2005 EQAO Highlights. LDSB Participation Rate Gr. 3 Contextual Information.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Growing Success Overview
Advertisements

Pennsylvania’s Continuous Improvement Process. Understanding AYP How much do you know about AYP?
Online Fidelity in Mathematics Martin Kollman. Online Fidelity in K-6 Online material and assessment programs provide successful fidelity for teachers.
Kitaskinaw School received their grant allocation from the Department of Indian & Northern Affairs for the school term. In that timeframe,
NYS Assessment Updates & Processes for New Social Studies Regents Exams September 18, 2014 Candace Shyer Assistant Commissioner for Assessment, Standards.
JHLA Junior High Literacy Assessment. The school year saw the first administration of the Junior High Literacy Assessment. The assessment was.
School Effectiveness Framework (SEF) K-12 A School Focus On Student Achievement Wednesday, December 2 nd.
1 PUT TITLE HERE Closing the Gap for Students with Special Education Needs in Ontario: Research Trends and Capacity Building Barry Finlay Director Special.
1 Mathematics Strategy Grades Primary–9. 2 Mathematics Strategy The Mathematics Strategy is in its third year, and it grows stronger every year. This.
Big Ideas and Problem Solving in Junior Math Instruction
Curriculum and Assessment Policy Branch Ministry of Education April 29, 2011 Maureen Callan Opportunities to support science, mathematics and technological.
Understanding Writing through the Achievement Chart Categories September 10/09  What are we looking for when assessing non-fiction writing?  What are.
FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION Ontario Catholic Elementary Curriculum Policy Document, Grades 1-8 (2012)
School Board Update Creating a Balanced Elementary Math Program.
Educational Psychology/ Special Education Class #2 Agenda 1. Ministry document: Education for All 2. Group work: Chapters 2 and 3 of Education for All.
Principles of Assessment
Ontario Psychological Association (OPA) Student Assessment Project “Designing a Project for Success” Date: February 6, 2009 Presented by: Marg Peppler,
GRAPHING CALCULATORS AND STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT BY RAED DANDAN.
Melanie N. Yangrelbug.  Objective Tree  Narrative Summary  Outputs and Activities  6 Months Activities  Indicators  When I go back…
Reorganization of Curriculum Department 2008 – 2009 School Year.
Curriculum Update January What are the big projects? Fall 2013 – Math Common Core Implementation Fall 2014 – English/Language Arts Common Core Implementation.
1 1 EQAO Reporting of 21 st Century Skills Spring Conference 2013 Richard Jones & Carol Ricker-Wilson Presentation to AERO.
Mathematics Teacher Leader Session 1: The National Mathematics Strategy & Modelling Exemplary Teaching 1.
Template for the Principal’s Mid-Year Report Grass Lake High School Mathematics.
Today’s Outcomes understand the importance of evidence-based decision making in improving student learning learn more about EQAO as a source of information.
Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Basic Education 4 May 2010 Development of Workbooks.
1. 2 Roots of Ontario Legislation and Policy Bill 82 (1980), An Amendment to the Education Act: –Universal access: right of all children, condition notwithstanding,
PUT TITLE HERE Leading Student Achievement Mary Jean Gallagher Assistant Deputy Minister Student Achievement Division Chief Student Achievement Officer.
MATH 90 CURRICULUM RENEWAL & MATH MAKES SENSE 9 WORKSHOP June 25th, 2010.
Measuring of student subject competencies by SAM: regional experience Elena Kardanova National Research University Higher School of Economics.
John AndersonTodd Rogers Don Klinger University of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta Queen’s University Charles UngerleiderBarry Anderson Victor Glickman University.
Common Core Implementation Update Supporting College- and Career-Readiness through Common Core Assessments and PARCC December 2012.
1 Board Meeting Data Presentation August 25, 2009.
Boys’ Literacy Me Read? No Way!. Modules ConsistentFlexible Introductory Module:Module 2: Resources #1 Key MessagesModule 3: Oral Language #5 Barriers.
+ Third Party Evaluation – Interim Report Presentation for Early Childhood Advisory Council December 19, 2013.
FEBRUARY KNOWLEDGE BUILDING  Time for Learning – design schedules and practices that ensure engagement in meaningful learning  Focused Instruction.
Common Core State Standards Common Core State Standards State Board of Education October 22, 2009.
How Male and Female Students Perform in Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Schools Equally Prepared for Life?
“EQAO has an accountability mandate to provide data that inform classroom teaching practices and contributes to improved student achievement in Ontario’s.
Hastings Public Schools PLC Staff Development Planning & Reporting Guide.
Woodman PAT scores Language Arts Acceptable standardExcellence EnrolledWritersProvince(writers)CBE writersEnrolledWritersProvince(writers)CBE.
System Implementation and Monitoring Regional Session Fall, 2013 Resources are available at sim.abel.yorku.ca.
Mathematics Program Improvement Review. KWL Complete the following sections of the KWL Chart K – What you know? W – What you want to know? We will complete.
Mathematics Program Improvement Review. KWL Complete the following sections of the KWL Chart K – What you know? W – What you want to know? We will complete.
Texas STaR Chart School Technology and Readiness.
The Individual Education Plan (IEP) Toronto District School Board January 20, 2015.
School Accreditation School Improvement Planning.
Literacy Partner 2007 – 2008 The literacy partner supports student learning by collaborating with teachers and administrators to model best practices and.
2. Planning for Teaching and Learning Long Term (Course) Planning.
The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat Le Secrétariat de la littératie et de la numératie October – octobre 2007 The School Effectiveness Framework A Collegial.
Part I Educational Technology1 INTRODUCING THE STANDARDS TOOLKIT (Educational Technology) Performance Indicator Progression Scope and Sequence Instructional.
Researching Technology in South Dakota Classrooms Dr. Debra Schwietert TIE Presentation April 2010 Research Findings.
Early Math Placement Tool (EMPT): Preparing Students for College-Level Mathematics Mark Schroeder, M.S. Sonya K. Sedivy, Ph.D.
Using Data to Promote Student Success Analyzing and Interpreting EQAO Results.
Zimmerly Response NMIA Audit. Faculty Response Teacher input on Master Schedule. Instructional Coaches Collaborative work. Design and implement common.
Participation in Math Class: The Effect on Student Achievement By: Nicolas Millet.
Evaluation Results MRI’s Evaluation Activities: Surveys Teacher Beliefs and Practices (pre/post) Annual Participant Questionnaire Data Collection.
2005 Highlights: EQAO Grade 9 Mathematics. Student demographics Applied  Number:  Female: %  Male: %  First semester: %  Second semester: %  ESL:
Somers Public Schools Building and Departmental Goals
Proposed End-of-Course (EOC) Cut Scores for the Spring 2015 Test Administration Presentation to the Nevada State Board of Education March 17, 2016.
11 PIRLS The Trinidad and Tobago Experience Regional Policy Dialogue on Education 2-3 December 2008 Harrilal Seecharan Ministry of Education Trinidad.
June 23, Primary, Junior, Intermediate & Senior Divisions Kindergarten to grade 12.
HDSB EQAO HIGHLIGHTS EQAO Results Overview Grade 6 ReadingWritingMath HDSB85 56 Province Grade 3 ReadingWritingMath HDSB Province
Number Worlds.
Marshall Public Schools Assessment Update
ICT Makes Learning with More Attraction in Primary Education
Mathematical Literacy
Analyzing data: First steps
Roswell North Elementary School
Roswell North Elementary School
Presentation transcript:

2005 EQAO Highlights

LDSB Participation Rate

Gr. 3 Contextual Information

Gr. 6 Contextual Information

Grade 3 Reading: Participating Students

Grade 3 Writing: Participating Students

Grade 3 Math: Participating Students

Grade 6 Reading: Participating Students

Grade 6 Writing: Participating Students

Grade 6 Math: Participating Students

Grade 3 Results Over Time

Grade 6 Results Over Time

% of Gr. 3 Students at All Levels: Reading

% of Gr. 3 Students at All Levels:Writing

% of Gr. 3 Students at All Levels:Math

% of Gr. 6 Students at All Levels: Reading

% of Gr. 6 Students at All Levels: Writing

% of Gr. 6 Students at All Levels: Math

Results Over Time: Gr. 3 Reading

Results Over Time: Gr. 3 Writing

Results Over Time: Gr. 3 Mathematics

Results Over Time: Gr. 6 Reading

Results Over Time: Gr. 6 Writing

Results Over Time: Gr. 6 Mathematics

Gr. 6 Gender: Board vs. Province

Gr. 3 Gender: Board vs. Province

Student Questionnaire Grade 3 Gender Student attitude toward reading –Significantly more male and female students say “I am a good reader” than “I like to read” (huge difference for males) Student attitude toward writing –% of students who see themselves as good writers is above provincial average Student attitude toward writing –% of girls who see themselves as good at math is above provincial average –Significantly more girls say they like mathematics than say they are good at math

Student Questionnaire Grade 6 - Gender Student attitudes toward reading: –% of students who say they are good at reading are significantly higher than the province –There is a large drop in the % of males between ‘good’ and ‘like’ in reading both at board and provincial levels Student attitudes toward writing: –Significantly fewer boys say they are good at writing and that they like to write at board and provincial levels Student attitudes toward mathematics: –Significantly more boys say they are good at math and that they like mathematics at board and provincial levels

Student Questionniare Grade 3 and 6 - Gender Computers at home –Grade 3 – % indicated NO –Grade 6 – % indicated NO Computer usage in school –% of students at Grade 3 using computers at school is higher than province for reading and writing –% of students at Grade 6 using computers at school is slightly lower in reading and writing, and higher in mathematics

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3 Higher number of split grade classes (2) Language resource accessibility (4) –Higher than the provincial average (≥ 5) Language related computer software (f) Early Reading Strategy: Report of the Expert Panel (n) Literacy for Learning: Report of the Expert Panel (p) –Lower than the provincial average (≥ 5) Library or resource centre language materials (d) Language instruction material developed by board (I)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3 Frequency of language resource use (5) –Higher than provincial average Language related computer software (f) A Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (o) Literacy for Learning: Report of the Expert Panel (p) –Lower than provincial average Language instruction materials develop by board (i) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k) Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3 Usefulness of language resources (6) –Higher than the provincial average Language related computer software (f) Reports of the Expert Panels (n & p) –Lower than the provincial average Resource centre materials (d) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k) Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3 Mathematics resource accessibility (7) –Higher than the provincial average Calculators (d) Computers (e) Commercial mathematics related computer software (f) Early Math Strategy: Report of the Expert Panel (o) –Lower than the provincial average Mathematics assessment materials developed by board or other boards (k)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3 Frequency of mathematics resource use (8) –Higher than provincial average Calculators (d) Computers (e) Commercial mathematics related computer software (f) –Lower than provincial average Library or resource centre mathematics materials (c) Mathematics instruction/assessment materials develop by board (j & k) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3 Usefulness of mathematics resources (9) –Higher than the provincial average Calculators (d) Computers (e) Commercial mathematics related computer software (f) Mathematics assessment materials developed by teachers (i) A Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics (p) Report of the Expert Panel (Gr. 4-6) (q) –Lower than the provincial average Resource centre materials (c) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6 Higher number of split grade classes (2) Language resource accessibility (4) –Higher than the provincial average (≥ 5) Computer (e) Early Reading Strategy: Report of the Expert Panel (n) Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (o) Literacy for Learning: Report of the Expert Panel (p) –Lower than the provincial average (≥ 5) Classroom reading materials (a) Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6 Frequency of language resource use (5) –Higher than provincial average Computers (e) Language related computer software (f) –Lower than provincial average Resource centre language materials (d) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k) Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6 Usefulness of language resources (6) –Higher than the provincial average Language assessment materials developed by board (j) Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (o) –Lower than the provincial average Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6 Mathematics resource accessibility (7) –Higher than the provincial average Commercial mathematics related computer software (f & g) Mathematics assessment materials developed by teachers (I) Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics (p) Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Report of the Expert Panel (q) –Lower than the provincial average Mathematics textbooks and/or workbooks (a) Mathematics manipulatives (b) Resource centre materials (c) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l) Four level achievement chart: Ontario Curriculum (m) Early Math Strategy: Expert Panel Report (o)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6 Frequency of mathematics resource use (8) –Higher than provincial average Calculators (d) Computers (e) Mathematics related computer software (f & g) Mathematics instruction & assessment materials developed by teachers (h&I) –Lower than provincial average Mathematics textbooks &/or workbooks (a) Library or resource centre mathematics materials (c) Mathematics instruction/assessment materials develop by board (j & k) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6 Usefulness of mathematics resources (9) –Higher than the provincial average Calculators (d) Mathematics related computer software (f&g) Mathematics assessment materials developed by teachers (i) A Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics (p) Report of the Expert Panels (early math & Gr. 4-6) (o&q) –Lower than the provincial average Mathematics textbooks &/or workbooks (a) Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Principal Questionnaire Board has a higher than average number of small schools (2 & 4) Significantly less personnel support in the Resource Centre (5) Preferred communication of EQAO information is through a newsletter, letter and school council meetings (6 c, d, & g) Fewer Master’s degrees and more mobility than the provincial average (8 & 9b) Higher participation in pd in reading, writing and mathematics instruction and assessment (10) Lower participation in pd in data management and analysis and school improvement planning (10) EQAO & Ministry activities, university and college courses seen as least useful types of pd (11) High level of knowledge in all areas, slightly less in Junior Mathematics instruction and assessment, data management (12)

Next Steps… EQAO will release Item Information Reports that show how students performed on specific items on the test. Board administrators and teachers will analyze these reports, determine strategies to promote increased achievement, and incorporate these into their school improvement plans. EQAO staff will deliver a presentation on data analysis at the January Elementary Principals Meeting

Item Information Reports: Ideas for Reviewing Reports Where do you expect the school to be in relation to the Board and Province? Scan for significant differences from expectation (Caution – number of participants is critical) Record observations Relate other data to the observations Develop conclusions and hypotheses for further examination

Key Dates Oct : Schools receive ISRs Nov. 9-22: Electronic student data collection; boards submit student data for 2006 administration Nov. 25: Deadline for schools and boards to report publicly re: 2005 results Nov. 28-Dec. 16: Schools verify student data submitted by board; boards update information as required

Key Dates Jan. 3-17: Boards resubmit Electronic Student Data Collection with updated information Jan. 23-Feb. 17: School order May 2006 materials May 10-12: Schools receive shipment of assessment materials for 2006 May 23-June 9: Administration of Grade 3 and 6 assessments