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.