HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 a Appendix A to Report 20-007Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 1
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (PUBLIC) 20 June 2017
Report No. 17-048
Update to the Resource Allocation Index based on Socioeconomics
(RAISE)
Key Contact: Michele Giroux, Executive Officer, Corporate Services,
613-596-8211 ext. 8310
PURPOSE:
1.To provide an updated version of RAISE based on 2016-2017 data, including the
identification of schools that have been prioritized to receive additional supports
to help mitigate the effects of socioeconomic or demographic barriers to learning.
CONTEXT:
2.The OCDSB has a long history of identifying schools that could benefit from
additional funding to help reduce the impact of socioeconomic/demographic
barriers to student achievement and well-being. While the indicators themselves
are based on data that is as close to the individual student as possible, the
purpose of the index was to develop a “school-based measure” that captures
relative need within the district to assist with the allocation of resources that
would help mitigate barriers to learning.
The index that was developed in 1998 (at the time of school board
amalgamation) was done so with guidance from a steering committee comprised
of internal and external stakeholders and included data from several sources of
data that captured information across five key themes – poverty, family/
community, mobility, cultural/linguistic diversity, and readiness to learn. While
these overarching themes have not changed over the past 20 years, with each
recalculation of the index staff has undertaken a review and update of the data
sources and methodology utilized to ensure that the best available data was
used to inform decisions.
3.RAISE was last updated in 2010-2011. At that time, an external consultant was
hired to undertake a review of practices in other schools districts. Details of this
review can be found in Report No. 11-150: Review and Update of the Beacon
Index, 2010-2011 (Education Committee, 20 September 2011).
Appendix A to
Report 20-007
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 2
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
4. Distinction Between RAISE and SES-Identified Group of Students
RAISE is comprised of a set of indicators that research has shown to be
associated with barriers to student learning. While data is gathered at the
individual student level, statistical methods are used to combine the indicators
into a single index-value for each school that identifies the level of need (in terms
of barriers to learning) relative to other schools in the district. Indices for the
elementary panel (JK to grade 8) and the secondary panel (grades 9 to 12) are
generated separately. Allocation of additional resources to elementary and/or
secondary schools is based on these relative needs.
In addition to RAISE, the District has been monitoring student achievement for a
number of identified groups of students for the purpose of determining areas of
particular strength or need when it comes to learning outcomes for students. SES
is the most recent group identified for monitoring purposes and is comprised of
those students who reside in low income neighbourhoods. While the
methodology used to identify these students relies on the same data source as
the poverty measures used in RAISE, the calculation is somewhat different to
allow for the linking of income data to individual student a chievement data while
adhering to privacy legislation. Based on the analytic approach taken for this
purpose, students are identified as belonging to the “SES” group if the postal
code of their primary residence belongs to a group of postal codes where the
proportion of families living below the low income measure is higher than that for
the City of Ottawa as a whole. More information about this methodology can be
found in Report No. 14-058: Proposed Plan to Monitor Outcomes for Students
based on Socioeconomic Status (Committee of the Whole, 15 April 2014).
5. Data Sources
The data sources are the same as those used in the 2010-2011 RAISE;
however, the following changes were made to the final selection of indicators:
(i) For the elementary index, the proportion of students rather than the
number was used for students who were new to the school (mobility)
and for the first language being something other than English or
French (cultural/linguistic diversity), whereas new immigrants
(cultural/linguistic diversity) was based on the number of students
rather than proportion.
(ii) For the secondary index, entries and withdrawals and new students
(mobility) were based on the proportions of students rather than the
number, whereas new immigrants (cultural/linguistic diversity) was
based on the number of students rather than the proportion.
Details about the specific sources of data for each indicator and how they map
onto each of the five index themes can be found in Appendix A.
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 3
6. Methodology
It continues to be the case that although the index value is generated at a school
level, it is done so based on students enrolled at the school rather than on the
geographic boundary of the school. For consistency purposes, the same
statistical methods as those used in 2010-2011 (i.e., summing of standardized
scores across the indicators) have been applied to the 2016-2017 data. More
information can be found in Appendix B.
Staff has compared the index-values generated for RAISE to the Education
Opportunities Index (EOI) recently developed by the Ontario Ministry of
Education1. Similar to RAISE, the EOI is comprised of a set of indicators that
have been found to influence student achievement . Four of the five indicators
(lone parent family, parental education, family income, and income source) are
derived from data collected by Statistics Canada through a combination of the
2011 Census, 2011 National Household Survey, and 2014 Taxfiler data by
matching student postal codes. The fifth indicator reflects recent immigration to
Canada that is submitted by school districts to the Ministry of Education through
OnSIS. Correlations between the EOI and RAISE were 0.89 for elementary and
0.90 for secondary panels, suggesting that both measures are tapping into the
same general construct.
7. Impact of Changes Resulting from Student Learning and Accommodation Reviews
In light of the decisions made as a result of the School Learning and
Accommodation Reviews in the eastern and western areas of the jurisdiction,
adjustments have been made for the following schools to reflect the instances
where there will be significant changes in student population effective September
2017:
School RAISE Adjustment
Briargreen PS Includes all Briargreen and Leslie Park students
Regina Street PS Includes all Regina Street and Grant Alternative students
Carleton Heights PS Includes K-6 Carleton Heights students, and all Century
students
Sir Winston Churchill PS Includes K- 6 Sir Winston Churchill students
Merivale (7-8) Includes Grade 7 and 8 students from both Carleton
Heights and Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Robert Borden (7-8) Includes all Greenbank students
D. Roy Kennedy PS Includes all D. Roy Kennedy and Severn Avenue
students2
Pinecrest PS Includes all Pinecrest and Severn Avenue2 students
Bell (7-8) Includes all D.A. Moodie Intermediate students
Gloucester HS Includes all Gloucester and Rideau students
Severn Avenue PS2 Includes all Woodroffe Avenue PS students
1 At present, EOI values are not available for the following schools: Earl of March (7-8), Half Moon Bay, Kanata
Highlands, Summerside, and Vimy Ridge Public School.
2 Due to the nature of the restructuring at Severn Avenue PS it is difficult to predict the impact on student populations.
As a result, the entire Severn Ave PS student population has been merged with both D. Roy Kennedy PS and
Pinecrest PS, and Severn Ave PS has adopted the same values for all student-level indicators as Woodroffe Avenue
PS to take into account the incoming EFI program.
.
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 4
While additional schools were impacted by these accommodation reviews, the
RAISE index values generated based on 2016-2017 student-level data have
been maintained, as the changes being implemented (e.g., minor adjustments to
program offerings, boundaries, or the grade levels; or changes that will take
effect are pending other decisions/renovations) are not expected to have a
significant impact on their overall RAISE index-value.
8. Adjusted RAISE 2016-2017
The 2016-2017 Adjusted RAISE is a recalculation of school-level indicator values
based on actual student data, taking into account the redirection of students to
other schools due to school closures and/or changes in grade offerings as
described above. The adjustment also makes use of the projected 2017 -2018
ESL/ELD enrolments across all schools (i.e., “Needs ESL Support” indicator),
rather than those provided for the 2016-2017 school year.
Although it is recognized that all schools have some level of need within their
community to close opportunity gaps for students, schools that meet a certain
threshold on the index (i.e., an index-value greater than 1.0) have historically
been targeted to receive additional funding allocations/supports. Based on the
2016-2017 Adjusted RAISE, twenty-one (21) Elementary schools and five (5)
Secondary schools meet this criteria, as compared to nineteen (19) Elementary
schools and six (6) Secondary schools who met this criteria in 2010-2011. This
list of schools can be found in Appendix C. Appendix D provides an alphabetical
listing of schools within each of four groupings based on their RAISE index-value.
9. Next Steps
The revised RAISE will be communicated to schools prior to the end of this
school year for implementation in September 2017. In light of the School
Learning and Accommodation Reviews taking place over the course of the next
few years, it may be necessary to update RAISE on a more regular basis to
reflect changes that have substantial impacts on school populations. As staff
undertakes this work, it will be important to continue to monitor emerging
research and trends across the province to ensure that the index continues to
serve its intended purpose.
10. Intended and Potential Uses of RAISE
RAISE was developed for the purpose of identifying schools that may benefit
from additional funding and/or resources (material and human) to help mitigate
the effects of socioeconomic and demographic barriers to learning.
RAISE is used by the Finance Department to allocate additional funds to school
operating budgets that may be used to provide supports and services (e.g.,
breakfast programs, student fees associated with extracurricular activities/field
trips/events, etc.). In addition to school operating budgets, RAISE is also used to
offset costs associated with field trip transportation, provision of enrichment
opportunities, guest speakers/student workshops, etc. for priority funding
schools. Details of these expenditures are communicated through an annual
memo to Trustees in June.
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 5
The Human Resources Department uses RAISE in determining school staffing
allocations where additional supports may be helpful in meeting the needs of
English language learners, in particular.
Individual components of RAISE (e.g., single parent families, entries/withdrawals,
income level categories, first language other than English or French) can be used
by schools in the development of grant applications. This information is currently
made available to schools upon request; however, staff is looking into developing
a template that could be produced and made available to all schools moving
forward.
Finally, RAISE was used as a means of measuring progress towards the equity
objective in the 2015-2019 OCDSB Strategic Plan (Report No. 17-006 presented
to COW on 7 February 2017) for data that cannot be disaggregated to an
individual student level. For example, specific measures from the Our SCHOOL
parent survey were presented for priority funding schools compared to non-
priority funding schools.
RAISE serves as a useful tool for resource allocation and to gain insight into
specific challenges schools may face as a result of the relative
socioeconomic/demographic needs of their student population. It is important to
acknowledge that the identification of schools in this way may result in
unintended consequences such as difficulty attracting and maintaining students
and staff, and not setting high enough expectations for students.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS:
11. Two sets of custom tabulations were purchased from Statistics Canada at a cost
of approximately $5,600. These funds were absorbed through the Quality
Assurance operating budget for 2016-2017. One of these custom tabulations will
also serve to provide updated data for the SES-identified group of students for
the monitoring of student achievement. Based on analyses undertaken during the
current review and update, moving forward staff is confident that the purchase of
a single custom tabulation at approximately half the cost can be used for both
purposes.
12. Compiling the data and preparing a data file for the analysis and computation for
RAISE requires a significant amount of staff time and relies on support from staff
in other departments, most notably Business & Learning Technologies to provide
the data extracts from Trillium. In light of the development of the EOI by the
Ministry of Education that is highly correlated with our own RAISE, it may be
worth considering adopting use of the EOI as a replacemen t to RAISE moving
forward.
13. In addition to costs associated with the actual review and update of RAISE, funds
are allocated to schools that meet a certain threshold on the index to help close
the “opportunity gap” for students. For the past several years, a per-pupil budget
allocation in the amount of $9.35 has been incorporated into school operating
budgets – in 2015-2016, this amounted to $55,216. During the same school year,
an additional $252,515 was allocated through the budget process to support a
wide range of initiatives at identified schools. For example, enrichment
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 6
resources, guest speakers/student workshops, arts educational programming,
field trip transportation, healthy schools/character education, community
outreach, tutoring, and temporary staffing assistance. More details can be found
in Memo No. 16-131: 2015-2016 Support Funding for RAISE Index Identified
Schools.
COMMUNICATION/CONSULTATION ISSUES:
14. There was no formal consultation process associated with the current review and
update of RAISE, staff has connected with other school districts to verify that the
approaches described in Report No. 11-150 continue to be used throughout the
province.
STRATEGIC LINKS:
15. RAISE directly supports both the Equity and Stewardship pillars of the OCDS B’s
2015-2019 Strategic Plan by serving as a means of allocating financial and
human resources to schools that serve student populations that may face
substantial barriers to learning as a result of poverty, mobility, family/community,
cultural/linguistic diversity, and/or readiness to learn.
GUIDING QUESTIONS:
16. The following questions are provided to support the discussion of this item by the
Committee:
Does RAISE continue to serve its intended purpose?
What are the merits of continuing to undertake the work associated with
RAISE in light of the availability of the EOI?
How could RAISE be used to serve other priorities of the Board?
Michèle Giroux
Executive Officer, Corporate Services
Jennifer Adams
Director of Education and
Secretary of the Board
APPENDICES
Appendix A Themes, Indicators, and Sources of Data Used in the 2016-2017 RAISE
Appendix B Methodology Used to Calculate RAISE
Appendix C Historical Overview of OCDSB Schools Identified as ‘Beacon’ (1999-2006)
and Those Identified as Having the Greatest Need According to the
RAISE (2010-2017)
Appendix D Alphabetical School Listing by 2016-2017 RAISE Value Ranges
Appendix A
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 7
Themes, Indicators, and Sources of Data Used in the 2016-2017 RAISE
The following twelve (12) indicators were included in both the Elementary and
Secondary RAISE.
Theme Indicator Source
Poverty Income Statistics Canada: postal codes were matched against 2014 Revenue Canada
tax file data for families with school-aged children. A median income was
calculated for each postal code and assigned to each student having that
postal code. An average was then calculated for each school, based on the
number of students with available data. This indicator was reverse-coded
for inclusion in the mean composite score.
Social Assistance Statistics Canada: the percentage of families with school-aged children
receiving social assistance was calculated for each postal code and
assigned to each student having that postal code. An average was then
calculated for each school, based on the number of students with available
data.
Low Income Measure
(After-Tax)
Statistics Canada: the percentage of families with school-aged children
identified as living below the Low Income Measure (after-tax) for their family
type and size was calculated for each postal code and assigned to each
student having that postal code. An average was then calculated for each
school, based on the number of students with available data.
Family/
Community
Single Parent Families Trillium: the number of students living with only one parent (i.e., mother OR
father OR stepmother OR stepfather) as of 31 October 2016.
Students Living in
Foster Care/Group
Homes
Trillium: the number of students identified as living in foster care or group
homes as of 31 October 2016.
Mobility Absenteeism Trillium: the average number of instructional days missed by active students in
a school as of 31 January 2017, based on 31 October 2016 enrollment.
Entries/ Withdrawals
(Transience)
Trillium: the number of student entries and withdrawals between 1 October
2016 and 31 January 2017, reflected as a percentage of 31 October 2016
enrollment.
New Students
(Transitions)
Trillium: the percentage of students actively enrolled in an elementary/
secondary school on 31 October 2016 who were not enrolled in that school
on 31 October 2015.
Cultural/
Linguistic
Needs ESL Support Enrollment & Staffing Data Unit: the Funding Factor applied by Human
Resources for the purpose of allocating ESL/ELD overlay staff to schools.
New Immigrants Trillium: the number of students identified as not having Canadian Citizenship
or Landed Immigrant status, based on 31 October 2016 enrolment.
First Language Other
than English or French
Trillium: the percentage of elementary students who have indicated their
mother tongue is not English or French, based on 31 October 2016
enrolment.
Readiness
to Learn
Learning Skills and
Work Habits
Trillium: a score was computed for each student based on the six Leaning Skills
and Work Habits identified on the report card, as of 31 January 2017. At the
secondary level, scores were calculated for English and Math courses
separately, and treated as two indicators. An average was then calculated
for each school, based on the number of students with available data. This
indicator was reverse-coded for inclusion in the mean composite score.
Appendix B
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 8
Methodology Used to Calculate RAISE
Note: The numbers used in the calculations below are for demonstration
purposes only. They do not represent actual data used to calculate RAISE.
1. Descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, median, mode, standard deviation) were computed for all
potential indicators within each panel:
median & average income
median & average proportion of families receiving social assistance
median & average proportion of families below the low income measure ( “after-tax
income”)
number & proportion of single parent families
number & proportion of students living in foster care/group homes
average number of student absences
number & proportion of entries and withdrawals
number & proportion of students new to the school
funding factor applied by Human Resources to allocate ESL/ELD overlay staffing
number & proportion of students who are not Canadian Citizens nor Landed Immigrants
number & proportion of students whose first language is something other than English or
French
average learning skills and work habits (one overall score was computed for elementary;
two scores were used for secondary – one for English and one for Math)
2. A correlation matrix was produced to assist with the final selection of indicators (i.e., 12 for
elementary, 13 for secondary). Standard scores (z-scores) were then calculated for each
indicator.
Example:
To compute a standard score for “number of students living in single parent families” –
Z = X - µ Z = 100 - 80 = 0.8
25
Where X is the number of students living with only one parent for a specific school
µ is the average number of students living with only one parent across all schools
is the standard deviation of the number of students living with only one parent across
all schools
The same method was used to convert the remaining indicators into standard scores.
Where appropriate, standard scores were reverse-coded to ensure a consistent scale
directionality (i.e., higher score = higher risk). This was done for both Income and Learning Skills.
3. A composite score (i.e., sum of the 12, or 13, indicators) was produced.
Example:
Composite Score = Z1 + ... + Z12 = 15.25
4. The composite score was then converted to a mean composite.
Example:
Mean Composite Score = Z1 + ... + Z12 = 15.25 = 1.27
12 (or 13) 12 (or 13)
5. This score was then transformed to a final standard score, having an average of 0 with a
standard deviation of 1. Statistically speaking, you would expect to have approximately 16% of
scores falling above 1 standard deviation of the mean (i.e., you would expect that 19 of 118
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 9
elementary and 5 of 30 secondary schools would fall above this score). A cut -off score of 1
standard deviation above the mean continues to be used to identify the list of elementary and
secondary schools with priority needs in terms of sociodemographic barriers to learning.
Example:
Z = X - µ Z = 1.27 – 0.31 = 1.13
0.85
Appendix C
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 10
Historical Overview of OCDSB Schools Identified as ‘Beacon’ (1999-2006) and
Those Identified as Having the Greatest Need According to the RAISE (2010-2017)
2016-20173
Elementary:
Arch Street
Bayshore
Blossom Park
Carleton Heights
Carson Grove
Centennial
Charles H. Hulse
D. Roy Kennedy
Featherston Drive
Hawthorne
Henry Munro
Pinecrest
Queen Elizabeth
Queen Mary
Robert E. Wilson
Roberta Bondar
Sawmill Creek
Vincent Massey
Viscount
Alexander
W.E. Gowling
York Street
Secondary:
Gloucester
Ottawa Technical
Richard Pfaff
Ridgemont
Woodroffe
2010-20114
Elementary:
Arch Street
Bayshore
Blossom Park
Cambridge
Carson Grove
Century
Charles H. Hulse
Farley Mowat
General Vanier
Hawthorne
Pinecrest
Queen Elizabeth
Queen Mary
Robert E. Wilson
Roberta Bondar
Severn
Vincent Massey
W. E. Gowling
York Street
Secondary:
Elizabeth Wyn
Wood
Glebe
Richard Pfaff
Rideau
Ridgemont
Woodroofe
2005-20065
Elementary:
Arch
Bayshore
Blossom Park
Cambridge
Carson Grove
Centennial
Century
Charles H. Hulse
Christie
Connaught
Featherston
General Vanier
Hawthorne
McGregor
Easson
Pinecrest
Queen Elizabeth
Queen Mary
R E Wilson
Riverview Alt
Roberta Bondar
Severn
Vincent Massey
Viscount
Alexander
W E Gowling
York Street
Secondary:
Brookfield
Glebe
Ottawa
Technical
Rideau
Ridgemont
Woodroffe
2004-20055
Elementary:
Arch
Bayshore
Blossom Park
Cambridge
Carson Grove
Centennial
Century
Charles Hulse
Christie
Connaught
Featherston
Hawthorne
McGregor
Easson
Pinecrest
Queen Elizabeth
Queen Mary
Robert E. Wilson
Severn
Vincent Massey
Viscount
Alexander
W. E. Gowling
York Street
Secondary:
Laurentian
Ottawa Technical
Richard Pfaff
Rideau
Ridgemont
2002-20036
Elementary:
Bayshore
Blossom Park
Centennial
Charles Hulse
Connaught
Hawthorne
Manor Park
Pinecrest
Queen Elizabeth
Riverview
Alternative
Robert E. Wilson
Severn
Vincent Massey
W. E. Gowling
York Street
Secondary:
Gloucester
Laurentian
Ottawa Technical
Rideau
Ridgemont
1999-20006
Elementary:
Bayshore
Blossom Park
Cambridge
Carson Grove
Centennial
Charles Hulse
Connaught
Hawthorne
Pinecrest
Queen Elizabeth
Queen Mary
Robert E. Wilson
Vincent Massey
W. E. Gowling
York Street
Secondary:
Gloucester
Laurentian
Rideau
Ridgemont
Woodroffe
3 The list of schools for 2016-2017 reflects the adjustments described in part 7 of this report.
4 The list of schools for 2010-2011 reflects those identified using the methodology described in Report No. 11-150
presented to Education Committee on 20 September 2011.
5 The list of schools from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 shown here reflects those identified using the methodology
described in Report #05-070 presented to Education Committee on 21 March 2005 and approved on 13 June 2005.
6 The methodology used to calculate Beacon Index in 1999-2000 and 2002-2003 was substantially different from that
used in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, in that schools were ranked on the various indicators and an overall average
ranking computed.
Appendix D
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 11
Alphabetical Listing of Elementary Schools by RAISE Value Ranges for 2016-2017
RAISE values of -1.0 and lower (i.e., lowest priority funding schools)
A. Lorne Cassidy ES
Castor Valley ES
Elmdale PS
First Avenue PS
Huntley Centennial PS
Kars on the Rideau PS
Manotick PS
Mutchmor PS
Osgoode PS
Richmond PS
Stittsville PS
Westwind PS
RAISE values between -0.99 and 0
Adrienne Clarkson ES
Alta Vista PS
Avalon PS
Barrhaven PS
Bayview PS
Bridlewood Community ES
Broadview PS
Castlefrank ES
Cedarview MS
Churchill Alternative School
Connaught PS
Convent Glen ES
Devonshire Community PS
Dunning-Foubert ES
Earl of March (7-8)
Elgin Street PS
Emily Carr MS
Fallingbrook Community ES
Farley Mowat PS
Forest Valley ES
Glen Cairn PS
Glen Ogilvie PS
Goulbourn MS
Greely ES
Henry Larsen ES
Heritage PS
Hilson Avenue PS
Hopewell Avenue PS
J.H. Putman PS
Jack Donohue PS
Jockvale ES
John Young ES
Kanata Highlands PS
Katimavik ES
Knoxdale PS
Lakeview PS
LePhare ES
Longfields-Davidson Heights
(7-8)
Maple Ridge ES
Mary Honeywell ES
Metcalfe PS
North Gower/Marlborough PS
Orleans Wood ES
Pleasant Park PS
Roch Carrier ES
Rockcliffe Park PS
Roland Michener PS
Severn Avenue PS
Sir Robert Borden (7-8)
South March PS
Stephen Leacock PS
Steve MacLean PS
Stonecrest ES
Summerside PS
Terry Fox ES
Trillium ES
W.O. Mitchell ES
Woodroffe Avenue PS
RAISE values between 0 and 0.99
Agincourt Road PS
Bell (7-8)
Bells Corners PS
Berrigan ES
Briargreen PS
Cambridge Street Community
PS
Chapman Mills PS
Dunlop PS
Elizabeth Park PS
Fielding Drive PS
Fisher Park PS/Summit
Alternative School
General Vanier PS
Glashan PS
Half Moon Bay PS
Lady Evelyn Alternative
School
Manor Park PS
Manordale PS
Meadowlands PS
Merivale (7-8)
Regina Street PS
Riverview Alternative School
Robert Bateman PS
Robert Hopkins PS
Sir Winston Churchill PS
W. Erskine Johnston PS
RAISE values of 1.0 and above (priority funding schools)
Arch Street PS
Bayshore PS
Blossom Park PS
Carleton Heights PS
Carson Grove ES
Centennial PS
Charles H. Hulse PS
D. Roy Kennedy PS
Featherston Drive PS
Hawthorne PS
Henry Munro MS
Pinecrest PS
Queen Elizabeth PS
Queen Mary Street PS
Robert E. Wilson PS
Roberta Bondar PS
Sawmill Creek ES
Vincent Massey PS
Viscount Alexander PS
W.E. Gowling PS
York Street PS
Alphabetical Listing of Secondary schools by RAISE Value Ranges for 2016-2017
Appendix D
Report 17-048 Update to RAISE Page 12
RAISE values of -1.0 and lower
A.Y. Jackson SS
Osgoode Township SS
South Carleton HS
West Carleton SS
RAISE values between -0.99 and 0
Cairine Wilson SS
Canterbury HS
Colonel By SS
Earl of March SS
Frederick Banting Secondary Alternate
John McCrae SS
Lisgar CI
Longfields-Davidson Heights SS
Merivale HS
Nepean HS
Sir Robert Borden HS
Sir Wilfrid Laurier SS
RAISE values between 0 and 0.99
Bell HS
Brookfield HS
Elizabeth Wyn Wood Alternate
Glebe CI
Hillcrest HS
Norman Johnston Alternate
Sir Guy Carleton SS
Urban Aboriginal Alternate Program
RAISE values of 1.0 and above (priority funding schools)
Gloucester HS
Ottawa Technical SS
Richard Pfaff Alternate
Ridgemont HS
Woodroffe HS