Language selector

5. How Ontario students are performing

Page controls

Page content

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


[317] Based on 2018-2019 EQAO data. See: Highlights of the Provincial Results: Literacy English-Language Students, 2018-2019 (2019), online (pdf): Ontario, Education Quality and Accountability Office  eqao.com/provincial-report-highlights-literacy-2019-pdf/ [EQAO, Literacy Highlights 2018-2019].

[318] Students with special education needs (excluding gifted) are students with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) who may or may not have been identified as “exceptional pupils” through an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC), and are receiving special education programs and services. See ibid.

[319] Ontario Student Achievement 2018-2019, EQAO's Provincial Elementary School Report (2019) at 28,  35, online (pdf): Ontario, Education Quality and Accountability Office eqao.com/provincial-report-elementary-2019-pdf/ [EQAO, Elementary School Report 2018-2019].

[320] TDSB, “Right to Read: Closing Achievement Gaps,” supra note 20 at 4. For U.S. data see B Hussar et al, “The Condition of Education 2020” (2020), online: National Centre for Education Statistics nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2020144 [Hussar]; NAEP, “Nation’s Report Card: Reading,” supra note 21.

[321] TDSB, “Right to Read: Closing Achievement Gaps,” supra note 20 at 4. For U.S. data see Hussar, supra note 320. See also NAEP, “Nation’s Report Card: Reading, supra note 21.

[322] Strengthening Our Learning Journey: Technical Appendix to the Third Progress Report on the Implementation of the Ontario First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Education Police Framework (2018) at 9, online (pdf): Ontario, Ministry of Education files.ontario.ca/edu_1_1/edu-ieo-technical-appendix-third-report-en-2021-10-28.pdf [Ontario Ministry of Education, Strengthening Our Learning Journey: Technical Appendix].

[323] EQAO, Literacy Highlights 2018-2019, supra note 316. This report focuses on reading assessment results. However, reading and writing are closely related and depend on many of the same skills. They are both important components of literacy. See: The Reading Writing Connection (2012), online (pdf): National Institute of Child Health & Human Development files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571549.pdf.

[324] R S Brown & G Parekh, The Intersection of Disability, Achievement, and Equity: A System Review of Special Education in the TDSB (2013) Toronto District School Board Research Report No. 12-13-12, online (pdf): Toronto District School Board tdsb.on.ca/Portals/research/docs/reports/Intersection%20of%20Disability%20Achievement%20and%20Equity.pdf [Brown & Parekh, The Intersection of Disability, Achievement, and Equity].

[325] Failing to achieve reading proficiency by the end of Grade 1 is associated with an increased risk of drop-out. Partanen & Siegel, “Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities,” supra note 65; see also Trzesniewski et al, supra note 80.

[326] Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, “A Literature Framework to Guide the Research Study,” supra note 77 at 14; Rojewski supra note 81.

[327] See Pierre Brochu et al, PIRLS/ePIRLS 2016: Canada in Context – Canadian Results from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (Canada: Council of Ministers of Education, 2016) at 1, online (pdf): Council of Ministers of Education, Canada cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/385/PIRLS2016-Report-EN.pdf [Brochu et al, PIRLS 2016: Canada in Context].

[328] Value for Money Audit: Curriculum Development, Implementation and Delivery (2020) at 46, online (pdf): Office of the Auditor General auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en20/20VFM_03curriculum.pdf [Auditor General, 2020 Value for Money Audit: Curriculum].

[329] IDA, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores, supra note 59 at 2, 3, 13.

[330] Auditor General, 2020 Value for Money Audit: Curriculum, supra note 328 at 46.

[331] EQAO, Elementary School Report 2018-2019, supra note 319 at 28, 35. 

[332] Includes participating and non-participating students. The percentage of participating students who met the provincial standard in Grade 3 was 77%, see: Ontario, Education Quality and Accountability Office, School Board Report (TDSB): Assessments of Reading, Writing and Mathematics 2018-2019, (2019) at 7 (accessed September 2020, no longer available online) [EQAO School Board Report (TDSB) 2018-2019].

[333] IDA, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores, supra note 59 at 3.

[334] Includes participating and non-participating students. The percentage of participating students who met the provincial standard in Grade 6 was 83%, see: EQAO School Board Report (TDSB) 2018-2019, supra note 332 at 11.

[335] IDA, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores, supra note 59 at 20.

[336] Torgesen, “The Prevention of Reading Difficulties,” supra note 59; Moats, Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science, supra note 22; Partanen & Siegel, “Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities,” supra note 65.

[337] EQAO Elementary School Report 2018-2019, supra note 319. 

[338] The Auditor General of Ontario defines boards north of North Bay as northern boards. Auditor General, 2017 Annual Report, supra note 183 at s 3.12, 624.

[339] Ibid at s 3.12, 623. There was less of a discrepancy on the Grade 6 reading assessment, but the difference between northern boards increased once again on the Grade 10 OSSLT.

[340] EQAO, Literacy Highlights 2018-2019, supra note 316 at 3.

[341] Ontario Student Achievement, 2018-2019: EQAO's Provincial Secondary School Report (2019) at 3, online (pdf): Ontario, Education and Accountability Office eqao.com/provincial-report-secondary-2019-pdf/ [EQAO, Secondary School Report 2018-2019].

[342] Students for whom there is work for both sessions of the administration of the OSSLT and who were assigned an achievement result (successful, not yet successful). Students who are not working toward an OSSD, students who were absent and students who were deferred are excluded.

[343] Previously eligible includes all students who were absent or deferred, or were unsuccessful during one or more previous administrations; were previously exempted but are now working toward an OSSD; entered Grade 11 or 12 from out of province or enrolled in an adult education program and began Grade 9 in or after the 2000–2001 school year. For definitions, see: EQAO, Secondary School Report, 2018-2019, supra note 341 at 62.

[344] For more findings related to the OSSLT, see IDA, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores, supra note 59.

[345] The IDA found only 38% of ELL students passed the assessment compared to 60% of non-ELL students; ibid at 3.

[346] Based on the number of students in the cohort who took part in the OSSLT and for whom EQAO has Grade 3 and Grade 6 assessment results (including students who took part, were exempted or provided no work to be scored); Highlights of the Provincial Results, Literacy, 2017–2018, (2018) at 4, online (pdf): Ontario, Education and Accountability Office eqao.com/provincial-report-highlights-literacy-2018-pdf/ [EQAO, Literacy Highlights 2017-2018].

[347] Of the 18 384 students (18%) who had not met the reading standard in Grade 3 but had achieved it in Grade 6, 70% (12 847) were successful on the OSSLT. Of the 4,032 students (4%) who had met the reading standard in Grade 3 but not in Grade 6, 57% (2,294) were successful on the OSSLT. See: EQAO, Literacy Highlights 2017-2018, supra note 346 at 3.

[348] 2018-2019 Annual Report (2019) at 23, online (pdf): Ontario, Education and Accountability Office eqao.com/annual-report-2018-2019-pdf/ [EQAO, 2018-2019 Annual Report].

[349] EQAO, Elementary School Report, supra note 319 at 2.

[350] IDA, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores, supra note 59 at 16.

[351] “Submission to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Right to Ready Inquiry” (March 2020) at 5, online (pdf): International Dyslexia Association Ontario idaontario.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IDA-Ontario-Submission-to-the-OHRC-Right-to-Read-Inquiry-March-20 20.pdf [IDA, “Submission to OHRC Right to Read Inquiry”].

[352] IDA, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores, supra note 59 at 3.

[353] To receive an exemption, a student must have an IEP or be in alternate programming that does not access the grade-level curriculum. If a student has a different situation (for example illness or a personal situation), the students may not attend the test and will be recorded as absent, but not exempt.

[354] According to the EQAO Administration and Accommodation Guide which was provided to the OHRC by a school board.

[355] IDA, Lifting the Curtain on EQAO Scores, supra note 59.

[356] Kevin S McCrew et al, “An Investigation of the Exclusion of Students with Disabilities in National Data Collection Programs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis” (1993) 15:3 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 339, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015003339; July L Elliott et al, “What About Assessment and Accountability? Practical Implications for Educators” (1998) 31:1 Teaching Exceptional Children 20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599980310013; see also: Matthew J Scheulka, “Excluding students with disabilities from the culture of achievement: the case of the TIMSS, PIRLS, and PISA” (2012) 28:2 Journal of Education Policy 216, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.708789.

[357] In the 2019–20 school year, 348,000 students had an IEP; Auditor General, 2020 Value for Money Audit: Curriculum, supra note 328 at 8.

[358] Rounded to the nearest whole per cent. If the decimal portion was less than 0.5, we rounded down; if it was greater than 0.5, we rounded up. If the decimal portion was exactly 0.5, we rounded up if the place value to the left of the decimal was an odd number and down if it was an even number.

[359] Includes participating and non-participating students.

[360] Includes participating and non-participating students.

[361] Includes participating and non-participating students.

[362] Total number of students in grades 3 and 6 at the following school boards with SEN or LD designation:

 

Grade 3 students with special education needs

Grade 3 students with LDs

Grade 6 students with special education needs

Grade 6 students with LDs

 Hamilton-Wentworth

633

8

839

88

Keewatin-Patricia

45

0

71

3

Lakehead

233

2

159

16

London Catholic

186

12

246

52

Ottawa-Carleton

953

33

1140

103

Peel

1297

102

1944

391

Simcoe Muskoka

Catholic

274

5

333

38

Thames

Valley

676

19

1114

286

 

[363] As very few students have been identified with an LD exceptionality by Grade 3, the Grade 3 exemption numbers are not significant.

[364] Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percent. If the decimal portion was less than 0.5, we rounded down; if it was greater than 0.5, we rounded up. If the decimal portion was exactly 0.5, we rounded up if the place value to the left of the decimal was an odd number and down if it was an even number.

[365] N/D: “No data available” indicates there were no students in that group.

[366] The Ministry of Education states that it is a reasonable hypothesis that a significant portion of students receiving special education programs and services, but not identified by an IPRC, have learning disabilities (144,987 or 7.1% of total enrollment); from Ontario Ministry of Education, Special Education Update, supra note 44 at 5. In Ottawa-Carleton’s recent census (2019-2020), learning disability was the disability most commonly reported by either students or parents/guardians. Among students who self-identified as having a disability, 51.4% reported having a learning disability and 48.9% of parents/guardians who reported having a disability said they had a learning disability; see “Valuing Voices – Identity Matters!” (2020), online (pdf): Ottawa-Carleton District School Board ocdsb.ca/UserFiles/Servers/Server_55394/File/Our%20Schools/Equity,%20Diversity%20and%20Inclusion/Valuing%20Voices/Valuing%20Voices%20IDB%20Infographic.pdf [Ottawa-Carleton, “Valuing Voices”]. In Peel’s 2018 census, learning disability was the highest reported disability; see “STUDENT CENSUS 2018: Special Report Students with Special Education Needs” (2020), online (pdf): Peel District School Board FINALStudent-Census-2018-StudentsWithSpecialEducationNeeds_July14.pdf (peelschools.org) at 5.

[367] Ontario has taken part in PIRLS since 2001, so it is possible to track Ontario’s progress over time.

[368] For more detail on how PIRLS is administered and what it assesses, see Pierre Brochu et al, PIRLS 2016: Canada in Context, supra note 327.

[369] See ibid at 1.

[370] Pierre Brochu et al, PIRLS 2016: Canada in Context, supra note 327.

[371] Matthew Schuelka, “Excluding students with disabilities from the culture of achievement: the case of TIMSS, PIRLS, and PISA” (2013) 28:2 J of Edu Policy 216, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.708789.

[372] According to PIRLS, Ontario’s score of 544 differs significantly only from B.C.’s, but not from the Canadian average or Quebec and Alberta. For the latter three, confidence intervals overlap, so it is not statistically significant.

[373] Pierre Brochu et al, PIRLS 2016: Canada in Context, supra note 327 at 37. 

[374] Ibid at 5.

[375] Defined as “students who were considered, in the professional opinion of the school principal or by other qualified staff, to have intellectual disabilities and/or who had been psychologically tested as such. The category included students who were emotionally or mentally unable to follow even the general instructions of the test.” Students were not supposed to be excluded solely because of poor academic performance or normal disciplinary problems. Systematic exclusion of all students with dyslexia, or other such learning disabilities, was not acceptable (students had to be accommodated in the test situation, if possible, rather than excluded); ibid at 81.

[376] Jake Anders et al, “Is Canada really an education superpower? The impact of non-participation on results from PISA 2015” (2021) 33 Educ Asse Eval Acc 229, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09329-5

[377] Kathryn O’Grady et al, Measuring up: Canadian Results of the OECD PISA 2018 Study (2019) at 26–27, online (pdf): Council of Ministers of Education, Canada cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/396/PISA2018_PublicReport_EN.pdf [O’Grady et al, Canadian Results – PISA 2018].

[378] Ibid at 19.   

[379] Ibid at 31—32. Ontario’s overall score has declined from 531 in 2009 to 524 in 2018.

[380] Ibid at 104.

[381] Ibid at 59.

[382] Ibid at 12.  

[383] Ibid at 34—35. In PISA, socio-economic status is measured using the index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS), which is derived from three indices: the highest occupational status of students’ parents; the highest educational level attained by students’ parents; and a number of home possessions that can be used as proxies for material wealth, including the number of books and other educational resources available in the home; see: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed, (Paris: OECD publishing, 2019), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777 [OECD, PISA 2018 Volume II]. The top 25% of the index were defined as socioeconomically advantaged students, whereas the bottom 25% were defined as socio-economically disadvantaged students; see: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ well-being, (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777 [OECD, PISA 2015 Volume III].

[384] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development / F Avvisati et al, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2018: Canada, (2019) OECD Country Note, online (pdf): Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_CAN.pdf [OECD, PISA 2018: Canada Country Note].

[385] O’Grady et al, Canadian Results – PISA 2018, supra note 377 at 32.

[386] “The Essential Adult Skills Initiative” (last visited 24 January 2022), online: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario

heqco.ca/en-ca/OurPriorities/LearningOutcomes/Pages/the-essential-adult-skills-initiative.aspx.

[387] Algonquin College, Centennial College, Conestoga College, Fanshawe College, Fleming College, George Brown College, Humber College, Sault College, Seneca College, Sheridan College, St. Lawrence College, Algoma University, Brescia University College at Western University, Brock University, McMaster University, Nipissing University, Queen’s University, University of Guelph, York University, Quest University Canada.

[388] Harvey P Weingarten et al, Measuring Essential Skills of Postsecondary Students: Final Report of the Essential Adult Skills Initiative (Toronto: The Higher Education Council of Ontario, 2018) at 45 & 50.

[389] “Director’s response to the Enhancing Equity Task Force Report” (31 January 2018) at 10, online: Toronto District School Board tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/docs/Response%20to%20Report_Jan2018_v5.pdf [TDSB, “Director’s response to the Enhancing Equity Task Force Report”]; Carl James & Tana Turner, Towards Race Equity in Education: The Schooling of Black Students in the Greater Toronto Area (Toronto: York University, 2017) at 41, online (pdf): York University edu.yorku.ca/files/2017/04/Towards-Race-Equity-in-Education-April-2017.pdf [James & Turner: Towards Race Equity in Education].

[390] See Daniel Hamlin & David Cameron, Applied or Academic: High Impact Decisions for Ontario Students (Toronto: People for Education, 13 April 2015) at 3, online (pdf): People for Education peopleforeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Applied-or-Academic-Report-2015.pdf [Hamlin & Cameron, Applied or Academic]; Sharma Queiser & Sabrina De Araujo, Still Streamed: How High Impact Decisions are Shaping Students’ Futures (Toronto: Social Planning Toronto, September 2017) at 2, online (pdf): Social Planning Toronto d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/socialplanningtoronto/pages/1728/attachments/original/1541612433/Streaming_Report-September-v1.1-web.pdf?1541612433 [Queiser & De Araujo, Still Streamed].

[391] Hamlin & Cameron, Applied or Academic, supra note 390 at 5.

[392] For reports on the inequitable impact of streaming on marginalized students see: Queiser & De Araujo, Still Streamed, supra note 390 at 2; Hamlin & Cameron, Applied or Academic, supra note 390 at 5; James & Turner: Towards Race Equity in Education, supra note 389 at 41.

[393] Chadha et al, supra note 283.

[394] Ibid at 11–13.

[395] Ibid at 6.

[396] Ibid.

[397] David Clandfield et al, “Restacking the Deck: Streaming by class, race and gender in Ontario schools” (Winter 2014) 23: 114 Our Schools/Our Selves (Special Issue) at 221, online (pdf): http://easywebdesignsolutions.com/georgemartell/email43/docs/OS%23114Restacking%20the%20Deck%20online.pdf [Clandfield et al, “Restacking the Deck”]; see also Queiser & De Araujo, Still Streamed, supra note 390.

[398] TDSB, “Director’s response to the Enhancing Equity Task Force Report,” supra note 389 at 10; Clandfield et al, “Restacking the Deck,” supra note 397 at 9; Hamlin & Cameron, Applied or Academic, supra note 390 at 5. 

[399] The Boards were asked: What percentage of Grade 9 students who have an LD exceptionality are taking mostly applied versus academic courses? Ontario boards do not have a consistent way of tracking academic pathways, as such boards may have used different methodologies when compiling this data. The review of the Peel District School Board also assessed whether the majority of the courses taken were academic, applied, or locally developed; Chadha et al, supra note 283 at 6.

[400] See also Clandfield et al, “Restacking the Deck,” supra note 397 at 80.

[401] “English-track students less privileged than immersion peers, report finds,” CBC News (1 November 2019), online: CBC News cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/social-streaming-in-ottawa-french-and-english-schools-1.5342800 [CBC News, “English-track students less privileged than immersion peers”].

[402] Jacquie Miller, “Data reveal issues with newcomers, low-income kids in Ottawa streaming into English, not French immersion” CBC News (30 October 2019), online: CBC News cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/social-streaming-in-ottawa-french-and-english-schools-1.5342800 [Miller, “Data reveal issues”].

[403] Ontario, Office of the Premier, New Release, “News Room: Ontario Taking Bold Action to Address Racism and Inequity in Schools” (9 July 2020), online: Government of Ontario news.ontario.ca/en/release/57543/ontario-taking-bold-action-to-address-racism-and-inequity-in-schools-1.

[404] People for Education, Choosing Courses for High School: Achievement gaps, informed decision-making, and inequality (2014), online (pdf): People for Education peopleforeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/People-for-Education-report-on-streaming-in-Ontario-schools.pdf.

[405] Nicholas Dion & Vicky Maldonado, “Making the Grade? Troubling Trends in Postsecondary Student Literacy” (31 October 2013) Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario Issue Paper No. 16 at 11, online (pdf): Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/HEQCO%20Literacy%20ENG.pdf [Dion & Maldonado, “Making the Grade”].

[406] “Access to Postsecondary Education” (last visited 24 January 2022), online (pdf): Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario heqco.ca/en-ca/OurPriorities/Access/Pages/home.aspx [Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, “Access to Postsecondary Education”]; see also Clandfield et al, “Restacking the Deck,” supra note 397 at 11–12.

[407] Ibid; see also Clandfield et al, “Restacking the Deck,” supra note 397 at 11–12. The HEQCO refers to post-secondary education as enrollment at a college or university and does not include taking part in an apprenticeship for a skilled trade.

[408] Robert Sweet et al, Special Needs Students and Transitions to Postsecondary Education (Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, 2012) at 2, online (pdf): Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Special%20Needs%20ENG.pdf [Sweet et al: Special Needs Students and Transitions to Postsecondary Education].

[409] Ibid.

[410] For discussion see Dion & Maldonado, “Making the Grade,” supra note 405 at 15–16.

[411] Tamara Knighton & Patrick Bussière, “Educational Outcomes at Age 19 Associated with Reading Ability at Age 15” (2006) Statistics Canada Research Paper No. 81-595-MIE2006043–043 at 14, online (pdf): Statistics Canada www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/81-595-m/81-595-m2006043-eng.pdf?st=24sqbQ1N.

[412] Dion & Maldonado, “Making the Grade,” supra note 405 at 16.


 

Book Prev / Next Navigation