The ministerial maths test in secondary four sparked a reaction from many teachers last week: the question was similar to the previous version approved for classroom practice, which teachers fear could increase student results in a “particularly formal” way.
The Ministry of Education, for its part, assures that this question is absolutely correct.
The ministry allows teachers to use some editions of previous years to help students prepare for the ministerial exam in June. This year, the 2018 and 2019 editions of the regular mathematics test (Culture, Society and Technology) can be used as test simulations in the four grades of secondary level.
However, some teachers were quite surprised to find that last Thursday’s test contained almost identical questions to the 2018 question seen in class, except for a few words. The numbers were different, but the mathematical logic used was exactly the same, they say.
“The question is clearly a given,” says Sylvain Duclos, who has taught high school math for nearly two decades.
It is a paper written by the student that can be consulted during the exam when youngsters contact him after the exam to tell him that he has written the entire answer on their cheat sheet.
“A review of this importance has ramifications. It inflates student outcomes in the wrong way,” said Mr. Duclos says.
However, other teachers, who did not wish to be named, expressed similar views. “It’s already a predictable test, and if you also have approved questions for classroom practice, that will go a long way,” says another experienced maths teacher.
A choice that makes you react
The situation makes teachers react “a lot,” notes Melanie Tremblay, professor of mathematics education at the University of Quebec in Rimouski (UQAR).
The expert, who has for years decried the excessive predictability of the test, believes the ministry has gone too far this time, just like the question used in class to prepare students.
“We’ve reached a new peak,” he says.
For its part, the Ministry of Education assures that the procedure is completely valid. “This in no way affects the validity of ministerial tests,” notes a spokesman, Brian St-Louis.
He adds that while the context of the two questions and the concept assessed are the same, “the parameters of the operations in the question and all the data the student has to process differ,” he adds.
Mme Tremblay disagrees. “We’ve phrased the question differently, but it’s the same,” he says. When a test becomes too predictable, it no longer measures what it says it does.
The Ministry of Education notes that the use of the test for 2018 and 2019 was approved during preparation in class, as these tests cover the entire curriculum.
“Music geek. Coffee lover. Devoted food scholar. Web buff. Passionate internet guru.”
