KVR Middle School 300 Jermyn Ave., Penticton, BC V2A 2E1 Principal: Steve DeVito Vice Principal: Kevin McGifford SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (2014‐15) KVR Middle School Context
KVR is a dual-track school that offers a Late French Immersion program at the Grade 6 to 8 levels. This
situation gives us a mix of students from all the elementary schools in the district. Our English track
feeder schools are Carmi and Queen’s Park Elementary. KVR Middle School enjoys strong community,
parent support and actively responds to high expectations.
Established in 1997, KVR has a staff of 36 serving 438 pupils and has successfully established a middle
school program based on the Exemplary Middle School Model.
At KVR Middle School, we offer a variety of curricular and extra-curricular activities with the goal in mind,
that there is something for everyone. From yoga club to rugby and math contests to fly-tying there are a
variety of activities to meet the needs of our diverse community.
Background (2013‐15) at KVR: 2013‐14 During our summer district Professional Development we began exploring ‘Beyond Inclusion’ with the first of several on‐going sessions with Leyton Schnellert, Randy Cranston, and Penny Ketola. These sessions were held regularly during the 2013‐14, 2014‐15, and 2015‐16 school year. Teams of teachers and support services personnel attend these sessions and share strategies that encourage inclusive practices (both in terms of academic support and behaviour support), with an emphasis on co‐
planning and co‐teaching in relation to the Response to Intervention R.T.I. model. In the fall of 2013 we formed a collaborative staff committee to explore how to best inclusively support behaviour students in 201314. Through this we developed a behaviour support services model that focused on being inclusive. We have strategically placed a Certified Education Assistant (CEA) who is a behaviour specialist and participates in meetings / professional development with Randy Jones’ BIS program. This CEA checks in with students who exhibit challenging behaviours in class with the purpose of coaching, connecting, modelling, and with the goal of keeping those students in class. In the fall of 2013 we also began to gradually implement the use of Class Reviews as a model by which to provide support services to classes more efficiently. Classroom teachers were provided the opportunity to meet with support services teachers to look at class dynamics focusing on strengths and areas of concern. From these meetings plans are made to provide classroom supports, with the emphasis evolving into a co‐planning/co‐teaching model. As self‐regulation is an ongoing area of focus at KVR several staff members attended a Self‐Regulation workshop / conference in the fall. Page 2
2014‐15 and ongoing 











Beyond Inclusion 2014‐15 – The number of participants in this group grew. Currently we have six staff members participating in the Beyond Inclusion sessions. The focus in this group continues to be ‘co‐planning / co‐teaching’
Changing results for Young Readers (CR4YR) (2014‐15) – Our student services team is involved in this program. Despite the ‘elementary focus’ our team finds CR4YR valuable for our most vulnerable readers.
Helped coordinate and fund bringing Dr. Leyton Schnellert to the district to do a Pro D series on inclusive literacy practices for all four middle schools; we have a team of 13 staff members (including ALL of our Student Services teachers) who have been working on projects and curriculum designed to include all learners.
Sent team leaders and admin to attend the RTI workshop in Oliver with Shelley Moore in spring of 2015.
We have invested staff meeting time exploring inclusive philosophies of teachers and how to match philosophy to practice. In addition we presented research at staff meetings on the value of meaningful inclusion versus pull‐out.
Student Services teachers work with and have won grants from SET‐BC for innovative inclusive practices.
Supported a self‐regulation and assistive technology block to provide programming to all students who need it.
MindUp program covered in all grade 6 classes, as well as yoga, for self‐regulation.
Have initiated a school‐wide system to assess students using the performance standards and use this information to drive instruction and identify where Student Services support is most needed. Supported class reviews (all but one of our English track classes now do this) and co‐teaching model, as well as intense, research‐based intervention blocks for Tier 3 learners (we purchased the Seeing Stars intervention and level reading books).
Supported more learning assistance blocks for both English and French tracks, with a focus on collaborative teaching and planning models.
Initiated a book study with Team Leaders around RTI and how we can use this philosophy in our school, fitting with systems that we already have in place.
Student Services team attending Catching Readers Before They Fall: Intervention Focus with Pat Johnson (May 2015).

Emerging Themes o Inclusive practices o Co‐Planning / Co‐teaching o Literacy Support in English o Literacy Support in French o Response to Intervention (Academic and Behaviour) INQUIRY QUESTION We are in the process of re‐visiting the Inquiry process to come up with a question that addresses the direction we are heading as a staff. A focus for our Sept. 25th, 2015 Implementation Day will be committed to working through this process. Currently, we have most staff members working on individual, or small group inquiry covering a variety of topics. Some common themes that have emerged focus on inclusion and collaboration with an emphasis on co‐planning / co‐teaching. There is also a common thread of literacy support in both English and French. This is the first year that we have contemplated including a French language literacy goal. School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 3
RATIONALE: What evidence compelled us to explore these topics? Evidence that supports exploring these themes includes but are not limited to:  Staff involvement in several work groups including ‘Beyond Inclusion’, ‘Through a Different Lens’, and Inquiry Group led by Leyton Schnellert. We have approximately 15 teachers (student services and classroom teachers) who are involved in one or more of these work groups. Much of this is focused on creating authentic tasks and assessment.  District direction in the Response to Intervention Model.  Interest and participation in Shelley Moore’s RTI workshop.  The staff feedback/perception was that we are still not meeting the needs of all learners. This is related to the school completion work being done in the district and students who fall out of our system. (Historically 3‐5 students per year).  A support Services Team that is focused on working with students in classes alongside teachers as opposed to relying on a pullout model (both behaviour intervention as well as academic). ACTION PLAN OBJECTIVES: Specific steps to answer our question OR lead to more specific questions:  Staff is very interested in continuing with RTI training facilitated by Shelley Moore. Shelley will be presenting at District Professional Development Workshops in Fall 2015. Several staff members plan to attend.  Continued work with Team Leaders in the area of Response to Intervention model. Book club started in 2014‐15. Follow‐up discussion will continue into Fall of 2015.  Classroom Teachers and Support Teachers will be provided with release time to conduct Class Reviews early in the school year. For the 2014‐15 school year we had 6 out of 7 English Track classes and 1 out of 10 French Immersion Divisions participate in Class Reviews. We hope to increase the participation rate especially in the French Immersion classes.  Continue to collect data using the forms for literacy, numeracy, and interventions. Our ‘watch list’ will provide us with specific information in terms of where to provide universal, targeted, or intensive supports to meet the needs of all learners.  Continue to send a team of participants to ‘Beyond Inclusion’ Sessions facilitated by Randy Cranston and Penny Ketola.  Continue to support teachers who are participating in the Inquiry Group led by Leyton Schnellert.  Continue to look for ways to support teachers through release for ‘co‐planning / co‐teaching’ sessions. School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 4
STRUCTURES AND STRATEGIES: For all students and our most vulnerable learners.  Class Review – Teachers are provided with release time to meet with the student services team to go through class review process. Class Reviews are strength and needs based.  Data Sheets / Watch Lists – Teachers provide data on performance in literacy and numeracy for each division as well as watch lists which identify our vulnerable learners and ways we can support.  Shelley Moore – Five staff members attended a two day workshop featuring Shelley Moore and how to successfully implement RTI model in an inclusive classroom.  Our Grade based teams meet regularly to evaluate our program offerings and provide insight, direction, and feedback. In addition to core instruction, strong applied skills and fine arts programs are provided to students through the exploratory cycle.  In May, 2015 staff participated in timetable building and class list development. Special attention was given to placement of all learners (especially vulnerable). 

Behaviour Support Services CEA scheduled to connect with at‐risk students in the morning; ensures they have breakfast, lunch, etc. Checks in throughout the day and coaches students on expected / unexpected behaviours. Mind up implemented to support students in class with self‐regulation strategies in most classes. For students who are requiring tier 3 (intensive support) a student services teacher is in place who has a block of time funded through the Education Fund to support these students on an ‘as needed basis’.  Mac/Advisory time will be analyzed for curriculum related to belonging, connectedness, and school community. Many are incorporating programs / strategies around self‐regulation including Mind Up and Zones of Regulation. This is ongoing and will continue to be a focus for the 2014‐15 school year.  Administration analyzes list of ‘at‐risk’ and ‘highly‐at‐risk’ students each term, presents to staff and contacts parents; makes a plan with each student. 
Continuing with High 5 – At our monthly staff meeting we feature 3‐5 students who are experiencing challenges and look for ways that we can connect with these vulnerable learners.  Tier 1,2, and 3 interventions (both academic and behaviour) to support students in class (universal, targeted, and intensive). School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 5
ASSESSMENT PROCESS & TOOLS: What will we use to measure our success? Class Reviews: After the first few weeks when classroom teachers have had an opportunity to begin understanding the make‐up / complexities of their classes they are invited to participate in a class review. These meetings consist of the classroom teacher(s) and support services team (Special Education Teacher, Learning Assistance Teacher, Counsellor). 1.] Sample Class Review Sheet At these class reviews class strengths and needs are discussed and the opportunity is provided for the team to come up with a plan to meet the needs of the students in the class. 2.] Sample Data Tracking Sheets / Watch Lists … Teachers complete data tracking sheets for their classes, once at the beginning of the year and once at the end. Student performance which is based on provincially recognized performance standards for literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy are provided using the following scale (Not Yet Meeting Expectations, Minimally Meeting Expectations, Fully Meeting Expectations, and Exceeding Expectations). Information on work habits, attendance, and whether a student is receiving targeted or intensive intervention is also provided. Students who are not yet meeting expectations, or if there are concerns in certain areas, are place on a ‘Watch List’ – and monitored. Goals are set based on this information. Tracking numbers of students who are ‘at risk’ or ‘highly‐at‐risk’ by collating information from MyEdBC, including grades, work habits, and attendance. Further to this, we will also draw information collected on the ‘Class Data Sheets’. School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 6
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING: How will we support meaningful collaboration?  What does the staff need: o Collaboration time at staff meetings as well as various times throughout the year o Support for self‐directed or small group inquiry  Continued in‐service in the areas of Response to Intervention and Inclusion  Formalize, embedded collaboration during the school day RESOURCES: What do we currently have and what do we need?  Literacy helping teacher is currently working on grade wide reading assessments that incorporate STAR / AR results with other assessments to provide accurate literacy data.  Regular collaboration time built into the timetable to provide the opportunity for co‐planning and to develop text sets to enhance the reading in fiction / non‐fiction (Fr. Immersion and English). Collaboration with support staff helps to decide which activities to use with what content to support all learners.  Build more capacity in the ability and understanding of co‐planning and team teaching process. This will help to improve efficiency, respect, trust, and focus.  Continue to explore and invest in more accessible text in both English and French (Especially for Literature / Socratic Circles). School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 7
EVIDENCE KEY FINDINGS: This DATA (does not include students with ministry designations) is baseline date. We will follow this co‐hort of students for the next two years and see if improvements are made when they leave in grade 8. It is our hope that we will see an increase in students Fully Meeting or Exceeding Expectations. Gr. 6 English Track: Reflects data collated by 2/2 divisions. Oral (Rdng Rdng Comp Written Exp Num WH Probe) NYM 6/38 16% 3 8% 2 5% 4 10% N ‐ 4 MM 21/38 55% 9 24% 12 32% 7 18% S ‐ 21 FM 10/38 26% 26 68% 24 63% 26 68% G ‐ 12 EE 1/38 3% 1 3% E ‐ 1 Gr. 6 French Immersion: Reflects data collated by 3/3 divisions for Oral Reading and Work Habits. 2/3 divisions collated information on Reading Comprehension, Written Expression, and Numeracy. Oral (Reading Probe) ENGLISH Rdng Comp FRENCH Written Exp FRENCH Num WH NYM 2/83 2% 2/59 3% 2/59 3% 5/59 8% N ‐ 10/88 11% MM 0 0% 1/59 1.5% 6/59 11% 4/59 7% S ‐ 17/88 19% M 28/83 34% 7/59 12% 6/59 11% 1/59 1.5% G ‐ 61/88 69% FM 53/83 64% 34/59 58% 36/59 61% 26/59 44% E EE 14/59 24% 8/59 14% 22/59 37% School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 8
B.] Using Data extracted through BCeSis / MYEdBC and class WATCHLISTS we have identified students who we consider to be ‘at‐risk’ and ‘highly‐at‐risk.’ The criteria which we used to identify these students was generated from data collected in the fall and spring reporting periods: i.
students who are ‘not yet meeting expectations’ in two or more components listed above or with two or more ‘I’s /’F’s on their term 1 or term 2 report cards ii.
students with 15 or more absences up to the end of term 2 iii.
students with suspensions (either ‘in‐school’ or ‘out of school’) Students who have met 1 of the above criteria have been identified as ‘at‐risk’ Students who have met 2 or more of the above criteria have been identified as ‘highly‐at‐risk’ It is our hope that we will see a decrease in numbers of students considered to be ‘at‐risk’ and ‘highly‐at‐risk’. May 2015 Student # of students # of students % change
Population considered to be considered to be ‘at‐risk’ ‘highly‐at‐risk’ School Wide 436 57 (13%)
12 (3%)
Baseline Grade 6 139 13 (9%)
3 (2%)
Baseline 2014‐15 Cohort Grade 7 130 22 (17%)
4 (3%)
Baseline 2014‐15 Cohort Grade 8 167 22 (13%)
5 (3%)
Baseline 2014‐15 Cohort C.] Teacher survey – When asked to comment on the strategies that came out of co‐planning / co‐teaching sessions and what was noticed (impact on students) and reflections or ‘take aways’ from these activities, the following observations were made: Co‐planning and Collaboration 
Co‐planning/collaboration has allowed me to build a deeper personal and professional relationship with support services persona and enrolling teachers. It has allowed me to reflect on my practice and assess areas of strength and areas of stretch. 
As the Learning Support Teacher some of the units I worked on with classroom teachers included… o
Percentage Unit Math 8 o
Fraction Unit – Math 8 o
Authentic Tasks – Bridge Building Math 6/7 o
Religions Unit – Social Studies 8 o
Literature Circles and Optimism unit – English 7 School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 9
These units were very successful. They took lots of work, lots of patience, lots of careful strategizing. Joint professional development was very useful. 
Good to have the ability to watch teachers that work with other strategies to observe how their implementation impacts student involvement. 
In our French Immersion unit on Ancient Egypt (co‐planned with student services teacher) we notice that there was an impact on student learning including deeper thinking involved and exhibited. By providing student with choice there seemed to be greater motivation. We were able to reach the outliers (high level and low level learners) by differentiating and scaffolding their learning. 
As French Immersion Learning Support Teacher I co‐planned and co‐taught units in Science 8 (Fluids), Social Studies 7 (Ancient Egypt), and French Language 6 (Literature Circles). Some strategies used included creating text sets for different levels of reading ability, creating activities that ‘all, most, and few’ can do (Shelley Moore), creating choice in students activities , and creating more meaningful dialogue among students (Leyton Schnellert). The students seem more engaged in the lesson, lower level learners were more independent, more meaningful work was completed by students. I think they retained more. I enjoyed working with my colleagues. It was nice to share ideas and plan units. 
Like most first time experiences, lots of highs and lows (bumps in the road). Overall I am happy with the students’ growth and would like to start earlier (term 1) next year. 
Learning Assistance Teachers have a lot of experience, expertise and ideas to differentiate tasks. NARRATIVE: As we look at the results of our data collection there are some key points to consider. First, we are considering this year to be a ‘baseline’ year for data collection due to a shift in focus in the themes of inquiry. Despite continuing to explore the realm of ‘authentic tasks’ (relevant tasks as identified in our previous growth plan) our focus is now on the planning model. In particular, the collaborative nature of class reviews, and a co‐planning / co‐teaching support services model with identified universal, targeted, and intensive supports. The second point to consider is that because this is the first year that we have collated data and developed “watch list” in this particular format, we recognize the new and developing nature of our plan as we work together as a collaborative team to decide what works best for the context of KVR Middle School. School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)
Page 10
REFLECTION AND SUMMARY REFLECTIONS: What did we learn? How did it make a difference?  Staff participation in a collaborative planning model is rising (in both English Track and French Immersion). How do we continue to build interest in conducting class reviews and collaborative mind set?  We are improving in efficiencies when it comes to co‐planning / co‐teaching.  Staff would like to find more consistent ways / times for planning release.  Text sets at different levels are invaluable for engaging vulnerable learners. These are time consuming to create but very useful.  Should we continue to provide support around social thinking and self‐regulation?  Should we continue to provide support in the area of assistive technology? FUTURE PLANNING: Where do we go from here?  In the 2015‐16 school year, as we engage in the inquiry process, we will come up with a focused relevant area(s) of inquiry.  During the 2015‐16 school year, teachers will continue to look at trends and current educational research related to inclusion and the RTI model. We will continue to focus specifically on literacy, as well as school completion as areas of areas of growth.  Our support services team continues to build capacity around co‐teaching / co‐planning in an effort to provide their services in an inclusive model.  Bring in more Professional Development to build capacity in developing inclusive culture  Have staff share and/or present strategies/projects that work for them at each staff meeting.  Have set inquiry groups at start of the year and allow all staff to see what others are doing so they are aware of the groups that exist.  Continue to explore options that will allow for teacher collaboration in Grade Based teams or Professional Learning Communities. School Planning Council (2014‐15) Steve DeVito (Principal): Kevin McGifford (Vice Principal): Tarie Rempel (Parent): Helen Rapin (Parent): School District No. 67 (Okanagan-Skaha)