2015 EDI Results for TDSB workshops_2017_Feb_PSS… · 2015 EDI Results for TDSB. About the EDI ....
Transcript of 2015 EDI Results for TDSB workshops_2017_Feb_PSS… · 2015 EDI Results for TDSB. About the EDI ....
A Presentation to Programs & School Services Committee (PSSC) (February 22, 2017)
Maria Yau & Bryce Archer Research & Information Services, TDSB
2015 EDI Results for TDSB
About the EDI The EDI (Early Development Instrument) is a teacher-completed tool to assess young children’s ability to meet age-appropriate developmental expectations at school entry. The instrument, which consists of over 150 items, measures children’s development holistically in five domains:
Physical health and well-being Social competence Emotional maturity Language and cognitive development Communication skills and general
knowledge
Physical Health/Well-being 3 sub-domains: • Physical readiness for school day – e.g.,
being dressed appropriately, tardiness, school attendance, adequate energy (hunger, tiredness)
• Physical independence – e.g.,
independence, handedness, coordination, thumb-sucking behaviours
• Gross and fine motor skills – e.g., holding a pencil, running on the playground, motor co-ordination
Social Competence 4 sub-domains:
• Overall social competence – e.g., self-confidence, cooperation with others, ability to play and work with other children
• Responsibility and respect – e.g., respect for others and for property, self-control, following rules
• Approaches to learning – e.g., solving problems, working neatly and independently, following class routines
• Readiness to explore new things – e.g., curiosity about the world, eagerness to try new books, toys and games
Emotional Maturity
4 sub-domains:
• Pro-social and helping behaviour – e.g., helping others, offering help
• Anxious and fearful behaviour – e.g., worried, unhappy, nervous, excessively shy
• Aggressive behaviour – e.g., physical fights, kicking, biting, temper tantrums
• Hyperactivity and inattention – e.g., restless, impulsive, distractible fidgeting
Language and Cognitive Development
4 sub-domains: • Basic literacy – e.g., letter
identification, rhyming, writing own name
• Interest in literacy/numeracy and memory – e.g., showing interest in books, reading, number games, and remembering things
• Advanced literacy – e.g., reading or writing simple words or sentences, writing voluntarily
• Basic numeracy – e.g., counting, numbering, time concepts, naminig different shapes
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
• Ability to communicate needs and wants in socially appropriate ways
• Ability to participate in games involving the use of language
• Having no difficulty understanding others or to be understood
• Age-appropriate knowledge about life and the world around
• Note. It has been emphasized that the instrument is designed to assess children’s school readiness level at the group level, and should not be used as a diagnostic tool for individual students.
8 History of EDI Implementation in the TDSB: ♦ 1998-99 – Readiness to Learn Measure was piloted in all
former North York and Toronto public schools
♦ Spring 2000 – the measure was revised and renamed Early Development Instrument (EDI), and was formally implemented for the first time in all former North York and Toronto public schools (nearly 200 schools with over 17,000 JK/SKs)
♦ Spring 2001 – replicated
♦ Spring 2003 – all TDSB JK students were assessed – over 380
schools and over 18,000 JKs (with funding from both Human Resources Development Canada and Ontario Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services)
♦ Spring 2005 - similar to above - except that only SKs were assessed with the sole funding from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (MCYS)
♦ Spring 2008 – MCYS funded the implementation again for all SKs in the TDSB as well as the neighbouring school boards
♦ Spring 2011 – in January 2011 for all SKs under MCYS ♦ Spring 2007-Spring 2014? – JK/SKs from 7 to 150 MSIC schools ♦ Spring 2015 – first provincial implementation by the EDU for
all SKs in March 2015
Implications of EDI results • TDSB’s longitudinal tracking of the first EDI cohorts (back in 1999-
2000) demonstrates that, “on average, kindergarten vulnerability predicts ongoing vulnerability in the school system.”
• There were strong relationships between SKs’ vulnerability level on the 5 EDI domains and their later school outcomes in terms of:
• Grade 3 EQAO • Grade 6 EQAO • Special needs identification by Grade 9 • Program placement in high school • Post-secondary education
9
1999-2000 SKs EDI and Performance in Elementary and Secondary School
68% 72%
83%
67%
50% 54%
66%
52%
36% 38% 44%
39%
0%
50%
100%
Grade 3EQAO Writing
(Level 3/4)
Grade 6EQAO Writing
(Level 3/4)
Grade 9Mainly Academic Courses
Grade 12 (4 years)Post-secondary
Acceptance
11
TDSB EDI Results for 2015
12
TDSB SKs Assessed (Spring 2015)
• Total number of SKs assessed in March 2015: 18,282*
• % of boys vs. girls: 51% vs 49%
• % speaking other language(s) vs. English only at home: 53% vs. 47%
• % ELL: 10%
• % French Immersion: 17%
*Total SKs processed for reporting: 16,931 (14% of Ontario)
Overall EDI Results for SKs TDSB vs. Province Over Time
13
72%
69%
71%
70%
14%
15%
15%
16%
13%
16%
14%
14%
0% 50% 100%
Province
TDSB
Province
TDSB
Cycl
e 3
(201
0-20
12)
2014
-15
Not vulnerable on any domain Vulnerable on one domain Vulnerable on two or more domains
Over 5,000 SKs
Five EDI Domains: SKs Who Were Vulnerable or At-Risk , TDSB vs. Province (2011)
28%
20%
24%
24%
20%
31%
25%
26%
26%
21%
0% 25% 50%
Communication Skills & GeneralKnowledge
Language & Cognitive Development
Emotional Maturity
Social Competence
Physical Health & Well-Being
% of SK students
TDSB Province
14
pp – Percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs who were vulnerable Red text denotes more SKs who were vulnerable
Note: The longer the bar, the higher proportion at-risk or vulnerable.
Five EDI Domains: SKs Who Were Vulnerable or At-Risk , TDSB vs. Province (2015)
26%
18%
27%
26%
20%
27%
18%
26%
26%
21%
0% 25% 50%
Communication Skills & GeneralKnowledge
Language & Cognitive Development
Emotional Maturity
Social Competence
Physical Health & Well-Being
% of SK students
TDSB Province
15
2 pp
3 pp
7 pp
4 pp 2 pp
2 pp
pp – Percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs who were vulnerable Red text denotes more SKs who were vulnerable
Physical Health and Well-being: Subdomains TDSB SKs below developmental expectations (2011 vs. 2015)
23%
8%
3%
20%
9%
5%
0% 25%
Gross and fine motor skills
Physical independence
Physical readiness for school day
% of TDSB SKs meeting few/none of the developmental expectations
2015 2011
16
Emotional Maturity: Subdomains SKs below developmental expectations (2011 vs. 2015)
11%
7%
2%
32%
12%
10%
2%
32%
0% 20% 40%
Hyperactive and inattentive behaviour
Aggressive behaviour
Anxious and fearful behaviour
Prosocial and helping behaviour
% of TDSB SKs meeting few/none of the developmental expectations
2014-15 2011-12
17
Language & Cognitive Development: Subdomains SKs below developmental expectations (2011 vs. 2015)
10%
16%
18%
10%
6%
14%
11%
7%
0% 10% 20%
Basic literacy
Interest in literacy/numeracyand memory
Advanced literacy
Basic numeracy
% of TDSB SKs meeting few/none of the developmental expectations
2014-15 2011-12
18
Province
2 pp
1 pp
2 pp
1 pp
pp – Percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs who were vulnerable Red text denotes more SKs who were vulnerable
Breakdown Analysis
19
SKs vulnerable on 2+ EDI Domains, by Gender
10%
19%
0%
25%
Female Male
% o
f TD
SB S
Ks
20
21%
Five EDI Domains: SKs Who Were Vulnerable by Gender (2015)
9%
6%
6%
6%
13%
15%
8%
16%
13%
19%
0% 25%
Communication Skills & General Knowledge
Language & Cognitive Development
Emotional Maturity
Social Competence
Physical Health & Well-Being
% of TDSB SKs
Male Female
21
pp – Percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs who were vulnerable Red text denotes more SKs who were vulnerable
2 pp
5 pp 2 pp
4 pp
3 pp
Emotional Maturity: Subdomains SKs below developmental expectations by Gender (2015)
6%
5%
2%
24%
18%
14%
2%
42%
0% 25% 50%
Hyperactive and inattentive behaviour
Aggressive behaviour
Anxious and fearful behaviour
Prosocial and helping behaviour
% of TDSB SKs meeting few/none of the developmental expectations
Male Female
22
pp – Percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs below developmental expectations Red text denotes more SKS below developmental expectations
3 pp 2 pp
4 pp
SKs Vulnerable on 2+ EDI Domains, By Month of Birth (2015)
9%
13%
16%
20%
0%
25%
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
% o
f TD
SB S
Ks
23
11%
22%
Five EDI Domains: SKs Who Were Vulnerable by Month of Birth (2015)
17%
11%
14%
13%
21%
13%
8%
11%
11%
17%
10%
5%
10%
9%
14%
7%
3%
9%
6%
12%
0% 25%
Communication Skills & GeneralKnowledge
Language & Cognitive Development
Emotional Maturity
Social Competence
Physical Health & Well-Being
% of TDSB SKs
Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec
24
pp – Percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs who were vulnerable Red text denotes more SKs who were vulnerable
2 pp
2 pp
2 pp
2 pp
4 pp 3 pp
3 pp 6 pp
4 pp 3 pp
2 pp 5 pp
SKs Vulnerable on 2+ EDI Domains, ELL vs. Others
12%
31%
0%
20%
40%
No ELL status(N=15,032)
ELL status(N=1,664)
% o
f TD
SB S
Ks
25
36%
Five EDI Domains: SKs Who Were Vulnerable by ELL Status (2015)
9%
6%
11%
9%
15%
43%
18%
14%
16%
24%
0% 25% 50%
Communication Skills & GeneralKnowledge
Language & CognitiveDevelopment
Emotional Maturity
Social Competence
Physical Health & Well-Being
% of TDSB SKs
ELL status No ELL status
26
pp – percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs who were vulnerable Red text denotes more SKs who were vulnerable
3 pp
2 pp
7 pp
3 pp
10 pp
1 pp
SKs Vulnerable on 2+ EDI Domains, French Immersion vs. Others
15% 11%
0%
25%
Non - French Immersion French Immersion
% o
f TD
SB S
Ks
27
Interventions
28
29
*150 MSIC schools across the city
Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSICs)*
EDI: Language & Cognitive Development Subdomains MSIC SKs below developmental expectations (2011 vs. 2015)
15%
22%
21%
13%
10%
13%
15%
8%
0% 25%
Basic numeracy
Advanced literacy
Interest in literacy/numeracy andmemory
Basic literacy
% of MSIC students meeting few/none of the developmental expectations
2014-15 2010-11
30
Non-MSIC
2 pp (6%)
1 pp (13%)
7 pp (10%)
3 pp (5%)
pp – Percentage point difference from 2011 results Blue text denotes fewer SKs who were vulnerable Red text denotes more SKs who were vulnerable
5 pp
6 pp
9 pp
5 pp
Other EDI Sub-domains that show change over time MSIC SKs below developmental expectations (2011 vs. 2015)
8%
4%
5%
11%
40%
37%
10%
7%
3%
9%
36%
32%
0% 25% 50%
Aggressive behaviour
Physcial readiness for school day
Readiness to explore new things
Approaches to learning
Prosocial / helping behaviour
Communication skills/General…
% of MSIC students meeting few/none of the developmental expectations
2014-15 2011- 11
31
Non-MSIC
3 pp (24%)
4 pp (9%)
2 pp (31%) (7%)
(3%)
Parenting and Family Literacy Centres (PFLCs)
78 schools with a PFLC, with 60 in MSIC schools
SKs Vulnerable on 2+ EDI Domains:
Schools with a PFLC (2015)
14%
20%
10%
0%
25%
TDSB Non-attendees in PFLCSchools
PFLC Students(about 1,000 SKs)
% o
f TD
SB S
Ks
33
Five EDI Domains: SKs Who Were Vulnerable in schools with a PFLC (2015)
12%
7%
11%
10%
16%
15%
10%
13%
13%
24%
9%
3%
8%
7%
13%
0% 25%
Communication Skills & GeneralKnowledge
Language & Cognitive Development
Emotional Maturity
Social Competence
Physical Health & Well-Being
% of TDSB SKs
PFLC Non - PFLC TDSB
34
THANK YOU!