School Annual Report: Forest Green/CFL

Parkland School Division No. 70
Excellence in Education

For 2009/2010

Forest Green/CFL

2009/2010 Annual Report

2

SCHOOL PROFILE School Name: Forest Green Principal: George Couros Assistant Principal: Cheryl Johnson Address: 5210 – 45 St. Stony Plain, AB T7Z 1R5 Phone: 780-963-7366 Fax: 780-963-0341 E-mail: gcouros@psd70.ab.ca cjohnson@psd70.ab.ca Website Address: http://forestgreenschool.ca School Profile Student Population: 255 No. of teachers: 17 teachers 14.6 FTE No. of support staff: 13 Grades Served: K-6 School Name: Connections for Learning Principal: George Couros Assistant Principal: Carolyn Jensen Address: 4300- 43 St. Stony Plain, AB T7Z 1J4 Phone: 780-963-0507 Fax: 780-968-1088 E-mail: gcouros@psd70.ab.ca cjensen@psd70.ab.ca

Student Population: 191 No. of teachers: 10 teachers 9.92 FTE No. of support staff: 8 Grades Served: 1-12

3

OVERVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENTS Our Story CFL and Forest Green have built a strong commitment to sharing best practices for students and are working together in the areas of Special Education, Technology Integration, Citizenship and Social Responsibility, Special Education, Assessment, and Balanced Literacy. Sharing our work using these best practices will help us to better meet the needs of all students within the shared sites, while also giving students the opportunity to best meet their potential. We have a strong commitment to not only using these best practices within our schools, but also communicating and working with families to not only ensure they have understanding of the direction of our school, but so we can also draw upon their expertise. This is done through constant communication with stakeholders through newsletters, blogs, meetings, parent information nights, amongst other things, that are done both on the classroom and school level. Forest Green and CFL staff members want to continue to build upon relationships within their respective sites to ensure that all learners have the best opportunities for success. Building an environment based on trust, while also focusing on success for all, we believe, will help students to reach their full potential. As you walk into each school site, you feel the immediate impact of the culture that has been created there by the entire staff and school community. We also know that parents have a vital impact on the success of their children, so we are continuously working on developing relationships with families to ensure that we can learn how to best meet the needs of each individual student. Although Forest Green, Connections for Learning, and Brightbank are all unique sites, we all share the same vision of working together with families and the community to build the best environment for students to be leaders in their own learning. Ultimately, we want our students to be able to pursue their passions and build their learning around their interests. To do this is necessary work if we want engaged and powerful learning practice within our schools. Satisfaction Survey Highlights 1. 100% of parents surveyed believe that the schools always work to improve the quality of education offered at Forest Green School. 2. 100% of parents surveyed believe that technology is used to improve student learning at Forest Green School. 3. 100% of parents surveyed believe that teachers are available to discuss their child’s education at Forest Green School. 4. 99% of students surveyed believe their school is characterized by dignity and respect. 5. 94% of students are satisfied with the overall quality of education offered at Forest Green School. 6. 87% of students believe the school is characterized by dignity, respect and caring at CFL. 7. 94% of students are satisfied with the way the school communicates about progress and achievement. Academic Growth 1. 82.7% of grade 3 students at Forest Green who wrote the Language Arts PAT met the acceptable standard. 2. 86.1% of grade 6 students at Forest Green who wrote the Language Arts PAT met the acceptable standard (11.1% met the standard of excellence.) Special Education 1. Successful first year implementation of the SNAP (Stop Now and Plan) program within our school. 4

FUTURE CHALLENGES As we move forward within our professional development plan at Forest Green School and Connection for Learning, it is essential that we continue to work to create and share best practices within our schools, while meeting the needs of our unique programs. This takes a lot of work, but it essential if we are meeting the needs of all of our students. APPENDIX A: PROVINCIAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS  Forest Green and Connections for Learning are currently evaluating strategies that will best serve students in their pedagogical needs, based partially on the PAT results from the 2009-2010 school-year. We have seen an improvement in several areas from the past year. Forest Green schools results of students meeting the acceptable standard in grade 6 Science (61.1%), and Grade 6 Social Studies (58.3%) will need to be focused on. Forest Green will continue to review exemption practices from students. Connections for Learning students that met the acceptable standard in Grade 9 Social (25%) and Grade 9 Science (27.3) will be monitored to ensure that this was an anomaly. As literacy is the fundamental of all programs, we have increased our Early Literacy Intervention (ELI) program for students at both Forest Green and Connections for Learning

  

Appendix B: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners  We want to ensure that we are not only continuously working to meet the needs of diverse students within our programs, but that we are continuously using inclusion practices to meet the needs of all students.  It is still essential that we revisit IPP’s with our students to ensure that they are successful in reaching achievable targets. Appendix C: Parkland Satisfaction Survey  We want to ensure that parents feel their students are supported by school and teachers at Forest Green. (75%) To do this, we have opened more lines of communication with parents through blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. This is to ensure that we can have more open communication with parents throughout the year and that they get to know their teachers very well. It is essential that students feel safe on school grounds at Forest Green. (79%) This year, we have increased supervision on the playground in the mornings and after school, while also having grade 6 student supervisors to help with younger students, while developing leadership.

Appendix D: AISI  It is essential that we effectively communicate the goals and vision of our AISI plan to our stakeholders so that they are aware of the direction and learning that will be happening with our eportfolio plan. As this is a web based plan, it is essential that we work with parents to understand the vision and safety of our plan. There will be a significant amount of work and technical knowledge needed to run this program in the first year so several staff are being trained in the implementation. This is to ensure this eportfolio vision lasts for several years. 5

6

APPENDIX A: PROVINCIAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS (Cohort Results)
The chart below shows the Division’s results for student achievement at both the “acceptable” standard and the standard of “excellence”. The cohort results were calculated to include students who were absent when the tests were administered; who were exempted from writing by the Superintendent since writing would be harmful to the student or the student could not respond to the test instrument; students whose results were withheld; or students who only wrote one part of a Language Arts Test. The “targets” reflect the predictions of the school, jurisdiction and province based on student performance given the five-year trend and any applicable improvement initiative.

Forest Green
LANGUAGE ARTS:
2005-2006
School Results (%) Juris. Results (%) 90.0 13.5 Prov. Results (%) 81.3 14.1 School Results (%) 74.3 5.7

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) 86.3 16.9 Prov. Results (%) 80.3 17.7 School Results (%) 75.8 15.2

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) 85.0 15.4 Prov. Results (%) 80.1 16.1 School Results (%) 67.7 16.1

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) 84.0 15.4 Prov. Results (%) 81.3 18.2 School Results (%) 72.7* 82.7** 6.1* 6.8**

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) 88.7 15.9 Prov. Results (%) 81.6 19.5 School Target

GRADE 3:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 90.3 3.2 75 8

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 72.7 6.1 84.1 16.4 79.0 15.9 75.7 13.5 82.7 16.6 80.3 19.8 78.6 21.4 85.0 17.2 81.1 21.0 59.3 3.7 83.6 13.2 81.8 18.9 86.1 11.1 87.3 18.3 83.3 18.9 87 12

*Note: Results include those students who were absent or excused from the test. **Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test.

MATHEMATICS:
2005-2006
School Results (%) Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Target

GRADE 3:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 80.6 22.6 90.3 27.9 81.4 27.1 68.6 5.7 84.3 21.0 79.4 23.3 78.8 12.1 85.1 23.9 78.3 24.0 61.3 19.4 82.8 20.7 79.2 27.2 N/A N/A 88.4 24.0 76.4 29.8 75 10

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 57.6 3.0 77.9 12.4 74.5 15.3 67.6 8.1 71.9 9.6 73.3 14.4 89.3 14.3 77.9 14.5 73.9 15.7 70.4 3.7 76.1 11.7 75.8 16.5 N/A N/A 77.4 13.4 74.4 16.5 75

10

Note: Targets are set based on expectations for 2010-2011 school year as we have no school results for 2009-2010 due to the fact that we have written the PAT based on the new curriculum.

7

SCIENCE:
2005-2006
School Results (%) Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) 61.1* 75.8** 5.6

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Target

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 78.8 12.1 86.2 27.4 77.7 28.1 59.5 18.9 78.7 25.5 74.7 26.8 82.1 14.3 79.4 23.9 74.3 24.4 77.8 18.5 79.1 21.4 76.1 25.2 80.7 23.7 76.8 26.4 65 7***

*Note: Results include those students who were absent or excused from the test. **Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test. ***Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test.

SOCIAL STUDIES:
2005-2006
School Results (%) Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) 58.3* 67.7** 8.3

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Target

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 78.8 12.1 83.9 19.8 78.2 23.2 59.5 18.9 79.1 18.8 77.0 22.7 82.1 14.3 81.1 19.7 77.4 24.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 72.4 13.6 71.0 16.4 70 10

*Note: Results include those students who were absent or excused from the test. **Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test.

PARTICIPATION RATES:
2005-2006
School Juris. Prov. School

2006-2007
Juris. Prov. School

2007-2008
Juris. Prov. School

2008-2009
Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Target 97 95 100 95 100 95

GRADE 3:
Language Arts Mathematics 96.8 93.5 96.6 97.0 90.6 90.2 88.6 88.6 95.4 94.7 90.1 89.9 93.9 93.9 94.5 94.9 89.8 89.9 80.6 77.4 93.7 94.5 90.6 90.6 96.9 93.9 100 93.9 100 94.4 95.0 94.6 99.0 95.6 94.1 94.0 91.1 94.2 90.7 93.5 90.3 90.5

GRADE 6:
Language Arts 93.9 96.4 90.1 97.3 94.5 89.8 100 95.9 89.5 77.8 93.9 90.0 Mathematics 90.9 95.5 90.2 94.6 94.4 89.5 100 95.9 89.4 96.3 94.0 90.1 Social Studies 97.0 96.3 90.1 94.6 94.7 89.1 100 95.5 88.6 N/A N/A N/A Science 93.9 96.6 89.5 86.5 94.1 88.6 100 95.8 88.4 88.9 93.7 89.0 *The participation rate represents the percentage of students who wrote the exam compared to the total number of students eligible to write the exam (cohort group).

8

Connections for Learning
LANGUAGE ARTS:
2005-2006
School Results (%) N=4 75.0 0.0 N=8 12.5 12.5 N=40 42.5 5.0 79.0 9.9 77.4 13.6 84.1 16.4 79.0 15.9 Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=6 33.3 0.0 N=9 55.6 0 N=34 32.4 2.9 85.2 13.7 77.5 14.8 82.7 16.6 80.3 19.8

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=3 33.3 0.0 N=3 33.3 0.0 N=29 48.3 0.0

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=8 62.5 0.0 N=8 85.0 17.2 81.1 21.0 62.5 12.5 N=26 80.4 12.7 76.5 14.8 19.2 0

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Target

GRADE 3:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

90.0 13.5

81.3 14.1

86.3 16.9

80.3 17.7

85.0 15.4

80.1 16.1

84.0 15.4

81.3 18.2

N/A N/A

88.7 15.9

81.6 19.5

50.0 5.0

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

83.6 13.2

81.8 18.9

50.0* 100.0** 0

87.3 18.3

83.3 18.9

65.0 10.0

GRADE 9:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

82.9 80.5

78.7 81.8

31.8* 43.7** 0

82.2 11.6

79.3 15.0

50.0 5.0

*Note: Results include those students who were absent or excused from the test. **Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test.

MATHEMATICS:
2005-2006
School Results (%) N=4 75.0 0.0 N=8 12.5 0.0 N=36 30.6 0.0 69.8 11.9 66.4 17.0 77.9 12.4 74.5 15.3 Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=6 33.3 16.7 N=9 22.2 0.0 N=34 23.5 2.9 66.4 14.3 65.2 17.8 71.9 9.6 73.3 14.4

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=3 33.3 0.0 N=3 33.3 0.0 N=29 13.8 0.0

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=8 62.6 12.5 N=8 77.9 14.5 73.9 15.7 62.5 0 N=26 63.1 14.4 64.5 17.8 11.5 0

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Target

GRADE 3:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

90.3 27.9

81.4 27.1

84.3 21.0

79.4 23.3

85.1 23.9

78.3 24.0

82.8 20.7

79.2 27.2

0 0

88.4 24.0

76.4 29.8

50.0 18.0

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

76.1 11.7

75.8 16.5

50.0 0

77.4 13.4

74.4 16.5

50.0 5.0

GRADE 9:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

63.7 13.2

65.9 18.0

33.3* 50.0** 0

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

50.0 5.0

9

*Note: Results include those students who were absent or excused from the test. **Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test.

SCIENCE:
2005-2006
School Results (%) N=8 12.5 12.5 N=35 34.3 0.0 67.1 9.2 66.7 13.5 Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=9 44.4 0.0 N=34 26.5 8.8 71.3 11.1 68.8 14.6

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=3 33.3 0.0 N=29 20.7 0.0

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) 75.0* 100.0** 0

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Target

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

86.2 27.4

77.7 28.1

78.7 25.5

74.7 26.8

79.4 23.9

74.3 24.4

62.5 0.0

79.1 21.4

76.1 25.2

80.7 23.7

76.8 26.4

50.0 10.0

GRADE 9 :
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

70.4 9.8

68.4 12.9

15.4 0.0

74.4 14.7

71.6 15.8

27.3* 35.2** 0

74.9 14.1

73.6 17.7

30.0 10.0

*Note: Results include those students who were absent or excused from the test. **Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test.

SOCIAL STUDIES:
2005-2006
School Results (%) N=8 12.5 0.0 N=38 36.8 5.3 72.5 13.9 71.9 19.0 Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=9 66.7 0.0 N=34 36.8 5.3 69.9 14.8 70.6 19.0

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) N=3 33.3

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%)

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Results (%) 25.0* 33.0** 0

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) Prov. Results (%) School Target

GRADE 6:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

83.9 19.8

78.2 23.2

79.1 18.8

77.0 22.7

81.1 19.7

77.4 24.2

62.5 0.0

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

72.4 13.6

71.0 16.4

70.0 10.0

GRADE 9:
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10

N=28 28.6 3.6 69.4 12.1 71.0 19.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36.4* 47.0** 0 70.4 17.8 68.9 18.8 50.0 10.0

*Note: Results include those students who were absent or excused from the test. **Note: Results DO NOT include those students who were absent or excused from the test.

10

KNOWLEDGE & EMPLOYABILITY: GRADE 9
2005-2006
School Results (%) Juris. Results (%) N/A N/A Prov. Results (%) N/A N/A School Results (%) N/A N/A

2006-2007
Juris. Results (%) N/A N/A Prov. Results (%) N/A N/A School Results (%) N/A N/A

2007-2008
Juris. Results (%) N/A N/A Prov. Results (%) N/A N/A School Results (%) N/A N/A

2008-2009
Juris. Results (%) 91.7 22.2 Prov. Results (%) 64.7 8.1 School Results (%) N/A N/A

2009-2010
Juris. Results (%) 92.3 7.7 Prov. Results (%) 66.8 7.8 School Target

LANGUAGE ARTS
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 N/A N/A n/a n/a

MATHEMATICS
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73.3 26.7 64.5 15.0 60.0 20.0 80.0 28.0 65.5 15.3 70 20

SOCIAL STUDIES
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 100.0 69.2 23.1 64.5 15.7 70 20

SCIENCE
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Target 2009/10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.0 50.0 65.9 14.0 100.0 0 92.3 7.7 67.2 14.3 70 20

PARTICIPATION RATES:
2005-2006
School Juris. Prov. School

2006-2007
Juris. Prov. School

2007-2008
Juris. Prov. School

2008-2009
Juris. Prov. School

2009-2010
Juris. Prov.

GRADE 3:
Language Arts Mathematics 75.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 65.0 69.4 63.2 62.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 96.6 97.0 96.4 95.5 96.3 96.6 90.8 90.7 93.4 93.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.6 90.2 90.1 90.2 90.1 89.5 87.7 86.8 88.0 87.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 33.3 33.3 66.7 66.7 77.8 77.8 50.0 52.9 47.1 47.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 95.4 94.7 94.5 94.4 94.7 94.1 94.2 92.4 93.2 94.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.1 89.9 89.8 89.5 89.1 88.6 87.9 87.4 87.8 88.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 72.4 58.6 71.4 72.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 94.5 94.9 95.9 95.9 95.5 95.8 92.6 90.7 92.2 93.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 89.8 89.9 89.5 89.4 88.6 88.4 87.7 87.4 88.3 88.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 75.0 75.0 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 46.2 42.3 42.3 42.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.7 94.5 93.9 94.0 N/A 93.7 93.8 91.7 N/A 93.6 100.0 93.3 N/A 96.7 90.6 90.6 90.0 90.1 N/A 89.0 89.7 89.2 N/A 90.0 82.9 87.9 N/A 87.2 0 0 50.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 72.7 66.7 77.3 77.3 0 100 100 77.3 95.0 94.6 99.0 95.6 94.1 94.0 94.0 95.7 94.4 94.1 96.2 96.0 100.0 100.0 91.1 94.2 90.7 93.5 90.3 90.5 89.8 92.4 90.2 90.4 82.2 87.3 85.2 86.7

GRADE 6:
Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science

GRADE 9:
Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science

GRADE 9 K&E:
Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science

* All targets for CFL vary from year to year as we deal with a great variance in our population.

11

APPENDIX A: GRADE 12 DIPLOMA MARKS
The following reports the student results only on the Diploma Examination, and does not include any teacher input. The participation rate represents the percentage of students who wrote the exam compared to the total number of students in the grade.

DIPLOMA MARKS:
2005-2006
School Juris. Prov. School

2006-2007
Juris. Prov. School

2007-2008
Juris. Prov. School

2008-2009
Juris. Prov. School

2009-2010
Juris. Prov.

ENGLISH 30 - 1
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Participation Rate 91.5 16.4 49.5 86.1 6.4 35.5 85.0 18.2 42.9 85.6 21.8 44.7 N/A N/A N/A 84.6 19.3 36.2 82.6 13.7 20.9 86.1 22.9 30.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86.1 16.3 22.0 88.0 19.3 59.8 86.1 8.1 26.0 85.5 23.9 54.0 83.5 19.0 31.9 N/A N/A N/A 82.8 26.5 46.3 77.5 11.8 21.6 81.4 26.4 43.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 82.8 17.3 7.8 91.5 23.4 48.8 94.3 9.5 33.9 86.0 26.5 39.9 92.3 22.3 43.3 N/A N/A N/A 81.3 24.4 32.9 76.7 13.3 25.4 86.2 24.5 30.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 91.7 25.8 15.8 87.7 19.0 59.7 88.6 9.7 26.1 86.2 24.6 53.9 84.9 19.6 32.2 N/A N/A N/A 81.1 24.7 46.2 77.6 12.1 21.6 83.5 27.4 43.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 87.2 18.0 7.7 92.8 18.1 48.4 92.8 8.6 37.5 86.8 22.3 41.6 87.0 22.4 42.7 N/A N/A N/A 78.4 19.7 35.8 76.0 13.7 18.8 85.3 27.5 33.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 96.8 26.6 16.4 87.1 15.5 58.9 88.9 8.8 26.8 84.7 21.5 51.7 85.3 18.9 32.2 N/A N/A N/A 81.3 25.8 45.8 76.3 10.7 21.3 82.3 26.3 43.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88.6 21.6 8.2 92.0 10.0 52.2 94.8 10.8 36.2 87.3 18.0 41.8 90.4 21.6 46.7 N/A N/A N/A 88.0 19.7 35.8 86.9 16.6 23.4 83.2 19.6 35.3 82.1 29.3 25.6 90.8 31.0 10.9 87.7 22.2 20.5 86.1 12.3 59.8 88.2 8.5 27.4 84.2 21.4 53.2 85.6 20.2 34.1 N/A N/A N/A 82.1 26.3 45.8 79.4 13.5 22.0 83.0 26.6 44.3 76.3 27.7 33.3 79.3 23.1 19.8 86.0 20.9 9.3 50.0 50.0 50.0 0 33.0 42.8 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A 50.0 0 100.0 N/A N/A N/A 100.0 0 50.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33.0 66.0 100.0 89.4 8.5 51.2 93.2 13.6 37.5 50.0 16.7 1.9 90.5 26.2 4.9 86.2 13.2 39.6 84.1 26.1 37.4 87.2 16.3 22.5 77.4 20.1 39.3 76.1 21.5 28.0 85.4 22.9 13.2 86.4 31.3 19.6 85.1 10.1 59.9 88.8 9.8 28.1 67.8 10.4 4.3 76.4 11.5 3.3 85.0 13.7 30.4 82.9 29.7 45.9 77.3 12.6 21.8 81.4 28.1 45.3 79.0 29.9 39.1 73.9 20.3 22.3 80.1 22.8 10.1

ENGLISH 30 - 2
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Participation Rate

SOCIAL 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

SOCIAL 33
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

SOCIAL 30 - 2
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

PURE MATH
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

APPLIED MATH
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

BIOLOGY 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

CHEMISTRY 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

PHYSICS 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

SCIENCE 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate:

12

The chart below shows the Division’s results for student achievement at both the “acceptable” standard and the standard of “excellence” based on students’ final course mark .

FINAL COURSE MARKS:
2005-2006
School Juris. Prov. School

2006-2007
Juris. Prov. School

2007-2008
Juris. Prov. School

2008-2009
Juris. Prov. School

2009-2010
Juris. Prov.

ENGLISH 30 - 1
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Participation Rate 98.6 17.8 49.5 95.9 4.1 35.5 97.1 16.9 42.9 94.3 13.2 44.7 94.0 22.5 36.2 89.4 9.9 20.9 95.7 29.4 30.8 96.0 33.2 27.7 95.6 27.4 15.8 93.4 16.9 22.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97.3 22.2 59.8 94.4 5.1 26.0 96.6 25.7 54.0 93.4 11.5 31.9 92.5 29.8 46.3 89.4 10.0 21.6 93.0 29.9 43.6 95.1 36.2 39.1 94.0 34.1 24.3 93.5 15.9 7.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 98.8 23.0 48.8 97.6 7.1 33.6 96.9 33.8 39.9 94.9 17.7 43.2 95.5 31.3 32.9 96.1 18.4 25.4 97.0 25.3 30.9 97.2 37.6 26.0 95.8 50.0 13.5 97.1 26.1 15.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 96.5 21.8 59.8 94.6 5.4 26.1 96.3 27.5 54.0 92.1 12.9 32.2 89.9 25.9 46.3 89.2 10.9 21.6 93.2 31.5 43.9 95.1 38.0 38.4 94.4 35.3 24.0 92.3 16.2 7.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 N=3 66.7 33.3 N=3 89.1 26.8 90.0 27.1 97.3 21.2 90.6 12.5 100.0 N=1 100.0 N=1 98.6 24.8 96.5 24.8 98.0 19.0 96.8 24.2 99.3 4.6 94.2 5.3 98.8 22.1 96.8 20.0 100.0 N=1 99.3 7.6 95.7 5.3 99.2 15.5 96.9 17.1 50.0 50.0 N=2 66.0 33.0 N=3 0 100.0 N=1 100.0 0 N=4 50.0 0 N=2 N/A N/A NA 100.0 0 N=1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33.0 66.0 N=3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97.6 11.4 96.6 15.3

ENGLISH 30 - 2
Acceptable Standard Standard of Excellence Participation Rate 97.3 9.2 95.8 6.2

SOCIAL 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 83.3 16.7 91.1 13.5

N=2

SOCIAL 33
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 94.2 20.4 91.8 12.3 97.4 19.2 92.4 30.1 97.6 11.9 92.7 10.0

N=1

PURE MATH
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 90.9 28.6 92.6 33.2

APPLIED MATH
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 100.0 N=1 89.8 13.6 86.7 10.2 97.7 19.4 90.6 12.5 95.9 15.1 89.6 11.5

BIOLOGY 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 100.0 N=1 100.0 N=1 93.3 53.3 94.9 36.7 100.0 34.5 92.8 29.8 93.5 34.3 92.3 29.7 94.6 24.3 93.4 29.8 90.6 21.1 93.0 31.6

N=1

CHEMISTRY 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 100.0 N=1 96.5 43.0 95.1 37.8 94.8 32.3 89.9 31.0 88.5 26.3 91.0 33.4

PHYSICS 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 93.8 28.1 91.5 26.6

SCIENCE 30
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 100.0 22.9 93.5 19.1 95.3 19.3 94.5 19.4 94.6 23.8 92.2 20.8

SOCIAL 30 - 1
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97.0 18.7 97.3 21.1

SOCIAL 30 - 2
Acceptable Standard: Standard of Excellence: Participation Rate: 97.1 13.2 94.4 9.1

13

APPENDIX B: MEETING THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS At Forest Green School and Connections for Learning, we are very proud of the way that we are able to meet the needs of many diverse needs for our students. Due to the fact that we offer several specialized programs within our buildings (Brightbank program, EYALT, Parent Partnership, SNAP Program), we are not only able to use programs to meet the needs of our students, we are also are able to draw upon the experience of several experts in our school. At both Forest Green School and Connections for Learning, we have special needs coordinators that work directly with teachers to find ways to best serve our students. The coordinators do not only work with our school, but directly with Learning Services to ensure that we are properly placing students in programs where they will be successful. Within Forest Green School, we have many programs that help to meet the needs of our students. Our SNAP program (Stop Now and Plan), works with students with behavioural issues, along with their families. We are proud to be 1 of 2 schools in the province that offer this pilot program, and we have seen a great deal of success with our students in using this program. Referrals to the office have been decreased as students effectively have learned how to deal with challenges they face either in the classrooms, or during recess breaks. As we serve many Paul Band students, we are proud that we not only have a FNMI liaison worker that deals directly with students and families, but we take many opportunities to share FNMI culture within our school programs. This has been shared through our school assemblies, family dance, and everyday curriculum. Also within Forest Green School, we have the Early Years Alternative Program (EYALT) that works with students who have behavioural needs. These students take part in all school activities and have significant guidance from the teacher and educational assistants that work within the program. We see this as a mutually beneficial program as we all learn from each other, and we are proud to house this program within our school. At Connections for Learning, we have a unique atmosphere that serves many different students needs. Through programs such as Parent Partnership and Stony Creek program, we are able to meet the needs of families that are looking for an alternate to a regular school program. The flexibility and support that is provided by our school is beneficial to students from all over Parkland School Division. We are proud that stories on some of our students (Marley who has Tourette Syndrome, Emily who has Autism) have been shared internationally. They have had the opportunity to not only be leaders within our own school community, but to the world. Our work with them has been commended and we appreciate all that these students, as well as others, teach us about ourselves as well as them. Some of the challenges we face when dealing with student needs is being able to access outside agencies to help with support. The demand has been great for these services, and often times we have to wait significant amount of time for access to them. Although this is one area that could be a challenge, it is understandable and rarely affects the child in a negative way. Overall, because of the expertise and wide range of experience and our knowledge that we share between Forest Green, Brightbank, and Connections for Learning, we are very proud of the inclusive programming that we are able to offer.

14

APPENDIX C: PARKLAND SATISFACTION SURVEY (2009/10 Spring Results)
RESULTS IN ACHIEVING DIVISION AND SCHOOL GOALS

SATISFACTION SURVEY (2009 – 2010) Parkland's Satisfaction Survey was administered to a grade-specific sample of parents and students, and to all staff. The tables below show schools satisfaction results in relation to the jurisdiction's goals. The percentages listed represent the percent of respondents who indicated "strongly agree" or "agree" on the student survey, or the number of respondents who indicated "very satisfied" or "satisfied" on all other surveys. In schools where there were fewer than 6 respondents in a group, i.e. under 6 staff members responding to the survey, results have not been included to ensure anonymity. Results that have been suppressed are indicated by (-). Grey areas of the table indicate that a result is not available because the question was not asked to that group. The response rates are the percentage of parents, students, and staff who completed the 2009 - 2010 Satisfaction Survey.

Forest Green
SATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 Parkland Division 21% Special Education Parents # of surveys Parkland returned Division n=2 14% Grade 3 and 6 Students Parkland Division 90% Grade 9 and 12 Students Parkland Division 67% Staff Parkland Division 67%

Survey Response Rates

School 13%

School 94%

School

School 78%

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 1: High quality learning opportunities for all.
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 School Result 86% 88% Parkland Result 90% 85% Grade 3 and 6 Students School Result 94% 99% 90% 96% 100% 88% 100% 100% 100% 75% 91% 85% 90% 88% 87% 86% 99% 96% 97% 96% 92% 96% 93% 96% 79% 93% Parkland Result 92% 96% 87% 97% 93% 95% 82% 92% 80% 84% 86% 81% 84% 93% 88% 82% 82% 82% 84% 100% 91% 89% 89% 85% 100% 100% 100% 97% 97% 90% Grade 9 and 12 Students School Result Parkland Result 83% 86% 80% 96% 88% 92% 90% 94% Staff School Result 100% 86% Parkland Result 97% 88%

Overall quality of education / I like my school (gr. 3/6) School Characterized by dignity, respect, and caring Dignity & Respect Friends at school Safe environment: Building Classroom Grounds Students are treated fairly Satisfaction with the variety of program choices available Teachers use computer technologies to help learn Technology improves student learning The School/Teachers provide help and support Process to respond to needs of at-risk students Parents satisfaction with access to special needs services1 Parents satisfaction with timeliness of special needs services1 Students with special needs are meeting their IPP goals1 Responsive Programming / Curriculum

Note 1: Answered by parents with children that receive special needs assistance in school.

15

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 2: Excellent Learner Outcomes Achieved by Students.
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 School Result Students are prepared for world of work Students are prepared for post-secondary studies Students have information re: next steps in learning programs Satisfaction with career planning assistance Students are being prepared to be good citizens Students know how they should behave Satisfaction with progress and achievement of your child 88% 87% 88% 86% Parkland Result 74% 79% 86% 68% 91% 95% 97% 95% 98% Grade 3 and 6 Students School Result Parkland Result Grade 9 and 12 Students School Result Parkland Result 72% 80% 84% 66% 76% 97% 100% 95% 91% Staff School Result Parkland Result

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 4: Highly Responsive and Responsible Jurisdiction.
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 School Result Satisfaction with opportunity for involvement in decision making School’s effort to involve parents in child’s learning experiences Satisfaction with involvement of special needs specialists1 Satisfaction with quality of special education services overall1 School Council has meaningful role Teachers are available discuss child’s education School always works to improve the quality of education offered Way school informs about progress & achievement Satisfaction with communications from the school/Division Satisfaction that educational dollars are well spent in school Access to Professional Development activities Quality of professional development activities
Note 1: Answered by parents with children that receive special needs assistance in school.

Grade 3 and 6 Students School Result Parkland Result

Grade 9 and 12 Students School Result Parkland Result

Staff School Result 86% 100% Parkland Result 84% 97%

Parkland Result 88% 84% 72% 76%

88% 86% -

90% 100% 100% 88% 100% 86% 94% 88% 86% 88% 81% 97% 100% 94% 94% 83% 100% 100% 97%

94%

98% 98% 92%

89% 89%

16

Connections for Learning
SATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 Parkland Division 21% Special Education Parents # of surveys Parkland returned Division n=3 14% Grade 3 and 6 Students Parkland Division 90% Grade 9 and 12 Students Parkland Division 67% Staff Parkland Division 67%

Survey Response Rates

School n=5 (19%)

School n=0

School 46%

School 48%

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 1: High quality learning opportunities for all.
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 School Result Parkland Result 90% 85% Grade 3 and 6 Students School Result 91% 85% 90% 88% 87% 86% 96% 92% 96% Parkland Result 92% 96% 87% 97% 93% 95% 82% 92% 81% 81% 67% 47% 88% 80% 84% 86% 81% 84% 100% 82% 82% 82% 84% 100% 100% 89% 89% 85% 100% 100% 100% 97% 97% 90% Grade 9 and 12 Students School Result 80% 87% 88% 88% 81% 81% Parkland Result 83% 86% 80% 96% 88% 92% 100% 94% Staff School Result 100% 100% Parkland Result 97% 88%

Overall quality of education / I like my school (gr. 3/6) School Characterized by dignity, respect, and caring Dignity & Respect Friends at school Safe environment: Building Classroom Grounds Students are treated fairly Satisfaction with the variety of program choices available Teachers use computer technologies to help learn Technology improves student learning The School/Teachers provide help and support Process to respond to needs of at-risk students Parents satisfaction with access to special needs services1 Parents satisfaction with timeliness of special needs services1 Students with special needs are meeting their IPP goals1 Responsive Programming / Curriculum

Note 1: Answered by parents with children that receive special needs assistance in school.

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 2: Excellent Learner Outcomes Achieved by Students.
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 School Result Students are prepared for world of work Students are prepared for post-secondary studies Students have information re: next steps in learning programs Satisfaction with career planning assistance Students are being prepared to be good citizens Students know how they should behave Satisfaction with progress and achievement of your child 87% Parkland Result 74% 79% 86% 68% 91% 95% 98% Grade 3 and 6 Students School Result Parkland Result Grade 9 and 12 Students School Result 67% 60% 81% 73% 80% 94% Parkland Result 72% 80% 84% 66% 76% 97% 100% 95% 100% 91% Staff School Result Parkland Result

17

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 4: Highly Responsive and Responsible Jurisdiction.
Parents with students in Grades 2, 5, 8, 11 School Result Satisfaction with opportunity for involvement in decision making School’s effort to involve parents in child’s learning experiences Satisfaction with involvement of special needs specialists1 Satisfaction with quality of special education services overall1 School Council has meaningful role Teachers are available discuss child’s education School always works to improve the quality of education offered Way school informs about progress & achievement Satisfaction with communications from the school/Division Satisfaction that educational dollars are well spent in school Access to Professional Development activities Quality of professional development activities
Note 1: Answered by parents with children that receive special needs assistance in school.

Grade 3 and 6 Students School Result Parkland Result

Grade 9 and 12 Students School Result Parkland Result

Staff School Result 100% 100% Parkland Result 84% 97%

Parkland Result 88% 84% 72% 76%

-

0% 94% 88% 86% 88% 81% 91% 91% 94% 94% 83% 100% 100% 100%

94%

98% 98% 92%

89% 89%

18

APPENDIX D: AISI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Forest Green/CFL/Brightbank/Stony Creek 2010-2011 School Year Project Title: AISI Cycle 4 2009-2010 - Challenging Students to Think Critically As indicated in our project plan the vision for Year 2 is to: Staff will continue learning about critical thinking, but there will be a greater focus on student learning and assessment. Focus Area(s): Relationship to which Divisional priority? Year One: Critical Thinking, Self-Reflection Year Two: E-Portfolios, Student-Led Year Two: Assessment Conferences, Social Studies Improvement Goal: To improve student achievement and engagement in grades K-12 through the promotion of critical thinking. Measures:
The AISI project outlines specific Divisional targets and measures. Schools may choose additional targets and measures for their own purposes.

School specific qualitative or quantitative measures: 1. Parent, student, and teacher engagement in the e-portfolio process, measured by amount of blogging and posting during the year 2. Student engagement in Social Studies and technology use, observations of teachers, and questionnaires from students 3. Parent satisfaction in Student-Led Conferences in March 2011, informally asked on website blog 4. Teacher engagement and the embedding of CT into Social Studies and other subject areas, staff discussions and questionnaires Professional Development and Implementation Strategies of the TC2 Critical Thinking Model Divisional Professional Development Plan For Lead Teachers: (Year two will focus a lot on working sessions to create critical challenges. After the October 18 th
session, we will work towards making smaller groups, and as such, all lead teachers may not be required to attend all sessions.)

 

Sessions Facilitated by TC2 (dates subject to change) o October 18, 2010 – AISI Cohort PD o November 29, 2010 – AISI Cohort PD o January 24, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD o March 7, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD o April 11, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD o May 9, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD Day 1 & 2 for new lead teachers o September 21 & 23nd Access to TC2 Consultant (Wally), for modeling/coaching in their classroom (after December) School Based Staff Professional Development Plan

19

1. Who is or are your lead teacher(s)? What FTE is allotted for them?
Norm Usiskin, 0.3 (Forest Green) Todd Wandio, 0.3 (CFL) Deb Rutland, 0.3 (Stony Creek) Cheryl Johnson and Becky Wandio, no FTE, but acting as transitional, guiding participants in the school-wide process

2. Reflecting on successes and challenges from last year, and what you heard from other schools, what is your
school’s implementation plan? We are very pleased with our implementation so far, and have many exciting plans for the next two years. We feel that we are not only starting to embed CT into everyday learning, but by embedding it into the assessment process, we are moving ahead in one of Parkland’s other key areas. o What are the lead teacher s’ implementation strategies? - PD for teachers, using services of Diane Lander, in Social Studies, Learnalberta, and Critical Thinking, 2 afternoons in Sept 2010, and follow-up sessions in January 2011 – setting up of I CAN statements for each grade - Norm and Todd will provide team-teaching time each day for groups of students in order to set up the e-portfolios, and work to develop criteria for good portfolio blogs, posts and projects – eventually working on specific challenges that incorporate CT in Social Studies - Teachers are being asked to have one critical thinking challenge in Social posted by November 2010. - Some PD time with whole staff on CT, sharing of progress with e-portfolios, sharing of classroom CT - Articles and links will be provided for teachers and students regularly - Adaptation of report cards to reflect the work being done in the e-portfolios - Parent informational sessions will be offered - Wally may be employed to speak to staff - Identity Day will happen again (very successful CT activity last year, will put even more focus on the CT self-reflective process) What resources will you use? - Learnalberta.ca - TC2 resources - Forestgreenschool.ca - Google Docs - Social Studies curriculum

o

Research Base:
   21 Century Skills Professional Development- The Partnership for 21 Century Skill, 2008 www.21stcenturyskills.org 21 Century Curriculum and Instruction- The Partnership for 21 Century Skills, 2008 www.21stcenturyskills.org Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis – Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, 2008 Sage Journals Online http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/1102 Foundation for Critical Thinking http://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfm# Habits of Thought- Susan Black, 2004, American School Board Journal For the Sake of Argument- Alex Hernandez, Melissa Aulkaplan, Robert Schwartz, 2006, Educational Leadership The Research on Portfolios in Education - Dr. Helen C. Barrett
st st st st

   

http://electronicportfolios.com/ALI/research.html 20

Collaboration with other schools: 1.Forest Green, CFL, Brightbank and Stony Creek will all work together to implement similar projects, and progress will be shared at common PD days 2. We are willing to share the ups and downs of e-portfolios as a critical thinking process with any school that is interested. Integration and Sustainability: 1. Our hope is to build CT into all subject areas, but we are starting slowly with Social Studies. We encourage teachers to go beyond this, if they choose. 2. Our e-portfolios will also grow over time, with a focus on regular self-reflection and ownership of learning. Student-led conferences will become the norm over time. School Community Involvement (parents and community at large): 1. Parents are being invited to be a part of the process in our e-portfolio implementation. Parent council will be informed of our progress each month. 2. Specific parent meetings and e-portfolio showcases will be held. 3. Parents will be informed regularly about our CT progress through monthly newsletters.

21

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful