Hacker News Reader

Comment by pseudolus | Hacker News Reader

Practice test: https://mathproficiencytest.ca/#/en/sample-questions-pre

Thanks for the link. I went through the 5 intro sample questions and clicked on all 45 questions in the next section. It looks like basic math grade-school curriculum such as fractions, percentages, arithmetic, etc.

I didn't see any high-school subjects like trigonometry, or algebra like completing the square to solve a quadratic equation, or adding matrices.

It's definitely not like the challenging college tests (SAT/GMAT/GRE).

The first 5 questions I saw were:

  What is the value of
  7.05+5+1.5+2.05+4.57.05+5+1.5+2.05+4.5  ?

  What is
  17.86÷0.19  ?

  What is the sum of the following set of four numbers?
  0.02, 0.6, 0.735, 0.00050.02, 0.6, 0.735, 0.0005

  What number is represented by this expanded form?
  (3×1000000)+(2×10000)+(7×1000)+(9×100)+(6×10)+(8×1)

  What is
  6905÷34  ?

Also, since these are multiple choice, they're all really easy to solve in ways that they wouldn't be if you had to fill in a blank.

Yeah, I think they're testing if someone will recognize that division by 0.19 is approximately equal to multiplication by 5 and ballpark the answer.

The section after that (the pedagogy section) is different though, and was explicitly called out in the ruling as part of the problem:

Question 1: "Based on Learning For All, which is a shared goal or strategy of differentiated instruction and Universal Design for Learning? A) To use the same textbooks B) To use only whole-class instruction C) To meet different needs of the students in a class D) To meet the requirements for curriculum expectations"

Question 6 (just clicking through randomly): "Assessment that occurs before a period of learning to assess a student's readiness for learning and learning preferences would be considered which of the following? A) assessment of learning B) assessment as learning C) assessment for learning D) assessment of learning skills"

Question 15: "As outlined in Growing Success, how does Ontario’s criterion-referenced assessment and evaluation approach require teachers to assess and evaluate students’ work? A) by ranking student performance B) by comparing work done by other students C) by referencing performance standards developed by teachers for their own classrooms D) by referencing the established criteria for four levels of achievement that are standard across the province"

It sounds like they need to read a few books and remember concepts from them - something they'd expect from elementary and high school students.

Maybe, but is it really something that should be in a math proficency test?

Especially since it seems to be the part that trips up the French speaking group.

the test and source material should be available in french - I assume it already is. That part actually seems to be in there to make it so those who do poorly in the math have some reading they can do to boost their marks.

> That part actually seems to be in there to make it so those who do poorly in the math have some reading they can do to boost their marks.

It's marked separately, so this doesn't happen: https://mathproficiencytest.ca/#/en/applicant/learn/results:...

"Applicants are required to obtain a 70% or greater on each of the components of the test, in the same attempt, to be successful on the MPT."

Not that I think that's particularly relevant to the lawsuit. If the component is discriminatory, it seems like it's discriminatory whether it serves as a filter on it's own, or it acts as a way to "boost your marks" for the other filter. Same if it's not discriminatory.

> Maybe, but is it really something that should be in a math proficency test?

It's not a math proficiency test, it's a math TEACHER proficiency test. I.e. it involves understanding protocols and not just understanding math. That stuff is part of teacher training so of course test takers should be prepared to be asked about it. It should probably also include basic first aid, a little bit of child psychology, and (in the US) crowd control and self-defense.

We can take an educated guess :

1) C 6) D 15) D

These are really dumb and tedious. However, I would not trust a teacher who can’t solve these

Thanks for this. I think the test is pretty interesting:

- The first and second sections test math skills up to about a grade five or six level, at least based on what I learned in Ontario schools in the 1980s.

- The third section seems pretty suggestive of the philosophy of the teacher training system. I didn't have much trouble guessing 16/21 questions correctly, despite never having read any of the referenced books.

- I would love to see how scores on the first and second sections of the test correlate with answers to the questionnaire that forms section four.

- I'm not sure what the pass standard for this test is, but I would be rather concerned if teachers who had scored less than 75% on the first two sections were permitted to teach mathematics (or science) above a grade 4 level. (Certain choices of answers on the questionnaire section would also provoke similar concerns.)

Looks like 70% is a pass: https://mathproficiencytest.ca/#/en/applicant/learn/results:...

The pedagogy section would really bother me as a teacher (https://i.imgur.com/3s9mVY5.png). They shouldn't be evaluated on the semantics of different mission statements.

it sounds like they needed to read a book and learn some concepts from it. That's something you'd expect from any student.

It’s worth noting that this practice test was not available at the time the requirement was put in place (P18 of the judgement). While teachers that were raised in Ontario would be somewhat familiar with the grades 1-9 math curriculum, teachers not from the region would be more or less going in blind in terms of what content to expect. This is one factor that affected the judgement.

That's bad (tests definitely should publish practice tests), but for god's sake, it's grade math curriculum. It should be passable without any practice.

Having taken a look at those sample questions, would you really want a teacher who cannot complete them without explicitly preparing for them to be teaching your children?

They're not particularly complicated and I'd expect not only every teacher to able to complete them, but every student as well. This continuous dumbing down standards in the interests of equality of outcome does not end well for anybody.

The only thing that makes sense about lowering standards rather than increasing efforts to help people meet those standards is this is a consequence of increasing labor prices, and an attempt to keep expenses lower by not having to compete for well qualified teaching candidates.

End result will be further stratification of society via price segmentation where well resourced members of society can afford to purchase better quality education. This already happens, but these measures will help it become even more stratified across more of the population.

Honestly, I’m fine with my kid’s dance or history or whatever teacher not being able to pass that seeing as how the test was given blind and in a high-pressure environment.

The judgement seems pretty clear that the province was not able to demonstrate that teacher math scores produce significantly better student scores - any correlation was weak at best. It appears that pedagogy skills are far more important than being able to ace a standardized test. If there had been a demonstration otherwise my option would be different.

To be clear, teachers who teach subject X should know enough to teach it (once given sufficient prep time), but I don’t care if they know subject Y, or if they lock up when given a standardized test.

Maybe I’m just a bit more sympathetic than normal here since I always did poorly on big high-pressure math tests (but could do non-test-based content with flying colors).

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, teachers in Ontario (and most places, I imagine) do not specialize in a subject until high school or so. So most teachers needs to be able to teach every subject.

This is besides the point though, in my opinion. Any teacher being unable to do basic arithmetic is extremely alarming. It calls into question their entire credentials as a teacher. Anyone who graduated high school, let alone college should be able to do arithmetic.

This isn't a case of teacher in subject X has some knowledge gaps about subject Y. This is a case of a teacher missing basic adult competencies.

After looking at a handful of questions, I'd want a teacher who couldn't initially pass this test to be trained in math at this level first, but not disqualified from teaching. Teach them what they need that they're missing.

I'd want them to have the opportunity to be trained in it if they want, but the test isn't the problem here. This is basic math.

If they can’t do basic grade school math, it’s probably safe to assume their entire education is extremely limited and they’re functionally illiterate. Like can’t balance their check book illiterate. So I wouldn’t expect them to have the rounded peripheral knowledge needed for a top tier education. Why would we want people with such poor educations teaching children?

You're confusing literacy with numeracy. To give you a counter-example to what you're saying, my son reads above grade level, but has math anxiety, and would struggle with some of the questions that mixed percents and fractions, especially on a timed test. If he decides he wants to teach, he'll be great at it, but he'll need to level up in math skill and get more comfortable with juggling numbers in his head.

Your comment about wanting better-educated people to teach is legit. But we have, in America at least, run-down areas with crappy primary schools. Some of those kids will feel a calling to teach. What should we do about that? Find resources to help them get to where they need to be, or tell them they're too dumb?

If they've finished college and plan on going into education and can't mix fractions and percents, then it has nothing to do with their primary school math scores.

Which is actually a much larger question - how are teachers graduating from university without being able to do 5th grade math?

https://www.oise.utoronto.ca/mt/UserFiles/File/Master_of_Tea...

So to become a teacher you have to complete either 36 or 72 hours of math education over a single 6 month period, even teaching math in grade 12. That's it. That's less than 2 hours of math per week over 6 months.

More scary is that it DOESN'T mention exams. There seems to be no need to actually remember anything. You have to complete "practicum" which seems to be 2 months of helping out a teacher in a classroom, and "more" in the second year.

Any adult should be able to go in blind and ace this test. Why do people set the bar so low

Why are these low bars being lowered even further, every single passing year? That should be the next question one asks themselves...

I would love to live in that world.

Wait till you see the test that is asked of Police officers. There's a joke about that one goes something like this:

The only question is "how much is 2+2 ?". Any answer between -3 and 22 except 4 is considered correct.

There is a huge advantage in a lot of the questions in knowing shortcuts and simplifying the questions. Someone with a strong math background is going to find this a lot easier better than someone who struggles with math.

Sounds like the test measures proficiency in math then. A math proficiency test if you will.

Maybe a math competency test is more appropriate.

For a test called "Math proficiency test" that sounds about right.

"People who are good at math will be good at this math test."

What grade is this supposed to be for?

This is for teachers. Unbelievable, I know.

I have dyscalculia to the nth, I couldn't complete this test, I closed it after the first question. Although I wouldn't want to teach math, I'm perfectly well qualified to teach art.

How would you teach perspective?

Is geometry considered pure math? Funny you should ask, I was I thinking about that, I guess I'd just teach it via leading lines, and maybe look at the required geography prior to the class. Although I have a degree in art and I've never considered perspective in the context of geometric math, and I'm not sure it would be required to teach primary school art (or high school for that matter?)

Geometry is indeed math, and understanding perspective is impossible without it.

> dyscalculia to the nth

I see what you did there

How did you manage to make it through school? This is pretty basic stuff.

In Scotland in the 90s, after a few years, they just put me in a class with kids with down syndrome when everyone else was in Math and tried to teach me 1:1, and then when I moved to Canada I had 2 more years of High School and they just didn't make me take math because there was no way I'd manage it and there was no point in stopping me graduating because of it so I was given special consideration as someone with sever and complex special needs.

A little off-topic, but DeviantArt has been a hugely important part of my kids' lives. It's helped make them the artists that they are. Thank you for whatever role you had in building it.

Aww, thank you for saying that. I'm really happy to hear! I was one of the original community directions when a few of us were trying to get dA off the ground. I'm pretty sure there are actually a number of the original dA staffers around HN.

The issue is that elementary school teachers in Ontario are required to teach all subjects. We don't have subject-specialized teachers such as art teachers in elementary school.

Should this test preclude me from teaching grade school in Ontario? Are we not all weaker in some areas than others? My mother, Ms. Findlay, taught elementary school in Whitby for years, she's really great at maths, but she couldn't draw a stick figure or build something out of lego if her life depended on it, heck she can't drive stick shift. Unfortunately for me, dyslexia and dyscalcila are hereditary through the father line, so much like myself, my father can't spell or add two numbers together for jack, thankfully neither of us have had to work in areas that you'd notice, but I still think we could both teach elementary school just fine.

> Should this test preclude me from teaching grade school in Ontario?

Yes. If you cannot do basic arithmetic, you should not be responsible for teaching math to children.

> Ms. Findlay, taught elementary school in Whitby for years, she's really great at maths, but she couldn't draw a stick figure or build something out of lego if her life depended on it, heck she can't drive stick shift.

I don't understand what you are talking about. Elementary school teachers are responsible for teaching math, not teaching kids how to drive stick.

I'm sorry about your condition. It honestly sounds like hell.

I can't say I know much about how the education system works, I was under the impression grade school teachers are much more focused on soft skills and things like arts and crafts than say, high school teachers who teach harder skills. My point on mum was she isn't very creative or coordinated, and I would have thought creativity is more important in the elementary years, again i don't know much about how pedagogy works so I may very well be mistaken.

It depends on what you mean by grade school, I suppose. In the US and Canada, kids attend first grade at around 6 years old. From this age, they should be learning how to read, write, and do addition. By third grade or so, they are learning multiplication. Softer skills is definitely part of school, but learning to read and write and do math is like the fundamental thing you send kids to school for.

I would find it disturbing if a teacher assigns tests and homework for their students with some expectation of proficiency which outmatches their own.

In a field test, 19% of them failed the test (or, as they'd put it: "around 1 in 12" :) ).

> The EQAO led a field test between February 18 and March 7, 2020 to monitor, assess, and refine the implementation of the MPT before it was launched. A total of 4,065 applicants participated in the field test, with 81 percent successfully completing the MPT. The field test allowed the EQAO to test MPT items with the applicant population and collect data to establish items as valid and defensible.

IMO, if you fail this test, you have no business holding a teaching certificate that would allow you to teach math. It seems like the issue is that teaching certificates in that area do not adequately distinguish teachers who are certified to teach math up to 6th grade (where a general certificate is all that's required). Fixing that would seem to (me at least to) allow the testing to continue to be qualified to teach math. Fail the math competency test and you can teach other subjects. (That might not be ideal, but it's way better than having teachers who aren't competent in math teaching math.)

When I was a child in Ontario in the 1980s we had a single teacher for each class that taught all subjects except French, so (except for the French teacher) there weren't really any non-Math teachers. I imagine that things have changed a little, but probably not enough to except the preponderance of elementary teachers from being expected to be competent math teachers.

The problem is that in Ontario teachers are not differentiated until around high school, meaning a teacher has to be responsible for teaching up to that level in a general, well-rounded way.

I sure wouldn't want a teacher who has fewer requirements in math proficiency than the very students they're teaching. Imagine students receiving harder math tests than what a teacher would be comfortable with.

I understand it’s simple, especially the addition questions. But it’s been a long time since I’ve had to do long division. Without knowing some of the questions on this test beforehand, I’m confident I would be toast.

But you're not a teacher, right? Is this test not testing something that a teacher kind of sort of ought to know well enough to... teach?

I suspect if you know you were writing such a test you could have someone refresh your basic long division in relatively short time.

The two division questions in the section where you didn’t have a calculator didn’t require you to complete the division. You could examine the answers and get easily to the answer in one case and get to the answer or a 50/50 shot in the other case with basic knowledge of math, even if you forgot the long division mechanics.

There are 4 multiple choice answers. The questions were pretty simple to answer without even doing the math properly. They seem to be more "are you even aware of how to do this" than "here's a question that might present some difficulty".

A little less than 1 in 10 teachers failed this test when they tried ...

And frankly the quality of teachers isn't much better elsewhere.

Oh my.

...I passed this test without knowing any of the reading materials for section 3 (just by guessing what seemed reasonable). This was a very basic elementary school math test.

Section 1 - 5/5 Section 2 - 44/45 Section 3 - 16/21

~91%

If you can't prepare for and pass this test you really shouldn't be teaching anyone anything.

> Section 1 - 5/5 Section 2 - 44/45 Section 3 - 16/21

Thank you for sharing your score.

Mine (practice test 1, English) was

Section 1 - 5/5 Section 2 - 43/45 Section 3 - 13/21. These are the questions I got incorrect

Section 2: questions 12, 33 (I know I don't have any excuse as a math major in college).

Section 3: questions: 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21.

When I went into this test, I thought this was for students and was trying to figure out which grade students would take this test. There were multiple questions which made me do a double take because I thought "surely this must be a trick question I am missing the point of".

> If you can't prepare for and pass this test you really shouldn't be teaching anyone anything.

13/21 is 61% which is failing score. I think section three of the test should be removed.

But this is without any studying or pedagogical training. You did pretty well and so did the commentator above you.

>13/21 is 61% which is failing score. I think section three of the test should be removed.

You didn't know any of the material, no wonder.

But my guess is that section 3 is there to improve pass rates - teachers who can't do basic math but can read and regurgitate slides/notes. It probably pushes a lot of people over the 70% pass. I got 16/21 on that section just guessing what sounded reasonable. If I had read a book or notes on it I'd probably ace it. It's a gimme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com