1. Summary of EDI SK Results Algoma 2004/05 & 2005/06 Sept 25th 2007 Algoma-Manitoulin Ontario Early Years

2. What is “school readiness to learn”? “Refers to the child’s ability to meet the tasks demands of school, such as being cooperative and sitting quietly and listening to the teacher, and to benefit from the educational activities that are provided by the school.”

3. Goals of the Early Development Instrument (EDI) Measure School Readiness. Provide information on populations of children in different communities. Monitor populations of children over time. Predict how children will do in elementary school and beyond.

4. Early Development Instrument Contains 104 questions grouped into 5 domains. Asks teachers the following types of questions about each child in the class: How often is the child too tired to for school work? Is the child well coordinated? Would you say this child follows instructions, accepts responsibility and works independently?.

5. Readiness To Learn Domains Physical Health and Well Being: children’s motor skills, energy levels, level of independence, daily living skills. Social Knowledge and Competence: children’s ability to control their behaviour, cooperate with others, follow rules, play and work with other children. Emotional Maturity: children’s ability to reflect before they act, deal with feelings at an age appropriate level, show empathy. Language and Cognitive Development: the extent to which children show an interest in books, reading and writing, and rudimentary math. Communication Skills and General Knowledge: the extent to which children have the skills to communicate needs and wants in socially appropriate ways, the symbolic use of language, and age appropriate knowledge.

6. Readiness To Learn Sub Domains Physical Health and Well-Being Physical readiness for school day Physical independence Gross and fine motor skills Social Competence Overall social competence Responsibility and respect Approaches to learning Readiness to explore new things. Emotional Maturity Prosocial and helping behaviour Anxious and fearful behaviour Hyperactivity and inattention Language and Cognitive Development Basic literacy Interest in literacy/numeracy and memory Advanced literacy Basic numeracy Communication Skills and General Knowledge

7. Algoma divided into four “Larger Community Groupings”: Central Algoma East Algoma Elliot Lake & Area North Algoma EDI Analysis

8. These groupings made up as follows: Larger Community GroupingSmaller Communities Central AlgomaEcho Bay Laird Desbarats Hilton Beach Richards Landing Bruce Mines Thessalon East AlgomaAlgoma Mills Blind River Iron Bridge Spragge Elliot Lake & AreaCutler Serpent River Spanish Elliot Lake North AlgomaDubreuillville Hawk Junction Hornepayne Missanabie Wawa White River

9. Central Algoma – Mean Scores

10. Large Community GroupingPHWB 2005PHWB 2006SC 2005SC 2006EM 2005EM 2006LCD 2005LCD 2006CSGK 2005CSGK 2006 Ontario8.848.918.328.348.088.098.568.577.677.80 Al Man Riding8.718.668.378.198.027.988.648.787.757.40 Central Algoma8.258.738.858.968.388.748.448.938.148.11 Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean. Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means. Figures in green are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the site mean. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)

11. Central Algoma –’’Not Ready” %’s

12. Central Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin. Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005 PHWB 2006 SC 2005 SC 2006 EM 2005 EM 2006 LCD 2005 LCD 2006 CSGK 2005 CSGK 2006 Low In At Least One Score 2005 Low In At Least One Score 2006 Low In At Least Two Scores 2005 Low In At Least Two Scores 2006 Central Algoma18%8%3%0%1%4%18%8%9% 26%18%14%9% Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain. “Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% per domain i.e. 20% - 30% and above. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge

13. Central Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s

14. Central Algoma - Summary Central Algoma shows increased mean scores and lower “not ready” over the two years: Higher mean scores in three domains (Social, Emotional & Language), down in the other two (Physical, Communication). Higher mean scores than province in 2006 for all domains except Physical. Reduced “Not Ready” percentages in three domains (Physical, Social, Language), one constant (Communication), one slight increase (Emotional). 18% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, an 8% improvement from previous year. All domains under expected level of 10%.

15. East Algoma – Mean Scores

16. Large Community GroupingPHWB 2005PHWB 2006SC 2005SC 2006EM 2005EM 2006LCD 2005LCD 2006CSGK 2005CSGK 2006 Ontario8.848.918.328.348.088.098.568.577.677.80 Al Man Riding8.718.668.378.198.027.988.648.787.757.40 East Algoma8.318.797.888.637.518.028.408.937.696.22 Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean. Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)

17. East Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s

18. “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin. Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005 PHWB 2006 SC 2005 SC 2006 EM 2005 EM 2006 LCD 2005 LCD 2006 CSGK 2005 CSGK 2006 Low In At Least One Score 2005 Low In At Least One Score 2006 Low In At Least Two Scores 2005 Low In At Least Two Scores 2006 East Algoma15%8%15%0%19%14%15%6%9%25%36%33%22%14% Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain. “Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% i.e. 20% - 30% and above. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge

19. East Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s

20. East Algoma - Summary East Algoma shows improvement in most areas over the two years: Improved mean scores in all domains except Communication which fell to a very low score in 2006. In 2006 – still lower than the province in three domains (Physical, Emotional, Communication) despite improvements. Reduced “Not Ready” percentages in four domains, however, significant increase in Communication domain. 33% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, 3% decrease from previous year. Highest in Communication Skills & Gen Knowledge – 25% - 2.5 times expected figure and 16% deterioration on previous year.

21. Elliot Lake & Area – Mean Scores

22. Large Community GroupingPHWB 2005PHWB 2006SC 2005SC 2006EM 2005EM 2006LCD 2005LCD 2006CSGK 2005CSGK 2006 Ontario8.848.918.328.348.088.098.568.577.677.80 Al Man Riding8.718.668.378.198.027.988.648.787.757.40 Elliot Lake & Area9.028.678.437.508.347.598.738.406.896.96 Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean. Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)

23. Elliot Lake & Area–”Not Ready” %’s

24. “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin. Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005 PHWB 2006 SC 2005 SC 2006 EM 2005 EM 2006 LCD 2005 LCD 2006 CSGK 2005 CSGK 2006 Low In At Least One Score 2005 Low In At Least One Score 2006 Low In At Least Two Scores 2005 Low In At Least Two Scores 2006 Elliot Lake & Area8%13%17% 13%14%13%17%21%30%32%38%22%25% Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain. “Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% i.e. 20% - 30% and above. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge

25. Elliot Lake & Area–”Not Ready” %’s

26. Elliot Lake & Area - Summary Elliot Lake & Area’s scores decreased in most areas over the two years: Reduced mean scores in four domains, slight increase in Communication which was already very low in 2005. Mean scores lower than the province in all domains in 2006. Higher than province in all domains in 2005 (except Communication). Increased “Not Ready” percentages in four domains, 1% decrease in one (CSGK). 38% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, 6% increase from previous year. Highest “Not Ready” in Communication Skills & Gen Knowledge – 30% - 3 times the expected.

27. North Algoma– Mean Scores

28. Large Community GroupingPHWB 2005PHWB 2006SC 2005SC 2006EM 2005EM 2006LCD 2005LCD 2006CSGK 2005CSGK 2006 Ontario8.848.918.328.348.088.098.568.577.677.80 Al Man Riding8.718.668.378.198.027.988.648.787.757.40 North Algoma9.439.218.548.358.238.108.888.798.717.96 Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean. Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means. Figures in green are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the site mean. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge

29. North Algoma–”Not Ready” %’s

30. “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin. Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005 PHWB 2006 SC 2005 SC 2006 EM 2005 EM 2006 LCD 2005 LCD 2006 CSGK 2005 CSGK 2006 Low In At Least One Score 2005 Low In At Least One Score 2006 Low In At Least Two Scores 2005 Low In At Least Two Scores 2006 North Algoma3% 5%7% 5%7%9%10%7%18%19%10% Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain. “Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% i.e. 20% - 30% and above. PHWB – Physical Health and Well-Being SC – Social Competence EM – Emotional Maturity LCD – Language & Cognitive Development CSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)

31. North Algoma–”Not Ready” %’s

32. North Algoma - Summary North Algoma’s mean scores decreased in all domains over the two years but were still above the provincial and riding means in all cases: Slightly increased “Not Ready” percentages in two domains (Social and Language), slight decrease in two (Emotional and Communication), constant in one (Physical). 19% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, 1% increase from previous year. Highest in Language & Cognitive Development – 9% under expected figure of 10%.

33. Algoma– Mean Score Comparison By larger Community Groupings

34. Algoma– “Not Ready” Comparison By larger Community Groupings

35. Algoma– “Not Ready” In At least One Domain Comparison By larger Community Groupings

36. EDI Analysis - Observations 1.East Algoma – most improved area in terms of mean scores and “not ready” percentages. 2.East Algoma – Rose to second most “vulnerable” area of the District in 2006. 3.Elliot Lake & Area – saw the greatest decline in terms of mean scores and “not ready” percentages. 4.Elliot Lake & Area – second poorest performing area in 2005. The lowest in 2006. 5.North Algoma – Still one of the least vulnerable areas despite not making many advances in 2006 (in top two). 6.Central Algoma – Improved position as one of the least vulnerable areas with progress in 2005 (in top two). 7.Communication Skills & General Knowledge – weakest domain in riding – due to low scores in East Algoma and Elliot Lake & Area. 8.At a riding level “not ready” percentages did improve but 28% of the 2006 cohort still classified as “not ready” to learn.