2015年加拿大BC省中学排名报告

Education Policy

Studies in

May 2015

Report Card

on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools 2015

by Peter Cowley and Stephen Easton

FRASER

I N S T I T U T E

Contents

Introduction / 3

Key academic indicators of school performance / 5 Other indicators of school performance / 9 Detailed school reports / 10

How does your school stack up? / 33

Appendix: Calculating the Overall rating out of 10 / 37

About the authors / 39

Pub l ishing information / 40

Supporting the Fraser Institute / 41

Purpose, funding, & independence / 41

About the Fraser Institute / 42

Editoria l Board / 43

The Report Card on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools collects a variety of relevant, objective indica-tors of school performance into one easily accessible, public document so that all interested parties—parents, school administrators, teachers, students, and taxpay-ers—can analyze and compare the performance of individual schools. Parents use the Report Card’s indi-cator values, ratings, and rankings to compare schools when they choose an education provider for their chil-dren. Parents and school administrators use the results to identify areas of academic performance in which improvement can be made.

The Report Card

helps parents choose

Where parents can choose among several schools for their children, the Report Card provides a valuable tool for making a decision. Because it makes comparisons easy, the Report Card alerts parents to those nearby schools that appear to have more effective academic programs. Parents can also determine whether schools of interest are improving over time. By first studying the Report Card, parents will be better prepared to ask relevant questions when they interview the principal and teachers at the schools under consideration.

Of course, the choice of a school should not be made solely on the basis of any one source of infor-mation. Families choosing a school for their students should seek to confirm the Report Card’s findings by visiting the school and interviewing teachers and school administrators. Parents who already have a child enrolled at the school can provide another point of view. Useful information may also be found on the web sites of the ministry of education, local school boards, and individual schools. In addition, a sound academic program should be complemented by effec-tive programs in areas of school activity not measured by the Report Card. Nevertheless, the Report Card pro-vides a detailed picture of each school that is not easily available elsewhere.

The Report Card facilitates

school improvement

Certainly, the act of publicly rating and ranking schools attracts attention; attention can provide moti-vation. Schools that perform well or show consis-tent improvement are applauded. Poorly performing schools generate concern, as do those whose perfor-mance is deteriorating. This inevitable attention pro-vides an incentive for all those connected with a school to focus on student results.

However, the Report Card offers more than motiva-tion; it also offers opportunity. The Report Card includes a variety of indicators, each of which reports results for an aspect of school performance that might be improved. School administrators who are dedicated to improvement accept the Report Card as another source of opportunities for improvement.

Some schools do better than others

To improve a school, one must believe that improve-ment is achievable. This Report Card provides evidence about what can be accomplished. It demonstrates clearly that, even when we take into account fac-tors such as the students’ family backgrounds, which some believe dictate the degree of academic success that students will have in school, some schools do better than others. This finding confirms the results

Introduction

Report Card on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools 2015 4

of research carried out in other countries.1Indeed, it will come as no great surprise to experienced parents and educators that the data consistently suggest that what goes on in the schools makes a difference to academic results and that some schools make more of a difference than others.

Comparisons are at the heart

of the improvement process

Comparative and historical data enable parents and school administrators to gauge their school’s effectiveness more accurately. By comparing a school’s latest results with those of earlier years, they can see if the school is improving. By comparing a school’s results with those of neighbouring schools and of schools with similar student characteristics, they can identify more successful schools and learn from them. Reference to overall provincial results places an individual school’s level of achievement in a broader context.

There is great benefit in identifying schools that are particularly effective. By studying the techniques used in schools where students are successful, less effective schools may find ways to improve.

Comparisons are at the heart of improvement: making comparisons among schools is made simpler and more meaningful by the Report Card’s indicators, ratings, and rankings.

You can contribute to the

Report Card’s development

The Report Card program benefits from the input of interested parties. We welcome your suggestions, com-ments, and criticisms.

Please contact Peter Cowley, Director of School Performance Studies, at peter.cowley@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/4617061229.html,.

Notes

1 See, for instance, Michael Rutter et al., Fifteen

Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their

Effects on Children (Harvard University Press,

1979); Peter Mortimore et al., School Matters: The Junior Years (Open Books, 1988).

Key academic indicators of school performance

The foundation of the Report Card is an overall rating of each school’s academic performance. Building on data about student results provided by the Ministry of Education,1 we rate each school on a scale from zero to 10. We base our overall rating of each school’s academic performance on seven indicators:

(1) the average exam mark in the grade-10, grade-11,

and grade-12 courses that include a mandatory

provincial exam;

(2) percentage of grade-10, grade-11, and grade-12

mandatory provincial examinations failed; (3) average difference between the school mark and

the examination mark in the courses considered

in (1) and (2) above;

(4) average difference between male and female

students in their exam mark in English 10; (5) average difference between male and female

students in their exam mark in Mathematics 10;

(6) graduation rate;

(7) delayed advancement rate.

We have selected this set of indicators because they provide systematic insight into a school’s performance. Because they are based on annually generated data, we can assess not only each school’s performance in a year but also its improvement or deterioration over time.Three indicators of effective teaching 1 Average mandatory examination marks

This indicator (in the tables Average exam mark) is the average percentage achieved by a school’s students on the grade-10, grade-11, and grade-12 final examina-tions in all of the courses that include a mandatory provincial exam.2 For each school, the indicator is the average of the mean scores achieved by the school’s students in each of these mandatory examinations at all sittings during the year, weighted by the relative number of students who wrote the examination.

Examinations are designed to achieve a distribution of results reflecting the differences in students’ mas-tery of the course work. Differences among students in interests, abilities, motivation, and work-habits will inevitably have some impact upon the final results. There are, however, recognizable differences from school to school within a district in the average results on the provincial examinations. There is also varia-tion within schools in the results obtained in different subject areas. Such differences in outcomes cannot be wholly explained by the individual and family charac-teristics of the school’s students. It seems reasonable, therefore, to include the average examination mark for each school as one indicator of effective teaching.

2 Percentage of provincial examinations failed For each school, this indicator (in the tables Percentage of exams failed) provides the rate of failure (as a per-centage) in the grade-10, grade-11, and grade-12 mandatory provincial examinations. It was derived by dividing the sum, for each school, of all the mandatory provincial examinations written where a failing grade was awarded by the total number of such examinations written by the students of that school.

Report Card on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools 2015 6

In part, effective teaching can be measured by the ability of the students to pass any uniform examina-tion that is a requirement for successful completion of a course. Schools have the responsibility of preparing their students to pass these final examinations.

3 Difference between school mark

and examination mark

For each school, this indicator (in the tables School vs exam mark difference) gives the average amount (for all grade-10, grade-11, and grade-12 courses with a man-datory provincial exam) by which the “school” mark—the assessment of each student’s learning that is made by the school—exceeds the exam mark in that course.3 Effective teaching includes regular testing so that students may be aware of their progress. For such assessment to be useful, it must accurately reflect the student’s understanding of the course. As a systematic policy, inflation of school-awarded grades will be coun-terproductive. Students who believe they are already successful when they are not will be less likely to invest the extra effort needed to master the course material. In the end, they will be poorer for not having achieved the level of understanding that they could have gained through additional study.

The effectiveness of school-based assessments can be determined by a comparison to external assess-ments of the students. In each course that includes a mandatory provincial examination, the Ministry of Education, the same authority that designed the course, administers a uniform examination. This examina-tion will test the students’ knowledge of the material contained in the course. If the marks assigned by the school are a reasonably accurate reflection of students’ understanding, they should be roughly the same as the mark gained on the provincial examination. Thus, if a school has accurately assessed a student as consistently working at a C+ level, the student’s examination result will be at a similar level. If, however, a school is consis-tently granting marks substantially higher than those achieved by its students on the final examinations, then the school is not providing an accurate indicator of the extent to which knowledge of the course mate-rial is being acquired.An indicator of consistency in teaching and assessment

The Gender gap indicators

Research4 has shown systematic sex-based differences in academic results in British Columbia’s secondary schools. However, the same research found that “there appears to be no compelling evidence that girls and boys should, given effective teaching and counsel-ling, experience differential rates of success.” 5 Further, “[t]he differences described by each indicator vary from school to school over a considerable range of values.” 6 The Gender gap indicators measure the difference, if any, in the average exam marks in Mathematics 10 and English 10 for boys and girls. The indicator reports the size of the difference and the more successful sex.

Two indicators of practical,

well-informed counselling

While they are attending secondary school, students must make a number of decisions of considerable significance about their education. Once they have reached the age of 16, for instance, they are at liberty to continue or end their educational program.7 Before grade 10, they are required to choose between differ-ent streams in Mathematics. They will annually decide whether to begin or continue the study of a second language.

Will these young people make good decisions? It is unrealistic to presume that they can do so without advice. What practical, well-informed counselling can they call upon? While parents, in the main, are willing to help, many lack the information they need to be able to provide good advice. It falls, therefore, to the schools to shoulder some responsibility for advising students and their parents about educational choices.

The final two indicators used in the calculation of the Overall rating out of 10 assess the counsel given by the schools by measuring the quality of the deci-sions taken by the students about their education. Of course, wise students will seek guidance not only from the counsellors designated by the schools but also from

Fraser Institute Studies in Education Policy7

teachers and administrators, parents, and other rela-tives. Where students have strong support from family and community, the school’s responsibility for counsel-ling may be lighter; where students do not have such strong support, the school’s role may be more chal-lenging. These indicators measure the school’s success in using the tools at its disposal to help students make good decisions about their education.

Of the decisions that senior students must make, perhaps the most important is the decision to remain in school, do the work, and graduate with their class. Effective counselling will encourage students to make appropriate choices.

1 Delayed advancement rate

This indicator measures the extent to which schools keep their students in school and progressing in a timely manner toward completion of their graduation program. It uses data that report the educational status of students one year after they have enrolled in a given grade at a school in British Columbia. For example, we can determine from these data how many of a school’s grade-10 students re-enroll in the following year in grade 11; are enrolled in grade 10 for a second time; or fail to re-enroll. With these raw data, following a tech-nique that we introduced to Canada in the Report Card on Quebec’s Secondary Schools, 2001 Edition,8 we cal-culate a statistic that will answer the question, “Based on this single year’s school results, what is the likeli-hood that a student entering grade 10 at the school will graduate in the normal three-year period?”

The indicator is calculated as follows. For each school, for each of grades 10, 11, and 12, a rate of suc-cessful transition is determined by first summing the number of students who either graduate in the current school year or re-enroll in a higher grade in the follow-ing year and then dividing that sum by the number of students enrolled in the grade in the current year. Then, for each grade, a dropout rate is determined by sub-tracting the rate of successful transition from 1. Each of the three dropout rates is then reduced by the grade-8 dropout rate at the school to produce a net dropout rate for each grade. We have adopted the grade-8 drop-out rate as an estimate of the “involuntary” drop-out rate caused by events such as emigration or death that lead to the disappearance of students from the school system.

The Delayed advancement rate indicator can now be calculated. The complement of the net dropout rates (1 – net drop-out rate) for grades 10 through 12 is deter-mined and their product is calculated. This three-year composite successful transition rate is then subtracted from 1 to produce the Delayed advancement rate indica-tor that appears in the detailed tables.

Where a school does not enroll grade-8 students, the net dropout rate is calculated using the weighted average grade-8 dropout rate for all the schools in the relevant school district. Where a school does not enroll grade-10 or grade-11 students, no Delayed advancement rate can be calculated. The relative weighting in the cal-culation of the Overall rating out of 10 that is given to this and the other indicators is explained in the Appendix.

2 Graduation rate

This indicator, related to the Delayed advancement rate, compares the number of students eligible to graduate enrolled in the school on September 30 with the num-ber of students who actually graduate by the end of the same school year. Only those enrollees who are capable of graduating with their class within the current school year are included in the count of eligible graduates.

Graduation from secondary school retains consider-able value since it increases options for post-secondary education. Further, graduates from secondary school who decide to enter the work force immediately will, on average, find more job opportunities than those who have not graduated. By completing the 11 years of schooling in preparation for the final secondary school year, students have already demonstrated a reasonable ability to handle the basic courses offered by the school. Moreover, for the majority of students, the minimum requirements for graduation are not onerous. The chance that students will not graduate solely because they are unable to meet the intellectual demands of the curriculum is, therefore, relatively small.

Nevertheless, the graduation rate varies quite widely from school to school throughout the province. While there are factors not related to education—emigration

Report Card on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools 2015 8

from the province, sickness, death, and the like—that can affect the data, there is no reason to expect these factors to influence particular schools systematically. Accordingly, we take variations in the graduation rate to be an indicator of the extent to which students are being well coached in their educational choices.

In general, how is the school

doing academically?

The Overall rating out of 10

While each of the indicators is important, it is almost always the case that a school does better on some indi-cators than on others. So, just as a teacher must make a decision about a student’s overall performance, we need an overall indicator of school performance (in the tables Overall rating out of 10). Just as teachers com-bine test scores, homework, and class participation to rate a student, we have combined all the indicators to produce an overall school rating. The overall rating of school performance answers the question, “In general, how is the school doing, academically compared to others in the Report Card?”

To derive this rating, the results for each of the indicators for each school year were first standardized. Standardization is a statistical procedure whereby sets of raw data with different characteristics are converted into sets of values with “standard” statistical proper-ties. Standardized values can readily be combined and compared.

The standardized data were then combined as required to produce seven standardized scores— one for each indicator—for each school, for each year. The standardized scores were weighted and combined to produce an overall standardized score. Finally, this score was converted into an overall rating out of 10. It is from this Overall rating out of 10 that the school’s provincial rank is determined. For schools teaching only one sex, there are, of course, no results for the Gender gap indicators. In these cases, the Overall rating is derived using the remaining seven indicators. (See the Appendix for an explanation of the calculation of the Overall rating out of 10.)

Finally, note that the Overall rating out of 10, based as it is on standardized scores, is a relative rating. That is, in order for a school to show improvement in its overall rating, it must improve more than the average. If it improves, but at a rate less than the average, it will show a decline in its rating.

Notes

1 The data from which these indicators are derived

is provided by British Columbia’s Ministry of

Education.

2 In the 2013/2014 school year, mandatory provin-

cial examinations were administered in the fol-

lowing grade-10, grade-11, and grade-12 subjects: Apprenticeship and Workplace; Mathematics 10:

BC First Nations Studies 12; Civic Studies 11;

Communications 12; English 10; English 10 First Peoples; English 12; English 12 First Peoples;

Fran?ais langue première 10; Fran?ais langue pre-mière 12; Foundations of Mathematics and Pre-

calculus 10; Science 10; and Social Studies 11.

3 A student’s final mark for all courses that include a

mandatory provincial examination is derived from both the mark received on the course’s provincial

examination and the mark provided by the school.

4 Peter Cowley and Stephen Easton, Boys, Girls,

and Grades: Academic Gender Balance in British

Columbia’s Secondary Schools, Public Policy

Sources 22 (Fraser Institute, 1999).

5 Cowley and Easton, Boys, Girls, and Grades,p. 7.

6 Cowley and Easton, Boys, Girls, and Grades,p. 17.

7 See School Act, BC, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section 1b.

8 Richard Marceau and Peter Cowley, Report Card on

Quebec’s Secondary Schools: 2001 Edition, Studies in

Education Policy (Fraser Institute, 2001), pages 8–9.

Other indicators of school performance

Since the inception of the Report Card, we have added other indicators that, while they are not used to derive the Overall rating out of 10, add more information about a school’s effectiveness.

The Trend indicator

Is the school improving academically? For most schools, the Report Card includes five years of results. Unlike a simple snapshot of one year’s results, this historical record provides evidence of change (or lack thereof) over time.

In order to detect trends in the performance indica-tors, we developed the T rend indicator. This indicator uses statistical analysis to identify those dimensions of school performance in which there has been real change rather than a fluctuation in results caused by random occurrences.

To calculate the trends, the standardized scores rather than raw data are used. Standardizing makes historical data more comparable and the trend mea-surement more reliable. Because calculation of trends is uncertain when only a small number of data points is available, a trend is indicated only in those circum-stances where five years of data are available and where a trend is determined to be statistically significant. For this indicator we have defined the term “statistically significant” to mean that, nine times out of 10, the trend that is noted is real, that is, it did not happen just by chance.

The Student characteristics indicators

For each public school, the Report Card notes the per-centage of its students who are enrolled in ESL pro-grams, in French Immersion programs, or who have identified special needs. As was noted in the introduc-tion, it is sometimes useful to compare a school’s results to those of similar schools. These three indicators can be used to identify schools with similar student-body characteristics.

How to read the tables

Use the sample table and the explanation of each line below to help you interpret the detailed results for indi-vidual schools. Families choosing a school for their stu-dents should seek to confirm the Report Card’s findings by visiting the school and interviewing teachers, school administrators, and other parents. And, of course, a sound academic program should be complemented by effective programs in areas of school activity not mea-sured by the Report Card .

More information regarding schools may be found on the Ministry of E ducation’s web site at and on the web sites of local school districts and individual schools.

important : In order to get the most from the Report

Card , readers should consult the complete table of results for each school of interest. By considering several years of results rather than just a school’s rank in the most recent year readers can get a better idea of how the school is likely to perform in the future.

Detailed school reports

A—Gr 12 Enrollment

The grade-12 enrollment on September 30, 2013. Indicator results for small schools tend to be more vari-able than do those for larger schools and caution should be used in interpreting the results for smaller schools.B—ESL (%); Special needs (%); French Imm (%)These statistics report the percentage of students for whom English is a second-language; the percentage of

students with special needs; and the percentage of stu-dents registered in French Immersion programs at the school. When you want to compare academic results, these statistics can be used to find other schools where the student body has similar characteristics.

C (left)—Actual rating vs predicted based on average parental employment income

(This indicator could not be calculated for this edition.)

SCHOOL DISTRICT School name [Affiliation] Location

Gr 12 Enrollment: 235

ESL (%): 4.2 Special needs (%): 5.3 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 96/289 112/258Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 69.2 68.1 68.9 70.7 72.2 —Percentage of exams failed 9.1 12.2 10.0 8.6 5.5 p School vs exam mark difference 4.6 6.0 4.4 4.8 3.6 —English gender gap F 4.0 F 2.8 F 3.7 F 4.8 F 5.0 —Math gender gap F 1.8 F 0.6 F 1.4 F 1.0 M 1.9 —Graduation rate 96.3 96.8 94.3 94.7 93.6 q Delayed advancement rate 18.5 20.4 16.1 9.9 13.2 —Overall rating out of 10 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.7 p

B –

C –

D –

E –

F –

G –

H –

I –

J –

K –

– A

– – L –

C (right)—Academic ranking

The school’s overall academic rank in the province for 2013/2014 and for the most recent five years. These rankings show how the school has done academical-ly compared to the other schools in the Report Card.

A high ranking over five years indicates consistently strong results at the school.

D—Average exam mark

The average provincial mark (%) achieved by the school’s students in all the grade-10, grade-11, and grade-12 courses in which the provincial examination is mandatory.

E—Percentage of exams failed

The percentage of all the mandatory grade-10, grade-11, and grade-12 provincial examinations written by stu-dents at the school that received a failing grade. F—School vs exam mark difference

The average difference (in percentage points) between the mark awarded by the school and the provincial examination mark in all the courses in which the pro-vincial exam is mandatory. A large difference usually indicates that the school has been “inflating” grades. G—English 10 gender gap

H—Math 10 gender gap

The difference (in percentage points) between boys’ and girls’ average exam marks in E nglish 10 and Foundations of Math and Pre-calculus 10. Where the difference favours girls, the value is preceded by an F; where the difference favours boys, the value is pre-ceded by an M. An E means that there is no difference between the girls and the boys on this measure. Small differences indicate that the school is doing a good job for all its students.

I—Graduation rate

The percentage of eligible graduates enrolled on September 30 who actually graduate in the same school year. Higher rates of graduation indicate that the school is doing a good job of keeping students on track and focused on their work during their final year.J—Delayed advancement rate

The estimated percentage of the school’s grade-10 stu-dents who will not complete grade 12 within three years. Low Delayed advancement rates indicate that the school’s students are likely to complete the last three grades of secondary school in the normal time. K—Overall rating out of 10

The Overall rating out of 10 takes into account the school’s performance on all of these indicators and answers the question, “In general, how is the school doing in academ-ics compared to other schools in the Report Card?”

Note that the Overall rating out of 10, based as it is on standardized scores, is a relative rating. That is, in order for a school to show improvement in its overall rating, it must improve at a greater rate than the aver-age. If it improves, but at a rate less than the average, it will show a decline in its rating.

L—Trends

An upward-pointing arrow at the end of an indicator row means that the school is probably improving on that indi-cator. A downward-pointing arrow means that the school is probably getting worse. The researchers had to be at least 90% sure that the changes were not just random before indicating a trend. A dash indicates that there is no significant change. Where insufficient data were avail-able, “n/a” appears in the column. Note that for the two Gender gap indicators, Percentage of exams failed, School vs exam mark difference and Delayed advancement rate a downward trend in the data will lead to an upward-point-ing arrow in the trend column. For example, decreasing Percentage of exams failed indicates improvement and so an upward-pointing arrow is displayed.

Other notes

Note 1

The tables showing the detailed school results are orga-nized by four geographic regions as follows: (1) Lower Mainland, (2) Vancouver Island and the Coast, (3) Fraser Valley and Southern British Columbia and (4) Interior and Northern British Columbia. Within each

geographic region, school districts are grouped alphabeti-cally. Finally, within each school district, both public and independent (private) schools are listed alphabetically. Note 2

Not all the province’s secondary schools are included in the tables or the ranking. Of all the schools for which any mandatory provincial examination results were reported, this Report Card rated 289. E xcluded are schools at which fewer than 10 students were enrolled in grade 12 and schools that did not generate a suf-ficiently large set of student data to enable the calcula-tion of an Overall rating out of 10. Also excluded from the ratings and rankings are: centres for adult education and continuing education; schools that cater largely to non-resident foreign students; and certain alternative schools that do not offer a full program of courses. The exclusion of a school from the Report Card should not be construed as a judgem ent of the school’s effectiveness.

Note 3

Where there were insufficient data available with which to calculate an indicator or where a school was not in opera-tion during a specific year, “n/a” appears in the tables. Note 4

The complete Report Card on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools may be downloaded from the Fraser Institute’s web site at .Note 5

Due to continuing improvements in methodology, some historical values for indicators and overall ratings are different from those previously reported.

Note 6

You can compare a school’s results with the all-schools results shown below.

Note 7

If you have questions about the Report Card, please contact Peter Cowley, co-author of the Report Card, at peter.cowley@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/4617061229.html,.

Average values for all schools 2013/2014 Gr 12 Enrollment: 162 ESL (%): 2.9 Special Needs (%): 10.8 French Immersion (%): 18.5 Average Parents’ Income: $n/a

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 69.0 68.6 68.9 70.1 69.5 —Percentage of exams failed 8.1 10.2 10.1 8.8 9.7 —School vs exam mark difference 4.3 4.9 4.7 4.6 5.3 —English gender gap* 5.1 5.8 4.9 5.0 5.0 —Math gender gap* 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 q Graduation rate 95.8 95.5 95.6 96.3 95.7 —Delayed advancement rate 17.0 17.7 16.4 13.4 14.0 p Overall rating out of 10 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 n/a

* These results reflect the average size of the gender gaps. In 2013/2014, the English gender gap favoured females at 95.6% of schools, males at 4.0% of schools, and was even at 0.4% schools. The Math gender gap favoured females at 52.8% of schools, males at 46.0% of schools, and was even at 1.2% schools.

List of cities and school districts

City School district City School district

100 Mile House Cariboo-Chilcotin Abbotsford Abbotsford

Agassiz Fraser-Cascade Aldergrove Langley

Armstrong North Okanagan-Shuswap Ashcroft Gold Trail

Barriere

K amloops/Thompson Burnaby Burnaby

Burns Lake Nechako Lakes Campbell River Campbell River Castlegar

K ootenay-Columbia Chase

K amloops/Thompson Chemainus Cowichan Valley Chetwynd Peace River South Chilliwack Chilliwack

Clearwater

K amloops/Thompson Comox Comox Valley Coquitlam Coquitlam

Courtenay Comox Valley Cranbrook Southeast Kootenay Creston Kootenay Lake

Dawson Creek Peace River South

Delta Delta

Duncan Cowichan Valley

Elkford Southeast Kootenay Enderby North Okanagan-Shuswap Fernie Southeast Kootenay

Fort Langley Langley

Fort Nelson Fort Nelson

Fort St James Nechako Lakes

Fort St John Peace River North

Fraser Lake Nechako Lakes

Gibsons Sunshine Coast

Gold River Vancouver Island West Golden Rocky Mountain

Grand Forks Boundary

Hazelton Coast Mountains

Hope Fraser-Cascade

Houston Bulkley Valley Invermere Rocky Mountain amloops

K amloops/Thompson Kelowna Central Okanagan Keremeos Okanagan Similkameen Kimberley Rocky Mountain

Kitimat Coast Mountains Ladysmith Nanaimo-Ladysmith

Lake Cowichan Cowichan Valley

Langley Langley

Lillooet Gold Trail

Lumby Vernon

Mackenzie Prince George

Maple Ridge Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Masset Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte McBride Prince George

Merritt Nicola-Similkameen Midway Boundary Mill Bay Cowichan Valley

Mission Mission

Nakusp Arrow Lakes

Nanaimo Nanaimo-Ladysmith Nelson Kootenay Lake

New Aiyansh Nisga’a

New Westminster New Westminster

North Vancouver North Vancouver

Oliver Okanagan Similkameen Osoyoos Okanagan Similkameen Parksville Qualicum

Pemberton Sea to Sky

Penticton Okanagan Skaha

Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Port Alberni Alberni

Port Coquitlam Coquitlam

Port Hardy Vancouver Island North Port McNeill Vancouver Island North Port Moody Coquitlam

Powell River Powell River

Prince George Prince George

Prince Rupert Prince Rupert

Princeton Nicola-Similkameen Qualicum Beach Qualicum

Queen Charlotte Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Quesnel Quesnel

Revelstoke Revelstoke

Richmond Richmond

Saanichton Saanich

Salmon Arm North Okanagan-Shuswap Salt Spring Island Gulf Islands

Sechelt Sunshine Coast Shawnigan Lake Cowichan Valley Sicamous North Okanagan-Shuswap Sidney Saanich

Smithers Bulkley Valley

Sooke Sooke

South Slocan Kootenay Lake Sparwood Southeast Kootenay Squamish Sea to Sky Summerland Okanagan Skaha

Surrey Surrey

Terrace Coast Mountains

Trail

K ootenay-Columbia Tumbler Ridge Peace River South Ucluelet Alberni

Vancouver Vancouver

Vanderhoof Nechako Lakes

Vernon Vernon

Victoria Greater Victoria

West Kelowna Central Okanagan

West Vancouver West Vancouver

Whistler Sea to Sky

Williams Lake Cariboo-Chilcotin Winfield Central Okanagan

ABBOTSFORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ALBERNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 ARROW LAKES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 BOUNDARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 BULKLEY VALLEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 BURNABY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 CAMPBELL RIVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 CENTRAL OKANAGAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 CHILLIWACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 COAST MOUNTAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 COMOX VALLEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 COQUITLAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 COWICHAN VALLEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 DELTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 FORT NELSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 FRASER-CASCADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 GOLD TRAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 GREATER VICTORIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 GULF ISLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 HAIDA GWAII/QUEEN CHARLOTTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 KAMLOOPS/THOMPSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 KOOTENAY-COLUMBIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 KOOTENAY LAKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 LANGLEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 MAPLE RIDGE-PITT MEADOWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 MISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 NANAIMO-LADYSMITH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 NECHAKO LAKES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31NEW WESTMINSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 NICOLA-SIMILKAMEEN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 NISGA’A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 NORTH OKANAGAN-SHUSWAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 NORTH VANCOUVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 OKANAGAN SIMILKAMEEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 OKANAGAN SKAHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 PEACE RIVER NORTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 PEACE RIVER SOUTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 POWELL RIVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 PRINCE GEORGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 PRINCE RUPERT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 QUALICUM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 QUESNEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 REVELSTOKE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 RICHMOND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ROCKY MOUNTAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 SAANICH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 SEA TO SKY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 SOOKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 SOUTHEAST KOOTENAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 SUNSHINE COAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 SURREY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 VANCOUVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 VANCOUVER ISLAND WEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 VERNON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 WEST VANCOUVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Index of school districts

School district Page School district Page

BURNABY

Alpha [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 141 ESL (%): 4.7 Special needs (%): 13.2 French Imm (%): 9.8 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 209/289 218/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 64.1 64.3 66.9 68.3 69.0 p Percentage of exams failed 15.4 15.9 13.6 12.6 9.8 p School vs exam mark difference 6.9 8.1 5.5 6.8 7.6 — English gender gap F 1.7 F 4.6 F 5.5 F 5.8 F 4.2 — Math gender gap F 2.2 M 3.5 M 0.8 F 3.7 M 4.4 — Graduation rate 91.0 95.9 94.9 92.7 92.4 — Delayed advancement rate 20.9 14.4 24.5 31.8 24.3 — Overall rating out of 10 4.3 4.8 5.2 4.3 5.0 —

Burnaby Central [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 235 ESL (%): 4.2 Special needs (%): 5.3 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 96/289 112/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 69.2 68.1 68.9 70.7 72.2 — Percentage of exams failed 9.1 12.2 10.0 8.6 5.5 p School vs exam mark difference 4.6 6.0 4.4 4.8 3.6 — English gender gap F 4.0 F 2.8 F 3.7 F 4.8 F 5.0 — Math gender gap F 1.8 F 0.6 F 1.4 F 1.0 M 1.9 — Graduation rate 96.3 96.8 94.3 94.7 93.6 q Delayed advancement rate 18.5 20.4 16.1 9.9 13.2 — Overall rating out of 10 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.7 p

Burnaby Mountain [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 277 ESL (%): 5.7 Special needs (%): 11.9 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 145/289 87/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 71.3 72.5 72.4 72.4 71.9 — Percentage of exams failed 5.8 6.5 6.8 7.7 8.9 — School vs exam mark difference 1.8 3.7 2.9 4.4 5.1 q English gender gap F 4.7 F 7.1 F 2.6 F 3.1 F 5.8 — Math gender gap F 3.4 M 3.5 F 1.4 F 0.6 F 3.2 — Graduation rate 96.7 97.0 93.7 97.2 94.0 — Delayed advancement rate 17.6 18.1 14.8 10.3 15.8 — Overall rating out of 10 6.7 6.7 6.9 6.6 5.9 —

Burnaby North [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 407 ESL (%): 5.8 Special needs (%): 6.1 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 107/289 93/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 70.9 72.1 70.9 72.2 73.1 — Percentage of exams failed 7.5 6.3 7.9 8.0 7.3 — School vs exam mark difference 6.2 5.8 6.8 5.9 4.9 — English gender gap F 4.2 F 4.8 F 2.2 F 3.8 F 4.3 — Math gender gap F 1.7 F 2.2 F 0.7 F 0.9 M 2.0 — Graduation rate 97.4 96.9 96.9 97.3 94.2 q Delayed advancement rate 9.5 7.4 10.0 10.7 14.6 q Overall rating out of 10 6.3 6.9 6.5 6.4 6.5 —

Burnaby South [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 294 ESL (%): 10.7 Special needs (%): 8.3 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 197/289 167/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 69.7 69.8 68.1 68.8 69.5 — Percentage of exams failed 9.4 10.3 12.7 11.9 11.9 — School vs exam mark difference 5.9 6.1 7.3 6.0 5.1 — English gender gap F 10.0 F 9.5 F 4.7 F 4.1 F 5.3 p Math gender gap F 1.9 F 2.7 M 1.4 F 0.1 M 3.5 — Graduation rate 93.9 92.0 98.7 94.7 90.2 — Delayed advancement rate 16.3 21.5 14.9 13.1 15.4 — Overall rating out of 10 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.1 — Byrne Creek [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 222

ESL (%): 9.9 Special needs (%): 11.7 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 254/289 234/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 66.1 63.9 65.3 65.7 64.7 —

Percentage of exams failed 12.4 16.9 15.5 15.6 18.3 q

School vs exam mark difference 5.6 8.1 7.1 6.7 8.1 —

English gender gap F 6.4 F 4.0 F 4.3 F 3.9 M 0.3 p

Math gender gap M 1.5 M 0.3 F 5.6 F 0.5 M 1.8 —

Graduation rate 94.8 91.2 92.6 93.2 91.5 —

Delayed advancement rate 33.6 37.3 25.9 21.3 19.0 p

Overall rating out of 10 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.1 —

Cariboo Hill [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 127

ESL (%): 3.3 Special needs (%): 10.8 French Imm (%): 18.6

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 183/289 174/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 67.7 67.8 65.9 67.3 67.8 —

Percentage of exams failed 8.4 11.6 13.4 14.8 12.5 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.8 4.8 5.4 5.0 5.3 —

English gender gap F 5.4 F 10.6 F 5.6 F 7.2 F 4.5 —

Math gender gap F 3.0 F 3.8 M 3.4 F 8.6 F 0.1 —

Graduation rate 96.0 97.3 95.6 94.1 93.3 q

Delayed advancement rate 20.0 17.8 18.3 17.3 18.4 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.1 5.7 5.2 4.1 5.4 —

Carver Christian [Independent] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 50

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 52/289 81/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 74.2 72.5 74.0 75.1 75.5 —

Percentage of exams failed 3.8 9.4 6.2 4.3 5.8 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.1 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.6 —

English gender gap F 1.6 F 8.0 F 11.0 F 9.4 F 0.6 —

Math gender gap M 4.6 F 12.6 F 3.2 F 6.5 F 1.1 —

Graduation rate 100.0 88.9 98.0 97.1 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 0.9 15.6 8.5 4.4 5.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.6 5.3 6.6 6.5 7.7 —

Deer Lake SDA [Independent] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 24

ESL (%): 2.2 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 30/289 n/a

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark n/a n/a 68.6 69.3 75.2 n/a

Percentage of exams failed n/a n/a 13.7 8.4 3.4 n/a

School vs exam mark difference n/a n/a 4.1 6.0 4.0 n/a

English gender gap n/a n/a F 4.2 n/a n/a n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a M 5.0 n/a n/a n/a

Graduation rate n/a n/a 89.5 95.2 100.0 n/a

Delayed advancement rate n/a n/a 22.5 12.1 4.2 n/a

Overall rating out of 10 n/a n/a 5.1 5.6 8.1 n/a

Moscrop [Public] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 280

ESL (%): 9.6 Special needs (%): 5.9 French Imm (%): 23.5

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 123/289 100/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 69.9 71.0 71.7 73.3 73.6 p

Percentage of exams failed 6.4 8.0 6.9 6.9 6.8 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.8 5.3 4.3 3.6 3.4 p

English gender gap F 4.5 F 5.0 F 7.7 F 2.2 F 10.6 —

Math gender gap M 0.8 F 1.9 F 1.6 F 3.7 F 2.8 q

Graduation rate 96.1 97.5 96.3 97.5 93.5 —

Delayed advancement rate 20.3 13.4 17.4 14.2 19.5 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.2 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.2 —

St Thomas More [Independent] Burnaby Gr 12 Enrollment: 126

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 24/289 14/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 75.7 77.7 76.5 78.2 77.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 1.6 0.3 0.8 1.5 0.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.7 1.3 2.4 2.7 2.7 —

English gender gap F 4.1 F 8.7 F 5.0 F 3.1 F 5.3 —

Math gender gap F 0.7 F 1.3 F 3.6 F 2.9 F 4.2 q

Graduation rate 98.4 100.0 100.0 99.3 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 2.1 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.5 —

Overall rating out of 10 8.3 8.8 8.3 8.5 8.4 —

COQUITLAM

Archbishop Carney [Independent] Port Coquitlam Gr 12 Enrollment: 137

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 30/289 25/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 73.4 73.0 75.1 76.3 75.7 p

Percentage of exams failed 3.8 5.2 3.7 3.5 2.1 p

School vs exam mark difference 2.6 3.0 2.5 3.5 4.4 —

English gender gap F 2.7 F 6.6 F 3.7 F 5.5 F 5.9 —

Math gender gap F 0.5 M 1.2 M 0.4 F 4.5 F 1.6 —

Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 99.2 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 0.9 1.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 8.0 7.9 8.2 7.9 8.1 —

Centennial [Public] Coquitlam Gr 12 Enrollment: 339

ESL (%): 9.1 Special needs (%): 14.3 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 193/289 187/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 66.7 66.5 67.2 67.4 66.0 —

Percentage of exams failed 10.5 12.3 12.2 12.5 15.1 q

School vs exam mark difference 6.1 5.9 6.2 7.2 7.2 —

English gender gap F 6.1 F 8.2 F 5.8 F 3.9 F 7.1 —

Math gender gap F 5.7 M 1.6 F 3.4 F 3.0 F 4.9 —

Graduation rate 94.7 93.9 93.7 94.7 98.8 —

Delayed advancement rate 20.6 15.5 21.3 6.2 5.7 —

Overall rating out of 10 4.9 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.2 —

Dr. Charles Best [Public] Coquitlam Gr 12 Enrollment: 291

ESL (%): 1.6 Special needs (%): 10.5 French Imm (%): 36.8

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 37/289 29/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 70.9 71.8 73.7 74.6 74.1 p

Percentage of exams failed 4.5 5.5 3.8 3.2 4.4 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.9 1.2 0.9 1.1 2.0 —

English gender gap F 3.5 F 6.3 F 1.8 F 4.9 F 4.0 —

Math gender gap E M 0.1 F 3.4 F 1.8 F 0.1 —

Graduation rate 95.5 97.0 98.7 97.5 97.8 —

Delayed advancement rate 13.0 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.7 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.1 7.7 8.1 7.9 7.9 —

Gleneagle [Public] Coquitlam Gr 12 Enrollment: 340

ESL (%): 3.7 Special needs (%): 11.6 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 80/289 54/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 72.9 71.4 74.0 75.5 73.6 —

Percentage of exams failed 4.4 8.4 5.1 4.8 5.6 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.8 4.8 3.5 2.2 4.0 —

English gender gap F 2.8 F 4.4 F 2.6 F 2.8 F 4.9 —

Math gender gap F 2.2 F 3.3 F 0.3 F 1.7 F 4.3 —

Graduation rate 95.7 95.1 95.4 97.0 96.9 p

Delayed advancement rate 16.0 15.2 14.1 6.1 6.7 p

Overall rating out of 10 7.2 6.5 7.4 7.7 7.1 —

Lower Mainland

Heritage Woods [Public] Port Moody Gr 12 Enrollment: 287 ESL (%): 6.9 Special needs (%): 10.8 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 52/289 28/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 72.6 73.8 75.1 75.0 74.5 — Percentage of exams failed 4.2 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.6 — School vs exam mark difference 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.5 3.2 — English gender gap F 3.5 F 3.5 F 3.5 F 1.4 F 2.9 — Math gender gap F 1.5 M 3.3 M 1.6 F 0.8 F 1.2 — Graduation rate 98.3 98.2 98.3 96.9 97.8 — Delayed advancement rate 8.7 5.8 6.4 5.6 7.0 — Overall rating out of 10 7.5 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.7 —

Pinetree [Public] Coquitlam Gr 12 Enrollment: 375 ESL (%): 8.2 Special needs (%): 7.7 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 69/289 67/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 73.1 72.6 73.4 74.8 74.4 p Percentage of exams failed 4.7 7.0 6.8 6.4 6.8 — School vs exam mark difference 2.0 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.3 — English gender gap F 4.8 F 4.2 F 3.2 F 5.2 F 3.9 — Math gender gap F 4.7 F 2.1 M 4.0 F 0.4 M 0.2 p Graduation rate 94.8 95.7 94.8 97.1 95.6 — Delayed advancement rate 14.5 15.2 13.2 9.5 12.6 — Overall rating out of 10 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.2 7.3 p

Port Moody [Public] Port Moody Gr 12 Enrollment: 297 ESL (%): 8.0 Special needs (%): 9.7 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 132/289 93/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 72.8 72.6 73.5 73.2 72.3 — Percentage of exams failed 6.5 8.3 8.3 9.5 11.0 q School vs exam mark difference 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.9 q English gender gap F 2.5 F 9.1 F 5.2 F 7.5 F 7.6 — Math gender gap F 0.6 F 2.9 F 1.2 F 5.9 F 5.4 q Graduation rate 92.7 93.8 94.9 94.3 96.2 — Delayed advancement rate 19.4 21.9 14.0 12.7 11.5 — Overall rating out of 10 6.8 6.5 7.0 5.9 6.1 —

Riverside [Public] Port Coquitlam Gr 12 Enrollment: 317 ESL (%): 3.9 Special needs (%): 15.8 French Imm (%): 19.1 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 103/289 93/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 67.7 67.2 68.8 70.0 69.6 p Percentage of exams failed 7.3 10.4 8.3 6.5 7.9 — School vs exam mark difference 3.5 4.3 3.8 2.8 2.7 p English gender gap F 4.3 F 4.7 F 4.8 F 5.8 F 6.4 q Math gender gap M 1.9 F 1.1 F 1.8 M 1.1 M 0.9 p Graduation rate 95.3 97.7 97.2 99.1 96.4 — Delayed advancement rate 8.3 9.1 6.6 5.0 7.5 — Overall rating out of 10 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 6.6 p

Terry Fox [Public] Port Coquitlam Gr 12 Enrollment: 418 ESL (%): 2.5 Special needs (%): 16.9 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 151/289 127/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 66.9 65.5 66.7 68.2 67.7 — Percentage of exams failed 9.9 13.6 11.1 8.9 11.0 — School vs exam mark difference 3.9 4.3 5.2 4.0 5.4 — English gender gap F 6.6 F 7.6 F 3.4 F 4.8 F 4.2 — Math gender gap F 0.9 F 0.4 F 0.9 F 0.9 F 3.5 — Graduation rate 99.3 96.4 97.1 96.7 96.1 q Delayed advancement rate 10.0 17.1 8.4 10.2 11.3 — Overall rating out of 10 6.3 5.7 6.1 6.0 5.8 — DELTA

Burnsview [Public] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 106 ESL (%): 3.1 Special needs (%): 10.6 French Imm (%): 52.6 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 96/289 87/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 69.4 69.7 68.1 70.4 70.0 — Percentage of exams failed 4.5 6.8 8.5 6.1 7.4 — School vs exam mark difference 2.4 2.8 3.1 2.2 3.4 — English gender gap F 2.4 F 11.5 F 5.8 F 5.3 F 3.5 — Math gender gap F 0.9 F 4.0 F 4.3 F 2.1 F 0.3 — Graduation rate 94.6 96.3 93.6 98.7 94.9 — Delayed advancement rate 9.2 13.0 13.9 10.7 7.7 — Overall rating out of 10 7.0 6.4 6.1 6.9 6.7 — Delta [Public] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 290

ESL (%): 1.7 Special needs (%): 21.4 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 118/289 81/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 71.1 69.3 67.5 69.6 68.2 q

Percentage of exams failed 3.2 8.5 9.7 8.4 7.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 2.1 2.3 4.4 3.6 3.9 —

English gender gap F 5.6 F 6.7 F 0.2 F 5.8 F 3.7 —

Math gender gap F 0.8 M 0.2 M 0.7 M 5.5 M 1.2 —

Graduation rate 96.5 96.7 97.3 98.3 93.7 —

Delayed advancement rate 10.2 13.9 9.3 8.7 11.2 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.3 6.8 6.7 6.4 6.3 q

Delview [Public] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 121

ESL (%): 4.7 Special needs (%): 17.3 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 209/289 150/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 66.4 66.0 65.6 67.8 64.7 —

Percentage of exams failed 10.4 13.8 13.2 10.3 13.1 q

School vs exam mark difference 2.9 4.1 3.7 3.4 5.0 —

English gender gap F 2.7 F 2.8 F 0.8 F 1.4 F 6.7 —

Math gender gap E M 0.2 M 5.5 M 2.3 M 4.0 —

Graduation rate 94.4 93.5 93.2 97.3 93.8 —

Delayed advancement rate 7.0 15.8 21.2 9.7 10.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.1 5.8 5.3 6.0 5.0 —

North Delta [Public] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 241

ESL (%): 6.1 Special needs (%): 14.1 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 183/289 218/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 64.8 63.2 64.2 65.1 65.9 —

Percentage of exams failed 12.5 17.1 16.0 14.4 12.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 5.4 6.7 5.1 6.0 5.6 —

English gender gap F 7.4 F 4.7 F 6.7 F 0.5 F 4.2 —

Math gender gap M 0.2 M 1.2 F 3.5 M 2.2 M 0.2 —

Graduation rate 92.9 91.1 91.5 97.5 95.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 26.4 27.2 24.4 18.0 16.7 p

Overall rating out of 10 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.9 5.4 p

Sands [Public] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 152

ESL (%): 3.1 Special needs (%): 17.2 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 165/289 106/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 68.5 66.1 66.9 67.6 66.2 q

Percentage of exams failed 6.8 10.0 11.4 9.9 12.3 q

School vs exam mark difference 2.9 4.8 3.8 1.4 3.6 —

English gender gap F 4.9 F 7.6 F 9.2 F 5.5 F 2.7 —

Math gender gap F 2.1 F 2.4 F 3.4 M 0.8 F 4.9 —

Graduation rate 98.6 99.4 96.9 98.5 97.7 —

Delayed advancement rate 6.5 5.2 11.4 7.7 11.9 q

Overall rating out of 10 6.8 6.4 5.8 6.6 5.7 —

Seaquam [Public] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 241

ESL (%): 3.4 Special needs (%): 12.9 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 118/289 100/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 70.1 71.5 69.7 71.5 70.3 —

Percentage of exams failed 8.1 8.6 8.7 7.8 8.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.8 3.2 4.9 3.3 2.9 —

English gender gap F 5.7 F 6.7 F 2.9 F 7.1 F 4.8 —

Math gender gap M 2.0 F 1.8 M 1.1 M 3.4 M 2.2 —

Graduation rate 95.3 94.3 97.0 95.9 94.5 —

Delayed advancement rate 10.6 6.5 4.9 9.5 14.7 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.2 6.8 6.7 6.2 6.3 —

South Delta [Public] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 240

ESL (%): 1.2 Special needs (%): 11.9 French Imm (%): 28.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 132/289 93/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 69.3 69.9 69.6 70.2 69.0 q

Percentage of exams failed 4.6 6.4 7.2 7.7 7.7 q

School vs exam mark difference 4.4 3.7 3.9 5.0 5.6 —

English gender gap F 5.0 F 5.8 F 7.9 F 4.5 F 6.0 —

Math gender gap F 1.6 M 1.2 F 3.5 F 3.3 M 3.7 q

Graduation rate 97.7 96.3 97.6 97.5 95.8 —

Delayed advancement rate 10.7 7.1 8.6 7.1 10.4 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.7 7.0 6.5 6.4 6.1 q

Southpointe [Independent] Delta Gr 12 Enrollment: 39

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 15/289 12/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 82.9 77.6 78.2 79.9 79.6 —

Percentage of exams failed 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 —

School vs exam mark difference 2.0 2.3 1.9 1.3 4.4 —

English gender gap n/a n/a F 2.1 F 1.6 F 0.6 n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a M 2.0 M 6.8 M 1.7 n/a

Graduation rate 97.0 100.0 100.0 95.2 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 2.2 13.6 1.9 2.2 0.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 8.9 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.8 —

MAPLE RIDGE-PITT MEADOWS

Garibaldi [Public] Maple Ridge Gr 12 Enrollment: 152

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): 13.9 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 277/289 238/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 63.1 61.3 62.3 64.2 61.3 —

Percentage of exams failed 10.6 21.2 18.1 16.1 22.1 —

School vs exam mark difference 5.1 8.3 7.0 9.1 10.6 q

English gender gap F 4.6 F 7.5 F 4.8 F 4.5 F 8.2 —

Math gender gap F 1.2 M 8.0 F 1.5 F 2.1 M 0.6 —

Graduation rate 95.8 96.6 93.3 95.5 88.6 —

Delayed advancement rate 15.0 9.8 17.0 20.2 16.3 —

Overall rating out of 10 5.2 3.9 4.4 3.7 2.8 q

Maple Ridge [Public] Maple Ridge Gr 12 Enrollment: 228

ESL (%): 0.2 Special needs (%): 11.4 French Imm (%): 22.5

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 183/289 118/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 67.4 67.3 66.7 69.1 67.0 —

Percentage of exams failed 7.9 9.6 11.0 7.3 12.1 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.1 3.2 3.9 4.0 5.7 q

English gender gap F 5.2 F 11.0 F 6.1 F 1.7 F 7.5 —

Math gender gap M 1.3 M 0.8 F 1.4 M 2.6 M 1.3 —

Graduation rate 98.8 97.5 95.9 96.9 95.7 q

Delayed advancement rate 5.7 9.1 12.6 14.5 12.9 q

Overall rating out of 10 6.6 6.4 5.9 6.3 5.4 q

Maple Ridge Christian [Independent] Maple Ridge Gr 12 Enrollment: 19

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 96/289 n/a

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark n/a n/a n/a 67.2 69.9 n/a

Percentage of exams failed n/a n/a n/a 8.5 6.9 n/a

School vs exam mark difference n/a n/a n/a 7.2 4.6 n/a

English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a F 1.5 n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a F 9.2 n/a

Graduation rate n/a n/a n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a

Delayed advancement rate n/a n/a n/a 4.8 n/a n/a

Overall rating out of 10 n/a n/a n/a 5.7 6.7 n/a

Meadowridge [Independent] Maple Ridge Gr 12 Enrollment: 41

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 14/289 8/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 82.4 83.6 82.7 82.7 81.5 —

Percentage of exams failed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 —

School vs exam mark difference 0.6 3.2 3.2 2.2 3.1 —

English gender gap F 7.9 F 4.8 F 1.5 F 4.8 F 3.2 —

Math gender gap M 2.8 M 1.9 F 6.4 F 6.0 M 7.2 q

Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 3.8 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 9.0 9.3 9.0 9.1 8.9 —

Pitt Meadows [Public] Pitt Meadows Gr 12 Enrollment: 170

ESL (%): 0.1 Special needs (%): 12.6 French Imm (%): 12.9

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 249/289 187/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 65.8 65.5 65.4 67.0 62.9 —

Percentage of exams failed 11.0 13.4 15.5 12.7 17.9 q

School vs exam mark difference 6.0 6.8 7.6 7.4 7.5 —

English gender gap F 8.7 F 6.4 F 5.6 F 3.1 F 0.6 p

Math gender gap F 4.7 M 2.5 M 4.0 M 4.0 M 6.6 —

Graduation rate 98.7 98.3 98.4 98.7 93.9 —

Delayed advancement rate 11.1 16.4 14.7 6.2 15.1 —

Overall rating out of 10 5.3 5.4 5.0 5.5 4.3 —

Samuel Robertson Tech [Public] Maple Ridge Gr 12 Enrollment: 193 ESL (%): 0.3 Special needs (%): 11.9 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 259/289 236/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 62.9 62.7 62.2 63.8 62.2 — Percentage of exams failed 12.1 17.8 18.4 17.0 16.5 q School vs exam mark difference 7.7 10.2 10.5 8.7 11.4 — English gender gap F 7.4 F 5.5 F 7.0 F 7.3 F 9.0 — Math gender gap M 1.5 F 1.4 F 4.1 M 1.4 M 1.1 — Graduation rate 97.2 90.2 94.9 96.7 96.2 — Delayed advancement rate 11.5 25.7 20.8 9.6 6.9 — Overall rating out of 10 4.9 3.7 3.7 4.2 3.9 —

Thomas Haney [Public] Maple Ridge Gr 12 Enrollment: 193 ESL (%): 0.8 Special needs (%): 12.1 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 220/289 158/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 68.7 67.5 68.3 68.3 66.1 q Percentage of exams failed 6.7 11.7 10.2 10.8 13.3 q School vs exam mark difference 5.4 7.5 5.6 5.1 5.9 — English gender gap F 4.2 F 6.6 F 7.7 F 4.2 F 4.9 — Math gender gap F 2.5 M 1.8 F 0.3 M 3.1 M 3.3 — Graduation rate 93.5 94.0 94.4 95.8 92.8 — Delayed advancement rate 23.5 15.7 19.1 15.9 19.4 — Overall rating out of 10 5.7 5.4 5.8 5.5 4.9 —

Westview [Public] Maple Ridge Gr 12 Enrollment: 181 ESL (%): 0.7 Special needs (%): 18.2 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 233/289 167/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 63.9 63.5 64.5 65.4 63.3 — Percentage of exams failed 12.6 14.9 13.0 12.0 16.2 — School vs exam mark difference 3.1 2.2 2.8 2.9 5.3 — English gender gap F 5.1 F 5.9 F 5.4 F 3.8 F 6.3 — Math gender gap M 3.6 F 2.5 M 5.4 M 1.1 M 2.2 — Graduation rate 94.9 98.0 97.7 98.0 95.3 — Delayed advancement rate 24.9 22.5 17.7 15.9 22.5 — Overall rating out of 10 4.9 5.6 5.7 5.9 4.7 — NEW WESTMINSTER

New Westminster [Public] New Westminster Gr 12 Enrollment: 435 ESL (%): 9.7 Special needs (%): 8.5 French Imm (%): 14.4 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 88/289 67/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 70.7 70.3 71.6 71.9 71.3 — Percentage of exams failed 7.1 8.7 7.3 6.3 8.0 — School vs exam mark difference 1.3 1.2 0.8 1.4 2.0 — English gender gap F 5.1 F 4.1 F 5.3 F 4.0 F 7.7 — Math gender gap F 1.6 M 2.4 M 3.0 F 1.7 F 2.4 — Graduation rate 97.1 96.8 97.1 98.4 97.2 — Delayed advancement rate 21.1 15.8 11.0 8.5 7.3 p Overall rating out of 10 6.6 7.0 7.2 7.3 6.9 — NORTH VANCOUVER

Argyle [Public] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 250 ESL (%): 2.8 Special needs (%): 10.1 French Imm (%): 19.4 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 103/289 75/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 72.2 71.8 71.8 71.8 70.8 q Percentage of exams failed 3.0 5.1 7.5 9.0 6.6 — School vs exam mark difference 1.9 3.9 3.3 4.3 4.3 — English gender gap F 5.1 F 4.8 F 5.1 F 5.0 F 3.5 — Math gender gap F 4.9 F 2.6 M 0.4 F 1.5 F 3.0 — Graduation rate 96.6 96.8 96.2 95.4 96.0 — Delayed advancement rate 8.8 9.1 10.0 12.4 13.6 q Overall rating out of 10 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.3 6.6 q

Bodwell Academy [Independent] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 11 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 283/289 n/a Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark n/a n/a n/a n/a 62.8 n/a Percentage of exams failed n/a n/a n/a n/a 16.9 n/a School vs exam mark difference n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.4 n/a English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Graduation rate n/a n/a n/a n/a 87.5 n/a Delayed advancement rate n/a n/a n/a n/a 58.2 n/a Overall rating out of 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.9 n/a Carson Graham [Public] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 238

ESL (%): 3.2 Special needs (%): 15.7 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 233/289 204/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 64.6 66.9 65.9 66.1 65.4 —

Percentage of exams failed 12.7 13.2 13.4 15.1 15.7 —

School vs exam mark difference 7.0 6.1 6.7 7.4 10.1 —

English gender gap F 5.9 F 4.0 F 2.2 F 8.0 F 5.9 —

Math gender gap F 4.3 M 0.6 F 3.5 F 1.1 M 0.7 —

Graduation rate 94.0 92.8 93.7 97.3 95.8 p

Delayed advancement rate 15.0 13.9 13.7 13.6 11.9 —

Overall rating out of 10 4.4 5.5 5.2 4.5 4.7 —

Handsworth [Public] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 289

ESL (%): 3.3 Special needs (%): 8.1 French Imm (%): 25.9

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 37/289 29/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 74.7 73.5 74.8 75.8 74.3 —

Percentage of exams failed 2.6 4.0 4.1 4.8 3.7 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.8 3.6 q

English gender gap F 8.0 F 10.6 F 3.7 F 3.2 F 4.0 —

Math gender gap F 4.1 F 5.4 M 0.9 M 0.8 M 0.1 p

Graduation rate 97.6 97.4 99.6 98.5 98.2 —

Delayed advancement rate 8.7 8.3 7.1 6.6 3.4 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.5 7.3 7.9 7.8 7.9 —

Lions Gate Christian [Independent] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 14

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 43/289 n/a

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark n/a n/a n/a 73.0 73.5 n/a

Percentage of exams failed n/a n/a n/a 11.9 7.0 n/a

School vs exam mark difference n/a n/a n/a 3.1 3.5 n/a

English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Graduation rate n/a n/a n/a 100.0 100.0 n/a

Delayed advancement rate n/a n/a n/a 22.0 0.0 n/a

Overall rating out of 10 n/a n/a n/a 6.7 7.8 n/a

Seycove [Public] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 142

ESL (%): 0.2 Special needs (%): 12.4 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 92/289 67/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 71.1 72.0 71.4 73.3 72.8 —

Percentage of exams failed 4.8 4.8 6.4 5.7 5.7 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.4 4.5 5.9 6.5 6.1 —

English gender gap F 3.7 F 4.9 F 5.3 F 4.7 F 3.2 —

Math gender gap F 2.7 M 1.8 F 1.9 M 2.1 F 3.2 —

Graduation rate 96.6 96.9 98.5 98.0 97.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 6.6 11.6 2.7 6.1 8.6 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.1 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 q

St Thomas Aquinas [Independent] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 141

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 22/289 21/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 76.1 74.4 76.4 75.9 76.4 —

Percentage of exams failed 2.3 3.5 3.9 5.1 2.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 0.9 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.0 —

English gender gap F 5.4 F 3.3 F 4.5 F 6.1 F 4.4 —

Math gender gap F 3.8 F 3.1 M 0.6 F 0.1 F 0.7 p

Graduation rate 98.2 99.1 100.0 98.3 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 5.9 7.4 1.1 2.5 0.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 8.1 8.2 8.3 7.9 8.5 —

Sutherland [Public] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 192

ESL (%): 5.1 Special needs (%): 13.2 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 225/289 158/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 68.5 67.3 65.8 68.6 67.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 7.6 10.4 15.5 11.4 9.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 2.4 4.0 5.3 3.4 4.9 —

English gender gap F 6.0 F 4.8 F 4.3 F 4.6 F 9.0 —

Math gender gap F 3.3 F 0.2 M 3.5 M 0.2 F 4.2 —

Graduation rate 91.6 94.8 92.5 93.2 89.3 —

Delayed advancement rate 14.2 18.5 18.3 16.6 19.8 q

Overall rating out of 10 5.8 6.2 5.0 5.5 4.8 —

Windsor [Public] North Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 164

ESL (%): 2.0 Special needs (%): 16.6 French Imm (%): 22.4

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 69/289 49/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 71.0 73.1 72.7 73.1 73.6 —

Percentage of exams failed 4.5 4.6 4.2 6.8 4.6 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.3 1.1 2.6 2.7 3.0 —

English gender gap F 6.9 F 6.4 F 3.6 F 5.9 F 5.9 —

Math gender gap F 2.1 F 1.0 M 3.7 M 2.0 F 4.0 —

Graduation rate 97.3 95.1 95.7 98.1 96.6 —

Delayed advancement rate 5.8 10.1 8.0 9.0 8.7 q

Overall rating out of 10 6.9 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.3 —

RICHMOND

A.R. MacNeill [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 154

ESL (%): 21.0 Special needs (%): 8.4 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 165/289 187/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 68.0 68.1 68.6 69.2 69.5 —

Percentage of exams failed 10.2 11.9 11.7 13.0 11.6 —

School vs exam mark difference 6.6 8.0 6.8 5.9 5.1 p

English gender gap F 3.3 F 3.4 F 3.6 F 6.1 F 4.0 —

Math gender gap M 0.9 M 2.2 F 4.1 F 5.3 M 0.1 —

Graduation rate 93.4 91.9 97.5 97.8 95.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 40.3 29.1 23.9 16.7 13.1 p

Overall rating out of 10 4.8 5.0 5.4 4.8 5.7 —

Cambie [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 170

ESL (%): 10.6 Special needs (%): 9.8 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 197/289 198/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 65.2 66.2 66.5 66.7 67.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 11.7 11.1 11.9 11.8 12.2 —

School vs exam mark difference 2.8 2.3 3.6 2.8 2.4 —

English gender gap F 4.4 F 4.9 F 6.5 F 3.8 F 7.5 —

Math gender gap M 3.8 F 3.9 F 3.8 F 1.4 F 0.6 p

Graduation rate 89.8 93.2 96.1 91.2 89.6 —

Delayed advancement rate 32.8 32.2 28.4 26.8 23.5 —

Overall rating out of 10 4.5 5.4 5.2 4.7 5.1 —

Hugh Boyd [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 171

ESL (%): 14.4 Special needs (%): 11.6 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 183/289 167/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 67.3 67.3 68.4 69.2 69.8 p

Percentage of exams failed 9.6 11.8 9.8 11.1 9.2 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.3 4.2 3.9 2.6 2.1 p

English gender gap F 3.9 F 9.0 F 4.7 F 9.3 F 9.1 —

Math gender gap F 3.6 F 0.1 M 2.7 F 1.2 F 3.7 —

Graduation rate 92.8 89.8 97.2 95.6 92.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 25.2 31.2 20.6 29.2 25.2 —

Overall rating out of 10 5.3 5.0 6.0 5.2 5.4 —

Hugh McRoberts [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 192

ESL (%): 10.3 Special needs (%): 4.4 French Imm (%): 43.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 56/289 49/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 72.6 72.2 73.6 73.8 75.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 3.5 4.9 5.1 4.7 3.2 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.2 3.5 4.3 3.6 1.7 —

English gender gap F 5.1 F 7.0 F 4.0 F 2.6 F 4.3 —

Math gender gap F 5.5 F 6.0 M 0.6 F 1.8 M 1.3 p

Graduation rate 99.1 97.9 98.5 98.3 95.3 q

Delayed advancement rate 9.8 15.0 8.8 8.6 13.3 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.3 7.6 p

J N Burnett [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 269

ESL (%): 24.3 Special needs (%): 4.8 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 61/289 54/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 74.3 73.1 75.0 74.4 75.8 —

Percentage of exams failed 5.1 5.2 5.9 6.5 4.6 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.9 3.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 —

English gender gap M 0.4 F 2.2 F 3.9 F 4.0 F 2.9 —

Math gender gap F 3.8 F 0.1 F 0.3 F 4.1 F 2.4 —

Graduation rate 95.9 96.1 94.0 96.8 97.7 —

Delayed advancement rate 15.0 18.2 14.8 12.6 17.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.2 7.3 7.2 6.9 7.5 —

Matthew McNair [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 234 ESL (%): 9.2 Special needs (%): 12.5 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 244/289 204/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 66.6 66.8 65.5 68.4 66.6 — Percentage of exams failed 8.4 12.4 16.6 11.1 14.1 — School vs exam mark difference 3.3 4.9 5.6 3.7 4.2 — English gender gap F 5.7 F 10.3 F 4.9 F 2.7 F 7.1 — Math gender gap M 2.0 M 3.5 E M 3.0 F 2.5 — Graduation rate 94.2 92.1 87.9 92.6 90.1 q Delayed advancement rate 27.9 19.1 32.6 18.9 25.9 — Overall rating out of 10 5.4 5.0 4.3 5.2 4.5 —

R C Palmer [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 147 ESL (%): 20.4 Special needs (%): 5.6 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 107/289 118/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 70.6 71.5 71.1 72.1 74.0 — Percentage of exams failed 6.2 5.3 8.4 7.3 8.1 — School vs exam mark difference 2.8 3.0 3.0 1.6 2.4 p English gender gap F 4.8 F 8.5 F 9.6 F 6.2 F 6.7 — Math gender gap F 4.6 F 3.0 F 8.3 F 6.3 F 0.8 — Graduation rate 92.3 95.0 98.2 99.3 93.5 — Delayed advancement rate 29.3 35.5 25.9 19.5 19.2 p Overall rating out of 10 5.7 6.3 5.7 6.4 6.5 —

Richmond [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 307 ESL (%): 20.6 Special needs (%): 4.1 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 52/289 49/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 73.3 74.8 75.1 76.4 76.6 — Percentage of exams failed 4.6 5.1 6.4 4.6 3.5 — School vs exam mark difference 4.1 2.8 2.3 1.9 2.8 — English gender gap F 2.2 F 3.2 F 3.6 F 5.4 F 1.2 — Math gender gap F 1.3 F 3.6 F 1.9 F 2.3 F 4.8 — Graduation rate 97.2 96.9 96.5 99.2 97.3 — Delayed advancement rate 23.3 24.2 19.1 11.0 10.2 p Overall rating out of 10 6.9 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.7 p

Richmond Christian [Independent] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 73 ESL (%): 0.2 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 22/289 14/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 73.1 78.1 78.6 81.5 79.3 — Percentage of exams failed 3.0 2.0 2.7 1.9 2.3 — School vs exam mark difference 2.5 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 — English gender gap F 0.5 F 3.6 F 1.5 F 4.8 F 3.6 — Math gender gap M 3.6 M 3.5 M 6.0 F 1.0 F 5.6 — Graduation rate 100.0 97.7 100.0 100.0 97.2 — Delayed advancement rate 4.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 — Overall rating out of 10 7.8 8.6 8.6 9.2 8.5 —

Robert Alexander McMath [Public] Richmond G r 12 Enrollment: 226 ESL (%): 5.0 Special needs (%): 7.2 French Imm (%): 28.2 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 65/289 43/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 70.8 73.1 73.6 74.2 74.5 — Percentage of exams failed 4.0 4.4 3.8 2.3 2.9 p School vs exam mark difference 2.6 2.2 3.0 2.4 2.9 — English gender gap F 4.5 F 5.4 F 2.7 F 7.3 F 6.4 — Math gender gap F 2.7 E F 1.7 M 1.7 F 1.7 — Graduation rate 95.1 96.3 98.1 96.5 95.3 — Delayed advancement rate 9.5 13.0 9.5 10.1 9.1 — Overall rating out of 10 6.9 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.4 —

Steveston-London [Public] Richmond Gr 12 Enrollment: 246 ESL (%): 15.7 Special needs (%): 5.2 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 56/289 43/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 73.4 73.7 75.7 76.8 76.4 p Percentage of exams failed 5.4 5.4 4.0 3.3 4.9 — School vs exam mark difference 2.0 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 p English gender gap F 4.0 F 1.3 F 2.9 F 1.4 F 4.3 — Math gender gap F 3.7 F 1.4 F 3.0 F 1.7 F 3.5 — Graduation rate 97.4 93.1 96.8 96.3 97.3 — Delayed advancement rate 24.6 14.6 17.3 8.1 11.9 — Overall rating out of 10 6.7 7.3 7.5 8.0 7.6 p SURREY

Clayton Heights [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 255

ESL (%): 2.1 Special needs (%): 12.6 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 209/289 158/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 67.6 66.3 65.9 68.3 66.3 —

Percentage of exams failed 8.9 11.7 13.3 9.1 12.1 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.3 1.7 3.7 3.7 4.7 q

English gender gap F 4.9 F 7.1 F 3.9 F 3.7 F 7.4 —

Math gender gap F 2.8 M 4.0 M 4.0 M 4.7 F 1.0 —

Graduation rate 88.9 93.1 92.3 96.5 88.2 —

Delayed advancement rate 25.3 16.9 16.0 7.6 15.2 —

Overall rating out of 10 5.3 5.8 5.5 6.1 5.0 —

Earl Marriott [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 336

ESL (%): 2.9 Special needs (%): 11.2 French Imm (%): 26.9

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 123/289 100/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 70.4 69.7 71.0 70.9 70.4 —

Percentage of exams failed 6.3 8.9 6.6 7.0 7.5 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.7 —

English gender gap F 4.1 F 3.9 F 2.4 F 4.4 F 6.6 —

Math gender gap F 0.3 M 3.8 F 0.2 F 1.2 M 1.6 —

Graduation rate 93.9 92.8 96.6 94.9 92.1 —

Delayed advancement rate 23.2 21.1 12.3 12.7 11.2 p

Overall rating out of 10 6.4 6.2 7.0 6.4 6.2 —

Elgin Park [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 264

ESL (%): 13.0 Special needs (%): 5.9 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 65/289 40/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 74.1 72.4 74.5 75.6 74.4 —

Percentage of exams failed 5.0 6.6 4.5 3.4 5.3 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.8 3.5 3.3 3.9 4.6 q

English gender gap F 6.0 F 7.6 F 5.3 F 5.3 F 3.8 p

Math gender gap F 1.6 F 1.0 E M 1.4 F 1.2 —

Graduation rate 97.4 96.3 96.5 98.8 97.6 —

Delayed advancement rate 9.0 6.7 11.5 3.3 6.6 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.5 7.2 7.5 7.7 7.4 —

Enver Creek [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 263

ESL (%): 4.5 Special needs (%): 10.2 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 151/289 145/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 65.8 65.8 65.9 69.5 68.2 p

Percentage of exams failed 13.4 13.6 15.4 9.1 10.8 —

School vs exam mark difference 5.5 5.8 5.5 4.5 6.2 —

English gender gap F 4.2 F 6.0 F 3.9 F 3.3 F 5.7 —

Math gender gap F 5.0 F 0.2 M 0.8 F 0.1 F 1.5 —

Graduation rate 95.9 95.3 96.4 95.6 95.6 —

Delayed advancement rate 12.5 9.4 7.8 8.4 9.4 —

Overall rating out of 10 4.9 5.7 5.6 6.3 5.8 —

Fleetwood Park [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 247

ESL (%): 9.5 Special needs (%): 10.1 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 76/289 54/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 71.7 70.0 71.7 72.7 72.1 —

Percentage of exams failed 4.4 7.5 6.6 5.3 6.3 —

School vs exam mark difference 0.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 2.3 q

English gender gap F 3.2 F 3.7 F 3.8 F 2.7 F 6.1 —

Math gender gap F 1.2 F 3.3 M 0.4 F 1.4 M 1.4 —

Graduation rate 94.5 92.8 92.5 97.2 97.4 —

Delayed advancement rate 14.5 15.9 11.0 5.5 5.8 p

Overall rating out of 10 7.2 6.7 7.1 7.6 7.2 —

Frank Hurt [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 248

ESL (%): 7.3 Special needs (%): 15.8 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 225/289 187/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 65.8 64.7 65.8 65.6 66.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 10.9 14.6 12.6 14.2 13.1 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.3 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.1 —

English gender gap F 8.1 F 4.0 F 2.9 F 1.5 F 1.8 p

Math gender gap F 3.9 M 2.8 M 1.9 M 5.1 M 2.1 —

Graduation rate 94.0 93.8 90.3 91.2 87.7 q

Delayed advancement rate 15.8 15.5 17.7 15.8 22.0 q

Overall rating out of 10 5.3 5.4 5.3 4.5 4.8 —

Fraser Heights [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 329

ESL (%): 8.5 Special needs (%): 6.8 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 107/289 87/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 72.6 72.6 72.6 73.3 72.7 q

Percentage of exams failed 5.2 6.7 7.9 7.3 7.0 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 5.3 q

English gender gap F 2.5 F 2.8 F 3.8 F 5.6 F 4.9 q

Math gender gap F 0.5 M 1.1 M 3.9 F 0.4 M 2.6 —

Graduation rate 95.7 97.4 95.1 91.7 95.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 17.4 11.9 17.5 15.1 12.3 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.9 7.2 6.5 6.1 6.5 —

Guildford Park [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 259

ESL (%): 15.0 Special needs (%): 18.4 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 249/289 167/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 67.1 67.1 67.2 66.6 64.6 q

Percentage of exams failed 9.2 10.4 9.8 12.0 16.4 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.1 3.0 2.2 4.1 5.1 —

English gender gap F 6.2 F 5.8 F 4.0 F 5.0 F 8.3 —

Math gender gap F 4.7 E F 2.7 F 1.6 M 3.6 —

Graduation rate 96.4 94.2 92.0 92.9 93.8 —

Delayed advancement rate 21.6 16.7 23.4 15.2 25.3 —

Overall rating out of 10 5.5 6.2 5.9 5.1 4.3 —

Holy Cross [Independent] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 153

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 43/289 54/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 70.8 72.0 72.5 72.7 73.1 —

Percentage of exams failed 4.3 5.1 4.8 4.2 3.0 —

School vs exam mark difference 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.4 —

English gender gap F 5.1 F 6.5 F 4.6 F 6.4 F 3.1 —

Math gender gap F 3.5 F 1.9 F 1.4 F 6.1 M 1.1 —

Graduation rate 99.4 91.8 96.9 97.3 98.7 —

Delayed advancement rate 2.4 10.5 2.7 4.7 0.7 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.3 6.8 7.4 6.8 7.8 —

Johnston Heights [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 265

ESL (%): 9.9 Special needs (%): 12.2 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 151/289 158/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 69.0 67.3 67.5 68.5 67.9 —

Percentage of exams failed 9.3 14.0 17.1 12.7 12.4 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.7 6.7 7.4 5.6 5.2 —

English gender gap F 5.4 F 3.9 F 2.5 F 3.7 F 1.9 —

Math gender gap F 1.6 F 1.3 M 0.1 F 1.0 F 0.6 —

Graduation rate 96.0 93.1 92.8 92.6 92.4 q

Delayed advancement rate 15.0 12.7 12.4 12.1 13.7 —

Overall rating out of 10 5.9 5.4 5.1 5.2 5.8 —

Kwantlen Park [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 270

ESL (%): 5.0 Special needs (%): 11.0 French Imm (%): 13.2

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 197/289 204/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 65.6 64.2 66.0 67.7 67.1 p

Percentage of exams failed 12.4 16.8 13.8 12.4 13.2 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.0 8.1 4.9 4.9 6.3 —

English gender gap F 3.2 F 5.4 F 3.1 F 3.3 F 9.4 —

Math gender gap F 1.2 F 3.8 M 1.1 F 1.2 F 3.2 —

Graduation rate 91.0 87.8 91.8 96.3 96.7 p

Delayed advancement rate 30.3 26.8 17.3 10.3 11.7 p

Overall rating out of 10 4.6 4.0 5.4 5.5 5.1 —

L A Matheson [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 263

ESL (%): 8.4 Special needs (%): 12.4 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 278/289 245/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 65.0 63.7 63.3 63.9 61.5 q

Percentage of exams failed 12.3 16.9 18.5 18.7 24.0 q

School vs exam mark difference 3.8 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.8 q

English gender gap F 6.0 F 7.8 F 6.4 F 6.5 F 3.7 —

Math gender gap F 4.9 F 4.4 M 2.7 F 3.6 M 0.6 p

Graduation rate 92.8 86.8 90.2 92.9 84.9 —

Delayed advancement rate 17.1 18.1 11.3 12.8 25.7 —

Overall rating out of 10 4.7 4.2 4.3 3.4 2.6 q

Lord Tweedsmuir [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 352 ESL (%): 2.1 Special needs (%): 14.1 French Imm (%): 12.2 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 123/289 112/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 67.9 66.7 67.5 69.0 69.1 — Percentage of exams failed 6.9 9.0 8.8 6.7 7.5 — School vs exam mark difference 3.0 3.8 2.9 2.4 3.9 — English gender gap F 5.0 F 4.5 F 5.9 F 3.5 F 6.5 — Math gender gap F 0.7 F 1.3 F 0.3 F 1.1 F 1.5 — Graduation rate 94.3 91.9 91.8 94.2 94.2 — Delayed advancement rate 11.2 17.1 17.2 9.4 12.4 — Overall rating out of 10 6.3 6.0 6.1 6.6 6.2 —

North Surrey [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 315 ESL (%): 4.9 Special needs (%): 12.3 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 92/289 87/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 70.5 68.6 70.9 71.4 71.4 — Percentage of exams failed 5.8 8.7 7.7 6.1 6.7 — School vs exam mark difference 2.4 3.9 2.6 2.3 3.9 — English gender gap F 4.9 F 4.0 F 6.3 F 5.4 F 5.0 — Math gender gap F 3.1 M 2.0 F 1.5 F 5.4 F 2.8 — Graduation rate 97.0 95.3 96.3 93.6 96.0 — Delayed advancement rate 15.0 10.0 11.7 7.0 5.7 — Overall rating out of 10 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.3 6.8 —

Pacific Academy [Independent] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 103 ESL (%): 0.1 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 24/289 20/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 76.6 76.8 76.5 76.0 77.3 — Percentage of exams failed 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 1.6 — School vs exam mark difference 2.1 2.2 4.2 4.0 3.6 — English gender gap F 4.1 F 5.5 F 6.7 F 4.6 F 1.8 — Math gender gap F 1.4 F 3.7 F 1.6 M 0.3 M 4.2 — Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 — Delayed advancement rate 1.6 1.1 1.9 2.8 0.0 — Overall rating out of 10 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.1 8.4 —

Panorama Ridge [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 303 ESL (%): 5.4 Special needs (%): 8.8 French Imm (%): 14.9 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 145/289 118/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 66.6 67.1 69.0 68.4 68.2 — Percentage of exams failed 9.2 11.5 9.5 10.9 10.6 — School vs exam mark difference 5.1 3.7 2.6 4.1 6.3 — English gender gap F 7.2 F 4.4 F 3.9 F 2.7 F 5.1 — Math gender gap F 3.7 F 0.9 F 0.3 F 0.8 F 4.0 — Graduation rate 96.6 95.5 93.6 96.2 97.9 — Delayed advancement rate 8.2 8.6 10.9 6.8 6.1 — Overall rating out of 10 5.6 6.3 6.5 6.0 5.9 —

Princess Margaret [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 287 ESL (%): 12.9 Special needs (%): 8.7 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 123/289 150/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 65.9 65.4 67.0 68.5 68.7 p Percentage of exams failed 10.5 12.7 13.9 10.5 9.3 — School vs exam mark difference 5.0 5.4 4.2 3.8 2.8 p English gender gap F 5.0 F 4.6 F 6.6 F 3.9 F 4.9 — Math gender gap F 2.2 F 0.1 M 1.1 F 3.4 M 0.4 — Graduation rate 96.5 92.4 90.8 93.8 93.4 — Delayed advancement rate 14.0 15.7 17.3 9.6 15.3 — Overall rating out of 10 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.7 6.2 —

Queen Elizabeth [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 350 ESL (%): 7.6 Special needs (%): 11.2 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 249/289 225/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 64.2 63.7 63.8 65.5 64.2 — Percentage of exams failed 14.0 16.4 17.0 15.2 17.2 — School vs exam mark difference 4.4 5.7 6.5 4.6 6.1 — English gender gap F 5.9 F 6.9 F 4.0 F 5.7 F 6.0 — Math gender gap M 0.8 F 1.5 M 2.1 F 3.0 F 2.6 q Graduation rate 96.3 90.2 92.9 94.0 93.5 — Delayed advancement rate 17.0 21.3 23.8 16.5 18.5 — Overall rating out of 10 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 q Regent Christian [Independent] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 49

ESL (%): 0.2 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 19/289 29/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 74.5 69.4 72.9 75.0 78.1 —

Percentage of exams failed 3.7 9.4 5.5 2.7 1.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.2 4.3 2.5 1.7 2.6 —

English gender gap F 3.8 n/a M 2.7 F 6.6 F 0.1 n/a

Math gender gap F 7.8 n/a M 0.9 F 3.2 M 0.8 n/a

Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.3 97.9 —

Delayed advancement rate 13.8 2.3 0.0 7.4 1.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.2 8.6 —

Relevant [Independent] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 15

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 8/289 n/a

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark n/a 79.6 79.9 80.7 82.4 n/a

Percentage of exams failed n/a 0.0 1.8 2.1 0.0 n/a

School vs exam mark difference n/a 4.0 3.3 0.9 2.6 n/a

English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Graduation rate n/a 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 n/a

Delayed advancement rate n/a n/a 5.3 0.0 0.0 n/a

Overall rating out of 10 n/a 8.8 8.7 9.4 9.4 n/a

Semiahmoo [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 296

ESL (%): 13.0 Special needs (%): 7.9 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 56/289 54/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 73.4 73.8 73.9 75.8 76.5 p

Percentage of exams failed 5.0 5.8 6.3 4.5 3.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.6 3.5 2.7 1.3 1.9 p

English gender gap F 0.5 F 6.2 F 4.0 F 5.3 F 7.9 q

Math gender gap M 3.6 F 5.1 M 0.6 F 4.0 F 3.2 —

Graduation rate 97.7 95.5 91.5 94.5 96.7 —

Delayed advancement rate 9.1 7.2 13.5 10.9 7.3 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.6 —

Southridge [Independent] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 67

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 3/289 3/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 85.9 84.9 84.5 84.3 84.0 q

Percentage of exams failed 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 p

School vs exam mark difference 0.7 1.4 1.6 0.7 1.0 —

English gender gap F 4.0 F 1.7 F 0.6 F 6.5 F 2.0 —

Math gender gap F 0.2 M 6.0 M 3.1 F 0.2 F 0.2 —

Graduation rate 98.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 6.4 2.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 p

Sullivan Heights [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 290

ESL (%): 4.6 Special needs (%): 9.3 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 165/289 118/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 69.1 67.9 67.4 68.8 67.1 q

Percentage of exams failed 6.5 10.3 11.2 10.1 12.5 q

School vs exam mark difference 1.9 2.2 2.8 3.2 2.7 —

English gender gap F 3.8 F 4.3 F 6.4 F 7.3 F 1.8 —

Math gender gap F 1.7 M 0.7 F 0.8 F 4.6 M 1.3 —

Graduation rate 97.4 91.5 94.9 92.2 91.8 —

Delayed advancement rate 12.8 15.0 13.0 10.5 16.9 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.9 6.3 6.2 5.3 5.7 q

Surrey Christian [Independent] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 85

ESL (%): 1.5 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 76/289 67/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 69.3 70.3 72.2 72.2 72.0 —

Percentage of exams failed 5.8 5.9 5.3 6.2 6.1 —

School vs exam mark difference 5.9 5.9 4.7 6.1 4.5 —

English gender gap F 7.7 F 3.4 F 6.7 F 8.2 F 0.7 —

Math gender gap F 2.0 F 1.5 F 2.0 M 5.4 M 5.2 q

Graduation rate 98.9 100.0 100.0 98.9 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 1.8 3.4 1.0 6.8 10.7 q

Overall rating out of 10 6.6 7.2 7.4 6.5 7.2 —

Tamanawis [Public] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 308

ESL (%): 9.3 Special needs (%): 6.7 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 165/289 145/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 70.0 65.4 67.1 67.5 68.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 7.4 12.1 13.4 11.6 11.1 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.0 5.3 4.1 3.4 6.0 —

English gender gap F 2.3 F 4.2 F 6.0 F 2.6 F 3.8 —

Math gender gap F 3.0 M 0.5 F 0.7 M 0.2 F 1.7 —

Graduation rate 96.4 91.7 95.6 93.8 94.7 —

Delayed advancement rate 17.7 15.2 15.6 13.7 13.5 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.3 5.4 5.7 5.6 5.7 —

White Rock Christian [Independent] Surrey Gr 12 Enrollment: 28

ESL (%): 0.3 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 92/289 81/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 71.8 72.8 70.4 71.8 74.8 —

Percentage of exams failed 1.2 1.7 4.4 4.2 1.6 —

School vs exam mark difference 6.2 5.7 10.8 5.5 5.3 —

English gender gap F 8.1 F 9.5 n/a F 3.7 F 7.4 n/a

Math gender gap F 8.6 F 0.7 n/a M 3.6 F 3.7 n/a

Graduation rate 100.0 97.5 96.4 100.0 92.6 —

Delayed advancement rate 7.3 1.3 8.3 0.0 10.3 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.7 7.4 5.3 7.2 6.8 —

VANCOUVER

Britannia [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 146

ESL (%): 1.9 Special needs (%): 23.9 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 233/289 238/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 62.9 62.4 64.0 65.2 65.1 p

Percentage of exams failed 15.9 20.7 20.9 15.5 17.3 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.6 7.2 5.4 3.2 4.1 —

English gender gap F 4.3 M 0.3 F 6.7 F 0.9 F 2.3 —

Math gender gap F 4.6 M 2.6 F 2.1 F 4.3 M 3.2 —

Graduation rate 91.6 90.2 88.5 91.4 92.3 —

Delayed advancement rate 36.2 31.6 38.7 26.0 24.3 —

Overall rating out of 10 3.6 3.9 3.5 4.4 4.7 —

Crofton House [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 94

ESL (%): 0.9 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 4/289 2/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 85.5 85.1 85.6 85.5 85.1 q

Percentage of exams failed 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 —

School vs exam mark difference 2.2 2.1 1.1 1.2 2.6 —

English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 9.6 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.7 —

David Thompson [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 366

ESL (%): 10.1 Special needs (%): 9.5 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 88/289 118/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 67.8 67.4 68.0 70.6 72.0 p

Percentage of exams failed 9.3 13.5 12.0 8.4 8.1 p

School vs exam mark difference 2.2 3.3 2.9 1.8 1.8 p

English gender gap F 1.7 F 4.7 F 6.0 F 4.6 F 1.7 —

Math gender gap F 0.4 F 3.0 F 3.6 M 0.4 M 0.7 —

Graduation rate 97.5 94.4 91.9 92.7 93.9 —

Delayed advancement rate 17.3 20.8 25.7 19.4 15.1 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.3 5.7 5.4 6.0 6.9 —

Eric Hamber [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 327

ESL (%): 4.9 Special needs (%): 10.6 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 69/289 100/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 72.8 71.4 71.5 73.9 73.3 —

Percentage of exams failed 5.0 7.4 9.7 6.4 6.0 —

School vs exam mark difference 1.2 2.8 4.2 2.2 1.7 —

English gender gap F 1.6 F 6.4 F 3.5 F 2.4 F 2.4 —

Math gender gap F 1.9 F 2.7 M 3.8 M 2.1 M 1.0 —

Graduation rate 93.1 92.2 96.7 94.1 97.4 —

Delayed advancement rate 35.5 40.1 30.3 28.0 23.1 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.5 5.9 6.0 6.5 7.3 —

Gladstone [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 264 ESL (%): 5.6 Special needs (%): 15.3 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 176/289 180/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 66.4 66.0 67.7 69.1 68.3 p Percentage of exams failed 10.3 14.4 10.5 10.2 9.4 p School vs exam mark difference 5.4 6.5 6.3 4.0 5.8 — English gender gap F 5.2 F 5.1 F 4.0 F 5.2 F 6.6 — Math gender gap F 4.6 M 0.3 M 5.6 F 2.3 F 2.8 — Graduation rate 94.8 91.7 98.0 94.7 96.2 — Delayed advancement rate 20.5 29.2 25.7 22.3 25.2 — Overall rating out of 10 5.0 4.8 5.4 5.5 5.5 p

John Oliver [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 226 ESL (%): 14.9 Special needs (%): 14.4 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 193/289 210/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 64.3 64.2 64.3 65.6 65.9 — Percentage of exams failed 12.1 15.4 14.8 12.9 13.6 — School vs exam mark difference 4.0 2.3 3.5 3.5 2.8 — English gender gap F 3.8 F 3.8 F 4.4 F 1.5 F 0.3 — Math gender gap F 3.5 F 3.8 M 1.7 F 2.0 M 6.5 — Graduation rate 92.7 92.8 96.3 87.6 94.7 — Delayed advancement rate 38.2 36.0 33.9 26.5 25.0 p Overall rating out of 10 4.5 4.9 5.0 4.4 5.2 —

Killarney [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 406 ESL (%): 7.5 Special needs (%): 14.4 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 225/289 150/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 70.8 69.2 69.5 71.3 69.4 — Percentage of exams failed 6.3 10.8 9.8 9.2 10.0 — School vs exam mark difference 2.1 3.7 3.9 3.0 5.1 — English gender gap F 5.2 F 3.7 F 4.1 F 4.3 F 7.8 — Math gender gap M 0.7 F 1.9 F 1.9 F 0.8 F 2.0 — Graduation rate 93.5 92.6 91.4 92.8 88.9 q Delayed advancement rate 24.7 27.0 29.6 25.4 32.6 q Overall rating out of 10 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.7 4.8 q

King David [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 35 ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 30/289 18/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 76.9 77.6 75.3 79.0 78.0 — Percentage of exams failed 1.6 2.0 0.7 0.7 1.7 — School vs exam mark difference 3.3 0.9 4.3 3.5 3.2 — English gender gap F 0.1 n/a F 0.1 n/a M 5.2 n/a Math gender gap M 0.8 n/a F 1.5 n/a M 8.5 n/a Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.5 100.0 — Delayed advancement rate 4.8 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 — Overall rating out of 10 8.4 9.2 8.4 8.1 8.1 —

King George [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 101 ESL (%): 5.9 Special needs (%): 10.4 French Imm (%): 0.0 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 268/289 229/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 66.5 66.9 66.5 67.0 66.6 — Percentage of exams failed 10.3 9.8 14.1 12.1 13.9 — School vs exam mark difference 4.0 6.2 4.8 5.7 7.7 — English gender gap F 7.8 F 10.1 F 8.2 F 3.0 F 6.0 — Math gender gap F 2.1 M 5.4 M 1.6 M 8.3 F 2.1 — Graduation rate 90.8 89.7 94.4 93.2 85.9 — Delayed advancement rate 28.4 32.2 27.6 24.2 36.7 — Overall rating out of 10 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.2 3.4 —

Kitsilano [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 254 ESL (%): 4.2 Special needs (%): 10.4 French Imm (%): 34.5 Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 85/289 67/258 Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend Average exam mark 72.9 71.6 73.1 74.4 73.9 — Percentage of exams failed 5.0 6.2 6.6 6.1 6.0 — School vs exam mark difference 1.0 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 — English gender gap F 4.5 F 3.7 F 4.0 F 1.9 F 5.2 — Math gender gap F 2.4 F 0.6 F 1.6 F 2.0 F 0.4 — Graduation rate 93.8 91.7 95.4 97.7 93.3 — Delayed advancement rate 24.1 26.4 21.8 16.8 19.8 — Overall rating out of 10 6.8 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.0 — Little Flower [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 96

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 1/289 3/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 83.9 83.7 82.1 84.5 85.1 —

Percentage of exams failed 0.5 0.4 1.1 1.5 0.2 —

School vs exam mark difference 0.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 0.9 —

English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 3.4 1.7 1.1 0.0 1.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 9.7 9.7 9.3 9.7 10.0 —

Lord Byng [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 266

ESL (%): 10.6 Special needs (%): 11.5 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 24/289 18/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 78.7 78.1 78.1 78.6 80.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 1.3 2.0 3.3 2.2 2.0 —

School vs exam mark difference 0.6 2.0 2.3 1.8 1.6 —

English gender gap F 7.2 F 3.7 F 5.2 F 2.5 F 5.5 —

Math gender gap F 4.6 M 1.0 M 0.7 F 1.0 F 2.2 —

Graduation rate 99.1 98.8 98.7 99.6 98.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 12.2 4.0 2.1 10.9 9.5 —

Overall rating out of 10 8.1 8.7 8.3 8.5 8.4 —

Magee [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 274

ESL (%): 7.8 Special needs (%): 9.8 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 65/289 54/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 72.7 74.2 74.7 74.9 75.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 5.2 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.8 —

School vs exam mark difference 2.2 2.6 2.6 3.1 2.9 —

English gender gap F 2.2 F 2.2 F 3.0 F 4.3 F 7.0 q

Math gender gap F 5.3 F 3.2 F 2.8 F 0.5 F 1.2 p

Graduation rate 94.7 96.8 97.7 95.8 96.5 —

Delayed advancement rate 19.3 21.7 12.0 11.0 6.4 p

Overall rating out of 10 6.6 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.4 —

Notre Dame [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 122

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 61/289 67/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 68.4 70.0 71.0 70.7 72.1 —

Percentage of exams failed 5.3 7.8 5.4 6.0 5.2 —

School vs exam mark difference 6.6 4.4 5.6 6.2 5.5 —

English gender gap F 4.5 F 10.1 F 7.5 F 2.6 F 0.4 —

Math gender gap F 2.6 F 7.9 F 0.6 M 1.7 F 0.8 —

Graduation rate 99.0 97.8 100.0 97.9 99.2 —

Delayed advancement rate 3.4 2.1 3.5 1.1 4.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 6.7 6.5 7.1 7.0 7.5 p

Point Grey [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 229

ESL (%): 6.9 Special needs (%): 10.1 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 52/289 43/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 75.1 74.6 74.4 75.4 77.1 —

Percentage of exams failed 3.7 5.6 6.2 5.9 3.4 —

School vs exam mark difference 2.7 3.1 3.6 4.4 3.3 —

English gender gap F 1.3 F 3.3 F 4.1 F 3.7 F 2.4 —

Math gender gap F 0.8 F 4.0 E F 0.3 M 3.4 —

Graduation rate 96.5 98.2 96.4 96.0 96.2 —

Delayed advancement rate 16.8 18.1 10.1 9.7 10.1 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.0 7.7 —

Prince Of Wales [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 235

ESL (%): 15.1 Special needs (%): 9.6 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 65/289 29/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 76.9 76.7 76.4 77.0 77.0 q

Percentage of exams failed 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.6 4.6 —

School vs exam mark difference 4.0 4.2 4.3 3.7 4.7 —

English gender gap F 5.2 F 1.9 F 3.4 F 5.0 F 3.3 —

Math gender gap E M 1.8 F 2.1 F 3.7 M 0.2 —

Graduation rate 97.4 97.7 97.0 97.8 97.2 —

Delayed advancement rate 9.9 8.3 10.1 10.0 15.0 q

Overall rating out of 10 7.8 8.1 7.7 7.4 7.4 —

Sir Charles Tupper [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 207

ESL (%): 11.9 Special needs (%): 13.9 French Imm (%): 0.0

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 193/289 204/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 67.8 66.1 65.8 68.1 67.1 —

Percentage of exams failed 9.2 13.3 14.0 11.1 10.9 —

School vs exam mark difference 5.0 7.9 7.2 10.3 8.1 —

English gender gap F 4.3 F 3.3 F 6.2 F 4.0 F 3.1 —

Math gender gap F 5.3 M 1.3 F 1.6 M 0.1 M 1.6 —

Graduation rate 92.5 93.6 96.2 98.8 96.1 p

Delayed advancement rate 33.2 37.3 29.6 20.6 28.6 —

Overall rating out of 10 4.8 4.8 4.7 5.1 5.2 p

Sir Winston Churchill [Public] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 418

ESL (%): 9.1 Special needs (%): 6.7 French Imm (%): 23.2

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 69/289 61/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 72.8 71.9 72.9 74.2 75.0 —

Percentage of exams failed 6.3 8.6 7.4 6.2 6.2 p

School vs exam mark difference 1.9 4.1 3.1 2.8 2.5 —

English gender gap F 1.3 F 1.5 F 2.6 F 3.0 F 5.7 q

Math gender gap M 0.4 F 0.5 M 0.3 M 1.3 M 0.7 —

Graduation rate 96.4 95.9 96.4 96.5 97.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 15.0 14.1 10.2 13.2 12.1 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.2 6.9 7.2 7.1 7.3 —

St George’s [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 146

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 6/289 6/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 83.2 83.4 83.9 83.7 84.2 —

Percentage of exams failed 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.1 p

School vs exam mark difference 1.4 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.7 —

English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Graduation rate 99.3 100.0 99.3 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.0 q

Overall rating out of 10 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.6 —

St John’s [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 37

ESL (%): 9.5 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 10/289 25/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 73.1 75.2 76.2 80.4 80.0 p

Percentage of exams failed 4.5 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 p

School vs exam mark difference 2.1 6.6 9.6 0.5 0.0 —

English gender gap n/a n/a F 7.3 M 6.8 F 6.4 n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a F 5.3 F 2.5 F 0.9 n/a

Graduation rate 100.0 94.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 2.7 5.3 7.0 3.1 3.1 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.9 7.2 7.0 8.9 9.1 —

St John’s International [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 17

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 288/289 n/a

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark n/a n/a 58.0 55.4 54.0 n/a

Percentage of exams failed n/a n/a 26.8 37.0 37.4 n/a

School vs exam mark difference n/a n/a 12.0 11.1 13.2 n/a

English gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Math gender gap n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Graduation rate n/a n/a 100.0 75.0 90.0 n/a

Delayed advancement rate n/a n/a 65.1 99.8 n/a n/a

Overall rating out of 10 n/a n/a 0.4 0.0 0.0 n/a

St Patrick’s [Independent] Vancouver Gr 12 Enrollment: 98

ESL (%): 0.0 Special needs (%): n/a French Imm (%): n/a

Actual rating vs predicted based 2013-14 Last 5 Years

on parents’ avg. inc. of $ n/a: n/a Rank: 103/289 75/258

Academic erformance 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

Average exam mark 70.2 71.3 71.9 71.1 70.4 —

Percentage of exams failed 4.9 6.2 5.0 7.3 5.2 —

School vs exam mark difference 5.4 7.2 6.2 8.3 8.4 —

English gender gap F 7.5 F 2.3 F 1.6 F 1.2 F 7.8 —

Math gender gap F 2.4 M 8.1 F 6.5 F 3.1 M 3.4 —

Graduation rate 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —

Delayed advancement rate 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 —

Overall rating out of 10 7.0 6.9 7.1 6.7 6.6 —