2015-16 GECDSB MYCI Session #2 - Slide Deck

SESSION#2
@MathletePearce www.tapintoteenminds.com @JustinLevack
2015-16

STUDENT SUCCESS
Superintendent Dan Fister
Lauren Segedin
SHSM
Jay Lynn
Student Success School
Support Initiative
Justin Levack
eLearning Contact / MYCI
Natalie Middleton-Bondy
Student Success Consultant
Angela Ciarlariello-Bondy
Re-engagement &
Alternative Education
Ed Kotevich
Ontario Youth
Apprenticeship Program
Kyle Pearce
Teacher / MYCI
Shelley Hudson
Information and
Innovation Services

QUESTIONS? INSIGHT?
#myci
TWEET YOUR QUESTION AND HASHTAG:
TWEET IT OUT!

QUESTIONS? INSIGHT?
#myci
TWEET YOUR QUESTION
AND HASHTAG:
TWEET IT OUT!
@gecdsbss
FOLLOW:

#MTBoS
The Best Teacher PD is
FREE on Twitter
Follow the Math
Twitter Blogosphere
@MathletePearcewww.tapintoteenminds.com

Purpose
Promoting cross-panel collaboration
Reduce gaps in student achievement
Building capacity in collaborative inquiry skills
Increase connections among middle years
educators

What is…
Collaborative Inquiry?
Relevant Reﬂective Reasoned
Collaborative Iterative
Adaptive
Reciprocal

What is…
… an iterative process in which teachers
collaborate to develop reasonable inquiry
questions by implementing research-based
strategies and reﬂecting on how they impact
relevant student learning needs in the classroom.Relevant
Reﬂective
Collaborative
Adaptive
Iterative
Reasoned

What is…
“There is no prescribed protocol,
nor is there a single path.”
Capacity Building Series, Collaborative Inquiry

Dates Are
Full Day PD

oame2016.ca
LEAP INTO MATH
OAME 2016

kylep.ca/mycioame2016
LEAP INTO MATH
OAME 2016
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FORM:

HOW MANY SMALL VASES WILL IT
TAKE TO FILL THE TALL VASE?

Where did
WALL STREET
get its name?

In 1653, Dutch colonial
governor Peter
Stuyvesant ordered a
timber wall built across
Manhattan from river to
river to prevent possible
invasion of the city.
Where did
WALL STREET
get its name?

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
1 & 2 BILLION
DID YOU KNOW THE
TRADES BETWEEN
SHARES PER DAY

IN 2015, ALL OF THE MONEY IN
$3 TRILLION
THE UNITED STATES
AMOUNTED TO APPROXIMATELY
$19.5 TRILLION
WITH THE NYSE VALUATION OF

THE DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE
LOST 89% OF ITS VALUE
BETWEEN 1929 AND 1932
AND LOST 54% OF ITS VALUE
BETWEEN 2007 AND 2009

VALUE($)
TIME

VALUE($)
TIME
HOW DO WE KNOW
WHICH TO BUY?

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
HOW DO WE KNOW
WHICH TO BUY?
$100 $50

VALUE($)
TIME
@MathletePearce www.tapintoteenminds.com @JustinLevackVALUE($)
TIME
HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH TO BUY?

VALUE($)
TIME
TIME
HOW DO WE KNOW
WHICH TO BUY?
There are over 2,800 companies
on the New York Stock Exchange

VALUE($)
TIME
TIME
INVEST IN ONE
COMPANY

VALUE($)
TIME
TIME
INVEST IN ONE COMPANY
GAMBLING
RISKY
SPECULATIVE

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
INVEST IN MANY
STOCKS

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
DIVERSIFY

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
INVEST IN A
FEW STOCKS MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS
INVEST IN A
FEW STOCKS“Investors should
diversify their
portfolios.”
INVESTMENT
ADVISOR

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS
"Wide diversification is only
required when investors do
not understand what they
are doing."
Warren Buffet
INVEST IN A
FEW STOCKS

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS
"Wide diversification is only
required when investors do
not understand what they
are doing."
Warren Buffet
INVEST IN STOCKS

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS
Charlie Munger
INVEST IN STOCKS “Only invest in
companies you
KNOW and TRUST."

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS
Warren Buffet
INVEST IN STOCKS “High returns with low
risk is the key. Risk comes
from not knowing what
you are doing.”

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS
“Buy below value, sell
at or above value.”
Charlie Munger
INVEST IN STOCKS

VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
VALUE($)
TIME
MUTUAL FUNDS
M
UTUAL
FUNDS
Warren Buffet
INVEST IN STOCKS “If there was a formula
for investing success,
everyone would be rich.”

VALUE($)
TIME
2. Understanding
1. Invest With Intention
Avoid Wide-Diversification
Maximize Reward,
Minimize Risk
The formula is knowing
there is no formula
3. Formula
EARNING

2. Understanding
1. Teach With Intention
Strategies With a Purpose
Maximize Reward,
Minimize Risk
there is no formula
3. Formula
2. Understanding
1. Invest With Intention
Avoid Wide-Diversification
Maximize Reward,
Minimize Risk
there is no formula
3. Formula
LEARNINGEARNING

LEARNING

NEWOLD
PROGRESSIVETRADITIONAL
ACTIVITYLECTURE
INQUIRY BASEDDIRECT INSTRUCTION
TECHNOLOGYPEN & PAPER
MATH WARS

BALANCE
NEWOLD
PROGRESSIVETRADITIONAL
ACTIVITYLECTURE
INQUIRY BASEDDIRECT INSTRUCTION
TECHNOLOGYPEN & PAPER

BALANCE
NEW
OLD
PROGRESSIVE
TRADITIONAL
ACTIVITY
LECTURE
INQUIRY BASED
DIRECT INSTRUCTION
TECHNOLOGY
PEN & PAPER

BALANCE
SKILL PRACTICE
PARALLEL TASKS
3 ACT MATH TASKS
OPEN-ENDED TASKS
RICH TASKS
DESCRIPTIVE FEEDBACK
DISCUSSION
CONSOLIDATION
COLLABORATION
NOTE TAKING

“Honour the past while on a
journey towards a compelling
learning future.”
~ Simon Breakspear

BALANCE
DIRECT
INSTRUCTION
SKILL PRACTICE
PARALLEL TASKS
3 ACT MATH TASKS
OPEN-ENDED TASKS
RICH TASKS
DISCUSSION
CONSOLIDATION
COLLABORATION
NOTE TAKING
RECIPROCAL TEACHING
CORNELL NOTES
THINK, PAIR, SHARE
MIXED GROUPING
SPIRALLING
ABILITY GROUPING
GAMIFICATION

BALANCE
LECTURE
INQUIRY BASED
DIRECT INSTRUCTION

BALANCE
INQUIRY BASED
DIRECT INSTRUCTION
RICH TASKS
LECTURE

BALANCE
3 ACT MATH TASKS
RICH TASKS
LECTURE
INQUIRY BASED
DIRECT INSTRUCTION

BALANCE
3 ACT MATH TASKS
RICH TASKSLECTURE
INQUIRY BASED DIRECT INSTRUCTION
MAXIMIZE RETURN ON INVESTMENT

PROCEDURAL vs. CONCEPTUAL
“Such evidence clearly shows that the current debate
over what kind of math curriculum to adopt is ill-
informed and focuses on false extreme dichotomies
that paint students as either learning one way or the
other – when the evidence demonstrates that both
conceptual and procedural knowledge are required
for successful math learning.”
MATH WARS:
Dr. Daniel Ansari
kylep.ca/endmathwars

PROCEDURAL vs. CONCEPTUAL
“Such evidence clearly shows that the current debate
over what kind of math curriculum to adopt is ill-
informed and focuses on false extreme dichotomies
that paint students as either learning one way or the
other – when the evidence demonstrates that both
conceptual and procedural knowledge are required
for successful math learning.”
MATH WARS:
Dr. Daniel Ansari
kylep.ca/best-way

kylep.ca/gecdsbvision
Math Vision

CONCEPTUAL
UNDERSTANDING
PROCEDURAL FLUENCY
STRATEGIC COMPETENCE
ADAPTIVE REASONING
PRODUCTIVE DISPOSITION
kylep.ca/gecdsbvision
Math Vision

PRODUCTIVE
DISPOSITION
Ability to formulate, represent & solve
mathematical problems using an effective strategy
STRATEGIC
COMPETENCE
PROCEDURAL
FLUENCY
Understanding and using a variety of
mathematical procedures
ADAPTIVE REASONING
Capacity for logical thought, reflection,
explanation, and justification
Inclination to see mathematics as
useful and valuable.
Ability to understand mathematical concepts,
operations, and relationships
CONCEPTUAL
UNDERSTANDING

Math Vision
PROCEDURAL FLUENCY
ADAPTIVE REASONING
PRODUCTIVE DISPOSITION
CONCEPTUAL
UNDERSTANDING

INQUIRY
QUESTION
THEORY OF
ACTION
STUDENT
LEARNING NEED
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVE

INQUIRY
QUESTION
THEORY OF
ACTION
STUDENT
LEARNING NEED
INQUIRY
MY
Conﬁdence and ability in
problem solving; retention
INQUIRY
QUESTION
What is the impact of introducing
topics with 3 act math tasks with an
inquiry approach on student
conﬁdence, understanding and
ability to solve problems in
mathematics?

THEORY OF
ACTION
If I allow students to discover new
learning through contextual tasks,
then students will gain a deeper
understanding of the learning goal.

THEORY OF
ACTION
If I allow students to discover new
learning through contextual tasks, then
students will gain a deeper
If I wait to introduce algorithms and
procedures until students have solved a
problem through inquiry, then student
conﬁdence and procedural ﬂuency will
increase.

If I wait to introduce algorithms and
procedures until students have solved a
problem through inquiry, then student
conﬁdence and procedural ﬂuency will
increase.
If curriculum is organized using a
spiralled approach, then student
understanding and ability to solve
problems will increase.

INQUIRY
QUESTION
THEORY OF
ACTION
PAIN POINT
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVE
HURT ITCH

MATH
VISION
PAIN POINT
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVE
HURT ITCH
THEORY OF
ACTION

MATH
VISION
ROADMAP
PAIN POINT
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVE
HURT ITCH

INQUIRY
QUESTION
THEORY OF
ACTION
STUDENT
LEARNING NEED
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVE
What data sources do you have to support this?
Is it related to content? Learning skill? Both?
What is the most urgent student learning

INQUIRY
QUESTION
THEORY OF
ACTION
STUDENT
LEARNING NEED
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVE
SHARING OUT WITH
DIFFERENT SCHOOLS

INQUIRY
QUESTION
THEORY OF
ACTION
STUDENT
LEARNING NEED
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVE
Begins with “how” or “what”
Clearly speciﬁes the focus of your inquiry
Uses neutral, exploratory language

INQUIRY
QUESTION
THEORY OF
ACTION
STUDENT
LEARNING NEED
INQUIRY
COLLABORATIVEServes as a storyline for your inquiry
Written as a series of “if… then…” statements
What will you do and what are the expected
outcomes?

khmath.comGo to:
HOMEWORK & GAMESHOW

REGISTER
CREATE STUDENT ACCOUNT

mojo923

CREATE TEACHER ACCOUNT
REGISTER

ENTER EMAIL
AND
PASSWORD

ADD CLASS

CREATE CLASS
HOMEWORK
PREMIUM

CREATE CLASS

CREATE CLASS
PBoard16

PBoard16
CREATE CLASS

PBoard16
CREATE CLASS
Grade 8

Grade 8
CREATE CLASS

Grade 8
ADD STUDENTS

Tap

Tap, then wait.

3 Act Math Tasks
iTunes U
kylep.ca/curiousmath1p

iTunes U

iTunes U
Tap

What was the unit rate (price per 1 L)?

$20.29
14.819 L
=
x
1 L

$20.29
14.819 L
=
x
1 L
÷ 14.819

$20.29
14.819 L
=
x
1 L
÷ 14.819
÷ 14.819

$20.29
14.819 L
=
$1.369
1 L
÷ 14.819
÷ 14.819
Therefore, the cost of gas
was $1.369 per 1 L

How many litres did it
take me to ﬁll my tank?

What did my fuel gauge look
like before ﬁlling up?
E F

How much would it cost me to ﬁll
up my tank with this much left?
E F

E F
How far can I drive on the
highway until I run out of gas?

E F
How far can I drive on the
highway until I run out of gas?
City: 12.2 L / 100 km
Highway: 7.9 L / 100 km

E F
How far can I drive in the city
until I run out of gas?
City: 12.2 L / 100 km
Highway: 7.9 L / 100 km

How many times
would I need to ﬁll up
on a 4,000 km trip?

what does
SESSION#1
tell us?

Data Analysis
Population: All Grade 9 GECDSB Students
Years: 2010-11 to 2013-14

Data Analysis
Years: 2010-11 to 2013-14
Total Number of Students: 20,746

Data Analysis
Years: 2010-11 to 2013-14
Total Number of Students: 20,746
# of Students With Gr3 to Gr9 Data: 9,408
# of Students With Gr6 to Gr9 Data: 10,291

EQAO Dot Scores
EQAO Assesses each student
on a scale from 0.1 to 4.9:

EQAO Dot Scores
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

EQAO Dot Scores
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
Provincial Standard

Students who meet provincial
standard in grade 3
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

standard in grade 3
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
77.7% - Enrol in grade 9 academic
19.5% - Enrol in grade 9 applied
2.8% - Enrol in grade 9 locally developed

88.9% of students who achieved
provincial standard in grade 9 academic
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
also achieved provincial standard in grade 3

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
did not meet provincial standard in grade 3

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
achieved 2.7 or less in grade 3

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

provincial standard in grade 9 applied
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
achieved a 2.7 or greater in grade 3

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

standard in grade 6
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

standard in grade 6
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
84.5% - Enrol in grade 9 academic
14.3% - Enrol in grade 9 applied
1.2% - Enrol in grade 9 locally developed

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
also achieved provincial standard in grade 6

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
did not achieve provincial standard in grade 6

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
achieved a 2.7 or less in grade 6

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
achieved a 2.7 or greater in grade 6

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

5% of students who achieved
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9

95.5% L3+ in 1D
Data Summary
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
88.9% L3+ in 1D
88.9% of 1D students who achieve
standard in grade 9 also did in grade 3.

95.5% L3+ in 1D
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
88.9% L3+ in 1D
82.4% L3+ in 1P
88.9% of 1D students who achieve standard in
grade 9 also did in grade 3.
82.4% of 1P students who achieve standard had a
grade 3 dot score of 2.7 or greater.

95.5% L3+ in 1D
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
95.5% L3+ in 1D
93.7% L3+ in 1P
95.5% of 1D students who achieve standard had a

95.5% L3+ in 1D
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
98.8% L3+ in 1D
96.9% L3+ in 1P

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
Our lowest performing 1P EQAO schools have the
most students with grade 3 dot score of 2.1 or lower.
Our lowest performing 1D EQAO schools have the
most students with grade 3 dot scores 2.5 or lower.

95.5% L3+ in 1D
Data Summary
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
Grade 6
89.9% L3+ in 1D

95.5% L3+ in 1D
Data Summary
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
Grade 6
89.9% L3+ in 1D
85.3% L3+ in 1P

95.5% L3+ in 1D
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
96.8% L3+ in 1D
95% L3+ in 1P
95% of 1P students who achieve standard had a

0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
302 students (11.4%) who enrolled in Gr 9 Applied
had a grade 6 dot score of 2.1 or lower and did not
meet the EQAO expectation.
2 of our 4 lowest performing 1D EQAO
schools had the most students with grade 6
dot scores 2.3 or lower.

GECDSB EQAO Results
Grade 3 Grade 6 9 Applied9 Academic
1736 Students
62.1 %
794 Students
28.4%
*approximate number of students in locally developed
2440 Students 2384 Students
*number of students from 2013-14
9 Local Dev.
265 Students
9.5%
No EQAO
Assessment
2795 Students

SESSION#2
2015-16
kylep.ca/session2-exit

2015-16 GECDSB MYCI Session #2 - Slide Deck

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 2015-16 GECDSB MYCI Session #2 - Slide Deck

Similar to 2015-16 GECDSB MYCI Session #2 - Slide Deck (20)

More from Kyle Pearce

More from Kyle Pearce (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2015-16 GECDSB MYCI Session #2 - Slide Deck