Forest Green/CFL AERR

School
Annual Report:
Forest Green/CFL
Parkland School Division No. 70

Excellence in Education
For 2009/2010
Forest Green/CFL
2009/2010 Annual Report
2
SCHOOL PROFILE
School Name: Forest Green School Name: Connections for Learning

Principal: George Couros Principal: George Couros
Assistant Principal: Cheryl Johnson Assistant Principal: Carolyn Jensen
Address: 5210 – 45 St. Address: 4300- 43 St.
Stony Plain, AB Stony Plain, AB
T7Z 1R5 T7Z 1J4
Phone: 780-963-7366 Phone: 780-963-0507
Fax: 780-963-0341 Fax: 780-968-1088
E-mail: gcouros@psd70.ab.ca E-mail: gcouros@psd70.ab.ca
cjohnson@psd70.ab.ca cjensen@psd70.ab.ca
Website Address:
http://forestgreenschool.ca
School Profile
Student Population: 255 Student Population: 191
No. of teachers: 17 teachers 14.6 FTE No. of teachers: 10 teachers 9.92 FTE
No. of support staff: 13 No. of support staff: 8
Grades Served: K-6 Grades Served: 1-12
3
OVERVIEW OF ACHIEVEMENTS
Our Story
CFL and Forest Green have built a strong commitment to sharing best practices for students and
are working together in the areas of Special Education, Technology Integration, Citizenship and
Social Responsibility, Special Education, Assessment, and Balanced Literacy. Sharing our work
using these best practices will help us to better meet the needs of all students within the shared
sites, while also giving students the opportunity to best meet their potential. We have a strong
commitment to not only using these best practices within our schools, but also communicating
and working with families to not only ensure they have understanding of the direction of our
school, but so we can also draw upon their expertise. This is done through constant
communication with stakeholders through newsletters, blogs, meetings, parent information nights,
amongst other things, that are done both on the classroom and school level.
Forest Green and CFL staff members want to continue to build upon relationships within their
respective sites to ensure that all learners have the best opportunities for success. Building an
environment based on trust, while also focusing on success for all, we believe, will help students
to reach their full potential. As you walk into each school site, you feel the immediate impact of the
culture that has been created there by the entire staff and school community. We also know that
parents have a vital impact on the success of their children, so we are continuously working on
developing relationships with families to ensure that we can learn how to best meet the needs of
each individual student. Although Forest Green, Connections for Learning, and Brightbank are all
unique sites, we all share the same vision of working together with families and the community to
build the best environment for students to be leaders in their own learning. Ultimately, we want
our students to be able to pursue their passions and build their learning around their interests. To
do this is necessary work if we want engaged and powerful learning practice within our schools.
Satisfaction Survey Highlights
1. 100% of parents surveyed believe that the schools always work to improve the quality of
education offered at Forest Green School.
2. 100% of parents surveyed believe that technology is used to improve student learning at
Forest Green School.
3. 100% of parents surveyed believe that teachers are available to discuss their child’s
education at Forest Green School.
4. 99% of students surveyed believe their school is characterized by dignity and respect.
5. 94% of students are satisfied with the overall quality of education offered at Forest Green
School.
6. 87% of students believe the school is characterized by dignity, respect and caring at CFL.
7. 94% of students are satisfied with the way the school communicates about progress and
achievement.
Academic Growth
1. 82.7% of grade 3 students at Forest Green who wrote the Language Arts PAT met the
acceptable standard.
2. 86.1% of grade 6 students at Forest Green who wrote the Language Arts PAT met the
acceptable standard (11.1% met the standard of excellence.)
Special Education
1. Successful first year implementation of the SNAP (Stop Now and Plan) program within our
school.
4
FUTURE CHALLENGES
As we move forward within our professional development plan at Forest Green School and
Connection for Learning, it is essential that we continue to work to create and share best
practices within our schools, while meeting the needs of our unique programs. This takes
a lot of work, but it essential if we are meeting the needs of all of our students.
APPENDIX A: PROVINCIAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS
 Forest Green and Connections for Learning are currently evaluating strategies that will
best serve students in their pedagogical needs, based partially on the PAT results from
the 2009-2010 school-year. We have seen an improvement in several areas from the past
year.
 Forest Green schools results of students meeting the acceptable standard in grade 6
Science (61.1%), and Grade 6 Social Studies (58.3%) will need to be focused on. Forest
Green will continue to review exemption practices from students.
 Connections for Learning students that met the acceptable standard in Grade 9 Social
(25%) and Grade 9 Science (27.3) will be monitored to ensure that this was an anomaly.
 As literacy is the fundamental of all programs, we have increased our Early Literacy
Intervention (ELI) program for students at both Forest Green and Connections for
Learning
Appendix B: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners

 We want to ensure that we are not only continuously working to meet the needs of diverse
students within our programs, but that we are continuously using inclusion practices to
meet the needs of all students.
 It is still essential that we revisit IPP’s with our students to ensure that they are successful
in reaching achievable targets.
Appendix C: Parkland Satisfaction Survey
 We want to ensure that parents feel their students are supported by school and teachers
at Forest Green. (75%) To do this, we have opened more lines of communication with
parents through blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. This is to ensure that we can have more
open communication with parents throughout the year and that they get to know their
teachers very well.
 It is essential that students feel safe on school grounds at Forest Green. (79%) This year,
we have increased supervision on the playground in the mornings and after school, while
also having grade 6 student supervisors to help with younger students, while developing
leadership.
Appendix D: AISI
 It is essential that we effectively communicate the goals and vision of our AISI plan to our
stakeholders so that they are aware of the direction and learning that will be happening
with our eportfolio plan. As this is a web based plan, it is essential that we work with
parents to understand the vision and safety of our plan. There will be a significant amount
of work and technical knowledge needed to run this program in the first year so several
staff are being trained in the implementation. This is to ensure this eportfolio vision lasts
for several years.
5
6
APPENDIX A: PROVINCIAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS (Cohort Results)
The chart below shows the Division’s results for student achievement at both the “acceptable” standard and the standard of “excellence”. The cohort results were calculated to include students who
were absent when the tests were administered; who were exempted from writing by the Superintendent since writing would be harmful to the student or the student could not respond to the test
instrument; students whose results were withheld; or students who only wrote one part of a Language Arts Test. The “targets” reflect the predictions of the school, jurisdiction and province based on
student performance given the five-year trend and any applicable improvement initiative.
Forest Green
LANGUAGE ARTS:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School Juris. Prov. School
Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Results Target
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
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* 88.7 81.6 75
82.7**
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* 15.9 19.5 8
6.8**
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
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
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:
75
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 74.4
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.
7
SCIENCE:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
GRADE 6:
61.1*
78.8 86.2 77.7 59.5 78.7 74.7 82.1 79.4 74.3 77.8 79.1 76.1 80.7 76.8 65
Acceptable Standard 75.8**
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 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
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
GRADE 6:
58.3*
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/A 72.4 71.0 70
67.7**
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
PARTICIPATION RATES:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
Target
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
*The participation rate represents the percentage of students who wrote the exam compared to the total number of students eligible to write the exam (cohort group).
8
Connections for Learning
LANGUAGE ARTS:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
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
50.0*
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 87.3 83.3 65.0
100.0**
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
31.8*
43.7**
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
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
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
69.8 66.4 66.4 65.2 33.3*
Acceptable Standard 30.6 23.5 13.8 63.1 64.5 11.5 63.7 65.9 N/A N/A 50.0
11.9 17.0 14.3 17.8 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
9
SCIENCE:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
GRADE 6: N=8 N=9 N=3
75.0*
100.0**
Target 2009/10
GRADE 9 : N=35 N=34 N=29
Acceptable Standard 27.3*
34.3 67.1 66.7 26.5 71.3 68.8 20.7 70.4 68.4 15.4 74.4 71.6 74.9 73.6 30.0
35.2**
Target 2009/10
SOCIAL STUDIES:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
GRADE 6: N=8 N=9 N=3
25.0*
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/A 72.4 71.0 70.0
33.0**
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
36.4*
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/A 70.4 68.9 50.0
47.0**
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
10
KNOWLEDGE & EMPLOYABILITY: GRADE 9
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
LANGUAGE ARTS
Acceptable 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/a
Standard 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/a
Target 2009/10
MATHEMATICS
Acceptable 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 70
Standard 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 20
Target 2009/10
SOCIAL STUDIES
Acceptable Standard 70
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 69.2 64.5
20
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 15.7
Target 2009/10
SCIENCE
70
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 20
Standard 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 14.3
Target 2009/10
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 93.5
Social 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 82.2
Mathematics 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 87.3
Social 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 85.2
Science 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
* All targets for CFL vary from year to year as we deal with a great variance in our population.
11
APPENDIX A: GRADE 12 DIPLOMA MARKS
The following reports the student results only on the Diploma Examination, and does not include any teacher input. The participation rate represents the percentage of students who wrote the exam
compared to the total number of students in the grade.
DIPLOMA MARKS:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
ENGLISH 30 - 1
Acceptable 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 - 2
Acceptable 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 30
Acceptable 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 33
Acceptable 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 - 2
Acceptable 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 MATH
APPLIED MATH
Acceptable 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 21.8
BIOLOGY 30
CHEMISTRY 30
Acceptable Standard: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 82.1 76.3 N/A 76.1 79.0
Standard of Excellence: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.3 27.7 N/A 21.5 29.9
Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25.6 33.3 N/A 28.0 39.1
PHYSICS 30
Acceptable Standard: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 90.8 79.3 N/A 85.4 73.9
Standard of Excellence: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31.0 23.1 N/A 22.9 20.3
Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.9 19.8 N/A 13.2 22.3
SCIENCE 30
12
The chart below shows the Division’s results for student achievement at both the “acceptable” standard and the standard of “excellence” based on students’ final course mark .
FINAL COURSE MARKS:
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
ENGLISH 30 - 1
Acceptable 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 - 2
Acceptable 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 30
Acceptable 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=1
SOCIAL 33
Acceptable 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 MATH
Acceptable 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 MATH
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 30
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 30
Acceptable 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/A
PHYSICS 30
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 30
Participation Rate: 22.0 7.8 15.8 7.7 N=3
SOCIAL 30 - 1
Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SOCIAL 30 - 2
Participation Rate: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
13
APPENDIX B: MEETING THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS
At Forest Green School and Connections for Learning, we are very proud of the way that we are
able to meet the needs of many diverse needs for our students. Due to the fact that we offer
several specialized programs within our buildings (Brightbank program, EYALT, Parent Partnership,
SNAP Program), we are not only able to use programs to meet the needs of our students, we are
also are able to draw upon the experience of several experts in our school.
At both Forest Green School and Connections for Learning, we have special needs coordinators
that work directly with teachers to find ways to best serve our students. The coordinators do not
only work with our school, but directly with Learning Services to ensure that we are properly placing
students in programs where they will be successful.
Within Forest Green School, we have many programs that help to meet the needs of our students.
Our SNAP program (Stop Now and Plan), works with students with behavioural issues, along with
their families. We are proud to be 1 of 2 schools in the province that offer this pilot program, and
we have seen a great deal of success with our students in using this program. Referrals to the
office have been decreased as students effectively have learned how to deal with challenges they
face either in the classrooms, or during recess breaks.
As we serve many Paul Band students, we are proud that we not only have a FNMI liaison worker
that deals directly with students and families, but we take many opportunities to share FNMI culture
within our school programs. This has been shared through our school assemblies, family dance,
and everyday curriculum.
Also within Forest Green School, we have the Early Years Alternative Program (EYALT) that works
with students who have behavioural needs. These students take part in all school activities and
have significant guidance from the teacher and educational assistants that work within the program.
We see this as a mutually beneficial program as we all learn from each other, and we are proud to
house this program within our school.
At Connections for Learning, we have a unique atmosphere that serves many different students
needs. Through programs such as Parent Partnership and Stony Creek program, we are able to
meet the needs of families that are looking for an alternate to a regular school program. The
flexibility and support that is provided by our school is beneficial to students from all over Parkland
School Division.
We are proud that stories on some of our students (Marley who has Tourette Syndrome, Emily who
has Autism) have been shared internationally. They have had the opportunity to not only be
leaders within our own school community, but to the world. Our work with them has been
commended and we appreciate all that these students, as well as others, teach us about ourselves
as well as them.
Some of the challenges we face when dealing with student needs is being able to access outside
agencies to help with support. The demand has been great for these services, and often times we
have to wait significant amount of time for access to them. Although this is one area that could be a
challenge, it is understandable and rarely affects the child in a negative way. Overall, because of
the expertise and wide range of experience and our knowledge that we share between Forest
Green, Brightbank, and Connections for Learning, we are very proud of the inclusive programming
that we are able to offer.
14
APPENDIX C: PARKLAND SATISFACTION SURVEY (2009/10 Spring Results)
RESULTS IN ACHIEVING DIVISION AND SCHOOL GOALS

SATISFACTION SURVEY (2009 – 2010)
Parkland's Satisfaction Survey was administered to a grade-specific sample of parents and students, and
to all staff. The tables below show schools satisfaction results in relation to the jurisdiction's goals. The
percentages listed represent the percent of respondents who indicated "strongly agree" or "agree" on the
student survey, or the number of respondents who indicated "very satisfied" or "satisfied" on all other
surveys. In schools where there were fewer than 6 respondents in a group, i.e. under 6 staff members
responding to the survey, results have not been included to ensure anonymity. Results that have been
suppressed are indicated by (-). Grey areas of the table indicate that a result is not available because the
question was not asked to that group. The response rates are the percentage of parents, students, and
staff who completed the 2009 - 2010 Satisfaction Survey.
Forest Green
SATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
Parents with
students in Grades Special Education Grade 3 and 6 Grade 9 and 12
2, 5, 8, 11 Parents Students Students Staff
# of
Parkland surveys Parkland Parkland Parkland Parkland
School Division returned Division School Division School Division School Division
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.
Parents with
students in Grades Grade 3 and 6 Grade 9 and 12
2, 5, 8, 11 Students Students Staff
School Parkland School Parkland School Parkland School Parkland
Result Result Result Result Result Result Result Result
Overall quality of education / I like my school (gr. 3/6) 86% 90% 94% 92% 83% 100% 97%
School Characterized by dignity, respect, and caring 99% 96% 86%
88% 85% 86% 88%
Dignity & Respect 90% 87% 80%
Friends at school 96% 97% 96%
Safe environment:
93% 93% 88%
Building 100% 91%
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 choices
100% 88% 84% 100% 97%
available
Teachers use computer technologies to help learn 99% 96% 86%
100% 87% 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 needs
- 82%
services1
Parents satisfaction with timeliness of special needs
- 82%
services1
Students with special needs are meeting their IPP
- 82% 100% 89%
goals1
Responsive Programming / Curriculum 88% 84% 91% 89%
Note 1: Answered by parents with children that receive special needs assistance in school.
15
SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 2: Excellent Learner Outcomes Achieved by Students.
Parents with
Students are prepared for world of work 74% 72%
Students are prepared for post-secondary studies 79% 80%
Students have information re: next steps in learning 91%
86% 86% 84%
programs
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 your
88% 87%
child
SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 4: Highly Responsive and Responsible Jurisdiction.

Parents with
Satisfaction with opportunity for involvement in
88% 88% 86% 84%
decision making
School’s effort to involve parents in child’s learning
86% 84% 100% 97%
experiences
Satisfaction with involvement of special needs
- 72%
specialists1
Satisfaction with quality of special education services
- 76%
overall1
School Council has meaningful role 90% 94%
Teachers are available discuss child’s education 100% 94%
School always works to improve the quality of
100% 88% 100% 98%
education offered
Way school informs about progress & achievement 88% 86% 94% 94% 83% 100% 98%
Satisfaction with communications from the
100% 88% 97% 92%
school/Division
Satisfaction that educational dollars are well spent in
86% 81%
school
Access to Professional Development activities 97% 89%
Quality of professional development activities 100% 89%
16
Connections for Learning
SATISFACTION SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
Parents with
students in Grades Special Education Grade 3 and 6 Grade 9 and 12
2, 5, 8, 11 Parents Students Students Staff
# of
Parkland surveys Parkland Parkland Parkland Parkland
School Division returned Division School Division School Division School Division
n=5
Survey Response Rates 21% n=3 14% n=0 90% 46% 67% 48% 67%
(19%)
SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 1: High quality learning opportunities for all.
Parents with
Overall quality of education / I like my school (gr. 3/6) - 90% - 92% 80% 83% 100% 97%
School Characterized by dignity, respect, and caring - 96% 87% 86%
- 85% 100% 88%
Dignity & Respect - 87% 88% 80%
Friends at school - 97% 88% 96%
Safe environment:
- 93% 81% 88%
Building - 91%
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 choices
- 88% 81% 84% 100% 97%
available
Teachers use computer technologies to help learn - 96% 67% 86%
- 87% 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
- 82%
services1
Parents satisfaction with timeliness of special needs
- 82%
services1
Students with special needs are meeting their IPP
- 82% 100% 89%
goals1
Responsive Programming / Curriculum - 84% 100% 89%
SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 2: Excellent Learner Outcomes Achieved by Students.

Parents with
Students are prepared for world of work 74% 67% 72%
Students are prepared for post-secondary studies 79% 60% 80%
Students have information re: next steps in learning 100% 91%
- 86% 81% 84%
programs
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 your
- 87%
child
17
SATISFACTION LEVELS RELATED TO GOAL 4: Highly Responsive and Responsible Jurisdiction.
Parents with
Satisfaction with opportunity for involvement in
- 88% 100% 84%
decision making
School’s effort to involve parents in child’s learning
- 84% 100% 97%
experiences
Satisfaction with involvement of special needs
- 72%
specialists1
Satisfaction with quality of special education services
- 76%
overall1
School Council has meaningful role 0% 94%
Teachers are available discuss child’s education - 94%
School always works to improve the quality of
- 88% 100% 98%
education offered
Way school informs about progress & achievement - 86% - 94% 94% 83% 100% 98%
Satisfaction with communications from the
- 88% 100% 92%
school/Division
Satisfaction that educational dollars are well spent in
- 81%
school
Access to Professional Development activities 91% 89%
Quality of professional development activities 91% 89%
18
APPENDIX D: AISI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Forest Green/CFL/Brightbank/Stony Creek

2010-2011 School Year
Project Title: AISI Cycle 4 2009-2010 - Challenging Students to Think Critically
As indicated in our project plan the vision for Year 2 is to: Staff will continue learning about
critical thinking, but there will be a greater focus on student learning and assessment.
Focus Area(s): Relationship to which Divisional priority?

Year One: Critical Thinking, Self-Reflection
Year Two: E-Portfolios, Student-Led Year Two: Assessment
Conferences, Social Studies
Improvement Goal:
To improve student achievement and engagement in grades K-12 through the promotion of critical thinking.
Measures:
The AISI project outlines specific Divisional targets and measures. Schools may choose additional targets and measures
for their own purposes.
School specific qualitative or quantitative measures:

1. Parent, student, and teacher engagement in the e-portfolio process, measured by amount of
blogging and posting during the year
2. Student engagement in Social Studies and technology use, observations of teachers, and
questionnaires from students
3. Parent satisfaction in Student-Led Conferences in March 2011, informally asked on website blog
4. Teacher engagement and the embedding of CT into Social Studies and other subject areas, staff
discussions and questionnaires
Professional Development and Implementation Strategies of the TC2 Critical Thinking Model
Divisional Professional Development Plan
For Lead Teachers: (Year two will focus a lot on working sessions to create critical challenges. After the October 18 th
session, we will work towards making smaller groups, and as such, all lead teachers may not be required to attend all
sessions.)
 Sessions Facilitated by TC2 (dates subject to change)
o October 18, 2010 – AISI Cohort PD
o November 29, 2010 – AISI Cohort PD
o January 24, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD
o March 7, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD
o April 11, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD
o May 9, 2011 – AISI Cohort PD
 Day 1 & 2 for new lead teachers
o September 21 & 23nd
 Access to TC2 Consultant (Wally), for modeling/coaching in their classroom (after December)
School Based Staff Professional Development Plan
19
1. Who is or are your lead teacher(s)? What FTE is allotted for them?
Norm Usiskin, 0.3 (Forest Green) Todd Wandio, 0.3 (CFL) Deb Rutland, 0.3 (Stony Creek)
Cheryl Johnson and Becky Wandio, no FTE, but acting as transitional, guiding participants in the school-wide
process
2. Reflecting on successes and challenges from last year, and what you heard from other schools, what is your
school’s implementation plan?
We are very pleased with our implementation so far, and have many exciting plans for the next two years. We
feel that we are not only starting to embed CT into everyday learning, but by embedding it into the assessment
process, we are moving ahead in one of Parkland’s other key areas.
o What are the lead teacher s’ implementation strategies?

- PD for teachers, using services of Diane Lander, in Social Studies, Learnalberta, and Critical Thinking,
2 afternoons in Sept 2010, and follow-up sessions in January 2011 – setting up of I CAN statements
for each grade
- Norm and Todd will provide team-teaching time each day for groups of students in order to set up
the e-portfolios, and work to develop criteria for good portfolio blogs, posts and projects –
eventually working on specific challenges that incorporate CT in Social Studies
- Teachers are being asked to have one critical thinking challenge in Social posted by November
2010.
- Some PD time with whole staff on CT, sharing of progress with e-portfolios, sharing of classroom CT
- Articles and links will be provided for teachers and students regularly
- Adaptation of report cards to reflect the work being done in the e-portfolios
- Parent informational sessions will be offered
- Wally may be employed to speak to staff
- Identity Day will happen again (very successful CT activity last year, will put even more focus on the
CT self-reflective process)
o What resources will you use?
- Learnalberta.ca
- TC2 resources
- Forestgreenschool.ca
- Google Docs
- Social Studies curriculum
Research Base:
st st
 21 Century Skills Professional Development- The Partnership for 21 Century Skill, 2008 www.21stcenturyskills.org
st st
 21 Century Curriculum and Instruction- The Partnership for 21 Century Skills, 2008 www.21stcenturyskills.org
 Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis – Concordia
University, Montreal, Quebec, 2008
Sage Journals Online http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/78/4/1102
 Foundation for Critical Thinking http://www.criticalthinking.org/CTmodel/CTModel1.cfm#
 Habits of Thought- Susan Black, 2004, American School Board Journal
 For the Sake of Argument- Alex Hernandez, Melissa Aulkaplan, Robert Schwartz, 2006, Educational Leadership
 The Research on Portfolios in Education - Dr. Helen C. Barrett
http://electronicportfolios.com/ALI/research.html
20
Collaboration with other schools:
1.Forest Green, CFL, Brightbank and Stony Creek will all work together to implement similar projects, and
progress will be shared at common PD days
2. We are willing to share the ups and downs of e-portfolios as a critical thinking process with any school that
is interested.
Integration and Sustainability:

1. Our hope is to build CT into all subject areas, but we are starting slowly with Social Studies. We
encourage teachers to go beyond this, if they choose.
2. Our e-portfolios will also grow over time, with a focus on regular self-reflection and ownership of learning.
Student-led conferences will become the norm over time.
School Community Involvement (parents and community at large):

1. Parents are being invited to be a part of the process in our e-portfolio implementation. Parent
council will be informed of our progress each month.
2. Specific parent meetings and e-portfolio showcases will be held.
3. Parents will be informed regularly about our CT progress through monthly newsletters.
21

Forest Green/CFL AERR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forest Green/CFL AERR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School

Parkland School Division No. 70

2009/2010 Annual Report

School Name: Forest Green School Name: Connections for Learning

Satisfaction Survey Highlights

APPENDIX A: PROVINCIAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST RESULTS

Appendix B: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners

Appendix C: Parkland Satisfaction Survey

RESULTS IN ACHIEVING DIVISION AND SCHOOL GOALS

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

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

Forest Green/CFL/Brightbank/Stony Creek

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

Focus Area(s): Relationship to which Divisional priority?

School specific qualitative or quantitative measures:

School Based Staff Professional Development Plan

o What are the lead teacher s’ implementation strategies?

Integration and Sustainability:

School Community Involvement (parents and community at large):

You might also like