Susi’s 7-year EQAO Ratings

Susi’s Rankings are based on the results from EQAO testing in Mississauga over the last seven years.  They reflect the consistency of a school’s performance. A logical formula was developed from the pass-rates from each school for the subjects Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. (“Pass-rates” are the percentage of students who are at or above government standards in their ongoing learning development curve.)

First, for each of these years, each individual school pass-rate for each grade in each subject was mathematically divided into the Peel Board Average, and a comparative value was reached.

Next, the previous seven years were weighted so that the more recent years would be more important than older years to a school’s ultimate rating. Each of the three subjects (Reading, Writing, Mathematics) would then have its own 7-year rating, and for the school’s final rating, the ratings were added together and divided by three to arrive at a composite rating.

Obviously, the higher the composite rating, the higher the ranking. Anything above 1.000 is considered to have above average pass-rates (relative to all the schools in the Peel Board), and anything below 1.000 is considered to have below-average pass-rates.

Yet, while this is an important gauge on a school’s performance, it certainly isn’t the only factor parents should consider. Because of socio-economic factors, some schools appear to be much EASIER to teach at than others, which is why I established the Teacher Difficulty Index.

The Teacher Difficulty Index

The reason for coming up with a Teacher Difficulty Index (TDI) is simple: All things being equal, if a school is the EASIEST to teach at, then that school should have the highest pass-rates. Conversely, if a school is the HARDEST to teach at, then that school should have the lowest pass-rates. Deviations from these assumptions may provide an authoritative glimpse into a school administration’s actual performance relative to other schools in the Board. That is, those schools that are performing above socio-economic expectations can be (rightly or wrongly) assumed to employ exemplary teachers and administrators, while those performing below expectations should be concerned. A controversial assumption? Perhaps. But it is still clearly relevant to parents who need to quantify performance for comparison.

The TDI is calculated from an involved formula comprising of 2007-2011 EQAO data and 2006 Census data (presently, the last available Census). The data involved are all considered to be effectual factors against a school’s EQAO pass-rates. From the 2007-2011 EQAO data, we consider a school’s percentage of ESL/EDL students, the percentage of students comprised of Recent Immigrants, and also the percentage of students not born in Canada, but have still been in the country for more than three years (Integrated Immigrants).  From the 2006 Census, we consider the Income Level of the households in the school district, the number of parents in this district that hold University Degrees, and finally the percentage of Single Parents in the district. (The 2006 census may feel a tad old, but the numbers relative to each other can be assumed to be generally the same.)

All the above factors can be argued to affecting a child’s performance in the classroom, and thus the ability of the teacher to effectively teach. (Class-size and maternity-leaves may also be affecting factors, but have been left out because of high ambiguity and incomplete data. French Immersion schools are said to generally attract a more well-prepared student, but also are not considered for the TDI.) The most recent two years of EQAO data were given double the weight in the final computations.

If a school has a TDI number of above zero, it is considered to be harder than average to teach there – the higher the number, the harder it is to teach. The hardest school (Floradale) has a TDI of 152.97.

If a school has a TDI number of below zero, it is considered easier than average to teach there. The easiest school (Kenollie) has a TDI of -154.26.

The Potency Rankings

po·ten·cy [poht-n-see]
noun - capacity to be, become, or develop; potentiality.

Once a school’s TDI is established, we can compare a school’s “anticipated” results with its actual results. For example, if “School A” had the 10th-best EQAO scores over the last seven years, and they are considered to be the 4th-easiest school to teach at, it can be said that this school is performing slightly BELOW expectations. Conversely, if “School B” had the 42nd-best EQAO scores over the last seven years, but they are considered the 71st-easiest school (8th-hardest) to teach at, it can be said that this school is performing well ABOVE expectations.

And those schools that are performing above expectations have inherent capacity for growth and development; that is, they have undeniable potential to perform much better in the EQAO tests and likely could if their socio-economic demographics were more favourable.

Thus a school that is performing above expectations is said to have a high potency. This is crucial information to a disciplined parent because any school with high potency WILL teach their child to their full potential, as long as they receive the usual and proper support at home. And here is how we quantify that potency (using Mississauga Public schools as an example):

When comparing an individual school’s EQAO pass-rates to the Board Average, we come up with a figure relative to 1.000 (the Board Average). The highest number a school received in the Peel Board is 1.376 (Kenollie). The lowest number a school received in the Peel Board is 0.725 (school name withheld). These are figures that are relative to the norm.

When comparing the ranking of EQAO pass-rates to the ranking of Easiest Schools To Teach At (using the TDI) we come up with an Expected Ranking Differential. In the previous example, “School A” would have an Expected Ranking Differential of -6, while “School B” would fare better with an Expected Ranking Differential of +29. These too, then, are figures that are relative to the norm.

As it turns out, both of these figures are relative to the same norm (an average school), and thus we can create a parallel from the top-ranked EQAO school (Kenollie) to the top-ranked Expected Ranking Differential school (Thornwood). We can use the top-ranked EQAO school number as a multiplier to the actual EQAO number of the top-ranked Expected Ranking Differential school. And going on down the list, we can use the 10th-ranked EQAO school (Credit Valley) number as a multiplier to the actual EQAO number of the 10th-ranked Expected Ranking Differential school (Burnhamthorpe), and so on! This resulting number, then, represents a school’s POTENCY.

The Potency Rankings, then, reflects what a school’s performance may be if their potential would to be realized through an equalization of socio-economic conditions across the city.

And voila!

The Potency Rankings was then coupled with the 7-Year EQAO Ranking to arrive at a final ranking, called the Susi Ranking (“Overall Rank”).

NB: Fraser Institute Rankings will not be included any longer, for two reasons: They come out much later than the Susi Rankings (Susi Rankings in October; Fraser Rankings in January); and they only include one-third of public elementary schools in Mississauga. (However, they still remain relevant for Catholic schools in Mississauga, and many other cities, too, but not for PUBLIC elementary schools in Mississauga.)