Forest Green/CFL AERR

8/8/2019 Forest Green/CFL AERR

1/21

SchoolAnnual Report:

Forest Green/CFL

Parkland School Division No. 70Excellence in Education

For 2009/2010


2/21

2

Forest Green/CFL

2009/2010 Annual Report


3/21

3

SCHOOL PROFILE

School Name: Forest Green School Name: Connections for LearningPrincipal: George Couros Principal: George CourosAssistant Principal: Cheryl Johnson Assistant Principal: Carolyn JensenAddress: 5210 45 St. Address: 4300- 43 St.

Stony Plain, AB Stony Plain, ABT7Z 1R5 T7Z 1J4

Phone: 780-963-7366 Phone: 780-963-0507Fax: 780-963-0341 Fax: 780-968-1088

E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected]

[email protected] [email protected]

Website Address:http://forestgreenschool.ca

School ProfileStudent Population: 255 Student Population: 191No. of teachers: 17 teachers 14.6 FTE No. of teachers: 10 teachers 9.92 FTE

No. of support staff: 13 No. of support staff: 8Grades Served: K-6 Grades Served: 1-12
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://forestgreenschool.ca/http://forestgreenschool.ca/http://forestgreenschool.ca/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/21

4

OVERVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENTS

Our Story

CFL and Forest Green have built a strong commitment to sharing best practices for students andare working together in the areas of Special Education, Technology Integration, Citizenship andSocial Responsibility, Special Education, Assessment, and Balanced Literacy. Sharing our workusing these best practices will help us to better meet the needs of all students within the sharedsites, while also giving students the opportunity to best meet their potential. We have a strongcommitment to not only using these best practices within our schools, but also communicatingand working with families to not only ensure they have understanding of the direction of ourschool, but so we can also draw upon their expertise. This is done through constantcommunication with stakeholders through newsletters, blogs, meetings, parent information nights,amongst other things, that are done both on the classroom and school level.

Forest Green and CFL staff members want to continue to build upon relationships within theirrespective sites to ensure that all learners have the best opportunities for success. Building anenvironment based on trust, while also focusing on success for all, we believe, will help studentsto reach their full potential. As you walk into each school site, you feel the immediate impact of theculture that has been created there by the entire staff and school community. We also know thatparents have a vital impact on the success of their children, so we are continuously working ondeveloping relationships with families to ensure that we can learn how to best meet the needs ofeach individual student. Although Forest Green, Connections for Learning, and Brightbank are allunique sites, we all share the same vision of working together with families and the community tobuild the best environment for students to be leaders in their own learning. Ultimately, we wantour students to be able to pursue their passions and build their learning around their interests. Todo this is necessary work if we want engaged and powerful learning practice within our schools.

Satisfaction Survey Highlights

1. 100% of parents surveyed believe that the schools always work to improve the quality of

education offered at Forest Green School.2. 100% of parents surveyed believe that technology is used to improve student learning at

Forest Green School.3. 100% of parents surveyed believe that teachers are available to discuss their childs

education at Forest Green School.4. 99% of students surveyed believe their school is characterized by dignity and respect.5. 94% of students are satisfied with the overall quality of education offered at Forest Green

School.6. 87% of students believe the school is characterized by dignity, respect and caring at CFL.7. 94% of students are satisfied with the way the school communicates about progress and

achievement.

Academic Growth

1. 82.7% of grade 3 students at Forest Green who wrote the Language Arts PAT met theacceptable standard.

2. 86.1% of grade 6 students at Forest Green who wrote the Language Arts PAT met theacceptable standard (11.1% met the standard of excellence.)

Special Education1. Successful first year implementation of the SNAP (Stop Now and Plan) program within our

school.


5/21

5

FUTURE CHALLENGES

As we move forward within our professional development plan at Forest Green School andConnection for Learning, it is essential that we continue to work to create and share bestpractices within our schools, while meeting the needs of our unique programs. This takesa lot of work, but it essential if we are meeting the needs of all of our students.

APPENDIX A: PROVINCIAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS

Forest Green and Connections for Learning are currently evaluating strategies that willbest serve students in their pedagogical needs, based partially on the PAT results fromthe 2009-2010 school-year. We have seen an improvement in several areas from the pastyear.

Forest Green schools results of students meeting the acceptable standard in grade 6Science (61.1%), and Grade 6 Social Studies (58.3%) will need to be focused on. ForestGreen will continue to review exemption practices from students.

Connections for Learning students that met the acceptable standard in Grade 9 Social(25%) and Grade 9 Science (27.3) will be monitored to ensure that this was an anomaly.

As literacy is the fundamental of all programs, we have increased our Early LiteracyIntervention (ELI) program for students at both Forest Green and Connections forLearning

Appendix B: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners

We want to ensure that we are not only continuously working to meet the needs of diversestudents within our programs, but that we are continuously using inclusion practices tomeet the needs of all students.

It is still essential that we revisit IPPs with our students to ensure that they are successfulin reaching achievable targets.

Appendix C: Parkland Satisfaction Survey

We want to ensure that parents feel their students are supported by school and teachersat Forest Green. (75%) To do this, we have opened more lines of communication withparents through blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. This is to ensure that we can have moreopen communication with parents throughout the year and that they get to know theirteachers very well.

It is essential that students feel safe on school grounds at Forest Green. (79%) This year,we have increased supervision on the playground in the mornings and after school, whilealso having grade 6 student supervisors to help with younger students, while developingleadership.

Appendix D: AISI

It is essential that we effectively communicate the goals and vision of our AISI plan to ourstakeholders so that they are aware of the direction and learning that will be happeningwith our eportfolio plan. As this is a web based plan, it is essential that we work withparents to understand the vision and safety of our plan. There will be a significant amountof work and technical knowledge needed to run this program in the first year so severalstaff are being trained in the implementation. This is to ensure this eportfolio vision lastsfor several years.


6/21

6


7/21

7

APPENDIX A: PROVINCIAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS (Cohort Results)

The chart below shows the Divisions results for student achievement at both the acceptable standardand the standard of excellence. The cohort results were calculated to include students whowere absent when the tests were administered; who were exempted from writing by the Superintendent since writing would be harmful to the student or the student could not respond to the testinstrument; students whose results were withheld; or students who only wrote one part of a Language Arts Test. The targets reflect the predictions of the school, jurisdiction and province based onstudent performance given the five-year trend and any applicable improvement initiative.

Forest GreenLANGUAGE ARTS:

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 3:Acceptable Standard 90.3 90.0 81.3 74.3 86.3 80.3 75.8 85.0 80.1 67.7 84.0 81.3 72.7*

82.7**

88.7 81.6 75

Standard of Excellence 3.2 13.5 14.1 5.7 16.9 17.7 15.2 15.4 16.1 16.1 15.4 18.2 6.1*6.8**

15.9 19.5 8

Target 2009/10

GRADE 6:Acceptable Standard 72.7 84.1 79.0 75.7 82.7 80.3 78.6 85.0 81.1 59.3 83.6 81.8 86.1 87.3 83.3 87

Standard of Excellence 6.1 16.4 15.9 13.5 16.6 19.8 21.4 17.2 21.0 3.7 13.2 18.9 11.1 18.3 18.9 12

Target 2009/10

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

MATHEMATICS:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 3:

Acceptable Standard 80.6 90.3 81.4 68.6 84.3 79.4 78.8 85.1 78.3 61.3 82.8 79.2 N/A 88.4 76.4 75

Standard of Excellence 22.6 27.9 27.1 5.7 21.0 23.3 12.1 23.9 24.0 19.4 20.7 27.2 N/A 24.0 29.8 10

Target 2009/10

GRADE 6:

Acceptable Standard 57.6 77.9 74.5 67.6 71.9 73.3 89.3 77.9 73.9 70.4 76.1 75.8 N/A 77.4 74.475

Standard of Excellence 3.0 12.4 15.3 8.1 9.6 14.4 14.3 14.5 15.7 3.7 11.7 16.5 N/A 13.4 16.5 10

Target 2009/10

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


8/21

8

SCIENCE:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 6:

Acceptable Standard78.8 86.2 77.7 59.5 78.7 74.7 82.1 79.4 74.3 77.8 79.1 76.1

61.1*75.8**

80.7 76.8 65

Standard of Excellence 12.1 27.4 28.1 18.9 25.5 26.8 14.3 23.9 24.4 18.5 21.4 25.2 5.6 23.7 26.4 7***

Target 2009/10

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

SOCIAL STUDIES:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 6:

Acceptable Standard 78.8 83.9 78.2 59.5 79.1 77.0 82.1 81.1 77.4 N/A N/A N/A58.3*67.7**

72.4 71.0 70

Standard of Excellence 12.1 19.8 23.2 18.9 18.8 22.7 14.3 19.7 24.2 N/A N/A N/A 8.3 13.6 16.4 10

Target 2009/10


*The participation rate represents the percentage of students who wrote the exam compared to the total number of students eligible to write the exam (cohort group).

PARTICIPATION RATES:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. SchoolTarget

GRADE 3:Language Arts 96.8 96.6 90.6 88.6 95.4 90.1 93.9 94.5 89.8 80.6 93.7 90.6 96.9 95.0 91.1 97

Mathematics 93.5 97.0 90.2 88.6 94.7 89.9 93.9 94.9 89.9 77.4 94.5 90.6 93.9 94.6 94.2 95

GRADE 6:Language Arts 93.9 96.4 90.1 97.3 94.5 89.8 100 95.9 89.5 77.8 93.9 90.0 100 99.0 90.7 100

Mathematics 90.9 95.5 90.2 94.6 94.4 89.5 100 95.9 89.4 96.3 94.0 90.1 93.9 95.6 93.5 95

Social Studies 97.0 96.3 90.1 94.6 94.7 89.1 100 95.5 88.6 N/A N/A N/A 100 94.1 90.3 100

Science 93.9 96.6 89.5 86.5 94.1 88.6 100 95.8 88.4 88.9 93.7 89.0 94.4 94.0 90.5 95


9/21

9

Connections for LearningLANGUAGE ARTS:

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 3: N=4 N=6 N=3 N=8

Acceptable Standard 75.0 90.0 81.3 33.3 86.3 80.3 33.3 85.0 80.1 62.5 84.0 81.3 N/A 88.7 81.6 50.0

Standard of Excellence 0.0 13.5 14.1 0.0 16.9 17.7 0.0 15.4 16.1 0.0 15.4 18.2 N/A 15.9 19.5 5.0

Target 2009/10

GRADE 6: N=8 N=9 N=3 N=8

Acceptable Standard 12.5 84.1 79.0 55.6 82.7 80.3 33.3 85.0 81.1 62.5 83.6 81.8 50.0*100.0**

87.3 83.3 65.0

Standard of Excellence 12.5 16.4 15.9 0 16.6 19.8 0.0 17.2 21.0 12.5 13.2 18.9 0 18.3 18.9 10.0

Target 2009/10

GRADE 9: N=40 N=34 N=29 N=26

Acceptable Standard 42.5 79.0 77.4 32.4 85.2 77.5 48.3 80.4 76.5 19.2 82.9 78.731.8*43.7**

82.2 79.3 50.0

Standard of Excellence 5.0 9.9 13.6 2.9 13.7 14.8 0.0 12.7 14.8 0 80.5 81.8 0 11.6 15.0 5.0

Target 2009/10


MATHEMATICS:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 3: N=4 N=6 N=3 N=8

Acceptable Standard 75.0 90.3 81.4 33.3 84.3 79.4 33.3 85.1 78.3 62.6 82.8 79.2 0 88.4 76.4 50.0

Standard of Excellence 0.0 27.9 27.1 16.7 21.0 23.3 0.0 23.9 24.0 12.5 20.7 27.2 0 24.0 29.8 18.0

Target 2009/10

GRADE 6: N=8 N=9 N=3 N=8

Acceptable Standard 12.5 77.9 74.5 22.2 71.9 73.3 33.3 77.9 73.9 62.5 76.1 75.8 50.0 77.4 74.4 50.0

Standard of Excellence 0.0 12.4 15.3 0.0 9.6 14.4 0.0 14.5 15.7 0 11.7 16.5 0 13.4 16.5 5.0

Target 2009/10

GRADE 9: N=36 N=34 N=29 N=26

Acceptable Standard 30.669.811.9

66.417.0

23.566.414.3

65.217.8

13.8 63.1 64.5 11.5 63.7 65.933.3*50.0**

N/A N/A 50.0

Standard of Excellence 0.0 2.9 0.0 14.4 17.8 0 13.2 18.0 0 N/A N/A 5.0

Target 2009/10


10/21

10


SCIENCE:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 6: N=8 N=9 N=3

Acceptable Standard 12.5 86.2 77.7 44.4 78.7 74.7 33.3 79.4 74.3 62.5 79.1 76.175.0*

100.0**80.7 76.8 50.0


Target 2009/10

GRADE 9 : N=35 N=34 N=29

Acceptable Standard34.3 67.1 66.7 26.5 71.3 68.8 20.7 70.4 68.4 15.4 74.4 71.6

27.3*35.2**

74.9 73.6 30.0


Target 2009/10


SOCIAL STUDIES:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

GRADE 6: N=8 N=9 N=3

Acceptable Standard 12.5 83.9 78.2 66.7 79.1 77.0 33.3 81.1 77.4 62.5 N/A N/A25.0*33.0**

72.4 71.0 70.0

Standard of Excellence 0.0 19.8 23.2 0.0 18.8 22.7 19.7 24.2 0.0 N/A N/A 0 13.6 16.4 10.0

Target 2009/10

GRADE 9: N=38 N=34 N=28

Acceptable Standard 36.8 72.5 71.9 36.8 69.9 70.6 28.6 69.4 71.0 N/A N/A N/A36.4*

47.0**70.4 68.9 50.0

Standard of Excellence 5.3 13.9 19.0 5.3 14.8 19.0 3.6 12.1 19.2 N/A N/A N/A 0 17.8 18.8 10.0

Target 2009/10



11/21

11

KNOWLEDGE & EMPLOYABILITY: GRADE 92005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolResults

(%)

Juris.Results

(%)

Prov.Results

(%)

SchoolTarget

LANGUAGE ARTSAcceptable Standard N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 91.7 64.7 N/A 92.3 66.8 n/aStandard of Excellence N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 22.2 8.1 N/A 7.7 7.8 n/aTarget 2009/10

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

SOCIAL STUDIES

Acceptable StandardN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 69.2 64.5

7020

Standard of Excellence N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 23.1 15.7Target 2009/10

SCIENCE70

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

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

PARTICIPATION RATES:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov.

GRADE 3:Language Arts 75.0 96.6 90.6 33.3 95.4 90.1 66.7 94.5 89.8 75.0 93.7 90.6 0 95.0 91.1

Mathematics 75.0 97.0 90.2 33.3 94.7 89.9 66.7 94.9 89.9 75.0 94.5 90.6 0 94.6 94.2

GRADE 6:Language Arts 25.0 96.4 90.1 66.7 94.5 89.8 66.7 95.9 89.5 62.5 93.9 90.0 50.0 99.0 90.7

Mathematics 25.0 95.5 90.2 66.7 94.4 89.5 66.7 95.9 89.4 62.5 94.0 90.1 75.0 95.6 93.5Social Studies 25.0 96.3 90.1 77.8 94.7 89.1 66.7 95.5 88.6 62.5 N/A N/A 75.0 94.1 90.3

Science 25.0 96.6 89.5 77.8 94.1 88.6 66.7 95.8 88.4 62.5 93.7 89.0 75.0 94.0 90.5

GRADE 9:Language Arts 65.0 90.8 87.7 50.0 94.2 87.9 72.4 92.6 87.7 46.2 93.8 89.7 72.7 94.0 89.8

Mathematics 69.4 90.7 86.8 52.9 92.4 87.4 58.6 90.7 87.4 42.3 91.7 89.2 66.7 95.7 92.4

Social Studies 63.2 93.4 88.0 47.1 93.2 87.8 71.4 92.2 88.3 42.3 N/A N/A 77.3 94.4 90.2

Science 62.9 93.3 87.6 47.1 94.1 88.2 72.4 93.9 88.4 42.3 93.6 90.0 77.3 94.1 90.4

GRADE 9 K&E:Language Arts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 82.9 0 96.2 82.2Mathematics N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 93. 3 87.9 100 96.0 87.3Social Studies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100.0 85.2Science N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 96.7 87.2 77.3 100.0 86.7


12/21

12

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

DIPLOMA MARKS:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010


ENGLISH 30 - 1Acceptable Standard 91.5 88.0 91.5 87.7 92.8 87.1 92.0 86.1 50.0 89.4 85.1

Standard of Excellence 16.4 19.3 23.4 19.0 18.1 15.5 10.0 12.3 50.0 8.5 10.1

Participation Rate 49.5 59.8 48.8 59.7 48.4 58.9 52.2 59.8 50.0 51.2 59.9

ENGLISH 30 - 2Acceptable Standard 86.1 86.1 94.3 88.6 92.8 88.9 94.8 88.2 0 93.2 88.8


Participation Rate 35.5 26.0 33.9 26.1 37.5 26.8 36.2 27.4 42.8 37.5 28.1

SOCIAL 30Acceptable Standard: 85.0 85.5 86.0 86.2 86.8 84.7 87.3 84.2 0 50.0 67.8

Standard of Excellence: 18.2 23.9 26.5 24.6 22.3 21.5 18.0 21.4 100.0 16.7 10.4

Participation Rate: 42.9 54.0 39.9 53.9 41.6 51.7 41.8 53.2 100.0 1.9 4.3

SOCIAL 33Acceptable Standard: 85.6 83.5 92.3 84.9 87.0 85.3 90.4 85.6 100.0 90.5 76.4

Standard of Excellence: 21.8 19.0 22.3 19.6 22.4 18.9 21.6 20.2 0 26.2 11.5


SOCIAL 30 - 2Acceptable Standard: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86.2 85.0

Standard of Excellence: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.2 13.7

Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 39.6 30.4

PURE MATHAcceptable Standard: 84.6 82.8 81.3 81.1 78.4 81.3 88.0 82.1 50.0 84.1 82.9



APPLIED MATHAcceptable Standard: 82.6 77.5 76.7 77.6 76.0 76.3 86.9 79.4 N/A 87.2 77.3

Standard of Excellence: 13.7 11.8 13.3 12.1 13.7 10.7 16.6 13.5 N/A 16.3 12.6

Participation Rate: 20.9 21.6 25.4 21.6 18.8 21.3 23.4 22.0 N/A 22.5 21.8BIOLOGY 30Acceptable Standard: 86.1 81.4 86.2 83.5 85.3 82.3 83.2 83.0 100.0 77.4 81.4



CHEMISTRY 30Acceptable Standard: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 82.1 76.3 N/A 76.1 79.0Standard of Excellence: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.3 27.7 N/A 21.5 29.9Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25.6 33.3 N/A 28.0 39.1PHYSICS 30Acceptable Standard: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.8 79.3 N/A 85.4 73.9Standard of Excellence: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31.0 23.1 N/A 22.9 20.3Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.9 19.8 N/A 13.2 22.3SCIENCE 30Acceptable Standard: 86.1 82.8 91.7 87.2 96.8 88.6 87.7 86.0 33.0 86.4 80.1




13/21

13

The chart below shows the Divisions results for student achievement at both the acceptable standard and the standard of excellence based on students final course mark .

FINAL COURSE MARKS:2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010


ENGLISH 30 - 1Acceptable Standard 98.6 97.3 98.8 96.5 100.0 98.8 96.8 100.0 99.2 96.9 50.0 97.6 96.6


Participation Rate 49.5 59.8 48.8 59.8 N=1 N=1 N=2

ENGLISH 30 - 2Acceptable Standard 95.9 94.4 97.6 94.6 100.0 99.3 94.2 99.3 95.7 66.0 97.3 95.8


Participation Rate 35.5 26.0 33.6 26.1 N=1 N=3

SOCIAL 30Acceptable Standard: 97.1 96.6 96.9 96.3 98.6 96.5 98.0 96.8 0 83.3 91.1


Participation Rate: N=2 42.9 54.0 39.9 54.0 N=1SOCIAL 33Acceptable Standard: 94.3 93.4 94.9 92.1 100.0 94.2 91.8 97.4 92.4 100.0 97.6 92.7


Participation Rate: N=1 44.7 31.9 43.2 32.2 N=3 N=4

PURE MATHAcceptable Standard: 94.0 92.5 95.5 89.9 66.7 89.1 90.0 97.3 90.6 50.0 90.9 92.6

Standard of Excellence: 22.5 29.8 31.3 25.9 33.3 26.8 27.1 21.2 12.5 0 28.6 33.2

Participation Rate: 36.2 46.3 32.9 46.3 N=3 N=2

APPLIED MATHAcceptable Standard: 89.4 89.4 96.1 89.2 89.8 86.7 97.7 90.6 N/A 95.9 89.6

Standard of Excellence: 9.9 10.0 18.4 10.9 100.0 13.6 10.2 19.4 12.5 N/A 15.1 11.5

Participation Rate: 20.9 21.6 25.4 21.6 N=1 NA

BIOLOGY 30Acceptable Standard: 95.7 93.0 97.0 93.2 93.5 92.3 94.6 93.4 100.0 90.6 93.0

Standard of Excellence: 29.4 29.9 25.3 31.5 100.0 34.3 29.7 24.3 29.8 0 21.1 31.6

Participation Rate: N=1 30.8 43.6 30.9 43.9 N=1 N=1

CHEMISTRY 30Acceptable Standard: 96.0 95.1 97.2 95.1 100.0 96.5 95.1 94.8 89.9 N/A 88.5 91.0

Standard of Excellence: 33.2 36.2 100.0 37.6 38.0 43.0 37.8 32.3 31.0 N/A 26.3 33.4

Participation Rate: 27.7 39.1 N=1 26.0 38.4 N=1 N/APHYSICS 30Acceptable Standard: 95.6 94.0 95.8 94.4 93.3 94.9 100.0 92.8 N/A 93.8 91.5

Standard of Excellence: 27.4 34.1 50.0 35.3 53.3 36.7 34.5 29.8 N/A 28.1 26.6

Participation Rate: 15.8 24.3 13.5 24.0 N/A

SCIENCE 30Acceptable Standard: 93.4 93.5 97.1 92.3 100.0 93.5 95.3 94.5 33.0 94.6 92.2


Participation Rate: 22.0 7.8 15.8 7.7 N=3



Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


14/21

14

APPENDIX B: MEETING THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS

At Forest Green School and Connections for Learning, we are very proud of the way that we areable to meet the needs of many diverse needs for our students. Due to the fact that we offerseveral specialized programs within our buildings (Brightbank program, EYALT, Parent Partnership,SNAP Program), we are not only able to use programs to meet the needs of our students, we arealso are able to draw upon the experience of several experts in our school.

At both Forest Green School and Connections for Learning, we have special needs coordinatorsthat work directly with teachers to find ways to best serve our students. The coordinators do notonly work with our school, but directly with Learning Services to ensure that we are properly placingstudents in programs where they will be successful.

Within Forest Green School, we have many programs that help to meet the needs of our students.Our SNAP program (Stop Now and Plan), works with students with behavioural issues, along withtheir families. We are proud to be 1 of 2 schools in the province that offer this pilot program, andwe have seen a great deal of success with our students in using this program. Referrals to theoffice have been decreased as students effectively have learned how to deal with challenges theyface either in the classrooms, or during recess breaks.

As we serve many Paul Band students, we are proud that we not only have a FNMI liaison workerthat deals directly with students and families, but we take many opportunities to share FNMI culturewithin our school programs. This has been shared through our school assemblies, family dance,and everyday curriculum.

Also within Forest Green School, we have the Early Years Alternative Program (EYALT) that workswith students who have behavioural needs. These students take part in all school activities andhave significant guidance from the teacher and educational assistants that work within the program.We see this as a mutually beneficial program as we all learn from each other, and we are proud tohouse this program within our school.

At Connections for Learning, we have a unique atmosphere that serves many different students

needs. Through programs such as Parent Partnership and Stony Creek program, we are able tomeet the needs of families that are looking for an alternate to a regular school program. Theflexibility and support that is provided by our school is beneficial to students from all over ParklandSchool Division.

We are proud that stories on some of our students (Marley who has Tourette Syndrome, Emily whohas Autism) have been shared internationally. They have had the opportunity to not only beleaders within our own school community, but to the world. Our work with them has beencommended and we appreciate all that these students, as well as others, teach us about ourselvesas well as them.

Some of the challenges we face when dealing with student needs is being able to access outside

agencies to help with support. The demand has been great for these services, and often times wehave to wait significant amount of time for access to them. Although this is one area that could be achallenge, it is understandable and rarely affects the child in a negative way. Overall, because ofthe expertise and wide range of experience and our knowledge that we share between ForestGreen, Brightbank, and Connections for Learning, we are very proud of the inclusive programmingthat we are able to offer.


15/21

15

APPENDIX C: PARKLAND SATISFACTION SURVEY (2009/10 Spring Results)

RESULTS IN ACHIEVING DIVISION AND SCHOOL GOALS

SATISFACTION SURVEY (2009 2010)

Parkland's Satisfaction Survey was administered to a grade-specific sample of parents and students, andto all staff. The tables below show schools satisfaction results in relation to the jurisdiction's goals. Thepercentages listed represent the percent of respondents who indicated "strongly agree" or "agree" on the

student survey, or the number of respondents who indicated "very satisfied" or "satisfied" on all othersurveys. In schools where there were fewer than 6 respondents in a group, i.e. under 6 staff membersresponding to the survey, results have not been included to ensure anonymity. Results that have beensuppressed are indicated by (-). Grey areas of the table indicate that a result is not available because thequestion was not asked to that group. The response rates are the percentage of parents, students, andstaff who completed the 2009 - 2010 Satisfaction Survey.

Forest GreenSATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSE RATES

Parents withstudents in Grades

2, 5, 8, 11Special Education

ParentsGrade 3 and 6

StudentsGrade 9 and 12

Students Staff

SchoolParklandDivision

# ofsurveysreturned

ParklandDivision School



ParklanDivision

Survey Response Rates 13% 21% n=2 14% 94% 90% 67% 78% 67%

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 1: High quality learning opportunities for all.


2, 5, 8, 11Grade 3 and 6


Students Staff

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklanResult

Overall quality of education / I like my school (gr. 3/6) 86% 90% 94% 92% 83% 100% 97%

School Characterized by dignity, respect, and caring88% 85%

99% 96% 86%86% 88%

Dignity & Respect 90% 87% 80%Friends at school 96% 97% 96%

Safe environment:

Building 100% 91%93% 93% 88%

90% 94%Classroom 96% 95% 92%

Grounds 88% 85% 79% 82%

Students are treated fairly 100% 90% 93% 92% 80% 100% 97%

Satisfaction with the variety of program choicesavailable

100% 88% 84% 100% 97%

Teachers use computer technologies to help learn100% 87%

99% 96% 86%100% 90%

Technology improves student learning 96% 92% 81%

The School/Teachers provide help and support 75% 86% 97% 96% 84%

Process to respond to needs of at-risk students 93% 85%

Parents satisfaction with access to special needsservices

1

- 82%

Parents satisfaction with timeliness of special needsservices1

- 82%

Students with special needs are meeting their IPPgoals1

- 82% 100% 89%

Responsive Programming / Curriculum 88% 84% 91% 89%

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


16/21

16

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 2: Excellent Learner Outcomes Achieved by Students.


2, 5, 8, 11Grade 3 and 6


Students Staff

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklanResult

Students are prepared for world of work 74% 72%

91%

Students are prepared for post-secondary studies 79% 80%

Students have information re: next steps in learningprograms

86% 86% 84%

Satisfaction with career planning assistance 68% 66%

Students are being prepared to be good citizens 88% 91% 95% 95% 76% 100% 95%

Students know how they should behave 97% 98% 97%

Satisfaction with progress and achievement of yourchild

88% 87%

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 4: Highly Responsive and Responsible Jurisdiction.


2, 5, 8, 11Grade 3 and 6


Students Staff

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklanResult

Satisfaction with opportunity for involvement indecision making

88% 88% 86% 84%

Schools effort to involve parents in childs learningexperiences

86% 84% 100% 97%

Satisfaction with involvement of special needsspecialists

1

- 72%

Satisfaction with quality of special education servicesoverall

1

- 76%

School Council has meaningful role 90% 94%

Teachers are available discuss childs education 100% 94%

School always works to improve the quality ofeducation offered

100% 88% 100% 98%

Way school informs about progress & achievement 88% 86% 94% 94% 83% 100% 98%

Satisfaction with communications from theschool/Division

100% 88% 97% 92%

Satisfaction that educational dollars are well spent inschool

86% 81%

Access to Professional Development activities 97% 89%

Quality of professional development activities 100% 89%



17/21

17

Connections for LearningSATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSE RATES


2, 5, 8, 11Special Education

ParentsGrade 3 and 6


Students Staff

SchoolParklandDivision

# ofsurveysreturned




ParklanDivision

Survey Response Rates n=5(19%) 21% n=3 14% n=0 90% 46% 67% 48% 67%

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 1: High quality learning opportunities for all.


2, 5, 8, 11Grade 3 and 6


Students Staff

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklanResult

Overall quality of education / I like my school (gr. 3/6) - 90% - 92% 80% 83% 100% 97%

School Characterized by dignity, respect, and caring- 85%

- 96% 87% 86%100% 88%

Dignity & Respect - 87% 88% 80%

Friends at school - 97% 88% 96%

Safe environment:

Building - 91%- 93% 81% 88%

100% 94%Classroom - 95% 81% 92%

Grounds - 85% - 82%

Students are treated fairly - 90% - 92% 81% 80% 100% 97%

Satisfaction with the variety of program choicesavailable

- 88% 81% 84% 100% 97%

Teachers use computer technologies to help learn- 87%

- 96% 67% 86%100% 90%

Technology improves student learning - 92% 47% 81%

The School/Teachers provide help and support - 86% - 96% 88% 84%

Process to respond to needs of at-risk students 100% 85%

Parents satisfaction with access to special needs

services1 - 82%

Parents satisfaction with timeliness of special needsservices1

- 82%

Students with special needs are meeting their IPPgoals1

- 82% 100% 89%

Responsive Programming / Curriculum - 84% 100% 89%


SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 2: Excellent Learner Outcomes Achieved by Students.


2, 5, 8, 11Grade 3 and 6


Students Staff

School

Result

Parkland

Result

School

Result

Parkland

Result

School

Result

Parkland

Result

School

Result

Parklan

Result

Students are prepared for world of work 74% 67% 72%

100% 91%

Students are prepared for post-secondary studies 79% 60% 80%

Students have information re: next steps in learningprograms

- 86% 81% 84%

Satisfaction with career planning assistance 68% 73% 66%

Students are being prepared to be good citizens - 91% - 95% 80% 76% 100% 95%

Students know how they should behave - 98% 94% 97%

Satisfaction with progress and achievement of yourchild

- 87%


18/21

18

SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 4: Highly Responsive and Responsible Jurisdiction.


2, 5, 8, 11Grade 3 and 6


Students Staff

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklandResult

SchoolResult

ParklanResult

Satisfaction with opportunity for involvement in

decision making

- 88% 100% 84%

Schools effort to involve parents in childs learningexperiences

- 84% 100% 97%

Satisfaction with involvement of special needsspecialists1

- 72%

Satisfaction with quality of special education servicesoverall

1

- 76%

School Council has meaningful role 0% 94%

Teachers are available discuss childs education - 94%

School always works to improve the quality ofeducation offered

- 88% 100% 98%

Way school informs about progress & achievement - 86% - 94% 94% 83% 100% 98%

Satisfaction with communications from the

school/Division- 88% 100% 92%

Satisfaction that educational dollars are well spent inschool

- 81%

Access to Professional Development activities 91% 89%

Quality of professional development activities 91% 89%



19/21

19

APPENDIX D: AISI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Forest Green/CFL/Brightbank/Stony Creek

2010-2011 School Year

Project Title: AISI Cycle 4 2009-2010 - Challenging Students to Think Critically

As indicated in our project plan the vision for Year 2 is to: Staff will continue learning aboutcritical thinking, but there will be a greater focus on student learning and assessment.

Focus Area(s):

Year One: Critical Thinking, Self-Reflection

Year Two: E-Portfolios, Student-Led

Conferences, Social Studies

Relationship to which Divisional priority?

Year Two: Assessment

Improvement Goal:

To improve student achievement and engagement in grades K-12 through the promotion of critical thinking.

Measures:The AISI project outlines specific Divisional targets and measures. Schools may choose additional targets and measures

for their own purposes.

School specific qualitative or quantitative measures:

1. Parent, student, and teacher engagement in the e-portfolio process, measured by amount of

blogging and posting during the year

2. Student engagement in Social Studies and technology use, observations of teachers, and

questionnaires from students

3. Parent satisfaction in Student-Led Conferences in March 2011, informally asked on website blog

4. Teacher engagement and the embedding of CT into Social Studies and other subject areas, staff

discussions and questionnaires

Professional Development and Implementation Strategies of the TC2 Critical Thinking Model

Divisional Professional Development Plan

For Lead Teachers: (Year two will focus a lot on working sessions to create critical challenges. After the October 18thsession, we will work towards making smaller groups, and as such, all lead teachers may not be required to attend all

sessions.)

Sessions Facilitated by TC2 (dates subject to change)

o October 18, 2010 AISI Cohort PD

o November 29, 2010 AISI Cohort PD

o January 24, 2011 AISI Cohort PD

o March 7, 2011 AISI Cohort PDo April 11, 2011 AISI Cohort PD

o May 9, 2011 AISI Cohort PD

Day 1 & 2 for new lead teachers

o September 21 & 23nd

Access to TC2 Consultant (Wally), for modeling/coaching in their classroom (after December)

School Based Staff Professional Development Plan


20/21

20

1. Who is or are your lead teacher(s)? What FTE is allotted for them?Norm Usiskin, 0.3 (Forest Green) Todd Wandio, 0.3 (CFL) Deb Rutland, 0.3 (Stony Creek)

Cheryl Johnson and Becky Wandio, no FTE, but acting as transitional, guiding participants in the school-wide

process

2. Reflecting on successes and challenges from last year, and what you heard from other schools, what is yourschools implementation plan?

We are very pleased with our implementation so far, and have many exciting plans for the next two years. Wefeel that we are not only starting to embed CT into everyday learning, but by embedding it into the assessment

process, we are moving ahead in one of Parklands other key areas.

o What are the lead teacher s implementation strategies?

- PD for teachers, using services of Diane Lander, in Social Studies, Learnalberta, and Critical Thinking,

2 afternoons in Sept 2010, and follow-up sessions in January 2011 setting up of I CAN statements

for each grade

- Norm and Todd will provide team-teaching time each day for groups of students in order to set up

the e-portfolios, and work to develop criteria for good portfolio blogs, posts and projects

eventually working on specific challenges that incorporate CT in Social Studies

-

Teachers are being asked to have one critical thinking challenge in Social posted by November2010.

- Some PD time with whole staff on CT, sharing of progress with e-portfolios, sharing of classroom CT

- Articles and links will be provided for teachers and students regularly

- Adaptation of report cards to reflect the work being done in the e-portfolios

- Parent informational sessions will be offered

- Wally may be employed to speak to staff

- Identity Day will happen again (very successful CT activity last year, will put even more focus on the

CT self-reflective process)

o What resources will you use?

- Learnalberta.ca

- TC2 resources

- Forestgreenschool.ca

- Google Docs

- Social Studies curriculum

Research Base:

21st

Century Skills Professional Development-The Partnership for 21stCentury Skill, 2008www.21stcenturyskills.org

21stCentury Curriculum and Instruction- The Partnership for 21stCentury Skills, 2008www.21stcenturyskills.org Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis Concordia

University, Montreal, Quebec, 2008

Sage Journals Onlinehttp://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/1102 Foundation for Critical Thinkinghttp://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfm#

Habits of Thought- Susan Black, 2004, American School Board Journal

For the Sake of Argument- Alex Hernandez, Melissa Aulkaplan, Robert Schwartz, 2006, Educational Leadership

The Research on Portfolios in Education - Dr. Helen C. Barrett

http://electronicportfolios.com/ALI/research.html
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/1102http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/1102http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/1102http://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfmhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfmhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfmhttp://electronicportfolios.com/ALI/research.htmlhttp://electronicportfolios.com/ALI/research.htmlhttp://electronicportfolios.com/ALI/research.htmlhttp://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfmhttp://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/1102http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/


21/21

Collaboration with other schools:

1.Forest Green, CFL, Brightbank and Stony Creek will all work together to implement similar projects, and

progress will be shared at common PD days

2. We are willing to share the ups and downs of e-portfolios as a critical thinking process with any school that

is interested.

Integration and Sustainability:

1. Our hope is to build CT into all subject areas, but we are starting slowly with Social Studies. We

encourage teachers to go beyond this, if they choose.

2. Our e-portfolios will also grow over time, with a focus on regular self-reflection and ownership of learning.

Student-led conferences will become the norm over time.

School Community Involvement (parents and community at large):

1. Parents are being invited to be a part of the process in our e-portfolio implementation. Parent

council will be informed of our progress each month.

2. Specific parent meetings and e-portfolio showcases will be held.

3. Parents will be informed regularly about our CT progress through monthly newsletters.

Forest Green/CFL AERR

Documents

Transcript of Forest Green/CFL AERR