was that the EQAO—in conjunction with the government—held the power when it came to the creation, administration, scoring, and publication of the OSSLT. They set the rules that administrators oversee and teachers enforce upon students. One teacher explained, in a very curt manner:

As in any standardized assessment, the power lies in those that create and administer the test and the fact that is there is no choice. And that it is also high-stakes would mean that yes, the power lies with EQAO and its subsidiaries. (S.S., personal interview, November 25, 2015)

The centralization of power created by the Ontario government’s education agenda has resulted in teachers feeling voiceless, powerless, and helpless and this hierarchy of power between the government, school administrators, and teachers is reinforced with each round of testing. The teachers felt that the administrators—who they once worked with side by side—are now pushing the literacy test mandate. They believed that the priorities of administrators have changed from being student-centred to becoming data-centred. In contrast, the teachers maintained that the focus of education should be the whole student and not just on numbers to impress parents and the community at large. For example, one teacher commented:

125

As a Ministry initiative, I think the test was always a government driven political move to be able to provide the public with some measurable quantifiable data that they could use to make their decisions in terms of what makes a good school or bad school… But, because it is such a limited test and only done in this one instance, I think that data is false data in that context where it doesn’t really provide a clear picture of a school, of a classroom, of a teacher of anything else. Especially as there is so much on-going change in any school and the entire province. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

Rezai-Rashti et al. (2017) spoke to the significance of this reality saying, “Never before …has the collection of data become such a significant part of a machinery and technology of power in governing education” (p. 166). A teacher commented on the strong influence of politics in education:

There's too much politics in education. Politicians should be as far away from education as possible. All they care about even though they say they're doing what they're doing for the betterment of kids. They muck around with education too much, not knowing anything about it in many cases. I've always believed that the Ministry of Education should be a certain entity from government. It should almost be like its own office that’s made up of a combination of former educators, business people, parents, and former students that work on and develop and implement educational policy fluidly as opposed to interrupted by a government that wants to come in and change things because they don't realize that number one… their motivation in my opinion, it’s not about kids and secondly, you can’t affect effective change in education if you are going to be changing things every three to four years with governments and things that they want to change. I know it will never happen. It’s a dream, but that to me is the only way for education to be effective. Is to get it away from special interests and leave it in the hands of people that have backgrounds in education, that care about kids and have a direct policy as opposed to politicians dictating policy like we had in 1999 where we had, the minister of education that had not finished high school, deciding what we should do in schools in Ontario. (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015)

Chapter 6: Interviewee Perspectives of Student Experiences of Neoliberal Education Through the OSSLT

The voices of school administrators and teachers, coupled with additional secondary sources, provide a student perspective on the impact of the OSSLT, even though students were not directly interviewed. It is second nature to have educators speak on behalf of their students. During the interviews, both teachers and administrators naturally placed themselves in the positions of their students, feeling the need to speak on their behalf; they saw themselves as their advocates.

The refusal to submit to the OSSLT and the power dynamics behind it was in part due to the emotional impacts on students that were witnessed by teachers. The teachers could not be committed to something they saw having negative effects on those they had a duty to care for, not only academically, but also emotionally. It was made explicitly clear in the interview responses that the teachers were champions of and for their students. All of the interviewees felt that the system created to educate students made learners voiceless, and they, therefore, felt the need to be and share the voices of their learners.

The power of emotions is real. Boler (1999) explained that educational systems no longer use harsh corporal punishment for youth, but regulate youth by using pastoral power, which uses emotional controls such as humiliation, embarrassment, and shame to shape youth. The emotional impacts and equity issues of the OSSLT weighed heavily on all the interviewees regardless of their roles or positions with the test. All of the teachers and school administrators spoke repeatedly about the importance of meeting student needs academically, but also socially and emotionally. The emotions they observed from students pertaining to this high stakes, standardized test was something they spoke about very emphatically.

Interviewees noted a myriad of mixed emotions pertaining to students experiences with the OSSLT; however, all these experiences were negative. Failure on the OSSLT, or fear of failure, shapes youths’ consciousness. They experience self-doubt about their abilities. They experience emotions such as self-blame and holding themselves accountable for their success or failure on the test; pressure to perform and pass the test; and stress and anxiety before, during, and after the test. The score on this test was even identity-forming for students; passing or failing would speak for who they were academically. Those who failed experienced low self-esteem, humiliation,

127 isolation, confusion, and noted an absence of compassion from those who created and marked the tests. They felt penalized for failing and then punished by being put into a course that would derail their high school plans, because they now had to take the OSSLC instead of a course of their choice. Questioning the function and purpose of the test was also noted.

Interviewees spoke for students, noting the disconnect between the OSSLT and regular classroom practice, and the disadvantage for students who did not speak English well, or were new to the country. Also noted in this marginalization were the division and labelling of the good versus the bad student. Students who not could afford to attend extra classes, get tutoring, were in applied-level classes, or had IEP’s and accommodations on the OSSLT were seen as bad students.

Although students were not directly interviewed in this dissertation, the interviewees who work with students are used to share the sentiments of the students. This adds an important perspective as to what students are feeling and experiencing in relation to this testing mechanism. One of the strongest themes when speaking for student experiences was that teachers noticed students blamed themselves if they were not successful on the test. They noted that students held themselves accountable and attached a multitude of negative emotions to their success or failure on the test. The effects of failing the OSSLT shapes youths’ consciousness in many anticipated and unanticipated ways. Kearns (2011) reported that when some youth learned that they had failed the OSSLT, they felt surprised, ashamed, humiliated, embarrassed, and/or degraded. The youth in Kearns study “questioned their abilities and experienced stress at the overall high- stakes, standardized testing process” (Ibid, 2011, p. 126). One English teacher commented on the way students have experienced the pressures of performing well on the literacy test in saying, “I’ve seen tears, I’ve seen some bad behaviour regarding it, and it’s stressful leading up to the test, it's stressful writing the test, and it's stressful getting the results” (B.S., personal interview, November 24, 2015). A vice principal described the pressures stakeholders face when it comes to the OSSLT:

I've worked in schools where the test scores are really high so all of a sudden there's pressure in the school, on the students in that school, on the teachers in that school, on the administration in that school to either maintain or improve those scores. (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

128

She further elaborated on the impact of accountability and how it shifts the focus from being student-centred to being score-centred:

I’ve seen how that impacts kids and the pressure can be overwhelming. I’ve seen how it impacts teachers and that it is no longer about what are you teaching and what is your pedagogy and how are you connecting with kids. It becomes, ‘What are our scores?’ ‘What happens if they drop?’ (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

The head of a guidance department explained her experience with student emotions relating to pressure to attain high results on the OSSLT and EQAO tests in general:

The whole term EQAO causes them stress, causes them anxiety…EQAO doesn’t reflect how they do in the classroom. How much they talk about EQAO shows that they are worried about it, about this literacy test, and about how it impacts their graduation. I don’t think it’s uncommon for students, in general, to be stressed about it, to be concerned about it. So I think if we put too much value on it you are not going to get true results because the students will be so overwhelmed with the sense of pressure that it’s not going to be about their ability anymore. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

The standards that are set for the OSSLT make it difficult for students to demonstrate results that truly reflect what they have learned and are capable of doing. Although not explicitly stated, all of the interviewees implicitly noted that the OSSLT pushes neoliberal values through standardized and compulsory testing. They explicitly noted that the standards are set and feed the notion of competition, which in turn creates highly anxious and extremely stressed students. Berliner also formed the conclusion that high-stakes tests “potentially worsen academic performance, and exacerbate dropout rates” (Olrich, 2004, p. 9). Berliner added that both policymakers and educators alike should be concerned and that these tests “do little to improve student achievement…as scores went up and down yearly, almost in a random manner” (Ibid., p. 9). Olrich concluded that there is a large disconnect between policy and practice that is truly dangerous, making it “impossible to show true student achievement and ultimately puts all public schools at risk…of being sold to the lowest bidder” (p. 9). Lipman (2004) echoed this sentiment as he noted, “policies are discourses—values, practices, ways of talking that shape consciousness and produce social identities” (p. 15).

When understanding the perpetuation of competition through the OSSLT, it is important to consider that not all students are on an equal footing. Laura-Lee Kearns (2016) used Lesko’s

129

(2001) parallel of competition in school sports to explain the competitiveness of the OSSLT and the competitive market economy: “In a competitive school environment passing the test becomes sport. Not being able to meet an apparently ‘easy’ challenge is detrimental to youth’s self- esteem” (p. 129). She elaborated in saying:

Some youth are made to question themselves and their abilities. There is a lack of compassion for differently located youth in a masculinist framework that values humiliation, competition, a White middle-class norm and standard English. Fear and punishment are what some youth are learning through the sanctions of the literacy test. (Kearns, 2016, p. 129)

Interviewees spoke to the way that students are competing against one another. All of the participants spoke to the neoliberal emphasis on human capital and the push for competition, which are reshaping education policies worldwide. They spoke to the way that the OSSLT promotes individualism and competition. Lesko (2001) stated that “‘circulating among these high-stakes testing and other changes [is] a logic of competition and an absence of compassion for people with different abilities and/or critical perspectives” (as cited in Kearns, 2006, p. 130). This notion of competition has been extended to the school level. For example, one principal stated:

I take a great interest in the literacy test because our students are judged by it and our school’s enrolment numbers are probably affected by how well or how poorly we did on the test, so it is very important to me (J.F., personal interview, December 16, 2015)

The myriad of emotions associated with the pressures of the OSSLT competition are endless. Parents place a great amount of pressure on their children to be the best students at school. Administrators feel the pressure to perform on the test and achieve the highest results, which in turn enables them to be amongst the top ranked schools. Teachers are caught in a Catch 22 as the government places pressure on them to ensure students pass the test. This places immense pressure on them to teach to the test and cover the government-mandated curriculum, instead of attending to what they feel students should be learning to be ready for work in the global economy. Perhaps Nezavdal (2003) explained it best when stating that “standardized testing does two things: it penalizes students who are socially disadvantaged, and it limits the ability of teachers to help rectify that social inequity” (p. 67). Finally, the pressure on students to pass and do well is immense. Student Success Teacher L.T. noted that “I don't think that it is fair to them. It almost makes them feel stupid and creates hierarchies in society that aren't necessary” (L.T.,

130 personal interview, November 12, 2015). Head of Guidance C.C. also discussed this sense of competition:

I think for kids it creates anxiety. I think that it has kids look at each other and say that I’m better than you or I’m not as good as what I think. It could be - it damages their self-esteem. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

She continued to explain how students feel when they fail the test:

For some kids, it’s very traumatic. For a student who does very well academically it's damning in terms of who they are in their academics. So they take that quite hard. For students who always struggle it really confirms the fact that they have always struggled. (C.C., personal interview, November 18, 2015)

Kearns (2016) explained that the effect of this kind of policy for youth is that they feel dis-ease if they are found to be illiterate. So presumably they will work hard to acquire a state defined literacy and be productive citizens in the future workforce. Ultimately, though, the literacy test creates dis-ease; it creates shock, shame, humiliation and subjectification for those who find themselves marginalized (p. 132). The test is viewed as punitive. Students in Kearns (2011) study expressed that neither the OSSLT or the Literacy course benefitted them; they did not find them as helpful as their “regular” courses. Kearns (2011) shared direct student voice that parallels what I heard from my interviewees:

Paveena maintained: ‘I seriously don’t like it [the literacy test]. I don’t find it helpful. [It’s] a waste of time. I just don’t find it helpful — just the way you have to summarize, grammar and all that you could do that in English class and improve.’ Louise said: ‘I like school classes… [but] I don’t honestly like the literacy test.’ Louise also strongly took issue with the process. She said: ‘You shouldn’t make kids keep writing it and writing it, because maybe some students will feel dumb or stupid or feel less about themselves…it’s not really good for teens to feel that low.’ Louise not only saw the process of the literacy test as problematic for herself and her peers, but also viewed the literacy course as punitive. (p. 121) The youth in this study perceived the EQAO assessments as inequitable and unhelpful to their learning or ‘well-being.’ (p. 122) OSSLT failure dealt them quite a shock—the ramifications of which have seriously challenged their self-esteem, their relationships with school classes, and their perceptions of their abilities in English. (p. 123)

131

In a similar way, the teacher interviewees negated the OSSLT because they felt it places a lot of unnecessary stress and pressure on students. A special education teacher, for example, spoke to the stress that is placed on students before and on the actual day of the test:

We have to run multiple rooms, we have to get multiple versions, we have to get it online, you know some of them are writing on computers, some of them need extra time. It gets to be this mammoth thing and the kids are stressed. There’s lots of different stuff going on. (A.B., personal interview, November 19, 2015)

In her research, Kearns (2016) echoed this sentiment of teachers, noting that:

In contrast to models of literacy that create and affirm the conditions for people to be free, who advocate for the recognition of multiliteracies, who question the dominance of print texts and the devaluation of oral traditions and knowledge, of Indigenous people in particular, literacy as it is taken up as a state policy, under the umbrella of EQAO’s OSSLT…is rendered administrative and bureaucratic. (p. 122-123)

An English teacher also commented on the pressure that the OSSLT places on students:

The fact that it is administered in the way that it is. So the limits in terms of the time-frame that you have to do so quickly and efficiently, and the pressure that it creates by having a time-limit; doesn't necessarily always produce the right result. The fact that it is a test and many people deal with test anxiety while they are perfectly capable of performing at a high level outside of a test scenario is also a limit of the OSSLT. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

This teacher also spoke about the negative impact that the OSSLT has on students and how the results are skewed and have no real impact on school practice:

The OSSLT is absolutely not necessary. The results often reflect a student population and the pool of students that happen to be in that classroom, in that year, in that situation, and are only moderately affected by the actual practices of a school. So, the publishing and the preparation of the results and the amount of time and investment that is put into these results is a waste of our public funds. A waste of a whole lot of teacher prep-time, and the creation of a lot of unnecessary stress in students’ lives. (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015)

Education has recently shifted its focus, and in the interviews conducted, it was quickly revealed that students have been impacted the most by the new changes, including the addition of standardized tests, specifically the OSSLT. In a trade-off to be the best they can individually be,

132 students have experienced the elimination of student community and school spirit. Meritocracy and competition now take precedence over the community, and students work more in isolation than as a team. They are told that if they try hard enough, they can succeed, and if they do not succeed, then they simply did not work hard enough. They learn that they need to be the best because they are competing globally for jobs. Education now places the onus on students to surpass their competition, which are their classmates. One example of the elimination of community can be found in the new curriculum, which has removed the opportunity to award marks to students for working in a group. Former Education Minister Mitzie Hunter spoke of proposed changes to report cards for the 2018-2019 year:

We are focusing on the learning skills and work habits and really moving toward the transferable skills, which we know are really needed in terms of measuring those things that really matter to how kids learn and how they apply that learning into the real world, after school. (Rushowy, 2017)

The Ontario government’s notion to move students away from community-based learning towards individual and competitive, labour-related learning is a direct result of the neoliberal shift in education. Finally, the anxiety that students feel when preparing for and writing the test is extreme. An English teacher explained, “The fact that it is a test and many people deal with test anxiety while they are perfectly capable of performing at a high level outside of a test scenario is a limit of the OSSLT” (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015).

Inequity of the OSSLT for Marginalized Students

When investigating schooling and inequality, Thomas Popkewitz explained that “schooling is an institution whose pedagogy and patterns of conduct are continuously related to larger issues of social production and reproduction” (as cited in Heywood, 2013). Here, it is understood that:

pedagogical practice is a form of social regulation in which particular social knowledge is selected and cast for children to guide their everyday lives…yet the social differentiation in the larger society make school knowledge not equally accessible for all who come to school. (Ibid., 2013)

In an equity document, the Toronto District School Board stated that:

certain groups in our society are treated inequitably because of individual and systemic biases related to race, color, culture, ethnicity, linguistic origin, disability, socio-economic class.... We also acknowledge that such biases exist within our school system. (Ibid., 2013)

133

The most impactful portion of this document reads, “The Board further recognizes that such inequitable treatment leads to educational, social, and career outcomes that do not accurately reflect the abilities, experiences, and contributions of our students, our employees, and our parent and community partners” (Segeren, 2016, p. 111). And finally, the part of the document that was echoed in all interviews is: “This inequitable treatment limits their future success and prevents them from making a full contribution to society” (Ibid., 2016, p. 11).

As the OSSLT is a testing and sorting tool, the parallel ramifications on marginalized students are not lost. Even though there is systemic inequity in schools today, students are further disadvantaged through the implementation of the OSSLT, which is a high-stakes test. When the main focus is on meritocracy and individual performance, class and race become invisible inequalities; they are not looked at as major factors for a student’s failure on the OSSLT, or in school altogether. Instead the blame of failure becomes personal and individual as it is put onto the student. In turn, this places a lot of anxiety and pressure on students to perform in competition amongst their peers. Inequality of outcome is:

when each group is evaluated by or has access to the same opportunities, but are still disadvantaged because of any of the following: they are economically disadvantaged, physically or mentally challenged, lack “cultural capital,” their first language is not the language of instruction. (Popkewitz, as cited in Heywood, 2013)

According to EQAO, the purpose of the OSSLT is “to ensure that students have acquired the essential reading and writing skills that apply to all subject areas in the ‘Ontario Curriculum’ up to the end of grade 9” (EQAO, 2017b). Statistics show that not many marginalized students are successful on this test. The OSSLT is a tool used by the Ontario government to reaffirm and normalize the values of neoliberalism; it has been implemented by the government to sort students for the labour market. Additionally, the sorting process will mean that not everyone will make it to the top. There will be some that fail. The student who is not successful is usually the student who does not fit the mold of the test client. Generally, the student who does not fit the mold of the test client is the marginalized student, who is usually unsuccessful on the test and then made to take the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC) in order to obtain a diploma. These students specifically include English Language Learners (ELLs), students with learning disabilities and Individual Education Plans (IEPs), students in lower-tracked applied level courses, students who live in low-income homes, and minority students. Rose (1991)

134 explained that “numbers are the set of mechanisms that give effect to government. The importance of numbers in a liberal democracy is that they are used to provide a certain legitimacy that enables authoritative judgments” (as cited in Rezai-Rashti et al., 2017, p. 208). Kearns (2016) described that:

one’s status as a literate or illiterate subject within the state renders some students superior and others inferior. Seemingly neutral and desirable educational goals, such as literacy, exist within discourses that operate by sorting, selecting and naming some students as deficient and others not. (p. 122)

She further noted that:

High-stakes standardized literacy testing is not neutral and continues to build upon the legacy of dominant power relations in the state in its ability to sort, select and rank students and ultimately produce and name some youth as illiterate in contrast to an ideal white, male, literate citizen...whereas those who fail are deficient, illiterate, flawed, and in need of remedy, remediation, and transformation (p. 122)

Along the same lines, Lesko (2001) put forward that the literacy test is an undemocratic practice that is not neutral, and aims to marginalize specific groups of citizens. She contended that “the problematic ‘homosexual, woman, adolescent and African American’ was an invention and so is the illiterate youth subject” (p. 124). Furthermore, she noted that “policies and educational institutions revolved around producing productive white male citizens to the exclusion and detriment of those it saw as ‘others” (p. 124). She spoke of the culturally and socially created values and rewards that some bodies are provided, while others are constructed to be feared: “Fear was socially and culturally constructed around the female pregnant adolescent and the rewards given to the white male athlete in school” (p. 124). Taking her argument one step further, she discussed the way in which the OSSLT affects students today: “Fear now surrounds ‘illiterate’ youth in the state and rewards are given to literate youth…The crisis and fear surrounding the adolescent body is that of ‘illiteracy’” (p. 124). Lesko (2001) further described culture as a function of this binary logic, which reflects power and regulates thinking: “Hierarchical binary logic systems are premised on domination and subordination” (p. 125). This binary between the literate (superior) and the illiterate (inferior) is “not static and affects differently located students in different ways” (p. 125). It may be symbolic violence or readily apparent, but it is always there (Bourdieu, 2001).

135

Lesko (2001) also spoke about the term ‘at risk,’ which is used to speak about students who are not successful in the education system and may be in jeopardy of failing a course or not graduating. This includes those who fail the literacy test. Keeping track of at risk students is often used to push the need for student derived data. Lesko (2001) took issue with the language of ‘at risk’ because it falsely names the student as the holder of the ‘at riskness,’ as opposed to the multiple and complex, social, political, and economic factors associated with marginalization. She explained the ramifications for those who are unsuccessful: “For those it names illiterate or inferior or deficient, it confronts them with an unfamiliar burden of having to legitimize their being” (p.128). Furthermore, she reemphasised the idea that the test is far from neutral in saying, “There are cultural, social, political and economic norms that exist within the logic of the test itself that exclude some youth from being successful from the outset, and if they pass eventually, it is not without difficulty” (p. 137).

Equity Redefined

Rezai-Rashti et al. (2017) examined two equity policies developed in two different historical and political eras, the first by a New Democratic Party (NDP) government in 1993 and the second by a Liberal government in 2009. They looked at the old and new equity policies, in order to understand the changes in the use of the term and understanding of equity. They concluded that equity policy in education is concerned with outcome measurement and boys’ underachievement, while racial and class inequalities have become invisible. They explained that the infusion of neoliberal values in education has created a new definition for the term equity “made possible by the development of new performative systems of accountability within the field of education involving measurement and the strategy of numbers and facticity” (p. 160).

Rezai Rashti et al. (2007) also noted that the earlier equity policy was focused on “historically disadvantaged and marginalised groups and individuals such as women, Aboriginals, and racial and cultural minorities” (p. 161). They contrasted this to the later policy, which they concluded:

draws on problematic notions of inclusivity as the basis for defining equity and ironically and paradoxically is influenced by a policy as numbers discourse and regime of neoliberal accountability in the emphasis that it places on performance and measurement of outcomes with limited attention to the required resources for the enactment of such an equity policy. (p. 161)

136

They concluded that neoliberal values have “shifted the conception of equity from its historically social democratic notion and re-articulated its meaning in economic terms” (p. 162).

Rezai-Rashti et al. (2017) found that the greatest difference between the two equity policies is that the newer policy has “shifted focus, in terms of both its lack of emphasis or concern with historically disadvantaged, racial minorities, and its reconstitution of gender equity in drawing attention to the question of ‘failing boys’” (p. 162). They argued that because the new focus of equity education is based on neoliberal values of outcomes-based measures on student test scores, there is a failure to see the “structural and systemic inequities that are present in the education system” (p. 162). They added that “such consideration is important because it provides analysis of the plurality of social structures such as labour markets, forms of patriarchy, and Institutionalized racism” (p. 163).

Rezai-Rashti et al. also contended that this new equity policy is problematic because “rather than focusing on racial and ethnocultural minorities, the Ministry draws upon notions of inclusivity of many different identity groups. These particular groups of students become the formal policy targets of the equity policy” (p. 165). As such, they argued, equity has been re-articulated as a strategy to boost student achievement and economic competitiveness. The marginalized have suffered consequences with the “erasure of racialized minority students who are replaced by the category of ‘recent immigrant,’ and the invisibility of social class and redistributive policy mechanisms” (p. 168). Rezai-Rashti et al. (2017) noted two major effects of this new equity policy:

…first they have shifted the locus of responsibility from institutions to individuals, and second, they have depoliticised issues of race, class, and re- politicised gender equity in terms of a prioritised focus on boys as they relate to educational policy and politics. (p. 168)

Noguera (1997) explained that having a narrow focus on boys is problematic because it does not take into consideration the intersectionalities of marginalization such as socio-economic status, geographical positioning, or students’ historical experiences. Rezai-Rashti et al. (2017) picked up on this theme in saying that “a surface-level analysis of gender precludes any discussion of systemic education reform and distribution of educational resources” (p. 169). They pointed out that because failing boys were made a priority in the new equity policy, racialized learners were made to disappear:

137

…causes of educational injustice as being rooted in social patterns of cultural representation, claiming that educational structures, policies, and practices are mainly European in perspective and have failed to take into account the viewpoints, experiences, and needs of Aboriginal peoples and many racial and ethno-cultural minorities. (p. 169)

Looking at the 1993 policy, Rezai-Rashti et al. (2017) found that there was support for “anti- racist education, aimed at ‘identifying and addressing systemic inequities and barriers affecting Aboriginal peoples and racial and ethnocultural minorities in the planning and delivery of education programs” (p. 169). In contrast, when they looked at the 2009 policy, they noted that it:

disregards issues of race and racial inequality in the education system by focusing on ‘recent immigrants’ as a group that is at-risk for lower achievement. This focus on the category of immigrant insidiously works to mask racial inequality, effectively foreclosing any substantive analysis of race in the education system. (p. 169-170)

This ‘in-visibility’ of race in public discourse, in general, is a result of globalization and the neoliberal shift in the role of the state from a welfare/pastoral state to a state which facilitates the movement of capital, public services, and information (Rezai-Rashti et al., 2017). In 2003, Nezavdal stated that, “the provincial government's agenda ignores the possibility that standardized testing may function as a form of educational ethnic cleansing” (p. 71) and that “comparative standardized testing remains an accepted form of ethnocentricity, perpetuating marginalisation” (p. 69). In their argument, Martino and Rezai-Rashti (2013) picked up on this theme in noting:

The use of numbers and data in the form of standardized testing regimes is used to redefine the very conception of equity. This reconstitution of equity is most evident with the emergence of boys as the new disadvantaged in Ontario, the erasure of racialized minority students who are replaced by the category of ‘recent immigrant’, and the invisibility of social class and redistributive policy mechanisms. Equity education today is more concerned about underachievement and closing the achievement gap to maximise productivity of the citizenry and capitalise on Canada’s diversity in an international context. (p. 161)

English Language Learners

The Ministry of Education in Ontario defines an English Language Learner (ELL) as a student whose first language is not English, or a student who does speak English, but a variation of it not

138 taught in Ontario schools. This student is said to require focused educational support to aid him in becoming a proficient in the English language (Ontario. Ministry of Education, 2007). The Ministry has implemented two programs in order to assist this type of learner. These are the English as a Second Language (ESL) program and the English Literacy Development (ELD) program. The ESL program assesses the learner’s language abilities and places them in specific levels suited to their needs. Level A represents the least proficiency in English, while level E is the most proficient. Levels D and E are the final two levels that the learners will go through to develop their English language proficiency. Learners in these levels must write the OSSLT to determine if they have grasped the fundamentals of the grade 9 curriculum and to meet the literacy requirement of the Ontario secondary school diploma.

Inequality of opportunity is explained as “unfair barriers or irrelevant criteria that prevent certain groups from attaining the same achievements, outcomes or results” (“An Introduction to Equality of Opportunity,” n.d.). One might argue that for our ELL students, writing the OSSLT is more a cultural capital test than a test of their literary abilities. Questions of the validity, reliability, and fairness of large-scale assessments were brought up over and over again by all of the educators interviewed. All interviewees expressed explicitly that the OSSLT was not a fair test for all students who were mandated to write it. They noted that some students passed the test with ease while others struggled to write and failed on each attempt. This theme is also picked up on in the literature. For example, in commenting on the literacy test, Kearns (2016) stated:

Youth perceive that they must master the English literacy test language and write how those in power want them to write. This is not an easy task since not all youth and test makers share the same homogenous culture or similar cultural capital… Many youth who do not speak English as a first language and speak a minority language find that their skills are insufficient. Those who have complex language identities are subject to the hegemony of one powerful official language. (p. 132-134)

The interviewees had a great deal to say about the oppression of the ELLs who were forced to write the test. For example, Student Success Teacher L.T. stated:

I don't think it caters to the students whose first language is not English, again and then it becomes an issue of an English test or not an English test and if we let them write in their first language there are problems with that is well. (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

Kearns (2016) also noted that:

139

High-stakes standardized testing is tied to a privileged notion of literacy that some students’ possess and others do not. Literacy is not multiple when it is reduced to a written test score, and requires a particular cultural capital to pass. (p. 125)

One English teacher also commented about inequities for test-takers when he stated: “The test has a limited number of questions, there is no differentiation, and it requires a level of familiarity with the English language in the nuances of any language” (M.P., personal interview, November 16, 2015). Similarly, the Literacy Consultant explained his concerns about the test for those who are not native English speakers:

I think that the test is not fair for students that are coming outside of Canada. I don't believe that it's fair that a student that is being educated in China or Japan or Korea or whatever the case may be where English is not their first language who need to write this test…. It takes usually seven years to acquire language acquisition and I don't believe the test is fair for those students, it puts them in a difficult place. It puts them under a lot of pressure. (S.S., personal interview, November 25, 2015)

One of the interviewees, who was a retired principal, suggested that the creators of the OSSLT should be mindful of cultural bias when framing questions on the test:

In some cases, they have to be very careful of cultural bias of the test as well. Because in a more diverse society, if you are giving a test that has cultural implications, then you could be getting answers that might not reflect skills, might reflect the cultural background. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

Finally, the French Consultant made a similar comment about the inequity of the test for those who do not have English as a first language, yet need to pass it to graduate:

Some of the testing can be quite inequitable in terms of the way it's being presented so some of the information that students are presenting, if they don't have that cultural lens and they come from another country, they may not necessarily get some of the topics. So I think it shouldn’t be so high-stakes because you want to make sure you're being equitable and meeting the needs of all the learners and assessing therefore their skills, on a level playing field. (S.H., personal interview, November 30, 2015)

One principal felt that the OSSLT would be more equitable if it was not a high-stakes test for students that come from non-English speaking countries.

I think that their [student] needs would be better served if they were just allowed to do the literacy course even defer it right until almost graduation.

140

And I would not make it a graduation requirement for those students who are coming to write test from outside of the country, who weren't educated here and were not exposed to the language. If you're coming in from the country from another English-language speaking country like Britain or the US then absolutely you should write the test. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

The commentary of the interviewees confirms Kearns’s (2016) contention that standardized testing concretely and symbolically authorizes English as the superior language and the language of power. As such, it delegitimizes the language, identity, and sense of self for those who are others. It is profound to see that:

Psychologists and anthropologists (often in colonial settings) have set up a racist and sexist developmental model of children who are considered less than or inferior to the ideal white male citizen…. Immigrant or not, if one is not White and/or middle or upper class, then one may not share in the cultural capital the literacy test requires. (Ibid., 2016, pp. 124 &132)

The culture of poverty suggests that lower class culture has distinct values and norms, which do not value education as much as middle class. However, the issue may be that lower or working class youth are deprived by an unfair school system that reflects middle-class values, which make it difficult—even impossible—for lower-class children to succeed (Heywood, 2013). As Theodorou put it:

…parents' cultural and social resources become forms of capital when they facilitate parents' compliance with dominant standards in school interactions. In particular, cultural capital includes parents' large vocabularies, sense of entitlement to interact with teachers as equals, time, transportation, and child care arrangements to attend school events during the school day. (Theodorou, 2007, p. 93)

Bourdieu and Paterson (1977) argued that schools draw unevenly on the social and cultural resources of their communities by utilizing particular linguistic structures, authority patterns, and types of curricula (as cited in Heywood, 2013). The cultural experiences in the home facilitate children’s adjustment to school and academic achievement and transform cultural resources into cultural capital. A lot of the interviewed teachers picked up on exactly this and spoke to the fact that the OSSLT may be testing students’ ‘ELLness’ or ‘marganalizedness,’ rather than their literacy competencies. Kearns (2016) would concur with this:

Those who are successful on the OSSLT may be seen to possess the cultural capital that the educational system rewards. The cultural capital required to

141

pass the standardized literacy test is built upon a legacy of whiteness, masculinity and colonialism. The youth who fail the standardized literacy test, according to my study, do not fit the white middle class norm and/or may or may not speak a standard English, such as the recent immigrant, the poor, the non-university stream student, the Aboriginal student, the English as a Second Language (ESL) student. (p. 125)

Special Education Students

Students who are identified as Special Education students have undergone psychological assessment by a psychologist who makes recommendations for specific accommodations that the learner should receive to make learning more equitable for them. Some examples of accommodations that can be part of an IEP include: allowing double time for assessments; using technology, such as a computer; having a separate setting; giving prompts to respond to a question; having supervised breaks; offering a scribe; offering verbatim reading; providing different versions of the test such as audio or braille; and permitting word processing, such as the Google read and write program. Student Success Teacher L.T. commented on how the OSSLT does not factor in such accommodations for students with IEPs:

It just doesn't recognize even just the constraints of kids with learning disabilities or just recognizing the accommodations that can be used like speech to text… I just don't think that the text really caters to those types of things. (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

She continued by speaking about the provision of up to double time for students on IEPs and posed a very valid question in attempting to understand the true literacy skills the test is trying to measure:

The time constraints—does everyone have to write the test within the two 75 minute blocks? If it takes me more than two hours, does it make me less literate than the person who took half an hour to do it? (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

When it comes to accountability and the measurement of student progress, changes were made in 1997 to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) so that schools districts and states in America have been mandated to test students with disabilities, “providing modification and accommodations when necessary, to gather information about how well all students learn” (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 1997). There is a parallel practice in Ontario schools; in order to ensure they are able to take part fairly in the test taking and measurement process, students

142 with disabilities receive individual student accommodations or modifications as per their IEP when they write large scale assessments. However, it should be noted that provinces and states frequently rely on test development that typically does not have a proper understanding of students’ disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 1997).

Lipman (2004) noted that, “Equity in the EQAO framework views youth as being able to achieve the same standard of excellence on standardized tests. Yet, youth are different and differently located, and those differences impact test-taking success and failure” (p. 125). On a similar note, Student Success Teacher L.T. commented on the lack of equity due to the standardization of the test. She explained that because it is a test that does not place all students on an equitable level, it is not a fair test for all to write:

I think a lot of times what the test is looking for is wrong. I don't think it has a lot of value in the big picture. I think the questions too, a lot of the times we tried to go opinion-based on a lot of the questions, or you do readings. I don't think that the kids can connect to the readings a lot of the times that they [EQAO] select. I think the opinion questions are great but I think a lot of the times they are almost like the test is there to try and trick them. They are intentionally going out of their way to choose words too that kids are not going to know or topics that not everyone could connect to. I don't think it connects to the whole idea of education in differentiation. It doesn't apply on the literacy test. It's a one size fits all literacy test and that's not fair. (L.T., personal interview, November 12, 2015)

Socioeconomic Status

When understanding the leading factor in determining the success or failure of students on the OSSLT, studies have shown that socio economic factors, such as neighbourhood and social capital, are the largest indicators of success and have significant impact on student performance on EQAO tests (Harris & Mercier, 2000; Nezavdal, 2003; Tremblay, Ross, & Berthelot, 2001). Importantly enough, Ungerleider (2006) noted that “in Canada, approximately 70 percent of the variation in student learning is not attributable to school factors but to student, family and community characteristics” (p. 877). Rezai-Rashti et al., (2017) extended this conversation by noting that:

While EQAO specifically presents data on gender achievement gaps, it does not provide such comparison data for students living in different neighbourhoods from various socio-economic backgrounds. This performance

143

data often corresponds with the neighbourhood and socio-economic make-up of the population. (Ibid., 2017, p. 171)

Thomson (2002) noted that “many youth who failed the literacy test did not possess the historically dominant currency of those in positions of power, namely, the White, middle class, English as a first language, and/or male norms” (p. 125). He continued by explaining that those who are successful may be seen to possess “cultural capital”—the knowledge that is valued by the education system and the knowledge that status holders in the educational system are rewarded by possessing (Ibid., 2002). Nezavdal (2003) stated that researchers have been questioning the objective validity of standardized tests since their inception. This questioning has drawn attention to problems of systematic and cultural bias on standardized tests (Bracey, 2001; Chase, 2001; Lewis, 2001; Merrow, 2001). Recently, Hoover's (2000) study of the standardized testing movement in Ohio revealed that socioeconomic factors are consistently the best predictors of standardized test scores in that state. To that end, Kohn (2000b) noted the absurdity of the matter by claiming that it would be far more efficient to promote and demote students according to their household income. Hansen (1993) regarded the standardized testing movement as being "somewhat analogous to using a tape measure as the treatment to reduce one's waist size" (p. 20). Finally, Nezavdal (2003) warned that the problem with standardized tests has moved beyond validity to the question of whether a test actually measures what it claims to measure.

Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course

For those who are unsuccessful on the OSSLT, the Ministry of Education has created the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC). EQAO states that the OSSLC is a full-credit course that fulfils the literacy requirement for graduation and can be counted as the compulsory English credit for grade 11 or 12 (EQAO, 2013). EQAO also states that the course can be offered in special sections for ELLs, but it does not elaborate on what this means. In my experience as an educator, I have never seen this course being offered in this way. EQAO declares that all students, with the inclusion of ELLs, need to successfully complete either the OSSLT or the OSSLC. In regards to the learning expectations in the OSSLC, EQAO suggests that they cannot be modified unless the ELL has special education needs. It is important to note that EQAO recognizes that the OSSLC is an alternative means for students to demonstrate their literacy skills, which means they have prepared an alternate pathway for those learners who will be

144 unsuccessful on the test, but need to fulfil the graduation requirement. One needs to ask about the:

Issues of class, race, ethnicity, language ability, school placement (i.e., academic, applied, ESL), poverty by postal code, and literacy test success and failure feature prominently in examining who is failing the EQAO’s OSSLT, taking the test a second time, and taking the literacy course. (Kearns, 2011, p. 126).

Interviewees mentioned that students should have the option of directly taking the course, instead of needing to fail the test as a prerequisite for enrolling in the course. Kearns (2016) echoed this sentiment when she noted that the OSSLC “seems like ‘perpetual busy work’ and is symptomatic of large bureaucracies that fail to provide the freedom and democratic values they purport to uphold” (p. 131). She also spoke about the way those in power force students into writing the way they want them to write, using Foucault’s notion which speaks of the need to discipline and punish prisoners by “distributing individuals, fixing them in space, classifying them, extracting from them the maximum time in forces, training their bodies, coding their continuous behavior” (p. 131). She elaborated on the OSSLC as punishment by noting that students are made “to do time” both physically by test preparation, test taking and waiting for results, failing, and then altering their timetables to make space for the OSSLC. She pointed out that time is spent mentally and emotionally throughout a year, accompanied by anxiety, feelings of inferiority and being illiterate: “Youth also do time psychologically because their identities are invested in the EQAO’s judgments of themselves and because their future is at stake” (Ibid., 2016, p. 131).

Kearns (2011) shared the voice of a student, who spoke about how her options for next school year will be limited as she will be forced to take the course:

It makes me upset that I failed, because now I have to do a course next year. I have to go behind a year. … I wanted to take a different subject, instead of this course, now I have no choice in what I want to take cause I have to take that. So, I mean it makes me upset, it makes me pissed off. (p. 121)

Another student noted the severity of the high stakes aspect of the test, which made her rather concerned about her future: “She said test failure is like taking your future away, like if you failed it, then you don’t get your diploma; this literacy test took your life, your future”(Ibid., 2011, p. 120). Other youth also said they experienced self-doubt about their abilities as a direct result of test failure:

145

Several youth doubted their school success because they were not successful on a standardized test. The power of the test results made some students feel as though they did not belong in courses they previously enjoyed, and even caused some of them to question their school class placement. (Ibid., 2011, p. 119)

The only reason that students took the OSSLC was that it was a graduation requirement. Kearns explained, “Graduation is a goal that all students in my interviews said they valued and most seemed willing to work to fulfill the graduation requirements, whatever they were” (Ibid., 2011, p. 122). Because this literacy course fulfills the requirement for graduation, there is more compliance than resistance from students when taking this course in order to graduate.

Student Tracking

Another way that interviewees felt the test was unfair is the way that it does not allow for differentiation, based on whether students are tracked into academic or applied courses. For example, Literacy Consultant S.S. noted the inequity of the test for students in the applied level: “It is an undifferentiated test despite streaming, or whether students are in academic or applied programming” (S.S., 2015). Again, their conclusions have been validated by research. For example, Oakes (1986) stated:

When asked the question, who is most likely to be negatively affected by selection processes, it is understood that… the practices of ability grouping and curriculum tracking further ensure that those students within lower groups and tracks never become equipped with the necessary funds of knowledge to decode the system themselves. (as cited in Wheelock, 1993, p. 44)

Wheelock (1993) described that tracking assumes that students' abilities—typically as assessed by standardized tests—are static, when in fact, what children learn depends largely on the opportunities schools provide for their learning. Yet tracking assures that students placed at lower levels experience instruction and curriculum that allows for only slow progress in learning the most basic of skills. Compared to students in higher-level classes, students in lower tracks move at a slower pace, spend more time reviewing basic skills through worksheet-based instruction, and have less opportunity to produce work that has meaning to audiences outside the classroom. Given such unequal schooling, which has been noted as early as kindergarten, differences in learning actually increase over the time students spend in school. As learning gaps widen through the grades, few students can move out of the lower level to the higher level. Interviewees spoke to this injustice and offered ways to make the test more equitable. They

146 expressed the need for the educational playing field to be levelled so that all students have a fair chance of succeeding.

The word “unfair” was used a total of 31 times by the interviewees, in the context of the test being unfair for some students. A retired principal spoke to the inequitable structure of the test and the oppression of marginalized students, as well as the emotions they experience:

It is a one day sort of thing. It doesn't give you a view on what happens at school in the rest of the semester, it is just on that one day. It is unfair for students who are not educated in this country. It is unfair for students whose parents don't speak English at home. It's unfair for newcomers to Canada, and it's unfair to identified Special Ed students. Sometimes the anxiety around the test does not do well, it is not good for students who are identified as ADHD. It causes them anxiety and it is very difficult for them to concentrate for the length of time it takes to complete the test. (J.T., personal interview, December 14, 2015)

French Consultant S.H. echoed the notion that the OSSLT may be a cultural capital test, rather than a test that evaluates a student’s literacy skills. She noted:

There are schools within our board who struggle with achieving high marks or on the test just as a whole, and could that be indicative of the learning that’s happening at the school? It could be indicative of many other factors, for instance, socioeconomic status, for instance power and privilege, the education level of parents, so there is so many other factors that the test does not necessarily incorporate or the results of the test doesn’t incorporate. (S.H., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

A vice principal mentioned the inequity of a test that may be easier for some students because of their place of privilege in society:

Whoever is in that role of writing the test, they have the power, they have the privilege in their background because the topics that just come naturally to them, because of their life experiences are topics that they may assume the students should be aware of and that’s unfair. (S.M., personal interview, December 3, 2015)

The most dramatic impact is the emotional constraints that students are placed under as they face greater test pressure and anxiety with the OSSLT. The purpose of standardized assessment further perpetuates the systemically entrenched power dynamics and discriminatory practices that promote some while othering or erasing the rest.

147

Based on the responses from interviewees, coupled with the supportive literature, it is evident that because teachers are being policed by the Ontario government, they have no choice but to do the work of adhering to new policies, teaching the new curriculum, and preparing students for the OSSLT they do not necessarily believe in it. Teachers are told to prepare learners for the global market economy, in lieu of teaching them to be political citizens or critical thinkers. It is understood that school administrators are managing the work of teachers, as their core concern is the OSSLT data each year. Although both groups are working in the same building to ensure the success of students, each is not fully aware of what the other is doing, or why they are doing this. Their work has become compartmentalized—instead of working synergistically or collaboratively for the common good of educating the whole child.

Instead of a limited, paper-based test that measures a one-time (or two-day) snapshot of a student, there is a need for an assessment that allows students to show what they know in multiple ways. When EQAO refers to helping students “thrive” and ensuring their “well-being,” they forget that high-stakes and/or standardized testing cannot truly represent what youth know and can do. This is because the OSSLT continues to privilege print texts. In order to be a better measure of literacy skills, EQAO would need to “create rich and authentic performance tasks that encompass a multiplicity of modalities (oral and written) that could be assessed and evaluated” (Gatto, 2009, p. 125).

Conclusion

In Foucault’s (1994) words, “power exists only as it is exercised by some on others, only when it is put into action … the exercise of power is a ‘conduct of conducts’ and a management of possibilities” (p. 340–341). In the view of the interviewees, the OSSLT is so much more powerful than any one test in a class, or any other course, because it directly impacts student choices and their immediate and future possibilities. Kearns (2011) noted that a vast amount of literature demonstrates how social inequalities along racial, social class, and gendered lines are reproduced and sustained through school and standardized testing.

148

With the the negative experience and emotions articulated by the interviewees and the lack of equity they expressed on behalf of their students, we can notice how systems of oppression work through educational institutions to exclude (Weir, 1996). We can also appreciate that equity is not achieved by treating everyone in the same manner or providing them with the same tools; these practices will not achieve a fair result. The OSSLT sorts and ranks and as it does, it continues to negatively emotionally impact marginalized youth.

Chapter 7: Re-imagining Educational Testing

To understand what gave rise to the infusion, normalization, and dependence on the OSSLT in Ontario schools today, this study investigated the social, cultural, and political origins of the high-stakes standardized test and examined its links to capitalism via industries. This study helps shed light on the perceptions and experiences of those school teachers and administrators who were interviewed. This helped in discerning the impact of standardized testing policy and contributes to understanding the myriad of ways that these testing policies impact teachers, administrators, and students, especially those who are racialized and marginalized.

This study showed the emotional impacts on those directly connected to the literacy test. It documented a link between the OSSLT and the economic agenda of the government that established it. It examined the power relations behind the literacy test, to see how it is used as a tool of neoliberalism. This study provides current data, which adds historical contextualization and depth to the current and ongoing debates about the test amongst educators, scholars, and members of various communities. It speaks to the literature related to the OSSLT, the power relations that are visible in the OSSLT, the social relations and limits behind the OSSLT, as well as who the stakeholders are and how they influence the test in its design, implementation, and experience.

Possible Solutions

Standardized testing has been embedded into the fabric of the education system by the business elite, in order to sort students for future predetermined labour. The OSSLT is a tool created and used by the Ontario government and perpetuates the infusion of neoliberal values in education. The new curriculum is creating human capital by preparing students to work for the global economy and teaching them skills required to succeed in the globally competitive labour economy, instead of teaching them to be critical thinkers and politically aware citizens. This new curriculum is also teaching students to be consumers who will purchase to turn a profit for industry.

When articulating the current purpose of schooling, John Taylor Gatto (2010)—author of Weapons of Mass Instruction—painted the picture of school as “long-term cell-block-style forced confinement of both students and teachers” (p. xiv) and stated that the aim is “simply to

150 reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality” (p. xvii). He continued by declaring that it is “an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to deny students leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens—all in order to render the populace "manageable'” (p. xvii). He also noted that it is standardized tests that serve as the glue holding this educational model together.

Covaleskie (2002) spoke of the educational impacts that testing has on learners, and claimed that it “actually lowers the quality of education, penalizing divergent thinking, creativity, and intellectual work in general” (p. 6), while at the same time placing students under “unwarranted and potentially damaging pressure to do well on these “high stakes” tests” (p. 6). He also argued that “reductionist and anti-intellectual teaching can result in acceptable test scores” (p. 6). He also claimed that “the bad news about testing is that it rewards the sort of traditional teaching that ignores interaction” (p. 6). Kohn (2000a) also talked about this, saying that teachers are forced to “teach to the test” by focusing on drill and skill lessons; their time is minimized in helping students to grow intellectually and emotionally. The one-to-one interviews conducted for this dissertation also strongly illustrated this point. Interviewees noted that standardized testing, specifically the OSSLT, lowers the quality of education as teachers are forced to teach to the test, taking time away from teaching the curriculum, and a focus on individual student needs. High- stakes testing also forces students to fit into a norm and provide standard responses, thus eliminating creativity and divergent thinking.

Covaleskie (2002) noted the conflict between excellence and equity. When minimum standards are set, they become the bar that students much reach. This actually limits and prevents excellence in education by “equalizing down” (p. 8). As Dewey (1938/1963) explained, for an experience to be educational, “it must have interactivity and continuity…connect to children in their broader world…and equally connect to what the children already know and learn in the future” (p. 7). He noted that the types of skills that are measured on the OSSLT are “discreet reductionist skills that are far from defining a rich educational experience” (p. 7). Covaleskie (2002) discussed that “much depends on what is done with the test results and how they are used to educate the communities about their schools.” (p. 8). Yet, the teachers who were interviewed for this study noted that from their perspective, nothing is done with the literacy test results, nor are students provided with any feedback on how they fared on the test, unless they failed it.

151

The recommendations provided in this chapter are based on my qualitative, professional observations of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT)—with support from policy documents that shed light on the social and cultural foundations of educational testing, and insights from and reflections on the words of fifteen educators who have lived with and through this test with their students.

It is important to open up education to learners from all walks to life. Unfortunately, standardized testing does the opposite, as it limits and excludes. If the purpose of a standardized test is to gather accurate and fair large-scale data about student academic performance at a point in time, then there are surely alternate methods that are more inclusive and equitable. This final chapter speaks to a multitude of alternatives to high-stakes standardized testing. Ricci (2004) explained that:

a test-driven curriculum that imposes a monoculture of training will limit the biodiversity of ideas, knowledge, culture, and history. By limiting the biodiversity of ideas in schools, the less chance we have of critically challenging the status quo, and thinking of creative alternatives to the injustices that need to be challenged within our society. We must fight for the biodiversity of learning and eliminate a test-driven, monocultural training environment. (p. 359)

The need to examine our students holistically, not statistically, will be emphasized in this chapter. McNeil (2000) explained that the intent of curricula should be set at “the highest knowledge level in every field. It should call for risk-taking, experimentation, visionary possibilities, and open-ended instructional purpose” (p. 263). However, as Ricci (2004) claimed, schooling is controlled by standardized tests and a consequent undemocratic, skills-based, training-centered, monocultural pedagogical curriculum (p. 359). He made a plea that we insist learners be educated, and not just trained, and offered a solution for doing so:

We must become politically active, spread the word, call our Ministers of Provincial Parliament, write our newspapers, lobby our school boards, refuse to have our children write the tests, and ultimately get our point across anyway we can. We need to show our children that we, the citizens, need to participate in the decisions that affect our lives. We need to revitalize democracy so that we can benefit from the creativity and diversity of ideas, knowledge, and cultures that will be the inevitable result of democratic education. Above all, we do not want to train workers at the expense of educating freethinking citizens. And for this, we must replace the test-driven curriculum with a democratic-based one” (Ricci, 2004, p. 360)

152

After seeing how standardized testing has been embedded into the system of education, one might conclude that it is here to stay, unless collective voices speak up against it. This chapter will offer three possible recommendations, with each successive solution being more impactful than the last. The first will be to remove the power of the test, by altering the rules of the test. The second solution is to incorporate multiple aspects of literacy learning through the use of holistic assessments, and the final solution is to simply resist the test.

The First Solution: Remove the Power, Change the Rules

Quigley (2011) pointed out the plethora of concerns regarding standardized testing that have been raised by both scholars and educators. For example, Brand (2010), Luce-Kapler and Klinger (2005) argued that standardized testing narrows the curriculum when teachers focus on test preparation. Lotherington (2004) found that standardized tests inadequately represent the literacies that students deal with everyday. Other researchers have raised issues of language and cultural bias (Cheng, Fox, & Zheng, 2007; Cheng, Klinger, & Zheng, 2007; Fox & Cheng, 2007). She concluded that the results are acontextualized and can be misused.

The EQAO (2018) reported that 25,957 students failed the 2017-2018 literacy test. It also reported that the number of failures has increased by one per cent every year for the last five years. Clearly, this test is doing an enormous amount of damage to more and more students with each passing year.

The first solution to the issues faced by the high-stakes standardized OSSLT—assuming that it simply cannot be abolished, and that we must work with it—is to alter the rules in order to remove the power it holds over those who prepare for and write it. There are a few ways to do this, and the first would be to change the high-stakes nature of the test. This would mean that the test would simply measure a part of our students’ knowledge of literacy, without weighing so heavily on their academic careers, or becoming everything that teachers’ focus on in the classroom, or administrators focus on in the school. It is important that this test does not lead to ranking or sorting students, valuing competition, or fostering emotions of stress and anxiety. Coupled with this solution could be to have a random sampling of students, groups of students, or even classes take the test, perhaps even anonymously, instead of having all students write it. This approach would provide the government and boards of education with the data they require, without causing undue stress and anxiety to students, teachers, and administrators.

153

An additional solution that would remove the power of the test would be to change the rule requiring English Language Learners (ELLs) to attempt the test once. Instead, ELLs could be placed directly into the OSSLC. This would spare these students the time, anxiety, guilt, and shame associated with not passing the test. The OSSLT was viewed by many participants in this research to be both biased and unfair to ELLs who have to write it. It is for this reason that an essential change in policy should be considered with respect to ELLs and the OSSLT. Currently, the mature student policy states that learners who are18 years of age or older can be exempted from the OSSLT and placed directly into the OSSLC. The reasons given to support this policy are equally relevant for ELLs, specifically the time factor where students have to “fail the test at least once” before being able to be placed into the course, the “demoralizing” aspect for students who are “facing difficulty in their school,” and the argument that the “content” might be “age inappropriate” for an ELL who must write the test in their senior years of high school (Ontario, Ministry of Education, 2003). Another consideration is that the test can be culturally inappropriate for ELLs and unfair to them in terms of make-up. Therefore, the same policy change that was made for mature students should also be considered for ELLs, who have similar needs. This would save these students time and help them to gain greater insight and opportunity to refine their literacy skills.

In the 2003/04 school year, I was tasked with becoming my school’s Literacy Teacher and had the privilege of working with a principal who was adamant about using an intervention technique that would reach all students at once. She called it “the Marker Student Technique” and teachers were to use it on a regular basis in their classrooms. This technique required teachers to select a student in their class who was sitting on the fence between passing or failing; a student who required targeted intervention based on areas of need in literacy. The teachers would then implement methods of direct teaching they felt would benefit that specific student, but would teach it to the entire class in order to increase all students’ knowledge and understanding. The thinking behind this strategy is that if one student’s needs are attended to, then all students could benefit; what is good for one, is good for all.

The principal knew that this method would remove the power that the OSSLT holds. It eliminated the need to make students better test-takers through artificial tests, practising using past tests, or teaching to the test. Instead, this strategy focused on having students learn literacy skills. With this approach, students felt less anxious about the OSSLT and more confident in

154 their subject knowledge. At the same time, very little publicity or power was given to the literacy test. It is important to point out that the OSSLT scores increased in my school that year.

Removing the power from the high-stakes literacy test is extremely important; if we must work with the test, then the high stakes must be removed and rules altered. Implementing these recommendations will simultaneously foster more equitable teaching and authentic learning, and produce greater and more accurate test results. The anxiety, stress, and array of negative emotions faced by school administrators, teachers, and students will also be alleviated to some extent.

The Second Solution: A Cascade of Holistic Assessments

The second solution proposes the incorporation of multiple aspects of literacy into testing. This would include a more holistic method of assessment, instead of the current paper-based test. I propose that the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (OSSLC) be kept as a mandatory English course in lieu of the grade 9 applied and grade 9 academic courses. This would eliminate the streaming and sorting of students who have just entered their first year of high school and still provide accountability and data to government and public bodies. Students would be taught equitably and opportunities for holistic assessment would occur throughout this course. Testing in this course would either compliment the OSSLT or replace it completely. However, the assessments would look different; they would be incorporated throughout the course, and use more consistent and on-going holistic methods. The final grade would be given to the student and then the number of students who passed and failed would be shared with EQAO.

Within the problem of neoliberal values, one is also able to see the solution. Friedrich Hayek, one of the delegates who coined the term in a Paris meeting, noted that the government’s plan to crush individualism would lead to totalitarian control (Monbiot, 2016). Through holistic assessment, students are seen and evaluated based on their individualism. This idea is of utmost importance.

Defining Holistic Assessment

Schuwirth and Ash (2012) challenged traditional notions of outcome-based education, specifically when speaking to high-stakes standardized testing. They made a strong case for shifting towards a holistic means of assessment; they noted that because data is used to explain

155 the quality of assessment, manipulating it is not the best way to improve quality. With diverse groups of students, tailoring assessment is more equitable than standardized testing. Holistic testing should aim to standardize the quality of the process and not the process itself. Furthermore, Schuwirth and Ash (2012) pointed out that most assessments do not place value on student differences, but instead focus on deficiencies.

Holistic Assessment Methods

Schuwirth and Ash (2012) noted that assessment should: Support development of an integrated competence. Be organised around content domains rather than test formats. Value all forms of information, both quantitative and qualitative. Combine summative and formative functions to inform and guide student learning. Be equitable through a balance of assessments that are standardized and tailored to the individual and by focus on improvement of competence rather than solely on detecting incompetence. (p. 555)

They also spoke about the importance of rich data that goes beyond a simple pass, fail, or other qualifiers and made the case for holistic scoring to provide information on the multiplicities of each student. Furthermore, they cautioned that the validity of an assessment supports a particular purpose and questioned the way that statistics are often used: “Statistics are often like a lamp post to a drunken man; more for support than for illumination” (p. 556). The OSSLT is a norm- referenced test, where scoring is dependent on some passing and some failing. The data tells the story of successful versus unsuccessful students, schools, and boards, but does not tell the whole story for students who come from a low socioeconomic background, are English Language Learners, have Special Education needs, take applied-level courses, or experience some other forms of marginalization. Some questions on the OSSLT are not even scored because of undesirable statistics, and so we end up with an artificial data set and worse, an artificial story of success.

In order for assessment to become meaningful, it must combine both formative (given throughout the learning process; determines how students are progressing through the unit or term) and summative (given at the end of a unit, term; assesses a student’s mastery at the end of topic instruction). In proposing holistic methods of testing, Schuwirth et al. (2012) spoke

156 specifically to standardized testing, noting that although it is one form of assessment that has aided in proving insight into equity and fairness, it actually reduces equity at times, as equity is about providing what each learner needs, even though some may need more than others.

Finally, Schuwirth and Ash (2012) proposed a difference-based assessment model in lieu of a deficit-based model. Assessment is an instrument that measures deficiencies and acts as a gatekeeper between those who are deemed as competent versus those who are not. Focusing on deficiencies comes at a large price because it creates tension between the testers and the tested and impedes the essence of education, which is to educate (instead of instruct). Furthermore, Schuwirth and Ash (2012) explained that (standardized) tests can be used to capture incompetent students and questioned if this is an “accountable use of (public) resources” given that such a practice is actually harmful to students and “neglects the implicit contract to support their learning” (p. 558).

Holistic testing would help create schools that focus on learning; weaknesses and strengths would be assessed and student abilities, talents, and passions could then be fostered. In the current context, standardized testing is implemented to withhold diplomas for the unsuccessful, rather than to optimize their learning. Moving to a more holistic model would elevate the purpose of the test beyond simply selling diplomas.

Along with the five practice points mentioned by Schuwirth and Ash (2012) outlined in the introduction of this chapter, holistic methods of testing should include the use of critical thinking, open-source learning, and inclusive design. This solution would have teachers provide meaningful lessons and assess students’ literacy abilities regularly and frequently. Teachers would provide students with feedback to improve, and instead of a one-day snapshot, assessment of developing literacy would be ongoing. Revamping what we know about school, and allowing for what scholars refer to as ‘open critical thinking,’ (Gatto, 2010) and open-sourced learning in the classroom, is what the future of schooling and testing should look like.

This solution is one that would shake the very foundation of what we understand school to be; it would incorporate a broader definition of learning and include the myriad of ways that students learn in the 21st century. It follows that testing in this holistic way would be equitable and more accurate. The greatest strengths of holistic assessments would be their fairness and traceability.

157

Instead of working for or against the OSSLT, teachers could incorporate multiple methods of learning and testing into their daily classroom teaching. This would essentially include life skills, critical thinking, multiple intelligences, and expanded forms of literacy, including verbal and digital literacy. This practice would be based on “collecting rich information, multiple sampling at many occasions, documentation and analysis of all the collected information and an open dialogue with students” (Schuwirth & Ash, 2012, p. 558). This style of teaching may well be occurring to some extent already, but coupling it with holistic testing would help align the directives around teaching and testing coming from the government. This approach would embrace a new definition and purpose of education, which is to prepare students for the work economy, while at the same time teaching them to be critical thinkers and responsible citizens. If this proposed solution was to be implemented by all teachers in all classrooms across the province, it would take power away from data testing centres and put it back into the hands of classroom teachers. It would allow educators to teach each child in a nonstandard way and then test them in a holistic way.

Teachers should be experts in their subjects and providing them with ongoing learning during mandatory professional development days would allow them to learn and improve through collaborative planning and teaching, using current research. This strategy would be more beneficial than the current push of board initiatives.

Critical Thinking

There are a few examples provided by scholars and newly imagined schools that have moved away from the traditional modes of teaching and learning and towards new and innovative methods, including elements of 21st century learning. These schools look structurally different in terms of physical buildings and classroom spaces, and in terms of programming, learning, and evaluation. The opportunities that students have to participate in the community or society are also increased in these environments.

Monbiot (2016) explained that the interaction between people and the state has been “reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, (where) the only remaining force that binds us is state power” (p. 5) and so, when imagining alternate methods of testing, it is essential that students are taught to think for themselves rather than simply obey.

158

Critical thinking is the ability, in the face of a problematic situation, to come up with multiple plausible options. It involves the ability to use reasoned judgement about what to do, believe, or how to act. Essentially, it is the decision one arrives at through the competent use of intellectual tools. James (2017) noted that when the OSSLT is written and assessed, there is important information that is missing; it is difficult to actually see the process of how students are thinking. She argued there should be opportunities to assess critical thinking and proposed some equitable alternatives, such as oral tests, that could be used instead of, or in combination with, the current test. She explained that making student thinking visible would also help the teacher to discern gaps in learning and determine the next steps for a student.

Open-Source Learning

Gatto (2010) encouraged us to foster the active literacies of writing, argumentation, and public speaking. He explained a need for open-source learning where students produce and create knowledge and ideas, instead of just consuming it. He stated that it is important to:

…help kids take an education rather than merely receive schooling … encourage the best qualities of youthfulness – curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight – simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student the autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then. (p. xiv)

He continued by contrasting what the current education system provides versus what it does not: School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they'll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology— all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone; they seek constant companionship through the TV; the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired, quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more important life, and they can. (p. xxii)

These are the skills that support independent learning and thinking in the formative stages. Gatto (2010) argued that this method of learning should be implemented as early as possible to

159 eliminate what he called “the collective rituals of the lower grades,” such as practicing attention and fealty to authority. He cautioned that the opposite of mass-mindedness is dialectical- mindedness and that this might not be embraced by the current order:

The trouble with open-source learning, as far as policymakers are concerned, is that it almost guarantees an independent mind and character will develop—not a cosmetic simulation of those things, which schooling cultivates. Even worse, taking charge of mixing your own education leads to a healthy self-regard— and confident folks are considerably less manageable than anxious ones…. Aristotle sets that as a basic requirement of being fully human, but because the reality of dialectical minds is that they always challenge assumptions and take nothing for granted, their presence in large numbers poses acute problems for corporate business and corporate government. (p. 42-43)

Gatto’s idea of open-source learning not only creates a solution for an ideal education system, it also inadvertently provides a solution to the infusion of neoliberalism in education and the strong power hold that corporations and government have on schooling. He pointed out that the idea of consumption is encouraged in education:

School had to train in consumption habits: listening to others, moving on a bell or horn signal without questioning, becoming impressionable—more accurately, gullible—in order to do well on tests. Kids who insisted on producing their own lives had to be humiliated publicly as a warning to others. (p. 44)

However, with open-source learning, students would not learn to be consumers. Gatto asks us to consider:

…what society would look like if 65 million trapped schoolchildren learning to be consumers were suddenly set to actively imagining themselves in independent livelihoods, adding value to the rest of the community; imagining themselves as producers instead of bored consumers. (p. 49)

Open-sourced learning, if implemented in schools, would put an end to large monopolies of corporations as “overproduction would have strangled capital accumulation by posing continuous competition—and without capital accumulation, no dominant corporations” (Gatto, 2010, p. 44).

Gatto also noted that the deepest learning comes from making mistakes and facing failure. He tells us that open-sourced learning should involve making mistakes: “That's almost the operational definition of open-source education, sharpening your own personal feedback loops

160 through experience and mistakes” (p. 51). He advised teachers to encourage students to add value to the world around them and tells us that “real education can only begin out of a foundation of self-awareness” (Ibid., 2010, p. 60).

After reading Weapons of Mass Instruction, I incorporated Gatto’s nine expectations for students into my teaching and testing. I have found that it does far more to improve the literacy skills of students than any standardized test. It also fosters independent learning, and the ability for students to not fall into being seen as the same. Gatto emphasized that his nine expectations “destroy the structure of familiar schooling and all the comfortable hierarchies some of us depend on” (p. 72). His expectations are the building blocks of open-source learning and foster a different way for students to learn and express what they have learned more authentically. These expectations for students are: 1. The ability to ask hard questions of data, whether from textbooks, authorities, or other "expert" sources. 2. The ability to define problems independently, to avoid slavish dependence on official definitions. 3. The ability to scan masses of irrelevant information and to quickly extract from the sludge whatever is useful. 4. The ability to conceptualize. 5. The ability to reorganize information into new patterns which enable a different perspective than the customary. 6. The possession of a mind fluent in moving among different modes of thought: deductive, inductive, heuristic, intuitive, etc. 7. Facility in collaboration with a partner, or in teams. 8. Skill in the discussion of issues, problems or techniques. 9. Skill in rhetoric. Convincing others your course is correct. ( p. 72)

Inclusive Design

The old proverb tells us that, “It takes a village to raise a child.” Having all stakeholders come together to have a conversation and make a plan to take positive actions for change, whether it be altering the test, making the test less impactful in the sense that it would no longer be high

161 stakes, teaching additional skills for students to become educated and active citizens, or calling for resistance or a revolution in an attempt to abolish the test—all voices must work together.

Jeewan Chanicka (2018) shared his idea of the ideal model of equality-based education, which places student identity at the heart of learning. He called this ‘Inclusive Design.’ This model involves students, staff, families, and community members working together to foster a sense of authentic learning for students, specifically those who are in the margins. Chanicka (2018) articulated six threads of inclusive design.

The first thread is designing instruction. Here, teachers must consider student identities, lived experiences, and learning abilities, while at the same time having high expectations and supporting them with targets, success criteria, and timely and descriptive feedback. He noted that students should also come to see their learning as “a chance to transform themselves and the world” (Ibid., 2018).

The second thread is engaging parents, families, elders, and communities. Chanicka pushes us to question how classrooms and schools honour the lived experiences and voices of the village and its members. He noted that although parent councils are an integral part of school climate, they only carry the voices of the upper and middle class; there needs to be a way to bring all voices together, not just the privileged ones. He challenged us to “implement multiple ways of engaging families that support them and their lived experiences, and honour the hopes and dreams they have for their children” (Ibid., 2018).

The third thread is establishing the environment as the third teacher. Chanicka noted that much like one’s home, as soon as someone enters a classroom, they see the journey of the students and what is valued. He reminded us that school is a second home for students and they should be able to see themselves in it. He cautioned that:

…we inadvertently erase many families and children unintentionally by the signs, art we put up, the way we teach curriculum, the experiences we take students to or not, the things we choose to celebrate and the many we choose not to, the languages on our walls and in our communications (Ibid., 2018). The fourth thread is analyzing data. Chanicka posed a series of questions that lead us to think about how well we know our learners. He asked how they are experiencing the learning and the environment they are learning in, and how aware we as educators of those that

162 are underserved, their patterns of success, and their inclusion in the data. He cautioned that there are many more aspects to equity than simply race, and that one should be mindful of such facets when analyzing data. Finally, he noted that:

Strong equity-minded leaders focus on finding gaps: the students who are not being successful. They look for patterns based on their identities and then begin to plan keeping those students and their stories in mind and tie that to their school improvement planning, monitoring and accountability. (Ibid., 2018)

The fifth thread is building staff leadership/capacity. Here, collective capacity and leadership of students, staff, and community must be used to create a plan. Chanicka noted that leadership must be reflective of the students in the school and speak to shared experiences, which “allow us to build shared narratives based on a platform of understanding.” Such collective action also ensures that the ‘best solutions’ many of us come up with don't actually lead to the harm we are trying to mitigate against. Lastly, Chanicka urged us to be mindful of the “construct of leadership and whose voices we rely on in our buildings and in research as we keep replicating structures that continue to harm the most marginalised.”

The sixth and final thread is responding to student voice. Here, Chanicka drew attention to the importance of drawing on student voice, specifically the marginalized, in finding solutions that lead to responsive programming. He emphasised:

…the need to think about what school leadership looks like when students voices are heard and valued from the beginning of the process (and not just by those who are savvy enough to know how to get to particular positions in existing school structures). (Ibid., 2018)

The Third Solution: Resist the Test

Todorova (2015) advocated for assessment which captures the creative capacities and energies of learners. She highlighted the importance of testing which taps into creative energies, cultural capital, and diverse standpoints. However, creative and cultural capacities are not envisioned in the OSSLT, which measures narrowly defined skills and literacy. Todorova (2015) stated there is a capacity for revolution if there is a rupture in culture, because social relations transcend capitalism. Revolution begins in the imagination and in culture. Although the OSSLT may be needed for accountability purposes, it needs to be fair and equitable. Therefore, resistance is necessary so that changes can be made to the test, or so that it abolished outright. It is important

163 to resist what is not right with the OSSLT and one can only do this from within the system. Gatto (2010) spoke of this call for revolution and named it ‘The Bartleby Project.’ He noted that standardized tests are weapons of social control and hopes that his project will destroy the standardized testing industry.

The very inception of my study stemmed from the notion that there was something unsettling about the OSSLT, something that needed to be investigated, and something that needed to be said about standardized testing because “teachers know, and most all teachers feel in their bones, that the testing rituals cause damage (but) only a few dare resist” (Gatto, 2010, p. 197). Gatto (2010) pushed his revolutionary movement because he understands that “free will contradicts the management principle. Refusing to allow yourself to be regarded as a ‘human resource’ is more revolutionary than any revolution on record” (p. 203). Gatto (2010) urged us to break the chains of schooling simply by using “the awesome instrument each of us has through free will … to destroy the adhesive which holds it together—standardized testing” (p. 203-204). He poetically explained that:

Mass abstract testing, anonymously scored, is the torture centrifuge whirling away precious resources of time and money from productive use and routing it into the hands of testing magicians. It happens only because the tormented allow it. Here is the divide-and-conquer mechanism par excellence, the wizard- wand which establishes a bogus rank order among the schooled, inflicts prodigies of stress upon the unwary, causes suicides, family breakups, and grossly perverts the learning process—while producing no information of any genuine worth. (Gatto, 2010, p. 204)

Gatto’s Bartleby Project started by reaching out to 60,000,000 American students. One by one, they were asked to respectfully and peacefully decline to partake in either the preparation or writing of standardized tests because “adults chained to institutions and corporations are unable to; because these tests pervert education, are disgracefully inaccurate, impose brutal stresses without reason, and actively encourage a class system which is poisoning the future of the nation” (p. 206). The Bartleby Project asks students “to simply write across the face of the tests placed in front of them, ‘I would prefer not to take this test’” (Ibid., 2010, p. 205). As a result of this resistance to standardized testing, Smith College—the legendary women’s college in Northampton, Massachusetts—announced on May 27, 2008 that it would no longer require applicants for admission to submit SAT scores. Alternatively, they noted that moving forward, “the most important criteria for admission will be writing ability, evidence of character and

164 talent, and significant extracurricular accomplishment” (Ibid., 2010, p. 206). Gatto (2010) confirmed that schools which have eliminated standardized tests have observed no decline in academic ability.

Conclusion

This study has examined the social, cultural, and political origins of the OSSLT; interrogated the links between the test and Canadian industries and capitalism; and explored the impact on major stakeholders, specifically administrators, teachers, and students. This study has noted that the notions of literature and power relations that are articulated in the test are those that promote neoliberal values of preparing students for employment in the global economy and creating meek and docile citizens and consumers. New government policies have placed administrators, teachers, the community, and students into silos, and turned school into a business that runs on generating, assessing, and analysing OSSLT data. Students have been removed from the centre of conversations in education. The data generated from the OSSLT are used to validate the success of implemented government policies in order to push more policies that will infuse more neoliberal values into education. It also ensures control of programming, curriculum, and overall education.

The OSSLT and standardized testing must be re-examined. It is imperative that a conversation on the effects of this test be had, followed by a call to action where solutions are voiced by all, with students at the centre. Kearns (2016) noted:

The legacy of colonialism and masculine domination is seen in whose knowledge is valuable in the state, and whose knowledge is challenged and further marginalised in a standardized, fast paced, humiliating, and competitive educational environment. If the voices of youth are to be heard in the public realm, then standardization can no longer be viewed as a tenable response to the multiple, unique and different educational subjects in a democratic state. (p. 139)

The primary purpose of this thesis was to document a link between the OSSLT and the economic agenda of the government establishing it. The impetus was to look at how we can better understand the power relations behind the literacy test and to see how it is used as a tool of neoliberalism. Gatto (2010) eloquently stated:

165

The frequent ceremonies of useless testing—preparation, administration, recovery—forced schooling into a travesty of what education should be; they drain hundreds of millions of days yearly from what might otherwise be productive pursuits; they divert tens of billions of cash resources into private pockets. The net effect of standardized testing is to reduce our national wealth in future generations, by suffocating imagination and intellect, while enhancing wealth for a few in the present. This occurs as a by-product of "scientifically" ranking the tested so they can be, supposedly, classified efficiently as human resources. (p. 194)

What Gatto (2010) and a plethora of other scholars have noted is that, “the production of high standardized test scores correlate with almost nothing of value” (p. 148). Gatto (2010) spoke of eliminating standardized testing because it has no connection with the development of student intellect or the character traits of good citizens. He noted that:

…testing is a poor predictor: Mass testing institutionalizes dishonesty… Because testing correlates with nothing very real, it mis-identifies winners and losers in a reckless fashion, among its many unfortunate by-products is that testing targets problems for attention which aren’t ‘problems at all… Once mis-identified by test scores, however, the creation of bureaucracy to "solve" the non-problem can seem a rational thing to do. (p. 152)

He finally noted that it is important to do away with standardized testing, but to keep standards of high quality. He explained that “standardization cripples imagination and imagination has always been the real driving engine of our powerful economy. The rankings these tests generate argue quite dishonestly that they correlate tightly with real world excellence, yet they do nothing of the sort” (Ibid., 2010, p. 153). He concluded by explaining that:

The only way these judgments, based upon number-magic, can be made to seem functional is to rig the game in advance. That is to say if you only license people with high test scores, regardless of actual merit in designing buildings, removing tonsils, or teaching school, then you create a world of self-fulfilling prophecy in regard to test scores. (Ibid., 2010, p. 153-154)

The Literacy Test, in theory, is a means to measure, or set a benchmark, indicating where students are expected to be by the end of grade 9. The results are used to rank schools in Ontario from most to least successful. There are inequitable impacts as a result of this test, but society needs a means to measure student achievement. In practice, the test is one that contradicts the new shift in education which speaks of differentiated learning styles, multiple intelligences, and providing options on assignments that test student understanding, skills, and knowledge of curriculum learned. The test is not inclusive of all learners. It is a tool of neoliberalism which is

166 biased in how it is framed, delivered, and scored. If unsuccessful, it may prolong or even prevent a student from living the good life.

In theory, one can understand the need for society to sort people based on their level of knowledge and skill. In general, tests need to be administered in order to see who meets the minimum standards or expectations that have been set for specific jobs, privileges in society, and titles one may hold. Those who write the tests and are successful are deemed knowledgeable and skillful enough to be part of that particular group. Those who do not succeed are understood not to possess the skills or knowledge required to progress and become part of that group. This practice serves those who are in power and fuels the myth of meritocracy. It also meets the needs of industrialism because it measures and rewards those who are able to provide a prescribed and formulaic answer, rather than one that requires critical thinking.

Education should teach students to think critically and help them become autonomous so that they will eventually have the ability to live the good life. Even though the ultimate goal of education is autonomy, so one can live this life, it is questionable as to whose definition of the good life students are expected to live. The purpose of education is to enhance students’ ability and level the playing field in order to provide all students with equal opportunities to live the good life. Much of this is done through current educational pedagogy.

Research indicates that not all students learn in the same way or at the same pace, but that every student is capable of learning (Dolan, Canavan, & Pinkerton, 2006). Abrasively put, the literacy test “…violates everything teachers know about education and students know about learning” (Dolan, 2006a). The test is criticized as it does not “…look at the new model of education…[and] respect…ability sets… [the] test…disadvantage(s) kids based on them being learners of various kinds” (Dolan, 2006a). If this is the case, then the literacy test is outdated and does not relate to how students learn, nor does it appeal to what they consider relevant or important in their personal lives.

Education should set the standards of what students need to learn to live society’s definition of the good life. It should prepare them with the skills and knowledge they will need in real life. It should not be in the reverse where education and curriculum are continuously trying to catch up to the outside world concerning what they need to learn to fully be able to participate in society.

167

The literacy test doesn’t allow for the broad range of understanding that students bring to the classroom. Students bring multiple literacy skills to the classroom that are not tested.

The main issue that disadvantages many students is the fact that there are promotion or retention consequences attached to the test:

The single biggest flaw is that this is a test. A high stakes (test) placed on a single assessment is just bad pedagogy. It doesn’t make sense educationally to have a kid’s entire graduation depend on one test, even one type of assessment. (Dolan, 2006b)

If students fail the test they are faced with large consequences, such as graduation being prolonged or withheld, career limitations, and being kept in the margins because “…all students do not learn in the same way…The test advantages some and disadvantages others and could contribute to some decisions not to continue high school” (Dolan, 2006b). The promotion or retention consequences also contribute largely to keeping specific students in the margins:

Standardized testing presents difficulties and challenges for all students and is really a benchmark for schools in the province…Specific students such as immigrants and refugees, are disadvantaged by the test, but as a whole the test doesn’t help the student population. (Dolan, 2006b)

When interviewed, lawyer David Baker stated that in Ontario, “One in five students faces a life in poverty or crime because they can’t pass the grade 10 literacy test” (Alinsworth-Vincze, 2006). Baker went on to state that “20 per cent of the students who would otherwise have been graduating …will not…” (Alinsworth-Vincze, 2006).

One recognizes that accountability is a necessity in education, yet “regardless of the varying ways students learn…the OSSLT does provide accurate information as to the literacy skills in reference to a fixed standard of performance” (Dolan 2006a). There is value in measuring performance and setting goals and consistency in education is needed. Society needs to sort people and test them to see if they “measure up” to expectations. It is evident that the OSSLT is not a just way to measure students’ performance and another method to test for the literacy skills of students in high school should be implemented. This method should be similar to the literacy course, where testing and current educational pedagogy reflect one another and where education sets the trend and defines what students should learn in order to live the good life. Only then can there be a just way to sort students.

References

Above and Beyond Learning. (n.d). Retrieved from www.ablearning.org/about-us/

Alinsworth-Vincze, C. (2006 ). Struggling to succeed. New Media Journalism. [Blog post].

An Introduction to Equality of Opportunity. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/equality-opportunity-introduction

Anderson, S. E., & Jafaar, S. B. (2003). Policy trends in Ontario education (pp. 1-58, Working paper No. 1). University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/ ~icec/policytrends.pdf

Anderson, S. E., & Jafaar, S. B. (2006). Policy trends in Ontario education, 1990-2006. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Retrieved from https://icec.oise.utoronto.ca/PDFfiles/FinalPolicyNarrative.pdf.

Ajayi, I. A., & Ekundayo, H. T. (2008). The deregulation of university education in Nigeria: Implications for quality assurance. Nebula, 5(4), 212-224.

Audiopedia. (2015, October 25). Critical discourse analysis. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GT2U14_Irs

Ball, S. (2001). Performativities and fabrications in the education Economy: Towards the performative society.” In D. Gleeson & C. Husbands (Eds.), The performing school: Managing teaching and learning in a performance culture (pp. 210–226). London, UK: Routledge-Falmer.

Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 215–228.

Ball, S. J. (2016). Neoliberal education and neoliberal education policy: Are we all neoliberals now? [Youtube video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 2Wx9sKr20ek

Barrett, S. E., Solomon, R. P., Singer, J., Portelli, J. P., & Mujuwamariya, D. (2009). The hidden curriculum of a teacher induction program: Ontario teacher educator’s perspectives. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(4), 677-702.

Bascaramurty, D. (2018, May 9). Pepsi deal extension… or pop machine expulsion? The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/pepsi-deal- extension-or-pop-machine-expulsion/article4276019/

Berthelot, J. (2008). Education and the common good. Our schools/Ourselves, 17(6), 101-126.

Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. New York, NY: Routledge.

169

Borman, K. M., Kromrey, J. D., Hines, C. V., & Hogarty, K. Y. (2002). Editors’ introduction: Special issue on standards-based reforms and accountability. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 343-344.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Bracey, G. W. (2001). The condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2),157-170.

Brinkmann & Kvale. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Brown, F. (1995). Privatization of public education: Theories and concepts. Education and Urban Society, 27(2), 114–126.

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York, NY: Zone Books.

Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Callahan, R. (1975). The American board of education 1789-1960. In P. J. Cistone (Ed.), Understanding school boards (pp. 19-46). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Canadian Broadcasting Corportation. (2019, March 14). What bribery in U.S. college admissions says about the ‘myth’ of meritocracy. Retrieved from www.cbc.ca/news/world/us- college-scam-cheating-myth-meritocracy

Carothers, G. (2010, Winter). Standing up for public education in Ontario. Retrieved from http://canada.lilithezine.com/Standing-up-for-Public-Education-Ontario.html

Centralize. (2012). In dictionary.com. Retrieved from https:www.dictionary.com/ browse/ centralize

Centralized Organization vs. Decentralized Organization. (2012, July 19). Ordoro Blog. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https:/blog.ordoro.com/2012/07/19/centralized-organization/

Chanicka, J. (2018, February 21). Inclusive design: Students, families and staff working together. Huffpost. [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jeewan-chanicka- /inclusive-design-students-families-staff_a_23364995/

Charter Schools. (2013, December 13). In The Canadian Encycolopedia. Retrieved from https: www.thecanadianencycolopedia.ca/en/article/charter-schools

Chase, B. (2001). Challenging the almighty test. National Education Association Today, 20(2), 5.

170

Chaatterji, M. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountability initiatives: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools?. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 345-386.

Chomsky, N. (2000). On MisEducation. Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Chomsky, N., & Smith, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Clandfield, D., & Martell, G. (Eds.). (2014). Restacking the deck: streaming by class, race and gender in Ontario schools [Ebook].

Clarke, M. (2012). The (absent) politics of neo-liberal education policy. Critical Studies in Education, 53(3), 297-310.

Climenhaga, D. (n.d.). iPolitics. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ipolitics.ca/author/david- climenhaga

Conference of Independent Schools of Ontario. (2014). Questions and answers. Retrieved from https://www.cisontario.ca/page.cfm?p=293

Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99-112.

Covaleskie, J. G. (2002). Two cheers for standardized testing. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume6/ covaleskie.html

Crawley, M. (2019, Feb. 21). Opposition cries foul as Premier Doug Ford’s list of patronage appointments grows. CBC Online. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ toronto/doug-ford-patronage-appointment-cameron-montgomery-eqao-1.5026004

Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (1995). Tinkering towards utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Deacon, R. (2006). Michel Foucault on education: a preliminary theoretical overview. South African Journal of Education, 26(2), 177-187.

Deregulation. (2019, April 20). In Investopedia. Retrieved from Investopedia.com website, www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deregulate.asp

Dewey, J. (1916/1944/1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.

Dey, I. (2004). Qualitative data analysis. A user friendly guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.

171

Dodge, S. (2016, Dec. 4). Neoliberalism and education. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElSzGs1Y9Rk

Dolan, K. (2006a). Accuracy of the literacy test: Part I. New Media Journalism. (2006): 1-3.

Dolan, K. (2006b). Accuracy of the literacy test: Part II. New Media Journalism. (2006): 1-2.

Dolan, P. Canavan, J. & Pinkerton, J. (2006). Family support: from description to reflectin'. In P. Dolan, J. Canavan & J. Pinkerton (Eds.). Family support as reflectice practice. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

Education Act. (2009). R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2. Retrieved from ttps://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/ 90e02

Education Commission of the States. (1992). Introduction to systemic education reform. Educational Resources Information Center.

Education Equality Task Force, & Rozanski, M. (2002). Investigating in public education: Advancing the good of continuous improvement in student learning and achievement. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education.

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2016). Infographic: Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test, 2016 results. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/en/about_eqao/ media_room/Pages/infographic-2016-osslt-results.aspx

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2017a). Top reasons why standardized testing in Ontario and the United States are not comparable. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/en/about_eqao/media_room/communication-docs/infographic- EQAO-US-Comparison-print-version.pdf

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2017b). Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/en/assessments/OSSLT

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2017b). 81% of Ontario’s Grade 10 students succeed on provincial literacy test.. Retrieved from https://www.newswire.ca/news- releases/81-of-ontarios-grade-10-students-succeed-on-provincial-literacy-test- 641511493.html

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2018, September 19). EQAO publishes 2017-2018 results for each school and board in Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.eqao.com/en/about_eqao/media_room/Pages/2018-school-board-results.aspx

Edwards, P. E. (2015, May 4). Teacher strikes: Ontario strikes and lockouts since 1987. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05/04/teacher- strikes-ontario-strikes-and-lockouts-since-1987.html

Efficiency. (2019, April 26). In Investopedia. Retrieved from Investopedia.com website, www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficiency.asp

172

Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (2000, February). A promise to Ontario’s children: public education is not for sale. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/ 65391326/ Public-Education-is-Not-for-Sale-Ontarios-Promise

Ellis, J. (2005). Place and identity for children in classrooms and schools, Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 3(2), 58-73.

Emery, K. (2007, Spring). Corporate control of public school goals: High-stakes testing in its historical perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(2), 25-44.

Excel. (2019). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/excel

Fairclough, N. (2011). Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In Rogers, R. (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 119-127. New York, NY: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8(4), 794.

Foucault, M. (1994). In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984, Vol. 3. New York, NY: New York Press.

Frenette, M., & Chan, P. C. W. (2015). Academic outcomes of private and public high school students: What lies behind the difference? Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved fromhttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2015367-eng.htm

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Freire, P., and D. Macedo. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word, and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Fussell, P. (1992) A guide through the American status system. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Gaffield, C. (2013, July 15). History of Canadian education. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/history-of-education

Gallagher, C. J. (2003). Reconciling a tradition of testing with a new learning paradigm. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 83-99.

Garossino, S. (2016, June 22). Shameless: The hidden private school tax haven for the rich. Canada’s National Observer. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalobserver.com/ 2016/06/22/opinion/shameless-hidden-private-school-tax-haven-rich

Gaskins, S. (2016). Commentary: A Standard of Excellence. Retrieved from http://succeedtolead.com/pdfs/articles/train-dev/Commentary_Standard-of- Excellence.pdf

173

Gatto, J. T. (2009). Weapons of mass instruction: A schoolteacher’s journey through the dark world of compulsory education. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Glossary of Education Reform. (2019). Glossary of Education Reform. [Blog Post]. Portland, ME: Great Schools Partnership. Retrieved from https://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/ resources/glossary-of-education-reform/

Goodson, I. (1987). School subjects and curriculum change. London, UK: Falmer.

Goldberg, D. (2009). The threat of race: Reflections on racial neoliberalism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gutstein, D. (2004, October 23). Who funds the Fraser? Retrieved from http://donald gutstein. com /category/donner-canadian-foundation/

Habermas, J. (1989). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article. In Bronner, S. E., & Kellner, D.M. (Eds.), Critical theory and society: A reader (pp. 136–142). New York, NY & London, UK: Routledge.

Hacking, I. (1991). How should we do the history of statistics? In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 181-196). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Russell, J. L., Marsh, J.A., & Miles, J. (2008). Chapter 2. Accountability and teaching practices: School-level actions and teacher responses. In B. Fuller, M. K. Henne, and E. Hannum (Eds.), Strong states, weak Schools: The Benefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability (pp. 31-66). Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1016/S1479-3539%2808%2916002-5

Hampe, B. (2017, February 12). Re: What is the difference between education and schooling? [Blog comment]. Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference- between-education-and-schooling

Hansen, J. B. (1993). Educational reform through mandated accountability an oxymoron? Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 26(1), 11-22.

Hanson, F. A. (1993). Testing, testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hanushek, E. A. (2001). Experimenting with students. New Republic, 224(14), 15.

Harris, R., & Mercier, M. (2000). A test for geographers: the geography of educational achievement in Toronto and Hamilton. Canadian Geographer, 44(3), 210-227.

174

Hays, S. P. (1983). The politics of reform in municipal government in the progressive era. In L. Dinnerstein & K. T. Jackson (Eds.), American vistas (4th ed., pp. 102-129). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Henry H. Goddard. (2019, February 2019). In Wikipedia. Retrieved April 20, 2019, from https: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Goddard

Heubert, P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Heywood, D. (2013). Social class: Differential expectations, experiences and outcomes of schooling [Power Point Slides]

Hill, D. (2004). What neoliberal global and national capitals are doing to education workers and equality—Some implications for social class analysis. In A. Green, G. Rikowski, H. Raduntz, (Eds.), Renewing dialogues in Marxism and education: Openings (pp. 71-103). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hill, P. T., & Bonan, J. J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R4066.html

Hong, B. (2012, August 30). Charitable Fraser Institute received $4.3 million in foreign funding since 2000. Vancouver Observer. Retrieved from https://www.vancouverobserver.com/ politics/charitable-fraser-institute-received-43-million-foreign-funding-2000

Hoover, R. (2000). Forces and factors affecting Ohio proficiency test performance: A study of 593 Ohio school districts. Retrieved from http://rlhoover.people.ysu.edu/OAT-OGT/

Hyslop-Margison, E. (2007). Review of liberalizing vocational study: Democratic approaches to career education. Paideusis, 16, 67-68.

Individuals with Disabilities Act. (1997). (Department of Education). (United States). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/idea1.html

James, U. (personal communication, April 25, 2017).

Jones, C. M. (2015, June 30). Why most companies fail at community management. CMS Wire. Retrieved from https://www.cmswire.com/customer-experience/why-most-companies- fail-at-community-management/Kalinowski, T. (2003, January 29). More Spending on schools urged. The Toronto Star, p. A20.

Joshee, R. (2007). Opportunities for social justice work: The Ontario diversity policy web. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 18(1&2),171–199.

Kalinowski, T. (2003a, March 26). Course aids students who flunk the literacy test. The Toronto Star.

175

Kearns, L. (2011). High-stakes standardized testing and marginalized youth: An examination of the impact on those who fail. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation,34(2), 112-130.

Kearns, L. L. (2016). The construction of ‘illiterate’ and ‘literate’ youth: the effects of high- stakes standardized literacy testing. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(1), 121-140.

Keddie, A. (2013). Thriving amid the performative demands of the contemporary audit culture: A matter of school context. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6): 750–766.

Ketil. (2019, March 14). The system is rigged and the idea of a merticracy has turned out to be a “myth”. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://shinybull.com/tag/france/

Klein, N. (2008). The shock doctrine. The rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

Kohn, A. (2000a). Standardized testing and its victims. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2000/09/27/04kohn.h20.html

Kohn, A. (2000b, September 27). A case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.

Lesko, N. (2001). Act your age: A cultural construction of adolescence. New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.

Lewis, A. C. (2001). Heads in the sand. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 3-5.

Lingard, B., Martino, M., Rezai-Rashti, G., & Sellar, S. (2016). Globalizing educational accountabilities. New York, NY: Routledge.

Linn, R. L., and C. Haug. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(1), 29–36.

Lipman, P. (2004). High-stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.

Luke, A. (2011). Generalizing across borders: Policy and the limits of educational science. Educational Researcher, 40(8), 367-377.

Mansour, T. (2015, May 16). Ontario budget criticized for privatization of higher education. Retrieved from https://thevarsity.ca/2015/05/12/ontario-budget-criticized-for- privatization-of-higher-education/

Martell, G. (2009). It’s the bottom streaming that matters most. School Magazine: Education Action Toronto. Retrieved from http://educationactiontoronto.com/discussions/it-s-the- bottom-streaming-that-mattersmost

176

Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2012a). Neo-liberal accountability and boys’ underachievement: Steering education policy by numbers in the Ontario context. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(4): 423– 440.

Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2012b). Failing boys and the question of what counts as evidence: Investigating masculinities, equity and neoliberal reform agendas in Ontario. In C. Greig & W. Martino (Eds.), Canadian men and Masculinities: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 159–175). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Martino, W., & G. Rezai-Rashti. (2013). ‘Gap talk’ and the global rescaling of educational accountability in Canada.” Journal of Education Policy, 28(5): 589–611.

McNeil, L. (1988). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.

McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mehta, J. D., & Schwartz, R. B. (2011). Canada looks a lot like us but gets much better results. In M. S. Tucker, (Ed.), Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems (pp. 141–165). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Merrow, J. (2001). Undermining standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(9), 652-660.

Monbiot, G. (2016). Neoliberalism—The idealogy at the root of all our problems. The Guardian oline. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism- ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Morgan, D. L. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Morley, L. (2015, July 13). Troubling intra-actions: gender, neoliberalism and research in the global academy. Journal of Education Policy, 31(1), 28-45.

Murphy, S. (2001). No-one has ever grown taller as a result of being measured revisited: More educational lessons for Canadians. In J. P. Portelli & R. P. Solomon, (Eds.). The erosion of democracy in education: From critique to possibilities. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises, 145–168.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperatives for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

Newfoundland and Labrador. (1994, March). Ontario labour markets in the early 1990s. The Economy. Retrieved from https://www.economics.gov.nl.ca/archives/E1994 /SF_Ontario %20Labour%20Markets%20in%20the%20Early%201990s.pdf

Nezavdal, F. (2003). The standardized testing movement: Equitable or excessive? McGill Journal of Education, 38(1), 65-71.

177

Noguera, P. (1997). Reconsidering the ‘crisis’ of the Black male in America. Social Justice, 24(3), 147–165.

O’Donnell, J. (1985). The origins of behaviorism: American psychology, 1876–1920. New York, NY: University Press.

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2017). 2017 Annual Report. Retrieved from www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arbyyear/ar2017.html

O’Leary, M. (2013). Surveillance, performativity, and normalised practice: The use and impact of graded lesson observations in further education colleges. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37(5), 694–714.

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association. (2003, September 2). Tories fail as stewards of public good Catholic teachers say [News Release]. Retrieved from http://www.oecta.on.ca/news/nr2003/nr030902b.htm

Ontario Federation of Labour. (2001). The privatization of Ontario’s education system: 1995- 2001. Retrieved from http://ofl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2002.01.01-Report- EducationPrivatization.pdf

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (1993). Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119. Antiracism and ethnocultural equity in school boards: Guidelines for policy development and implementation.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2003). Policy/Program Memoranda No. 132. Prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) for mature students: Implementation in Ontario secondary schools.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2007). English language learners: ESL and ELD programs and services. Policies and procedures for Ontario elementary and secondary schools, Kindergarten to Grade 12. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2009). Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2013a). Private elementary and secondary schools. Retrieved from http://edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/privsch/index.html

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2013b). Paying attention to literacy: Six foundational principles for improvement in literacy, K—12. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2014). Equity and inclusive education in Ontario schools: Guidelines for policy development and implementation. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2018a). Private elementary and secondary schools. Retrieved from www.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/privsho

178

Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2018b). What is literacy? Retrieved from http://www.eworkshop.on.ca/edu/core.cfm?p=literacyAbout.cfm&navID=literacyAbout &L=1Ontario. Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2017). School boards management of financial and human resources. 2017 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arbyyear/ar2017.html#volume1

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. (2003). Tories cited again for mismanagement of education. Update, 30(8).

Ontario Teachers' Federation. (2003, March 27). Multi-year funding welcome, but still more questions than answers [Media Release]. ETF. Retrieved from http://www.otffeo.on.ca/ news/releases/030327.html

Orlich, D. C. (2004). No child left behind: An illogical accountability model. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,78(1), 6-11.

Osborne, K. (2008). Education and schooling: A relationship that can never be taken for granted. In The Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107(1), 21-41.

Our Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.ourkids.net/school/

Parekh, G., Killoran, I., & Crawford, C. (2011). The Toronto connection: Poverty, perceived ability, and access to education equity. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(3), 249-279.

Patel. S. (2014, September 14). A guide to coding qualitative data. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://salmapatel.co.uk/academia/coding-qualitative-research/

People For Education. (2003). The 2003 secondary school tracking report: Diminishing support in a harsher environment. Toronto, ON; People for Education.

Popham, W.J. (1981). Modern educational measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Popkewitz, T.S. (1997). The production of reason and power: Curriculum history and intellectual traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 131-164.

Powell, C. (2012, November 14). The myth of meritocracy. The Practical Theorist. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://practicaltheorist.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/the-myth-of- meritocracy-part-i-cultural-capital/

Principals as Leader-Managers. (2016, November 18). Retrieved from https://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin451.shtml

Privatization. (2018). In Investopedia. Retrieved from Investopedia.com website, https:// www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatization.asp

179

Public. (2018). In Oxford English Living Dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/public

Quigley, B. (2011). Remixing the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT).Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 1(1), pp. 164-182. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/jgcee/index.php/jgcee/article/view/20/22

Resnick, D. P. (1980). Minimum competency testing historically considered. ln D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 8, pp. 3-29). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Rettig, M., & Baumann, R. (2006). Submission by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation to the standing committee on social policy regarding Bill 78, the Education Statute Law Amendment Act (Student Performance). Toronto, ON: Ontario Teachers’ Federation.

Rezai-Rashti, G., Segeren, A., & Martino, W. (2017). The new articulation of equity education in neoliberal times: the changing conception of social justice in Ontario. Globalisation, Societies and Education,15(2), 160-174.

Ricci, C. (2004). The case against standardized testing and the call for a revitalization of democracy. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 26(4), 339-361.

Richter, B. (2006). Part II of it's elementary: A brief history of Ontario's public elementary teachers and their federations. ETFO Voice. Retrieved from http://etfovoice.ca/feature/ part-ii-its-elementary-brief-history-ontarios-public-elementary-teachers-and-their

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2011). Social equity and the assemblage of values in Australian higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1): 5–22.

Robinson, J. (2010, October 11). Leader or manager: What’s the difference? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://the21stcenturyprincipal.blogspot.com/2010/10/leader-or-manager- whats-difference.html

Robinson, K. (2006). Changing educational paradigms [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms

Rodrik, D. (2017, Nov. 14). The fatal flaw of neoliberalism: it’s bad economics. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/14/the-fatal-flaw-of- neoliberalism-its-bad-economics

Rothman, R. (1995). Tests of significance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rushowy, K. (2017, Sept. 6). Report card, curriculum changes on the way in Ontario. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/09/06/ report-card-curriculum-changes-on-the-way-in-ontario.html

Rushowy, K. (2019, March 15). Ford government announces hikes to high school class sizes, but no changes to Kindergarten. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/

180

politics/ provincial/2019/03/15/ford-government-announces-hikes-to-high-school-class- sizes-but-no-changes-to-kindergarten.html

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm- binaries/24614_01_Saldana_Ch_01.pdf

Schlicht-Schmälzle, R., Teltemann, J., & Windzio, M. (2011). Deregulation of education: What does it mean for efficiency and equality? TranState Working Papers 157, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.

Schrager, A. (2018, June 29). The modern education system was designed to teach future factory workers to be “punctual, docile, and sober.” [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1314814/universal-education-was-first-promoted-by-industrialists-who- wanted-docile-factory-workers

Schuman, J. (2017, June 21). Canada: Do Ontario private elementary schools have to follow the same laws and standards as public schools? Retrieved from www.mondaq.com/canada /x/603542

Schuwirth, L., & Ash, J. (2012). Assessing tomorrow's learners: In competency-based education only a radically different holistic method of assessment will work. six things we could forget. Medical Teacher, 35(7), 555-559.

Segeren, A. (2016). How schools enact equity policies: A case study of social justice leadership. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western University, London, Canada.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Selden, S. (1975). What may a 75-year involvement with the language and ideology of business tell us? Educational Leadership, 452-56.

Shah, J. I. (2010). Centralisation versus decentralisation in Education. The Dialogue, V(3), 284- 288.

Smith, N. (2018, January 16). Why are schools serving predominantly Black students more often marked as ‘failing”? Atlanta Black Star, Retrieved from https://atlantablackstar.com /2018/01/16/ schools-serving-predominately-black-students-often-marked-failing/

Spring, J. (1986). The American school: 1642-1985. New York, NY: Longman.

Standardized testing. (2015). In edglossary.org. Retrieved from https://www.edglossary.org/ standardized-test/

181

Standards-based. (2018). In edglossary.org. Retrieved from https://www.edglossary.org/ standards-based/

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Sweet, M. E. (2006). Standardized testing—unmasking a threat to democracy. Munich, GRIN Verlag. Retrieved from https://www.grin.com/document/77060

Te Riele, K. (2006). Youth ‘at risk’: Further marginalizing the marginalized? Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 129–146.

Terman, L. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Riverside.

The Fraser Institute. (2014). Measuring what matters. Annual report 2014. Retrieved from https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/fraser-institute-2014-annual-report.pdf

Theodorou, E. (2007). Reading between the lines: exploring the assumptions and implications of parental involvement. International Journal about Parents in Education, 1(0), 90-96.

The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing. (2017, June 22). Retrieved from https://gradepowerlearning.com/pros-cons-standardized-tests/

Thorndike, E. L., & Bregman, E. O. (1934). Measurement of intelligence. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Thomson, P. (2002). Schooling the rustbelt kids: Making the difference in changing times. Crows’ Nest, AU: Allen & Unwin.

Thompson, P. (2013). Romancing the market: narrativizing equity in globalizing times. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(2): 170–184.

Todorova, M. (2015). (personal communication, March 25, 2015).

Todorova, M. (2015). Dusty but mighty: Using radio in the critical media literacy classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(3), 46-56.

Tremblay, S., Ross, N. A., & Berthelot, J. M. (2001) Individual and community factors affecting grade three academic performance: a multi-level analysis. Education Quarterly Review, 7(4), 25-36.

Tyack, D. (1967). Turning points in American educational history. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

Ungerleider, C. (2006). Reflections on the use of large-scale student assessment for improving student Success [Abstract]. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation, 29(3), 873-873.

182

Van Krieken, R. (2016, April 12). Habermas and the public sphere. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PzTyNe4tP4

Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review.. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481-586

Watters, A. (2015). The invented history of “the factory model of education. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory-model

Wein, C. A. & Dudley-Marling, C. (2001). Limited vision: The Ontario Curriculum and outcomes-based learning. In J. P. Portelli & R. P. Solomon, (Eds.). The Erosion of democracy in education: From critique to possibilities. Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises, 99–116.

Weiner, L. (2012). Privatizing public education: The neoliberal model. New Political Spaces, 19(2). Retrieved from http://www.reimaginerpe.org/node/6943

Wheelock, A. (1993). From tracking to untracking in the middle grades. Equity and Choice, 9(2), 44-50.

Wigdor, A., & Garner, W. (1982). Ability testing: Uses, consequences, and controversies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Zanderland, L. (1998). Measuring minds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Zegarac, G., & Franz, R. (2007). Secondary school reform in Ontario and the role of research, evaluation and indicator data. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association. Chicago, Illinois.

183

Appendix A Email to Participate

Dear ______,

I would like to invite you to participate in a one to one interview to share your opinions and experiences with the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT). The purpose of this interview is to assist me in my Doctoral dissertation research entitled Re-imagining Educational Testing in Ontario: Understanding the Social and Cultural Foundations of Educational Testing through the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test.

My dissertation will investigate the social, cultural and political origins of the test. The study will further examine how school administrators and teachers view and experience the test. Your views on the test and observations about its history and merits will be highly beneficial to my study. Hence, I hope that you will agree to grant me a 40-50 minute interview, which will be audio-recorded with your consent, in a place and time convenient to you. The interview is confidential and you will not be identified in any material resulting from the study. You can also withdraw from the study at any time in which case all information you may have provided will not be used in the study and will be destroyed.

Should you wish to participate in the study please reply to this email or call me at 647-448-7271 so we can arrange a time and location to meet. Should you know of any other individual who would be interested in participating in this study, could you kindly forward them this letter of invitation to participate so that they can contact me?

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Sharmin Dadani

184

Appendix B Informed Consent Form

CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN A PERSONAL INTERVIEW

Project Title: Re-imagining Educational Testing in Ontario: Understanding the Social and Cultural Foundations of Educational Testing through the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test.

Name of Student- Researcher: Sharmin Dadani Contact Information: [email protected] or 647-448-7271 Name of Institution: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Miglena Todorova, from the department of Social Justice Education at OISE, University of Toronto. (This research is being conducted in partial fulfillment of my Doctorate in Education) Date: ______

Project Description: You are invited to participate in a one-on-one interview discussing your views, experiences, ideas and beliefs related to educational testing, specifically the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test. This study will investigate the social, cultural and political origins of the test, focusing specifically on the links between the test and the needs of Canadian industries and capitalism. The social, cultural and environmental contexts that produce the test will be examined to understand the power and privilege that is echoed in this type of educational practice and testing. An alternate method of testing or evaluation will be presented.

My thesis may cite your views and/or your words. For further information, please contact me at tel.: 647-448-7271 or email: [email protected] or my co-supervisor, Dr. Miglena Todorova, Rm. 12-262 OISE, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON M5S 1V6, tel.: 416- 978- 0386; e-mail: [email protected] You may also address questions regarding your rights as a participant in this project to the Office of Research Ethics, University of Toronto, tel.: 416-946-3273; email: [email protected]

Purpose of the Interview: The purpose is to present your views, experiences and ideas in an area in which you have expertise and experience.

Description of Activities: You will participate in a one-on-one interview that will be audio- recorded with your consent. You may leave or stop the conversation at any time without providing reasons for doing so. If you wish to withdraw from this interview your information and audio recordings will be deleted. You are free to decline to answer any question, your data will be deleted from the study if you withdraw before the data are aggregated and the audio-recording will be deleted as soon as the interview transcripts are validated by the participants. The anticipated length of the interview is approximately 40-50 minutes.

185

Confidentiality:The information you provided during the interview is confidential. This means that your name, location and affiliations will be withheld from any written and non- written documents, material and activities related to the study. The information you provided will not be shared with other parties and only non-identifiable pseudonyms will be used in any reporting of the findings.

There is no known harm associated with participation in this interview.

Benefits include: Findings will increase understanding the effects of the OSSLT.

PARTICIPATION IN THIS INTERVIEW IS VOLUNTARY. IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN IT:

 You have the right to withdraw from the interview at any time.  You have the right to decline/refuse to answer questions during the interview

You will receive a signed copy of this consent form.

I hereby consent to participate in this interview and give consent to be audio-recorded:

Name of participant: ______

Signature: ______Date: ______

186

Appendix C Interview Questions

Demographics:

How old are you?

Do you identify as male, female or transgender?

Are you a visible minority?

What is your role in relation to the OSSLT?

Questions:

In what capacity do you have direct experience with the OSSLT?

In what capacity do you have indirect experience with the OSSLT?

(e.g. also a parent of a child who wrote the test etc.)

What is the profile of a successful student on the OSSLT?

What is the profile of an unsuccessful student on the OSSLT?

What tools/resources would a student require to be successful on the OSSLT?

What are factors that lead to a student's success on the OSSLT?

What are factors that lead to a student's failure on the OSSLT?

What do you do with the results of the test (e.g. how does the test inform practice)

In your opinion, do teachers connect OSSLT test preparation to classroom practice?

Do teachers connect OSSLT results to classroom practice?

What value do you place on the test results? As teachers/admin what criteria do you use to determine deferrals?

Probing Questions:

How do you define literacy?

How did you develop your definition?

187

How does this align with the Ministry’s definition of literacy?

Who decides what literacy skills are needed for students to be successful/to graduate?

Whose definition of the ‘good life’ are students striving to live?

In your opinion, is the OSSLT necessary? Why or why not?

What do you see as the purpose of the test?

In your opinion, should the OSSLT be a ‘high stakes’ test?

What do you see to be the benefits / drawbacks of the test?

What aspects of literacy are not measured on the OSSLT? Why or why not?

What characteristics should a student have to most likely be successfully on the test? Why?

Assuming that sorting is an accepted role of education, is the OSSLT is a just way to sort students? Why or why not?

What degree and kinds of literacy skills are needed for success in the real world? Are these skills measured on the OSSLT?

What are the limits of the test?

What are the power relations behind the test?

How would you improve the application of the OSSLT?

How would you improve the delivery of the OSSLT?

What is the purpose of education?

Should there be accountability in education?

What should this look like?

Do the results of the literacy test need to be given to the students? Why or why not?

What do you do with student results?

Should we be doing more/less with student results? Please elaborate.

Can you describe the type of subjectivity and uniformity in OSSLT marking?

Can you describe the type of subjectivity and uniformity in normal classroom evaluation?