2005 eqao highlights

2005 EQAOHighlights

Gr. 3 Contextual Information

Gr. 6 Contextual Information

Grade 3 Reading: Participating Students

Grade 3 Writing: Participating Students

Grade 3 Math: Participating Students

Grade 6 Reading: Participating Students

Grade 6 Writing: Participating Students

Grade 6 Math: Participating Students

Grade 3 Results Over Time

Grade 6 Results Over Time

% of Gr. 3 Students at All Levels:Writing

% of Gr. 3 Students at All Levels:Math

% of Gr. 6 Students at All Levels: Reading

% of Gr. 6 Students at All Levels: Writing

% of Gr. 6 Students at All Levels: Math

Results Over Time: Gr. 3 Reading

Results Over Time: Gr. 3 Writing

Results Over Time: Gr. 3 Mathematics

Results Over Time: Gr. 6 Reading

Results Over Time: Gr. 6 Writing

Results Over Time: Gr. 6 Mathematics

Gr. 6 Gender: Board vs. Province

Gr. 3 Gender: Board vs. Province

Student Questionnaire Grade 3 Gender

• Student attitude toward reading

– Significantly more male and female students say “I am a good reader” than “I like to read” (huge difference for males)

• Student attitude toward writing

– % of students who see themselves as good writers is above provincial average

• Student attitude toward writing

– % of girls who see themselves as good at math is above provincial average

– Significantly more girls say they like mathematics than say they are good at math

Student Questionnaire Grade 6 - Gender

• Student attitudes toward reading:

– % of students who say they are good at reading are significantly higher than the province

– There is a large drop in the % of males between ‘good’ and ‘like’ in reading both at board and provincial levels

• Student attitudes toward writing:

– Significantly fewer boys say they are good at writing and that they like to write at board and provincial levels

• Student attitudes toward mathematics:

– Significantly more boys say they are good at math and that they like mathematics at board and provincial levels

Student Questionniare Grade 3 and 6 - Gender

• Computers at home

– Grade 3 – % indicated NO

– Grade 6 – % indicated NO

• Computer usage in school

– % of students at Grade 3 using computers at school is higher than province for reading and writing

– % of students at Grade 6 using computers at school is slightly lower in reading and writing, and higher in mathematics

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3

• Higher number of split grade classes (2)

• Language resource accessibility (4)

– Higher than the provincial average (≥ 5)• Language related computer software (f)

• Early Reading Strategy: Report of the Expert Panel (n)

• Literacy for Learning: Report of the Expert Panel (p)

– Lower than the provincial average (≥ 5)• Library or resource centre language materials (d)

• Language instruction material developed by board (I)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3

• Frequency of language resource use (5)– Higher than provincial average

• Language related computer software (f)

• A Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (o)

• Literacy for Learning: Report of the Expert Panel (p)

– Lower than provincial average

• Language instruction materials develop by board (i)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k)

• Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3

• Usefulness of language resources (6)– Higher than the provincial average

• Language related computer software (f)

• Reports of the Expert Panels (n & p)

– Lower than the provincial average

• Resource centre materials (d)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k)

• Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3

• Mathematics resource accessibility (7)– Higher than the provincial average

• Calculators (d)

• Computers (e)

• Commercial mathematics related computer software (f)

• Early Math Strategy: Report of the Expert Panel (o)

– Lower than the provincial average

• Mathematics assessment materials developed by board or other boards (k)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3

• Frequency of mathematics resource use (8)– Higher than provincial average

• Calculators (d)

• Computers (e)

• Commercial mathematics related computer software (f)

– Lower than provincial average• Library or resource centre mathematics materials (c)

• Mathematics instruction/assessment materials develop by board (j & k)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 3

• Usefulness of mathematics resources (9)– Higher than the provincial average

• Calculators (d)

• Computers (e)

• Commercial mathematics related computer software (f)

• Mathematics assessment materials developed by teachers (i)

• A Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics (p)

• Report of the Expert Panel (Gr. 4-6) (q)

– Lower than the provincial average

• Resource centre materials (c)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6

• Higher number of split grade classes (2)

• Language resource accessibility (4)

– Higher than the provincial average (≥ 5)• Computer (e)

• Early Reading Strategy: Report of the Expert Panel (n)

• Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (o)

• Literacy for Learning: Report of the Expert Panel (p)

– Lower than the provincial average (≥ 5)• Classroom reading materials (a)

• Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6

• Frequency of language resource use (5)– Higher than provincial average

• Computers (e)

• Language related computer software (f)

– Lower than provincial average

• Resource centre language materials (d)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k)

• Ministry exemplars and rationales (m)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6

• Usefulness of language resources (6)– Higher than the provincial average

• Language assessment materials developed by board (j)

• Guide to Effective Instruction in Reading (o)

– Lower than the provincial average

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (k)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6• Mathematics resource accessibility (7)

– Higher than the provincial average

• Commercial mathematics related computer software (f & g)

• Mathematics assessment materials developed by teachers (I)

• Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics (p)

• Teaching and Learning Mathematics: Report of the Expert Panel (q)

– Lower than the provincial average

• Mathematics textbooks and/or workbooks (a)

• Mathematics manipulatives (b)

• Resource centre materials (c)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

• Four level achievement chart: Ontario Curriculum (m)

• Early Math Strategy: Expert Panel Report (o)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6

• Frequency of mathematics resource use (8)– Higher than provincial average

• Calculators (d)

• Computers (e)

• Mathematics related computer software (f & g)

• Mathematics instruction & assessment materials developed by teachers (h&I)

– Lower than provincial average• Mathematics textbooks &/or workbooks (a)

• Library or resource centre mathematics materials (c)

• Mathematics instruction/assessment materials develop by board (j & k)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Teacher Questionnaire Grade 6

• Usefulness of mathematics resources (9)– Higher than the provincial average

• Calculators (d)

• Mathematics related computer software (f&g)

• Mathematics assessment materials developed by teachers (i)

• A Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics (p)

• Report of the Expert Panels (early math & Gr. 4-6) (o&q)

– Lower than the provincial average

• Mathematics textbooks &/or workbooks (a)

• Ontario Curriculum Unit Planner (l)

Principal Questionnaire• Board has a higher than average number of small schools (2 & 4)

• Significantly less personnel support in the Resource Centre (5)

• Preferred communication of EQAO information is through a newsletter, letter and school council meetings (6 c, d, & g)

• Fewer Master’s degrees and more mobility than the provincial average (8 & 9b)

• Higher participation in pd in reading, writing and mathematics instruction and assessment (10)

• Lower participation in pd in data management and analysis and school improvement planning (10)

• EQAO & Ministry activities, university and college courses seen as least useful types of pd (11)

• High level of knowledge in all areas, slightly less in Junior Mathematics instruction and assessment, data management (12)

Next Steps…• EQAO will release Item Information Reports that

show how students performed on specific items on the test.

• Board administrators and teachers will analyze these reports, determine strategies to promote increased achievement, and incorporate these into their school improvement plans.

• EQAO staff will deliver a presentation on data analysis at the January Elementary Principals Meeting

Item Information Reports:Ideas for Reviewing Reports

• Where do you expect the school to be in relation to the Board and Province?

• Scan for significant differences from expectation (Caution – number of participants is critical)

• Record observations

• Relate other data to the observations

• Develop conclusions and hypotheses for further examination

Key Dates

• Oct. 19-26: Schools receive ISRs• Nov. 9-22: Electronic student data

collection; boards submit student data for 2006 administration

• Nov. 25: Deadline for schools and boards to report publicly re: 2005 results

• Nov. 28-Dec. 16: Schools verify student data submitted by board; boards update information as required

Key Dates

• Jan. 3-17: Boards resubmit Electronic Student Data Collection with updated information

• Jan. 23-Feb. 17: School order May 2006 materials

• May 10-12: Schools receive shipment of assessment materials for 2006

• May 23-June 9: Administration of Grade 3 and 6 assessments