Education PolicyFebruary 2013

Studies in

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013by Peter Cowley and Stephen Easton

COMPARE

SchoolRankings.ORG

ContentsIntroduction / 3 Key academic indicators of school performance / 5 Other indicators of school performance / 8 Notes / 10 Detailed school reports / 11 How does your school stack up? / 205 Appendix: Calculating the Overall rating out of 10 / 229 About the authors / 231 Publishing information / 232 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 233 Purpose, funding, & independence / 234 About the Fraser Institute / 235 Editorial Board / 236

2

IntroductionThe Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013 (hereafter, Report Card ) collects a variety of relevant, objective indicators of school performance into one, easily accessible public document so that anyone can analyze and compare the performance of individual schools. By doing so, the Report Card assists parents when they choose a school for their children and encourages and assists all those seeking to improve their schools. picture of each school that is not easily available elsewhere.

The Report Card facilitates school improvementThe act of publicly rating and ranking schools attracts attention, and this can provide motivation. Schools that perform well or show consistent improvement are applauded. Poorly performing schools generate concern, as do those whose performance is deteriorating. This inevitable attention provides an incentive for all those connected with a school to focus on student results. However, the Report Card offers more than just incentive. It includes a variety of indicators, each of which reports results for an aspect of school performance that may be improved. School administrators who are dedicated to their students academic success accept the Report Card as another source of opportunities for improvement.

The Report Card helps parents chooseWhere parents can choose among several schools for their children, the Report Card provides a valuable tool for making a decision. Because it makes comparisons easy, it alerts parents to those nearby schools that appear to have more effective academic programs. Parents can also determine whether schools of interest are improving over time. By first studying the Report Card, parents will be better prepared to ask relevant questions when they visit schools under consideration and speak with the staff. Of course, the choice of a school should not be made solely on the basis of a single source of information. Web sites maintained by Ontarios Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO),1 the provincial ministry of education, and local school boards may also provide useful information.2 Parents who already have a child enrolled at the school provide another point of view. Naturally, a sound academic program should be complemented by effective programs in areas of school activity not measured by the Report Card. Nevertheless, the Report Card provides a detailed3

Some schools do better than othersTo improve a school, one must believe that improvement is achievable. This Report Card, like other report cards from the Fraser Institute, provides evidence about what can be accomplished. It demonstrates clearly that, even when we take into account factors such as the students family backgroundwhich some believe dictate the degree of academic success that students can enjoy in schoolsome schools do better than others. This finding confirms the results of research carried out in other countries.3 Indeed, it will come as no great surprise to experienced parents and educators that the data consistently suggest that what goes on in the schools

4

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

makes a difference to academic results and that some schools make a greater difference than others.

Comparisons are at the heart of the improvement processBy comparing a schools latest results with those of earlier years, we can see if the school is improving. By comparing a schools results with those of neighbouring schools or schools having similar school and student characteristics, we can identify more successful schools and learn from them. Reference to overall provincial results places an individual schools level of achievement in a broader context. There is great benefit in identifying schools that are particularly effective. By studying the techniques

used in schools where students are successful, less effective schools may find ways to improve. Comparisons are at the heart of improvement: making comparisons among schools is made simpler and more meaningful by the Report Card s indicators, ratings, and rankings.

You can contribute to the development of the Report CardThe Report Card program benefits from the input of interested parties. We welcome your suggestions, comments, and criticisms. Please contact peter.cowley@fraserinstitute.org.

Key academic indicators of school performanceThe foundation of the Report Card is an overall rating of each schools academic performance. We base our Overall rating out of 10 on the schools performance on nine indicators, all of which are derived from province-wide tests of reading, writing, and mathematics skills that are administered by the provinces Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO).4 (1)average level of achievement on the grade3 EQAO assessment in reading; (2)average level of achievement on the grade3 EQAO assessment in writing; (3)average level of achievement on the grade3 EQAO assessment in mathematics; (4)average level of achievement on the grade6 EQAO assessment in reading; (5)average level of achievement on the grade6 EQAO assessment in writing; (6)average level of achievement on the grade6 EQAO assessment in mathematics; (7)the difference between male and female students in their average levels of achievement on the EQAO assessment in grade-6 reading; (8)the difference between male and female students in their average levels of achievement on the EQAO assessment in grade-6 mathematics; (9)the percentage of EQAO assessments that did not meet the provincial standard.5

We have selected this set of indicators because they provide systematic insight into a schools performance. Because they are based on annually generated data, we can assess not only each schools performance in a year but also its improvement or deterioration over time.

Indicators of effective teachingAverage levels of achievement on EQAOs assessmentsThese indicatorsin the tables, Grade 3 avg. level and Grade 6 avg. level show the average level of proficiency achieved by the schools students on the uniform EQAO assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics at the grade-3 and grade-6 levels. The EQAO converts the raw score on each test into a level of achievement from 1 to 4. Achievement at Levels 1 and 2 suggest that the student has not yet met the provincial standard. Level 3 is considered the provincial standard and Level 4 represents achievement well above the expected level. Achievement at Level 3 or 4 suggests that students are well prepared for work at the next grade. In order to calculate the average level achieved by the students at a school on any given test, a numerical value was given to each level of achievement. Thus, Level 1 was given a value of 1 for purposes of determining the average; Level 2, a value of 2; Level 3, a value of 3; and Level 4, a value of 4. A value of 0 was given in those cases where a student completed the test but did not demonstrate sufficient understanding to be assigned achievement Level 1. Fundamental to the mission of elementary schools is teaching students sound basic skills in reading, writ-

6

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

ing, and mathematics. Basic literacy and numeracy are essential building blocks for life-long learning. The tests upon which the Report Card is based assess students on these dimensions. Differences among students in abilities, motivation, and work habits will inevitably have some impact upon the final results. There are, however, recognizable differences from school to school within a district in the average results on the EQAOs tests. There is also variation within schools in the results obtained in different subject areas and at different grades. Such differences in outcomes cannot be wholly explained by the individual and family characteristics of the schools students. It seems reasonable, therefore, to include the average test marks in these three critical subject areas as indicators of effective teaching.

indicators are determined, for each subject area, by calculating the absolute value of the difference between male and female students in their average level of achievement. The more successful sex is reported along with the difference in the detailed tables. Undoubtedly, some personal and family characteristics, left unmitigated, can have a deleterious effect on a students academic development. The Report Cards provide evidence that successful teachers overcome such impediments. By comparing the results of male and female students in two subject areas reading and mathematicsin which one group or the other may have enjoyed a historical advantage, we are able to gauge the extent to which schools provide effective teaching to all of their students.

Percentage of EQAO tests below standardFor each school, this indicatorin the tables Tests below standard (%) provides the rate of failure on the EQAOs tests. It was derived by dividing the total number of all the above tests that provided enough information to enable the calculation of a score but that did not meet the provincial standard, by the total number of such tests written by the students at the school. Since reading, writing, and mathematics are critical to students further intellectual and personal development, students should, at the minimum, demonstrate that they meet the accepted standard of performance for their grade in these subject areas. Schools have the responsibility of ensuring that their students are adequately prepared to do so.

In general, how is the school doing academically compared to other schools in the Report Card? The Overall rating out of 10While each of the indicators is important, it is almost always the case that any school does better on some indicators than on others. So, just as a teacher must make a decision about a students overall performance, we need an overall indicator of school performance in the tables Overall rating out of 10. Just as teachers combine test scores, homework, and class participation to rate a student, we have combined all the indicators to produce an overall rating. The overall rating of school performance answers the question, In general, how is the school doing academically, compared to other schools in the Report Card ? To derive this rating, the results for each of the nine indicators, for each school year, were first standardized. Standardization is a statistical procedure whereby sets of raw data with different characteristics are converted into sets of values sharing certain statistical properties. Standardized values can readily be combined and compared. The standardized data were then weighted and combined to produce an overall standardized score. Finally, this score was converted into an overall rating out of 10. It is from this Overall

How well do the teachers take student differences into account? The Gender gap indicatorsThe Gender gap indicatorsin the tables Gender gap (level) use the grade-6 results of the EQAOs assessments to determine how successful the school has been in narrowing the achievement gap between male and female students in reading and mathematics.5 These

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

7

rating out of 10 that the schools provincial rank is determined. Note that the Overall rating out of 10, based as it is on standardized scores, is a relative rating. That is, it measures each schools performance compared to all the other schools in the Report Card. Thus, even though a school receives an overall rating of 10, it is very likely that it can still improve. An overall rating of zero means that on average, on the report cards indicators, no school in the Report Card performed more poorly. However, it does not mean that the lowest performing school has accomplished nothing for

its students. Further, because it is a relative measure, in order for a school to show improvement in its Overall rating out of 10, it must improve faster than the average. If it improves, but at a rate lower than the average, it will show a decline in its rating. For schools where there were fewer than 15 test results for boys or for girls, no values for the Gender gap indicators can be provided. In these cases the Overall rating out of 10 is derived using the remaining indicators. (See Appendix 1 for an explanation of the calculation of the Overall rating out of 10.)

Other indicators of school performanceThe Report Card includes other indicators that, while they are not used to derive the Overall rating out of 10, add more information on the schools effectiveness. Unlike a snapshot of one years results, this historical record provides evidence of change (or lack thereof) over time. To detect trends in the performance indicators, we developed the Trend indicator. This indicator uses statistical analysis to identify those dimensions of school performance in which there has likely been real change rather than a fluctuation in results caused by random occurrences. To calculate the trends, the standardized scores rather than raw data are used. Standardizing makes historical data more comparable and the trend measurement more reliable. Because calculation of trends is uncertain when only a small number of data points is available, a trend is indicated only in those circumstances where five years of data are available and where the trend is statistically significant. For this indicator, we have defined the term statistically significant to mean that, nine times out of 10, the trend that is noted is real; that is, it did not happen just by chance.

The Tests not written indicatorSchools that administer the EQAOs assessments are expected to ensure that all their students write the tests. Higher participation rates provide the benefit of objective assessment of learning to more students and parents. They also provide a more accurate reflection of the level of achievement at the school. A reader can have more confidence that the test results are a true reflection of the schools average achievement level if all, or almost all, of its students write the tests. The indicator of tests not writtenin the tables Tests not written (%) was determined by first summing, for each of the six test sittings, the total number of students for whom no test data were submitted or who were exempt from testing. The six sums were then totaled. This result was then divided by the total number of tests that could have been completed if all students had fully participated in all of the tests that were administered at the school. The principal of a school at which a relatively large percentage of students did not complete the tests should be able to provide good reasons for the students failure to do so and a well-developed plan to increase participation in future test sittings.

The socioeconomic indicatorWhen they design their lesson plans and deliver the curriculum, educators can and should take into account the abilities, interests, and backgrounds of their students. By doing so, educators can overcome disadvantages that their students may have. The socioeconomic indicator enables us to identify schools that are successful despite adverse conditions faced by their students at home. Similarly, it identifies schools where students with a relatively positive environment at home appear not to be reaching their presumed potential. The socioeconomic indicator was derived as fol8

The Trend indicatorIs the school improving academically? The Report Card provides five years of data for most schools.

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

9

lows. First, using enrollment data from the Ministry of Education sorted by Dissemination Area6 and 2006 census data provided by Statistics Canada, we determined the average level of parental income from wages and salaries and from self-employment. We then used regression analysis to determine the relationship between parental income and variations in school performance as measured by the Overall rating out of 10. The analysis determined that, on average, when a school had more parents with higher incomes, the Overall rating at the school was likely to be higher. As a measure of the success with which each school took into account the socioeconomic characteristics of the student body, we used the formula derived from the regression analysis to predict the Overall rating for each school. We then reported the difference (in the tables Actual rating vs predicted rating based on parents avg. inc.) between the actual Overall rating and this predicted value in each schools results table. For example, School A, a public elementary school in Toronto, achieved an Overall rating of 9.2 and yet, when the parental income of the student body was taken into account, the school was expected to achieve a rating of only about 6.0. The difference of 3.2 is reported in the tables. On the other hand, the actual Overall rating of School B, another Toronto public school, was 3.7, although its predicted rating was 6.0. The reported difference for School B is -2.3. This measurement suggests that School A is more successful than School B in enabling all of its students to reach their potential. This measure of the effect of the socioeconomic background of a schools student body is presented

with two important notes of caution. First, less than 20% of the variation among Ontario elementary schools in the overall rating is associated with the level of parental employment income. Clearly, many other factorsincluding good teaching, counselling, and school administrationcontribute to the effectiveness of schools7. Second, the statistical measures used describe past relationships between a socioeconomic characteristic and a measure of school effectiveness. These relationships may not remain static. The more effectively the school enables all of its students to succeed, the weaker will be the relationship between the home characteristics of its students and their academic success. Thus, this socioeconomic indicator should not be used as an excuse or rationale for poor school performance. The effective school will produce good results, regardless of the family background of its students.

The Student characteristics indicatorFor each public school, the Report Card notes the percentage of its students who are enrolled in ESL programs or who have certain identified special needs. As was noted in the Introduction, it is sometimes useful to compare a schools results to those of similar schools. These two indicators, along with the average parental employment income, can be used to identify schools with similar student body characteristics. A variety of comparisons between schools can be made on the Fraser Institutes school rankings website,

Notes1 The Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) is an arms-length agency of the provincial government. It provides parents, teachers, and the general public with information about student achievement. For more information, see the EQAOs web site at . 2 See, for instance, the EQAOs web site at , the Ministry of Educations web site at , or the web site of the Toronto Catholic District School Board at . 3 See, for instance, Michael Rutter et al., Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Children (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) and Peter Mortimore et al., School Matters: The Junior Years (Wells, Somerset: Open Books, 1988). 4 The EQAOs test results, student enrollment data, and school information used or reported in this publication were provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education. The results or views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not those of the Ontario Ministry of Education. 5 For a discussion of gender-based differentials in academic achievement, see Peter Cowley and Stephen Easton, Boys, Girls, and Grades: Academic Gender Balance in British Columbias Secondary Schools. Public Policy Sources 22 (Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute, 1999). 6 A Dissemination Area (DA) is a small geographical area comprising one or more neighbouring blocks, with a population of 400 to 700 persons. The DA is the smallest standard geographical area for which all census data are disseminated. All of Canada is divided into dissemination areas. 7 Peter Cowley with Shahrokh Shahabi-Azad, Report Card on Albertas High Schools: 2001 Edition. Studies in Education Policy (Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute, 2001): page 14.

10

Detailed school reportsHow to read these tablesUse the sample table and the explanation of each line below to help you interpret the detailed results for individual schools. Families choosing a school for their children should seek to confirm the Report Card s findings by visiting the school and interviewing teachers, school administrators, and other parents. For an easily used school comparison tool, please go to . More information regarding test results at individual schools can be found on the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) web site at and on the web sites of local school districts and schools. Of course, a sound academic program should be complemented by effective programs in areas of school activity not measured by the Report Card .

NotePrivate schools are not required to administer the EQAO tests. Since the Report Card is based on results achieved on these tests, only a few private schools that chose to administer the EQAO tests could be included. IMPORTANT: In order to get the most from the Report Card, readers should consult the complete table of results for each school of interest. By considering several years of results rather than just a schools rank in the most recent yearreaders can get a better idea of how the school is likely to perform in the future.

A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Gr 6 enrollment: 30 B School name [Affiliation] City C ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 10.0 D Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 622/2714 629/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend E Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 F Writing 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 G Math 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.9 H Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.4 p I Writing 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.0 P J Math 2.8 3.2 2.7 2.9 2.7 K Gender gap (level): Reading n/a F 0.1 n/a n/a F 0.2 n/a L Math n/a F 0.1 n/a n/a F 0.1 n/a M Tests below standard (%) 30.9 18.6 23.9 25.9 21.3 N Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 q O Overall rating out of 10 6.1 7.6 7.1 6.8 7.3

A Geographical area The schools are grouped into geographical areas. To find a schools results, find its location in the List of cities and geographical areas and note its geographical area. Find the11

geographical area in the Index of geographical areas and note the page on which its results begin. Within each geographical area, the schools are listed in alphabetical order.

12

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

B (left) School name, affiliation, and city The school name, its affiliationpublic, Catholic, or privateand the city in which the school is located. B (right) Grade-6 enrollment The number of students eligible to participate in the grade-6 tests. Indicator results for schools with small enrollments tend to be more variable than do those for larger schools. For this reason it is particularly important to consider previous results as well as those for the most recent year. C ESL (%); Special needs (%) These statistics report the percentage of the students for whom English is a second-language and the percentage of students with special needs. When you want to compare academic results, these statistics can be used to find other schools were the student body has similar characteristics. D (left) Actual rating vs predicted based on parents average employment income This statistic compares the schools actual Overall rating out of 10 with the rating that is predicted by the average parental employment income in each students family. A positive difference suggests that the school is effective in enabling its students to succeed regardless of their familys characteristics. D (right) Rank The schools overall academic rank in the province for 2011/2012 and for the most recent five years. The rankings show how the school has done academically compared to the other schools in the Report Card. A high ranking over five years indicates consistently strong results at the school. E to J Gr 3 avg score and Gr 6 avg score The average level achieved by the students on the grade-3 and grade-6 EQAO tests. The EQAO assigns a level of achievement to each completed test. Achievement at Levels 1 and 2 suggest that the student has not yet met the provincial standard. Level 3 is considered the provincial standard and Level 4 represents achievement

well above the expected level. Thus, achievement at Level 3 or 4 suggests that students are well prepared for work at the next grade. In order to calculate the average level, a numerical value was given to each level of achievement. Thus, Level 1 was given a value of 1 for purposes of determining the average; Level 2, a value of 2; Level 3, a value of 3; and Level 4, a value of 4. In those cases where a student completed the test but did not demonstrate sufficient understanding to be assigned achievement Level 1, the test was given a value of 0. K & L Gr 6 gender gap The difference (in average level of achievement) between girls and boys in the grade-6 reading and mathematics tests. Where the difference favours the girls, the value is preceded by an F. Where boys are favoured, the value is preceded by an M. An E means that there is no difference between the girls and the boys on this measure. Smaller differences indicate that the school is doing a good job for all its students. M Tests below standard The percentage of all the completed tests written by students at the school that were judged to be below Level 3. A low percentage of Tests below standard (%) indicates that the school is successful in ensuring that most of its students are meeting or exceeding the provincial standard of performance for the grade. N Tests not written (%) The percentage of the tests that could have been completed by the schools students but which were not assigned an overall score. The indicator takes into account tests not written by students for any reason.

Important noteSchools that administer these tests are expected to ensure that all their students participate. For this reason, you should take note of the Tests not written percentage when you consider each schools results in the Report Card. The principal of a school with a high

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

13

Tests not written percentage should be able to provide good reasons for the students failure to complete the tests. O Overall rating out of 10 The Overall rating out of 10 takes into account the nine indicators described in E through M above to answer the question, In general, how is the school doing academically compared to other schools in the Report Card ? P Trends An upward-pointing arrow at the end of an indicator row means that the school is probably improving on that indicator. A downward-pointing arrow means that the school is probably getting worse. The researchers had to be at least 90% sure that the changes were not just random before indicating a trend. A dash indicates that there is no significant change. Where insufficient data were available, n/a appears in the column. Note that for the two Gender gap indicators, Tests not written, and Tests below standard a downward trend in the data will lead to an upward-pointing arrow in the trend column. For example, a decreasing Tests below standard (%) indicates improvement and so an upward-pointing arrow is displayed.

Card, only those schools that administer the EQAO tests could be included. Finally, also excluded are schools that did not generate a sufficiently large set of student data to enable the calculation of an Overall rating out of 10. The exclusion of a school from the Report Card should not be considered a judgement of the schools effectiveness.

Note 2The EQAOs test results, student enrollment data, and school information used or reported in this publication were provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education. The results or views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not those of the Ontario Ministry of Education.

Note 3Due to continuing improvements in methodology, some historical values for indicators and overall ratings may differ from those previously reported.

Note 4In accordance with its regulations regarding the privacy of personal information, where the results in a test involved fewer than 15 students, the EQAO provided no data.

Other notesNote 1Not all the provinces elementary schools are included in the tables or the ranking. In some school districts that operate middle schools or junior high schools, the elementary schools may not enroll students in grade 6. Since the Report Card is based on the results of tests given in grades 3 and 6, these elementary schools cannot be included. In addition, schools at which fewer than 15 students were enrolled in each of these grades are excluded. Private schools and federally funded schools operated by First Nations are not required to administer the EQAO tests. Since the results of these tests form the basis for this Report

Note 5Where there were insufficient data available with which to calculate an indicator or where a school was not in operation during a specific year, n/a appears in the tables.

Note 6You can compare a schools results with these allschools average results in the table below. Comparisons among schools can be made on the Fraser Institutes school rankings website, .

Note 7If you have questions about the Report Card, please contact peter.cowley@fraserinstitute.org.

14

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

Average values for all schools 2011/2012 Gr 6 enrollment: 41 ESL (%): 5.8 Special needs (%): 21.2 Parents avg income: $ 74,100 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 p Writing 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 p Math 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 p Writing 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 p Math 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 Gender gap (level): Reading* 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Math* 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 q Tests below standard (%) 32.2 30.9 30.1 29.5 28.4 p Tests not written (%) 4.1 3.6 3.1 2.8 2.7 p Overall rating out of 10 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 n/a* These results reflect the average size of the grade 6 gender gaps in 2011/2012. The Reading gender gap favoured females at 73.6% of schools, males at 12.9% of schools, and was even at 13.5% of schools. The Math gender gap favoured males at 32.4% of schools, females at 51.3% of schools, and was even at 16.3% schools.

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

15

List of cities and geographical areas City Geographical area Acton Addison Ailsa Craig Ajax Alexandria Alfred Alliston Alma Almonte Alvinston Ameliasburgh Amherstburg Amherstview Ancaster Angus Arnprior Arthur Arva Astorville Athens Atikokan Atwood Aurora Avonmore Aylmer Ayr Ayton Azilda Baden Balmertown Baltimore Bancroft Barrie Barrys Bay Bath Battersea Beamsville Beaverton Beeton Belfountain Belle River Belle Rivire Belleville Belmont Berwick Binbrook Blackstock Blenheim Blind River Bloomfield Bobcaygeon Bolton Bowmanville Halton Area Upper Canada Area Thames Valley Area Durham Area Upper Canada Area Upper Canada Area Simcoe County Area Upper Grand Area Upper Canada Area Lambton Kent Area Hastings-Limestone Area Greater Essex Area Hastings-Limestone Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Simcoe County Area Renfrew County Area Upper Grand Area Thames Valley Area Near North Area Upper Canada Area Kenora Area Avon Maitland Area York Area Upper Canada Area Thames Valley Area Waterloo Area Bluewater Area Rainbow Area Waterloo Area Kenora Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Hastings-Limestone Area Barrie Renfrew County Area Hastings-Limestone Area Hastings-Limestone Area Niagara Area Durham Area Simcoe County Area Peel Area Greater Essex Area Greater Essex Area Hastings-Limestone Area Thames Valley Area Upper Canada Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Durham Area Lambton Kent Area Algoma Area Hastings-Limestone Area Trillium Lakelands Area Peel Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area

City Bracebridge Bradford Brampton Brantford Brechin Breslau Bridgenorth Brigden Brighton Brights Grove Brockville Brooklin Brucefield Brussels Burford Burks Falls Burlington Buttonville Caistor Centre Caledon Caledon East Caledon Village Caledonia Callander Cambridge Cameron Camlachie Campbellford Campbellville Cannington Capreol Carleton Place Carlisle Carp Carpion Casselman Castleton Cavan Cayuga Chatham Chelmsford Chesley Chesterville Claremont Clarence Creek Clinton Cloyne Cobden Coboconk Cobourg Cochrane Coldwater Collingwood

Geographical area Trillium Lakelands Area Simcoe County Area Peel Area Brantford Simcoe County Area Waterloo Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Lambton Kent Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Lambton Kent Area Upper Canada Area Durham Area Avon Maitland Area Avon Maitland Area Grand Erie Area Near North Area Halton Area York Area Niagara Area Peel Area Peel Area Peel Area Grand Erie Area Near North Area Waterloo Area Trillium Lakelands Area Lambton Kent Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Halton Area Durham Area Rainbow Area Upper Canada Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Ottawa Ottawa Upper Canada Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Grand Erie Area Lambton Kent Area Rainbow Area Bluewater Area Upper Canada Area Durham Area Upper Canada Area Avon Maitland Area Hastings-Limestone Area Renfrew County Area Trillium Lakelands Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Ontario North East Area Simcoe County Area Simcoe County Area

16

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

List of cities and geographical areas City Geographical area Comber Concord Conestogo Coniston Cookstown Copetown Copper Cliff Corbeil Corbyville Cornwall Corunna Cottam Courtice Courtland Creemore Crystal Beach Cumberland Cumberland Beach Dalkeith Deep River Delaware Delhi Dorchester Drayton Dresden Drumbo Dryden Dublin Dundas Dunnville Dunsford Durham Dutton Eganville Egbert Elginburg Elmira Elmvale Elora Embro Embrun Emeryville Emo Emsdale Englehart Enniskillen Ennismore Erin Espanola Essex Everett Exeter Fenelon Falls Greater Essex Area York Area Waterloo Area Rainbow Area Simcoe County Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Rainbow Area Near North Area Hastings-Limestone Area Upper Canada Area Lambton Kent Area Greater Essex Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Grand Erie Area Simcoe County Area Niagara Area Ottawa Simcoe County Area Upper Canada Area Renfrew County Area Thames Valley Area Grand Erie Area Thames Valley Area Upper Grand Area Lambton Kent Area Thames Valley Area Kenora Area Avon Maitland Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Grand Erie Area Trillium Lakelands Area Bluewater Area Thames Valley Area Renfrew County Area Simcoe County Area Hastings-Limestone Area Waterloo Area Simcoe County Area Upper Grand Area Thames Valley Area Upper Canada Area Greater Essex Area Kenora Area Near North Area Ontario North East Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Upper Grand Area Rainbow Area Greater Essex Area Simcoe County Area Avon Maitland Area Trillium Lakelands Area

City Fergus Fisherville Flesherton Fonthill Forest Formosa Fort Erie Fort Frances Foxboro Frankford Gananoque Garson Georgetown Glen Morris Glenburnie Glencoe Gloucester Goderich Goodwood Gore Bay Gores Landing Gorrie Gowanstown Grafton Grand Bend Grand Valley Grande Pointe Gravenhurst Greely Greenbank Greenwood Grimsby Guelph Hagersville Halton Hills Hamilton Hammond Hanmer Hanover Harriston Harrow Harrowsmith Havelock Hawkesbury Hawkestone Hepworth Hickson Hillsburgh Hillsdale Holland Centre Holland Landing Holstein Huntsville

Geographical area Upper Grand Area Grand Erie Area Bluewater Area Niagara Area Lambton Kent Area Bluewater Area Niagara Area Kenora Area Hastings-Limestone Area Hastings-Limestone Area Upper Canada Area Rainbow Area Halton Area Grand Erie Area Hastings-Limestone Area Thames Valley Area Ottawa Avon Maitland Area Durham Area Rainbow Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Avon Maitland Area Avon Maitland Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Avon Maitland Area Upper Grand Area Lambton Kent Area Trillium Lakelands Area Ottawa Durham Area Durham Area Niagara Area Upper Grand Area Grand Erie Area Halton Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Upper Canada Area Rainbow Area Bluewater Area Upper Grand Area Greater Essex Area Hastings-Limestone Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Upper Canada Area Simcoe County Area Bluewater Area Thames Valley Area Upper Grand Area Simcoe County Area Bluewater Area York Area Bluewater Area Trillium Lakelands Area

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

17

List of cities and geographical areas City Geographical area Huttonville Ilderton Ingersoll Ingleside Inglewood Innerkip Innisfil Iroquois Jarvis Jordan Joyceville Kakabeka Falls Kanata Kapuskasing Keene Kemptville Kenora Keswick Kettleby Kilbride Kincardine King City Kingston Kingsville Kirkfield Kirkland Lake Kitchener Komoka Lakefield Langton Lansdowne LaSalle Leamington Lefroy Lindsay Linwood Listowel Little Britain Little Current Lively Lombardy London Long Sault Loretto LOrignal Lucan Lucknow Lyn Lyndhurst Madoc Maidstone Mallorytown Manotick Peel Area Thames Valley Area Thames Valley Area Upper Canada Area Peel Area Thames Valley Area Simcoe County Area Upper Canada Area Grand Erie Area Niagara Area Hastings-Limestone Area Lakehead Area Ottawa Ontario North East Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Upper Canada Area Kenora Area York Area York Area Halton Area Bluewater Area York Area Kingston Greater Essex Area Trillium Lakelands Area Ontario North East Area Kitchener Thames Valley Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Grand Erie Area Upper Canada Area Greater Essex Area Greater Essex Area Simcoe County Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Waterloo Area Avon Maitland Area Trillium Lakelands Area Rainbow Area Rainbow Area Upper Canada Area London Upper Canada Area Simcoe County Area Upper Canada Area Thames Valley Area Avon Maitland Area Upper Canada Area Upper Canada Area Hastings-Limestone Area Greater Essex Area Upper Canada Area Ottawa

City Maple Marathon Markdale Markham Marmora Massey Matheson Maxwell McGregor Meaford Merrickville Metcalfe Midhurst Midland Mildmay Millbrook Milton Mindemoya Minden Minesing Mississauga Mitchell Moonstone Moorefield Moose Factory Moosonee Morrisburg Mount Albert Mount Forest Mount Hope Mount Pleasant Mt. Brydges Murillo Napanee Navan Nepean New Dundee New Hamburg New Liskeard New Lowell Newburgh Newcastle Newmarket Newton Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Nobleton North Bay North Lancaster Norwich Norwood Oakville Oakwood

Geographical area York Area Superior-Greenstone Area Bluewater Area York Area Hastings-Limestone Area Rainbow Area Ontario North East Area Bluewater Area Greater Essex Area Bluewater Area Upper Canada Area Ottawa Simcoe County Area Simcoe County Area Bluewater Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Halton Area Rainbow Area Trillium Lakelands Area Simcoe County Area Mississauga Avon Maitland Area Simcoe County Area Upper Grand Area Ontario North East Area Ontario North East Area Upper Canada Area York Area Upper Grand Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Grand Erie Area Thames Valley Area Lakehead Area Hastings-Limestone Area Ottawa Ottawa Thames Valley Area Waterloo Area Ontario North East Area Simcoe County Area Hastings-Limestone Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area York Area Avon Maitland Area Niagara Area Niagara Area York Area Near North Area Upper Canada Area Thames Valley Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Halton Area Trillium Lakelands Area

18

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

List of cities and geographical areas City Geographical area Odessa Ohsweken Orangeville Orillia Orlans Oro Station Orton Osgoode Oshawa Ottawa Owen Sound Palgrave Palmerston Paris Parkhill Parry Sound Pawitik Pefferlaw Pembroke Penetanguishene Perth Perth Road Petawawa Peterborough Petrolia Pickering Picton Plantagenet Plattsville Porcupine Port Carling Port Colborne Port Dover Port Elgin Port Hope Port McNicoll Port Perry Port Rowan Powassan Prescott Prince Albert Red Lake Renfrew Richmond Richmond Hill Ridgetown Ripley River Canard Rockland Rockwood Rodney Russell Ruthven Hastings-Limestone Area Grand Erie Area Upper Grand Area Simcoe County Area Ottawa Simcoe County Area Upper Grand Area Ottawa Durham Area Ottawa Bluewater Area Peel Area Upper Grand Area Grand Erie Area Thames Valley Area Near North Area Kenora Area York Area Renfrew County Area Simcoe County Area Upper Canada Area Hastings-Limestone Area Renfrew County Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Lambton Kent Area Durham Area Hastings-Limestone Area Upper Canada Area Thames Valley Area Ontario North East Area Trillium Lakelands Area Niagara Area Grand Erie Area Bluewater Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Simcoe County Area Durham Area Grand Erie Area Near North Area Upper Canada Area Durham Area Kenora Area Renfrew County Area Ottawa York Area Lambton Kent Area Bluewater Area Greater Essex Area Upper Canada Area Upper Grand Area Thames Valley Area Upper Canada Area Greater Essex Area

City Sandford Sandy Lake Sarnia Sault Ste. Marie Schomberg Schumacher Seaforth Sebringville Selby Severn Bridge Shakespeare Shannonville Shanty Bay Sharon Sheffield Shelburne Simcoe Sioux Lookout Smiths Falls Smithville South Mountain South Porcupine Southwold Sparta Spencerville Springfield St Anns St Catharines St Clair Beach St Clements St George St Jacobs St Marys St Pauls St Thomas St. Andrews West Stayner Stevensville St-Isidore Stittsville Stoney Creek Stouffville Straffordville Stratford Strathroy Sturgeon Falls Sudbury Sunderland Sutton West Sydenham Tara Tavistock Tecumseh

Geographical area Durham Area Kenora Area Lambton Kent Area Algoma Area York Area Ontario North East Area Avon Maitland Area Avon Maitland Area Hastings-Limestone Area Simcoe County Area Avon Maitland Area Hastings-Limestone Area Simcoe County Area York Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Upper Grand Area Grand Erie Area Kenora Area Upper Canada Area Niagara Area Upper Canada Area Ontario North East Area Thames Valley Area Thames Valley Area Upper Canada Area Thames Valley Area Niagara Area St Catharines Greater Essex Area Waterloo Area Grand Erie Area Waterloo Area Avon Maitland Area Avon Maitland Area Thames Valley Area Upper Canada Area Simcoe County Area Niagara Area Upper Canada Area Ottawa Hamilton-Wentworth Area York Area Thames Valley Area Avon Maitland Area Thames Valley Area Near North Area Rainbow Area Durham Area York Area Hastings-Limestone Area Bluewater Area Thames Valley Area Greater Essex Area

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

19

List of cities and geographical areas City Geographical area Teeterville Thamesford Thamesville Thessalon Thornbury Thorndale Thornhill Thorold Thunder Bay Tilbury Tillsonburg Timmins Toledo Toronto Tottenham Trenton Tweed Tyendinaga Territory Unionville Utterson Uxbridge Val Caron Vanier Vankleek Hill Vaughan Verner Verona Victoria Harbour Vineland Grand Erie Area Thames Valley Area Lambton Kent Area Algoma Area Bluewater Area Thames Valley Area York Area Niagara Area Lakehead Area Lambton Kent Area Thames Valley Area Ontario North East Area Upper Canada Area Toronto Simcoe County Area Hastings-Limestone Area Hastings-Limestone Area Hastings-Limestone Area York Area Trillium Lakelands Area Durham Area Rainbow Area Ottawa Upper Canada Area York Area Near North Area Hastings-Limestone Area Simcoe County Area Niagara Area

City Wainfleet Walkerton Wallaceburg Warkworth Warsaw Wasaga Beach Washago Waterdown Waterford Waterloo Watford Welland Wellesley Wellington West Lorne Wheatley Whitby Wiarton Williamstown Winchester Windsor Wingham Winona Woodbridge Woodlawn Woodstock Woodville Wyevale York

Geographical area Niagara Area Bluewater Area Lambton Kent Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Kawartha Pine Ridge Area Simcoe County Area Simcoe County Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area Grand Erie Area Waterloo Area Lambton Kent Area Niagara Area Waterloo Area Hastings-Limestone Area Thames Valley Area Greater Essex Area Durham Area Bluewater Area Upper Canada Area Upper Canada Area Greater Essex Area Avon Maitland Area Hamilton-Wentworth Area York Area Ottawa Thames Valley Area Trillium Lakelands Area Simcoe County Area Grand Erie Area

20

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

Index of geographical areas Geographical area

Page

Geographical area

Page

Algoma Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Avon Maitland Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Barrie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Bluewater Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Brantford. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Durham Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Grand Erie Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Greater Essex Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Halton Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Hamilton-Wentworth Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Hastings-Limestone Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Kawartha Pine Ridge Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Kenora Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Kingston. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Kitchener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Lakehead Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Lambton Kent Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 London. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Mississauga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Near North Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Niagara Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Ontario North East Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Ottawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Peel Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Rainbow Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Renfrew County Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Simcoe County Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 St Catharines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Superior-Greenstone Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Thames Valley Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Toronto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Trillium Lakelands Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Upper Canada Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Upper Grand Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Waterloo Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 York Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

21

Greater Toronto area

DURHAM AREAAdelaide Mclaughlin [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 37 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 21.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $79,600: -0.6 Rank:1708/2714 1888/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.7 p Writing 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.7 Math 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.8 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.7 Math 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.3 Gender gap (level): Reading M 0.2 F 0.4 E n/a n/a n/a Math M 0.3 F 0.2 F 0.1 n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 44.0 35.2 42.3 49.5 29.5 Tests not written (%) 2.4 9.0 7.1 7.9 7.6 Overall rating out of 10 4.3 5.3 5.0 3.1 5.5 Alexander Graham Bell [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 97 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 7.2 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $86,300: 1.2 Rank: 535/2714 683/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.6 Writing 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 Math 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 p Writing 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.2 Math 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.0 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.2 E F 0.4 F 0.3 F 0.2 Math E M 0.1 F 0.2 F 0.3 M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 24.9 25.3 26.0 26.5 21.8 Tests not written (%) 1.5 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.3 q Overall rating out of 10 6.9 7.0 6.5 6.4 7.5 Altona Forest [Public] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 40 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 12.5 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $96,200: -0.5 Rank:1405/2714 1560/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 Writing 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 Math 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.9 Writing 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 p Math 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.9 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.2 F 0.2 F 0.3 n/a F 0.5 n/a Math F 0.1 F 0.4 F 0.2 n/a F 0.3 n/a Tests below standard (%) 33.7 39.0 34.9 36.1 22.9 Tests not written (%) 0.0 3.5 4.6 4.6 2.3 Overall rating out of 10 5.7 4.8 5.4 5.2 6.0 Antonine Maillet [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 19 ESL (%): n/a Special needs (%): 5.3 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $83,700: -0.4 Rank:1518/2714 n/a Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading n/a n/a 3.2 3.0 3.1 n/a Writing n/a n/a 3.4 3.2 3.1 n/a Math n/a n/a 3.1 3.0 2.9 n/a Gr 6 avg. level: Reading n/a n/a 2.6 3.2 3.2 n/a Writing n/a n/a 2.9 3.2 3.1 n/a Math n/a n/a 3.2 3.6 3.1 n/a Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) n/a n/a 17.6 12.7 20.3 n/a Tests not written (%) n/a n/a 5.3 2.9 1.9 n/a Overall rating out of 10 n/a n/a 6.8 7.7 5.8 n/a Applecroft [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 42 ESL (%): 7.1 Special needs (%): 9.5 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $69,600: -1.3 Rank:2148/2714 1560/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 p Writing 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.9 p Math 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.5 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.8 Math 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.3 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 F 0.1 F 0.1 E F 0.2 Math F 0.1 F 0.1 F 0.2 M 0.4 F 0.6 q Tests below standard (%) 38.0 41.3 31.9 27.9 38.4 Tests not written (%) 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 5.1 5.2 5.8 6.2 4.6 Athabasca Street [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 34 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 23.5 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $78,200: -0.6 Rank:1708/2714 1977/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5 Writing 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.9 Math 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 Writing 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.7 Math 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.7 M 0.1 n/a M 0.1 M 0.2 n/a Math F 0.1 E n/a M 0.3 M 0.2 n/a Tests below standard (%) 49.3 37.8 55.4 44.7 33.3 Tests not written (%) 2.8 0.4 1.8 1.4 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 3.7 5.5 2.6 4.4 5.5 Bayview Heights [Public] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 44 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 29.5 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $47,200: -0.4 Rank:1917/2714 1641/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 Math 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.8 Writing 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 Math 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 Gender gap (level): Reading M 0.1 F 0.3 F 0.2 F 0.5 F 0.3 Math M 0.2 F 0.1 F 0.3 M 0.2 F 0.4 Tests below standard (%) 34.2 30.8 38.8 44.4 33.0 Tests not written (%) 1.8 3.2 1.8 0.0 1.1 Overall rating out of 10 5.9 6.1 4.9 4.0 5.1 Beau Valley [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 34 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 29.4 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $58,000: -0.1 Rank:1638/2714 1504/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.6 Writing 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.9 Math 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.7 Writing 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.7 q Math 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.7 Gender gap (level): Reading M 0.1 F 0.6 M 0.1 n/a n/a n/a Math M 0.5 M 0.2 M 0.3 n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 26.7 29.1 32.5 42.9 30.4 Tests not written (%) 3.0 7.8 10.6 1.1 7.7 Overall rating out of 10 6.3 5.9 5.5 4.2 5.6 Bellwood [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 50 ESL (%): 2.0 Special needs (%): 18.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $81,700: -0.3 Rank:1463/2714 1220/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.8 Writing 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 Math 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.8 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 Writing 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.7 Math 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.2 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.3 F 0.2 M 0.1 E F 0.1 p Math F 0.3 F 0.2 M 0.3 M 0.3 E Tests below standard (%) 29.2 34.7 31.7 30.3 33.7 Tests not written (%) 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 6.3 5.6 6.1 6.1 5.9 Blair Ridge [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 42 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 33.3 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $88,500: 0.9 Rank: 676/2714 n/a Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading n/a n/a 2.6 3.0 3.0 n/a Writing n/a n/a 2.8 2.9 2.9 n/a Math n/a n/a 3.0 3.1 3.0 n/a Gr 6 avg. level: Reading n/a n/a 3.1 3.0 3.1 n/a Writing n/a n/a 2.8 2.9 3.0 n/a Math n/a n/a 2.9 3.0 2.8 n/a Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a M 0.1 F 0.2 F 0.2 n/a Math n/a n/a F 0.3 F 0.1 F 0.3 n/a Tests below standard (%) n/a n/a 21.5 17.9 17.8 n/a Tests not written (%) n/a n/a 0.0 0.0 0.9 n/a Overall rating out of 10 n/a n/a 7.0 7.8 7.2 n/a Bobby Orr [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 35 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 42.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $38,100: -2.5 Rank:2569/2714 2105/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.3 Writing 2.6 2.9 2.2 2.6 2.6 Math 2.4 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.6 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.6 2.5 Writing 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.6 2.4 Math 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a F 0.1 n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a F 0.1 n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 49.4 31.6 60.7 44.3 53.8 Tests not written (%) 3.3 16.7 8.2 7.9 13.3 Overall rating out of 10 3.4 6.1 1.8 4.5 2.8 Bolton C Falby [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 59 ESL (%): 6.8 Special needs (%): 22.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $53,800: -0.5 Rank:1917/2714 1977/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.7 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 Math 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.6 Writing 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.7 Math 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 p Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.1 n/a F 0.3 F 0.1 F 0.3 n/a Math M 0.2 n/a F 0.1 M 0.2 F 0.1 n/a Tests below standard (%) 54.0 46.7 47.9 41.7 38.7 p Tests not written (%) 8.9 0.9 3.7 6.7 4.8 Overall rating out of 10 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.8 5.1 p

22

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

Brooklin Village [Public] Brooklin Gr 6 enrollment: 83 ESL (%): 6.0 Special needs (%): 13.3 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $98,600: 0.8 Rank: 622/2714 570/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.6 Writing 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.8 Math 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.0 Writing 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 Math 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.1 2.9 Gender gap (level): Reading E F 0.6 F 0.1 E F 0.1 Math M 0.2 F 0.2 M 0.1 M 0.1 F 0.2 Tests below standard (%) 22.9 37.4 16.7 15.1 16.1 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 q Overall rating out of 10 7.2 4.9 7.8 8.2 7.3 Brother Andre [Catholic] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 70 ESL (%): 5.7 Special needs (%): 15.7 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $90,800: 0.9 Rank: 622/2714 683/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.8 Writing 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.0 Math 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.0 Writing 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 Math 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 E F 0.4 F 0.3 F 0.1 Math E E F 0.1 F 0.3 M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 20.9 25.8 26.1 25.5 18.8 Tests not written (%) 5.0 4.9 1.3 1.4 8.7 Overall rating out of 10 7.2 7.1 6.4 6.3 7.3 C E Broughton [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 32 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 25.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $72,900: -0.7 Rank:1809/2714 1345/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 Writing 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.5 Math 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.5 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 Writing 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.0 Math 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 M 0.1 n/a F 0.4 M 0.2 n/a Math M 0.2 M 0.2 n/a F 0.4 M 0.1 n/a Tests below standard (%) 34.5 22.6 34.2 28.7 36.8 Tests not written (%) 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.5 Overall rating out of 10 5.6 7.1 5.5 5.5 5.3 Cadarackque [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 46 ESL (%): 13.0 Special needs (%): 13.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $69,200: -0.9 Rank:1968/2714 1681/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.8 p Writing 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.5 Math 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 Writing 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 Math 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.2 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.3 F 0.2 M 0.1 F 0.5 F 0.4 Math F 0.1 E M 0.3 F 0.2 F 0.3 Tests below standard (%) 45.9 29.0 34.7 41.4 33.5 Tests not written (%) 2.3 0.0 0.4 1.0 4.0 Overall rating out of 10 4.1 6.3 5.5 4.6 5.0 Captain Michael VandenBos [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 54 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 5.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $95,800: 0.1 Rank:1016/2714 683/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 Writing 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 Math 2.6 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 Writing 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 Math 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.6 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.3 F 0.1 F 0.2 F 0.2 E Math M 0.2 F 0.1 F 0.1 E M 0.2 Tests below standard (%) 29.0 22.2 14.4 23.7 24.9 Tests not written (%) 0.8 1.5 0.8 0.3 0.3 Overall rating out of 10 6.1 7.0 7.7 7.2 6.6

Carruthers Creek [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 84 ESL (%): 3.6 Special needs (%): 11.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $100,200: -0.4 Rank:1305/2714 1504/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.8 p Writing 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 Math 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 p Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 Math 2.7 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.5 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.1 F 0.5 F 0.1 F 0.3 M 0.1 Math M 0.1 F 0.3 E E M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 34.5 38.1 40.0 33.8 28.9 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.6 1.2 Overall rating out of 10 5.9 4.6 5.2 5.8 6.2 Cartwright Central [Public] Blackstock Gr 6 enrollment: 38 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 28.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $64,900: -1.1 Rank:2110/2714 1951/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 p Writing 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 Math 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 Writing 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 p Math 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.3 F 0.2 F 0.2 F 0.1 F 0.3 Math F 0.2 M 0.1 F 0.3 E M 0.4 Tests below standard (%) 57.8 43.7 40.5 41.8 36.8 p Tests not written (%) 1.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 2.8 4.6 4.6 5.1 4.7 Claremont [Public] Claremont Gr 6 enrollment: 22 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 22.7 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $108,000: 0.9 Rank: 470/2714 570/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 Writing 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.1 Math 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.0 Writing 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 Math 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 21.0 27.1 23.1 25.0 16.3 Tests not written (%) 0.7 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 7.5 6.7 7.0 6.8 7.6 College Hill [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 26 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 19.2 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $60,200: -1.2 Rank:2188/2714 2038/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.4 Writing 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.7 Math 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.7 Writing 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.6 Math 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.5 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 53.0 38.6 46.5 51.1 38.6 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.9 Overall rating out of 10 3.1 5.4 3.8 3.1 4.5 Colonel J E Farewell [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 34 ESL (%): 5.9 Special needs (%): 14.7 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $112,700: 2.0 Rank: 105/2714 264/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.9 Writing 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 Math 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 p Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.2 Writing 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.2 p Math 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.0 Gender gap (level): Reading E M 0.1 F 0.3 F 0.1 n/a n/a Math E M 0.2 E M 0.1 n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 27.9 23.6 20.2 9.8 8.2 p Tests not written (%) 5.5 2.1 1.2 2.1 2.8 Overall rating out of 10 7.0 7.1 7.4 8.6 8.8 p

Coronation [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 70 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 14.3 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $64,000: 1.1 Rank: 829/2714 264/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.6 3.3 2.8 2.9 Writing 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 Math 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.0 3.0 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.1 Writing 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Math 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.9 Gender gap (level): Reading E F 0.1 M 0.1 F 0.2 F 0.6 q Math M 0.2 F 0.2 F 0.1 F 0.1 F 0.1 p Tests below standard (%) 19.8 20.9 14.3 18.2 23.1 Tests not written (%) 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 Overall rating out of 10 7.9 7.6 8.6 7.9 6.9 Corpus-Christi [Catholic] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 20 ESL (%): n/a Special needs (%): 30.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $73,200: -1.4 Rank:2148/2714 1394/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.1 Writing 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.1 3.0 Math 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 Writing 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 q Math 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.9 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math F 0.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 23.0 25.0 26.9 18.2 28.2 Tests not written (%) 2.5 4.3 3.7 3.5 1.7 Overall rating out of 10 7.4 5.7 4.9 6.0 4.6 Dr C F Cannon [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 53 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 41.5 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $41,700: -3.3 Rank:2639/2714 2218/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 Writing 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 Math 2.1 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.3 Writing 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.2 q Math 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 q Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 M 0.2 F 0.5 F 0.5 F 0.2 Math F 0.1 M 0.5 F 0.3 F 0.3 F 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 61.5 52.2 55.2 57.9 68.4 Tests not written (%) 2.8 1.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 2.3 3.3 2.9 2.3 2.0 Dr Robert Thornton [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 35 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 28.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $98,700: -0.1 Rank:1173/2714 853/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 Writing 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.9 Math 2.7 3.1 2.6 2.8 2.8 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 Writing 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9 Math 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.6 2.7 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.1 E E F 0.2 n/a n/a Math M 0.2 F 0.2 F 0.1 M 0.1 n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 31.5 19.4 23.1 31.6 27.6 Tests not written (%) 0.0 4.9 2.3 1.3 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 6.0 7.4 7.0 6.0 6.4 Dr Roberta Bondar [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 51 ESL (%): 17.6 Special needs (%): 21.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $72,100: -1.8 Rank:2300/2714 1454/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.9 Writing 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.0 Math 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.5 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.4 Math 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.0 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 F 0.3 E F 0.2 F 0.4 Math E F 0.2 M 0.3 M 0.1 F 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 32.3 31.5 30.0 32.9 44.0 Tests not written (%) 0.0 3.1 0.7 6.5 1.2 Overall rating out of 10 6.5 5.8 5.9 5.8 4.2 q

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

23

Dr S J Phillips [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 48 ESL (%): 2.1 Special needs (%): 18.8 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $86,100: 2.6 Rank: 88/2714 300/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.7 3.2 3.0 3.5 Writing 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.2 Math 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 p Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.1 3.1 Writing 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 Math 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6 Gender gap (level): Reading E F 0.3 E F 0.3 F 0.1 Math F 0.1 F 0.1 F 0.3 M 0.1 E Tests below standard (%) 16.3 28.6 19.3 20.7 12.3 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.8 q Overall rating out of 10 8.2 6.4 7.6 7.6 8.9 Duffins Bay [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 30 ESL (%): 3.3 Special needs (%): 20.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $75,100: 0.3 Rank:1239/2714 1345/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.7 Writing 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 Math 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 q Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.9 Writing 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.0 p Math 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.4 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.6 n/a F 0.2 M 0.1 n/a n/a Math E n/a F 0.3 M 0.6 n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 32.8 26.7 38.2 30.8 25.9 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.8 q Overall rating out of 10 5.7 6.4 5.1 5.6 6.3 Duke of Edinburgh [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 22 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 13.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $54,500: -1.4 Rank:2300/2714 2007/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 1.9 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.4 Writing 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.5 Math 2.1 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.5 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.8 Writing 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.6 q Math 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.0 2.6 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 54.1 27.4 45.7 46.8 41.8 Tests not written (%) 2.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 Overall rating out of 10 3.3 6.3 3.7 3.7 4.2 Eagle Ridge [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 68 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 13.2 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $116,100: -0.4 Rank:1107/2714 853/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.8 Writing 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.0 Math 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 Writing 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.9 Math 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 Gender gap (level): Reading E F 0.3 F 0.2 E F 0.3 Math M 0.1 F 0.1 F 0.4 M 0.2 M 0.3 Tests below standard (%) 24.2 23.1 25.4 27.1 23.4 Tests not written (%) 0.8 4.2 3.4 2.9 1.6 Overall rating out of 10 7.4 6.7 6.1 6.5 6.5 Elizabeth B Phin [Public] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 38 ESL (%): 2.6 Special needs (%): 31.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $97,900: -0.5 Rank:1405/2714 1283/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 Math 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.8 3.0 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 Math 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.6 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.3 F 0.3 n/a F 0.2 M 0.1 n/a Math F 0.3 F 0.3 n/a F 0.1 F 0.4 n/a Tests below standard (%) 37.3 30.7 26.6 37.4 28.0 Tests not written (%) 5.2 2.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 p Overall rating out of 10 5.3 5.9 6.6 5.5 6.0

Fairport Beach [Public] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 26 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 19.2 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $84,000: -2.3 Rank:2378/2714 1504/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.3 Writing 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.5 Math 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.5 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.7 q Writing 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 Math 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.5 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a E F 0.4 n/a n/a n/a Math n/a E M 0.1 n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 27.5 29.6 42.1 30.5 43.7 Tests not written (%) 5.6 1.2 9.7 11.8 4.3 Overall rating out of 10 6.6 6.5 4.6 5.8 3.9 q Fallingbrook [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 55 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 16.4 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $123,300: 0.2 Rank: 676/2714 372/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 Writing 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 Math 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.2 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 q Writing 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.9 Math 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.8 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.2 F 0.2 E F 0.3 M 0.1 Math F 0.4 F 0.2 M 0.4 F 0.2 M 0.2 Tests below standard (%) 18.2 17.0 17.4 14.8 20.7 Tests not written (%) 2.2 2.2 5.1 4.3 1.0 Overall rating out of 10 7.2 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.2 Father Joseph Venini [Catholic] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 35 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 17.1 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $76,000: -1.7 Rank:2228/2714 1394/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 q Writing 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 q Math 3.3 3.1 3.2 2.8 2.6 q Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 Writing 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.6 Math 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.8 F 0.1 n/a F 0.5 n/a n/a Math M 0.3 M 0.1 n/a E n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 26.5 27.4 34.5 29.7 39.6 q Tests not written (%) 6.0 4.8 2.0 3.6 6.2 Overall rating out of 10 6.0 6.7 5.5 5.7 4.4 Gandatsetiagon [Public] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 50 ESL (%): 2.0 Special needs (%): 22.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $100,200: 1.1 Rank: 426/2714 464/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 3.1 Writing 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.0 Math 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.1 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 Writing 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 q Math 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.7 Gender gap (level): Reading E F 0.3 E F 0.5 F 0.1 Math M 0.1 E M 0.2 F 0.6 M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 19.5 19.0 18.8 23.7 19.2 Tests not written (%) 0.0 1.1 1.3 2.9 1.2 Overall rating out of 10 7.7 7.7 7.4 6.0 7.7 Gertrude Colpus [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 17 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 35.3 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $35,300: -4.5 Rank:2699/2714 2250/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.2 1.9 Writing 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.4 q Math 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 q Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.4 Writing 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.5 Math 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 47.6 61.6 58.0 68.3 66.7 q Tests not written (%) 4.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 4.0 1.0 2.0 0.7 0.7

Glen Dhu [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 55 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 21.8 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $89,500: -0.3 Rank:1405/2714 570/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 3.1 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.6 q Writing 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 Math 3.2 3.5 2.8 2.9 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 Writing 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 Math 2.8 2.9 2.6 3.0 2.8 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 E E M 0.1 F 0.2 Math F 0.1 M 0.1 E M 0.4 F 0.4 Tests below standard (%) 20.2 13.6 27.8 18.8 29.6 Tests not written (%) 2.7 5.1 0.9 1.0 1.7 Overall rating out of 10 7.5 8.5 6.6 7.1 6.0 Glen Street [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 36 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 41.7 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $26,100: -2.4 Rank:2594/2714 2239/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 1.9 Writing 2.3 2.5 2.5 1.9 2.3 Math 2.2 2.5 2.3 1.8 2.0 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.5 Writing 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.6 p Math 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.7 2.2 Gender gap (level): Reading M 0.1 F 0.5 n/a F 0.5 F 0.1 n/a Math M 0.4 F 0.1 n/a E E n/a Tests below standard (%) 65.3 59.5 60.6 69.7 62.0 Tests not written (%) 3.0 3.0 5.5 11.0 2.7 Overall rating out of 10 2.0 2.6 1.7 0.9 2.6 Glengrove [Public] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 25 ESL (%): 4.0 Special needs (%): 16.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $49,100: -0.4 Rank:1917/2714 1851/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.3 2.7 Writing 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7 Math 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.5 Writing 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.0 Math 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.1 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.2 F 0.1 F 0.4 M 0.1 n/a n/a Math F 0.1 F 0.2 E M 0.2 n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 40.7 51.7 39.0 42.4 33.8 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.8 2.9 q Overall rating out of 10 5.1 3.7 4.9 4.6 5.1 Goodwood [Public] Goodwood Gr 6 enrollment: 24 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 29.2 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $122,600: -0.2 Rank: 886/2714 984/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 Writing 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.0 Math 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.1 p Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.0 Writing 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 q Math 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 q Gender gap (level): Reading n/a F 0.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a F 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 26.3 23.3 33.3 28.1 20.8 Tests not written (%) 3.7 5.4 3.5 1.9 4.0 Overall rating out of 10 6.8 6.7 5.6 6.0 6.8 Gordon B Attersley [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 52 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 23.1 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $56,900: -1.4 Rank:2271/2714 2038/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 q Writing 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 Math 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 Writing 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 Math 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 M 0.1 F 0.3 F 0.6 F 0.1 Math E M 0.2 F 0.2 F 0.1 M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 44.8 46.8 48.3 50.0 46.5 Tests not written (%) 0.0 2.2 1.7 4.6 4.4 q Overall rating out of 10 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.2 4.3

24

Report Card on Ontarios Elementary Schools 2013

Grandview [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 19 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 31.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $58,100: -0.1 Rank:1638/2714 1107/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 Writing 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 Math 2.9 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.9 Writing 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.6 Math 2.7 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.5 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.2 F 0.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a Math E F 0.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 26.8 32.2 18.3 30.8 30.6 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.6 4.0 q Overall rating out of 10 6.7 5.1 7.4 6.0 5.6 Greenbank/Epsom [Public] Greenbank Gr 6 enrollment: 21 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 23.8 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $75,700: 1.7 Rank: 392/2714 n/a Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.6 n/a n/a 2.7 n/a Writing 2.9 2.9 n/a n/a 2.9 n/a Math 3.1 3.1 n/a n/a 2.9 n/a Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.8 n/a n/a 3.1 n/a Writing 2.5 2.9 n/a n/a 3.1 n/a Math 2.7 2.9 n/a n/a 2.8 n/a Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 27.6 22.5 n/a n/a 14.8 n/a Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.0 n/a n/a 0.0 n/a Overall rating out of 10 6.4 7.4 n/a n/a 7.8 n/a Harmony Heights [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 27 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 7.4 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $69,800: -1.5 Rank:2228/2714 1977/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 Writing 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.7 Math 2.4 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.5 Writing 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.8 Math 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 p Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.1 n/a F 0.2 M 0.1 n/a n/a Math E n/a F 0.2 M 0.2 n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 51.8 46.9 45.4 43.3 38.7 p Tests not written (%) 1.2 6.2 4.0 5.3 1.8 Overall rating out of 10 4.4 3.8 4.3 4.6 4.4 Highbush [Public] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 54 ESL (%): 5.6 Special needs (%): 25.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $96,500: 1.2 Rank: 426/2714 629/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.9 Writing 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.0 Math 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.0 p Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.0 Writing 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 Math 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.8 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.1 F 0.2 E F 0.1 E Math E F 0.2 E F 0.1 E Tests below standard (%) 27.5 28.5 23.1 20.9 19.7 p Tests not written (%) 0.0 2.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 6.8 6.4 7.1 7.2 7.7 p Holy Redeemer [Catholic] Pickering Gr 6 enrollment: 91 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 9.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $73,400: 1.9 Rank: 356/2714 148/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9 Writing 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.9 Math 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.3 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.0 Writing 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 Math 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 M 0.1 F 0.1 F 0.3 F 0.2 Math E M 0.2 E F 0.2 M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 10.6 18.5 13.4 14.3 12.9 Tests not written (%) 5.0 0.9 2.6 2.0 2.8 Overall rating out of 10 8.8 8.0 8.3 7.9 7.9

Jack Miner [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 61 ESL (%): 23.0 Special needs (%): 11.5 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $92,000: 1.9 Rank: 220/2714 176/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.9 2.6 3.0 3.1 Writing 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.7 3.1 Math 2.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.1 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.2 Writing 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Math 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 Gender gap (level): Reading M 0.1 F 0.1 F 0.3 F 0.2 F 0.3 q Math M 0.2 E F 0.3 E E Tests below standard (%) 15.9 13.8 19.8 18.3 14.8 Tests not written (%) 0.5 2.9 3.8 1.6 1.7 Overall rating out of 10 8.1 8.7 7.3 8.0 8.3 Jean-Paul II [Catholic] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 30 ESL (%): n/a Special needs (%): 10.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $91,600: 0.7 Rank: 723/2714 519/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.6 Writing 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.1 Math 3.0 2.9 3.3 2.8 3.3 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.8 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.1 Writing 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 q Math 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.4 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Tests below standard (%) 17.6 17.9 16.6 17.1 9.9 Tests not written (%) 0.0 0.7 2.7 1.0 2.4 q Overall rating out of 10 8.3 7.3 6.9 6.3 7.1 John Dryden [Public] Whitby Gr 6 enrollment: 59 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 11.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $93,800: 0.2 Rank:1016/2714 790/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.7 Writing 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 Math 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 Writing 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.0 Math 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.6 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.2 E F 0.1 F 0.3 F 0.1 Math M 0.2 F 0.1 M 0.1 E F 0.3 Tests below standard (%) 23.6 23.0 24.9 34.1 23.7 Tests not written (%) 0.7 0.7 2.0 0.0 1.6 Overall rating out of 10 6.9 7.1 6.9 5.9 6.6 John XXIII [Catholic] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 39 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 23.1 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $73,400: 1.0 Rank: 777/2714 629/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 Writing 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 Math 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.9 Writing 2.9 2.7 2.6 3.1 2.9 Math 3.2 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.8 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a F 0.1 F 0.1 n/a F 0.2 n/a Math n/a F 0.3 E n/a F 0.1 n/a Tests below standard (%) 17.5 27.9 35.3 19.0 19.7 Tests not written (%) 0.0 6.4 1.8 1.5 6.2 Overall rating out of 10 8.2 6.2 5.8 7.7 7.0 Joseph Gould [Public] Uxbridge Gr 6 enrollment: 51 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 21.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $94,500: 0.6 Rank: 777/2714 1220/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.9 p Writing 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 Math 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 Writing 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Math 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.4 F 0.1 F 0.2 E F 0.1 Math E F 0.3 F 0.3 E M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 32.4 40.3 30.9 28.5 20.3 Tests not written (%) 0.3 3.7 2.4 4.7 1.9 Overall rating out of 10 6.1 4.7 5.8 6.6 7.0

Kedron [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 49 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 30.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $83,100: -1.6 Rank:2148/2714 1806/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.6 Writing 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 Math 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.5 Writing 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.6 Math 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.5 Gender gap (level): Reading n/a M 0.1 n/a F 0.3 F 0.3 n/a Math n/a F 0.4 n/a M 0.3 F 0.3 n/a Tests below standard (%) 40.7 32.1 40.1 39.2 36.8 Tests not written (%) 1.4 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.4 Overall rating out of 10 4.8 5.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 Lakeside [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 43 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 27.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $79,800: 0.6 Rank: 956/2714 790/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 Writing 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Math 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.1 p Writing 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.1 Math 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 Gender gap (level): Reading M 0.2 F 0.3 M 0.1 E F 0.3 Math M 0.3 F 0.3 M 0.1 M 0.1 F 0.3 Tests below standard (%) 29.2 25.0 24.3 20.8 20.2 p Tests not written (%) 1.3 9.7 8.9 7.7 13.1 q Overall rating out of 10 6.1 6.6 6.8 7.4 6.7 Lakewoods [Public] Oshawa Gr 6 enrollment: 37 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 29.7 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $34,100: -2.6 Rank:2594/2714 2206/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.3 1.9 Writing 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.6 2.3 Math 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.6 1.9 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.6 Writing 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 Math 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.2 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.5 M 0.5 F 0.5 F 0.3 F 0.2 Math F 0.2 M 0.2 F 0.4 F 0.2 M 0.1 Tests below standard (%) 58.5 45.7 62.8 57.9 59.6 Tests not written (%) 1.1 3.9 1.4 1.2 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 2.8 3.9 1.6 2.8 2.6 Lester B Pearson [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 42 ESL (%): 2.4 Special needs (%): 21.4 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $79,500: 0.5 Rank:1016/2714 912/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 3.0 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.1 Writing 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 3.1 Math 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.1 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.1 2.9 Writing 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.7 Math 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.4 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.3 E M 0.1 F 0.2 F 0.1 Math F 0.2 M 0.2 M 0.3 M 0.1 F 0.4 Tests below standard (%) 27.7 35.5 25.7 22.5 24.1 Tests not written (%) 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Overall rating out of 10 6.5 5.7 6.5 7.1 6.6 Lincoln Alexander [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 43 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 20.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $91,000: -2.6 Rank:2405/2714 1806/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 Writing 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 Math 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.7 Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.5 Writing 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 Math 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.1 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.3 M 0.1 F 0.5 F 0.4 F 0.4 Math F 0.1 F 0.2 E F 0.1 F 0.5 Tests below standard (%) 41.3 38.4 39.6 36.1 43.7 Tests not written (%) 0.8 1.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 Overall rating out of 10 4.7 5.5 4.7 5.1 3.8

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy

25

Lincoln Avenue [Public] Ajax Gr 6 enrollment: 35 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 28.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2011-12 Last 5 Years on parents avg. inc. of $62,200: -1.0 Rank:2070/2714 1724/2268 Academic Performance 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Trend Gr 3 avg. level: Reading 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.7 2.6 Writing 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 q Math 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.4 q Gr 6 avg. level: Reading 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 Writing 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.7 Math 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.4 Gender gap (level): Reading F 0.5 F 0