On April 30th of this past school year, teachers across Nova Scotia were surprised to receive an email from Education Minister, Brendan Maguire. The missive (now referred to as “The Letter”) included a rather tepid acknowledgment of all their hard work, followed by a declaration that lagging test scores showed they weren’t really working hard enough. To help our teachers along, he, and the Tim Houston government, were going to be “rebalancing” the system.
Just in case teachers needed to have his message explained to them, the Minister kindly included two graphs; one showing public education funding increases from 2021-27, and the other showing a decrease in test scores as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment, (PISA) from 2015-2022. (The fact that the test scores preceded the funding increases probably should have been enough to call conclusions into question, but I digress.)
For those who may not know, PISA is a test that is distributed across the planet every few years by a group known as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). An internationally funded think tank, the OECD looks, predominantly, at issues of global economic impact. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, an idea emerged that education and economics were inherently connected. Driven primarily by the neo-liberal idea that free market thinking could be applied to all systems of human interaction, educational authorities became enamoured with the idea of comparing education systems. They lacked a tool by which to do so, and the OECD obliged by creating PISA.
Not only did teachers find the message around from the Minister insulting, the letter caused tremendous confusion around how this “rebalancing” would impact jobs, a clarion cry quickly picked up on by NSTU President, Peter Day. Although acknowledging that the education system in Nova Scotia has some gaps, Day suggested that a systemic, broader approach to increasing student supports would be more appropriate. He told CBC that government claims that this shift would provide substantive improvements to the system was analogous to “trying to put out a fire with an eyedropper.”
Day handled the moment well, and I recall the incident now only to use it as context. Using scores from large scale assessment tools like PISA as a weapon with which to bludgeon the public into believing public education is widely failing (it’s not, by the way) is certainly not a new tactic. As clumsy and ineffective as this particular attempt was, it does signal that this government is not above using large scale, predominantly meaningless, data as a way to avoid significant increases in education spending.
NEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS ACCOUNTABILITY
In what is rather a bit of fortuitous happenstance for those of us who disagree with that avoidance, brand new research has recently emerged examining PISA and, more specifically, the educational value of large scale testing in general. The results were consistent and clear. When large scale, standardized testing is used as an informational tool only to guide policy, positive things can happen for kids. However, the moment these tests are used in any sort of coercive manner, education suffers.
The new study, published just this past June in “Studies in Educational Evaluation” looked at the results from the 2022 PISA test, comparing them across 65 countries and focussing particularly on math scores. The researchers were very interested in examining the duality of large scale assessments like PISA. On one hand, they maintained, large scale data collection can serve a diagnostic function by providing timely data on student learning. On the other, the same assessments can be “embedded within coercive accountability structures that impose sanctions, rewards or reputational pressures on schools and teachers” which hinge on those same scores.
The researchers divided countries into four broad categories based on how often they administered large scale assessments, and the extent to which those assessments were deemed to be “coercive” within the educational context. The categories went from high accountability and high frequency (for example, Vietnam, Malaysia, United States) through high accountability and low frequency, (seen in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Latvia) through low accountability and high frequency (Sweden, Norway, Estonia) and finally low accountability and low frequency (Canada, Spain, Peru).
The researchers then further broke the data down to look at how elements like socioeconomics and gender impacted test scores. As per previous research, gender differences were statistically significant, with male students scoring consistently higher in math than their female counterparts. Socioeconomic status was predictably a statistically significant factor, with students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds doing better than their less well-to-do peers. The same was true for schools, where the socioeconomic status of the school itself, as opposed to that of the individual student, was the strongest predictor of strong mathematics achievement. Immigration also played a major role in the results, with immigrant students scoring lower than their non-immigrant class mates.
What was new in the research, however, was the role played by high stakes testing. According to the results, “test-based accountability displayed significant negative association with mathematics achievement”, meaning that stronger accountability measures for producing higher test scores actually decreased student performance. This result held true across all the other variables, except for socio-economic status. Surprisingly enough, the adverse effects of test-based accountability were actually more pronounced the higher the socio-economic standing.
Essentially, when more pressure was applied to do well in these tests, all kids, especially rich kids, ended up learning less math.
PISA DATA MISUSED AND ABUSED
I’ve long been staunchly in the anti-PISA camp for many reasons, but primarily because of the type of nonsense that was so prominently on display by our Education Minister on April 30th. The data produced by PISA is an interesting side note that may perhaps provide some good water-cooler conversation, but that is the extent of it. Even ignoring the fact that the graph produced to bolster his argument was wildly misleading, connections between PISA scores and Nova Scotia education policy are tenuous at best. Giving these test scores enough credibility to justify a “rebalancing of the system”, (read: cost saving measures) is nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors. Raising them to that level of importance where they create “coercive accountability structures” and “put reputational pressures” on our schools flies directly in the face of good educational practice.
It is a game we’ve seen before. When the McNeil Liberals were in power, they used a fabricated connection between our schools and large scale assessments like PISA as justification for attacking the collective bargaining rights of teachers. Whether it was Karen Casey, Zach Churchill or, ultimately, Avis Glaze, our tests scores were not “good enough”. Yet the call was not for more support for poor families, or increased support for immigrants or even for more money to be spent on students. They called for changes in the system, including higher accountability measures for classroom teachers; the exact opposite of what jurisdictions should be doing if our ultimate goal is to improve test scores.
The next PISA test scores (written between April and May of 2025) will be released in September of this year. The focus of this round of testing was Science, and I am predicting that Nova Scotia will yet again place somewhere in the middle of the pack, coming in behind the more affluent provinces of BC, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario. This prediction is based solely on where we stand socioeconomically and a due to a healthy growth within our immigrant population.
I am also predicting that, true to form, government will look at the scores at a superficial level, and once again, repeat the panic-laden, baseless claim of “Our schools are failing” to justify superficial, economically motivated education policy.
When I see governments handling large scale educational data in this manner, I find it reminiscent of a toddler playing with matches.
They may find some satisfaction in the initial spark they create, but they have no idea the damage they can cause to the system when the match ultimately drops on the classroom floor.
Edited version published in Tbe Chronicle Herald, July 25th, 2026.
frostededucation 