2012-13 Student Achievement Summary Report

7/29/2019 2012-13 Student Achievement Summary Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2012-13-student-achievement-summary-report 1/83

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

SUMMARY REPORT

2012-2013

Research and Evaluaon Services July 2013

Brandon School Division



Brandon School Division 2012-13 Student Achievement Summary Report Page 2

Research and Evaluaon Services

©2013 Brandon School Division

All Right Reserved

Website: www.bsd.ca

Contact: Research, Assessment and Evaluaon Services

Brandon School Division

1031 6th St.

Brandon, Manitoba

R7A 5Y1

(204) 729-0349 or (204) 729-3100

[email protected]





Table of Contents

Execuve Summary 8

Secon A: Kindergarten Results 10

I. Early Development Instrument: 2010/11 Results 11

Comparison of BSD and Manitoba: Average EDI Scores 11

Average Physical Health Scores 12

Average Social Competence Scores 12

Average Emotional Maturity Scores 12

Average Language & Thinking Skills 13

Average Communication Skills Scores 13

Proportion of Kindergarten EAL Students: BSD versus Manitoba 13

Percentage of BSD Students 'Not Ready' and 'Very Ready' in Each Domain 14

Percentage of Students 'VERY READY' in One or More Domain 14

Percentage of Students 'NOT READY' in One or More Domain 14

Percentage of Students with Multiple Challenges 15

Summary of Early Development Instrument Results 15

II. Phonological Awareness Screening Results 16

Fall-to-Spring Comparison in PAST Score 17

Percent of Students by Phonological Awareness Competency Level: Fall-to-Spring Comparison 17

Fall-to

-Spring Comparisons of Raw Scores and Percent Meeting Expectations by School 18

Summary of Phonological Awareness Screening Results 19

III. Brandon School Division Kindergarten Continuum Results 20

June Fine Motor Competencies: % E, M, A, N 20

Difference in Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Fine Motor Expectations 20

June Literacy Competencies: % E, M, A, N 21

Difference in Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Literacy Expectations 21

June Numeracy Competencies: % E, M, A, N 22

Difference in Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Numeracy Expectations

22

Kindergarten Literacy and Fine Motor Competencies: Percent Meeting or Exceeding by School 23

Kindergarten Numeracy Competencies: Percent Meeting or Exceeding by School 24

Summary of Kindergarten Continuum Results 25

IV. The Effect of Full Day Every Day Kindergarten on Student Achievement 26

Kindergarten Schedules: Relave Progress of % of Students Meeng Phonological AwarenessExpectaons 26

November to June Difference in Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Fine Motor Expec-tations: Comparing Full to Half -Time Kindergarten 27





November to June Difference in Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Literacy Expecta-tions: Comparing Full to Half -Time Kindergarten 27

November to June Difference in Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding Numeracy Expecta-tions: Comparing Full to Half -Time Kindergarten 28

Summary of the Effects of Full Day Every Day Kindergarten

28

Section B: Divisional and Provincial Formative Assessment Results 29

I. Division-Wide Formative Assessment Results: Reading 30

Grade 3 Provincial Reading Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 30

Grade 3 Provincial Reading Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 30

Grade 5 Divisional Reading Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 31

Grade 5 Divisional Reading Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 31

Grade 7 Divisional Reading Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 32

Grade 7 Divisional Reading Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 32

Grade 8 Provincial Reading Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching, Not Meeting, and Outof Range

33

Grade 8 Provincial Reading Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 33

Grade 9 Divisional Reading Assessment: % E, M, A, N 34

Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Reading 34

II. Division-Wide Formative Assessment Results: Writing 35

Grade 3 Divisional Writing Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 35

Grade 3 Divisional Writing Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 35

Grade 5 Divisional Writing Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 36


Grade 7 Divisional Writing: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 37


Grade 8 Provincial Writing Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching, Not Meeting, and Outof Range 38

Grade 8 Provincial Writing Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 38

Grade 9 Divisional Writing Assessment: % E, M, A, N

39

Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Writing 39

III. Division-Wide Formative Assessment Results: Numeracy 40

Grade 3 Provincial Numeracy Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 40

Grade 3 Provincial Numeracy Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 40

Grade 5 Divisional Numeracy Assessment: Percent E, M, A, N 41

Grade 5 Divisional Numeracy Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting/Exceeding 41

Grade 7 Provincial Numeracy Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting 42

Table of Contents (continued)





Grade 9 Divisional Numeracy Assessment: Average % Scores in Each Competency 42

Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Numeracy 43

IV. Grade 4 Provincial Reading in French Assessment Results 44

Grade 4 Provincial Reading in French Assessment: Percent Meeting, Approaching, and NotMeeting 44

Grade 4 Provincial Reading in French Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting 44

Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Reading in French 44

V. Grade 7 Provincial Engagement Assessment Results 45

Grade 7 Provincial Engagement Competencies: % at Each Engagement Level 45

Grade 7 Provincial Engagement Assessment: Two-Year Comparison of % ‘Established’ 45

Summary of Provincial Engagement Assessment Results 46

VI. School-Site Formative Assessment Results 47

Grade 3 Reading, Writing, and Numeracy: % Meeting or Exceeding by School 47



Grade 9 Reading, Writing, and Numeracy: % Meeting or Exceeding by Sending School 50

VII. Grade 9 Formative Assessment Results by Receiving School 51

Grade 9 Reading Competencies: % Meeting or Exceeding by Receiving School 51

Grade 9 Writing Competencies: % Meeting or Exceeding by Receiving School 52

Grade 9 Numeracy: Average Percent Scores in Each Competency by Receiving School 53

VIII. Grade 12 Provincial Standards Tests

54

BSD Percent Point Differential from Manitoba Mean: ELA & Math Tests 54

Grade 12 English Language Arts Provincial Standards Test 55

ELA: Crocus Plains % Difference from Manitoba Mean 56

ELA: Neelin % Difference from Manitoba Mean 56

ELA: Vincent Massey % Difference from Manitoba Mean 56

Grade 12 Pre-Calculus Provincial Standards Test 57

Pre-Calculus: Crocus Plains % Dierence from Manitoba Mean 58

Pre-Calculus: Neelin % Difference from Manitoba Mean 58

Grade 12 Applied Mathematics Provincial Standards Test

59

Applied Math: Crocus Plains % Dierence from Manitoba Mean 59

Grade 12 Essential Mathematics Provincial Standards Test 60

Essenal Math: Crocus Plains % Dierence from Manitoba Mean 61

Essential Math: Vincent Massey % Difference from Manitoba Mean 61

Grade 12 Français Langue Seconde Provincial Standards Test 62

Français: BSD % from the Manitoba Mean 62






Section C: Specific Learner Group Achievement 63

I. Comparison of Male and Female Learners

64

Percent Meeng/Exceeding Kindergarten Fine Motor Expectaons: Comparison of Male andFemale Students 64

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Literacy Expectations: Comparison of Male and Fe-male Students 64

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Numeracy Expectations: Comparison of Male andFemale Students 65

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, 7 & 9 Reading Competencies: Comparison of Boysand Girls 66

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, 7 & 9 Writing Competencies: Comparison of Boys

and Girls 67

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, & 7 Numeracy Competencies: Comparison of Boys and Girls

68

Average Percent Score in Grade 9 Numeracy Strands: Comparison of Boys and Girls 69

Summary of the Comparison of Male and Female Learners 69

II. Comparison of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Learners 70

Percent M/E Kindergarten Fine Motor Expectations: Comparison of Aboriginal and Non-

Aboriginal Students

70

Percent M/E Kindergarten Literacy Expectations: Comparison of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal

Students 70

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Numeracy Expectations: Comparison of Aboriginaland Non-Aboriginal Students 71

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, 7, & 9 Reading Competencies: Comparison of Ab-original and Non-Aboriginal Students 72

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, 7, & 9 Writing Competencies: Comparison of Abo-riginal and Non-Aboriginal Students 73

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, & 7 Numeracy Competencies: Comparison of Ab-original and Non-Aboriginal Students 74

Average Percent Score in Grade 9 Numeracy Strands: Comparison of Aboriginal and Non-

Aboriginal Students 75

Summary of the Comparison of Students with and without Aboriginal Heritage 75

III. Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Learners 76

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Fine Motor Expectations: Comparison of EAL andNon-EAL Students 76

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Literacy Expectations: Comparison of EAL and Non-

EAL Students 76







Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Numeracy Expectations: Comparison of EAL andNon-EAL Students 77

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, 7 & 9 Reading Competencies: Comparison of EALand Non-EAL Students 78

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5, 7 & 9 Writing Competencies: Comparison of EALand Non-EAL Students 79

Percent Meeting Expectations in Grade 3, 5 & 7 Numeracy Competencies: Comparison of EALand Non-EAL Students 80

Average Percent Score in Grade 9 Numeracy Strands: Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Stu-dents 81

Summary of the Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Students 81

Appendix A: Historical Demographics for Formative Assessments 82





Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview of Brandon School Division (BSD) student achieve-ment results for the 2012-13 school year: Kindergarten, Grades 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12 in both Literacy and Numeracy. In-cluded are other relevant data that provide important contextual information necessary for an in-depth understand-ing of the key factors that influence student achievement.

This report encompasses results from Brandon School Division divisional formative assessments as well as provinciallymandated standards tests in Grade 12, formative assessments in earlier grades and the Early Development Instru-ment. Furthermore, this report covers results of the Divisional Kindergarten Phonological Awareness Screening fromand Divisional Kindergarten Continuum. All formative assessments and Kindergarten Continuum assessments are cri-terion referenced (or outcome-based) to the particular curricula.

Unless otherwise stated within the report, MANE performance indicators (Meeting, Approaching, Not Meeting orNeeds Ongoing Help, and Exceeding) are used to show students’ level of achievement in critical competencies. Teach-ers use a collection of evidence to determine the performance indicator which best describes each student’s level of competency according to pre-established curricular rubrics. In addition to descriptive statistics on the sheer percent-age of students at each level of performance, two-year or historical trend comparisons are included where possible.Furthermore, the impact of full day every day Kindergarten is briefly reported. Finally, this report includes detailedexaminations of the achievement of specific learner groups.

Summary of Results

Early Development Instrument: The results of the 2010-2011 EDI indicate that BSD students enter Kindergar-ten, on average, with less developed school readiness skills than other Manitoba children. More children enterthis Division with multiple challenges compared with the Province as a whole. There are disproportionatelygreater numbers of BSD students at both the ‘not ready’ and ‘very ready’ ends of the ‘readiness continuum.’The developmental area of greatest need is Language and Thinking Skills.

Phonological Awareness: Improvements were seen from fall to spring in Kindergarten students’ phonologicalawareness (from 18 to 38 out of a possible 50 points; and from 28% to 72% of students meeting/exceeding ex-pectations). However, 14% of students entering Grade 1 will require additional supports in order to be success-ful, especially in reading.

Kindergarten Continuum: At least 70% of students are meeting or exceeding the vast majority of Kindergartenoutcomes assessed in June. Most students finish Kindergarten with appropriate fine motor skills. Although theidentification of letter sounds continues to be an area of challenge for approximately 25% of students, this skillsaw the greatest amount of progress throughout the school year. As in previous years, the areas of greatestchallenge for students entering Grade 1 are in ‘story retell’ and ‘word recognition,’ two important preliminaryreading skills.

Full Day Every Day Kindergarten: Compared with half -time students, a greater percentage of FDED Kindergar-

ten students ended the year meeting phonological awareness expectations, despite having started the yearwith lower average scores. This tendency for closing the achievement gap with FDED students was seen also onthe Kindergarten Continuum assessments, in which FDED students tended to make greater gains or less lossthan their half -time counterparts.

Reading: At least 80% of students are either meeting or approaching grade level expectations on all but onereading competency at one grade level. Comprehension is generally the reading competency with the higherpercentages of students meeting expectations, while critical response to text is the reading competency of greatest challenge.





Writing: At least 80% of students are either meeting or approaching writing expectations on all but one writingcompetency at one grade level, however, there is a general tendency toward poorer performance in writingcompared with reading. Word choice is the writing competency of greatest challenge.

Numeracy: At least 80% of students are either meeng or approaching expectaons on all but two numeracycompetencies across all grade levels. Competencies within the Number Strand are generally those of relavestrength for BSD students; however, mental math connues to be the competency of greatest challenge.

Reading in French: At least 80% of students are meeng or approaching expectaons in the Provincial Readingin French assessment.

Engagement: For 4 of the 5 engagement skills assessed across both English and French Immersion students,close to 80% of students are demonstrating the skills ‘very often’ or even ‘almost always.’ Students find self -assessment the most challenging area of engagement.

Grade 12 Provincial Standards Tests: BSD students continue to demonstrate strong Language Arts scores. Pre-

Calculus scores are strong in one high school and improving in the others. Only Crocus Plains Regional Second-ary School had students taking the Applied Mathematics assessment in the fall; however, these results show animprovement over all previous years’ results. In Essential Math (previously Consumer Math), the first semesterresults show considerable improvement over last year at both participating high schools. Finally, BSD results arevery similar to the Provincial average on the Français langue seconde provincial standards test.

Gender: There are significantly greater percentages of girls meeting expectations in some reading competen-cies, in every writing competency, and in Kindergarten fine motor skills. With the exception of colour identifica-tion in Kindergarten, there are no significant gender differences in numeracy across any grade level.

Learners of Aboriginal Heritage: A smaller percentage of Aboriginal students are meeting expectations in allreading, writing, and numeracy competencies compared with non-Aboriginal students. This difference is seenfrom Kindergarten onward. These differences are especially prominent in writing and in numeracy.

English as an Additional Language Learners: Significantly lower percentages of EAL students are meeting allKindergarten literacy and numeracy outcomes. Significantly lower percentages of EAL students are meetingreading expectations in Grades 3, 5, and 7. In numeracy, the gap between EAL and non-EAL students closesmore readily than it does in literacy.

As this report indicates, student achievement continues to be progressively positive in the major areas of measure-ment: Literacy and Numeracy in Kindergarten and in Grades 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12. Areas of greatest challenge are moni-tored continuously and utilized to inform School Development Planning and Division-wide Strategic Planning. Oncethe implementation plan and procedures are complete for Policy 1001.2 Educational Sustainability in Student Achieve-ment, specific percentages of summative student achievement in core learning outcomes will be available on a Divi-sional aggregate basis in Grades 3, 5, 7 and 9. A pilot study was completed in the 2012-13 school year on the Sustaina-bility Rubrics created at the Grade 3, 5 and 7 levels. A complete report of this pilot is available through Research andEvaluation Services.





KINDERGARTEN

RESULTS

Secon A:





8.88.3

7.98.2

7.5

8.68.2

7.97.6

7.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Physical Health Social Competence Emotional Maturity Language &Thinking Communication &

Knowledge

Comparison of BSD and Manitoba:

Average EDI Scores

Manitoba BSD

In 4 of the 5 domains, Brandon School Division children scored lower than the Manitoba baseline/comparison. Generally, this indi-cates that current BSD students are entering Kindergarten with less developed school readiness skills than other Manitoba chil-dren.

Highest Possible Score: 10

Early Development Instrument: 2010/11 Results

The Early Development Instrument (EDI) was developed by the Oord Centre for Child Studies out of McMaster University. It is ameasurement of developmental health of children who are about to enter Grade one. The objecves of the EDI are to assess thestrengths and needs of Kindergarten children and to predict how children will do in school. It is used across Canada and interna-onally and is administered biennially to all Kindergarten students in Manitoba. The instrument itself is a teacher-completedchecklist that assesses children’s readiness in ve developmental areas (or domains):

physical health and well-being, social competence,

emoonal maturity,

language and cognive development, and

communicaon skills and general knowledge.

The 2010/11 EDI results were made available in the fall of 2012, and so are summarized here. A complete 2010/11 EDI report isavailable through Research and Evaluaon Services. It is important to note that the students parcipang in the 2010/11 round of assessment have just completed Grade 2. This past winter, Kindergarten teachers again administered the EDI to their students. Areport will be forthcoming when these 2012/13 results are received.





8.5 8.3 8.6 8.6

8.8

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.58.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Average Physical Health Scores

BSD Manitoba Baseline

8.28.0 8.1 8.2

8.3

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Average Social Competence Scores


7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9

7.9

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.58.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Average Emotional Maturity Scores


Over the last 4 EDI measure-ments, BSD has had consistentresults in the areas of physicalhealth and well-being, socialcompetence, and emoonalmaturity. In these domains,BSD scores have been onlyslightly lower than the Provin-

cial baseline scores; howeverthe dierences are stascallysignicant at the .05 level.





8.0 7.9 7.8 7.6

8.2

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.07.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Average Language & Thinking Skills


7.3 7.27.4

7.1

7.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Average Communication Skills Scores


2.0% 2.1%

7.0%

13.2%

9.1% 9.6%10.2%

12.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%10%

12%

14%

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Proportion of Kindergarten EAL Students:

BSD versus Manitoba

BSD Manitoba

Manitoba students are weakest inthe area of Communicaon Skills,and this trend is evident in the Divi-sion.

Despite a signicant increase in theproporon of Kindergarten studentswith EAL in BSD (from 2% in 2005/06to 13.2% in 2010/11), there hasbeen only a slight decrease in readi-ness in the areas of language andcommunicaon.





57% 57% 59% 60%

63%

0%10 %20 %30 %40 %

50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %

100%

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Percentage of Students 'VERY READY' in

One or More Domain


31%37% 36% 33%

28%

0%10%20%

30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Percentage of Students 'NOT READY' in

One or More Domain


The domain of greatest challenge forBSD students is Language and ThinkingSkills. It is the domain with the fewest'very ready' and the most 'not ready' stu-dents. While the Communicaon Skillsdomain shows many 'not ready' stu-dents, it is also the domain with the most'very ready students'.

Comparing BSD with provincial stascsreveals that there is a similar percentage

of students ‘very ready’ in at least onedomain; however, there is a greater per-centage of students at BSD who are ‘notready’ in at least one domain.

16%

20%

12%

13%

15%

48%

52%

55%

54%

53%

36%

28%

33%

33%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Communication Skills

Language & Thinking Skills

Emotional Maturity

Social Competence

Physical Health

Percentage of BSD Students 'Not Ready' and 'Very

Ready' in Each Domain

Not Ready Mid-Range Very Ready





8% 8%6%

8%

5%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2005/06 2006/07 2008/09 2010/11

Percentage of Students with Multiple

Challenges*


*Mulple Challenge In-

dex: the proporon of children who have mul-ple challenges in 9 ormore of the 16 sub-

domains assess on theEDI.

Eight percent of BSD Kindergarten students are classied as having ‘mulple challenges.’ This is signicantly higherthan the Province’s baseline of 5%. Furthermore, there is greater discrepancy between the BSD and the Canadian sta-sc of only 3.8%.

Summary of Early Development Instrument Results

The results of the 2010-2011 EDI reveal that Brandon School Division students are entering Kindergarten with, on av-

erage, less developed school readiness skills than other Manitoba children. There are disproporonately greater num-bers of BSD students at each end of the ‘readiness connuum;’ meaning that more than 30% of our students are ‘veryready’ in 4 of the 5 domains, and more than 10% of our students are ‘not ready’ in each domain. The developmentalarea with the greatest need is Language and Thinking Skills since this is the area with the fewest ‘very ready’ and themost ‘not ready’ students. Signicantly more children entering BSD schools do so with mulple challenges when com-pared with the Manitoba and the naonal data. In almost all areas, these most recent results extend the consistentpaern of results over the previous four EDI administraons, poinng to consistent negave trends.





Phonological Awareness Screening Results

BSD Kindergarten students are screened during the rst and last six weeks of school by a yeam of Speech and Lan-

guage Pathologists and Speech and Language Educaonal Assistants using the Phonological Awareness Screening Test

(PAST). The screening consists of ten tasks relang to developmentally appropriate phonological awareness skills in-

cluding rhyming, leer sounds, word counng and syllable counng.It is important to note that the PAST tool and scoring have not changed; however, the method of categorizing and re-

porng these results has changed as of June 2013. This is to bring the results more in line with other BSD assessment

performance indicators. Together with raw scores, results are now reported on MANE with dierent raw score ranges

used at each of the two screening periods. This new performance indicator reporng format is summarized in the fol-

lowing table.

A complete PAST report is available through Research and Evaluaon Services.

Level

#

Competency

Level Descripon

Fall Raw Score

Range

Spring Raw

Score Range

4 Exceeding Beyond developmentally appropri-ate skill

38 - 50

3 Meeng Developmentally appropriate skill 25 - 37.5 35 - 50

2 Approaching

Some diculty with developmental-ly appropriate skill

12.5 - 24.5 25.5 - 34.5

1 Not Meeng

Signicant diculty with develop-mentally appropriate skill

0 - 12 0 - 25





6%

72%

22%

14%

34%

14%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Spring

Fall

Percent of Students by Phonological Awareness

Competency Level: Fall-to-Spring Comparison

Exceeding* Meeting Approaching Not Meeting

* Performance indicator expectaons increase for the spring screening (see table on previous page); therefore the

exceeding level is eliminated in the spring screening.

In September 2012, 663 Kindergarten students were registered in Brandon School Division (BSD). Of those, 645 com-

pleted the fall screening. As of the end of June 2013, 671 students were registered, 639 of whom were assessed in the

spring of 2013.

18

38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Spring Fall

Fall-to-Spring Comparison in PAST Score

Highest possible score: 50





Fall-to-Spring Comparisons of Raw Scores and Percent Meeng Expectaons by School





Summary of Phonological Awareness Screening Results

In general, signicant improvements were seen over the year in Kindergarten students’ phonological awareness. Thisimprovement is evident in the increase of average raw score (from 18 to 38 out of a possible 50 points), and thesescores are virtually idencal to those collected last year. Improvement is also shown in the increased percentage of students meeng developmentally appropriate phonological awareness skills in the spring (72%) compared with the

fall (28%). Furthermore, while 38% of students entering Kindergarten were ‘not meeng,’ this was true of only 14% of students at the end of the year. These changes are especially noteworthy considering that the performance indicatorexpectaons increase for the end-of -year screening. Despite the improvement, it should be noted that 14% of stu-dents entering Grade 1 will require addional supports in order to be successful, especially in reading.

In examining only those students who were screened in both the fall and spring, each school site saw an increase intheir students’ average scores, with eight schools seeing an increase in more than 20 raw score points. Furthermore,ten schools saw an increase in percentage of students meeng expectaons of at least 45%; three of which experi-enced an increase of more than 70% of students. At a few schools, however, lower rates of growth are evident despite low scores in the fall.





18%

17%

12%

64%

67%

72%

86%

88%

16%

14%

15%

13%

10%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Accurate Drawing

Colouring

Prints Name

Scissors

Pencil Grip

June Fine Motor Competencies: % E, M, A, N

E

M

A

N

8%5%

2%

13% 12%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Pencil Grip Scissors Prints Name Colouring Accurate Drawing

Difference in Percent of Students Meeting or Exceeding

Fine Motor Expectations

n = 567

Brandon School Division Kindergarten Continuum Results

The Best Pracces Kindergarten Connuum was developed by a team of Brandon School Division teachers and admin-istrators. Last year (2011-2012), this connuum was piloted in 10 BSD schools. In this, the 2012-2013 school year, theKindergarten Connuum was ulized by all Kindergarten teachers in the reporng of student achievement in Novem-ber, March and June reports. The Kindergarten Connuum assesses the extent to which each student is achieving ex-pectaons in literacy, numeracy, and ne motor skills. Expected skills increase in each subsequent reporng period.Thus, a child is meeng the counng expectaons in November if she can count to 10 starng from 1. However, inorder to be meeng expectaons in March, that same child must demonstrate the ability to count to 10 starng fromany number; and in June must count to 30 starng from any number.

A French Immersion version of the Kindergarten Connuum was piloted and subjected to various revisions through-out the 2012/13 school year, thus it is important to note that current results do not include French Immersion stu-dents. Full November, March, and June reports are available through Research and Evaluaon Services.





21%

45%

39%

58%

66%

11%

50%

75%

75%

50%

12%

35%

23%

19%

42%

21%

24%

24%

20%

21%

13%

11%

8%

37%

12%

1%

1%

9%

22%

13%

8%

7%

11%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Listens to Others

Listens to Stories

Beginning Sounds*

Word Recognition

Letter Sounds

Lower Case

Upper Case

Story Retell

Sense of Rhyme

June Literacy Competencies: % E, M, A, N

E

M

A

N

8%

-9%

12%

7%

24%

-38%

14% 15%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Sense of

Rhyme

Story Retell* Upper Case Lower Case Letter Sounds Word

Recognition

Listens to

Stories

Listens to

Others


Literacy Expectations

* Indicates competencies not assessed in November, therefore progress is from March to June.

n = 567





26%

19%

21%

38%

53%

40%

19%

40%

79%

47%

48%

82%

61%

55%

43%

31%

51%

60%

34%

10%

42%

91%

23%

16%

19%

20%

17%

14%

7%

10%

12%

8%

10%

8%

3%

1%

1%

3%

2%

1%

2%

11%

14%

3%

1%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3-D Objects*

Shapes

Compares 2 Objects*

Sorts

Representing Number*

Subitize

Match Sets/Numerals

Backward Counting

Forward Counting

Number Recognition

Patterns

Colours

June Numeracy Competencies: % E, M, A, N

E

M

A

N

3%

8%5%

-18%

4%

-3%

9%

-6%-5%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Colours Patterns Number

Recognition

Forward

Counting

Backward

Counting*

Match Sets/

Numerals*

Subitize* Sorts Shapes


Numeracy Expectations

* Indicates competencies not assessed in November, therefore progress is from March to June.

n = 567



K i n d e r g a r t e n L i t e r a c y a n d F i n e M o t o r C o m p e t e n c i e s :

P e r c e n t M e e n g o r E x c e e d i n g b y S c h o o l *

* F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s a r e n o t r e p o r t e d .

P e r c e n t a g e s i n r e d a r e l o w e r t h a n 8 0 % ;

b o l d e d r e d a r e l o w e r t h a n

5 0 % .



K i n d e r g a r t e n N u m e r a c y C o

m p e t e n c i e s : P e r c e n t M e e n g o r E x c e e d i n g b y S c h o o l *

* F r e n c h I m m e r s i o n s t u d e n t s a r e n o t r e p o r t e d .

P e r c e n t a g e s i n r e d a r e l o w e r t h a n 8 0 % ;

b o l d e d r e d a r e l o w e r t h a n

5 0 % .





Summary of Kindergarten Continuum Results

Fine Motor

In each of the 5 ne motor competencies, 80% of students or more are meeng or exceeding expectaons. Further-

more, very few students (less than 3%) are ‘not meeng’ in each of these ne motor competencies.

Literacy

More than 80% of students are ‘meeng’ or ‘exceeding’ expectaons in idenfying upper- and lowercase leers. Al-

ternavely, a third or more students are only approaching or ‘not meeng’ expectaons in the areas of word recogni-

on and story retell. Of parcular note, a full 22% of students are unable to recognize at least 10 sight words (i.e., not

meeng expectaons in that domain). There is greater discrepancy of performance level aainment on literacy com-

petencies compared with numeracy.

Numeracy

In 9 of the 12 math competencies assessed in June, at least 80% of students are ‘meeng’ or ‘exceeding’ expecta-

ons. Forward and backward counng, are the numeracy competencies with the greatest percentage of students ‘notmeeng’ expectaons (14% and 11% respecvely).

Year-Long Progress Monitoring in all Domains

For the majority of competencies assessed at mulple points throughout the year, there is a greater percentage of

students ‘meeng’ or ‘exceeding’ expectaons in June compared with earlier in the year. Although the idencaon

of leer sounds connues to be an area of challenge for about a quarter of students, this skill area saw the greatest

amount of progress across the Division (24% more students are meeng expectaons in this skill in June compared

with November). All of the percentage gains are indicave of strong growth considering that, for most of the compe-

tencies assessed, the expectaons have increased in complexity for obtaining each of the MANE indicators.

There are only three competencies for which there was a decline in the percentage of students ‘meeng’ or

‘exceeding’ expectaons. These were forward counng, story retell, and word recognion. These declines signal com-

petencies in which students struggle with the increased level of expectaon in June compared with November or

March. For instance, in the area of word recognion which saw a 38% decline over the year, students meet Novem-

ber expectaons if they are able to recognize their own name, whereas in June they must recognize 10 sight words.





The Effect of Full Day Every Day Kindergarten on Student

Achievement

In the 2012/13 school year, ve schools oered full day every day (FDED) Kindergarten programs. At thirteen elemen-

tary schools, half -me Kindergarten was oered (either every morning, every aernoon, or full day every other day). It

In tracking the eect of FDED Kindergarten on student achievement, comparave analyses were conducted on FDEDand half -me students’ PAST scores and June Connuum scores. Specically, tracking was done on the relave pro-

gress made in each of these student groups.

16%

80%

35%

72%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% Meeting in Fall % Meeting in Spring

Kindergarten Schedules: Relative Progress of % of

Students Meeting Phonological Awareness Expectations

Full Day Every Day Half-Time





12%9% 8%

12%14%

6%3%

-1%

14%11%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%


November to June Difference in Percent of Students

Meeting or Exceeding Fine Motor Expectations:

Comparing Full to Half-Time Kindergarten

FDED Half-Time

11%

-11%

18%14%

30%

-33%

16% 15%

5%

-10%

8%

3%

20%

-41%

14% 14%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Sense of

Rhyme

Story Retell* Upper Case Lower Case Letter Sounds Word

Recognition

Listens to

Stories

Listens to

Others


Meeting or Exceeding Literacy Expectations: Comparing

Full to Half-Time Kindergarten

FDED Half-Time





Summary of the Effects of Full Day Every Day Kindergarten

Despite starng the year with a smaller percentage of students meeng expectaons compared with students on half -me schedules, a greater percentage of FDED Kindergarten students ended the year meeng phonological aware-

ness expectaons. These stascs suggest that FDED Kindergarten experience is one factor that has contributed to

closing the gap in phonological awareness of BSD students.

When considering the dierence in percentages from November to June of students meeng or exceeding expecta-

ons in all Kindergarten outcomes, there is a tendency towards FDED students making greater gains, or showing less

loss. For instance, although the percentage of students meeng forward counng expectaons went down (again,

note the changing/increasing criteria), 13% fewer students in FDED are meeng this outcome in June compared with

21% fewer students in the other schedules. And although 20% more half -me students were meeng expectaons in

leer sound idencaon in June compared with November, this was true of 30% of the FDED students.

7% 8% 9%

-13%

1%

-2%

6%

-6%

0%1%

8%4%

-21%

4%

-3%

10%

-7% -8%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Colours Patterns Number

Recognition

Forward

Counting

Backward

Counting*

Match Sets/

Numerals*

Subitize* Sorts Shapes


Meeting or Exceeding Numeracy Expectations:

Comparing Full to Half-Time Kindergarten

FDED Half-Time





DIVISIONAL AND

PROVINCIAL FORMATIVE

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Secon B:





56.0%

62.5%

58.9%

25.3%

18.1%

22.4%

18.6%

19.3%

18.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Sets Reading Goals

Strategies

Comprehension

Grade 3 Provincial Reading Assessment:

Percent Meeting, Approaching and Not Meeting

M

A

N

n = 586

Division-Wide Formative Assessment Results: Reading

The following graphs show the results of BSD students on all formave assessments in reading. Grade 3 and Grade 8

are Provincial assessments, while Grade 5, 7, and 9 are Divisional assessments. In each graph, percentages are based

on the total number of students who completed any part of the assessment. Therefore, stacked bars do not always

add up to 100%. The remaining (empty) poron of the bar represents the proporon of students for whom data is

not available.

59%63% 62%

56%63% 59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sets Reading Goals Strategies Comprehension


Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting

2011/12 2012/13





48.9%

43.5%

61.6%

35.8%

45.9%

29.1%

14.1%

10.1%

9.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fluency and Expression

Responds Critically

Comprehension

Grade 5 Divisional Reading Assessment:


M

A

N

n = 573

57%

49%

58%

49%44%

62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fluency and Expression Responds Critically Comprehension



2011/12 2012/13





54.0%

53.6%

57.6%

32.6%

36.6%

32.0%

12.7%

9.7%

9.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fluency and Expression

Responds Critically

Comprehension



M

A

N

n = 528

57% 55%

62%

54% 54%58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fluency and Expression Responds Critically Comprehension



2011/12 2012/13





52%

59%

62%

28%

26%

23%

14%

11%

10%

5%

5%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Critical response

Interpretation

Comprehension


% Meeting, Approaching, Not Meeting, and Out of

Range*

M

A

N

OOR

n = 547

54%

61%63%

52%

59%62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Critical response Interpretation Comprehension



2011-12 2012-13

*According to Manitoba Educaon, ‘Out of Range’ is used for students whose ”late-January performance level is below the low-

est level described in the reporng template.”





6.9%

5.3%

7.6%

5.1%

14.4%

41.7%

31.2%

21.7%

28.3%

56.3%

29.6%

41.0%

19.0%

39.3%

24.1%

12.3%

12.0%

41.9%

18.7%

2.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Comprehnsion - Main Idea (NF)

Comprehnsion - Inference (F)

Personal & Critical Response

Techniques & Elements (NF)

Comprehension (F)

Grade 9 Divisional Reading Assessment: % E, M, A, N

E M A N

n = 568

Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Reading

At least 80% of students are either ‘meeng’ or ‘approaching’ grade level expectaons on these formave assessments in read-ing. In general, a lile more than half of the students are meeng expectaons, while approximately 10% of students need ongo-

ing help to meet grade-level expectaons. However, there are slightly higher percentages of Grade 3 and Grade 9 students who

need ongoing help in reading.

Across grade level assessments, comprehension is generally the reading competency with the higher percentages of students

meeng expectaons. At the grade 9 level, the majority of students (71%) are meeng expectaons in comprehending con;

however, comprehension of non-con and the ability to make inferences from text are two competencies in need for more de-

velopment. Across all grade levels, crical response to text is the competency with consistently fewer students meeng expecta-

ons compared with the other reading competencies.

In the coming years, a mulple-year comparison will allow for a more complete analysis of historical trends. Currently, the two-

year comparison reveals slightly lower percentages of students meeng expectaons in the current year; however, the reading

competencies with highest and lowest relave scores remain consistent.

Note: Two-year comparison is not available for this assessment.





52.4%

46.0%

36.7%

45.4%

44.0%

40.1%

40.3%

34.5%

40.7%

36.7%

7.3%

13.7%

28.5%

13.7%

19.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ideas

Organization

Word Choice

Sentence Fluency

Conventions

Grade 3 Divisional Writing Assessment:


M

A

N

n = 548

Division-Wide Formative Assessment Results: Writing

The following graphs show the results of BSD students on all formave assessments in wring. Grade 3, 5, 7, and 9

are Divisional assessments while Grade 8 is a Provincial assessment. In each graph, percentages are based on the to-

tal number of students who completed any part of the assessment. Therefore, stacked bars do not always add up to

100%. The remaining (empty) poron of the bar represents the proporon of students for whom data is not available.

53% 52%

36%

44% 44%

52%

46%

37%

45% 44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ideas Organization Word Choice Sentence Fluency Conventions



2011/12 2012/13





39.6%

31.6%

44.7%

46.2%

49.6%

39.4%

14.0%

18.8%

15.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ideas/Organization

Word Choice

Conventions



M

A

N

n = 573

45%

35%

45%40%

32%

45%

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ideas/Organization Word Choice Conventions



2011/12 2012/13





46.2%

37.3%

50.4%

38.1%

46.6%

35.2%

15.3%

15.7%

14.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Ideas/ Organization

Word Choice

Conventions



M

A

N

n = 528

49% 48%52%

46%

37%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ideas/ Organization Word Choice Conventions



2011/12 2012/13





50%

48%

54%

32%

33%

30%

13%

14%

10%

5%

5%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Conventions

Word choice

Ideas and organization

Grade 8 Provincial Writing Assessment:

Percent Meeting, Approaching, Not Meeting, and Out

of Range*

M

A

N

OOR

n = 547

48% 50%

60%

50% 48%54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Conventions Word choice Ideas and organization

Grade 8 Provincial Writing Assessment:Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting

2011-12 2012-13

*According to Manitoba Educaon, ‘Out of Range’ is used for students whose ”late-January performance level is below the low-

est level described in the reporng template.”





17.4%

19.2%

13.9%

19.0%

59.3%

63.7%

57.2%

61.6%

17.3%

10.7%

22.1%

12.9%

0.9%

1.1%

1.4%

1.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Grammar & Mechanics

Voice

Organization

Ideas

Grade 9 Divisional Writing Assessment: % E, M, A, N

E M A N

n = 568

Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Writing

With the excepon of one competency at one grade level, at least 80% of students are either ‘meeng’ or ‘approaching’ wringexpectaons on these formave assessments. In general, a lile fewer than half of the students are meeng expectaons on the

Grade 3, 5, and 7 formave assessments in wring, while approximately 15% of students and need ongoing help to meet grade-

level expectaons.

Across grades 3, 5, and 7, word choice is the wring competency of greatest challenge. At these grade levels, word choice is con-

sistently the wring competency in which the smallest percentage of students is meeng expectaons.

In future years, a mulple-year comparison will allow for a more complete analysis of historical trends. Currently, the two -year

comparison generally reveals slightly lower percentages of students meeng expectaons in the current year; however the

wring competencies with highest and lowest relave scores remains consistent.

Note: Two-year comparison is not available for this assessment.





59.5%

53.5%

67.3%

50.3%

30.2%

34.0%

23.0%

30.3%

9.8%

12.0%

9.7%

18.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Patterns

Equality

Representing Numbers

Mental Math

Grade 3 Provincial Numeracy Assessment:


M

A

N

n = 600

Division-Wide Formative Assessment Results: Numeracy

The following graphs show the results of BSD student achievement on all formave assessments in numeracy.

Grades 3 and 7 are Provincial assessments, while Grades 5 and 9 are locally developed assessments. While the as-

sessments in Grades 3, 5, and 7 use the MANE indicators, the Grade 9 numeracy assessment is scored using tradi-

onal percentage scores. In each graphical representaon of MANE, percentages are based on the total number of

students who completed any part of the assessment. Therefore, stacked bars do not always add up to 100%. The

remaining (empty) poron of the bar represents the proporon of students for whom data was not available.

54% 52%

69%

50%

60%54%

67%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Patterns Equality Representing Numbers Mental Math



2011/12 2012/13





11.1%

10.9%

10.7%

9.7%

18.0%

45.1%

38.8%

39.6%

41.7%

55.8%

31.6%

38.9%

31.3%

25.9%

17.5%

12.2%

11.1%

18.4%

22.8%

8.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Decimals

Fractions

Patterns

Mental Math

Place Value

Grade 5 Divisional Numeracy Assessment:

Percent E, M, A, N

E

M

A

N

n = 588

48%45% 47%

43%

63%

56%

50% 50% 51%

74%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Decimals Fractions Patterns Mental Math Place Value


Two-Year Comparison of % Meeting/Exceeding

2011/12 2012/13





51.8%

68.1%

62.2%

45.6%

51.4%

33.6%

25.0%

26.0%

33.8%

28.9%

14.7%

6.9%

11.9%

20.6%

19.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fractions

Decimals

Representing Number

Patterns

Mental Math



M

A

N

n = 539

65%

5 0%

41%47%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Number Concepts Patterns &

Relations

Shape & Space Statistics &

Probability

Total


Average % Scores in Each Competency

% n

Number Concepts 65% 577

Paerns & Relaons 50% 569

Shape & Space 41% 576

Stascs & Probability 47% 581

Total 53% *552

* Those students who completed ALL parts of the assessment.

Note: Two-year comparison is not available for these assessments.

n’s are dierent for

each strand; see

table below





Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Numeracy

In the majority of numeracy competencies across all grade levels, close to 80% of students or more are either ‘meeng’ or

‘approaching’ expectaons. Competencies with the highest percentage of students meeng expectaons include: Represenng

Number in Grade 3 (67%), Place Value in Grade 5 (74%), Decimals in Grade 7 (68%) and Represenng Number in Grade 7 (62%).

Each of these competencies is from the Number Strand of the Manitoba Mathemacs Curriculum. Number Concepts is also the

strand with the highest average percentage on the Grade 9 numeracy assessment. This strand is a relave strength for BSD stu-

dents.

Across grades 3, 5, and 7, mental math is the numeracy competency of greatest challenge. While approximately 50% of students

at each grade are meeng expectaons in this competency, approximately 20% of students need ongoing help in this skill.

Paerns is also a competency of challenge for BSD students. While 60% of Grade 3 students are meeng expectaons in paern-

ing, this rate of competency declines in subsequent grades to 50% in Grade 5 and 45% in Grade 7. Furthermore, 1 in 5 students

need ongoing help in paerning at the Grade 5 and 7 levels. Shape and Space as well as Stascs and Probability are included in

the Grade 9 assessment only, but these two strands have the lowest average percentage scores of that assessment (41% and 47%

respecvely).

In the coming years, a mulple-year comparison will allow for a more complete analysis of historical trends. Currently, the two-

year comparison generally reveals slightly higher percentages of students meeng expectaons in the current year; and the nu-

meracy competencies with highest and lowest relave scores remain consistent.





Grade 4 Provincial Reading in French Assessment Results

66%

66%

68%

14%

19%

20%

20%

15%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Sets Reading Goals

Strategies

Comprehension

Grade 4 Provincial Reading in French Assessment:

Percent Meeting, Approaching, and Not Meeting

M

A

N

94%90% 90%

66% 66% 68%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sets Reading Goals Strategies Comprehension

Grade 4 Provincial Reading in French Assessment:


2011-12 2012-13

Summary of Formative Assessment Results in Reading in French

In all competencies assessed, at least 80% of students are meeng or approaching expectaons in this assessment. Compared

with other provincial and divisional assessments, there is a tendency for there to be fewer students approaching expectaons;

rather, we see slightly higher percentages of students at both ends of the connuum—meeng and not meeng. This year’s re-

sults have declined from last year.

n = 59





Grade 7 Provincial Engagement Assessment Results

The following graph depicts the results of BSD students in the Grade 7 Provincial Engagement assessment. Students in both the

English and French Immersion programs are assessed on 5 engagement skill areas, and students in the French Immersion pro-

gram are assessed on one addional skill relang to their use of the French language. Teachers assess students using the follow-

ing indicators: Establish (nearly always), Developing (quite oen), Emerging (only somemes), and Inconsistent.

17%

49%

47%

43%

35%

44%

68%

31%

32%

35%

35%

34%

15%

15%

17%

17%

24%

17%

0%

4%

4%

4%

5%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Using French as a tool for growth*

Accepting responsibility for assignments

Participating in lessons

Aware of learning goals

Engaging in self-assessment

Demonstrating interest in learning

Grade 7 Provincial Engagement Competencies:

% at Each Engagement Level

Established Developing Emerging Inconsistent

* Only assessed for students in the French Immersion Program; n = 41.

n = 551

50 %58%

52% 52%

41 %

50%

17 %

49 % 47%43%

35 %44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Using French as a

tool for growth*

Accepting

responsibility for

assignments

Participating in

lessons

Aware of learning

goals

Engaging in self-

assessment

Demonstrating

interest in learning

Grade 7 Provincial Engagement Assessment:

Two-Year Comparison of % 'Established'

2011-12 2012-13





Summary of Provincial Engagement Assessment Results

The 5 engagement skill areas assessed across both the English and French Immersion programs are considered rst. Slightly less

than 50% of BSD students are demonstrang established engagement skills, while another third are demonstrang these skills

quite oen. For 4 of the 5 skills, close to 80% of students are demonstrang the skills very oen or even ‘almost always.’ Stu-

dents nd self -assessment the most challenging skill—only a third of students are established in this skill while a full quarter are

emerging. The data also shows that the second lowest percentage of ‘established’ students is in “being aware of learning goals of

a unit of study and/or personal learning goals.”

“Using French as a tool for personal and social growth” is an engagement skill assessed in the French Immersion program only. In

general, this skills is not well established for students in BSD and across the province.





R e a d i n g

W r i n g

N u m e r

a c y

S c h o o l

n

F l u e n c y &

E x p r e s s i o n

R e s p o n d s

C r i c a l l y

C o m p r e h e n -

s i o n

n

I d e a s / O r -

g a n i z a o n

W o r d

C h o i c e

C o n v e n o n s

n

D e c i m a l s

F r a c o n s

P a e r n s

M e n t a l

M a t h

P l a c e V a l u e

B S D

5

7 3

4 9 %

4 4 %

6 2 %

5 7 3

4 0 %

3 2 %

4 5 %

5 8 8

5 6 %

5 0 %

5 0 %

5 1 %

7 4 %

A l e x a n

d e r

S c

h o o

l

8

7 5 %

6 3 %

7 5 %

8

7 5 %

5 0 %

6 3 %

8

1 0 0 %

1 0 0 %

1 0 0 %

1 0 0 %

1 0 0 %

B e

t t y G i b s o n

S c

h o o

l

2 8

5 0 %

2 5 %

6 4 %

2 8

2 5 %

1 4 %

2 5 %

3 2

9 %

1 9 %

1 9 %

9 %

4 4 %

E a r l

O x

f o r d

S c

h o o

l

1 7

4 7 %

3 5 %

7 1 %

1 7

1 8 %

1 8 %

1 8 %

1 8

3 3 %

2 2 %

6 %

0 %

6 1 %

É c o

l e H a r r i s o n

2 3

8 3 %

8 3 %

9 1 %

2 3

7 4 %

8 7 %

8 3 %

2 3

9 6 %

7 0 %

8 7 %

8 7 %

1 0 0 %

G e o r g e

F i t t o n

S c

h o o

l

4 9

3 1 %

3 3 %

3 9 %

4 9

3 3 %

1 6 %

3 7 %

5 1

4 9 %

2 4 %

6 5 %

5 5 %

8 0 %

G r e e n

A c r e s

S c

h o o

l

1 4

5 0 %

4 3 %

7 1 %

1 4

5 0 %

1 4 %

9 3 %

1 7

5 9 %

4 7 %

2 9 %

5 9 %

7 1 %

J .

R .

R e

i d S c

h o o

l

2 0

4 5 %

7 0 %

6 0 %

2 0

2 5 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

1 8

6 1 %

5 6 %

5 0 %

3 9 %

5 6 %

K i n g

G e o r g e

S c

h o o

l

2 0

3 5 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

2 0

2 5 %

2 0 %

1 5 %

2 1

8 1 %

5 7 %

7 6 %

5 2 %

9 5 %

K i r k c a

l d y

H e

i g h t s S c

h o o

l

4 8

6 3 %

5 8 %

7 3 %

4 8

4 8 %

3 3 %

4 0 %

4 8

7 1 %

7 9 %

7 5 %

6 7 %

9 2 %

L i n d e n

L a n e s

S c

h o o

l

3 1

5 8 %

5 8 %

7 1 %

3 1

6 5 %

3 6 %

3 2 %

3 4

7 4 %

6 8 %

6 5 %

9 1 %

9 4 %

M e a

d o w s

S c

h o o

l

5 8

4 3 %

2 9 %

6 4 %

5 8

5 3 %

4 3 %

4 1 %

6 1

6 1 %

4 6 %

5 3 %

7 4 %

8 0 %

É c o

l e N e w

E r a

S c

h o o

l ( E N G )

4 3

1 9 %

1 2 %

2 3 %

4 3

1 6 %

1 6 %

3 3 %

4 3

4 0 %

4 0 %

3 5 %

3 5 %

5 1 %

É c o

l e N e w

E r a

S c

h o o

l ( F R )

2 6

5 8 %

5 8 %

6 2 %

2 6

5 4 %

3 1 %

5 0 %

2 5

4 4 %

5 2 %

3 6 %

2 8 %

8 0 %

É c o

l e O ' K e

l l y S c

h o o

l

2 3

5 2 %

2 6 %

8 3 %

2 3

3 9 %

3 5 %

4 4 %

2 3

4 8 %

1 7 %

0 %

3 9 %

4 8 %

R i v e r h e

i g h t s S c

h o o

l

4 1

5 1 %

3 9 %

5 6 %

4 1

2 2 %

2 9 %

4 6 %

4 3

1 9 %

2 1 %

3 5 %

3 0 %

5 6 %

R i v e r v

i e w

S c

h o o

l

2 3

6 1 %

5 2 %

6 5 %

2 3

3 9 %

2 6 %

6 1 %

2 2

3 6 %

3 6 %

2 7 %

3 2 %

5 5 %

S p r i n g

V a

l l e y

C o

l o n y

S c

h o o

l

2

2

2

S t . A u g u s

t i n e

S c

h o o

l

2 5

7 6 %

6 8 %

7 6 %

2 5

5 6 %

5 6 %

6 0 %

2 5

9 2 %

8 0 %

7 2 %

8 8 %

8 8 %

V a

l l e y v

i e w

C e n

t e n n

i a l S c

h o o

l

2 5

4 8 %

5 2 %

5 2 %

2 5

4 0 %

2 8 %

6 0 %

2 8

7 5 %

6 4 %

4 3 %

1 4 %

5 7 %

W a v e r l y

P a r k

S c

h o o

l

4 9

4 1 %

4 3 %

6 7 %

4 9

3 1 %

3 7 %

5 3 %

4 6

7 2 %

8 3 %

7 2 %

6 5 %

9 1 %

G r a d e 5 R e a d i n g , W r i n g

, a n d N u m e r a c y : % M e e n

g o r E x c e e d i n g b y S c h o o l *

* P e r c e n t a g e s i n t h i s t a b l e s h o u l d b e r e a d a s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s m

e e n g e x p e c t a o n s i n e a c h c o m p e t e

n c y .

I n c a s e s w h e r e a p e r f o r m a n c e l e v e l o f ‘ E x c e e d i n g ’ i s p o s s i -

b l e ,

t h e p e r c e n t a g e s i n t h i s t a b l e r e

f e r t o t h e c o m b i n a o n o f s t u d e n t s w h o a r e m e e n g O R e x c e e d i n g e x p e c t a o n s .

P e r c e n t a g e s i n r e d a r e l o w e r t h a n t h e D i v i s i o n a l %

f o r t h a t

c o m p e t e n c y .



P e r c e n t a g e s i n t h i s t a b l e s h o u l d b e r e a d a s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s m e e n g e x p e c t a o n s i n e a c h c o m p e t e n

c y .

I n c a s e s w h e r e a p e r f o r m a n c e l e v e

l o f ‘ E x c e e d i n g ’ i s p o s s i -

b l e ,

t h e p e r c e n t a g e s i n t h i s t a b l e r e

f e r t o t h e c o m b i n a o n o f s t u d e n t s w h

o a r e m e e n g O R e x c e e d i n g e x p e c t a o n s .

P e r c e n t a g e s i n r e d a r e l o w e r t h a n t h e D i v i s i o n a l %

f o r t h a t

c o m p e t e n c y .

R e a d i n g

W r i n g

N u m e r a c

y

S c h o o l

n

F l u e n c y &

E x p r e s s i o n

R e s p o n d s

C r i c a l l y

C o m p r e -

h e n s i o n

n

I d e a s /

O r g a n i z a -

W o r d

C h o i c e

C o n v e n -

o n s

n

F r a c o n s

D e c i m a l s

R

e p r e -

s e

n n g

P a e r n s

M e n t a l

M a t h

B S D

5 2 8

5 4 %

5 4 %

5 8 %

5 2 8

4 6 %

3 7 %

5 0 %

5 3 9

5 2 %

6 8 %

6

2 %

4 6 %

5 1 %

A l e x a n

d e r

S c

h o o

l

7

8 6 %

8 6 %

1 0 0 %

7

7 1 %

7 1 %

7 1 %

5

B e

t t y G i b s o n

S c

h o o

l

2 9

4 5 %

4 1 %

3 8 %

2 9

4 1 %

2 8 %

4 8 %

3 0

4 7 %

5 7 %

4

7 %

7 %

2 3 %

E a r l

O x

f o r d

S c

h o o

l

3 5

5 4 %

7 1 %

8 0 %

3 5

7 1 %

5 1 %

2 6 %

3 7

3 8 %

9 5 %

8

4 %

6 8 %

8 7 %

É c o

l e H a r r i s o n

3 2

7 2 %

8 1 %

8 8 %

3 2

6 3 %

8 1 %

6 9 %

3 2

8 1 %

9 7 %

9

4 %

9 7 %

9 4 %

G e o r g e

F i t t o n

S c

h o o

l

5 1

2 9 %

4 3 %

4 1 %

5 1

2 6 %

1 4 %

2 9 %

5 4

4 4 %

6 1 %

4

6 %

4 8 %

2 6 %

G r e e n

A c r e s

S c

h o o

l

1 5

5 3 %

4 0 %

4 7 %

1 5

6 0 %

6 0 %

4 7 %

1 6

5 0 %

6 9 %

3

1 %

0 %

3 8 %

J .

R .

R e

i d S c

h o o

l

3 4

4 7 %

7 1 %

7 9 %

3 4

3 8 %

3 5 %

5 3 %

3 4

6 5 %

6 8 %

7

1 %

6 8 %

5 3 %

K i n g

G e o r g e

S c

h o o

l

4 2

5 5 %

2 4 %

3 6 %

4 2

3 3 %

3 3 %

5 5 %

4 6

2 8 %

3 7 %

4

4 %

3 5 %

5 4 %

K i r k c a

l d y

H e

i g h t s S c

h o o

l

3 2

6 3 %

3 8 %

4 1 %

3 2

4 1 %

3 1 %

5 3 %

3 1

4 2 %

7 7 %

7

1 %

5 2 %

6 1 %

L i n d e n

L a n e s

S c

h o o

l

3 3

8 8 %

8 8 %

9 1 %

3 3

7 6 %

6 1 %

7 0 %

3 3

7 9 %

7 3 %

8

5 %

7 3 %

8 5 %

M e a

d o w s

S c

h o o

l

3 7

6 5 %

5 7 %

7 0 %

3 7

6 0 %

4 1 %

4 3 %

3 8

6 6 %

6 6 %

9

7 %

2 9 %

6 1 %

É c o

l e N e w

E r a

S c

h o o

l ( E N G )

3 9

2 1 %

2 1 %

2 3 %

3 9

2 3 %

8 %

2 3 %

3 9

3 6 %

7 2 %

2

3 %

1 0 %

0 %

É c o

l e N e w

E r a

S c

h o o

l ( F R )

9

4 4 %

5 6 %

3 3 %

9

1 1 %

1 1 %

3 3 %

9

5 6 %

1 0 0 %

7

8 %

2 2 %

4 4 %

É c o

l e O ' K e

l l y S c

h o o

l

1 8

3 3 %

4 4 %

5 0 %

1 8

3 9 %

2 2 %

3 9 %

1 8

1 1 %

2 8 %

1

1 %

0 %

6 %

R i v e r h e

i g h t s S c

h o o

l

4 4

4 6 %

4 8 %

5 2 %

4 4

4 8 %

2 7 %

6 6 %

4 5

7 3 %

6 2 %

5

8 %

3 1 %

4 0 %

S p r i n g

V a

l l e y

C o

l o n y

S c

h o o

l

2

2

2

S t . A u g u s

t i n e

S c

h o o

l

2 5

7 6 %

6 0 %

4 8 %

2 5

3 2 %

3 6 %

8 0 %

2 5

3 2 %

8 8 %

6

8 %

6 0 %

5 6 %

W a v e r l y

P a r k

S c

h o o

l

4 4

7 1 %

7 1 %

7 5 %

4 4

5 7 %

5 5 %

6 1 %

4 5

6 2 %

6 7 %

7

3 %

7 3 %

7 6 %

G r a d e 7 R e a d i n g , W r i n g , a n d N u m e r a c y : % M e e n g o r E x c e e d i n g b y S c h o o l *



I n t h i s t a b l e ,

G r a d e 9 r e s u l t s a r e b r o k e n d o w n i n t o r e s u l t s f o r e a c h ‘ s e n d i n

g s c h o o l . ’ S e n d i n g s c h o o l i s d e n e d a

s t h e K - 8 s c h o o l t h e s t u d e n t a e n d e d

i n t h e p r e v i o u s y e a r . S t u -

d e n t s r e p e a n g G r a d e 9 a r e t h e r e f o r e e x c l u d e d f r o m t h

i s t a b l e .

P e r c e n t a g

e s i n t h e b l u e p o r o n o f t h i s t a b l e s h o

u l d b e r e a d a s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d

e n t s m e e n g ( o r e x c e e d -

i n g ) e x p e c t a o n s i n e a c h c o m p e t e n c

y .

P e r c e n t a g e s i n t h e o r a n g e p o r o n o f t h i s t a b l e s h o u l d b e r e a d a s t r a d i o n a l p e r c e n t a g e s c o r e s .

P e r c e n t a g e s i n

r e d a r e l o w e r t h a n t h e

d i v i s i o n a l %

f o r t h a t c o m p e t e n c y .

I n

t h i s t a b l e ,

‘ F ’ s t a n d s f o r “ F i c o n ” w h i l e ‘ N F ’ s t a n d s f o r “ N o n - F i c o n . ”

G r a d e 9 R e a d i n g , W r i n g , a n d N u m e r a c y : % M e e n g

o r E x c e e d i n g b y S e n d i n g S

c h o o l





Grade 9 Formative Assessment Results by Receiving School

Grade 9 Reading Competencies: % Meeng or Exceeding by Receiving School

In all but personal, and crical response, there is a greater percentage of students who are meeng expectaons entering Vincent

Massey than the other schools. Fewer students entering Neelin are meeng expectaons in every reading competency. In com-parison to Divisional results, fewer of last year’s Grade 9 cohort at Crocus Plains were meeng expectaons. However, this year,more students entering Crocus Plains are meeng or exceeding expectaons in comprehension of con, personal and cricalresponse, and n comprehension of non-con. It is important to note that Crocus Plains piloted a new, extended and more class-room-based delivery method of the Divisional literacy assessment. At this point it is dicult to say whether Crocus Plains’ currentscores are cohort-specic, the result of a posive trend, or whether the dierent delivery method improved students’ ability todemonstrate their prociency.





Grade 9 Wring Competencies: % Meeng or Exceeding by Receiving School

Consistent with last year’s results, there is far less between-school discrepancies with respect to incoming students’ level of

wring prociency. Consistent with last year, students entering Vincent Massey do so with slightly higher rates of wring compe-tency than students entering the other two high schools. Similar to the reading results, this cohort of students entering CrocusPlains has performed slightly beer than in previous years.





Grade 9 Numeracy: Average Percent Scores in Each Competency by Receiving School

Consistent with last year, students entering Crocus Plains have lower scores than the Divisional average in every competency,while student entering Vincent Massey score higher in every competency. While students entering Neelin last year scored abovethe Divisional average in paerns and relaons, this year’s cohort is consistent with the Divisional average in this competency.





Grade 12 Provincial Standards Tests

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13*

BSD Percent Point Differential from Manitoba Mean:

ELA & Math Tests

Langua ge Arts Pre-Ca lcul us Ma th Applied Mat h Consumer M at h

Grade 12 Provincial (Manitoba) Standards Tests completed in the Brandon School Division have been monitored closely and ana-

lyzed since the 2002-03 school year. (The French test has been monitored for the last 3 years; see the next secon of this report.)

The tests are administered in January and June of each school year to accommodate the semester schedule and include the Grade

12 Language Arts, Pre-

Calculus Mathemacs, Applied Mathemacs, and Essenal Mathemacs assessments developed by Mani-toba Educaon.

The following results are from the January 2013 assessment. June 2013 assessment results will be available in the fall of 2013. In

the tables and graphs that follow, an asterisk(*) has been used to remind the reader that the results are from the rst semester

only. Full reports of all Grade 12 results are available through Research and Evaluaon Services.

It is important to note that as of 2012-2013 there has been a change in the Manitoba Mathemacs curricula, resulng in changes

to the Grade 12 Mathemacs Provincial Standards Tests. While the majority of the outcomes have remained in the same strand

(i.e., pre-calculus versus applied), some outcomes have been switched between the Grade 11 and Grade 12 levels. These changes

will have resulted in some content dierences within the tests. The most notable alteraon has been in the format of the Essen-

al Mathemacs area, which was previously Consumer Math. Instead of three components of the assessment—a project, poro-

lio, and wrien test—the assessment is now composed solely of a wrien test.

The content of the assessments may be comparable enough that comparisons to previous years’ results are valid at this me.

However, once mul-year results are available on this updated curriculum assessments, it will become preferable to include only

these results in historical trend analyses. For now, a red line appears in the following tables in order to remind the reader of the

change in assessments.





Grade 12 English Language Arts Provincial Standards Test

Year BSD CP Neelin VM

2002-2003 -2.2 -6.5 0.4 2.7

2003-2004 -0.6 -3.2 4.1 1.7

2004-2005 1.4 0.5 2.9 1.8

2005-2006 2.3 -0.3 5.9 3.9

2006-2007 -0.6 -3.6 3.6 0

2007-2008 -0.5 -3.2 5.1 0.4

2008-2009 1.2 -2.4 7.7 1.5

2009-2010 1.6 -1.5 5.6 2.7

2010-2011 3.7 1.5 5.2 6.3

2011-2012 2.9 0.4 13.1 0.6

2012-13* 4.8 0.2 10.2 5.2

Mean 1.3 -1.6 5.8 2.4

Summary of Grade 12 ELA Results

Vincent Massey and Neelin high schools have demonstrated strong Language Arts scores consistently . The Language Arts scores

from Crocus Plains Regional Secondary School have been improving consistently over the last six years, and have leveled o

somewhat in the rst semester of this year.





-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-20072007-20082008-20092009-20102010-20112011-2012 2012-13*

ELA: Crocus Plains % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD CP

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-20032003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-13*

ELA: Neelin % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD Neelin

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-20052005-20062006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-13*

ELA: Vincent Massey % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD VM





Grade 12 Pre-Calculus Provincial Standards Test


2002-2003 2.3 -3.5 10 5.6

2003-2004 5.3 1.3 10.9 9.5

2004-2005 3.3 -3.8 5.8 8.2

2005-

2006

0.2 -

5.4-

14.2

6.3

2006-2007 -4.6 -11.8 -22.9 8.8

2007-2008 3 -1.1 -6.7 9.1

2008-2009 3.5 1.3 -10 9

2009-2010 1 -0.1 -30.4 8.9

2010-2011 3.3 -2.4 -2.3 9.9

2011-2012 2.4 -4.8 -0.7 8.1

2012-13* -7.8 -5.7 -11.5

Mean 1.1 -3.3 -6.5 8.3





-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-13*

Pre-Calculus: Crocus Plains % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD CP

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-20092009-20102010-20112011-2012 2012-13*

Pre-Calculus: Neelin % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD Neelin

Summary of Grade 12 Pre-Calculus Results

Vincent Massey has demonstrated a consistent trend of strong Pre-Calculus scores throughout the ten-year period, with scoreabove the provincial mean score in every year since 2002-03. Neelin has shown some marked improvement in its scores over thelast two years. Crocus Plains has shown similar improvement over the 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 period, with a slight decrease

over the last two years.





Grade 12 Applied Mathematics Provincial Standards Test

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-2007 2007-20082008-20092009-20102010-20112011-2012 2012-13*

Applied Math: Crocus Plains % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD CP


2002-2003 4.9 2.7 8.5 6.7

2003-2004 6.2 3.2 4.6 8.6

2004-2005 5.2 2.6 -3.6 11.1

2005-2006 3 -2.5 5.7 6.8

2006-2007 5.2 6.5 5.1 7

2007-2008 0.3 0.6 -4.7 1.1

2008-2009 0.3 0.2 5.9 -2.4

2009-2010 5 1.5 5.1 9.9

2010-2011 3.5 -0.1 3.9 7.9

2011-2012 -1.5 -3.1 -6.2 5.4

2012-13* 4.3 4.3

Mean 3.3 1.4 2.4 6.2

Summary of Grade 12 Applied Mathematics Results

With the excepon of 2011-12, the three high schools have shown strong Applied Mathemacs results compared to the Manito-

ba average. Only Crocus Plains had students taking the Applied Mathemacs assessment in the fall semester. These results show

an improvement over all previous years’ results.





Grade 12 Essential Mathematics** Provincial Standards Test **Previously Consumer Mathemacs.


2002-2003 2.3 2.8 4.6 -2

2003-2004 2.8 5 -4.4

2004-2005

3.7

4.5

1

2005-2006 -1.5 -0.9 -7

2006-2007 -2.9 -0.4 -0.7 -8

2007-2008 -0.5 0.4 -3.9 0.3

2008-2009 -0.3 1.7 -5.6 -1.7

2009-2010 1.2 -1.6 3 3.8

2010-2011 -4.6 -1.9 -3.8 -9.3

2011-2012 -5.1 -6.5 -2.1

2012-13* 1.9 -0.6 6.2

Mean -0.3 0.2 -1.9 -1.5





-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-13*

Essential Math: Crocus Plains % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD CP

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-20092009-20102010-20112011-2012 2012-13*

Essential Math: Vincent Massey % Difference from Manitoba Mean

BSD VM





Grade 12 Français Langue Seconde Provincial Standards Test

Summary of Grade 12 Français Langue Seconde Results

BSD results are very similar to the Provincial average on the Français langue seconde Provincial standards test.

In BSD, as in the Province as a whole, average scores on the Grade 12 French assessment tend to be higher than average scores

on all other Grade 12 standards tests.

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Français: BSD % from the Manitoba Mean

Year BSD

2010-2011 2.6

2011-2012 -0.8

2012-2013 -1.0

Mean 1.5

The Grade 12 Français test results have been tracked for three years. The results

shown here are noted as BSD results, however in the case of the French test, only

students from École Secondaire Neelin High School take this test.





SPECIFIC LEARNER GROUP

ACHIEVEMENT

Secon C:





*Dierence in stascally signicant at the .05 level. **Dierence is stascally signicant at the .01 level.

***Dierence is stascally signicant at the .001 level.

Speciic Learner Group Achievement:

Comparison of Male and Female Learners

84% 82% 81%77%

71%

93% 91%88%

92% 93%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pencil Grip** Scissors** Prints Name* Colouring*** Accurate Drawing***

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Fine Motor

Expectations: Comparison of Male and Female Students

Boys Girls

69%

48%

82%78%

71%

59%

67% 67% 66%

73%

57%

88% 84%

77%

56%

76%

85% 85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sense of

Rhyme

Story Retell* Upper Case Lower Case Letter

Sounds*

Word

Recognition

Beginning

Sounds***

Listens to

Stories***

Listens to

Others***

Reading Writing Listening

Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Literacy

Expectations: Comparison of Male and Female Students

Boys Girls



* D i e r e n c e i n s t a s c a l l y s i g n i c a

n t a t t h e . 0

5 l e v e l . * * D i e r e n c e i s s t a s c a l l y s i g n i c a n t a t t h e . 0

1 l e v e l . * *

* D i e r e n c e i s s t a s c a l l y s i g n i c a n t a

t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

8 8 %

8 9 %

9 0 %

7 4 %

7 9 %

9 0 %

8 7 %

8 1 %

7 4 %

8 0 %

8

0 %

7 6 %

9 4 %

9 0 %

8 9 %

7 4 %

8 0 %

9 2 %

8 2 %

8 1 %

8 0 %

7 9 %

8 4 %

7 2 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

C o l o u r s *

P a t t e r n s

N u m b e r R e c o g n i t i o n

F o r w a r d C o u n t i n g

B a c k w a r d C o u n t i n g

M a t c h S e t s / N u m e r a l s

S u b i t i z e

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r

S o r t s

C o m p a r e s 2 O b j e c t s

S h a p e s

3 - D O b j e c t s

P a t t e r n s &

R e l a t i o n s

N u m

b e r C o n c e p t s

S h a p e & S p

a c e

P e r c e n t M e e t i n g / E x c e e d i n g K i n d e r g a r t e n N u m

e r a c y E x p e c t a t i o n s :

C o m p a r i s o n o f M a l e a n d F e m a l e S t u d e n t s

B o y s

G i r l s




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

5 2 %

5 9 %

5 5 %

4 5 %

3 7 %

5 9 %

5 1 %

5 2 %

5 6 %

3 3 %

2 6 %

4 9 %

3 7 %

6 8 %

6 0 %

6 7 %

6 4 %

5 5 %

5 2 %

6

5 %

5 8 %

5 6 %

6 0

%

4 0 %

3 8 %

5 8 %

4 4 %

7 8 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

S e t s R e a d i n g G o a l s

S t r a t e g i e s

C o m p r e h e n s i o n *

F l u e n c y a n d E x p r e s s i o n

R e s p o n d s C r i t i c a l l y * * *

C o m p r e h e n s i o n

F l u e n c y a n d E x p r e s s i o n

R e s p o n d s C r i t i c a l l y

C o m p r e h e n s i o n

T e c h n i q u e s & E l e m e n t s ( N F )

P e r s o n a l & C r i t i c a l R e s p o n s e *

C o m p r e h e n s i o n - M a i n I d e a ( N F )

C o m p r e h e n s i o n - I n f e r e n c e ( F )

C o m p r e h e n s i o n ( F ) * *

G r a d e 3

G r a d e 5

G r a d e 7

G r a d e 9

P e r c e n t M e e t i n g E x p e c t a t i o n s i n G r a d e 3 ,

5 ,

7 & 9

R e a d i n g C o m p e t e n c i e s :

C o m p a

r i s o n o f B o y s a n d G i r

l s

B o y s

G i r l s




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

4 5 %

3 9 %

3 2 %

3 9 %

4 1 %

3 0 %

2 2 %

3 5 %

4 0 %

2 8 %

4 5 %

8 0 %

6 8 %

8 2 %

7 7 %

6 0 %

5 3 %

4 1

%

5 2 %

4 7 %

5 1 %

4 2 %

5 6 %

5 3 %

4 7 %

5 6 %

9 0 %

8 1

%

9 3 %

8 5 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

I d e a s * * *

O r g a n i z a t i o n * * *

W o r d C h o i c e * *

S e n t e n c e F l u e n c y * *

C o n v e n t i o n s *

I d e a s / O r g a n i z a t i o n * * *

W o r d C h o i c e * * *

C o n v e n t i o n s * * *

I d e a s / O r g a n i z a t i o n * *


C o n v e n t i o n s *

I d e a s * *

O r g a n i z a t i o n * *

V o i c e * * *

G r a m m a r & M e c h a n i c s *

G r a d e

3

G r a d e 5

G r a d e 7

G r a d e 9

P e r c e n t M

e e t i n g E x p e c t a t i o n s i n G r a d e 3 ,

5 ,

7 & 9

W r i t i n g C o m p e t e n c i

e s :

C o m p a r i s o n o f B o y s a n d G i r l s

B o y s

G i r l s




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

6 1 %

5 7 %

7 1 %

5 4 %

5 5 %

4 7 %

4 8 %

5 1 %

7 4 %

5 2 %

7 1 %

6 3 %

4 7 %

5 3 %

5 8 %

5 0 %

6 4 %

4 7 %

5 7 %

5

3 %

5 4 %

5 1 %

7 4

%

5 2 %

6 5 %

6 2 %

4 4 %

5 0 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

P a t t e r n s

E q u a l i t y

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r s

M e n t a l M a t h

D e c i m a l s

F r a c t i o n s

P a t t e r n s

M e n t a l M a t h

P l a c e V a l u e

F r a c t i o n s

D e c i m a l s

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r

P a t t e r n s

M e n t a l M a t h

G r a d e 3

G r a d e 5

G r a d e 7

P e r c e n t M

e e t i n g E x p e c t a t i o n s

i n G r a d e 3 , 5 , & 7 N

u m e r a c y C o m p e t e n c

i e s :

C o m p a r i s o n o f B o y s a n d G i r

l s

B o y s

G i r l s





*Dierence in stascally signicant at the .05 level. **Dierence is stascally signicant at the .01 level. ***Dierence is stascally signicant at the .001 level.

Summary of the Comparison of Male and Female Learners

There is a trend towards a greater percentage of girls meeng expectaons in every reading competency. However, some of these dierences are relavely small and could be occurring by chance (i.e., are not stascally signicant). Stascally signi-

cant gender dierences in reading are evident in Story Retell and Leer Sound Idencaon at Kindergarten, in Comprehen-

sion at Grade 3, in Crical Response at Grade 5, and in both Comprehension of Ficon and in Crical Response at Grade 9.

In contrast to reading, there are signicant gender dierences in every wring competency, with a greater percentage of girls

meeng grade level wring expectaons.

With the excepon of colour idencaon in Kindergarten, there are no signicant gender dierences in numeracy.

Although ne motor skills are not formally reported beyond the Kindergarten level, a signicantly greater percentage of gir ls

nish Kindergarten meeng each of the ne motor competencies assessed.

67%

50%

42%48%

53%

64%

50%

41%47%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Number Concepts Patterns & Relations Shape & Space Statistics & Probability Total

Grade 9

Average Percent Score in Grade 9 Numeracy Strands:

Comparison of Boys and Girls

Boys Girls







Comparison of Aboriginal and Non- Aboriginal Learners

58%

37%

71%

65%

60%

42%

62%

74%71%

81%

60%

89%86%

80%

66%

76% 76% 76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sense of

Rhyme***

Story Retell*** Upper Case*** Lower Case*** Letter

Sounds***

Word

Recognition***

Beginning

Sounds**

Listens to

Stories

Listens to

Others


Percent M/E Kindergarten Literacy Expectations: Comparison of

Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Students

Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal

87% 87% 86%

79%75%

88% 87%82% 84% 82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Percent M/E Kindergarten Fine Motor Expectations:

Comparison of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Students





n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

8 8 %

8 3 %

8 1 %

6 1 %

7 0 %

8 5 %

7 5 %

7 1

%

6 4 %

7 3 %

7 8 %

5 8 %

9 5 %

9 1 %

9 2 %

8 2 %

8 7 %

9 3 %

9 0 %

8 4 %

8 4 %

8 6 %

9 0 %

8 1 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

C o l o u r s * * *

P a t t e r n s *

N u m b e r

R e c o g n i t i o n *

F o r w a r d

C o u n t i n g * * *

B a c k w a r d

C o u n t i n g * * *

M a t c h S e t s /

N u m e r a l s *

S u b i t i z e * *

R e p r e s e n t i n g

N u m b e r *

S o r t s * * *

C o m p a r e s 2

O b j e c t s * *

S h a p e s * *

3 - D

O b j e c t s * * *

P a t t e r n s & R e l a t i o n s

N u m b e r C o n c e p t s

S h a p e &

S p a c e

P e r c e n t M e

e t i n g / E x c e e d i n g K i n d e r g a r t e n N u m e r a c y

E x p e c t a t i o n s : C o m p a r i s o n

o f A b o r i g i n a l a n d N o n - A

b o r i g i n a l S t u d e n t s

A b o r i g i n a l

N o n - A b o r i g i n a l




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

3 3 %

4 8 %

4 6 %

3 3 %

2 9 %

5 1 %

4 5 %

4 4 %

4 6 %

2 0 %

2 0 %

4 8 %

2 2 %

6 3 %

7 0 %

7 6 %

7 2 %

6 1 %

5 5 %

7 1 %

6 5 %

6 3 %

6 9

%

4 0 %

3 3 %

5 5 %

4 5 %

7 6 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

S e t s R e a d i n g G o a l s * * *

S t r a t e g i e s * * *

C o m p r e h e n s i o n * * *

F l u e n c y a n d E x p r e s s i o n * * *




R e s p o n d s C r i t i c a l l y * *


T e c h n i q u e s & E l e m e n t s ( N F ) * * *

P e r s o n a l & C r i t i c a l R e s p o n s e *


C o m p r e h e n s i o n - I n f e r e n c e ( F ) * * *

C o m p r e h e n s i o n ( F ) *

G r a d e 3

G r a d e 5

G r a d e 7

G r a d e 9

P e r c e n t M


5 ,

7 ,

& 9

R e a d i n g C o m p e t e n c

i e s :

C o m p a r i s o n o f A b o r i g i n a l a n d N o n - A

b o r

i g i n a l S t u d e n t s

A b o r i g i n a l

N o n - A

b o r i g i n a l




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

3 7 %

2 6 %

1 7 %

2 0 %

2 8 %

2 4 %

1 1 %

2 6 %

3 5 %

2

8 %

4 0 %

7 4 %

6 1 %

7 9 %

7 3 %

6 2 %

5 6 %

4 7 %

5 6 %

5 2 %

4 9 %

4 0 %

5 5 %

5 4 %

4 6 %

5 9 %

8 7 %

7 7

%

9 0 %

8 6 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

I d e a s * * *



S e n t e n c e F l u e n c y * * *








I d e a s * * *


V o i c e * * *

G r a m m a r & M e c h a n i c s * *

G r a

d e 3

G r a d e 5

G

r a d e 7

G r a d e 9

P e r c e n t M e e t i n g E x p e c t a t i o n

s i n G r a d e 3 ,

5 ,

7 ,

& 9

W r i t i n g C o m p e t e n c

i e s :


b o r

i g i n a l S t u d e n t s

A b o r i g i n a l





n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

3 8 %

3 6 %

5

1 %

2 5 %

3 8 %

2 4 %

2 6 %

3 0 %

5 2 %

2 9 %

5 1 %

3 9 %

3 1 %

3 0 %

6 8 %

6 3 %

7 7 %

6 3 %

6 3 %

5 7 %

5 6 %

5 6 %

8 1 %

5 8 %

7 4 %

7 3 %

5 3 %

6 2 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

P a t t e r n s * * *

E q u a l i t y * * *

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r s * * *

M e n t a l M a t h * * *

D e c i m a l s * * *

F r a c t i o n s * * *

P a t t e r n s * * *


P l a c e V a l u e * * *

F r a c t i o n s * * *

D e c i m a l s * * *

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r * * *

P a t t e r n s * * *


G r a d e 3

G r a d e 5

G r a d e 7


s i n G r a d e 3 ,

5 ,

& 7 N

u m e r a c y C o m p e t e n c

i e s :


b o r i g i n a l S t u d e n t s

A b o r i g i n a l







Summary of the Comparison of Students with and without Aboriginal Heritage

With the excepon of listening skills in Kindergarten, in all reading, wring, and numeracy competencies, there is a greater per-centage of non-Aboriginal students meeng grade-level expectaons, and all but one of these dierences are stascally signi-

cant. Thus, a smaller percentage of Aboriginal students are meeng expectaons at each of the grade levels assessed, and this

dierence is seen from Kindergarten onward. These dierences are especially prominent in wring and in numeracy. Further-

more, this ubiquitous trend replicates what has been seen in previous years.

55%

36%31%

35%42%

68%

54%

45%

53%57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Number Concepts*** Patterns &Relations***

Shape & Space*** Statistics &Probability***

Total***

Grade 9


Comparison of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Students







***Dierence is stascally signicant at the .001 level.


Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Learners

92%

81%

92% 91%86%88% 87%

82% 84% 82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Fine Motor

Expectations: Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Students

EAL Non-EAL

39% 37%

78%73%

61%

38%

59%

73% 71%81%

60%

89% 86%80%

66%

76% 76% 76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

S e n s e o f R h y m e * * *

S t o r y R e t e l l * * *

U p p e r

C a s e * *

L o w e r C

a s e * * *

L e t t e r S o u

n d s * * *

W o r d R e c o g n i t i o n * * *

B e g i n n i n g S o

u n d s * *

L i s t e n s t o

S t o r i e s

L i s t e n s t o

O t h e r s


Percent Meeting/Exceeding Kindergarten Literacy

Expectations: Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Students

EAL Non-EAL




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

7 6 %

8 7 %

8 4 %

5 5 %

5 5 %

8 9 %

7 2 %

7 4 %

6 0 %

5 8 %

5 6 %

6 1 %

9 5 %

9 1 %

9 2 %

8 2 %

8 7 %

9 3 %

9 0 %

8 4 %

8 4 %

8 6 %

9 0 %

8 1 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

C o l o u r s * * *

P a t t e r n s

N u m b e r R e c o g n i t i o n * * *

F o r w a r d C o u n t i n g * * *

B a c k w a r d C o u n t i n g * * *

M a t c h S e t s / N u m e r a l s

S u b i t i z e * * *

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r *

S o r t s * * *

C o m p a r e s 2 O b j e c t s * * *

S h a p e s * * *

3 - D O b j e c t s * * *

P a t t e r n s & R e l a t i o n s

N u m b e r C o n c e p t s

S h a p e &

S p a c e

P e r c e

n t M e e t i n g / E x c e e d i n g K i n d e r g a r t e n N u m

e r a c y E x p e c t a t i o n s :

C o m p a r i s o n o

f E A L a n d N o n - E A L S

t u d e n t s

E A L

N o n - E A L




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

2 6 %

2 7 %

2 4

%

2 6 %

2 0 %

3 8 %

2 4 %

2 7 %

3 0 %

3 5 %

4 3 %

4 3 %

5 3 %

7 1 %

7 0 %

7 6 %

7 2 %

6 1 %

5 5 %

7

1 %

6 5 %

6 3 %

6 9

%

4 0 %

3 3 %

4 5 %

5 5 %

7 6 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

S e t s R e a d i n g G o a l s * * *

S t r a t e g i e s * * *








T e c h n i q u e s & E l e m e n t s ( N F )

P e r s o n a l & C r i t i c a l R e s p o n s e


C o m p r e h e n s i o n - I n f e r e n c e ( F )

C o m p r e h e n s i o n ( F )

G r a d e 3

G r a d e 5

G r a d e 7

G r a d e 9

P e r c e n t M


5 ,

7 & 9

R e a d i n g C o m p e t e n c

i e s :



t u d e n t s

E A L

N o n - E A L




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

3 0 %

2 2 %

1 4 %

2 7 %

2 6 %

2 2 %

2 1 %

2 7 %

3 0 %

1

6 %

3 0 %

8 6 %

7 8 %

8 6 %

6 6 %

6 2 %

5 6 %

4

7 %

5 6 %

5 2 %

4 9 %

4 0 %

5 5 %

5 4 %

4 6 %

5 9 %

8 7 %

7 7

%

9 0 %

8 6 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

I d e a s * * *



S e n t e n c e F l u e n c y * * *








I d e a s

O r g a n i z a t i o n

V o i c e

G r a m m a r & M e c h a n i c s * * *

G r a d

e 3

G r a d e 5

G

r a d e 7

G r a d e 9


s i n G r a d e 3 ,

5 ,

7 & 9

W r i t i n g C o m p e t e n c i e s :



t u d e n t s

E A L

N o n - E A L




n t a t t h e . 0


1 l e v e l . * *


t t h e . 0

0 1 l e v e l .

5 1 %

3 9 %

5 0

%

3 1 %

4 8 %

4 8 %

5 1 %

5 4 %

7 1 %

5 5 %

6 6 %

5 2 %

3 6 %

4 0 %

6 8 %

6 3 %

7 7 %

6 3 %

6 3 %

5

7 %

5 6 %

5 6 %

8 1

%

5 8 %

7 4 %

7 3 %

5 3 %

6 2 %

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

P a t t e r n s * * *

E q u a l i t y * * *

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r s * * *


D e c i m a l s * *

F r a c t i o n s *

P a t t e r n s

M e n t a l M a t h

P l a c e V a l u e *

F r a c t i o n s

D e c i m a l s

R e p r e s e n t i n g N u m b e r * * *

P a t t e r n s * * *


G r a d e 3

G r a d e 5

G r a d e 7

P e r c e n t M


5 & 7 N u m e r a c y C o m p e t e n c

i e s :



t u d e n t s

E A L

N o n - E A L






Summary of the Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Students

At the Kindergarten level, there are no signicant dierences between EAL and non-EAL learners in listening skills or in any ne

motor skill. However, almost all dierences between these two groups in Kindergarten literacy and numeracy skills are stas-

cally signicant, with a smaller percentage of EAL students meeng end-of -Kindergarten expectaons.

Signicantly lower percentages of EAL students are meeng reading expectaons in Grades 3, 5, and 7. But in Grade 9, the dier-

ences are negligible; in fact, EAL students outperformed non-EAL students in Personal and Crical Response. A similar trend is

seen in the wring assessments; signicantly lower percentages of EAL students are meeng Grade 3, 5, and 7 wring expecta-

ons, but dierences at the Grade 9 level are not stascally signicant. However, these dierenal results in Grade 9 versus

those in lower grades should be interpreted with cauon at this me. Formave assessment results were submied for almost

all EAL students at the Grade 3, 5, and 7 levels, while the Grade 9 results are based on only 38% of the Grade 9 EAL populaon.

Thus, the greater equality in results at the Grade 9 level could be due to an anomaly of data submission.

In numeracy, the gap between EAL and non-EAL students closes more readily than it does in literacy. While there is a signicantly

greater percentage of non-EAL students meeng all Grade 3 mathemacs expectaons, there is no signicant dierence be-

tween at least some of the Grade 5, 7, and 9 scores. It is noteworthy, however, that despite only 38% of the Grade 9 EAL popula-

on being represented in these results, EAL students sll have signicantly lower average scores in 3 of the 4 math strands as-

sessed.

66%

48%

37% 38%

50%

68%

54%

45%

53%57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Number Concepts Patterns & Relations* Shape & Space* Statistics &

Probability***

Total**

Grade 9


Comparison of EAL and Non-EAL Students

EAL Non-EAL





HISTORICAL

DEMOGRAPHICS

Appendix A:




Appendix A:

Historical Demographics for Formative Assessments

This table includes the number of students who successfully completed all parts of each formave assessment for the last seven

years.

Documents

2012-13 Student Achievement Summary Report