THE VISION: IMPROVING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ALL LEARNERS DISTRICT ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACT SD67 (Okanagan Skaha) – June 2014 Table of Contents A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….3 B. District Context……………………………………………………………………………..4 C. District and School Connections.…………………………………….…………….5 D. District Plan…………………………………………………………………………………8 Appendix A: Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement…………………22 3 Introduction Introducing the 2013‐14 District Achievement Contract The School Act requires each Board of Education in British Columbia to prepare and submit to the Minister of Education an Achievement Contract with respect to student performance and plans for improving achievement. District Achievement Contracts are a public commitment made by the Board of Education to improve success for each student in the District. The contracts ensure that all districts are engaged in continuous improvement. Each District Achievement Contract is a three‐year plan, updated annually, and is the basis for the annual Superintendent’s Report on Student Achievement to the Board of Education. District Achievement Contracts outline a district’s goals for the improvement of student success, describe strategic actions, and identify how the District will monitor progress and make adjustments to improve results. The plan aligns with other improvement initiatives including education transformation, early learning, student wellness, Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreements (EA’s) and District Literacy Plans (DLP’s). The District Achievement contract outlines our commitment to an inquiry‐based model for improving student achievement, focusing on two goal areas; Literacy and School Completion/Transitions. The inquiry process is a reflective approach, designed to “focus and deepen” the work and to support the implementation of effective practices throughout the district. Subsequently, this report is a “living” document and will reflect the changes of our work. If you have any questions or comments regarding this document, please feel free to contact the School Board Office (250) 770‐7700, extension 6182. Thank you. Wendy Hyer Superintendent of Schools 4 District Context District Context School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha) is located in the Southern Okanagan Valley and includes the communities of Penticton, Summerland, Naramata and Kaleden. The district’s enrolment is declining slightly each year. The senior population (65+) in the community is almost double the provincial average. Approximately 10% of the district’s students are Aboriginal, representing Status On‐Reserve First Nations, Other First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and other off‐reserve people of Aboriginal ancestry. Serving a student population of approximately 5967 students in 19 schools, the district administers an annual budget of approximately $54 million dollars. The School District has been reconfigured to a K‐5 elementary, grade 6 to 8 middle school and grade 9 to 12 secondary school system. School District No. 67 offers a range of educational choices, programs, services and facilities and a variety of learning opportunities for students. The district infrastructure for technology is highly developed and is centered on a fibre‐optic network. Positive relationships exist among partner groups. The district makes a concerted effort to involve partner groups in discussions about student achievement. The district is committed to its mission statement of “Working Together for Student Success”. The Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement was signed in June 2006 and the Local Education Agreement with the Penticton Indian Band was signed in September 2008. The Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement is currently under the process of being renewed. The Okanagan Skaha School District is particularly proud of the diversity of programs offered to students at all levels in the system. We continue to be challenged by issues that include declining enrollment, small schools in rural areas, poverty, and a large population of designated students. Our strengths include strong community partnerships, cutting edge educational initiatives, and a staff that is committed to providing the best for our students regardless of their needs. This is the second of a three‐year planning cycle for our district. We have conducted a review of the supports and services we offer our students and their families. This has resulted in the development of a focus on the use of a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. RTI is intended to scaffold our intervention based on the needs of the individual learner. 5 District and School Connections Process Used to Develop School Improvement Plans Beginning in September of 2009, our school improvement plans underwent a major revision to more accurately reflect our shift to an inquiry‐based model for school improvement. While the format of the plan is significantly different, school improvement plans, and the subsequent inquiry questions, must still fall within one of the two district goals of LITERACY and SCHOOL COMPLETION & TRANSITIONS. Inquiry‐Based Model The inquiry‐based model for school improvement is centered on a critical question developed by the school staff. Specifically, each school staff develops a question driven by their own curiosity as to what will make the greatest positive difference for student success. Through an on‐going, collaborative professional learning experience, schools will implement and learn from an action research plan that is more reflective in nature and seeks to put theory into practice. The school improvement plans consist of the following four sections: 1. Inquiry Question(s): Depending on the size of the school and/or the interest of the staff, schools may develop more than one question. In some cases, the question will serve as an over‐arching question that allows for various learning teams to explore, at greater depth, the specifics of answering the question. This section will also include an evidence‐
based rationale that explains what compelled the staff to ask the question. 2. Action Plan: Outlining the action that schools will take in order to fully answer their question(s); this section will/could include the following: 





Objectives that outline specific steps to be taken or more specific questions to be explored. Structures and Strategies to be implemented for all students and/or the most vulnerable learners. The Assessment Tools and Process to be used in order to measure the school’s success toward answering the question. A Professional Learning strategy designed to increase, through collaboration, the collective capacity of all staff. The Resources needed or to be used in order to increase the achievement of the students AND/OR supplement the professional learning of the staff. Parent involvement and how parents will become partners in the school’s efforts to increase student achievement. 3. Evidence: This section will report any evidence/data related to answering the inquiry question. This evidence can be presented as both statistical and/or narrative data. While statistical data is a more traditional form of data, narrative data seeks to tell the story beyond the numbers for the entire school, a specific grade level, a small group, or an individual student. 4. Reflection and Summary: Action research is a reflective process, therefore, a critical component to the school improvement plans is the school staff’s reflection on what was learned and how/if it made a difference. This reflection will serve as a springboard for future planning that allows schools to develop their plans for the following year. School‐Based Inquiry Questions The inquiry questions have been developed through a collaborative process at the school level. The only expectation is that the questions fall within at least one of the District’s Goals of LITERACY, and SCHOOL COMPLETION & TRANSITIONS. Each school’s current School Improvement Plan can be viewed in its entirety on our district website: www.sd67.bc.ca/schoolplans 6 Process Used to Approve School Improvement Plans In School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha), the development and approval of school improvement plans occurs on an annual basis. Early in the fall, School Planning Councils are elected in each school. School Planning Councils and school staffs work on establishing an inquiry question/process, on an analysis of data, review of achievement, sharing of accomplishments, challenges and stories that bring the plan to life. In the spring of each year, a revised School Improvement Plan is reviewed by the Superintendent or designate. Suggestions for revisions are provided. Throughout the year, individual meetings take place with Principals to provide input, support or direction. The plans are then submitted to the Director of Instruction. Schools share the results of their work with other educators and the public at a year end District Celebration of Student Success. The Director presents the plans to the Board of Education’s Education Committee for approval at the public Board Meeting in June. Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement and the District Plan School District No. 67 signed the Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement in June, 2006. The Aboriginal Planning Council has representatives from all partner groups: Indian (First Nations), Métis, Inuit and other communities of Aboriginal ancestry all living within the traditional territories of the Syilx People of the Okanagan and the Penticton Indian Band. This group meets a minimum of four times per year to address the important elements of the agreement. A new agreement is being developed and we have recently completed the process of reaching out to our partner organizations to determine their needs. In addition, the Local Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement was signed in September, 2008 with the Penticton Indian Band. All three secondary schools have a purposeful focus to address course completion and Aboriginal results. Community Literacy Plan and the District Plan The Community Literacy Plan Update has been submitted to both the Ministry of Education and Decoda. It is available on our district website at http://www.sd67.bc.ca 7 This year the district has conducted a system‐wide review of our Response to Intervention structures and strategies to ensure we have the capacity to respond to and support learners who require academic intervention. This is the beginning of our new three year plan designed to meet our goal of improving student achievement for all learners. We hope that this process will establish a deeper horizontal and vertical understanding of how our supports scaffold across the K‐12 spectrum. This will allow us to share our internal expertise to make sure that all levels can access help and learn from each other. Our RTI model is based on the three tiered intervention structure as outlined in the work of Dr. George Sugai. The model offers primary, secondary and tertiary interventions depending of the level of support required. Tertiary Prevention:
CONTINUUM
OF
Continuum of
SCHOOL-WIDE
Academic
Support
INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students with
High-Risk
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students for
At-Risk
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Interventions for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
8 District Plan Goal 1: To improve student success in READING COMPREHENSION.
OBJECTIVE 1: To increase the percentage of students who fully meet/exceed expectations in fiction and non‐fiction reading by the end of grade 3. RATIONALE: Current research indicates that student achievement in reading by the end of grade 3 is the best predictor of later academic success, and specifically, that levels of phonemic awareness in the first two years are directly related to this success. District analysis of early literacy achievement, as determined by screening in Kindergarten and grade 1, indicate a lower than expected rate of success, particularly in knowledge and use of the phonemic structure of written language. The early literacy intervention program implemented in the district has shown good progress with approximately 80% of vulnerable students reading at grade level after four years of reading intervention. Our review of assessments used to inform instruction in the area of reading performance has caused us to re‐think the tool we are using to summative report student performance at the end of each school year. What we believe is that our teachers are engaged in evidence‐based assessments that are accurately informing their reading instruction. As a result of that year‐long experience they are capable of providing summative data using the reading performance standards rubric. This will be the evidence we collect for summative purposes. TARGET: By June 2016, 75% of grade 3 students will FULLY MEET or EXCEED expectations on the READING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RUBRIC. (Change this section create baseline for gr. 3‐8) * This is the second year that our grade 3 teachers will be using the performance standards to summatively assess the reading performance of their students. It reflects our intention to focus on the use of research‐based assessments to determine instructional practice during the year. For summative data collection we will move to the use of the Performance Standards for grade 3. Background Indicator: K Screening for Phonemic Awareness 2009 2010 2011 2012 14% 18% 15% 10% Not Yet Meeting 2008 10% Minimally Meeting 11% 12% 16% 12% Fully Meeting 79% 74% 66% 73% 2013 13% 2014 12% 13% 78% 73% SCHOOL LITERACY DATA COLLECTION FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Performance Standards Grade 3 Students May 2011 Not Yet Meeting Minimally Meeting Fully Meeting Exceeding Total Number Writing Total Number of Students # 17 113 192 39 361 376 % 5% 31% 53% 11% 96% 100% May 2012 # 22 94 217 39 372 385 % 6% 25% 58% 11% 96% 100% May 2013 # 25 65 177 61 328 332 % 8% 20% 53% 18% 99% 100% May 2014 # % 9 Leading Performance Indicator Baseline Result Results (Fully Meeting/Exceeding Only) 2011 2012 2013 2014 Whole Class Reading Assessment Gr. 3 64% 66% 72% Aboriginal Students 30% 36% 70% 2013‐14 Action Plan Review 1. Continued to support our EARLY LEARNING INITIATIVES to promote early success. These include our four StrongStart Centres, PALS, and Ready, Set, Learn. 2. Continued to expand the EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION (E.L.I.) PROGRAMS to support our vulnerable readers, with a specific focus on our Aboriginal learners through an additional 1.0 E.L.I. teacher. 3. Continued to expand the LATE LITERACY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS to provide follow up with our vulnerable primary readers. By the end of next year all elementary schools will have received LLI kits and training support. 4. Continued to support the implementation of our DISTRICT READING ASSESSMENTS in our Elementary Schools for both formative and summative purposes. These include the PM Benchmarks (grade 1‐2) and the Reading Performance Standards (grade 3‐8). 5. Continued to expand our collective capacity with regards to EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES and RESOURCES. These include SmartLearning, Differentiated Instruction, Reading Power, and Literacy in Action. 6. Began to reinvigorate our efforts to using GUIDED READING STRATEGIES to support all of our primary students, but especially those who have come though our E.L.I. programs. 7. Continue discussions to examine our LITERACY ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS for our elementary and middle schools. 8. This is the second year we have been involved in the Changing Results for Young Readers initiative sponsored by the Ministry. We continue to support a growing number of school teams who are eager to join CR4YR. We now have district teachers trained to support colleagues from other schools. 2013‐14 Reflection This year has been a year of reflection that has allowed us to be poised for some exponential growth in service to our struggling readers and in our deepening of our collective capacity to implement promising literacy strategies in all of our classrooms. Our Achievement Review process, as well as the cohort data collated and presented by Sharon Jeroski, confirmed that the roots of non‐completion begin to take hold as students emerge from their primary years still not meeting expectations. While we have been very pleased with the effort and progress made to date, we recognized a need for us to continue to learn and grow as to the most effective ways to support each and every student in development of the necessary foundational literacy skills to be successful high school graduates. We continue to work on the two major themes identified: First, the notion of early‐and‐often intervention must be deeply embedded within our culture, and while we have our E.L.I. program, it became clear to our team that we had not taken the early‐and‐often approach to scale. Second, the clarity of our assessment protocols was seen as something we would and/or could replicate. Again, while we have a system in place, we believe our protocols could be more detailed in terms of what assessment is used, how often, who administers it, and how the data is collated, communicated, and utilized to guide instruction. 10 Another area of focus has been our efforts to take our students Beyond E.L.I. implemented for grade 1 students; our E.L.I. program is an intensive, one‐to‐one reading intervention that supports students to a point of meeting or exceeding expectations. While very successful, we recognized two limiting factors associated with E.L.I. First, limited funding prevents some students from receiving the maximum support necessary. Typically, a student can spend up to 14 weeks in the program – usually sufficient for most students – however some students simply require more time. Second, we recognized that as some students transition to grade 2 their literacy gains need to continue to be supported through promising instructional practices, such as guided reading. Our Beyond E.L.I. meeting last year brought together grade 2 teachers from across our district to share successes and collectively address the literacy support challenges in grades 2 and beyond. That process resulted in the decision to pilot the Levelled Literacy Intervention program as a follow up to E.L.I. Both programs were based on the Reading Recovery model of intervention. We are in our second year of a three year roll out of L.L.I. kits and training to our district elementary schools. We are collecting data via surveys with teachers who have been trained and are using the program. Results prove that this type of intervention produces gains in reading performance, but indicate that the parent support of the program at home is a critical part of student success. This is the second year that we have been engaged with the Ministry sponsored Changing Results for Young Readers. We have seen this change practice in classrooms and we are very excited by the results. Next year we plan on continuing with our trained facilitators and adding additional groups to expand the scope of the project. Future Questions/Planning for 2014‐15 Looking ahead to next year, the following questions will focus our LITERACY efforts within our primary grades: 1. What impact will the full implementation of a play‐based, Full‐Day Kindergarten Program in all of our elementary schools have on the development of ORAL LANGUAGE skills and student readiness for grade 1? Does our K Screener accurately identify those students in need of E.L.I. support? 2. How can we further encourage teachers to use WHOLE CLASS READING ASSESSMENT throughout the year as an ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING for the purpose of DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION? Will this emphasis effectively move individual students from the MINIMALLY MEETING to the FULLY MEETING or EXCEEDING category? 3. How can we develop a COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL to efficiently and effectively share the responsibility for administering the assessments and collating the information to guide the learning for all students? 4. How can we deepen our efforts to infuse GUIDED READING PRACTICES throughout our primary classrooms on a district‐wide basis? 5. How can we better support our BOYS and/or our ABORIGINAL STUDENTS in order to help them improve in reading and responding to text? OBJECTIVE 2: To increase the percentage of students who are meeting/exceeding expectations in reading by the end of grade 8. To provide better tracking of this objective we will initiate year end, summative data collection from grades three through eight. This will be done using a common assessment tool: the BC Reading Performance Standards. This was to be the first year of this process. 11 RATIONALE: This goal reflects the concern related to improving fluency, comprehension, and reading rate by using reading strategies for all students. At the middle level, there is often less directed teaching of reading; yet reading is becoming more difficult. Reading for information impacts all other subject areas. Now, more than ever, students need reading strategies reviewed and reinforced. The gap for the struggling reader widens at the middle school level, and, in some cases, the reader may not have been developmentally ready for the directed reading strategies in elementary school. Therefore, the directed reading strategies need to be reinforced now and it is important to enhance literacy by providing and supporting the opportunities that promote improvement in reading for all students. Although our data indicates that students are meeting expectations using the Whole Class Reading Assessment, there are still too many students who are only minimally meeting. We must continue to address this deficiency. Our response to this data has been to ensure that teachers from grades three through eight are familiar with and trained in the use of reading strategies across the curriculum. Our district literacy support teachers will work with our grades four and five teachers. At the middle school level we have engaged the teacher‐librarians and the administration at each school to work in a collective cohort to expand the use of reading strategies. This project involves the teams at each school helping teachers use reading strategies across curricular areas. We recognize that literacy skills are not the sole responsibility of the English language arts teacher, or the learning support team. It has been decided that we will use the fiction and non‐fiction work of Adrienne Gear to guide this intention. We had planned to offer a literacy summit this spring which was to include teacher‐librarians, administrators, and grade team leaders. This group was to analyze progress to data and discuss assessment. Students’ need to have accessible text that they enjoy reading if they are going to become life‐long readers. As Nancie Atwell says in her book The Reading Zone, “…we want every student to become a skilled, passionate, habitual critical reader”. (p. 12) WE WOULD HAVE DATA FOR ALL STUDENTS GR.3‐8 AS A BASELINE THIS YEAR TARGET: By June 2016, 75% of grade 8 students will fully meet or exceed expectations on the READING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ASSESSMENT. * This is the second year that our grade 8 teachers will be using the performance standards to summatively assess the reading performance of their students. It reflects our intention to focus on the use of research‐based assessments to determine instructional practice during the year. For summative data collection we will move to the use of the Performance Standards for grade 8. SCHOOL LITERACY DATA COLLECTION FROM MIDDLE SCHOOLS Performance Standards Grade 8 Students May 2011 May 2012 May 2013 May 2014 # % # # # % Not Yet Meeting 53 11.8%
10
2.3%
39
8.2% Boys 41 17.6% 7 3% 25 Girls 12 5.5% 3 1.4% Aboriginal 14 24.6% 5 Minimally Meeting 293 65.0%
Boys 151 Girls Aboriginal Fully Meeting Boys # % 11% 14 5.6% 10 10 22% 244
55.2%
153
32.2% 64.8% 143 65.0% 98 43.2% 142 65.1% 101 45.4% 55 22.2% 38 66.7% 29 60.4% 19 42.2% 101 22.4%
181
40.9%
201
42.3% 40 17.2% 70 31.8% 80 35.2% 12 Girls 61 28.0% 111 50.0% 121 48.8% Aboriginal 4 7.0% 14 29.1% 15 33.3% Exceeding 4 0.9%
7
1.6%
82
17.3% Boys 1 0.4% 0 0% 24 10.6% Girls 3 1.4% 7 3.2% 58 23.3% Aboriginal 1 1.8% 0 0% 1 2% 451 95.6% 442 94.8% 475 99% 472 100% 466 100% 478 100% 2013‐14 Action Plan Review 1. We continued to promote ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING practices that provide relevant information to both teachers and students in order to plan the next steps for instruction and learning. Specifically, we are moving our focus from using the WHOLE CLASS READING ASSESSMENTS from September to DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION for individual students. 2. We continued to promote instructional strategies and resources across all curricular areas that led to effective and engaged learning for all students. 3. Continue reading intervention for students identified “at‐risk” and “seriously at‐risk” for reading comprehension and/or reading fluency. 4. We have begun to work specifically with grades four and five teachers at our elementary schools to ensure that they have the training and support to utilize reading strategies as a part of whole class instruction. Further, we are working on supporting our middle schools with the intention of providing these same skills so that reading strategies can be delivered in all core curriculum areas. 2013‐14 Reflection: Over the last number of years we have been concerned about the consistent downward trend in our student’s literacy results between elementary school and middle school. Specifically, we consistently see the number of students meeting or exceeding expectations on assessments drop between grades 3 and 8. This concern is tempered by the fact that students consistently recover from middle school to high school as evidenced by the number of students who pass English 10 and, specifically, the English 10 Provincial Exam. Nonetheless, this downward trend between elementary and middle school is an area we need to continue to pay close attention to. With our continued growth in capacity with effective strategies and processes (i.e. SmartLearning) we anticipate that this downward trend will eventually reverse itself to a more positive trajectory. The new projects we have initiated at both grades four and five, as well as at our four district middle schools will help us to address this issue. The development of our inclusive model of intervention will also help build skills in this area for classroom teachers. Future Questions/Planning for 2014‐15 Looking ahead to next year, the following questions will focus our LITERACY efforts within our middle school grades: 1. Our results on the whole class assessment continue to be inconsistent. We have decided to move away from the use of this diagnostic tool as a summative assessment. This assessment is to be used as an ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING not just as a summative assessment. We have decided to move to the use of the BC Reading Performance Standards as the new protocol to gather summative data. This allows us to rely on the year‐long 13 professional judgment of classroom teachers who can consider all forms of assessment used to guide instructional decisions. They then use the standards and the associated rubric to provide summative data on each student. 2.
We are going to look at collecting evidence at each grade level so we can look at both historical trends and cohort performance. 3.
How can we better support our BOYS and/or our ABORIGINAL STUDENTS in order to help them improve in reading and responding to text? 4.
How will our new SIS system help us collect and analyze data in the area of reading comprehension?
14 SMARTER LEARNING INITIATIVE
Leadership Development
Leadership Development




Teacher Leadership Training
by Susan Close and leaders
Demonstration Teachers and
Teacher Trainers Network Group
Teacher Research Inquiry Teams
District Literacy Helping Teachers
Learning Rounds
(Elementary / Middle / Secondary)


1 Day Demonstration Classes
o
Pre observation meeting with classroom teacher and co-teaching facilitator
o
Observation for part of day
o
Post observation meeting of observing teachers and demonstration teachers
Follow-up Meetings
Mini Workshops
Topics for mini workshops depend on teacher request. Mini workshops can be at the
district level or the school level. (Learning communities)
Examples of Requested Workshops:
 Word Work
 SmartReading Thinking Tools
 Independent SmartReading
 Whole Class Sequence Fiction/Non-Fiction
 Reading Conferences
 Oral Language
A/B Structured Talk
 Assessment
Side by Side Teaching

Teachers request teacher trainers
in their classrooms.
`
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING CONTINUUM





Entry Level
Summer Pro-D
District Mini Workshops
Learning Rounds
School Learning Communities
Out-of-District Conferences






Ongoing Support
Demonstration classes
Mini Workshops
Side by Side Coaching
Learning Communities
Teacher Inquiry Research Teams
Out-of-District Conferences
15 SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 67 (OKANAGAN SKAHA) LITERACY: AN ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK Changing
Teacher Practice
Assessment of/for
Learning
Development
of
Assessment
Tools




Use of
Assessment
Release time for collaborative marking Use of Performance Standards in assessments Supported by Flex Funds and District funds 
Assessment of/for learning Development of Instructional Focus lessons 



Provision of
Resources
Early
Literacy
Grades 2-5
Middle
Schools
Secondary
Schools
Teams of teachers researching / creating reading assessments Professional
Development
Intervention
Strategies
Supported by Flex Funds and District funds 




Mentoring / side by side teaching Workshops, network groups, visitations 

District Helping Teachers Demonstration teachers – Smart Reading School based Literacy Teachers 

Web casts Supported by Flex Funds and District Funds Lending Libraries: professional development books CD/DVD Instructional materials: literature circles and picture books for instructional strategies Students’ books Supported by Flex Funds and District Funds 



Kindergarten screen identification of at‐risk students Early Literacy Intervention Program – grade 1 students District tracking of early literacy Supported by District Funds 


PM Benchmarks Assessment transferred into Performance Standards Intervention groups determined by school based team Intervention groups taught by learning assistance teacher and support staff 
Reading probes for screener 
Literacy pull out programs for at‐risk / seriously at‐risk students 
Tracking of students with Jerry Johns individual reading inventory 


Middle school assessment for identification Literacy intervention classes Tracking of students with Jerry Johns individual reading inventory 16
Goal 2: To increase the likelihood that ALL students will successfully COMPLETE THEIR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS with a positive sense of optimism, purpose, and control. RATIONALE: Over the past few years, substantial effort has been invested in addressing the questions: “Who is not meeting success in our system?”, “Why are they not meeting with success?”, and, “What can be done to improve their chances of meeting with success?” As a result of this work, which involved analysis of available data, interviews with students, class forum discussions, and literature reviews, three broad areas of need have been identified as requiring attention in the future: creating and maintaining positive relationships, effective and engaging instructional approaches, and a need to conceptualize and deliver discipline differently. Further, within these three broad areas, certain groups were identified as needing more support. Our focus for next year will be on improving achievement for ALL students, with a particular focus on students with behavioural challenges, and our Aboriginal population. TARGET: By June 2016, a positive trend of Dogwood Certificates completion will be evident. Leading Performance Indicator(s) Baseline Results 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 All Students 81%
81%
84%
84% 84%
Provincial Avg. 79%
79%
80%
81% 82%
Female 89%
90%
87%
87% 86%
Male 78%
82%
83%
80% 82%
Aboriginal 49%
48%
60%
60% 66%
Aboriginal Provincial Avg. 47%
48%
50%
54% 56%
Grade 8 to higher (All) 96%
97%
98%
97% 98%
Aboriginal Grade 8 to higher 91%
95%
95%
96%
99%
97%
99% 97% 96%
90%
93%
94%
94%
97%
95%
91% 92% 81%
78%
82%
81%
92%
87%
84% 85% 60%
65%
74%
69% Result Six Year Dogwood Completion Rate Grade 9 to higher Aboriginal Grade 9 to higher Grade 10 to higher Aboriginal Grade 10 to higher Grade 11 to higher Aboriginal Grade 11 to higher 96%
87%
94%
89%
88%
73%
17
2012‐13 Action Plan Review SCHOOL COMPLETION ‐ OBJECTIVE 1 (IDENTIFICATION): To continue to develop the capacity to IDENTIFY students who are “at‐risk” of not completing their programs. 1. To continue to listen to STUDENT VOICE through a series of interviews, forums, and by reviewing specific information contained in student files. 2. To continue to develop a BASE OF UNDERSTANDING with all staff on why students are not completing school and the interventions that are most successful at reversing this. 3. Refine our DATA GATHERING and accessing in order to better focus our efforts and more accurately identify students who are potentially “at‐risk” of not completing school. SCHOOL COMPLETION ‐ OBJECTIVE 2 (PREVENTION): To provide our students with a relevant, engaging and accessible learning experience within a PROACTIVE, SUPPORTIVE, and CARING COMMUNITY. 1. Emphasize the centrality of positive RELATIONSHIPS in student success. 2. Develop and implement approaches to INSTRUCTION and ASSESSMENT that are fair, reasonable, inclusive, accurate, and supportive of learning. 3. Develop understandings of, and approaches to, addressing STUDENT BEHAVIOUR issues that parallel the structures and processes used through Assessment for Learning and Differentiated Instruction. Both concepts are more supportive of learning and development. The following two objectives directly relate to our intention to move to a district‐wide RTI model to support the behavioural needs of our students and their families. We continue to develop resources and supports that are intended to reach out to our most vulnerable learners. If we can effectively implement these interventions across the district we can support these students consistently regardless of where they attend in our system. Intervention is a pro‐active response to dealing with issues identified through our data collection regarding vulnerable learners. The recovery objective encourages us to continue to look at the barriers to success for our students. We can never stop investigating because it is through these questions that we develop the supports that can be used in preventing success in other students. SCHOOL COMPLETION ‐ OBJECTIVE 3 (INTERVENTION): To develop a pyramid of interventions to provide focused support for students who have been identified as at‐risk of not completing. 1.
Work toward developing RESTORATIVE PRACTICES at the district and school levels. 2.
Continue to reconsider elements of ALTERNATE EDUCATION in light of our new understandings of school completion and our move to a “Central Services” model. 3.
Expand CAREER DEVELOPMENT programming and options. 4.
Develop INTER‐AGENCY connections in support of students. 18
SCHOOL COMPLETION ‐ OBJECTIVE 4 (RECOVERY): Given that roughly 15% of our students fail to complete their educational programs, work will be initiated on developing potential ways and means of providing these students with the opportunity to complete their programs. 1.
To begin to answer the following questions: (1) Who is not completing school? (2) Why are they not completing? (3) What might be done in SD67 to provide these students with an enhanced opportunity to complete their programs? This year the district has conducted a system‐wide review of our Response to Intervention structures and strategies to ensure we have the capacity to respond to and support learners who require either academic or behavioural intervention. This is the beginning of our new three year plan designed to meet our goal of improving student achievement for all learners. We hope that this process will establish a deeper horizontal and vertical understanding of how our supports scaffold across the K‐12 spectrum. This will allow us to share our internal expertise to make sure that all levels can access help and learn from each other. Our RTI model is based on the three tiered intervention structure as outlined in the work of Dr. George Sugai. The model offers primary, secondary and tertiary interventions depending of the level of support required. Tertiary Prevention:
CONTINUUM
OF
Continuum of
SCHOOL-WIDE
Academic
Support
BEHAVIOUR
SUPPORT
~5%
~15%
Specialized
Individualized Intensive
Systems for Students with
High-Risk behaviour
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students with
At-Risk behaviour
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students
We have developed a partnership with Okanagan University College and University of British Columbia Okanagan. They are providing local course work around the topic of inclusive education and social emotional learning. We attended a summit hosted at UBCO that brought together school districts to discuss the impact of declining enrollment and how it is impacting schools and communities. This type of partnership is revealing new sources of support and creativity. The university is also conducting research in the area of “kindness” and we are collecting survey data to further our understanding in this area. We have received two grants from the Ministry this year that have profiled some of the great partnerships we have developed locally. First, is a land‐based learning project that brings our students out to the local territory to better understand how local culture is related to sustainable land use. The second has a focus on building instructional practice around the needs of our most vulnerable learners. Their needs are the focus of instruction for the entire class. This has given us a wonderful insight into how to better connect and engage those most at‐risk of not completing school. 19
2012‐13 Reflection With our six‐year completion rates (for both Aboriginal and Non‐Aboriginal students) consistently at or above the provincial average, we know we are serving most of the students in SD67 very well. However, as we reflect on the data, we know that moving the students represented by the 15‐20% not completing school is going to require a focused, strategic, and individualized effort in order to maximize their success. Our collective capacity with programs and processes that succeed with most students is strong. Our energy must now focus on building our capacity to individualize the education experience for a small percentage of students who require a large percentage of our efforts. While 15‐20% may seem like a small percentage, it represents close to 100 students per year who could potentially complete school. This remains a concern. Specifically, our trends indicate that boys with either a behaviour designation and/or of Aboriginal ancestry are significantly underperforming compared to the rest of our student population. We know we are more effective at identifying the students who are vulnerable for not completing school. Our next steps are to develop routines, systems, and structures that individualize our students’ education and prevent them from continuing their non‐completion trend. In the spring of 2010 and 2011, we hired researcher Sharon Jeroski to examine two particular cohorts of students (2008‐
09 and 2009‐10). Her research investigated the characteristics of those students who do not complete school within the six year window allotted by the Ministry of Education. The cohorts were ultimately narrowed down to students who entered our high schools in grade 9. It was important that we examined only the students over whom we had direct, long‐term influence, therefore, it was equally important to not lose focus over students who, for example, move to our district in their grade 11 or 12 year. The research was able to identify a few characteristics as being common amongst most of the non‐completers in these cohorts. That’s not to suggest that each of the characteristics is a cause for non‐completion; they are simply common characteristics that were consistent among our non‐completing students. In these cohorts, the non‐completers were more likely to be male, to be Aboriginal, and/or to have ever had a behaviour designation. The important part of this research was not just discovering the characteristics but to discover the individual students – to know who they are, by name, and dig a little deeper into their personal story and why school completion did not occur. By doing so we can truly fulfill our mission of supporting each and every student by understanding who they are, what’s impeding their progress, and how we as a system can prevent those challenges with other students. Pyramid of Interventions Another prominent characteristic of our non‐completers was ever having a behavioural designation. We recognized that a “behavioural designation” can occur for a number of reasons, however, the common characteristic led us to believe that a more pro‐active and consistent approach to supporting students with behavioural designations would be in order. While there are a large number of behavioural “programs” available, we believed that our efforts needed to focus more on systemic changes to create alignment of expectations and support. Through our discussions, it was determined that our district should give some attention to creating a district‐wide pyramid of interventions to provide a framework to all of our schools for creating a process of shared responsibility and support. It is our intention to bring together representatives from every school to begin building the framework that will eventually serve as a guide for how we support our students with behaviour designations. Through a Different Lens is an example of a project in our Pyramid of Interventions that can be used in both Stage One, since the instructional model supports all learners in the classroom, and Stage Two, because the lesson design has focus on an at‐risk learner who is the subject of the case study. Through a Different Lens One of the barriers to success that many of our vulnerable learners face is the limited opportunities to demonstrate their level of proficiency in any subject area. In other words, students are disproportionately asked to demonstrate their learning through pen and paper assessments that force an over reliance on reading and writing. This project capitalizes on student strengths by allowing them to choose a method of demonstration that is aligned with the individual students’ interests, talents, and strengths. Our vulnerable students are expected to demonstrate a minimal level of proficiency on 20
the intended learning; this is not about lowering standards. This project is about removing the barrier of method which can, at times stifle a students’ ability to fully demonstrate all that they know. We applied to and received a grant from the Vancouver Foundation to support this project which allowed groups of teachers to use this approach with a wide range of students from kindergarten to grade 12. We currently have a 27 teachers involved in this project and are seeing some very promising outcomes. As a result, we would like to continue this project next year, going deeper with the teachers currently involved and slightly broader so that we can include more teachers. Concise Description of Activities The project is being led by three teachers who have demonstrated the consistent and successful implementation of these ideas into their classrooms. The two main components of our project will continue to be to expand the number of teachers allowing students the opportunity to choose their method of demonstration and to build the capacity of these teachers to assess the intended learning regardless of the methods students choose. Each of these components requires four steps: 1) Introduction of teaching strategies to include alternate demonstrations of understanding in regular classroom practice. This involves interactive workshops with the teacher leaders and all participants. 2) Implementation and Coaching involves the teacher leader side by side teaching while these strategies are incorporated into actual classrooms. Teachers have direct support with both instructional strategies and the assessment of alternate demonstrations of knowledge. 3) Evaluation of the implementation process includes the evaluation of challenges and successes for both the teachers and students. 4) After the evaluation and reflection, adjustments are made before similar strategies are implemented in future opportunities. Currently, our project is being implemented with groups of teachers from six schools; 2 elementary schools (K‐5), 2 middle schools (6‐8) and 2 secondary schools (9‐12). We would like to continue to work with these 6 groups, and open these groups up to others in the school district who would like to join the project. Data Collection In order to truly evaluate the project and determine if effective change has occurred for both teachers and students, we are currently, and will continue, collecting ongoing data. For students, we are evaluating both academic achievement and engagement with a particular focus on vulnerable learners. For teachers we are evaluating change in both pedagogy and practice. We have our first collection of data complete and prepared a preliminary report written in February 2012 for seven of our semestered classrooms at the secondary level. The data from these classrooms has revealed two important outcomes: first, all 12 students identified as at‐risk learners have passed the course being taught by the teacher in the project. Secondly, a number of students (students at‐risk, students who are doing fine, and students exceeding at school) were interviewed regarding their views about the change in delivery and they overwhelmingly indicated that the classes were more interesting and engaging and challenged them to interact more deeply with the content. Social Emotional Learning represents a Stage One input to our Pyramid of Interventions. Social Emotional Learning This year we have begun to construct a plan to deal with the increasing social and emotional needs of our students. What has become apparent to us is that we are seeing more issues and with younger students. Our response to this growing concern has been to conduct research into this area and begin to equip ourselves with the skills needed to facilitate the skill building needed to support our teachers. We have learned that we need to begin by addressing the needs of the teachers and support staff that deal with the students. It is at that point that we can begin to model and then deliver strategies to our students to help them deal with issues such as self‐regulation. We have constructed a team of teacher leaders to help us proactively deal with this issue. We have attended conferences and workshops, and initiated professional development for our teachers. Our plans include hosting a conference on this topic in our district to broaden the conversation. We have partnered with UBCO in this venture and they will be providing expertise and offering specific course work in our school district beginning this fall. 21
Designing SchoolSchool-Wide Systems
for Student Success
Behavioral Systems
Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
5-10%
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Ultimately our RTI model is designed to provide support and/or service to students and their families regardless of the challenges they face. Our intention is to create a model that will allow us to respond consistently and effectively to academic and/or behavioural needs. We intend to use the RTI model to guide the development of a new vision for our district. This vision will be created through a collaborative process involving all partners. The intention will be to communicate a system of support that is shared by all who have a stake in the success of our students. We will need to consider what supports are currently available, what gaps exist, and what evidence we can collect to provide relevance to our intention. It is time to start a new conversation and prepare our district for the educational revolution that is moving quickly towards us. Questions and/or Future Planning for 2013‐14 Looking ahead to next year, the following questions will focus our SCHOOL COMPLETION and TRANSITION efforts: 1. What impact will the development of a district‐wide PYRAMID OF INTERVENTION framework have on the collective capacity of our schools to support all students, especially those who present the most challenging academic and/or behavioral challenges? 2. How do we continue to broaden the impact of our Middle School‐High School Transition programs to include the 15‐20% of students vulnerable for not completing school? The intent would be to transition students through to the end of grade 9 rather than simply to the beginning of grade 9. 3. How do we continue to develop the capacity and the expertise to provide individual support to our most vulnerable learners? Specifically, how do we support our Aboriginal boys and/or our behaviour designated students? 4. We will continue to deepen our understanding of how a restorative mindset can develop fair and reasonable approach to student discipline that focuses on support and inclusion, rather than on removal and isolation. 5. Continue to strengthen the blending of academic and behavioual support through Assessment for Learning, Differentiated Instruction, and Sound Grading Practices. 22
APPENDIX A: Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement The development of an Aboriginal Education Enhancement Agreement was completed and signed in a community signing on National Aboriginal Day, June 21, 2006. The agreement is between the local Aboriginal communities (Status On‐Reserve First Nations, Other First Nations, Métis, Inuit, and other off‐reserve people of Aboriginal ancestry), School District No. 67 (Okanagan Skaha), and the Ministry of Education of the Province of BC. The Agreement establishes the structures and processes that the parties and other partners commit to use to achieve ongoing improvement in the school achievement of Aboriginal learners in our schools. The Agreement is linked to our District Achievement Contract’s goal areas in Literacy, Numeracy and School Completion. The document is the result of respectful collaboration and compromise and reflects a balance of the interests and the obligations of each of the representative groups. It recognizes the progress to date and the challenges for tomorrow. The focus is on the students and improving the level of success enjoyed by all Aboriginal students in our school district. Finally, the document formally restructures the Aboriginal Education Planning Council, to increase Aboriginal voice and influence in giving a positive direction to the Aboriginal Education Program.