Standardized language tests used by the Canadian government are fundamentally misaligned with real-world proficiency, academic experts say, raising concerns that the exams fail qualified immigrants based on “processing speed” rather than actual communication skills.
James Cummins, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), told New Canadian Media that “processing speed is essentially irrelevant” to a person’s ability to function in a university or a community. Cummins argued that these standardized tools “lack any claim to construct validity,” suggesting that if the general native English-speaking population took them, “at least 40 per cent would likely fail to qualify as proficient.”
Canada Research Chair in Migration Futures Lori Wilkinson of the University of Manitoba echoed these concerns, saying that governments often rely on standardized testing, not because it best reflects real-world language ability, but because numerical scores are administratively convenient.
“A language score is an easy thing to account for,” Wilkinson said. “A number is seen as objective and scientific, even though it may not reflect a person’s true fluency — either positively or negatively.”
She noted that meaningful assessment requires time and interaction. “Until you meet this person and converse with them, one never knows what their true language ability is,” she said, adding that test-based screening prioritizes speed and efficiency over accuracy.
The critiques follow a significant policy shift by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). As of November 1, 2024, the federal government began requiring these third-party exams for all Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) applicants. IRCC internal roadmaps suggest this requirement will widen to include spouses and partners under the International Mobility Program by mid-2026.
Every year, millions of international students and skilled immigrants enter tense examination rooms for a high-stakes ritual. It is a gateway that fuels a massive global industry. The International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the market’s dominant player, reported more than 4.5 million tests globally in 2023. According to market research firm Spherical Insights, this broader industry — valued at $3.85 billion in 2023 — is projected to exceed $15 billion by 2030.
The Speed trap
For professionals like Milad Soltani, the human cost of this system is clear. “My English is professionally proficient. I teach pilots in English,” said Soltani, who works as a flight instructor.
Soltani postponed his Canadian skilled worker application due to testing hurdles. Despite a career demanding precise, safety-critical communication, he struggled with the rigid time limits of the standardized English language tests.
“The constraint is embedded in the design,” he said. “It’s not testing my ability to use English in my job; it’s testing how fast I can perform under artificial pressure.”
Soltani’s experience highlights what researchers call “test speededness.” A study published in Translational Issues in Psychological Science argues that time-limited tests are less valid and less equitable. The researchers suggest that timing-based exams marginalize “slow thinkers” or those with test anxiety — factors that have little to do with one’s ability to integrate into a Canadian community or workplace.
Wilkinson said that time pressure disproportionately affects vulnerable applicants. “In addition to ADHD, there are several other conditions that may affect test performance, including anxiety, trauma, brain injury and stress disorders,” she said. While accommodations such as extra time are routinely granted in Canadian post-secondary institutions, she questioned why similar flexibility is rarely extended to immigration testing.
“The stress of migration itself is not accounted for,” she said. “Many people underestimate how difficult it is to migrate and how urgent the need can be. That stress alone may significantly affect performance and partly explains why applicants often retake these exams multiple times.”
Accent as a Barrier
Professor Cummins said that the bias in these commercial tests extends to auditory perception.
“In some automatically scored tests that measure oral fluency, accent has been used to fail test takers,” he said. He recounts graduate students at OISE, whose written English surpassed that of native speakers, failed proficiency tests because their accents were deemed “not proficient” despite being “totally comprehensible.”
Regarding the focus on speed, Cummins noted that these metrics often function as a convenience for test developers to fit candidates onto a “Bell-shaped curve” rather than measuring true proficiency.
The Economic Chasm
This structural bias is magnified by a stark financial inequity. While a $340 test fee in Canada represents about 20 hours of minimum-wage work, Soltani points out the reality for those in the Global South.
“For someone in Iran, that same fee can represent over three months of minimum-wage earnings,” Soltani said. “A single failure isn’t just a setback; it’s a catastrophic financial loss.”
This creates what advocates call a “wealth filter,” where applicants in a high-wage country can afford to retake a test until they crack the code, while an equally qualified applicant from a lower-wage economy faces a prohibitive barrier.
Wilkinson agreed that cost and access function as structural barriers long before applicants ever reach Canada. “The high cost of the exams themselves, the time and expense of preparation, and the difficulty of accessing testing centres — often located far from where people live — pose serious challenges, especially in low-income countries,” she said.
She added that limited availability of accepted tests compounds inequality. “There are only a small number of recognized exams for migration and education. Finding space, travel and access can itself prevent people from applying.”
The debate over the IRCC’s choice of assessment tools is not new. In 2019, Phil Mooney, Vice-President at AURAY Sourcing International Inc. told the federal Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that standardized tests unnecessarily prevent skilled workers — such as welders who have worked in Canada for years — from obtaining permanent residency.
Mooney argued that real-world Canadian work experience is often a far more accurate measure of proficiency than a “speeded” exam.
In response to these criticisms, IRCC maintains that standardized testing remains the most reliable assessment tool currently available. In a statement to New Canadian Media, the department cited joint research with Statistics Canada that found official language proficiency is “one of the strongest predictors of immigrants’ economic success in Canada,” and that test-based measures predict post-landing earnings more accurately than self-reported language ability.
IRCC stated that testing by designated third-party organizations is “the most fair, transparent, objective, consistent and accurate way” to evaluate proficiency, noting that all approved exams must align with the Canadian Language Benchmarks and meet psychometric standards developed in consultation with independent experts.
The department acknowledged concerns regarding affordability and access. While test prices are set by providers, IRCC said it regularly raises cost issues with designated organizations and continues to explore options to expand testing availability globally while maintaining reliability and oversight.
As Canada shifts its focus toward transitioning in-Canada workers to permanent status in 2026, the clash between meritocracy and built-in prejudice becomes more apparent. Critics suggest the challenge for the IRCC will be ensuring that the keys to the country are based on fair, human-centric evaluation rather than the rigid metrics of a global testing industry.
A freelance journalist, Hamid Moghimi lives and works in Toronto with over two decades of writing experience.
