Summary of EDI SK Results Algoma 2004/05 & 2005/06 Sept 25th 2007 Algoma-Manitoulin Ontario Early Yea
Summary of EDI SK Results Algoma 2004/05 & 2005/06 Sept 25th 2007 Algoma-Manitoulin Ontario Early Years.
Jan 13, 2016
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Summary of EDI SK ResultsAlgoma 2004/05 & 2005/06
Sept 25th 2007
Algoma-Manitoulin Ontario Early Years
What is “school readiness to learn”?
“Refers to the child’s ability to meet the tasks demands of school, such as
being cooperative and sitting quietly and listening to the teacher, and to
benefit from the educational activities that are provided by the school.”
Goals of the Early Development Instrument (EDI)
• Measure School Readiness.
• Provide information on populations of children in different communities.
• Monitor populations of children over time.
• Predict how children will do in elementary school and beyond.
Early Development Instrument
• Contains 104 questions grouped into 5 domains.
• Asks teachers the following types of questions about each child in the class:
• How often is the child too tired to for school work?• Is the child well coordinated?• Would you say this child follows instructions,
accepts responsibility and works independently?.
Readiness To Learn Domains• Physical Health and Well Being: children’s motor skills,
energy levels, level of independence, daily living skills.
• Social Knowledge and Competence: children’s ability to control their behaviour, cooperate with others, follow rules, play and work with other children.
• Emotional Maturity: children’s ability to reflect before they act, deal with feelings at an age appropriate level, show empathy.
• Language and Cognitive Development: the extent to which children show an interest in books, reading and writing, and rudimentary math.
• Communication Skills and General Knowledge: the extent to which children have the skills to communicate needs and wants in socially appropriate ways, the symbolic use of language, and age appropriate knowledge.
Readiness To Learn Sub DomainsPhysical Health and Well-Being• Physical readiness for school day• Physical independence• Gross and fine motor skillsSocial Competence• Overall social competence• Responsibility and respect• Approaches to learning• Readiness to explore new things.Emotional Maturity• Prosocial and helping behaviour• Anxious and fearful behaviour• Hyperactivity and inattentionLanguage and Cognitive Development• Basic literacy• Interest in literacy/numeracy and memory• Advanced literacy• Basic numeracyCommunication Skills and General Knowledge
Algoma divided into four “Larger Community Groupings”:
• Central Algoma• East Algoma• Elliot Lake & Area• North Algoma
EDI Analysis
EDI Analysis
• These groupings made up as follows:
Larger Community Grouping Smaller Communities
Central Algoma Echo Bay
Laird
Desbarats
Hilton Beach
Richards Landing
Bruce Mines
Thessalon
East Algoma Algoma Mills
Blind River
Iron Bridge
Spragge
Elliot Lake & Area Cutler
Serpent River
Spanish
Elliot Lake
North Algoma Dubreuillville
Hawk Junction
Hornepayne
Missanabie
Wawa
White River
Central Algoma – Mean Scores
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Me
an
Ontario
Al_Man
Central_Algoma
Algoma District - Mean Scores - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
Central Algoma – Mean Scores
Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Ontario 8.84 8.91 8.32 8.34 8.08 8.09 8.56 8.57 7.67 7.80
Al Man Riding 8.71 8.66 8.37 8.19 8.02 7.98 8.64 8.78 7.75 7.40
Central Algoma 8.25 8.73 8.85 8.96 8.38 8.74 8.44 8.93 8.14 8.11
Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean.Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means.Figures in green are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the site mean.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)
Central Algoma –’’Not Ready” %’s
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
Central_Algoma
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
Central Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s• “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores
for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin.
Large Community Grouping
PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Low In At Least One Score 2005
Low In At Least One Score 2006
Low In At Least Two Scores 2005
Low In At Least Two Scores 2006
Central Algoma 18% 8% 3% 0% 1% 4% 18% 8% 9% 9% 26% 18% 14% 9%
Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain.
“Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% per domain i.e. 20% - 30% and above.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
Central Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2005
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2006
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2005
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2006Domain
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
Central_Algoma
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
Central Algoma - SummaryCentral Algoma shows increased mean scores and lower “not ready” over the two years:
•Higher mean scores in three domains (Social, Emotional & Language), down in the other two (Physical, Communication).
•Higher mean scores than province in 2006 for all domains except Physical.
•Reduced “Not Ready” percentages in three domains (Physical, Social, Language), one constant (Communication), one slight increase (Emotional).
•18% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, an 8% improvement from previous year. All domains under expected level of 10%.
East Algoma – Mean Scores
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Me
an
Ontario
Al_Man
East_Algoma
Algoma District - Mean Scores - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
East Algoma – Mean Scores
Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Ontario 8.84 8.91 8.32 8.34 8.08 8.09 8.56 8.57 7.67 7.80
Al Man Riding 8.71 8.66 8.37 8.19 8.02 7.98 8.64 8.78 7.75 7.40
East Algoma 8.31 8.79 7.88 8.63 7.51 8.02 8.40 8.93 7.69 6.22
Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean.Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)
East Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
East_Algoma
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
East Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s• “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores
for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin.
Large Community Grouping
PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Low In At Least One Score 2005
Low In At Least One Score 2006
Low In At Least Two Scores 2005
Low In At Least Two Scores 2006
East Algoma 15% 8% 15% 0% 19% 14% 15% 6% 9% 25% 36% 33% 22% 14%
Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain.
“Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% i.e. 20% - 30% and above.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
East Algoma –”Not Ready” %’s
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2005
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2006
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2005
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2006Domain
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
East_Algoma
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
East Algoma - SummaryEast Algoma shows improvement in most areas over the two years:•Improved mean scores in all domains except Communication which fell to a very low score in 2006.
•In 2006 – still lower than the province in three domains (Physical, Emotional, Communication) despite improvements.
•Reduced “Not Ready” percentages in four domains, however, significant increase in Communication domain.
•33% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, 3% decrease from previous year.
• Highest in Communication Skills & Gen Knowledge – 25% - 2.5 times expected figure and 16% deterioration on previous year.
Elliot Lake & Area – Mean Scores
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Me
an
Ontario
Al_Man
Elliot_Lake_and_Area
Algoma District - Mean Scores - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
Elliot Lake & Area – Mean Scores
Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Ontario 8.84 8.91 8.32 8.34 8.08 8.09 8.56 8.57 7.67 7.80
Al Man Riding 8.71 8.66 8.37 8.19 8.02 7.98 8.64 8.78 7.75 7.40
Elliot Lake & Area 9.02 8.67 8.43 7.50 8.34 7.59 8.73 8.40 6.89 6.96
Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean.Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)
Elliot Lake & Area–”Not Ready” %’s
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
Elliot_Lake_and_Area
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
Elliot Lake & Area–”Not Ready” %’s• “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores
for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin.
Large Community Grouping
PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Low In At Least One Score 2005
Low In At Least One Score 2006
Low In At Least Two Scores 2005
Low In At Least Two Scores 2006
Elliot Lake & Area 8% 13% 17% 17% 13% 14% 13% 17% 21% 30% 32% 38% 22% 25%
Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain.
“Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% i.e. 20% - 30% and above.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
Elliot Lake & Area–”Not Ready” %’s
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2005
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2006
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2005
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2006Domain
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
Elliot_Lake_and_Area
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
Elliot Lake & Area - SummaryElliot Lake & Area’s scores decreased in most areas over the two years:
•Reduced mean scores in four domains, slight increase in Communication which was already very low in 2005.
•Mean scores lower than the province in all domains in 2006. Higher than province in all domains in 2005 (except Communication).
•Increased “Not Ready” percentages in four domains, 1% decrease in one (CSGK).
•38% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, 6% increase from previous year.
•Highest “Not Ready” in Communication Skills & Gen Knowledge – 30% - 3 times the expected.
North Algoma– Mean Scores
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Me
an
Ontario
Al_Man
North_Algoma
Algoma District - Mean Scores - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
North Algoma– Mean Scores
Large Community Grouping PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Ontario 8.84 8.91 8.32 8.34 8.08 8.09 8.56 8.57 7.67 7.80
Al Man Riding 8.71 8.66 8.37 8.19 8.02 7.98 8.64 8.78 7.75 7.40
North Algoma 9.43 9.21 8.54 8.35 8.23 8.10 8.88 8.79 8.71 7.96
Figures in red are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the provincial mean.Figures in blue are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to both the provincial and site means.Figures in green are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level compared to the site mean.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
North Algoma–”Not Ready” %’s
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
North_Algoma
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
North Algoma–”Not Ready” %’s• “Not Ready” children classified as those whose scores fell in the lowest 10% of scores
for the “site” of Algoma-Manitoulin.
Large Community Grouping
PHWB 2005
PHWB 2006
SC 2005
SC 2006
EM 2005
EM 2006
LCD 2005
LCD 2006
CSGK 2005
CSGK 2006
Low In At Least One Score 2005
Low In At Least One Score 2006
Low In At Least Two Scores 2005
Low In At Least Two Scores 2006
North Algoma 3% 3% 5% 7% 7% 5% 7% 9% 10% 7% 18% 19% 10% 10%
Given equal distribution of scores, each neighbourhood or community would have 10% of low scores per domain.
“Vulnerable” communities have “Not Ready” percentages significantly higher than 10% i.e. 20% - 30% and above.
PHWB – Physical Health and Well-BeingSC – Social CompetenceEM – Emotional MaturityLCD – Language & Cognitive DevelopmentCSGK – Communication Skills & General Knowledge
Mean Score range 0 - 10 (highest)
North Algoma–”Not Ready” %’s
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2005
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2006
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2005
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2006Domain
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Ontario
Al_Man
North_Algoma
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
North Algoma - SummaryNorth Algoma’s mean scores decreased in all domains over the two years but were still above the provincial and riding means in all cases:
• Slightly increased “Not Ready” percentages in two domains (Social and Language), slight decrease in two (Emotional and Communication), constant in one (Physical).
•19% of Children “Not Ready” in one or more domains in 2006, 1% increase from previous year. Highest in Language & Cognitive Development – 9% under expected figure of 10%.
Algoma– Mean Score Comparison By larger Community Groupings
Physical_2005
Physical_2006
Social_2005
Social_2006
Emotional_2005
Emotional_2006
Language_2005
Language_2006
Comm
unication_2005
Comm
unication_2006
Domain
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Me
an
Central_Algoma
East_Algoma
Elliot_Lake_and_Area
North_Algoma
Algoma District - Mean Scores - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
Algoma– “Not Ready” Comparison By larger Community Groupings
Algoma– “Not Ready” In At least One Domain Comparison By larger Community Groupings
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2005
Low_At_Least_One_Score_2006
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2005
Low_At_Least_Two_Scores_2006Domain
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(In
Lo
we
st
Te
n
Pe
rce
nti
le)
Central_Algoma
East_Algoma
Elliot_Lake_and_Area
North_Algoma
Algoma District - "Not Ready" - School Years 2004/05 & 2005/06
Early Development Instrument (EDI) SK Results
EDI Analysis - Observations1. East Algoma – most improved area in terms of mean scores and “not ready” percentages.
2. East Algoma – Rose to second most “vulnerable” area of the District in 2006.
3. Elliot Lake & Area – saw the greatest decline in terms of mean scores and “not ready” percentages.
4. Elliot Lake & Area – second poorest performing area in 2005. The lowest in 2006.
5. North Algoma – Still one of the least vulnerable areas despite not making many advances in 2006 (in top two).
6. Central Algoma – Improved position as one of the least vulnerable areas with progress in 2005 (in top two).
7. Communication Skills & General Knowledge – weakest domain in riding – due to low scores in East Algoma and Elliot Lake & Area.
8. At a riding level “not ready” percentages did improve but 28% of the 2006 cohort still classified as “not ready” to learn.
Related Documents
