Does Inclusion Work for Special Education Students?

Excerpts from Research Materials prepared by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board E- Best department

Excerpts from:
Student Engagement: A Leadership Priority (from In Conversation – Ministry of Education Leadership Publication)
This article explores the effect of student engagement as a key driver of student achievement.
Author: J. Douglas Willms, Professor and Director of the Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy; University of New Brunswick.
Date Published: Summer 2011 – Volume III Issue 2
If you have a child of average family background and average ability, is that child going to be better off going to a high-ability, high socio-economic status school, where he or she is a small fish in a big pond, or is the child better off going to a low socio-economic status school and low-ability school, where he or she will be a big fish in a small pond? The answer, unequivocally, is that it is better to expose students to the high social class, high ability context. What happens when you separate students by social class or by ability is this: students from poor backgrounds and those that are struggling academically, do considerably worse, while those with high ability, or from a higher socio-economic background, do slightly better, but not much. So what does that mean on the ground? It means that if you have about a quarter of your students who are vulnerable – not able to read well, for example – the typical teacher should have six or seven of these children in his or her classroom. In a segregated system, you’ll have some teachers with only one or two vulnerable students, and other teachers with 10, 14, or even 18 children in a class of 30. That is well beyond the tipping point, and so these students fare much worse than they would do in an inclusive setting. We have good examples now, where school systems have deliberately made an effort to desegregate. They have a better mix of students, with those who are vulnerable more equally distributed across classrooms and schools. Those school systems do better. The research from the PISA study, across 30 countries, also found a strong positive effect associated with inclusion. The more inclusive the system is, the better everyone does.
Excerpts from:
Education that fits: Review of international trends in the education of students with special educational needs
The purpose of this review is to outline international trends in the education of students with special educational needs, with the aim of informing the Ministry of Education’s current review of special education.
Author(s): David Mitchell, PhD - College of Education, University of Canterbury, for the Ministry of Education
Date Published: July 2010
Until recently, special education has been dominated by a psycho-medical paradigm, which focuses on the assumption that deficits are located within individual students (Clark et al., 1995). Historically, this paradigm has been the most widespread and has been used in both the diagnosis and educational treatment of children with disabilities. As noted by Ackerman et al. (2002), in this model students receive a medical diagnosis based on their psychological and/or physical impairments across selected domains and both strengths and weakness are identified for education and training. Those with similar diagnoses and functional levels are grouped together for instructional purposes. This model is problematic for several reasons, according to Christensen (1996). Firstly, it leads to the attribution of student failure to a defect or inadequacy within the individual, thus masking the role that highly constraining educational systems play in creating failure. Secondly, it wrongly suggests homogeneity within various diagnostic categories. Thirdly, many students enrolled in special education do not manifest demonstrable pathologies. Fourthly, as we shall see later in this report, studies show that instruction based on categories is generally not effective.
Clark et al. (1995) have added... an organisational paradigm, which they have identified in the writings of scholars such as Ainscow (1995) and Lipsky & Gartner (1999). In this newly-emerged paradigm, special education is seen as the consequence of inadequacies in mainstream schools and, consequently, ways should be found to make them more capable of responding to student diversity. Disabilities are perceived as a function of the interaction between individual students and their physical, social and psychological environments.
Instructional techniques and learning opportunities should be structured to compensate for environmental deficiencies to ensure that children learn and achieve skills of adaptive living. This can be achieved through such means as schools implementing findings from research into effective teaching, operating as problem-solving organisations, and supporting teachers through the change process.
In recent years, the concept of inclusive education has been broadened to encompass not only students with disabilities, but also all students who may be disadvantaged. Earlier, Skrtic et al. (1996) had argued that inclusive education goes far beyond physical placement of students with disabilities in general classrooms, but should involve schools meeting the needs of all their students within common, but fluid, environments and activities. This broadened conceptualisation of inclusive education was recently articulated in the meeting at the forty-eighth session of the UNESCO International Conference on Education, held in Geneva in November 2008, where it was acknowledged that ‘inclusive education is an ongoing process aimed at offering quality education for all while respecting diversity and the different needs and abilities, characteristics and learning expectations of the students and communities, eliminating all forms of discrimination’ (UNESCO, 2009, p.126).
Several writers claim that inclusive education is a basic human right. For example, Christensen (1996) argued that exclusion or segregation of students with special needs is a violation of their human rights and represents an unfair distribution of educational resources. Similarly, Lipsky & Gartner (1996, 1999) asserted that inclusive education is a fundamental right, derived from the principle of equity, which, if recognised, would contribute significantly to a democratic society.... as Lipsky & Gartner (1996, 1999) pointed out, in designing educational programmes for students with disabilities, the focus must shift from the individual’s impairments to the social context, a key feature of which should be a unitary education system dedicated to providing quality education for all students (cf., Meijer et al.’s (2003).
England. 1997 Green Paper, Excellence For All Children, as signaling the government’s commitment to the principle of inclusion and the need to rethink the role of special schools within that context.
Australia. It is described as ‘a professional learning program that promotes and supports the cultural shift of inclusive educational practices in all public schools’.
Europe. The indicators are expected to have ‘a clear focus on the policy conditions that may support or hinder the development of inclusive education within schools’.
U.S. The United States has a voluminous literature and a range of policies relating to inclusive education, although the term is not employed in official documents... university researchers associated with special education departments around the country built a strong case for more positive educational and social outcomes for children when they are educated alongside their nondisabled peers.
Canada. A Canadian study of 3rd grade students with ‘at risk’ characteristics (e.g., learning disabilities, behaviour disorders) compared the impact on achievement of a multi-faceted inclusive education programme.... Significant effects were found in the writing scores for the inclusive education group. The general education students were not held back by the presence of the at-risk students in the classroom; on the contrary, their reading and mathematics scores benefited from the additional interventions offered by the programme (Saint-Laurent et al., 1998).
A U.S. study addressed the effects of an inclusive school programme on the academic achievement of students with mild or severe learning disabilities in grades two - six... Results showed that the students with mild learning disabilities in the inclusive classrooms made significantly more progress in reading and comparable progress in mathematics, compared with those in the resource classes. (Waldron & McLeskey, 1998).
One of the most comprehensive studies of the effects of inclusive programmes on the development of social competence in students with severe disabilities is that reported by Fisher & Meyer (2002). In a matched-pairs design, 40 students were assessed across two years of inclusive versus self-contained special education classrooms. Those in the inclusive programme made significant, albeit small, gains on measures of social competence, compared with students in self-contained classrooms.
A UK study compared the outcomes for adolescents with Down syndrome of similar abilities but educated in mainstream or in special schools. The results showed no evidence of educational benefits for those in segregated settings, despite the higher teacher-student ratios. Those who attended their neighbourhood mainstream schools made significant gains (two-three years) over their special school peers in expressive language and in academic achievement (Buckley, 2006).
A 2004 study in England showed that the presence of relatively large numbers of SWSEN (not analysed by category) in ordinary schools did not have a negative impact on the achievement of general education learners at the local education authority level. Rather, attainment seemed to be largely independent of levels of inclusive education. Other factors, such as socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity and language, seemed to be much more significant. Furthermore, the researchers found evidence that SWSEN were making good progress academically, personally and socially. They also found some evidence (chiefly in the views of teachers and pupils) that inclusion can have positive effects on the wider achievements of all learners, such as on their social skills and understanding (Dyson et al., 2004).
Several studies have found that quality of instruction, rather than placement, is the most important predictor of student achievement. ..Rather specific features of quality placement included a supportive teacher, regular and extensive reviews of material, direct instruction and a positive classroom environment (Kluwin & Moores, 1989). These findings were echoed in a report by Ofsted (2006) on English provisions for SWSEN. It considered that the most important factor in determining the best outcomes for pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities was not the type but the quality of the provision. Effective provision was distributed equally in the mainstream and special schools visited, but there was more good and outstanding provision in resourced mainstream schools than elsewhere.
It is noteworthy that developments in special and inclusive education show similar trajectories across countries, especially those in the developed western world.
Excerpts from:
Breaking Barriers: Excellence and Equity for All
The purpose of this book is a call to all educators to intensify their efforts to take teaching and learning, student engagement and achievement, and advocacy to new heights. The book is firmly rooted within the Canadian context and offers lessons of equity and excellence in education that are global in their impact.
Author(s): Avis Glaze, Ed.D., President: Edu-quest International Inc. ; Ruth Mattingley, M.Ed., Associate: Edu-quest International Inc.; Ben Levin, Ph.D., Professor and Canada Research Chair at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).
Date Published: 2012 (pending)
Schools that work for all students are guilt upon a foundation of equity and inclusiveness. Educators have a legacy to uphold: it is important for us to be aware of the fundamental beliefs of our country, the country for which we are preparing our students, and the need for all peoples to live together in peaceful coexistence. When we model and insist upon egalitarian values and principles, we do our part in replicating the values that our society considers important.
Research demonstrates that caring can assist in reclaiming and including students with disabilities, contribute to the retention of students in schools, and promote interracial interaction. The research of Noblitt, Rogers, and McCadden (1995) indicates that teachers who demonstrate commitment to students and state clearly that they will not give up on them reap improved behaviour, increased motivation, and enhanced achievement. Because of the caring attitude of a teacher, children learn to read, to recognize their capabilities, and to feel better about themselves. Caring does not, however, mean being permissive or making excuses for students who show lack of effort or behave unacceptably. Caring teachers get results because, while demonstrating love respect, empathy, and concern, they are also demanding effort by setting high standards and expectations for student performance.
Most important of all are the beliefs we hold about children and learning and the need to educate all children successfully (Shields, 2004; Valencia, 1997). As educators, we are called to reflect constantly on our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours.
We should be cautious about assuming that we know the future of any student – the evidence is clear that we may be wrong. We should do as much as we can to help students be successful now, whatever they may have done in the past...History is not destiny. With the right supports, most students can achieve far more than anyone thought they could. Part of the job of schools is to make negative predictions less likely to be true.
There is a danger that the sense of comfort and protection provided by alternative programs is mixed with lower expectations. This situation can happen from the best of intentions. We want these students, who may face difficult lives outside the school, to feel protected and card for, and one way to do so is to lower our demands on them. Lowering expectations, however, does them no favours. It leads to lower levels of achievement and lifelong disadvantages. The task for all schools is to combine high levels of care with high levels of expectation.
Provide a range of courses whereby students gain a variety of pathways to graduation...Bundle courses that build on students’ strengths and interests.
Some jurisdictions are moving to an instructional model known as Response to Intervention (RTI). This model shifts the focus away from the child’s deficits to the learning conditions in the classroom and school. “The whole intent of RTI is to move away from looking at poor learning outcomes as indicating there is something wrong with the student and instead to think about what the teacher needs to do to make the student successful” (Echevarria & Vogt, 2011).
Excerpts from:
Special Education in Ontario Schools (6th Edition)
This book provides a summary of Special Education history, current practices, legislative information, and research on Special Education in Ontario.
Author(s): Dr. Sheila Bennett, Professor and former Chair of the Department of Pre-Service Education: Brock University; Dr. Don Dworet, Associate Professor of Education: Brock University; Dr. Ken Weber, Professor Emeritus: University of Toronto.
Date Published: 2008
The provincial government has long declared the integration of students with special needs to be the norm in the province’s schools, a principle that continues to be affirmed by the Ministry of Education... the Special Education Transformation report reaffirmed this view and also recommended that when a special class placement is made it should be duration-specific, and intervention-focused. Though not in regulation, these recommendations provide guidance to IPRCs and IEP developers. Educators and parents of students with special needs in regular classes now know that placing a student in a regular class is not as difficult as once thought, and usually produces significant benefits for all.
All school boards in Ontario now accept the premise that inclusion of students with exceptionalities in regular classes should be the normal practice. At the same time, it is Ministry of Education policy that a range of settings...should be available for students whose needs are best addressed under alternative arrangements...Important philosophical principles of the model are that students always be placed in the least restrictive environment, and that no restricted placement ever be regarded as permanent.
Excerpts from:
Inclusion Defined
This article is from The Centre for Inclusive Education, University of Western Ontario
Author(s): Dr. Jacqueline Specht
The basic idea behind normalization is that people with special needs should be viewed in the ways in which they are the same as other people rather than in the ways in which they are different. School can be seen as a microcosm of the larger society. As Canadian society has moved toward a more inclusive view of all individuals, so too have schools moved toward inclusion.
An effective school is one that has high expectations for its staff members and students, provides caring support for students and staff, and provides opportunities for their participation the classroom and broader school setting. Feelings of acceptance are promoted by a welcoming school atmosphere and a school culture that accepts different kinds of behaviours in the classroom and does not make assumptions about children’s abilities.
Excerpt from:
Inclusive Education Knowledge Exchange Initiative: An Analysis of the Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Survey
This article is available through the Canadian Council on Learning/Conseil Canadien sur L’Apprentissage
Principal Investigators: Dr. Vianne Timmons, University of Regina; Maryam Wagner, OISE
The analysis of the data revealed that parents were more likely to report that their children with disabilities are in better general health, progress very well/well at school, interact very well/well with their peers, and more frequently look forward to going to school in higher inclusive educational settings than in mid-range or lower inclusion settings. This positive association was consistent, regardless of severity and type of disability.
Although it cannot be stated definitely that inclusive education has a direct impact on health, this research points to the likelihood that this association does exist. Health is a predominant issue for all children, and this research highlights the association between the health of children with disabilities and inclusive educational practices.
Excerpt from:
How adolescents with physical disabilities view success in life
This article is available from CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research and McMaster University
Principal Investigators: J. Miller Polgar; G. King; E. MacKinnon.
The findings indicate that adolescents with disabilities have desires and aspirations similar to those of any adolescent. They want to be happy, to be engaged in meaningful activity; they need to be believed in and supported. Also, the findings show that the biggest barriers faced by adolescents with physical disabilities are negative attitudes and others’ low expectations of what they can achieve. .. The biggest barriers are attitudinal – how others view them and how they view themselves.

How well are English Language Learners doing in Hamilton

EQAO, By English Language Learners  Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

Percentage of Students at Level 3 and 4, 2010-11

Please note that our English language learners have been increasing , but so have , by and large, our results. Grade 6 students are at provincial levels with other English -as –a- second language students (ESL) for reading and writing. ELD students are those who have had interrupted schooling .The percentage of ESL/ELD students in the HWDSB is above provincial averages.

Percentages of ESL/ELD students achieving Level 3 or 4,Grade 3

Grade	Subject	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09	2009-10	2010-11		Change ( I year)	Province 2010-11
3	Reading	47%	48%	45%	45%	53%		8%	54%
3	writing	56%	57%	53%	63%	65%		2%	66%
3	Math	53%	51%	49%	56%	58%		2%	60%
% students identified as ESL/ELD		13%	16%	18%	20%		22%	2%	16%

Percentages of ESL/ELD students achieving Level 3 or 4,Grade 6

Grade	Subject	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09	2009-10	2010-11	Change ( I year)	Province 2010-11
6	Reading	50%	50%	51%	57%	56%	-1%	56%
6	writing	50%	57%	56%	61%	61%	0	61%
6	Math	54%	46%	49%	52%	43%	-9%	48%
% students identified as ESL		10%	13%	13%	16%	15%	-1%	6%

Drummond Report: Executive Sumary: Education

Elementary and Secondary Education

A strong education system is critical to Ontario’s prosperity and global competitiveness. We believe that this era of restraint presents an opportunity to deliver education as efficiently and effectively as possible.

The province funds nearly 98 per cent of education sector expenses. Over the past decade, provincial spending on elementary and secondary education has grown significantly despite declining student enrolment; one result has been a 56 per cent increase in per-pupil funding. This is not sustainable. The Commission believes the sector growth rate must be constrained to one per cent per year.

The government’s challenge is to restrain education spending while protecting the scholastic progress achieved. The education sector should stay the course on its agenda of three key goals: improving student achievement; closing student achievement gaps; and increasing confidence in the publicly funded education system.

Because sound and transparent fiscal planning will enhance co-operation and stability, the province should set funding allocations to school boards out to 2017–18. Not only will this give boards time to find efficiencies, but also full knowledge of the budgetary future will support constructive collective bargaining later this year when the sector’s collective agreements will be renegotiated.

First Nations Education: On-reserve First Nations education urgently needs improvement. Although this is a federal responsibility, the province is affected because most Aboriginal students are educated in provincially funded schools. Most on-reserve secondary students are educated off-reserve and the underfunding of on-reserve elementary schools often means that students arrive at the secondary level with acute remedial needs. Federal funding per student falls well short of parity with provincial education spending. The province should put strong pressure on the federal government to adequately fund on-reserve education at least at parity with per-student provincial funding. Failing an agreement with the federal government, the Commission recommends that the province provide the required funding. Agreements would include the facilitation of forming education entities among participating First Nations with powers similar to provincially funded district school boards, and negotiation of multi-year targets for the proportion of supervisory officers, principals and teachers who will be deemed qualified by the Ontario College of Teachers.

Full-Day Kindergarten (FDK): In 2010, FDK began in nearly 600 schools; another 200 schools were added in 2011 and some 900 more announced for the 2012–13 school year. There is substantial evidence that investments in early childhood education produce significant long-term socio-economic benefits. But costs associated with new staff, classroom supplies, transportation, other school operations, capital and stabilization for the child care sector will eventually amount to over $1.5 billion per year. In the current fiscal climate, the Commission is concerned that the timing is inappropriate. The Commission is aware that the costs of FDK were incorporated into the March 2011 Budget and 2011 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review in November. However, not enough offsetting restraint was secured in other spending to ensure that these fiscal plans would achieve the overall deficit objective.

We recommend cancellation of the FDK program with appropriate phase-out provisions. If the government decides to continue implementation, it should do two things. First, it should delay full implementation from 2014–15 to 2017–18 and reduce FDK program costs by adopting a more affordable staffing model of one teacher for about 20 students, rather than a teacher and an early childhood educator for 26 students. Second, before confirming full implementation of FDK, it should get assurances from school boards, teacher federations and support staff unions that negotiated annual wage increases by 2017–18 will be no higher than current trends in the broader public sector (BPS), and that class-size increases and reductions in non-teaching staff contemplated by the Commission by 2017–18 will be achieved.

Class Sizes: One of Ontario’s fundamental strategies to improve student achievement has been to reduce class sizes in primary schools (junior kindergarten to Grade 3). Some 90 per cent of classes now have 20 students or fewer, and none has more than 23. The government has committed significant resources to class-size reductions at the primary and other levels. While the government has emphasized that smaller classes promote better education outcomes, empirical evidence presents a more complicated picture. Ontario’s recent improvements on provincial assessments and quality indicators have coincided with reduced class sizes, but there is no evidence of causality. Even if smaller classes had some impact on outcomes, the evidence suggests that investments in smaller classes do not offer the most efficient means for improving results. Given this lack of convincing empirical support, the Commission believes that scarce resources should not be applied to reducing class sizes. We recommend increasing the class-size cap for primary schools from 20 to 23, and increasing the class-size averages in junior/intermediate schools from 24.5 to 26 and in secondary schools from 22 to 24. The Commission supports continued emphasis on programs that have proven critical to increasing graduation rates. Class sizes should be increased in a manner that does not jeopardize programs that have helped increase graduation rates and benefited Ontario students.

Non-Teaching Staff: Since 2002–03, staffing has increased by more than 13,800 for non-teaching positions. To meet our target growth rate in education spending of one per cent per year to 2017–18, the Commission projects that about 70 per cent of these positions will need to be phased out by that year. Boards will have to minimize the impact of this reduction on school operations.

Limits to Funded Secondary School Credits: To get a secondary school diploma, Ontario students must complete 30 secondary school credits. Many students, however, are completing more than 30 credits; 14 per cent of Grade 12 students return for a fifth year. This is costly. The Commission recommends that public funding be capped at 32 successful credits per student. School boards should be allowed to charge a fee for additional credits.

Encouraging Efficient Student Transportation: Transporting students to school poses a challenge to school boards, with costs difficult to contain. The Ministry of Education recently placed a moratorium on new competitive procurement. This should immediately be lifted, since it delays getting efficient, effective student transportation service through competitive bidding. Users may have to bear a portion of the cost through a student transportation fee, with provisions to ensure that lower-income, special needs and rural students are not restricted in their access to learning.

A Comprehensive Plan to Live With One Per Cent Annual Growth: Our one per cent limit on annual growth in the education budget means the sector will have $1.6 billion more to spend in 2017–18 than in 2010–11. In our Status Quo Scenario, existing cost pressures point to increases that will add $4.4 billion to the bill, leaving a shortfall of $2.8 billion. We believe the recommendations already set out will eliminate this shortfall.

We assume that school boards would seek further efficiencies or other revenues to offset cost pressures such as benefits, utilities, fuel and so on. The following recommendations, while not costed explicitly, have been developed in that spirit.

Promoting Evidence-Based Solutions in Special Education: Special education grants account for a significant portion of education spending at $2.5 billion in 2011–12, a 55 per cent increase since 2002–03 despite declining enrolment. The link between increased funding and outcomes for students is not obvious. The Commission commends the province’s focus on supporting students with special needs, but we must direct every dollar to where it will have the most impact. We recommend a full review of the province’s special education programs and the results achieved, including programs for students in care, custody or treatment, and hospital boards, with a view to ensuring that funding is being used effectively to improve student outcomes. For clarity, we do not believe there is a “problem” with the overall special education funding envelope. Our concern is the lack of measurable outcomes for the significant investments made since 2002–03.

Reform of Provincial Schools: The ministry directly manages a number of schools for the deaf, demonstration schools for students with learning disabilities and schools for the blind and deaf blind, serving about 800 students in eight schools. School staff members are provincial employees; this is not the best governance arrangement. The government should close the demonstration schools and use the savings to expand alternative secondary school programs in school boards. The Schools for the Deaf should be consolidated into one site to achieve a greater critical mass of students from junior kindergarten to Grade 12. Savings from this consolidation should be reinvested in the School for the Deaf and in enhanced opportunities for deaf learners in school boards, colleges and universities.

Appropriate Incentives for Teachers: Because public education promotes child development and future prosperity, Ontario needs the best possible teachers. Research supports the link between quality teachers and student achievement. Ontario teachers are provided salary increases as incentives to engage in continued learning and development through the Qualification and Experience (Q&E) grant. It recognizes the experience they gain and allows them to move to the high end of salary ranges relatively early in their careers. Such compensation systems help school boards retain excellent teachers. However, the Q&E grant should reward teachers who are most likely to help their students achieve better results. Training programs leading to Additional Qualifications (AQ) should be reviewed and Q&E grants should be administered by a body independent from teacher federations or school boards. Many teachers take AQ courses for duties they have no intention of fulfilling and their absence disrupts classroom continuity. The province should require a minimum number of years of full-time teaching experience before a teacher can try for AQ, and such courses should be more rigorous and evidence-based. Other areas of school staff compensation must strike a better balance between fair conditions of work and fiscal responsibility. For example, the total provincial liability for retirement gratuities is nearly $1.7 billion; the province should remove school boards’ power to offer such gratuities.

Delivering Services More Efficiently: The Ministry of Education should be a leader in promoting efficiency and reducing duplication. School board facilities and information technology may offer effective platforms for co-operation with other ministries, especially those supporting children. Boards should also continue to seek out opportunities to foster procurement efficiencies through their expanded buying power. Important steps have already been taken through the Ontario Education Collaborative Marketplace (OECM), a not-for-profit procurement organization. Boards can work together to consolidate back-office functions. The government should work with school boards, teacher federations and support staff unions towards shared ownership and administration of benefit programs. Efficiency can also be found by maximizing the value of school board capital assets. Where schools have been closed or consolidated because of declining enrolment, school boards have surplus properties. The minister should have the power to order the sale of unused properties, especially when such dispositions could meet other needs in the BPS. An increasingly widespread solution to the problem of underutilized schools is the consolidation of Grades 7 through 12 in one secondary school. The province should encourage such consolidations by eliminating top-up funding to underutilized secondary schools if they can instead accommodate Grade 7 and 8 students in their catchment areas.

Containing Costs of Retirement Benefits: The province and Ontario Teachers’ Federation co-sponsor the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan; the province matches members’ contributions even though teachers are employed by school boards, not the province directly. In 2005, the plan revealed its first shortfall since 1990, and contributions have increased since 2007. In 2011, the contribution rate was raised and some future indexation benefits reduced. The province should reject further employer rate increases and instead aim to reduce benefits. The province should also consider raising the retirement age; the typical teacher retires at 59, having worked for 26 years, and then collects a pension for 30 years. A higher average retirement age would reduce the need for lower benefits in the future.

Promoting an Efficient Labour Market for Teachers: In the late 1990s, fears of a looming teacher shortage prompted the government and universities to increase teacher education. The province funded more spaces in faculties of education, and new programs were accredited at several Ontario universities, as well as universities in the United States and Australia. Since then, the number of certified teachers in Ontario has increased, but the retirement rate has declined. The number of new teachers now exceeds the number of new retirees by 7,600 a year. The proposal to convert B.Ed. programs to two years from one, with enrolment in each cohort halved, will help to reduce the oversupply. Still, the government should discuss the overproduction of teachers with Ontario’s 13 universities offering teacher education.

 

Getting the Most Bang for the Buck

This link to the UK's Sutton Foundation 's recent report  " Pupil Premium Toolkit" indicates what makes the most sense for school boards to invest in to make the most difference in student achievement for children from low income backgrounds. It looks at research on effectiveness as against the financial investment needed.
http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Pupil_Premium_Toolkit_%2820.12.11%29.pdf

Social Justice in the OECD

EQAO results Ward 1 and 2 elementary 2011

EQAO RESULTS

Ward 1 and 2

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

Judith Bishop

 2011

This year there were improved results in many schools. Congratulations to everyone!

At Grade 3,  6 out of the 9 schools  had more students at levels 3 and 4 for math, seven out of the 9 schools for reading, and 7 out of the 9 schools for writing. Some of the results were substantial increases:

• Earl Kitchener increased by 13% in math, and 14% in writing
• Dr Davey increased by 13% in math, 15% in reading, and 15% in writing
• Queen Victoria increased by 15% in reading, and 8% in writing
• Strathcona increased by 20% in math, 5% in reading and 15% in writing
• Hess Street increased by7% in math, 9% in reading and 28% in writing
• Central increased by 12% in writing
• Prince Philip increased by 14% in writing

At Grade 6, 3 out of the 6 schools had more students at levels 3 and 4 for reading,  3 out of 6 schools for writing and one school improved for math.

• Ryerson increased by 6% in reading and 5% in writing
• Dr Davey increased by 14% in reading and 9% in writing
• Queen Victoria increased 19% in reading, 5% in writing and 5% in math

Board Profile

This year the EQAO office reports that Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board is once again above the provincial average for the percentage of English Language  Learners.

·         22% of grade 3 students are English Language learners in Hamilton, compared to 16% in the Province and only 4% in the Catholic Board. 

·         In grade 6 the percentages are 15% for HWDSB, 6% for the Province, and 5% for the Catholic Board.

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board also has  a higher percentage of special education students:  

• 18% in grade 3 compared to 15% for the Province and 14% for the Catholic board.

·         20% in grade 6 compared to 19% for the Province and 17% for the Catholic board

The Education Quality Assessment Organisation (EQAO) tests are Provincial tests that began in 1998 and are based on the Ontario Curriculum.  The Ontario Curriculum was introduced in 1997.

Percentage at Grade level or above, or meeting or exceeding expectations (levels 3 and 4)

By School and By Year

In 2011 George R Allan Prince Philip and Earl Kitchener were above the provincial average

Mathematics   Grade 3

School	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
BENNETTO/ CENTENNIAL	38%	32	41	17	33	42	44
CENTRAL	55%	52%	68%	60%	50	52	52
DR. DAVEY	48%	41%	47%	26%	17	27	31
EARL KITCHENER	70%	43%	58%	45%	45	59	72*
G.R.ALLAN	75%*	76%*	72%*	73%*	74*	84*	81*
HESS	45%	48%	64%	49%	31	35	42
PRINCE PHILIP	69%*	78%*	62%	56%	69	86*	73*
QUEEN VICTORIA	35%	55%	N/A	N/A	39	59	60
STINSON	52%	67%	48%	34%	N/A	N/A
STRATHCONA	69%	70%	40%	46%	33	47	67
HWDSB  AVERAGE	56%	61%	57%	59%	61	61	63
ONTARIO AVERAGE	66%	68%	69%	68%	70	71	69

* at or above provincial average

READING Grade 3

Percentage meeting or exceeding expectations (levels 3 and 4)

Prince Philip, Strathcona, Earl Kitchener and George R Allan are above the provincial average in 2011

 

School	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
BENNETTO/ CENTENNIAL	38%	37	39	36	27	35	36
CENTRAL	55%	59	47	60%	56	52	55
DR. DAVEY	36	40	24	26%	19	25	40
EARL KITCHENER	70%*	46%	58%	62*	58	60	78*
G.R.ALLAN	75%*	81*	79*	85*	78*	85*	84*
HESS	45%	49%	29	29%	24	27	36
PRINCE PHILIP	69%*	72%*	69%*	59	72*	93*	80*
QUEEN VICTORIA	35%	54%	N/A	N/A	41	45	60
STINSON	52%	67%*	48%	34%	N/A	N/A
STRATHCONA	69%*	74%*	60	58	36	65*	71*
HWDSB  AVERAGE	56%	58%	57%	57%	56	56	61
ONTARIO AVERAGE	66%	62%	62%	61%	61	62	65

* above provincial  average

 

WRITING Grade 3

Meeting or exceeding expectations (levels 3 and 4)

 

In 2011 Prince Philip, Earl Kitchener and George R Allan are above the provincial average

 

school	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
CENTENNIAL/ BENNETTO	37%	46%	45%	25%	49	44	38
CENTRAL	66%*	62%	58%	60%	59	57	69
DR. DAVEY	33%	40%	45%	39%	27	47	62
EARL KITCHENER	63%*	38	56	58	45	64	78*
G.R.ALLAN	70%*	78%*	75%*	86%*	78*	87*	76*
HESS	46%	40%	55%	54%	39	24	52
PRINCE PHILIP	67%*	81%*	76%*	49%	83*	86*	100*
QUEEN VICTORIA	32%	73%*	N/A	N/A	50	62	70
STINSON	49%	52%	52%	48%	N/A	N/A
STRATHCONA	54%	65%*	63%	31%	47	56	71
HWDSB AVERAGE	55%	56	59	61	61	65	68
ONTARIO AVERAGE	61%	62%	64%	66%	68	70	73

 * at or above provincial average 

Grade 6 EQAO results

Percentage meeting levels 3 and 4

For 2005-2011 READING

In 2011 Dalewood and Ryerson are above the provincial average

School	O5	06	07	08	09	10	11
BENNETTO	32	38	50	52	45	53	46
DALEWOOD	77*	71*	77*	69*	74*	87*	85*
HESS	43	51	35	39	32	51	30
RYERSON	66*	58	64*	66*	77*	73*	79*
TWEEDSMUIR/Sanford/ DR Davey	24	36	35	33	25	W	39
Queen Victoria					56	45	64
provincial average	64	64	64	66	69	72	74
board average	57	57	58	57	62	67	68

W: results withdrawn * at or above provincial average

Writing Grade 6 2005 to 2011

Percentage meeting levels 3 and 4

In 2011 Dalewood is above the provincial average

	05	06	07	08	09	10	11
BENNETTO	29	29	50	52	33	49	48
DALEWOOD		71*	73*	73*	69*	83*	74*
HESS	45	34	41	41	41	54	39
RYERSON	47	47	46	63	79*	62	67
TWEEDSMUIR/Sanford Dr.E.Davey	24	37	30	28	46	46	55
Queen Victoria					41	45	50
provincial average	61	61	61	67	67	70	73
board average	54	54	54	59	60	64	66

* at or above provincial average

Grade 6 EQAO results math 2005-2011

Percentage meeting levels 3 and 4

school	05	06	07	08	09	10	11
BENNETTO	30	11	34	21	25	45	25
DALEWOOD	68*	62*	76*	69*	57	70*	51
HESS	47	48	40	35	29	35	24
RYERSON	40	49	44	46	54	52	44
TWEEDSMUIR/Sanford Dr.E.Davey	24	31	20	16	21	12	22
Queen Victoria					29	20	25
provincial average	60	61	59	61	63	61	58
board average	53	52	51	49	51	52	47

* at or above provincial average