1 / 101

ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 42 MAPLE RIDGE / PITT MEADOWS

ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 42 MAPLE RIDGE / PITT MEADOWS. Submitted July 2011. School District No. 42 Vision, Mission and Core Values. Vision Our V ision is for every individual to feel valued, and for all learners to reach their full potential. Mission

gitel
Download Presentation

ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 42 MAPLE RIDGE / PITT MEADOWS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACHIEVEMENT CONTRACT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 42MAPLE RIDGE / PITT MEADOWS Submitted July 2011 June 30, 2011

  2. School District No. 42Vision, Mission and Core Values Vision Our Vision is for every individual to feel valued, and for all learners to reach their full potential. Mission Our Mission is to fully support all individuals in their personal development as successful learners and respectful contributors to society. Core Values Responsibility to all Learners Uniqueness of Each Individual Personal and Social Responsibility High Expectations for Success Culture, Community and Citizenship Diverse Learning Opportunities June 30, 2011

  3. Achievement Contract Areas of Focus • The Ministry of Education and School District 42 both share the focus on Literacy (K-12), Completion Rates, and Aboriginal Student Improvement. • The School District also has its own priorities in areas that we believe will assist all students in being more successful across all areas of learning June 30, 2011

  4. Learning for Tomorrow This year in School District 42 we embarked upon a Community Forum to begin to answer the question of “What do we believe Education needs to look like into the future as we prepare students for the ever changing “flat” world they will be entering into. This gave us lots of information as to why we need to shift our thinking and our systems and structures to better align with what students will need. June 30, 2011

  5. Learning for Tomorrow (cont’d) We will continue to focus on the Literacy and Grad initiatives in our Achievement Contracts etc. but will put much of our focus on engaging the learner and preparing students with the skills necessary to be successful once they leave our system. June 30, 2011

  6. Our focus areas over the next several years will include: • Play based learning • Place based learning • 21st Century skills • Project Based Learning • Inquiry Based Learning • Personalized Learning • Universal Design for Learning • A shift from content driven to skill based driven opportunities for learning • Using technology to engage the learner June 30, 2011

  7. A Focus on Student LearningTable of Contents 2010/2011 • Early Learning • Early indicators for student success • Student success for young Aboriginal Learners • Supporting Student Learning Grades 1 to 12 Education • Using Technology to Engage the Learner • Learning Through Inquiry • Literacy • A Focus on Disaggregating the Data to Identify Cohorts Needing Intervention • Aboriginal Student Improvement • Secondary & Adult Education • Grad Rates • Grade to Grade Transition Rates • Improving Student Learning for students with Learning Disabilities and Behavior Challenges June 30, 2011

  8. EARLY LEARNING Early indicators for student success including young aboriginal learners June 30, 2011

  9. Early Indicators for Student SuccessWhy did we choose this area of focus? • Early learning is the foundation of student engagement and success. • The educational focus in many of our classrooms has moved away from a focus on the “whole child”, play based programming and “developmentally appropriate activities”. • The introduction of full day kindergarten has required a comprehensive review and re-visioning of what an effective kindergarten program looks like. June 30, 2011

  10. Why did we choose this area of focus? (cont’d) • In 2009/2010 Kindergarten teachers identified (31%) students as being at risk in one or more areas of development. • Boys and students of aboriginal background are not as successful in the early years in school as we would like to see. Therefore in developing a more active, “hands on” program we are hoping to see both boys and students of aboriginal background having a more successful start to their school careers. • With the focus on 21st century skills, it is important to revisit what skills are going to equip our young learners with the tools they need for the future. June 30, 2011

  11. What have we done so far this year? • In light of the need to continue to improve success for boys and aboriginal learners and to reflect the Ministry “full day” kindergarten mandate we have focused on: • Developing a “play based”, “project oriented” kindergarten program • Providing opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning in ways that support their learning styles • Offering activities and interventions that build student skills and abilities particularly in the areas of fine motor, oral language and increasing attention/time on task. June 30, 2011

  12. What have we done so far this year? (cont’d) • Worked directly with kindergarten teachers to align their practice with the new kindergarten handbook and increase their knowledge of the importance of a “whole child”, “play based”, “developmentally appropriate’ programming. • Continued to use the District Kindergarten steering committee comprised of principals, kindergarten teachers, MRTA executive, aboriginal support teachers, and student support services staff to guide our full day kindergarten journey. June 30, 2011

  13. What have we done so far this year? (cont’d) • Developed an SD42 kindergarten/early learning website which provides comprehensive resources and links. • Worked with the district occupational therapy team to develop a physical development rubric so that teachers can more fully understand the early stages of physical development and more comprehensively program for student success. June 30, 2011

  14. What have we done so far this year? (cont’d) • Began dialogue around how to provide targeted and intensive support seamlessly into a kindergarten program in a systematic, structured and effective manner. • Began to include kindergarten and grade 1 teachers in dialogue, and discussion on how the district can support and enhance programming for early learners preschool to age 8 in SD42 to improve student success in all curricular and developmental areas. June 30, 2011

  15. What did we learn in?The areas that teachers identified as “at risk” changed in priority over 3 years. June 30, 2011

  16. Analysis of what we learned from the previous chart • Although 90% of kindergarten students are now meeting the curricular expectations in literacy by the end of kindergarten, from reviewing the data on the previous slide it appears that teachers are becoming more aware of the importance of focusing on the development of the “whole” child not just the academic side. June 30, 2011

  17. K students identified “at risk” by teachers • 37 students in 2008/09, 47 students in 2009/10 and 77 students in 2010/11 who were only identified “at risk” due to being late or absent 20 days between September and May of the school year are included in row A above. • These students are removed from the data in row B to more accurately reflect those students who are seen by their teachers to be “at risk” in a developmental/curricular area. June 30, 2011

  18. What did we learn? • The percentage ofstudents absent or late 20 or more days between October and May has increased through the three years. • 90% ofboys and 95% of girls are meeting the curricular expectations in literacy by the end of kindergarten. • Boys are 5 times more at risk in the area of fine motor and 3 times more at risk in the area of attention/self regulation than girls. June 30, 2011

  19. June 30, 2011

  20. *2008/09 data not available for literacy, numeracy and attends to story due to changing the structure of the data collected June 30, 2011

  21. What are weproud to show with this early learning data? • Positive increases in aboriginal student data has occurred in 7 out of 11 dimensions. In 2 areas percentages have been maintained from 2009/10. In only 2 areas have percentages dropped – literacy (letter sounds) and attendance (absent or late more than 20 times between September and May). • Although classroom teachers still identify aboriginal students, particularly boys, as being more at risk than non aboriginal students, the increases we are seeing are very positive, particularly in the areas of fine motor readiness, positive connection with the teacher and numeracy. June 30, 2011

  22. What are weproud to show with this early learning data? (cont’d) • Kindergarten students identified at risk in one or more curricular/developmental areas has reduced from 30% to 25% over three years. • % of students at risk in the areas of numeracy and positive connection with the teacher decreased for both boys and girls. This may be due to the “hands on” focus of the kindergarten program and the longer day. June 30, 2011

  23. What have we discovered we would like to change, alter or refocus on as a result of what we have found? • Anecdotal information from kindergarten teachers is indicating that the ‘play based’ kindergarten program is significantly increasing success for students, however the data that we are collecting does not seem to be reflecting this. In light of this and the focus on 21st century skills we need to revisit what data we are collecting and “count what counts”… • Need to look further into the attendance issues in particular we need to separate absences and lates. • Further analysis and discussion on whether there is a connection between absenteeism and student success. June 30, 2011

  24. Supporting Student Learning Grades 1 - 12 June 30, 2011

  25. Using Technology to Engage the LearnerLearning Through Inquiry June 30, 2011

  26. Why did you choose this area of focus? • Results from previous years demonstrate clearly that the laptop program improves writing • Students today need an increasing array of ‘21st Century’ skills that enable them to meet new challenges, solve problems, and use the tools and technology of today and tomorrow • Inquiry and challenge-based learning combine the strengths of traditional learning with new directions that engage students and extend and deepen their learning • This project was designed to build on the strengths in improving writing, the strong capacity for supporting technology integration, and increasing research on the impact of inquiry and challenge June 30, 2011

  27. 21st Century Skills include: • Developing inquiry questions • Planning • Gathering and evaluating information • Collaborating • Reasoning • Creativity and innovation • Using technology tools • Presenting information and ideas June 30, 2011

  28. What have we done so far? • 2009-2010 was the first year of the 21st century skills project. Since then we have further refined the program. • A large focus has been developing and trying out assessment materials for: • developing inquiry plans • processes of inquiry • presentations of inquiry project results • Assessment materials follow the BC Performance Standards pattern of using clearly established criteria to describe student achievement in terms of expectations (not yet meeting; meeting at minimal to moderate level; fully meeting; exceeding). • Data from Spring 2010 become our baseline and we now have the 2011 data. June 30, 2011

  29. Data • Teachers participating in the project systematically collect three types of data: • Written inquiry plans • Observation of inquiry processes students use • Digital presentations of inquiry results • Baseline data for written inquiry plans were collected in Fall 2009, before students were introduced to the inquiry approach and related 21st Century skills. June 30, 2011

  30. Student Achievement: Completed Inquiries • As indicated on the following graph, almost all inquiry projects in 2011 met at least minimal to moderate expectations (92%) • Over half (52%) showed strong achievement, fully meeting or exceeding expectations • The average score was 2.5 (on a 4-pt scale) with a standard deviation of .7 Note: Results in the following graphs are based on presentations from 211 groups including over 600 grade 6-7 students. June 30, 2011

  31. June 30, 2011

  32. Student Achievement: Component Ratings • When specific components of the presentations were assessed, the highest ratings were assigned to use of technology and appropriate content/subject matter vocabulary. • Nearly 2/3 groups showed strong achievement in terms of technology use and 1/6 demonstrated excellence in this aspect. Note: Results in the following graphs are based on presentations from 211 groups including over 600 grade 6-7 students. June 30, 2011

  33. June 30, 2011

  34. Comparisons Over Time: Presentations • As shown in the following three graphs, the quality of inquiry presentations improved substantially from 2010 to 2011: • More groups achieved excellence in their presentations (10% compared to 2%) • More groups fully met or exceeded expectations (52% to 22%) • More groups met at least minimal expectations (92% to 78%) • The average rating increased substantially from 2.0 to 2.5 on a four-point scale. June 30, 2011

  35. Comparisons Over Time: Presentations (cont’d) • In terms of specific components, groups showed the strongest improvement in “logical reasoning”, an area that many teachers targeted for special attention as scores had been relatively low in 2010. • Aspects with high scores in 2010 (vocabulary; use of technology) showed smaller increases (this is at least partly a ‘ceiling’ effect, as students had less room to improve.) June 30, 2011

  36. June 30, 2011

  37. June 30, 2011

  38. What are we proud to show with this data? Teachers commented both on the strengths of their own students and strengths they saw in the inquiry projects they assessed. They frequently mentioned: • Increasing range of technology skills • Creativity • Growth in questioning; their ability to pick/shape a topic that interests them • Collaboration • Ability to focus and work within a timeframe to complete a project with relative independence June 30, 2011

  39. Teacher Feedback: Student Strengths • Understanding more about citing information sources, putting information into your own words, evaluating sources • Commitment and sense of empowerment about making a difference in their communities and world • Presentation skills • Confidence • Engagement and ability/willingness to use feedback • Beginning to see multiple perspectives June 30, 2011

  40. “I think that we are taking away some of the trauma and drama associated with trying to spell or write or do anything as fast as anybody else. Also it gives students an opportunity to present their work in various mediums: essay, PowerPoint, webpage, video, etc. I think it's great to see them overcome technological obstacles and feel proud of learning new and innovative techniques. I think they also find it great to be able to do things in a setting they admire.” • 2011 SD42 Teacher Comment June 30, 2011

  41. Conclusions • Almost all students were able to engage effectively in a collaborative inquiry about a question they chose. They demonstrated at least minimum expectations for the set of skills and processes related to “21st Century Learning” through planning, executing, and presenting their inquiries. • In Year 2 of the inquiry-based program, an increasing number of students showed strong achievement by fully meeting or exceeding expectations for inquiry. June 30, 2011

  42. Conclusions (cont’d) • The project has also demonstrated that inquiry-based learning can flourish in a wide variety of contexts and with diverse groups of students. All students in the grade 6—8 project classrooms participate in this program, which in other times or places, might have been restricted to ‘enrichment’ for high achieving students. • This project continues to demonstrate the strong commitment and capability of SD42 teachers to engage sophisticated and complex forms of teaching and learning. The project teachers are a real and powerful learning community. June 30, 2011

  43. What have you discovered you would like to change, alter or refocus on as a result of what you have found? • Increased support for teachers around some aspects of planning and executing the project • Increased opportunities for teachers to share strategies, issues, and samples of student work • Refined scoring and assessment processes • Fine tune timelines for pre-plans, post plans and project due dates. June 30, 2011

  44. LiteracyA Focus on Disaggregating the Data to Identify Cohorts Needing Intervention June 30, 2011

  45. LiteracyWhy did we choose this area of focus? • Literacy is a key area of competency that students must have in order to be successful after leaving our public school system • Too many of our students are “Minimally Meeting” and need to be guided into “Fully Meeting.” • We have an issue with our Literacy collection tool that we would like to revisit and revise • We feel and believe we are making progress in this area through different forms of 21st century literacy etc. but our Literacy results using the DART and the RAD tools are not supporting that • We have shown that will targeted intervention that is Literacy specific that we can impact student success so we would like to build on that June 30, 2011

  46. Primary Elementary Literacy June 30, 2011 What have we done so far? Reading Levels (PM Benchmarks: Comprehensive Reading Assessment Resources for early primary students) Data collected for the 2010-2011 Achievement Contract, indicated an decrease in our student’s performance with regards to early literacy. This change may be be due the increase in the sample size. We are also actively exploring why so many more grade 1 females are at risk. We now have 5 years of trend data that allows us to better target intervention strategies like our Reading Racers summer program.

  47. Primary Elementary LiteracyWhat have we done so far? (cont’d) Reading Racer Summer Program • Early literacy intervention is a strong focus for our school district. Our elementary schools have established processes for monitoring the progress of our primary students and providing extra support for those who are struggling. This said, we still have students who require more assistance and who tend to lose literacy skills over the summer months. In order to address these issues, we have developed a highly successful summer literacy program for our Grade One students who are emergent readers. Our two main goals are: • to increase students’ reading skills • to boost their self-esteem, self-efficacy and motivation June 30, 2011

  48. Primary Elementary Literacy Reading Racer December Data 2010 Summer Data • 2010 summer data: • 45 students participated in the Grade One English program • 51% of the students were boys and 49% were girls • Improvement in Grade One Student Reading Levels: • - average gain of over 4 levels per student (9x their rate of progress over the previous 10 months in Grade One). June 30, 2011

  49. What did we learn? In our schools we are continuing to use literacy data boards to track our students’ progress and to ensure that people resources are assigned appropriately. As a means of meeting some of our most at risk grade one students, we offer selected students the opportunity to attend 16 days of summer school with a focus on literacy. We know that early intervention will be our key success story as we prepare students to move into Intermediate grades and High School. Early primary is the place to really target Literacy success. June 30, 2011

  50. Literacy Focus After Early Primary • What have we done so far? • Worked with schools to create attainable objectives included in their School Growth Plans which address at risk students. • Professional Development focus for all teachers on meeting the needs for all students including SmartLearning workshops, learning rounds and make and takes focusing on oral language skills. • In 2010/11, we have teachers leaders from every secondary school, actively engaged in literacy with a district facilitator. • NB: The district is currently embarking on a review of our data collection process and consequently has reduced the scope of reported information. June 30, 2011

More Related