5. How Ontario students are performing

Introduction

Too many Ontario students are not learning to read well. Education Quality Accountability Office (EQAO) data shows that a large proportion of Ontario students (one in four in Grade 3 and one in five in Grade 6) are failing to meet provincial reading standards.[317] The data is even more concerning for students with special education needs (this term includes all students with IEPs but excludes students whose only exceptionality is giftedness).[318] Approximately half of students with special education needs (53% in Grade 3 and 47% in Grade 6) are not reading well enough to meet provincial standards. Data linking reading scores to race, gender, socio-economic status and First Nations, Métis and Inuit self-identification data shows that certain groups, particularly boys,[319] Black students,[320] students from low-income homes,[321] and First Nations, Métis and Inuit students[322] are underperforming (for more details on the Indigenous student achievement gap, see section 7, First Nations, Métis and Inuit experiences). Low literacy is also a significant issue among Ontario adults (see section 4, Context for the inquiry for more information about adult literacy rates).

The results of the EQAO writing assessment are similar.[323] In 2018–19:

• 31% of Grade 3 students did not meet the provincial writing standard on the Grade 3 assessment
• 18% of Grade 6 students did not meet the provincial writing standard on the Grade 6 assessment
• 53% of Grade 3 students with special education needs did not meet the provincial writing standard
• 46% of Grade 6 students with special education needs did not meet the provincial writing standard.

Research also shows that students identified with learning disabilities are disproportionately streamed into applied-level courses in Grade 9,[324] and are less likely to graduate from high school.[325] They are also much less likely to go on to post-secondary education.[326]

The quantitative data on reading achievement alone is cause for concern. However, the statistics combined with all the other evidence the OHRC gathered through the inquiry, establish that too many Ontario students are being left behind.

Significant attention has been paid in recent years to falling math scores. Although EQAO reading scores have been relatively steady, scores on international assessments have been declining.[327] Ontario has also not been able to increase the proportion of students meeting baseline levels of achievement on international assessments.[328] As well, there has been a significant increase in students using assistive technology and other accommodations such as scribing on EQAO reading tests, which does not provide accurate information about whether Ontario students are able to read and write well on their own.[329]

Regardless of whether reading test scores are falling or remaining stable, we cannot afford to be complacent about how effective our public education system has been in meeting the right to read. Ontario’s Auditor General has said “Ontario should be striving for improvement.”[330] Many more students should be meeting standards set for reading assessments, including students with disabilities. It is simply unacceptable that close to 50% of students with special education needs are not meeting the provincial EQAO standard.

This does not have to be the case. With the proper approach, many more children can be reading proficiently in the earliest elementary grades and meeting provincial testing standards at Grade 3 and beyond. We should not settle for anything less.

Back to top

Education Quality Accountability Office reading assessment data

The EQAO assesses reading levels for Grade 3 and 6 students. Students, including students in private schools, must pass the Grade 10 Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) to earn their Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD). Students may also earn their OSSD by completing the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Course (if they do not pass the OSSLT).

According to the EQAO’s 2018–19 Provincial Elementary School Report,[331] only 74% of all Grade 3 students met the provincial reading standard on the primary-division assessment.[332] This means that one-quarter of Grade 3 students in Ontario are not good readers and are already at risk of, or have started to experience, the negative impacts described earlier in this report. As well, only 62% of students met the standard unassisted (without scribing or assistive technology).[333]

On the junior-division assessment, 81% of Grade 6 students met the provincial reading standard.[334] In other words, in 2018–2019, one in five Grade 6 students struggled with reading. Only 72% of students met the standard unassisted.[335] As it becomes increasingly hard to address reading difficulties after Grade 6, even with the best interventions in place, many of these students will never catch up.[336]

There are gender differences in reading achievement with boys lagging behind girls. On the Grade 3 reading assessment, 71% of boys achieved the provincial standard, compared to 78% of girls. Boys’ scores were lower on the Grade 6 reading assessment as well, with only 77% meeting the standard compared to 85% of girls.[337] That means that by Grade 6, almost one-quarter of all boys in Ontario were not able to read at grade-level standards.

There are also significant discrepancies between school boards, with southern boards consistently performing better than northern boards.[338] In an audit of School Boards Management of Financial and Human Resources, the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario compared student EQAO achievement by region and found that the percentage of students meeting the provincial standard in northern boards was 8% lower than southern boards, and 5% lower than the provincial average on the 2015–2016 Grade 3 reading assessment.[339]

The provincial EQAO results for students with special education needs are particularly troubling. Only 47% of Grade 3 students with special education needs and 53% of Grade 6 students with special education needs met the provincial reading standard.[340] The EQAO flagged the failure of a significant proportion of students with special education needs, particularly learning disabilities, to meet the provincial standard as a concern requiring attention:

The persistent discrepancy in achievement between students with special education needs and those without requires attention. EQAO data show that students with learning disabilities are the largest group in the cohort of students identified as having special education needs. Historically, students with learning disabilities have had a low level of achievement despite having average to above average intelligence. It would be beneficial to review supports available and strategies for success.[341]

The results of the OSSLT show similar outcomes for students with special education needs. Eighty per cent of all fully participating students[342] taking the test for the first time were successful, as were 50% of previously eligible students.[343] However, only 50% of students with special education needs were successful taking the test for the first time, and 34% of previously eligible students with special education needs were successful.[344] There is also a significant achievement gap between multilingual students (who are learning the language of instruction at the same time as they are learning the curriculum) and other students on all assessments, but particularly the OSSLT.[345]

There is a significant discrepancy in achievement on the OSSLT based on whether students are in applied or academic courses. Only 41% of fully participating students in applied English courses passed the OSSLT the first time, compared to 91% of students in academic English courses. As discussed below in the section on streaming, students with learning disabilities are disproportionately streamed into applied-level courses, as are Black and Indigenous students and students from lower-income families.

EQAO data from 2017–2018 tracking the progress of students over time is consistent with the “Matthew Effect” described in section 4, Context for the inquiry. Of the 64,643 students (64%) who had met the reading standard in both Grade 3 and Grade 6, 94% (60,462) were successful on the OSSLT. However, of the 13,385 students (13%) who had not met the reading standard in both Grade 3 and Grade 6, only 28% (3757) were successful on the OSSLT.[346]

Students who did not meet the standard on either the Grade 3 or 6 reading assessment also had a lower success rate on the OSSLT.[347] The EQAO has noted the importance of early success on its assessments to future education and later life, saying “analysis of student outcomes going back to 2004 show that students who do not meet the provincial standard in reading and writing in the early grades are at a greater risk of not having the literacy skills required in secondary school and beyond.”[348]

The EQAO also assesses student engagement with reading using a student questionnaire. In 2018–2019, a little less than half of students (44% in Grade 3 and 42% in Grade 6) said they do not like to read. About one-third (38% in Grade 3 and 33% in Grade 6) said they do not think they are good readers most of the time.[349] This suggests that current approaches to reading are failing to teach many students to read, and to promote reading confidence and a love of reading in many more.

Back to top

Accommodations

The EQAO results for reading achievement in Ontario are even more concerning when accommodations are factored in. A large proportion of students with special education needs receive accommodations during EQAO testing. These include verbatim scribing of responses and using assistive technology (such as Read and Write for Google Chrome).

Accommodations are important and necessary to give struggling readers an equal opportunity to be assessed on their understanding of written text and to convey their ideas in writing. However, the accommodations provided mean that the EQAO data, which is already concerning, likely significantly under-represents the magnitude of reading difficulties among Ontario students. For example, the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) analyzed provincial EQAO data. It found high rates of assistive technology and scribing for students with IEPs (students with special education needs), and an increasing use of these accommodations over time. For example, the IDA found:

In 2019 84% of Grade 3 students with an IEP completed the reading assessment using these accommodations up from 36% in 2005. Rates of AT/scribing also increased over time in Grade 6 (2005: 19.6%, 2019: 72%) and OSSLT (2005: 14.25%, 2019: 38.7%).[350]

The IDA’s data also showed that 87% of Grade 3 students with a learning disability exceptionality used scribing.[351]

The IDA found that only 8.5% of Grade 3 students with special education needs achieved the provincial standard on the EQAO reading assessment without using assistive technology or scribing. This is similar to the OHRC’s findings from the school board data. The IDA also found little to no improvement in the unaccommodated pass rate for students with special education needs between 2005 and 2019.[352]

Therefore, for students with word-reading disabilities and other special education needs, the EQAO assessment does not accurately measure whether they can read and write unassisted. Overall EQAO scores for all Ontario students do not reflect whether the education system is equipping students to read independently.

Back to top

Exemptions

Two to three per cent of all Ontario students in Grade 3 or 6 receive a formal exemption from having to complete the EQAO reading assessment. Exemptions are permitted when the student is unable to participate in part or all of the assessment even with accommodations.[353] A student must be exempted from the reading assessment, if they must be read to by a teacher or another adult.[354]

The exemption rate is much higher in some boards. For example, in Keewatin-Patricia, up to 13% of students do not participate in the EQAO reading assessment in either Grade 3 or 6. Several other Ontario boards have high exemption rates. Examples are Moosonee (7% in Grade 3, 8% in Grade 6) and Superior-Greenstone District School Boards (12% in Grade 3, 6% in Grade 6).

Students with special education needs are much more likely to be exempted from assessment.[355] The issue of whether some students should be exempted from standardized testing is complex. However, when students with disabilities are exempted from taking part in standardized assessments, we cannot know how they would have performed. Valuable information about the student’s learning is lost. System-level information that can guide policy decisions about areas such as curriculum, teaching methods and interventions is also compromised.[356]

Back to top

Inquiry school board data

The OHRC requested EQAO data from the inquiry’s eight school boards to better understand how their students with special education needs, particularly learning disabilities, are performing on EQAO reading assessments. As school boards do not break down learning disabilities further, it was not possible to assess the performance of students with reading disabilities specifically. However, as discussed in sections 4, Context for the inquiry and 12, Professional assessments, since reading disabilities are the most common learning disability, it is likely that a significant proportion of students identified as having a learning disability in the EQAO data have reading disabilities.

Another limitation in assessing the performance of students with reading disabilities was that boards were only able to provide data for students with a formally designated learning disability (LD) exceptionality (meaning students who had gone through the IPRC process and been designated under the LD exceptionality category). Not all students with a learning disability have been diagnosed by a health professional or formally identified through the IPRC process. It is also possible that students identified through the IPRC process as having “Multiple Exceptionalities” have a reading disability as one of their exceptionalities.

Consistent with provincial data, students with special education needs in the eight inquiry school boards fared poorly on the Grades 3 and 6 EQAO reading assessments for 2018–2019. For example, in Keewatin-Patricia, only 13% of Grade 3 and 35% of Grade 6 students with special education needs achieved the provincial standard. Lakehead had the highest percentage of students with special education needs achieving the provincial standard in Grade 3. However, at 55% this figure was still concerningly low. More Ottawa-Carleton students with special education needs achieved the provincial standard in Grade 6 than in any of the other inquiry boards. However, once again the percentage was low, at only 60%.

When looking specifically at students with an LD exceptionality, only 12% of Grade 3 students in Hamilton-Wentworth met the provincial standard. Simcoe Muskoka Catholic had the highest percentage of students meeting the provincial standard in Grade 3 at 60%. In Grade 6, Keewatin-Patricia had the lowest percentage of Grade 6 students at 33%, while another northern board (Lakehead) had the highest percentage of Grade 6 students meeting the standard at 69%. In most cases, only about half of students with an LD exceptionality were able to meet provincial EQAO standards, even with the high rate of accommodations, as reported below.

Quantitative data from school boards and qualitative data from surveys confirms the EQAO’s finding that all students with special education needs, a significant proportion of Ontario’s student population, and not just students with learning disabilities, struggle with reading.[357] This suggests that Ontario’s current approach does not reflect Universal Design for Learning, which requires effective reading instruction for all students.

Ottawa-Carleton, the only board in our sample that provided us with its own in-depth analysis of student achievement data, stated:

Across all provincial assessments, achievement outcomes continue to be lower for English Language Learners (ELLs), students with special education needs (excluding gifted; SpEd), students residing in low income neighbourhoods (SES), and those who identify as Indigenous (INDG) compared to all students. The data suggests that the more groups the students belong to – the lower their achievement is, especially in numeracy. Outcomes based on gender tend to favour boys in mathematics, girls in reading, writing and the OSSLT. Gaps are much wider in literacy than they are in math.

Table 1 sets out data, obtained through the inquiry, on the percentage of students[358] who met the provincial standard (achieved a level 3 or 4) in the 2018–2019 EQAO reading assessment including:

• Overall percentage of board students who met the provincial standard in the EQAO reading assessment in each of Grade 3 and 6[359]
• Percentage of students with special education needs who met the provincial standard in the EQAO reading assessment in each of Grade 3 and 6[360]
• Percentage of students with an LD exceptionality (as identified through an IPRC) who met the provincial standard in the EQAO reading assessment in each of Grade 3 and 6[361]
• Percentage of students with an LD exceptionality (as identified through IPRC) who needed accommodation (questions read to them, assistive technology, scribing) and met the provincial standard in each of Grades 3 and 6.

Table 1: Percentage of students who met the provincial standard in the 2018–2019 EQAO reading assessment[362]

	Overall met the standard Grade 3	Students with special education needs met the standard Grade 3	Students with LDs met the standard Grade 3	Students with LDs met the standard had accommodation Grade 3	Overall met the standard Grade 6	Students with special education needs met the standard Grade 6	Students with LDs met the standard Grade 6	Students with LDs met the standard had accommodation Grade 6
Hamilton-Wentworth	67	33	12	100	73	42	48	95
Keewatin-Patricia	59	18	N/D	N/D	72	35	33	100
Lakehead	71	55	50	100	75	48	69	82
London Catholic	72	39	50	100	78	47	44	78
Ottawa-Carleton	76	52	58	89	82	60	61	94
Peel	75	50	42	100	81	35	46	96
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic	67	35	60	100	79	51	49	94
Thames Valley	63	32	53	100	73	35	45	98

Back to top

Accommodations

The low percentage of students with learning disabilities who met the provincial standard is even more concerning when accommodations are factored in. Most or all students who met the standard had test questions read to them, had verbatim scribing or used assistive technology. In several boards (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lakehead, London Catholic, Peel, Simcoe Muskoka Catholic and Thames Valley), every student with a learning disability who met the provincial standard in Grade 3 did so with accommodation. In Grade 6, most students who met the standard did so with accommodation. Very few students with an LD exceptionality met the provincial standard without accommodation. Lakehead had the lowest percentage of students meeting the provincial standard without accommodation at 2%, and London Catholic had the highest percentage of Grade 6 students with an LD exceptionality meeting the provincial standard without accommodation at 22%. So even students with LD exceptionalities who are meeting the provincial standard may not be able to read and write adequately without assistance.

Back to top

Exemptions

The OHRC found that in the eight school boards, between 6% and 60% of students with special education needs were exempted from the Grade 3 EQAO reading assessment and between 5% and 35% from the Grade 6 EQAO reading test. Among students designated as having an LD exceptionality, between 0% and 5% were exempted from the reading assessment in Grade 6.[363]

Table 2 sets out data[364] on exemptions from the Grades 3 and 6 EQAO reading assessment (2018–2019 school year) received from the eight school boards in the inquiry including:

• Overall percentage of board students who were exempted from the EQAO reading assessment
• Percentage of students with special education needs who were exempted from the EQAO reading assessment
• Percentage of students with an LD exceptionality who were exempted from EQAO reading assessment.

 

Table 2: Percentage of exemptions from the Grades 3 and 6 EQAO reading assessment, 2018–2019 school year

	Overall exempt Grade 3	Students with special education needs  exempt Grade 3	Students with LDs exempt Grade 3	Overall exempt Grade 6	Students with special education needs  exempt Grade 6	Students with LDs exempt Grade 6
Hamilton-Wentworth	4	12.	0	4	8	1
Keewatin-Patricia	13	60	N/D[365]	13	35	0
Lakehead	4	6	0	4	5	0
London Catholic	2	12	0	3	6	0
Ottawa-Carleton	4	8	0	3	5	2
Peel	3	17	2	3	8	2
Simcoe-Muskoka Catholic	4	15	0	3	9	5
Thames Valley	4	19	0	3	11	1

Back to top

Other observations

Data about students with special education needs includes all students with an IEP, whether or not they have been formally identified through the IPRC process. Many of these students likely have a reading disability or other learning disability.[366] The EQAO data provided by the eight school boards suggests that very few students with reading disabilities, relative to their likely prevalence in the population, have been identified as having an LD exceptionality through the IPRC process. For example, one school board told us that only 30% of students with a learning disability diagnosis go through the IPRC process. Undoubtedly, there are also other students who have or are at risk for a reading disability but who have not been assessed and diagnosed.

Although an IPRC designation is not needed to receive interventions and accommodations, in the current system, when students with learning disabilities are not identified through this process, there is no way to capture data about their performance on EQAO assessments. Section 13 includes recommendations on improved data collection for students with reading and other learning disabilities.

Back to top

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) is an international assessment that reports every five years on the reading achievement of Grade 4 students worldwide. It is the only international program that assesses reading achievement of Canadian students in the earlier years of education.

PIRLS is administered by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), an independent cooperative of research institutions and governmental agencies. It was first administered in 2001 and has been administered every five years since then.[367]

The last PIRLS assessment was in 2016, when 50 countries took part. A random sample of over 18,000 Canadian students in eight provinces, including Ontario, were assessed on reading achievement. Information about students’ homes, schools and classroom contexts was also collected using background questionnaires. The questionnaires were completed by the students, their parents or caregivers, their school principals, and their teachers.[368]

Grade 4 was selected for the PIRLS assessment because it represents an important transition point in students’ development: “the point at which students are expected to have already learned how to read and are now using their reading skills to learn.” PIRLS assesses reading skills defined as “the ability to understand information presented in the written format required by society and favoured by the person, and the ability to use it.”[369]

The purposes of the PIRLS study are to:

• Assess the reading skills of nine-year-olds (Grade 4 students)

• Determine the contexts that influence reading development
• Understand how young children learn to read
• Improve teaching and learning methods in reading for all children
• Assess and understand differences among education systems to improve teaching and learning methods in reading throughout the world.

PIRLS uses sampling to identify schools, both public and private, and students who will take part in the test. Schools and students can be excluded from the test for various reasons, such as disability (if the school serves students with disabilities or the student has a disability). The PIRLS exclusion rate should not be higher than 5%, and students with dyslexia are not supposed to be excluded but rather accommodated in test-taking, where possible.[370] Nevertheless, some have argued that the way PIRLS has been constructed and reported systematically excludes marginalized students and students with disabilities.[371]

In 2016, Ontario had a score of 544, which is above the PIRLS centre point of 500 and the international average of 511. Ontario scored one point above the Canadian average (543) but lower than British Columbia (555), Quebec (547) and Alberta (547).[372]

Table 3 shows jurisdictions with a higher score than Ontario.

 

Table 3: Jurisdictions with a higher score than Ontario on PIRLS 2016

Russian Federation	581
Singapore	576
Hong Kong, SAR	569
Ireland	567
Finland	566
Poland	565
Northern Ireland	565
Norway (Grade 5 was assessed)	559
Chinese Taipei	559
England	559
Latvia	558
Sweden	555
British Columbia	555
Hungary	554
Bulgaria	552
United States	549
Lithuania	548
Italy	548
Denmark	547
Quebec	547
Alberta	547
Macao SAR	546
Netherlands	545
Australia	544

Ontario’s performance on PIRLS decreased in 2016 (544) compared to 2011 (552), 2006 (555), and 2001 (548).[373] Importantly, data is not presented for students with learning disabilities separately, nor is the rate of accommodations for students with learning disabilities.

A report by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education noted that PIRLS scores and other data point to the need to identify and respond early to children who are struggling with reading:

Although Canadian students are among the most proficient readers in the world…and Canadian Grade 4 students obtained strong results in PIRLS 2011…there remains a significant proportion of youth who do not possess the necessary knowledge and literacy skills to adequately benefit from educational opportunities. Indeed, the PIRLS 2011 results revealed that 14 per cent of Grade 4 students did not reach the intermediate international benchmark, although there were significant differences across provinces and by language and gender...Results from the most recent Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) assessment show that 12 per cent of Grade 8/Secondary II students in Canada did not reach Level 2 in reading, the baseline level of reading proficiency or the expected level for their grade in reading…Thus, it is of the utmost importance to be able to identify, as quickly as possible, those areas in which students encounter difficulties, so as to enable Canadian parents and educators to intervene early.[374] [Emphasis added.]

Back to top

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a collaborative effort among members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In Canada, PISA is carried out through a partnership between Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). PISA is administered every three years and measures 15-year-olds’ abilities in reading, mathematics and science. Private school and public school students take part in PISA.

In 2018, a year that PISA focused on literacy, 79 countries and economies, including Canada, took part.

Ontario students perform well in PISA with scores above the average of the participating OECD countries. However, some research suggests that Canada's results may not be comparable to results of other participating countries due to Canada’s comparatively high student exclusion rate, low levels of school participation and high rates of student absence. Excluded students were mainly students with intellectual disabilities[375] (5%), limited language skills (1.5%), and physical disabilities (0.5%).[376]

Despite Ontario’s and Canada’s generally strong performance in PISA, there are areas of concern:

• Girls perform significantly better than boys in reading[377]
• Students in the English-language public education system in Ontario perform better in reading than students in the French-language public education system[378]
• Since 2000, overall reading scores have declined[379] and the number of students who cannot read to international standards has increased[380]
• The reading skills gap between students with the highest and lowest performance levels, an important indicator for the equity of educational outcomes,[381] has widened
• 13% of students (or about one in seven) performed at the lowest levels of PISA (below level 2)[382]
• Socio-economically advantaged students performed better than socio-economically disadvantaged students by 63 points (or 4.8%).[383] Approximately 24% of advantaged students in Canada, but only 7% of disadvantaged students, were top performers in reading in PISA 2018.[384]

The CMEC’s discussion of Canadian students’ performance concluded:

In spite of these strong results, PISA 2018 achievement in reading literacy also suggests that there is cause for some concern. Reading performance in PISA has declined in Canada overall and in many provinces since 2000. One in seven Canadian students scored at the lowest levels identified by PISA (below Level 2), and students in minority language settings achieved lower results in reading compared to their counterparts in majority-language settings in most provinces. Furthermore, the gap in reading achievement between girls and boys persists.[385]

Back to top

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario

The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), an agency of the Government of Ontario, is mandated to bring evidence-based research to the continued improvement of Ontario’s post-secondary education system. It reports to the Ontario Minister of Colleges and Universities.

In 2016–2017, the HEQCO led a project called the Essential Adult Skills Initiative (EASI).[386] The project measured literacy, numeracy and critical-thinking skills in students entering and graduating from 20 colleges and universities.[387]

For the inquiry, the results from the literacy assessment of students who were starting their post-secondary studies are most relevant to assessing whether students are graduating from high school with the literacy skills needed to perform well in today’s economy.

Incoming students were assessed using the Education and Skills Online (ESO) assessment. The ESO is the commercial version of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) assessment. The test has been validated for adults between the ages of 16 and 65. It measures the key cognitive and workplace skills needed for adults to participate in society and for economies to prosper.

Thirty-four per cent of incoming college students and 26% of incoming university students scored level 2 or lower. This means they did not meet the minimum literacy standard the OECD considers necessary to perform well in today’s economy.[388]

The HEQCO has issued several other reports on the importance of core skills, such as literacy and numeracy, for students to be able to successfully take part in post-secondary education and in the workplace.

Back to top

Streaming

Streaming is the process of grouping students according to perceived ability.[389] It is most associated with steering students towards either academic, applied or locally developed level courses beginning in Grade 9. Students typically take most or all their courses at the same level, “stream” or “track.”[390]

Streaming affects students’ post-secondary choices, career pathways and life outcomes, and results in other disadvantages. For example, students in applied English and math classes are less likely to:

• Meet the provincial standards on math and reading tests
• Graduate from high school
• Enroll in post-secondary education.[391]

Because of data collection issues, provincial data on the demographic characteristics of students in academic versus applied-level streams does not exist. However, available board-level data confirms longstanding concerns that marginalized students are more likely to be streamed into pathways that limit course selection and post-secondary opportunities.[392]

Data from two school boards that have conducted a school census shows that racialized students, particularly Black and Latin American students, and Indigenous students are more likely to be taking applied courses. For example, the 2019 Review of the Peel District School Board[393] found:

• Black students are disproportionately streamed into applied and locally developed courses[394]
• Indigenous students are over-represented in applied and locally developed courses[395]
• Latin American students are over-represented in applied and locally developed courses.[396]

Also, only 34% of Peel students enrolled in applied-level courses “passed” the Grade 10 OSSLT in 2018–2019, compared to 90% of students in academic-level courses.

Data from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) shows similar outcomes for Black and Indigenous students.[397] Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are also disproportionately streamed into applied-level courses.[398]

The OHRC requested data from the eight inquiry school boards to attempt to determine whether students identified as having an LD exceptionality were being disproportionately streamed into applied courses in Grade 9.[399] The OHRC learned that the boards do not have a consistent way to store and access this data. The boards do not appear to be proactively monitoring whether certain groups of students are disproportionately in course pathways that limit post-secondary options. One board could not produce the requested data, saying that this information is not tracked or available through its current student information management system. Several other boards had difficulty providing the requested information.

The data that was provided suggests that a concerning proportion of students with learning disabilities are taking mostly applied courses and that students with identified learning disabilities are significantly more likely to be taking mostly applied courses than students who have not been identified with an LD exceptionality. This data showed that students with an LD exceptionality were about two to four times more likely to be taking mostly applied courses in Grade 9.

 

Table 4: Percentage of students with LD exceptionalities and students without LD exceptionalities taking mostly applied level courses, Grade 9

	Students with LDs	Students without LDs
Hamilton-Wentworth	71	27
Keewatin-Patricia	69	35
Lakehead	86	41
London Catholic	71	20
Ottawa-Carleton	40	11
Peel	44	28
Simcoe-Muskoka Catholic	No data	No data
Thames Valley	16	8

 

As discussed in greater detail in sections 6, The experience of students and families, and 11, Accommodations, the inquiry revealed that streaming happens in other ways.[400] Two notable examples are streaming students with reading disabilities into segregated special education classrooms that are not equipped to address their reading skills, or out of French Immersion programs. Ottawa-Carleton trustees have expressed concerns about the large number of students with IEPs in the English stream.[401] As well, a report prepared by the board in 2019 found that students at English-only schools tend to come from lower-income areas than students attending schools that offer French Immersion.[402]

In June 2020, the Ministry of Education (Ministry) recognized the negative outcomes caused by streaming and announced that beginning with Grade 9 math in 2021, it would begin a process of deferring streaming from Grade 9 to Grade 10.[403] At the time of writing this report, there was little information about the de-streaming process, or the resources and supports that will be available to change the pathways of children and youth. Addressing the inequities that lead to streaming is complex and should begin in the earliest elementary school years.[404] Ensuring that more students have the reading skills necessary to achieve their academic potential is consistent with the goal of de-streaming in Ontario. 

Back to top

Graduation rates

Research shows a relationship between scores on literacy assessments and high school completion. For example, students with poor scores on the PISA reading assessment are less likely to complete high school. Reading proficiency continues to influence high school graduation rates even after controlling for other variables such as gender, mother tongue, parental education, family income, location of residence, and academic and social engagement.[405]

As of August 31, 2018, 81.2% of Ontario students were graduating with an Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD) in four years and 87.1% were graduating with an OSSD in five years. Table 5 shows the five-year graduation rate of students in the eight inquiry school boards, as reported by the Ministry.

 

Table 5: Five-year graduation rate, as reported by the Ministry

Hamilton-Wentworth	79.7%
Keewatin-Patricia	76.1%
Lakehead	75.5%
London Catholic	90.4%
Ottawa-Carleton	88.3%
Peel	89.2%
Simcoe Muskoka Catholic	88.2%
Thames Valley	79.1%

 

The OHRC requested data from the eight inquiry school boards to attempt to determine whether, consistent with the research, students identified as having an LD exceptionality are more likely to leave school without getting their OSSD. Based on the responses, school boards in Ontario do not appear to be tracking graduation rates by exceptionality.

With the data provided, we were unable to draw conclusions about whether students with learning disabilities are less likely to obtain their OSSD. One board, Ottawa-Carleton, provided an Annual Student Achievement Report (2018–2019) that analyzed achievement data to measure progress in student learning. The stated goal of this was to help inform strategies in the board’s improvement plan for student achievement and well-being. In terms of accumulating credits and graduating, the report found that “specific groups of students, especially Indigenous students and students with special education needs continue to underperform as compared to all students.”

While this was one good example of a board analyzing data on student achievement, it was not consistent practice across the inquiry school boards. For a detailed discussion on shortcomings in data collection and monitoring student outcomes, see section 13. Systemic issues.

Back to top

Post-secondary attendance

According to the HEQCO, students with disabilities, students from low-income families, Indigenous students and students whose parents do not have a post-secondary degree or diploma continue to be excluded from post-secondary education and the economic benefits it brings.[406]

Little Ontario data is available on post-secondary pathways for students with special education needs generally, or learning or reading disabilities specifically. However, data that does exist shows that students with special education needs or who do poorly on literacy assessments, including EQAO and PISA, are much less likely to enroll in post-secondary education.[407]

A 2012 research paper published by the HEQCO looked at TDSB data on students with “special needs” (students identified with an exceptionality through the IPRC process). The paper noted that only a small proportion of students with a special needs designation, in this case defined as an IPRC designation, are in a position to transition successfully to either an Ontario university or college.[408] The paper found:

...the post-high school pathways of the TDSB students in our sample generally conformed to those reported in the literature. When compared to graduates without [special needs] a higher proportion of students with [special needs] dropped out or went directly to the workforce. Only 18 per cent of students with [special needs] confirmed university acceptance while 58 per cent of students without [special needs] did so. However, 24 per cent of students with [special needs] pursued community college while only 14 per cent of students without [special needs] followed this path.[409]

There is also a correlation between scores on standardized assessments and post-secondary attendance. Students with disabilities tend to score lower on standardized assessments (see for example EQAO data). A Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) paper noted that studies have found that the likelihood of attending post-secondary education increases as PISA reading scores increase.[410] One study on Canadian students found that only 28% of 15-year-old students who scored at level 1 in reading (the lowest level) in PISA in 2000 had attended some form of post-secondary education by age 19. This number rose to 45% for level 2, 65% for level 3, 76% for students at level 4 and 88% for students at level 5 (the highest level of reading proficiency).[411]

Students with higher PISA literacy scores are also more likely to attend university rather than college. The paper noted:

Reading proficiency at age 15 had the most significant effect on a student’s choice of postsecondary pathway, even after controlling for other variables such as gender, mother tongue, place of residence, parental education and family income...[412]

This finding shows how important early literacy and reading achievement is for traditionally marginalized populations, and for promoting equity in the Ontario education system.

The OHRC requested data from the eight inquiry school boards on acceptance to college or university for graduating students with and without an LD exceptionality. Once again, the OHRC found that school boards do not consistently or reliably track this information. This report makes recommendations related to better data collection and monitoring of student achievement in section 13, Systemic issues.

Back to top