the peel district school board's role in supporting ... students and families living... ·...

,,

PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD . 10.1 Instructional Programs/Curriculum Committee February 21, 2017

The Peel District School Board's Role in Supporting Students/families Living in Poverty: Part 2 -Poverty Indicators

Recommendation

It is recommended that this report be received.

Background

The Peel District School Board (PDSB) Students and Families living in Poverty Report provides a series of performance indicators designed to capture the multidimensional picture of poverty in the PDSB.

The report highlights 8 key poverty performance indicators: children living in poverty, students from lone parent families, students with special education needs by exceptionality, persistent absenteeism, children's school readiness, students meeting EQAO provincial standards, high school graduation rates, and French Immersion student enrolment.

The poverty indicators serve to characterize and understand the complexity of poverty in the PDSB. Additionally, the indicators can be used to monitor our work and progress towards achievement of the PDSB's equity goals.

Prepared by:

Kim Bennett, Research Officer, Research and Accountability Paul Favaro, Chief of Research and Evaluation, Research and Accountability

Submitted by:

Adrian Graham, Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Support Services

• peel District School Board ....._,

The Peel District School Board Students and Families Living in Poverty

Kim Bennett. M.Sc.

Research & Accountability

Paul Favaro, Ph.D.

February 2018

putting researeh into p111ctice

30

Peter Joshua, Director of Education Poleen Grewal, Associate Director of Instructional and Equity Support Services

Research and Accountability Department

Kim Bennett, M.Sc. Research Officer

Rossana Bisceglia, Ph.D. Research Officer

Paul Favaro, Ph.D. Chief Research Officer

Marija Glisic, Ph.D. Research Officer

Pat Hare Administrative Assistant

Jeffrey Napierala Research Analyst

Aimee Wolanski, Ed.D. Research Officer

Suggested Citation: Bennett, K., & Favaro, P. (2018). The Peel District School-Students and Families Living in Poverty: Poverty Indicators. Mississauga, ON: Peel District Schoot Board.

© Peel District School Board

The Peel District School Board - Students and Families Living in Poverty POVERTY INDICATORS

Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy Indicators "The causes and consequences of poverty are multi-dimensional, and with limited resources, we need to be strategic with our investments. That's why our strategy has a dedicated focus on measuring success and investing in programs that work. Indicators give an important picture of the impact of poverty in our province. They help us track our progress and, assessing where we have made progress, uncover lessons and solutions that we can replicate elsewhere."1

INTRODUCTION

The Peel District School Board's (PDSB) role in assisting students and their families who are living in poverty supports the Province's and the Region of Peel's Poverty Reduction Strategies. This report is the next step following Report 1: The Peel District School Board's Role in Supporting Students/Families Living in Poverty (October/November 2017). In this report, a series of eight indicators are presented to track and monitor the progress and effectiveness of the PDSB's poverty amelioration programs, interventions, and strategies. The Indicators are categorized as follows: Key Poverty Indicators, Poverty Outcome Indicators, and Poverty Demographic and Program Indicators. Four poverty indicators are aligned with Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy Indicators (Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4) and the remaining four Indicators (Indicators 5, 6, 7, 8) are measures specific to the Peel District School Board. Each Indicator is analyzed by disaggregating the Social Risk Index (SRI) into ten groups called "SRI Decites".

KEY POVERTY INDICATORS INDICATOR 1: Students Living in Poverty

Why it matters: Children living in poverty are less likely to perform well in school and grow up to find stable employment, and are more likely to experience physical and mental health issues. The provincial government set a target in 2008 to reduce child poverty by 25 percent in five years. Key Poverty Indicator Measures: 1) Median Household Income- After Tax (AT); 2) Percentage Income from Government Transfer Payments; 3) Percentage of Students living in Poverty (based on Low Income Measure- After Tax (LIM-ATSO) [0·17 years))

POVERTY OUTCOME INDICATORS INDICATOR 2: School Readiness1

Why it matters: Children have a better chance to succeed as students and later in life when they have competencies and abilities for success in school. Indicator Measure: The Early Development Instrument (EDI) measures the percentage of children aged five to six who demonstrate they are on track across five domains of child development and have competencies and abilities in all EDI domains for success in school.

INDICATOR 3: Students Meeting Academic Standards (Grades 3 and 6) Why it matters: Students who achieve early success in school are more likely to continue to perform well academically, go on to postsecondary education and secure meaningful employment. Indicator Measure: Percentage of students in Grades 3 and 6 who score in the highest two levels (at or above provincial standard- Levels 3 or 4) on province-wide reading, writing and math assessments.

The Peel District School Board · Students and Families Living in Poverty: Poverty Indicators Research and Accountability - Director's Office

Page 1 February 2018

32

INDICATOR 4: High School Graduation Rates Why it matters: Students who graduate high school are more likely to find meaningful employment and will have greater earning potential throughout their lives compared to those who do not graduate. Indicator Measure: Percentage of students entering high school at the same time who graduate within five years o f having started Grade 9.

POVERTY DEMOGRAPHIC AND PROGRAM INDICATORS INDICATOR 5: Students Enrolled in the French Immersion Program Why it matters: The French Immersion {FI) Program in the PDSB begins in grade 1 for early immersion. The purpose of this immersion program is to develop students' communication skills in the French language. Indicator Measure: Percentage of students enrolled in French Immersion.

INDICATOR 6: Students from One-Parent Families Why it matters: Families with one parent face many challenges including, financial, social, emotional, access to resources, etc. Indicator Measure: Percentage of students living in one-parent families

INDICATOR 7: Students with Identified Special Education Exceptionalities Why it matters: Students with identified Special Education exceptionalities are differentially affected by poverty. Indicator Measure: Percentage of students w ith identified special education exceptionalities

INDICATOR 8: Persistent Absenteeism Why it matters: Students who are absent more than 10% of instructional school days are less likely to be successful in school. Indicator Measure: Percentage of elementary students who were absent for more than 10% of the school year (19.4 days out of 194 instructional days), were persistently absent.

Data Sources 1) Student Information System Data: a) Demographics, b) Attendance 2) StatCan Canadian Census 2016 and Environics Analytics Demostats 2017 3) EOAO 2016-2017 4) Socia l Risk Index {SRI)- updated version 2017

The Peel District School Board -Students and Families Living in Pouer·ty: Poverty Indicators Research and Accountability - Director's Office

Page2 Febr·uary 2018

SOCIAL RISK INDEX (SRI) DECILES and SRI GRADIENTS Measuring Our Progress and Equity

"Socioeconomic gradients are markers of how well schools achieve an equitable distribution of outcomes for students with differing socioeconomic backgrounds. Steep gradients (i.e., greater percentage difference) indicate large disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged students, whereas flat or level gradients indicate a more equitable distribution of outcomes."14

Poverty is multi-dimensional and involves overlapping and interlinked elements. The economic aspect of poverty has been quantified using individual variables such as: income, government transfer payments, low income measures. However, to capture a more complete picture of the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, the Social Risk Index (SRI) paints a more complete picture of poverty than any one indicator on its own.

In this report, the SRI is used as the poverty grouping variable. SRI Deciles are created by grouping students into 10 groups (approximately 10%) based on their SRI scores. Decile 1 represents the bottom 10% of students (highest poverty) and Decile 10 is the top 10% of students (lowest poverty).

The SRI Decile Gradient is calculated as the percentage difference between Decile 1 and Decile 10 (% Difference) and provides a measure of the magnitude of the socioeconomic gap between students experiencing the highest level of poverty and lowest level of poverty.

Moving Toward Equity

1 Highest Poverty

2 3

The Peel District School Board -

4 5 6

SRI DECILES

Students and Families Living in Poverty: Poverty Indicators Research and Accountability - Director's Office

7 8 9

EQUITY

INEQUITY

10

Lowest Poverty

Page3 February 2018

34

KEY POVERTY INDICATORS INDICATOR 1: Students Living in Poverty

The economic aspect of poverty is examined using the foltowing three measures:

1) Median Household Income- After Tax Median household income (after tax) is an abso lute poverty measure. One limitation of using median household income is that it does not take into account the number of people in the household.

2) Income Derived from Government Transfer Payments The percentage of income derived from Government Transfer Payments provides a measure of the extent of reliance on social assistance.

3) Low Income Measure- After Tax (LIM-ATSO)- Ages 0-17 years The t ow Income Measure- After-tax (LIM-ATSO) is a relative poverty measure and does take into account the number of people in the household. The LIM-ATSO (0-17) measures the percentage of children ages 0-17 years Uving below the cut-point income. Sn this report, LIM-ATSO is expressed as% Living in Poverty (0-17 years) and is used to estimate the number of students "Living in Poverty".

POVERTY PROFILE - Students living in Poverty by SRI Decile

SRI Decile averages for the three economic variables are shown in the table below. The estimated number of students living in poverty was determined by multiplying the average percentage living in poverty by the number of students in each decile (-15,100 students). This estimate is also expressed as a ratio, e.g., 1:3.

SRI Median Household %Income from

% Living in Poverty Estimated

Government Transfer It of Students Decile Income (AT)

Payments (0-17 years)

Living in Poverty

1 $41,624 18.8% 35.8% 5,405 1 in 3

2 $61,469 14.8% 24.3% 3,652 1 in 4

3 $72,086 12.8% 18.5% 2,814 1 in 5

4 $80,958 12.1% 17.2% 2,595 1 in 6

5 $86,706 11.2% 15.8% 2,381 1 in 6

6 $ 95,013 10.9% 16.2% 2,451 1 in 6

7 $ 103,094 10.1% 14.8% 2,236 1 in 7

8 $ 109.879 9.5% 14.3% 2,169 1 in 7

9 $ 121.267 8.7% 14.5% 2,193 1 in 7

10 $ 157,620 6.9% 12.9% 1,943 1 in 8

In the Peel District School Board

%Living in Estimated Number Poverty of Students

[O·ll years) Living in Poverty

18.4% 27,839

The Peel District School Board - Page 4 Students and Families Living ir~ Poverty: Poverty Indicators February 2018 Research and Accountability - Director's Office

I

Students Living in Poverty SRI DECILE GRADIENTS

SRI DECILES 1 2 3

SRI DECILES 1 2 3

SRI DECILES 1 2 3


4 5 6

4 5

4 5 6

7 8

7 8

7 8

9 10

I 9 10

I 9 10

PageS Febmary 2018

36

MAPPING POVERTY Is there a geographical gradient between Decile 1 and Decile 10? Is there hidden poverty?

• ••

•

•

•

DECILE 1

•

• •

. ·• • • .• :. : .

• •

' Hidden Poverty in Peel

•

• •• • •

' ••

• I • • • •

• • • ,. .. • •

~· • •

• • •

• ,.. '

• '( . •

- ---

DECILE 10

,.

•

• •

•

• • • • •

•

• •

• •

"Homelessness and poverty in the suburbs looks different- it's not as obvious as it is in downtown urban centres like Toronto or Montreal, where you think about the person sleeping outside. It manifests itself in a very different way: the post-secondary student sleeping in a car; the senior citizen biding her time at the

' public library; or the teenager couch surfing." 24

,

The Peel District School Board -Students and Families Living in Poverty: Poverty Indicators Research and Accountability - Director's Office


38

POVERTY OUTCOME INDICATORS

INDICATOR 2: School Readiness

The EDI is a 103-item questionnaire completed by kindergarten teachers in the second half of the schooJ year that measures children's ability to meet age-appropriate developmental expectations in five general domains: Physical Health and Well-being, Emotional Maturity, Social Competence, Language and Cognitive Development, and Communication and General Knowledge. EDI data contribute a developmentally-based indicator on children at the cusp between early development and school-age that, together with other indicators, can inform research and policy about the outcomes of the early years and predictors of later development.15

The EDI data show the percentage of students with competencies and abilities in all EDI domains for success in school by SRI Deciles.

SRI DECILES 1

Early Development Instrument (EDI} Percentage of Students with Competencies and Abilities in All EDI Domains

for Success in School

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

There was a 11.4% difference between Decile 1 {highest poverty) and Decile 10 {lowest poverty) measuring the percentage of students with competencies and abilities in all EDI domains for success in school.


Page 8 Febr·uary 2018

INDICATOR 3: Students Meeting Academic Standards (EQAO Grades 3 and 6)

Educational Progress was measured as the combined reading, writing and mathematics for Grade 3 and Grade 6 EQAO results. This Composite EQAO result was measured as the percentage of students at or above the Provincial Standard (Levels 3, 4).

For the PDSB in 2016-2017, the combined percentage of students at or above the provincial standard was 71.2%.

To further examine the EQAO results to investigate the impact of poverty, SRI Deciles were used to disaggregate

the data.

SRI DECILES 1 2 3

EQAO RESULTS Percentage At/Above Provincial Standard Composite Primary and Junior Divisions

Reading, Writing, and Mathematics

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

There was a 22.5 %difference between Decile 1 (highest poverty) and Decile 10 (lowest poverty) on the EQAO aggregated results.


Page9 February 2018

40

EQAO Results (2016-2017) Primary and Junior Divisions DISAGGREGATION by Subject and Grade

Further analyses were conducted to examine reading, writing, and mathematics separately by grade to investigate if there were differential effects of poverty by subject area and grade.

Grade 3 Reading

Grade 3 Writing

Grade 3 Mathematics Grade 6 Mathematics

ia111111 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 w 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 w

The SRI gradient was greater in mathematics compared to reading and writing. The difference in the mathematics results between Decile 1 and Decile 10 in Grade 6 was the greatest at 32.6%.

The Peel District School Board · Students and Families Living in Poverty: Poverty Indicators Research and Accountability - Director's Of{i~e


41

INDICATOR 4: High School Graduation Rates

SRI DECILES 1 2 3

5 Year Graduation Rate* 2012 Grade 9 Student Cohort

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

There was a 10.0% difference between Decile 1 (highest poverty) and Decile 10 (lowest poverty) for graduation rates. Thirteen percent of students in Decile 1 did not graduate with a high school diploma.

*Peel District School Board Graduation Rate Method

The Cycle of Poverty and Educational Attainment

According to the survey commissioned by the non-profit organization, Pathways to Education, the dropout risk for students is much higher in low-income communities.

Research has shown that 74 per cent of Canadians cited the lack of education as a root cause of poverty and 89 per cent said Canada should make high school graduation a national priorityY

The Peel District School Board -Students and Families Living in Poverty; Poverty Indicators Research and Accountability - Director's Office


42

POVERTY DEMOGRAPHICS AND PROGRAM INDICATORS The Poverty Demographics and Program Indicators examine student demographics and programs by SRI Deciles. These examine the differential impact of poverty on demographic and program related factors between students in Decile 1 and Decile 10.

INDICATOR 5: French Immersion

French Immersion Percentage of Students in French Immersion

1111 IIIII SRI DECILES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

INDICATOR 6: Students from One-Parent Families

Students from One-Parent Families Percentage of Students from One-Parent Families

1111 SRI DECILES 3 4

The Peel District School Board -Students and Families Living in Poverty: Povet·ty Indicators Research and Accountability - Director's Office

5

1111 6 7 8

9 10

9 10


INDICATOR 7: Students with Identified Special Education Exceptionalities

Behavioural

Identified Special Education Exceptionalities

1111111· 11111111 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10

Communication-Language Impairment Intellectual-Mild Intellectual Disability

There were disproportionately fewer gifted students in Decile 1 compared to Decile 10. There were more students with the following identified special education exceptionalities: behavioural, language 1impairment, and mild intellectual disability in Decile 1 compared to Decile 10.

Identified Special Education Exceptionalities Not Impacted by Poverty

1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10

Communication-Autism 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 Communication-Learning Disability

111111111 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10

Intellectual-Developmental Disability

The SRI gradient effects of poverty were not observed for students with the following identified special education exceptionalities: autism, learning disabilities, developmental disability, (not shown) hard of hearing, speech impairment, physical and b' ind/low vision. The SRI gradients were distributed relatively equally across all SRI Deciles.



44

INDICATOR 8: Persistent Absenteeism (Elementary)

Persistent absenteeism is defined as "any student who misses 10% or more school days for any reason, including unexcused or excused absences, over an academic year."19 Ontario elementary schools are required to have 194 days of instruction in a school year. A student who misses 19.4 days of school is deemed persistently absent.

Persistent Absenteeism Percentage of Students Absent for More than 10% of Instructional Days

SRI DECILES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

There was a high rate of persistent absenteeism in Decife 1 (21.2%) compared to Decile 10 (14.7%). Many factors that may contribute to student absenteeism, e.g., family physical and mental health, financial, transportation, perceptions and attitudes toward school. :to

School Attendance and Poverty-Related Barriers

"Low attendance is a barrier faced by some students, many of whom experience poverty and that contributes to learning gaps and prevents them from fully participating at school. Research revealed that the reasons for low attendance are complex, with resources needed to address the barriers parents face (e.g., transportation, family illness, having other small children), as well as being sensitive to cultural issues and involving parents in such a way that they feel more positive about and connected to their child's school."21

The Peel District School Board -Stndenls and Families Living in Poverty: Poverty lndicator·s Research and Accountability - Director's Office


SUMMARY

Decile Decile SRI Decile Gradient Indicators

1 10 Difference between

Decile I & 10

~ 1-0:: w 1 Students living in Poverty 35.8% 12.9% +22.9% > 0 a..

2 Students with Competencies and Abilities in All EDI

59.2% 70.6% -11.4% w Domains for Success in School ~ 0

3 Students Meeting Academic Standards

57.6% 80.1% -22.5% u (EQAO Grades 3 and 6) .....

::::> 0

4 High School Graduation Rates 87.3% 97.3% -10.0%

5 Students Enrolled in the French Immersion Program 8.3% 15.5% -7.2% c6 6 Students from One-Parent Families 32.3% 8.9% +23.4% ~~ 5:<( Students with Behavioural 24.6% 6.3% +18.3% <(0:: 16.5% 5.5% 0::0 Identified Special language Impairment +11.0% <-'0 7 Mild Intellectual Disability 18.3% 6. 1% +12.2% Oa.:: Education ~c.. w Exceptionalities Gifted 3.0% 27.8% -24.8% 0

8 Persistent Absenteeism 21.2% 14.7% +6.5%

Poverty is considered a major risk factor. Some of the factors related to poverty identified in this report are:

• Lower School Readiness

• Lower Academic Achievement • Lower rates of High School Graduation

• Fewer students in French Immersion • Fewer students identified as Gifted

• More students with Identified Special Education Exceptionalities: Behavioural, Language Impairments, Mild Intellectual Disability

• More students from One-Parent Families

• Greater Persistent Absenteeism

Being able to identify, measure, and understand poverty is crucial if we are to support the growth and development of our students.

How One Woman Reinvented School To Combat Poverty Dr. Tiffany Anderson commutes four hours every day to work, each way. When she arrives, she takes over for crossing guard duty and welcomes each student on their way to school for the day. It's just one of the ways she has taken a hands-on approach to turning around a flailing school district in a low-income neighborhood near Ferguson, Missouri. Dr. Anderson firmly believes in nurturing "the whole child" when they walk through the doors of her schools. This means needs like food, clothing, and healthcare must be addressed for disadvantaged students in order for them to have a level playing field and an ability to succeed. So, after balancing the budget and taking the school to an accredited level, Dr. Anderson installed a food pantry, laundry facilities, and a full clinic at the school. "When kids knew that we cared," said Dr. Anderson,

"There was almost like this light bulb went off, this willingness to try." 11



46

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) Ontario Ministry of Housing: Poverty Reduction Strategy (Updated: February 8, 2016, Published: August 24, 2015). Using Evidence

Based Social Policy and Measuring Success. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/using-evidence-based-social-policy-andmeasu ring-success

2) Ontario Ministry of Housing: Poverty Reduction Strategy (Updated: April3, 2017, Published: March 20, 2017). Poverty Reduction Strategy (Annual Report 2016). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/poverty-reduction-strategy-annual-report-2016#section-5

3) Ontario Ministry of Housing: Poverty Reduction Strategy (Updated: October 17, 2017, Published: September 3, 2014). Realizing Our Potential: Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy (2014-2019) . . Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/realizing-our-potentialontarros-poverty-reduction-strategy-2014-2019-all

4) Statistics Canada. Table 206-0031 - Upper income limit, income share and average of market, total and after-tax income by economic

family type and income decile, Canada and provinces, annual, CANSIM (database). Retrieved from http://www 5.statcan.gc.ca/ca nsim/a26 ?Ia ng=e ng&retrla ng=eng&id=2060091&tabMode=data Table&p1=-1&p2=9&srch La n=-1

5) Jensen, Eric. (2009). Teaching with Poverty in Mind. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/109074/chapters/HowPoverty-Affects-Behavior-and-Academic-Performa nee .aspx

6) Nocera, J. (July 27, 2012). Addressing Poverty in Schools. Retrieved from http://www.nvtimes.com/2012/07/28/opinion/noceraaddressing-poverty-in-schools.html

7) Thompson, J.G. (n.d.). How One School is Fighting Poverty. Retrieved from http://teaching.monster.com/benefits/articles/3049-howone~school-is-fighting-poverty?print=true

8) Birdsong, K. (January 6, 2016). 10 Facts About How Poverty Impacts Education. [Biog Post]. Retrieved from http://www .scilearn.com/blog/ten-facts-about-how-poverty-i m pacts-education

9) Babcock, E. D. (2014). Using Brain Science to Design New Pathways Out of Poverty. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/empathwebsite/ pdf /Resea rch-UsingBra i nScienceDestgnPathways Poverty-0 114. pdf

10) The Effects of Poverty on Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.teach-nology.com/tutorials/teaching/poverty/ 11) Ung, L. (May 26, 2016). How One Woman Reinvented School To Combat Poverty. Retrieved from

https://www. youtube.com/watch ?v=mKCnNZzha MQ&feat ure=youtu. be 12) Russell, A. (n.d.). Charting Students' Pathways Out of Poverty. Retrieved from https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/article/charting-students

pathways-out-poverty 13) Siskar, J. (n.d.). Preparing Teachers for Poverty's Challenges. Retrieved from

https://ppgbuffalo .org/files/ documents/education/teaching/education- preparing_ teachers_for _povertys_challenges.pdf 14) Willms, J. D. (2002) Vulnerable Children. Edmonton, Alberta: The University of Alberta Press. 15) EDI. (2016). What is the ED/? Retrieved from https://edi.offordcentre.com/about/what-is-the-edi/ 16) Willms, J.D. (2004). Raising and Levelling the Bar. Retrieved from

http://www. un b.ca/ research/institutes/crisp/ _resources/pdf/pol i cybri efs/pb 10 _raising_ I eve I i ng_ the_ba r.pdf 17) Sinay, E. (2010). Programs of Choice in the TDSB: Characteristics of Students in French Immersion, Alternative Schools, and other

Specialized Schools and Programs. Retrieved from http://www. tdsb.o n.ca/Portals/0/com m unity /com m un ity%20advisory%20com mittees/fslac/support%20staff/programsofchoicestude ntcharacteristics.pdf

18) Zhang, X. (September 23, 2017). Children living in low-income households. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016012/98-200-x2016012-eng.pdf

19) Nickimc40. (February 28, 2016). Can Belonging Be Measured by Attendance? [blog post) Retrieved from https://nmordencormier. word press.com/2016/02/28/can-belongi ng-be-measu red-by-attenda nee/

20) Contributing Factors of Absenteeism. (May 31, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.doe.in.gov/studentservices/attendance/ contributing-factors-absenteeism

21) White, M. (February 2016). Poverty and School Attendance: Barriers and Possible Solutions. Retrieved from http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/SociaiJustice/lssues/Poverty/Research/BCTF%20Poverty%20and%20Education%20SurveyChapter%205.pdf

22) CTVNews.ca Staff. (June 27, 2013). Dropout risk higher in /ow-income communities: survey. Retrieved from

https://www .ctvnews.ca/canada/dropout-risk-h igher-in-low-income-commu nities-survey-1.13440 14 23) Glogowski, K. (March 2015). What Works in Dropout Prevention: Research Evidence, Pathways to Education Program Design, and

Practitioner Knowledge. Retrieved from http://blog.pathwaystoeducation.ca/wpcontent/uploads/Mar201S_What_Works_Dropout_Prevention_EN.pdf

24) Wynne Lockhart, J. (October 31, 2016). When Hidden Poverty Penetrates Toronto's Suburbs. Retrieved from

https://www. thesta r .com/news/gta/2016/10/31/when-h idden-poverty-penetrates-torontos-su bu rbs. html 25) Corsi DJ, Lear SA, Chow CK, Subramanian SV, Boyle MH, Teo KK. (2013). Socioeconomic and Geographic Patterning of Smoking

Behaviour in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Multilevel Analysis. PloS ONE 8(2): e57646. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.13 71/jou rna I. pone.OOS 7646

26) Clay, C. {November 8, 2017). More than Half of Peel Neighbourhoods Low-income: Report. Retrieved from https://www .m ississa uga .com/news-story /7848009-more-tha n-half-of-peel-neighbou rhoods-low-income-report/

27) Bryce, R., Blanco 1., C., Pullman, A., and Rogova, A. (January 2016). Inequality Explained: The hidden gaps in Canada's education system. Retrieved from https://www.opencanada.org/features/inequality-explained-hidden-gaps-canadas-education-system/

28) Glogowski, K. (2016). Community Mapping Tool: Mapping At-Risk Communities in Canada. Retrieved from https://www .pathwaystoeducati on.ca/com m unity-mapping-tool-mapping-risk-communities-canada



48

1~ Research and Accountability (1_ putting research into practice

the peel district school board's role in supporting ... students and families living... ·...

Documents