Leading Student Achievement: Networks for Learning (LSA)

Leading Student Achievement: Networks for Learning (LSA)
Diriger la réussite des élèves : Réseaux d’apprentissage (DRÉ)
Real Stories: How LSA Participation
Has Improved Leadership, Teaching
and Student Achievement
Du vécu : Comment la participation à DRÉ
a amélioré le leadership, l’enseignement
et le rendement des élèves
Editor/ Éditeur : Dr. Kenneth Leithwood
2nd Edition - November, 2012 / 2e édition - novembre, 2012
Leading Student Achievement: Networks for Learning (LSA)
Diriger la réussite des élèves : des réseaux d’apprentissage (DRÉ)
Real Stories: How LSA Participation Has Improved
Leadership, Teaching and Student Achievement
Du vécu : Comment la participation à DRÉ a amélioré le leadership,
l’enseignement et le rendement des élèves
Editor: Dr. Kenneth Leithwood,
Éditeur : Dr. Kenneth Leithwood
2nd Edition
November, 2012
Novembre 2012
1
2
Contents
Introduction
Dr. Kenneth Leithwood, LSA Project Researcher
Bev Miller, LSA Steering Team
1. How Collaborative Inquiry Processes in One Classroom Developed Students’ Persuasive
Writing Skills
Lindsay Crawford, Teacher
Thames Valley District School Board
2. Using Collaborative Inquiry Processes to Build Capacity on the Family Path in One
Elementary School
Robert Iannuzzi, Vice Principal
Halton District School Board
3. Improving Student Achievement in an Elementary School by Creating a Culture of
Appreciation
Brenda Moen, Principal
Waterloo District School Board
4. A Rural Elementary School’s Use of Collaborative Inquiry Processes to Improve Student
Learning
Kelly Holbrough, Principal
London District Catholic School Board
5. The Enactment of Successful Leadership Practices in Diverse School Communities
Mirella Rossi, Principal
Toronto Catholic District School Board
6. Using the Professional Learning Cycle to Improve Instruction in a Secondary School
Deirdre Wilson, Principal
Upper Grand District School Board
7. How One High School Used Collaborative Inquiry Processes as the Core of its Approach
to School Improvement
Lisa Vincent, Principal and Dayan Bons, Vice Principal
Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board
8. Reflections on Successful Leadership Practices by a Secondary Principal
Edward DeDecker, Principal
London District Catholic School Board
3
9. Using the Rational Path in LSA’s Theory of Action for Leading Instruction in a Fiveschool Network
Steve Webb, Principal
Niagara District School Board
10. Parcours Fondamental d’une équipe de directions apprenantes
Mario Bisson, direction
Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’Est ontarien
11. Leadership partagé inter-conseil
Sylvie Léveillé, direction
Conseil scolaire de district des Grandes Rivières
12. Projet pilote de l’enquête collaborative de l’apprentissage des mathématiques à
l’intermédiaire
Grégoire Lefebvre, direction
Conseil scolaire catholique Franco-Nord
13. The Scholars Community Program: Illustrating LSA’s Theory of Action and the Ontario
Leadership Framework in One District
Joanna Craps Cascioli, Vice Principal
Hamilton Wentworth District School Board
14. Appendix A: Translations of the three French language stories, #10, !1, and #12
4
Introduction
Dr. Kenneth Leithwood and Bev Miller
Historical Overview of the LSA Project
The Leading Student Achievement project took form in 2005 in response to a challenge
from the Ministry of Education at that time:
Every student in Ontario will develop reading, writing, math and comprehension
skills at a higher level by the age of 12. Progress will be measured by ensuring that
75% of students reach the provincial standard. (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2005)
The Association des directions et directions adjointes des écoles franco-ontariennes (ADFO), the
Catholic Principals’ Council of Ontario (CPCO), the Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC), the
Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat (LNS), and Curriculum Services Canada (CSC) joined forces
to develop the project, originally called Leading Student Achievement: Our Principal Purpose.
The main focus established for the project was to build the instructional leadership capacity of
elementary principals and vice-principals so that they would have the necessary skills to assist
teachers in their schools improve student achievement through incorporating effective teaching
and learning strategies into their classroom practice.
In order to accomplish this purpose, the Leading Student Achievement (LSA) project has been
based, since its inception, on a tri-level approach to provide support to school leaders. At the
provincial level, an LSA Steering Team consisting of representatives from ADFO, CPCO, OPC,
LNS and CSC was formed to guide the project, organize provincial symposia and provide
resources. At the district level, participants were organized into Principal Learning Teams
(PLTs) to encourage professional learning and networking. At the school level, participating
principals and vice-principals were directed to create Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
to promote a collaborative approach to planning and delivering instruction.
In addition to this tri-level structure, LSA has also had an important research component. The
researcher throughout the project’s life has been Dr. Kenneth Leithwood, Professor Emeritus,
OISE/UT. From the beginning, the research has had five major roles, namely to:
•
•
•
•
•
Assess the effectiveness of the LSA project in meeting its mandate
Determine the professional learning needs of participants
Acquire and analyze data about improving student achievement
Improve instructional practices across the province by applying the findings
Influence future directions of the project.
5
During the first two years of the project (2005–2007), the emphasis was on providing
professional learning for participants through presentations by experts such as Richard Sagor,
Michael Fullan, Carmel Crévola, Lorna Earl and Steven Katz. Topics included: emotional
intelligence, action research, professional learning communities, appropriate assessment and
instructional strategies, and leading schools in a data-rich world. In order to disseminate this
learning at the district level, facilitators’ guides and DVDs of these presentations were developed
in conjunction with CSC for use by participants.
By the end of the 2007 school year, the focus of the project became a concentration on key
conditions that robust evidence shows have the most powerful direct effects on student learning
and achievement (Leithwood, LSA: Taking the Project to the Next Level, 2007). To that end, the
content of the annual provincial symposia was developed to increase participants’ understanding
of these key learning conditions (described more fully below) and provide planning opportunities
for implementing them in their school communities.
In the 2007–2008 school year, principals and vice-principals developed capacities for improving
the key learning conditions in their schools and shared effective practices demonstrated in their
schools and districts. It was at this stage that the next evolution of the LSA project began,
namely, the development of the LSA professional network, web-based technologies, and the
focus on collaborative inquiry, specifically the Teaching-Learning Critical Pathway (TLCP)
described below. In order to support this latter initiative, Curriculum Services Canada posted a
variety of support materials on the project website and assisted LSA in producing a number of
web conferences.
Additionally, in order to effectively implement the TLCP process throughout the many districts
and schools involved in LSA, English and francophone regional sessions with a specific focus on
collaborative inquiry were introduced to supplement the provincial symposia. Participating
principals and district leaders attended two such sessions, accompanied by a teacher leader. Their
mandate was to initiate the Collaborative Inquiry Process in their schools. The process was so
successful that the Ministry supported a pilot project to introduce collaborative inquiry into the
secondary school context. This began in the 2009–2010 school year and has continued with
increasing numbers of schools ever since. Principals involved in the Collaborative Inquiry
Process in their schools have been encouraged to form hubs and networks with those similarly
involved. As a result, the LSA project name evolved into Leading Student Achievement:
Networks for Learning.
With the focus on collaborative inquiry, key learning conditions in LSA and the introduction of
the Ontario Leadership Framework, the need for alignment of these initiatives became apparent,
as did the need for having representation on the Steering Team from the Leadership Branch of
the Ministry. Moreover, with the introduction of secondary principals into the project, the
advisability of including representation on the Steering Team from the Student Success Branch
was also obvious. The Steering Team increased its membership to include representatives from
each of these branches.
6
Research continued to be a critical component of the LSA project, and, in 2010, Dr. Leithwood
produced an important paper detailing progress to date and introducing a theory of action
subsequently adopted by the LSA project as its own. The LSA Theory of Action continues to be
refined as the project evolves, additional data become available and the work being
accomplished becomes clearer (more on this below).
By the close of the 2011–2012 school year, the seventh year of the project, the following
deliverables were in evidence:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Two provincial symposia per year
Provincial sessions for district LSA leaders
English and francophone regional sessions
Coaches for secondary schools involved in the project
The research component led by Dr. Leithwood
CSC support through the LSA Web Network (NING), web meetings, web conferences,
video production
Speakers’ series (e.g., Michael Fullan, Damian Cooper, John Hattie)
Participation in the project has grown enormously. As of Spring 2012, when these “real stories”
were written, the elementary school strand included 53 districts, 300 principal learning teams,
1,932 principals and schools, as well as 103 district leaders. The secondary school strand
included 22 districts and 56 schools with 70 principals and vice-principals, along with 29 district
leaders.
At the time of writing this document (Fall, 2012), Leading Student Achievement: Networks for
Learning was poised to begin its eighth year with the addition of five new districts. There will be
provincial symposia on October 12, 2012 and May 3, 2013 as well as eight regional sessions
during November and December of 2012.
The following is an appropriate summary of the project to date:
The LSA project has developed an impressive infrastructure of schools and leaders,
along with a skilled team of facilitators. As a large-scale effort to build the capacity
of school leaders for improving student learning, it has few equals anywhere.
Encouraging evidence is now emerging about the impact of project priorities on
both school organizations and student learning. (Leithwood, LSA Project
Evaluation, 2011)
Purposes for the Volume
For almost all of its now eight-year tenure, the LSA project has been subject to an annual
evaluation designed to provide formative feedback to the project’s steering team, as well as
summative evidence about the project’s contribution to the professional growth of principals,
teachers and (especially) students. This evaluation has included the collection of survey data
7
from principals, department heads, teachers and system leaders involved in the project; for some,
these data have been collected in both the fall and spring of each year.
Describing the status of LSA initiatives in participants’ schools, these data have also been linked
to the EQAO results of participants’ schools, providing information about relationships between
LSA initiatives and student achievement. In addition, each winter a series of interviews has been
conducted with principals and system leaders posing questions about the implementation of
LSA-related initiatives. So we know a good deal about how the LSA project is influencing what
happens in the schools and, more recently the districts, of project participants.
What has been less visible, however, are the stories behind the data – particularly stories that
help explain the motivation of so many to continue their participation in the project for many
years. Almost all who have joined the project have remained in it, in spite of the fact that their
participation is largely voluntary.
So the stories recounted in this volume aim to shed some insight on what it is about the project
that has motivated so many busy school and district leaders to join and remain in the project over
an extended period. These are all “success stories.” They describe how the ideas and concepts
encountered through LSA project participation have been adapted and used in widely varying
local circumstances with considerable effect. And while each story is unique, together they tell a
larger story about a powerful approach to large-scale change. The main themes of this larger
story concern, for example:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
striking a balance between local autonomy and central direction and support
developing a culture of collaboration
building the improvement of local practice on the foundation of the best available
evidence
the importance of learning your way forward
persisting with the refinement of practices, which may not immediately have their desired
effect, until they do
the value of a practical theory of action to help systematically guide school leaders’
improvement efforts
the importance of finding synergies – and helping staff understand those synergies –
among the many different external demands for attention that most schools face, and the
school’s own priorities.
The Stories
The 13 stories in this volume are organized according to the scale or scope of the
improvement efforts they describe. The first story, by Lindsay Crawford, is about her use of
Collaborative Inquiry Processes to improve the persuasive writing skills of her students. We
catch glimpses of conditions in her school that “enabled” this work, but the focus of the story is
the classroom.
8
The next six stories are written from a school-wide perspective: the stories by Robert Iannuzzi,
Brenda Moen, Kelly Holbrough and Mirella Rossi all take place in elementary schools, while the
stories by Deirdre Wilson, Lisa Vincent and Dayna Bons, as well as Edward DeDecker are based
in secondary schools.
Leadership networks are the focus of the next two stories. Steve Webb describes the work of five
school leaders who formed a network to support one another’s efforts, while Mario Bisson
describes his own individual experiences as part of his francophone district’s Principal Learning
Team.
The final three stories in this volume describe the nature and effects of LSA-related work at the
district level. Unfolding in a francophone context, two of these are stories about improving
student writing (Sylvia Léveillé) and mathematics (Grégoire Lefebvre) achievement on a large
scale. Completing the volume, Joanna Crapsi Cascioli tells us how one school district used both
LSA and wider provincial frameworks and ideas to assist in the development of a program to
productively engage parents of especially needy students in the education of their children.
Those learning about the LSA project for the first time may have difficulty grasping the nature of
the initiatives described in these stories and briefly alluded to in the historical overview of the
project. Some are provincial initiatives, since LSA schools are part of the larger provincial
school system; a brief explanation of those provincial initiatives will typically be provided, at
least in a footnote, when they are mentioned in a story. A brief account of the main LSA
initiatives is provided here:
1. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs): a group of teachers and school leaders, often in
the same school, who meet together regularly to learn from one another, share their
challenges and successes, and to work on improving their instruction.
2. Principal Learning Teams (PLTs): a group of school leaders in a district, usually including at
least one system leader, as well, with same purposes as professional learning communities
but with a focus on improving their own leadership. PLTs often also help guide district as
well as school-level decisions.
3. Collaborative inquiry processes: such processes may take several different forms (TeachingLearning Critical Pathways is one) but all include an effort by groups of staff to improve the
design of lessons, analyze student work and create meaningful ways of diagnosing and
monitoring student learning. These processes are often the content of the work that takes
place in PLCs.
4. Key learning conditions: located in both the school and the classroom, these are conditions
experienced by students that are known to have relatively direct effects on their learning and
are amenable to improvement through the intentional efforts of school leaders and their
teaching colleagues. The LSA project has advocated, in particular, attention to improving the
status of conditions labeled Academic Emphasis, Disciplinary Climate, Focused Instruction,
Relational Trust between teachers, parents and students, Teacher Collective Efficacy, Time
for Instruction (or Opportunity to Learn) and Family Educational Culture.
9
5. LSA’s Web-based Interactive Technologies: supported by Curriculum Services Canada, LSA
has a website and provides a number of web-based resources for project participants and
regularly hosts web conferences.
6. The Ontario Leadership Framework: The successful leadership practices that LSA aims to
help develop among its participants are described in this framework, a product of the
Leadership Development Branch of the Ministry of Education. Specific practices in the
framework are organized around five dimensions:
• Setting Directions
• Building Relationships and Developing People
• Developing the Organization
• Improving the Instructional Program and
• Securing Accountability.
7. LSA’s Theory of Action: This theory, depicted in the figure below, describes the assumptions
the LSA project makes about how their initiatives will eventually accomplish the single
project goal of improving student achievement. As the figure suggests, this theory assumes
that LSA initiatives will improve the quality of school leadership. Such leadership, in turn,
will improve the status of key learning conditions in schools, which will contribute positively
to the achievement of students. The key learning conditions, according to this theory, can be
found on four “paths”: the rational, emotions, organizational and family paths. Leadership
entails assessing the status of conditions on each of those paths and selecting one or more
conditions as a promising focus for improvement at any given time.
For further information:
Website: www.curriculum.org Click on Leading Student Achievement.
LSA Web Network (NING): http://lsanetwork.ning.com (Eng)
http://reseautagedre.ning.com (Fr)
10
The 13 stories in this volume demonstrate how these LSA-sponsored initiatives and concepts
have been combined with initiatives from other sources to form powerful, local approaches to the
improvement of student learning.
11
12
1.
How Collaborative Inquiry Processes in One Classroom
Developed Students’ Persuasive Writing Skills
Lindsay Crawford
As part of Thames Valley District School Board’s and LSA’s initiative to improve
reading and writing achievement, I conducted a collaborative inquiry learning cycle, along with a
literacy coach, for my grade 5/6 class in January and February of 2012. The K–8 elementary
school, with a population of approximately 550 students, is a higher-needs urban school with a
lower/middle socio-economic population.
As a newer teacher, I am always open to trying new things, reflecting on my teaching and
student learning and collaborating with others. I have a deep appreciation for other teachers in
my board who have a lot of experience behind them. Whenever I see a teaching technique or
hear of a lesson that has been successful for others, I readily adapt it and “tweak” it to best suit
my students and my classroom. Exchanging ideas with other teachers is invaluable, as two heads
are better than one. To be successful in this profession and to best meet student needs, I am a
strong believer in being a life-long learner. Every person has different background experiences
that bring different perspectives to the table.
I am fortunate to have a principal who values and fosters a collaborative work environment. She
has graciously provided release time for these opportunities to take place. With release time,
came the opportunity to work with my literacy coach, Kristi Washchuk. I jumped at the chance
to work with Kristi because of her knowledge, expertise and teamwork skills. I knew it would be
a great collaboration.
Diagnostic Assessment
In our initial meeting, Kristi and I discussed the difficulty my students were having in
developing and supporting ideas as was made evident in the data collected through previous
writing tasks and oral conversations. Together, we decided that persuasive writing would be an
engaging way to tackle this area of need.
To begin, we wanted to create an authentic task that students would feel passionate about. A
debate had been well underway at our school about whether or not to allow a high-risk ski trip. I
had attended a meeting with administration and other teachers on this very topic, trying to
convince the administrators why we should be allowed to go. Kristi and I agreed that this “hot
issue” was perfect for our students. I explained the situation and almost every student really
wanted to write a letter to our principal to convince her as to why we should be able to go skiing
again this year. I gave little direction on what and how to write their letters, as I was checking to
13
see their background knowledge on this writing technique, and would use the information
gathered to guide future instruction.
I read all of the letters and identified four common arguments from the students’ work. I wrote
each argument on a piece of chart paper and put one in each of the four corners of the room.
Students worked their way around the room, from corner to corner, and added reasons/evidence
to back up each argument. We used this information to complete what we referred to as a
Persuasion Map. Using this graphic organizer, as a class, we re-wrote our letter to the principal.
An enlarged copy of the letter was posted on a bulletin board and deconstructed for future
reference on the main requirements of a persuasive text.
After the initial diagnostic letters to our principal, Kristi and I re-grouped and read over the
letters. We based our instruction on student need and developed our plans to allow a gradual
release of responsibility to the students. Many mini-lessons were conducted on identifying
various parts of persuasive texts and creating persuasive paragraphs. We co-constructed our
Learning Goal as well as Success Criteria for our learning cycle. Over the course of several days
we watched approximately two commercials per day. We kept a running list of the different
persuasive techniques demonstrated. We created an Anchor Chart that was displayed on a
bulletin board and students recorded these techniques in their binders for easy access.
Our class deconstructed different paragraphs and letters and labeled them according to the
different techniques. We created another Anchor Chart on how to write a persuasive paragraph.
My Brother Dan’s Delicious, by Steven L. Layne, is a fantastic persuasive read-aloud book I
used in my class. The story is about a boy named Joseph who was trying to convince the monster
in his house to eat his brother Dan instead of him. As I read out loud to my students, I asked
them numerous questions to elicit deeper thinking around the art of persuasion. Through my
think-aloud, I demonstrated my ability to make connections with the text. We then deconstructed
all of the author’s arguments using a Persuasion Map. Through a think-pair-share process,
students wrote evidence for each argument on the map.
Formative Assessment
Kristi and I again re-grouped, and looked at various pieces of work in order to come up
with a formative assessment piece. To touch on as many curriculum points as possible, and to
continue to engage the students, we thought it best to tie in our current science strand,
Conservation of Energy. Students worked in pairs to study one of two different types of energy
sources – renewable or non-renewable. Their task was to write a short piece of text about why
their energy source should or should not be used. Students received descriptive feedback to use
in their next writing assignment; they also conferenced with me in order to apply these
suggestions to their work.
Summative Assessment
Kristi and I discussed, via email, what the students did very well and what still needed to
be reinforced before the final assignment. We adjusted instructional plans to address the
14
students’ needs. We also created a summative assignment that could purposefully assess the
expectations that had been covered throughout the cycle.
We decided that a cross-curricular approach would create an authentic assessment opportunity.
The students had spent some time with their health teacher discussing smoking and its possible
side effects. This topic created an opportunity to write a letter to a loved one, or a teacher, to
convince them to quit smoking. The students were given a “What, Why, How Do You Know?”
chart to help formulate their arguments and evidence/reasons why they believe smoking is bad
for their health. Once they completed their Persuasion Map, they wrote a letter to a loved one, or
teacher, to convince us why they felt that way. They were reminded to keep the purpose and
audience in mind when selecting the best persuasive techniques and strategies. A rubric was
developed to assist in assessing their written assignment and a data wall created to display their
results.
Final Reflections
Over the course of the learning cycle, we completed various other tasks, not described in
this brief account, which were important in the overall comprehension of writing persuasively.
The leadership and collaboration efforts afforded to me by my principal and literacy coach
enriched my language program and deepened my instruction. The students’ final letters clearly
demonstrated the impact this intentional teaching and collaboration had on the development of
their persuasive writing skills.
15
2.
Using Collaborative Inquiry Processes to Build
Capacity on the Family Path in One Elementary School
Robert Iannuzzi
Background
I wrote this account of LSA-related work in my school as the school’s vice-principal.
This is an elementary school of about 385 students and 30 staff in a community with high needs
in an urban area. Just prior to the work described here, the school had performed below the board
average on provincial tests and we were prompted to undertake this work in response to our
achievement data and in an attempt to improve the literacy and numeracy achievement of our
students.
As a staff, our initial focus was on “Knowing the Learner.” Each teacher accessed student voice
through effective questioning, providing an opportunity for active student participation and using
student responses to co-construct success criteria for each of the Learning Skills. In addition, all
students developed a learner profile, engaging in self-assessment based on the learning skills.
Students also focused on values, learning barriers and learning preferences. These learner
profiles were used during an Open House to engage parents in discussion regarding how best to
support their children. Throughout the process, students took the learner profiles home as a
means of engaging parents as partners in their child’s development as a learner.
Recognizing the need to develop what the LSA Theory of Action has called the Family Path,
Special Education staff worked diligently to prepare an Assistive Technology Evening for all
parents and students. A recommendation from our District Review was to use assistive
technology across the curriculum to support the learning of all of our students. Our Assistive
Technology Evening familiarized parents with software that they could use at home with their
children in order to both scaffold, and maintain, high expectations for their childrens’ learning.
The impact of this evening was evident as feedback shared by one parent who participated
indicates:
We had a Technology night for parents to attend, this was an exciting opportunity
for me to see the technology my son uses and also see what other computer
programs are out there to help him learn and to succeed in school. This was very
eye opening for me because it gave me the opportunity to see the programs in
action and also showed me that there are lots of children who benefit from these
programs. During the evening it was nice to see how eager the teachers are to
teach us, the parents, this new way of learning. I am very pleased to see that kids
with a learning disability are given the right tools to learn and not just shuffled
16
through, it has been proven to me by my son that a kid with the right learning tools
can succeed well beyond what anyone ever thought.
In order to develop consistency and alignment across our school, we have focused on developing
a collaborative learning culture, providing job-embedded professional development opportunities
in order to build the collective capacity of our staff. As a staff, we have engaged in collaborative
inquiries in both literacy and numeracy.
Our Teaching-Learning Critical Pathways in literacy have been rooted in the greatest area of
students’ need, as reflected through the triangulation of our data. We have used such
achievement data as PM benchmarks and DRA to develop both our grade team SMART goals
and to inform the development of a pre-assessment question. In addition, staff has used
observational data as well as ongoing conversations to determine targeted areas of growth for our
students. Our mantra has been “Student work is the work.”
Divisional teams in our school have used the Collaborative Analysis of Student Work as a
protocol to ensure consistency and alignment across the school. Teachers would describe student
work in an non-evaluative way, while the presenting teacher, who had brought forward a student
work sample, did not respond. The non-presenting teachers then raised questions about the work
and speculated about patterns evident in the work. The presenting teacher then shared what they
saw in the child’s work and added any details about the work that had not been discussed. The
final component in this protocol was implications for teaching and learning. Teachers reflected
upon and discussed what they had learned about the way these students think and learn and how
this information will inform their teaching practice.
In addition, this protocol has sharpened our focus by keeping conversations objective, and next
steps to be taken, based on needs reflected in student work. Staff also engaged in teacher
moderation in which they collaboratively assessed student work in order to develop a shared
understanding of what student work looks like as it approaches, meets and exceeds provincial
expectations. As grade or divisional teams, we committed to a strategy in order to move the
learning of our students forward. As part of the process, we focused on providing frequent, ongoing descriptive feedback that causes thinking, while collaboratively establishing next steps for
the learning of our students. Targeting this aspect of the what the LSA Theory of Action refers to
as a Rational Path had a positive impact on student learning.
We focused on developing more check-ins to continuously monitor student progress. As a result
of the collaboration, an informal network of support among colleagues developed. As a staff, we
also were committed to using the Bump It Up Strategy. This is a strategy in which student work
is analyzed and discussed with students in an attempt to improve the quality of the product. In
particular, specific areas of growth to improve their work and reach the next level of
achievement are discussed. Using Skopus data, we identified and targeted a cohort of level two
students in each of our classrooms and used research-based strategies, such as providing
descriptive feedback with specific next steps, to improve their work.
17
Throughout our inquiries, staff focused on developing a community of discourse in the
classroom. In particular, they used Lucy West’s top three “talk moves” – re-voicing, turn and
talk and wait time – as strategies to facilitate accountable talk in the classroom. As the leadership
team, my principal and I viewed inquiries through two lenses – student assessment and staff
professional development. Our goal was to build collective teacher efficacy around numeracy
instruction. As instructional leaders, we recognized the need to build our own capacity in this
area. We both participated in our district’s Principal Learning Team and this encouraged us to
become co-learners with our teachers, working with them in their efforts to improve student
learning.
Working collaboratively with staff helped develop a culture of trust; taking risks by trying new
strategies was accepted and valued. Our school became involved in the Collaborative Inquiry
Learning in Math (CILM). This involvement, coupled with the ongoing professional
development provided by our math coach, led to a more comprehensive understanding of the
three-part math lesson. We also noticed that our staff had become more confident teaching math
and willingly “de-privatized” their practice by inviting colleagues into their classroom to observe
students engaging in work.
The opportunity to come together as colleagues to reflect on student work and student learning
led to deeper conversations about how to help students improve their achievement. Staff took
responsibility for their students’ learning, setting high academic goals and providing extra help to
students experiencing difficulty.
My principal and I clearly articulated our school goals as we worked through practices that the
Ontario Leadership Framework labels Direction Setting for the academic year. Our extended
leadership team, comprised of teachers and administration, developed a professional learning
framework that guided our teaching and learning pathway throughout the past two years.
Throughout this process, we clarified our goal of engaging in collaborative inquiry in both
literacy and numeracy. In an attempt to enact the leadership practices classified in the Ontario
Leadership Framework as Developing People, we identified meaningful professional
development, modeled desired practices and appropriate values during staff meetings and
professional development days.
Our professional development was structured in response to the voices of our staff through “exit
cards” they completed, either individually or collaboratively, prior to the end of professional
learning sessions. The feedback they provided on these exit cards identified areas of professional
growth that they would like to pursue and equipped us with the knowledge to provide
differentiated professional development opportunities to meet their needs and, ultimately, the
needs of our students. Honouring these professional development requests helped to build
relational trust because staff recognized that their personal and professional needs had been
considered. Staff also completed a survey, assessing the school’s leadership team success in
meeting their professional development needs, level of approachability and display of
appreciation. A quote from one of our teachers captures our impact on developing the efficacy
and trust of our staff:
18
I have never felt this appreciated and confident in a really long time. I thank you
for all the support and positive criticisms and feedback. I really enjoy coming to
work and school.
Opportunities at the district level to share our District Review experience and how we responded
to the recommendations served to build the collective efficacy and confidence of our entire staff.
Hearing about how our school story had been shared with colleagues across the district increased
staff confidence. For example,
Reflecting back on the District Review several months after the fact was actually
quite helpful for me in terms of identifying the steps of our district review process
that had the most impact. Summarizing our experience and generalizing the ideas
so they would be applicable in any school further clarified what it was that made
our District Review successful. Having left the school, it was gratifying to hear how
the next steps from the District Review have been implemented and see that the
things our staff valued last year have been successfully carried on. (Learning
Resource Teacher)
I believe that in any type of reflection process, including the opportunity to share a
District Review, it will help to improve capacity for both parties. Developing and
sharing our learning journey has helped us to reflect on the purpose of our actions,
while providing authentic context where our colleagues can see parts of themselves
within our story. These influences can help to reduce stress of the unknown, while
providing a better understanding of the positive impact from a District Review. It is
safe to say that if we become more transparent in our school learning, we have the
opportunity to have a greater impact to align our system thinking around school
improvement. (Principal)
As a staff, we have high expectations of both our students and ourselves. We are confident that
we can improve the academic achievement of all students, while educating the whole child.
19
3.
Improving Student Achievement in an Elementary School
by Creating a Culture of Appreciation
Brenda Moen
The first school I was assigned to as principal was a small town elementary school with
250 students called Riverside Public School, in Elmira (the Waterloo Region District School
Board). It was very much a community school. When I arrived, the staff members were friendly
with each other and there was a pleasant feel in the hallways. Students were well behaved and
staff was caring. I was pleased to begin my career as a principal in such a nice school.
As I settled into my role, my biggest concern was that the school’s EQAO scores did not seem to
demonstrate the potential that the staff saw in the students. As well, while one or two teachers
were working on current best practice in their classrooms, others were not there yet. Many of the
teachers were starting families, so there were many new teachers not yet under contract, or
teachers coming back off a year or two of maternity leaves, with few seasoned veterans on staff.
I began to think about and gather ideas about how I could improve teaching and learning in the
school.
At that time, I was a principal team member with the Leading Student Achievement project and
during the fall symposium Dr. Kenneth Leithwood outlined LSA’s Theory of Action. The new
idea of Teaching-Learning Critical Pathways (TLCPs), a form of Collaborative Inquiry, and
their potential for school improvement was also described. Looking at these ideas together, I
thought they provided excellent approaches to improving teacher practice and student learning in
my school. I could see that there was the potential in staff and students to become a school of
excellence.
One of the grade 1 teachers, Karen Bell-Scott, was a particularly diligent and reflective teacher.
She loved to learn and put new ideas into action in her classroom. She was a natural mentor to
other teachers. She knew the school and staff well. She became a key partner with me in a plan
for school improvement. I had the opportunity to bring her with me to the LSA Symposium and
on the car ride back home that day, we drafted the basic tenets of what turned out to be a highly
successful three-year plan for school improvement. I knew that I had to make changes on a
number of fronts. I needed to work on many of the practices referred to in the Ontario
Leadership Framework as Building Relationships and Developing People, improving the
instructional program and developing the organization. LSA’s Theory of Action, particularly its
description of the Emotions and Rational Paths, helped me to develop the plan we needed, with
the help of teacher leaders.
20
I knew that asking teachers to begin to work in planning teams and learn new teaching strategies
would require them to read or attend workshops to understand new ideas, and to work both alone
and together on putting them into place in their classrooms. This would require considerable time
and effort. As a result, teachers would have to work together outside of the school day. This
request on my part might have a cost to their personal, family or social lives. Given the hard
work that the teachers were going to be doing, I felt strongly that it was important for me to show
appreciation for the work they were undertaking. I made creating a culture of appreciation a
priority.
I wanted to celebrate teacher work that made a difference for students. So I praised teachers’
efforts to School Council and other members of the community. I praised their work to our
Superintendent. I praised their work to other principals and teachers. I had regular appreciation
assemblies and honoured teachers in front of the school community. I modeled for students how
to show their appreciation for school staff, as well.
Aside from thanking them for their work, it was important to find ways to support teachers in
doing that work. I timetabled in common planning times. I brought students together in the gym
for guest speakers or school assemblies to free up teams of teachers to work together on their
goals during the school day. I gave up precious staff meeting time for teachers to work in teams
on their goals. I found ways to bring in experts to help support teachers in improving their
practices. I worked with teachers on setting achievable school goals and ways to reach them. I
wanted to make great teaching easier to do.
I also listened to teachers’ needs and found ways, often very creatively, to get the resources they
needed. These resources were the focus of the school budget. It meant driving a hard bargain or
offering to be a pilot project with a publisher to be able to buy a set of books. If, for example,
guided reading tables and six-pack sets of leveled texts would help a teacher improve his small
group instruction reading practices, I found a way to get them.
What I discovered was that this appreciation and support encouraged teachers to maintain, or
increase, their efforts to improve. This success built teachers’ sense of efficacy, or confidence, as
well as their instructional effectiveness – and both spread from team to team. The appreciation
and support also encouraged some teachers to take on leadership roles with peers, leading to
more support for teachers and more improvement in their practices.
The culture of appreciation created a positive feedback loop. People worked harder and felt
better about what they did when they felt appreciated and supported. Teachers could, and would,
take on lofty goals because they knew that they would be supported. Over the years, Riverside
became renowned for its improved teaching. Teachers working together and working harder
meant better things for students. I am proud of the goals that the staff and students achieved. The
school became a better place to be for everyone.
Karen Bell-Scott, the teacher who helped me develop the initial plan, is equally proud of the
changes that happened and continue to happen at Riverside school. From her perspective:
21
I have been part of Riverside’s growing success story for a number of years.
Brenda was instrumental in developing a community of teachers who demonstrated
a willingness to change their current teaching practices to improve student
learning. Her expectation of continuous improvement, high expectations for
students and her philosophy that all students will/can learn was acknowledged and
appreciated by teachers. Teachers were eager to make necessary changes to grow
as educators, to be involved in worthwhile, relevant, meaningful collaborative
opportunities. A large part of our success at Riverside was a result of Brenda’s
awareness that this collaborative time needed to be within the school day. She was
creative, and hands-on in providing numerous opportunities for teachers to
collaborate with same grade/division teachers to plan and moderate student
learning. Our success continues today as a result of Brenda’s belief in teachers
opening their doors and working collaboratively to improve student learning for
all.
As I moved to a new school this year, I intended to create the same conditions for success. So I
began to build a culture of appreciation, expectations for improved teaching, supports and
resources for teachers to work together and time for collaboration in the workday. What I found
was, when we put teachers in the same room they ended up talking about teaching, supporting
students and learning from each other – in any school.
22
4.
A Rural Elementary School’s Use of
Collaborative Inquiry Processes to Improve Student Learning
Kelly Holbrough
LSA’s Theory of Action identifies four paths through which leadership practices
influence student learning. My experience at St. Mary’s School indicated that working across all
of these paths made a huge difference to student learning. One of the main factors that improved
student learning was the effect that the Teaching-Learning Critical Pathway (sometimes referred
to as Collaborative Inquiry Processes, a process located on the Rational Path) had on our whole
school community.
The Starting Point
When I first arrived at St. Mary’s School four years ago, it was a great rural school with
160 students and about 14 staff, in total. As a new principal, I spent the first few months just
watching, listening and “getting the lay of the land.” What I soon discovered was that as great as
each individual teacher was, they worked as “islands,” largely in isolation from one another. In
fact, it was also clear that the staff was split. While everyone was cordial to one another, it was
not a staff that seemed to be “playing on the same team.” Furthermore, EQAO scores were quite
low and had been fairly stagnant over the last few years. As the new leader, I needed to figure
out how to quickly build relationships and begin to make repairs. Having come from an OFIP 2
school, which then became a “school on the move,” I was well aware of what it would take to
bring this staff together, work collaboratively and improve student learning.
Developing the Approach to Improvement
Having been a leader in an OFIP 2 1 school, I was familiar with what we called the 5 Day
Plan. In essence, it was a Teaching-Learning Critical Pathway (TLCP). The 5 Day Plan had a
focus, worked with a BIG IDEA, developed cross-curricular connections and was based on
specific curricular expectations – mainly the higher order language objectives in the province’s
curriculum. The TLCP was successful because it allowed staff the opportunity to plan together
with a focus in mind, and for the purpose of improving student learning. The TLCP, I decided,
was going to be the vehicle that would move St. Mary’s School forward.
Implementation of the TLCP with my staff went smoothly. Across the board, principals seemed
to be having difficulty with their staff “buying in.” I believe part of that problem was that the
introduction of the TLCP approach to principals was not done as effectively as it could have
been. Principals either did not feel comfortable sharing with their staff because they did not
understand what they were talking about, or they did not see the value in it. Many approached it
1
Ontario Focus Intervention Partnership (a second cycle of work)
23
as just “another initiative coming down the pipe.” Having been in an OFIP 2 school previously, I
had the experience of leading this new way of improving teaching and had experienced its value
first hand. I approached my staff with a very positive attitude, and became a learner at the table
with them.
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Approach to Improvement
When I asked several staff for their thoughts on using the TLCP as a vehicle to improve
student learning, here are some representative examples of their responses:
I would have to say that I truly loved working with Pathways. I started out not
having a clue what a Pathway was, but grew to love them once I got the hang of it.
Once that understanding was there, it all became very clear and easy! I loved
developing them, and working through them. I loved the focus they brought to my
teaching, continuity between classrooms and within the entire school. I think any
good teacher has a focus – a goal, and how they want to get there, but this was
more concrete. I think it was so beneficial that what you saw and heard in the
grade 1 classroom, you could also see and hear in the grade 8 classroom. Parents
definitely felt that same sense of community, as it was said to me many times by
parents that when they entered the school and began walking down the hallways,
they could see our “focus” for that time. They could hear the same terminology
coming from different teachers, in different classrooms and they could see evidence
of that community on the walls. Our foyer was always the starting point of that
sense of community, as this is the first place parents entered.
I loved the mentor texts we used as it really bonded us as a staff. It created some
really dynamic discussions and got everyone really pumped about what was going
on in their classrooms. I had parents say that their children were talking about the
mentor text at home and parents were going out and buying the text for use at
home. (Grade 4/5 Teacher, 7 years’ teaching experience)
I liked Pathways because they gave our classes, divisions, and school a clear focus.
Our kick offs of our Pathways created community in the school. I believe that the
planning of the Pathways helped to create more of a sense of community among the
staff. Everyone worked together, shared ideas and resources. I liked that we all had
common Anchor Charts, and used common language so that it was an easy
transition for students in September when changing classes. I think that our bulletin
boards displaying student work let parents know the kind of work we were doing in
our classes. They were able to see how the students were assessed, by looking at the
rubrics, and what expectations we were working on – also great at interview time
when parents could look and compare their child’s writing to others. I believe
parents liked the Pathways as well. They knew when they walked in the building
what we were teaching, and it kept them informed.
Students also liked the Pathways and were actively engaged in their learning. I
think our lessons were creative and interesting. I found that we had too many ideas
and not enough time to teach all of them, so we were forced to pick the best! Our
24
focus was on higher-level thinking. I think our Pathways made a difference in
students’ reading and writing. I noticed this in the students that I had taught for
more than one year. (Grade 7/8 Teacher, 5 years’ teaching experience)
Families were talking at home; siblings had a common language and “big ideas”
to share with family. One family commented on the conversations at the dinner
table and loved the connections their children were making, across all the grades.
Parents felt connected to the school because they knew what was happening
through teachers and their children.
Consistency in classes made transitions from grade to grade more productive, there
was no need to reintroduce ideas because students were familiar with the language.
Staff worked collaboratively and had a shared vision and common goal.
Feeling of success … everyone felt “good” about what was happening at St.
Mary’s School. Students felt connected to other grades/classes … like a family. The
school looked like, felt like, sounded like a community working together, from the
time you walked through the front doors, you knew what the focus was. It gave our
teaching a purpose and made the learning meaningful. (Grade 3/4 Teacher, more
than 20 years’ teaching experience)
Reflections on the Approach to Improvement
It is evident from the voices of these teachers that the TLCP was a very effective tool at
St. Mary’s School. When these staff voices are compared to the four paths in LSA’s Theory of
Action (Rational, Emotions, Organizational and Family) it is easy to see that all of them played
an integral role in the success at St. Mary’s School. The TLCP gave staff and students a focus,
brought everyone together as a community and encouraged parent engagement.
It is also evident, that without leadership buy-in, or participation in the Pathway work, the school
would not have functioned as it did.
I believe that St. Mary’s was successful because the TLCP helped build trust and good working
relationships among staff members, as well as with parents. Students became more engaged, and
felt more a part of their learning. Because learning was authentic, students saw the value in what
they were being taught. Parents were confident in the staff and the school itself, because their
children were coming home happy and sharing what they were doing daily.
Evidence of Impact
Over the three years that I was the principal at St. Mary’s School, EQAO scores rose 40%
in almost every area. Although EQAO tests measure students’ achievement of only part of the
curriculum, it is a critical part of the curriculum. And EQAO results provide “hard” data about
student progress. I truly believe that the work we did, guided by the Four Paths of Leadership
Practice outlined in LSA’s Theory of Action, directly influenced our student learning. Both the
voices of teachers and the quantitative evidence provided by EQAO scores provide different, but
complementary, evidence in support of this impact.
25
5.
The Enactment of Successful Leadership Practices
in Diverse School Communities
Mirella Rossi
Improving student achievement requires school leaders to enact practices and personal
leadership resources comprehensively outlined in the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) and
to do so in ways that are sensitive to variations in the circumstances faced by students coming
from diverse home lives and complex social lives. This story is about how I have attempted to
enact many of those successful leadership practices with three quite different groups of students
and families. The story highlights my use of these leadership practices to further develop some of
the key learning conditions recommended for the attention of school leaders by the LSA project.
In particular, much of my story illustrates how I have gone about improving the Disciplinary
Climate of my schools; the story also touches quite explicitly on my efforts to improve the
Academic Emphasis in my schools and to foster Teacher Collective Efficacy.
I have been an instructional leader in a formal administrative role in three very unique urban
school communities: engaging in a large, low socio-economic and OFIP (Ontario Focus
Intervention Partnership) school community with very low EQAO scores; in a large and very
affluent school community with strong EQAO scores; and in a very small school community
displaying average EQAO scores. As I reflect on my fundamental leadership practices and style,
its positive impact on student achievement and the commonalities within these three very diverse
school communities, I would like to share my understandings and insights and reveal how I went
about improving teacher/student relationships, which resulted in the attainment of positive
student behaviour, engagement and high standards of achievement. I believe that in an effort to
respond to the diverse nature of Ontario communities, it is incumbent on us, as educational
leaders, to be contextually sensitive to the nuances of our school cultures, and to celebrate
successful leadership practices as we continually work collaboratively toward improving
learning opportunities for all our students.
Developing positive teacher/student relationships involves leadership practices that intentionally
focus on a paradigm shift; a shift from a reactive consequence-based progressive discipline
approach to a proactive, supportive, differentiated and evidence-based intervention approach.
Engaging staff members and parents through an individualized practice using a variety of
personalized, precise and student-specific strategies will serve to build on student learning by
addressing student behavioural needs in respectful, positive and practical ways. This orientation
is endorsed in several recent Ministry of Education publications. For example:
The Ministry is committed to building and sustaining a positive school climate for
all students in order to support their education so that all students reach their full
26
potential. (Policy/Program Memorandum No. 145; Progressive Discipline and
Promoting Positive Student Behaviour*)
A school should be a place that promotes responsibility, respect, civility, and
academic excellence in a safe learning and teaching environment. A positive school
climate exists when all members of the school community feel safe, comfortable,
and accepted. (The Education Act, Ontario Regulation 472/07 and Progressive
Discipline and School Safety, 2007)
(*Policy/Program Memorandum No. 145, “Progressive Discipline and Promoting Positive
Student Behaviour,” October 4, 2007, provides an overview of the progressive discipline
approach to be used when addressing issues of student conduct. When inappropriate behaviour
occurs, Ontario schools will be required to utilize a range of interventions, supports, and
consequences that are developmentally appropriate, that include opportunities for students to
learn from mistakes, and that focus on improving behaviour. In some circumstances, short-term
suspension may be a useful tool. In the case of a serious incident, long-term suspension or
expulsion, which is further along the continuum of progressive discipline, may be the response
that is required.)
Prior to entering into administration, I taught gifted students – approximately 100 students from
20 different schools within a large urban city. The transition from teacher to administrator is
challenging in and of itself; however, add to that challenge the transition from teaching
motivated, high achieving, energetic, disciplined students to that of administrator in a school
among disengaged, low achieving and non-disciplined learners. Regardless of socio-economic
status or size of the school, it has been my experience, as an administrator, that parents
ultimately want what is “best” for their children. Therefore, transitioning to the role of
administrator, in a very low socio-economic school community, with very low board/provincial
EQAO scores, leading student achievement entailed building relationships with staff, parents and
students such that discipline and conflicts were handled with mutual respect and the utmost
concern for the educational well-being of all students in the most positive school climate and
corresponding classroom environment.
Initially, the goal of improving individual student behaviour and achievement took the forefront
of all administrative energies. One of the largest and most pressing challenges involved dealing
with the customary practice of teachers routinely sending students to the office for administrative
discipline. This inevitably resulted in students with behaviour concerns losing valuable
classroom and instructional time, not to mention the volume of issues landing in the office. It
was clearly evident that this practice of “sending students to the office” required a refocusing on
the teacher/student relationship. The message was spread throughout the school that a shared
responsibility of seeing the child first and the behaviour second was a visible expectation; a
change in school culture was warranted!
Pulling the school staff together for this shared vision was realized one student at a time by
setting high staff expectations and role modeling desired practices for staff members and parents
alike, key practices described in the OLF. In addressing the learning and behavioural needs of
27
individual students using evidence-based support strategies, it was important to work as a
cohesive school community.
The implementation of individual evidence-based support strategies merged with wellestablished progressive discipline practices created a school-wide focus on teaching and learning
with positive learning outcomes; both the Academic Emphasis and Disciplinary Climate of my
school were improved through such implementation. Although initially many suspensions
ensued, eventually, enough supports were put into place, collaboratively between administrators,
teachers and parents, that resulted in students spending more time in the classroom learning and
less time in the office. Ultimately, this began to enhance teacher/student relationships,
relationships built on trust. As well, this change provided students with improved opportunities
to increase their learning and achievement in a respectful school culture.
A year and a half later, I found myself in a large urban city school community with a very high
socio-economic status; ironically only a few exits down the highway from my first school
experience. Although standardized assessment measures were consistent and above provincial
averages, there was still a need to improve student behaviour; it was necessary to employ the
same consistent set of strategies in this very different school community. Once again, parents
demonstrated the same commitment to their childrens’ success and the same philosophy of
student-specific, evidence-based support strategies was necessary to eliminate bullying
behaviours that were pervasive in the schoolyard.
Not surprisingly, a few years later, when I became the principal of one of the smallest schools in
the province, student discipline was an ongoing concern. Although the discipline and behaviour
issues in these three schools were very diverse, the needs were analogous; the need to construct
engaging learning environments by strengthening teacher/student relationships. In all three
school communities, it was essential to work very closely with classroom teachers, school staff
and parents in order to devise specific evidence-based support strategies for students so that they
could become self-fulfilled and successful learners.
I believe that parents respond well when they know that school administrators, teachers and
support staff genuinely care about their childrens’ success at school. Therefore, repeated and
ongoing articulation of focused support and intervention is necessary in order to re-enforce
teacher/students relationships, as well as parent confidence and trust in the school/home partner
relationship.
It has been my experience that intentional and consistent use of positive intervention strategies
(in the regular classroom and throughout the school) support student learning, address behaviour
problems and enhance teacher/student relationships. Although the depth and breadth of
intervention strategies will vary from school to school, class to class and teacher to teacher;
administrators who consistently work collaboratively with teachers and parents to select
strategies that are most suited to each individual student’s instructional and behavioural needs
will set the context for positive student achievement.
28
A variety of evidence-based intervention strategies that focus on student progress may include:
student-friendly think papers, student-friendly tracking sheets, staff anecdotal feedback,
communication books, progressive discipline data, attendance records/tracking, student-friendly
special privilege charts, good citizen contracts, ongoing meetings/strategies log booklets,
Individual Education Plans (IEP), parent/teacher communication, for example:
Examples of Evidence-Based Strategies:
A: This strategy was developed with a primary classroom teacher to address inappropriate
behaviours at recess and in class.
My Learning Goal: I will use SNAP (Stop Now And Plan) to solve any conflict in a peaceful
manner.
When I am upset or angry I can: walk away, put my hands in my pockets, take deep breaths,
count backwards from 10.
MONDAY
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
FRIDAY
Dear Mom and Dad:
I had a very good week!
I had an OK week!
I will try to do better next week!
Teacher Feedback:
SNAP© 2008 – Canadian Safe School Network
B: This strategy was developed with a junior/intermediate classroom teacher to address
inappropriate behaviours when participating in group work.
Learning Goal:
I will respond positively to the ideas, I will share information to solve
Collaboration
opinions, values and traditions of my problems and help my group make
classmates.
decisions.
I achieved my goal:
I achieved my goal:
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Teacher/Parent
Comments:
Focused intervention resources specific to the needs of the classroom and school community (see
Suggested Resources, below) allow staff to use evidence-based support strategies for students
who exhibit challenging behaviours. An administrator’s awareness and promotion of evidencebased support strategies (i.e. differentiated support strategies and differentiated progressive
discipline) enables effective leadership and allows the instructional program to thrive because it
establishes an environment in which everyone can focus on teaching and learning. An
administrator demonstrates a “commitment to raising standards for all students, a belief in
29
meeting the needs of all students in diverse ways and a commitment to upholding human rights
and respecting the dignity of all.” (Putting Ontario’s Leadership Framework into Action)
Principals are critical in developing the organization “by developing a school culture that
promotes shared knowledge and shared responsibility for outcomes.” (Putting Ontario’s
Leadership Framework into Action)
Through the systematic implementation of intervention and support strategies, all staff members
are encouraged to adopt a team approach to accountability for student success. For those
providing leadership, this means not only inspiring and engaging staff in these strategies, but also
providing the necessary resources for staff to ensure improvements in standards of practice. Such
improvement entails the application and integration of the knowledge, skills and attitudes in
complex educational environments. This requires staff to come to an understanding of
themselves, especially while mired in conflict. Tim Kearns offers some guidance about how to
do this well in his conflict triangle theory, which identifies the key elements of conflict as
people, process and situations:
People: Every conflict involves a history of relationships and personalities.
Process: People fight in different ways, but every conflict has patterns of
interaction: the way it intensifies, eases or spreads.
Situation: Every conflict has content – the issues and interests that are the reason
for the dispute.
(Kearns, Managing Conflict, 1992)
The challenge to see the child first, before disciplining the behaviour, will require ongoing
discourses, professional development, problem solving/decision-making skills and
negotiation/mediation skills on the part of the staff members. Having a strong sense of
understanding people in conflict, and the shift from a consequence-based discipline approach to a
principle-based discipline approach, is critical in establishing a shared vision as demonstrated
throughout this intervention expectation. Therefore, as progressive discipline escalates (conflict),
there exists a corresponding increase in the use of intervention and evidence-based strategies
(support).
The implementation and timeline for the use of these strategies depends on the individual
learning needs of the student and the expertise of the teacher. The intent or purpose of this
intervention approach is to provide a variety of positive, practical and successful ways in which
educators and parents can work collaboratively with students toward the attainment of positive
learning outcomes and academic excellence. Parents are made aware of school-wide practices
through informal and formal meetings, through meetings focused on the implementation and
revision of the IEP, through regular dialogue with the classroom teacher, through communication
log booklets, agendas, positive behaviour communication sheets and the like.
30
Appropriate, consistent and timely use of intervention strategies maintains a culture of inclusion,
diversity, equity of access as well as support for individual students … including students at risk
and our most vulnerable students. A genuine adherence to the belief that a balanced intervention
approach focuses on disciplining the behaviour (progressive discipline) and supporting the
student (intentional and measurable support strategies) ensures that learning is at the centre of
planning and goal setting. It became apparent in my own work that staff comfort level increased
as they consistently utilized student-specific strategies in order to address learning and
behavioural concerns in a variety of proactive ways.
Administrator consultation with staff, in a one-on-one setting (individualized support), was
facilitated as a way of meeting the individual learning/teaching style of each staff member. The
successful development and implementation of this intervention approach became evident when
teachers and support staff began using support strategies as part of their daily practice. For
example, James (name changed), a grade 4 student, was repeatedly sent to the office to serve
detentions for inappropriate behaviours during recess. The school administrator, along with the
classroom teacher, formulated a learning goal and developed an evidence-based strategy that best
suited James’ needs and were in line with consistent classroom practices. Therefore, evidence of
specific actions taken to help James correct his behaviour, were collaboratively and explicitly
developed.
Ideally, James requires support/intervention in order to focus on learning to control his
behaviour, which would enable him to spend less time in the office and more time concentrating
on his studies. Educators working collaboratively, using a common set of intervention strategies,
are likely to enhance individual student success and foster healthy teacher/student relationships.
In building relationships and developing people, “A principal strives to foster genuine trusting
relationships with and among students, staff, families and communities guided by a sense of
mutual respect; affirms and empowers others to work in the best interest of all students; manages
conflict effectively; and listens empathically and actively.” (Putting Ontario’s Leadership
Framework into Action)
Critical discourses, a collective commitment and consistent use of the intervention and support
strategies increase the probability of regular classroom teachers’ abilities to address the academic
and behavioural needs of students. Timely, cost effective, concrete and practical resources
provide educators with comprehensive intervention strategies that serve a broad range of student
needs. The intervention strategies that I have found successful with students are not those
associated with reactive, consequence-based progressive discipline approaches; they are, instead,
more proactive and supportive intervention strategies. They reflect the importance of
understanding the “problem” before trying to solve it. As two noteworthy people have said:
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
(Stephen Covey)
31
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek … to be understood as to
understand.
(Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi)
A sample of steps that should be taken to implement such understanding-based strategies
include, for example:
Step 1: Seek First to Understand: develop a thorough understanding of progressive discipline
(i.e. school-wide professional development).
Step 2: Discipline Behaviour while Supporting Child: introduce staff and parents to evidencebased intervention strategies documents and available resources.
Step 3: Model Behaviour and Assist Staff: through one-on-one meetings, modeling behaviour
and school wide in-servicing, provide staff with opportunities to become familiar with, and
utilize, intervention strategies along with, and independent of, administration (gradual release of
responsibility).
Step 4: School Wide Collective Commitment: through consistent and regular dialogue, practice
an expectation of implementation, increase the systematic use of intervention strategies aimed at
improving the Disciplinary Climate of the school and classroom.
Step 5: Regular and Ongoing Support and Feedback: communicate with staff members and
parents that the use of intervention strategies will continue to be the foundation for improved
student behaviour and performance. Also, communicate with teachers about the efficacy of
specific strategies.
In summation, my experience suggests that effective school leaders need to set high expectations
for learning outcomes through strategic and specific planning and through modeling a healthy
and vibrant school climate. It is equally important to monitor evidence-based support strategies
that are developed positively and collaboratively with classroom teachers, support staff, students
and parents, in order to ensure successful outcomes through a well-established progressive
disciplinary model. To be successful, school leaders also need to provide resources for all staff
and to assist in realizing high standards of achievement through the development of positive
teacher/student relationships and consistent approaches with a shared commitment to meeting the
needs of students in diverse ways.
Suggested Resources
Pino, Ed. (1978). Discipline Strategies that Work: Assertive Alternatives. Boulder, CO:
Educational Consulting Associates.
McCarney, Stephen B. (2006). Teacher Resource Manual. Columbia, MO: Hawthorne
Educational Services.
32
6.
Using the Professional Learning Cycle to Improve Instruction
in a Secondary School
Deidre Wilson
I became involved in the Leading Student Achievement project as I moved into the role of
principal at a rural, fully composite, secondary school of 900 students and 65 teachers. As a new
principal, I used the LSA project to build relationships with some of the staff. My background
was in mathematics education so I began a process of instructional improvement with a team of
math teachers.
Starting with our student achievement data led us to focus on what students were thinking about
when they solved math problems. We wanted to help students to stop and work through a
process and to not rush their answer. We wanted students to stop worrying about just getting the
problem or test done, and to focus more on doing the test or problem well.
I was able to build relationships with the math teachers by working side-by-side with them in
their team. I attended all of their meetings and took part in their discussions. I asked questions,
listened and offered ideas and suggestions. We used student survey responses and student work
to guide our discussions and incorporated feedback from our Ontario Principals' Council
consultant and board curriculum consultant. Not all the teachers in the team were eager at first,
but as we went through the steps of the professional learning cycle they began to ask each other
how they taught and what they said in class. Teachers shifted their thinking and became open to
sharing ideas.
Commenting on the process the team went through during the Professional Learning Cycle
(PLC), one teacher said, “this was focused and purposeful; it affects how math is taught.”
Another said, “it got me out of a rut,” and another said, “the conversation relates to student
learning and teacher practice,” and another said, “our Professional Learning Communities have
focused on the wrong things; they are now focused on things that are important.” Each of these
teachers believed that the project was having a positive impact on their teaching. The
conversations became about best practice, how students learn and what counts as evidence of
student learning. One teacher said, “I have not been teaching alternative ways to find a solution –
this made me stop and find other ways.” In the end, we produced a classroom poster with
prompts for helping students reason through a problem.
In our second year in the LSA project, along with some teachers from the math department, I
included a Science, English and Geography teacher. The focus on student thinking continued, but
with more emphasis on communication. This time we looked at what students need to think
about when preparing their solutions. With a focus on expression and organization, audience and
33
purpose and convention, we developed a rubric to give feedback on communication in grade 9
courses.
Working across departments was more challenging and teachers needed to find things in
common. Teachers had little idea about what their colleagues taught or how they evaluated
students. They were fascinated when they looked at each other’s student work and saw
similarities in their achievement charts. One teacher commented, “I never knew we were
evaluating the same things for communication,” another teacher commented he “learned so much
seeing work from other subjects and how teachers of those subjects marked.” Teachers
developed a greater appreciation for what students were doing in the four courses and what
learning might look like from a student perspective. Teachers in the project began to understand
how they could help students make connections across disciplines. One teacher said that what
surprised him was the questioning techniques other teachers were using and that he was now
“seeing how he could incorporate them into his lessons.” The team quickly focused on the big
ideas of communication and what was important, regardless of content. Together, they developed
some common understanding and language for discussing communication across courses.
In our third year I worked, once again, across departments including more new members. This
time we let our EQAO literacy data drive our project. The teachers focused on helping students
find evidence for an idea, with a graphic organizer they developed, since this was identified as a
weakness for our students. Looking first at teachers’ assumptions about how students find and
give evidence in their subject area, once again revealed that teachers had very similar
expectations. One teacher said, “finding evidence is so similar across areas – the process is the
same,” another stated, “we have lots of similarities we just package it differently.” During the
process of looking at student work, teachers talked about why students struggle and one teacher
said, “we are fighting the script learner.” Teachers identified their goal as “trying to get them
[students] out of their comfort zone to open problem solving – making them think a little
deeper.”
The discussion among the teachers in the project became focused on how to truly engage their
students and to get them to think deeply about problems. Reflecting on the cycle, one teacher
said, “I learned the process [for thinking] is important for students – I have to teach it, I can’t just
tell them what to do,” and another teacher said, “I have to learn how to teach it differently. If we
want them to be truly engaged then we have to give up control and let them muck around.” This
cycle helped teachers to really think deeply about their practice and the purpose of teaching.
Each year my intention was to have more teachers in the school understanding and using the
Professional Learning Cycle (PLC). I could see the PLC as becoming the process for our
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Our PLC groups had been struggling to stay
focused and the work we were doing with LSA could help. The cycle had a beginning, middle,
and end, and if teachers followed the steps, student work got on the table, teacher practice got
discussed and productive work resulted.
34
Involvement in the LSA project helped me to see what was really going on in department
meetings, PLC meetings and in classrooms. Through participation with each of the teams I heard
what my teachers thought and believed about students, teaching and learning. I saw their
strengths and weaknesses. I learned about the extent to which they understood differentiated
instruction, formative assessment, or learning goals and success criteria. It helped me to see what
messages were getting through to teachers and what needed more explanation and attention. I
could hear and see where our school needed to focus for the School Improvement Plan.
Engaging secondary teachers in examining practice through the use of PLCs is a difficult task. I
have struggled to keep the teams’ focus on teaching and learning and to ensure the time is not a
meeting about choices, calendar and consequences. The LSA project has taught me a cycle I can
use and work through with my teachers during our PLC time. Our projects have focused on
student work and all resulted in discussions about teaching practice.
35
7.
How One High School Used Collaborative Inquiry Processes
as the Core of its Approach to School Improvement
Lisa Vincent and Dayna Bons 2
In this section we describe the journey of collective inquiry through the TeachingLearning Critical Pathway (TLCP) approach to school improvement at Quinte Secondary School
(QSS). This school has a population of approximately 680 students and is located in the core of
the city of Belleville. An all inclusive school, QSS offers a full range of programming in all
academic pathways, including a number of specialized classes to serve children with special
needs. Eighteen percent of the student population has been formally identified through the
Identification Placement Review Committee (IPRC) process, while an additional 4% also receive
special education supports. Sixty percent of grade 9 students take applied (37%) and locally
developed (23%) level courses, while 40% are in the academic pathway. In the grade 10 class,
51% of the students are enrolled in applied (39%) and locally developed (12%) courses, with the
balance, 49%, in the academic pathway.
Literacy development is one of the priorities of the Hastings and Prince Edward District School
Board (HPEDSB) as indicated by two of the five goals in the board’s Improvement Plan for
Student Achievement, and that focus is mirrored in the QSS School Improvement Plan, as well.
The implementation of high-yield instructional and assessment strategies through collaborative
inquiry aligns with the tri-level approach to raising the bar and closing the gap for increased
student achievement within our school, board and province. The QSS Story we outline here is
based on the creation of a culture of co-learning, collaboration and collective inquiry. Statistical
information is drawn from data collected during the 2010–2011 school year.
The culture of our school’s learning environment has changed significantly over the past three
years. It is an exciting journey that keeps us learning and growing together. Dr. Kenneth
Leithwood’s (2012), “Four Paths of Leadership Influence on Student Learning” (LSA’s Theory
of Action) has provided our school’s leadership team and our collaborative professional learning
teams with a strong foundation from which to guide our philosophy and practice. The pathways
provide a compass for rich discussion within our teams as we work together to formulate
priorities and plans to improve student learning. Initial discussions of the four paths helped us to
frame a clear agenda to focus on student achievement across the school through regular daily
practice, professional development sessions and through our specific learning teams.
2
Authors were the principal and vice-principal, respectively, of Quinte Secondary School when the case was
written.
36
We are in year four of our learning journey at QSS and in year three of our TLCP learning teams.
In 2008, our school had one explicitly designated learning team of five teachers. To date, we
have expanded our collaborative learning approach to include TLCP teams in grade 9 applied
Geography and English, grade 10 applied History and English, cross panel differentiated
instruction teams in Science, and Healthy Active Living, and a cross-panel co-planning/coteaching Mathematics team. More than half of our teachers, as well as our principal and viceprincipals, are actively involved. In fact, we are beginning to see more fully a shared leadership
commitment, involving instructional leadership by teachers, as part of embedded practice. The
learning teams have provided an excellent vehicle to move forward collaboratively, to learn
about inquiry-based teaching and learning, to focus on personalization and precision and to focus
on clear and attainable goals. The shared ownership and tremendous support among teaching
teams is perhaps one of the most rewarding aspects of this important work.
Within our board, we have embraced the concept “the learning is the work” as a collective
commitment. TLCP and our other Professional Learning Teams embody this very concept. Goals
one and two of our district’s improvement plan are specific to Literacy in the areas of reading
and writing for applied level students. Through analysis of our data story at QSS, we determined
that our focus would be on Summary Writing (implicit reading) and Support Opinion Paragraphs
(topic development). We developed school action steps as a part of our school improvement plan
using TLCP as the structure and process. Our TLCP work has blended beautifully with the
expectations from the School Effectiveness Framework (SEF) and in particular, “assessment for,
as, and of learning.” Through collaborative decision-making, this was selected as our focus.
What we learned through this journey was that there are huge differences in teachers’
understanding of instructional strategies (such as the gradual release of responsibility) and in
their assessment practices.
We have found the benefits of the TLCP approach to be numerous. Collaborative planning,
implementation and reflection are social processes. They must occur within an environment of
mutual trust and respect, to ensure a truly collaborative and reciprocal process. TLCP has
provided an opportunity for us, as core instructional leaders, to learn together with our teachers.
We did not come to the table as experts in the TLCP process. We came as willing learners along
with our teachers, to share the learning together. The professional dialogue that occurs as a part
of the co-planning and moderated marking sessions has been truly remarkable and a wonderfully
interesting learning experience. Teachers have begun to rethink their own practices and engage
in rich and deep discussions with each other about instructional and assessment practices.
During one of our early work team sessions, the development of the success criteria within the
team became so lively that we almost called in a referee! We witnessed incredible professional
discussion and debate among the team of teachers, which included a variety of different opinions
and reasoning as to the specific learning criteria that should be assigned to a piece of writing. It
was a fascinating learning experience.
Once success criteria had been developed, we agreed that it was essential to have consistency for
students as they moved from one classroom to the next in a given subject area. We developed
37
laminated posters of the success criteria for each classroom in order to focus on one of the most
important learning conditions included in the LSA project, Academic Emphasis. Rubrics for
assessment purposes were developed, and have now been revised at least three times so that they
are in alignment with student learning outcomes. Teachers have articulated the importance of
asking the right questions of students in order to elicit strong responses and learning. The
reflection processes that are embedded within our TLCP processes have been extremely
beneficial in terms of informed planning and revision or strong practice.
The evolution of the TLCP process in our school has been a very interesting and rewarding
learning journey. Our first TLCP included a four-member team of only one classroom teacher, a
vice-principal, the Student Success lead teacher, and the Librarian, who was very involved in our
school’s literacy initiatives. From there, our teams expanded to form a grade 9 team and a grade
10 team, and each of us joined one of the teams.
While we certainly provided instructional leadership to each team, we were also hugely
immersed in the learning paths alongside our teacher colleagues. On many occasions, we
discussed the long-term goal of embedded TLCP instructional and assessment practices in
everyday classroom experiences, and hoped that while we would continue to be actively
involved, teachers would emerge as instructional leaders and that co-planning and moderated
marking would also become a part of regular practice. In the most recent semesters, teachers
more experienced with TLCP have indeed taken this on with partner teachers, and we are now
seeing evidence of this within departments. In fact, we are finding that in many situations, the
teaching team prefers to take the lead responsibility, as it is more efficient and practical to meet
within their collaborative teams during their preparation time, at lunch, and in their own space.
We are happy to support this level of commitment and initiative, and continue to engage with
these teams through their leadership.
Students are involved in setting personal goals for improvement and can articulate areas of
personal focus for learning. Anchor Charts are now visible in numerous classrooms, as are
specific learning goals, success criteria and visual learning cues such as word walls. Students
more often receive personalized and precise feedback to help them reflect on their own learning
experience and to set goals for themselves. One of our teachers implemented a graphing page for
each student to document their own learning journey, including diagnostic results, goal setting,
and subsequent results, as well as a written record of next steps to improve their own writing. As
well as strong alignment with assessment practices (as outlined in the SEF), the TLCP process
helps students understand how they can apply learning skills and work habits to improve their
learning.
Additionally, great progress has been made in the area of staff presentations during professional
activity days and staff meetings to share experiences and expertise. We have moved from a
culture where the staff was very reluctant to present to their colleagues, to one that is supportive
and positive. In fact, over the course of the previous school year, each of our TLCP, Math,
Healthy Active Living and Science teams presented outstanding accounts of their work,
supported by examples of exemplary practice and outcomes. This movement to sharing and
38
collaborative teaching/learning in a full staff environment is something that we value very much
as school leaders.
Evidence suggests, that in addition to improving regular classroom practice, our TLCP program
has improved student achievement. Grade 9 applied English pass rates improved from 76% in
2009 to 95% in 2010 and were sustained at 94% in 2011. Grade 10 English results improved
from 89% success in 2009 to 94% in 2011. Similarly, grade 10 History success rates improved
from 80% in 2009, to 98% in 2011. Finally, grade 9 Geography pass rates have been sustained at
85% from 2009 to 2011, with specific note of achievement at level 3 or higher, improving from
33% in 2009 to 40% by June of 2011. Similar growth patterns in terms of more students
achieving at level 3 and higher can be seen in the other grade and subject areas where the TLCP
process had been practiced.
During the spring of 2011, questionnaires were distributed to a total of 73 students across five
different grade 9 and 10 applied level classes in English and Canadian World Studies. Their
responses were very informative for our teams. Ninety-three percent of students said they
strongly agree or agree that the information provided from their teacher helps them to do better
on their next piece of writing. Eighty percent said they felt supported when the teacher met with
them and 85% said they try to apply what they learned to other subjects. These responses were
helpful for us because they indicate that students feel that one-to-one teacher/student conferences
and descriptive feedback help them to learn better and to improve on future writing tasks.
However, while students clearly appreciated and saw the benefit of one-to-one student/teacher
conferences, only 64% said they enjoyed meeting with their teacher one-to-one. Perhaps these
young teenagers still feel uneasy when meeting individually with their teacher. Perhaps we have
not met often enough with our students in this personalized way and so they are still not quite
comfortable with such individualized and in-depth discussions. This is helpful information for us
as we continue our personalized and precise approach to learning and to work habits.
As instructional leaders, we continue to learn so much through our TLCP teamwork on our
Quinte Learning Journey. We feel that this is very much a fluid and dynamic process. Our next
steps are to focus on embedding the TLCP instructional and assessment practices as a part of
regular classroom practice more fully throughout our school; to further embrace the distributed
instructional leadership model so that teachers can take the lead with their colleagues; and work
more intently on the Family Path to engage parents in their child’s learning process.
39
8.
Reflections on Successful Leadership Practices
by a Secondary Principal
Edward DeDecker
I have been an educator for 26 years, 13 of them as a secondary teacher of Science and
Mathematics, among other things. My experience as a school administrator includes three years
in a secondary vice-principal position, followed by more than five years as an elementary
principal. At the time of writing this case, I was mid-way through my fifth year as a secondary
principal.
Personally, I have a mission: “Continued self-improvement in the service of others.” I believe the
role of the principal (and my role within a Catholic framework), is to set the direction of the ship
and to motivate staff to keep adding the fuel to propel the ship forward in the direction we have
established together. I have two primary functions within the context of our Catholic Faith. One
is to ensure the safety of staff and students. The second is to protect and enhance the learning
environment. The Catholic version of the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) serves as a
guide to accomplish this work. This story is designed to provide readers with the opportunity to
connect the journey of our school with their own, and illustrates some of the ways in which I
have enacted selective OLF practices.
The journey at my secondary school was really predicated on experiences as a principal in both
panels (5.5 years in elementary, 4.5 in secondary). In secondary schools, there is a culture among
some teachers and administrators suggesting that while curricular change (and by extension
instructional leadership) may be possible and can even be demonstrated to be possible at
elementary, it cannot be done at secondary because secondary schools are different. This belief
creates a real challenge for secondary principals committed to instructional leadership.
As an elementary principal, I had the opportunity to begin the process of instructional leadership
in a school that was identified by the Ministry as in need of additional supports. I was moved to a
secondary school in January of that year, but was able to continue to monitor the staff
engagement and change that was occurring from a distance through my vice-principal, who
remained at the elementary school. She later moved to a smaller elementary school as principal
and did a remarkable job in changing the climate and culture in a way that greatly improved
student learning. Due to our previous work together and our good working relationship, I was
able to see the results of her leadership within that school. What I witnessed was both remarkable
and highly motivating. I believed, as a result of my elementary experiences, that the focus on
Teaching-Learning Critical Pathways (TLCPs), Anchor Charts, Big Ideas and High Yield
Strategies could work in a secondary school context.
40
I found myself in my fourth school as an administrator (third as a principal) and I understood
how important it was not to arrive at a school with preconceived notions about what needs to
change. The OLF states: “Leadership is the exercise of influence on organizational members and
diverse stakeholders toward the identification and achievement of the organization’s vision and
goals.” For me, the translation was arriving with a three-step plan: Honouring the Past,
Discovering the Present and Growing the Future.
To honour the past, one must build relationships with staff, they need to know that you respect
where they have been; it helps them to understand they are valued. There is a period during
which you spend a great deal of time listening in order to understand, before you ever attempt to
be understood. This is the period where you begin to build trust, an important set of practices
encompassed in the Building Relationships and Developing People dimension of the OLF.
Crucial to the trust-building process is to acknowledge and celebrate the accomplishments of
individuals and teams. I tried to do that with my team by honouring the past. I demonstrated my
trust by acknowledging the staff’s ability to collectively provide direction, in terms of strengths
of the school community, and challenges that need to be addressed. By doing this, my team can
celebrate the past and begin the process of establishing pieces of the improvement plan for the
future. At this point, it is also easy to introduce data to be reviewed in order to also establish
student learning goals. By following this process, the administrative team is left with a range of
“suggestions” for celebration and improvement. I use the notion of a vector to establish what my
direction would look like and an angle that contains my vector to reflect the range of ideas of the
staff. The next task is to utilize your experience and knowledge to align the staff’s suggestions
with your ideas of where the school needs to go. I have found that the staff’s ideas for
improvement and those of the administrative team are not usually that far apart, and this helps
increase ownership in “Setting Directions” for the school.
Once there is alignment of the staff and administrative goals and they are presented back to the
staff, the language becomes: “this is what you have told us we need to do as a staff.” In this way,
you create ownership among the staff and (from the OLF) “Build staff members’ sense of
internal accountability,” creating better buy-in to move forward on the school improvement plan
as related to climate and student learning. As we discuss the plan with individual staff members
who are not “on board,” I can leverage collective ownership; as opposed to saying, “I want you
to do this,” I can say, “We decided as a staff we needed to work on this. How can I help you to
make it happen?”
As part of the process in my school, we utilized school climate as a precursor to instructional
change. Our focus was on purposeful and intentional teaching. Because our school was a
“Catholic school community” with almost 50% non-Catholic students, we decided to explicate
the treatment of others using the “golden rule.” This idea stems from my elementary school
experience in which school mottos or mantras were used. I recall the motto for my own
children’s elementary school was “Our students can and will succeed.” The principal changed
the motto to, “Each of us to the best of our ability.” I was struck by the ability of a principal to
honour the history but at the same time make a change that reflected his own beliefs.
41
At my first school, through a process involving staff, we came up with: “You can be the
difference for someone else.” At my second school, using the same process, we came up with:
“Make the ordinary extraordinary, bring hope.” In each case, the plan was to use these words to
bring about transformative change through a call to action. In all relationships, these words
became the question/call for improved effort and behaviours … how are you making a
difference? How are you bringing hope? The phrases helped to ground staff, students and parents
in a common set of aspirations when they needed help in deciding how to approach a situation.
At secondary, as opposed to using a motto, we developed the phrase: “Treat others the way you
would like to be treated.” The question to staff was … how do we want to be treated? Three
words – kindness, respect and fairness – came to light. At first, the administrative team modeled
the use of this language by displaying three questions in each office and purposefully asking
students at the end of their visit, disciplinary or otherwise, three questions: Have you been
treated with kindness? Have you been treated with respect? Have you been treated with fairness?
The questions served as a check for understanding. The questions reinforced that this was our
intention, and if that is not how they felt, the questions also allowed for deeper understanding
because it opened dialogue between the administrative team and students.
After a year, we printed these questions and invited staff to use them in their classroom; we also
began to speak of our commitment to students and staff in this way and introduced the
expectation that this is how we would be treated as a staff by our students. I can say it has made a
real difference and that we have reduced suspensions by 25% as a direct result; we were not
trying to reduce them – it just began to happen. I can also point out that EVERY student can tell
visitors, without hesitation, what the three most important words are in our community. Staff
began to take it further and to engage students in classrooms by having them create assignments,
work in groups, etc., to further explicate what kindness, respect and fairness mean to them at
school.
We also noticed that the Catholic Graduate Expectations (CGEs) were being talked about at
graduations and important ceremonies, but suspected that few students could name any of them.
We also were hesitant to put staff to the test because we had a real concern that most would not
be able to name more than one or two, at best. If the CGEs were important and we expected
students to attain them by graduation, didn’t it make sense that students and staff should be able
to name them?
To address this problem, we had students create a poster with student pictures and the CGEs in a
large font, so that the thrust of the expectations could be seen from anywhere in the classroom.
Teachers were then engaged in collaborative discussions about teachable moments using the
CGEs. They would point out to the class when someone demonstrated a CGE in class, through
questioning and engaging the class in a discussion about why someone had demonstrated a CGE.
EVERY class has had these prominently displayed for three years now.
42
As teachers began to see the benefits of these consistencies in the classroom, we began to push
for other consistencies. The board improvement plan called for Catholicity, Numeracy and
Literacy Goals. While we were beginning to feel comfortable with the Catholicity Goals through
kindness, respect, fairness and the CGEs, we had work to do in the other two areas. Literacy was
accepted as being part of the work of all staff but there was nothing specific to address it in all
classes. Numeracy was considered to be firmly owned by the mathematics department and no
one else even attempted cross-curricular work in this area. We decided to work on numeracy and
literacy by looking at our EQAO results and board data to determine where our students
struggled.
For our school, literacy became synonymous with making inferences, extending understanding
and critical literacy. We went to the provincial curriculum documents and were able to
demonstrate consistencies in the expectations right from grade 1. These connections helped
teachers to see their role in literacy. We also took a larger view of numeracy with a focus on
problem solving, data collection and analysis and non-linguistic representations like graphing.
Once we identified these as being part of literacy and numeracy, we were able to openly discuss
how these areas were related to all subject areas and, more importantly, how they were vital for a
student’s success beyond high school.
We extended our dialogue about intentional and purposeful teaching. To address the consistency
in all classrooms, we introduced a lesson plan that laid out Catholicity, Literacy and Numeracy
learning goals. As a staff, we determined that if students were to achieve these learning goals, it
was important for them to know the intentions, in each area, at the beginning of the lesson. In the
same way we approached the CGEs, we followed through by identifying the literacy and
numeracy goals at the beginning of each lesson.
We also took advantage of work done in some exemplary elementary schools and were able to
take some key teachers to visit and see TLCPs, Anchor Charts and exemplary teaching in action.
One of the “take-backs” included the Bump It Up Strategy, which helped us focus some attention
on assessment, and from there how much work we had to do with co-construction of learning
goals, success criteria and descriptive feedback. As a result of all of the above, we began to
identify what a classroom should look like and included the display of student work,
collaborative learning, gradual release of responsibility, three-part lessons and assessment for, as
and of learning.
What are our next steps? We need to make the literacy and numeracy goals more explicit; for
example, what does making inferences really look like? Can we make an Anchor Chart with
students for making inferences and so on, with other numeracy and literacy goals? As well, our
school highlights the notion of alignment versus coherence. On initial view, our classrooms
demonstrate alignment with the board and School Improvement Plans … there is common
language that translates directly into the classroom. But on deeper examination, we are missing
the coherence – the words are there but the students are slow to make the connection between the
goals and what it is they need to learn for that particular class/lesson.
43
More work needs to be done on going deeper, teachers need to intentionally and purposefully
link specific activities with the stated goals from the beginning of class throughout the lesson and
follow up using consolidating activities to really drive home the learning. Class visits need to
focus on the non-negotiables; what is it that we must see alive in every classroom? If these things
are not present, how is the conversation respectively framed to help teachers move forward in the
interest of our students?
Our journey highlights the Catholic version of the OLF by recognizing the importance of
building relationships, setting direction collaboratively with staff, creating organizational
structures to focus on intentional and purposeful teaching to improve instruction and securing
accountability through shared leadership and joint ownership in the direction setting for the
school.
Final Reflections
The following words of staff members and a student help to sum up the changes that have
occurred in my school over the past four years:
In my tenure here at John Paul II, I have noticed a gradual change in our
community. There is a sense of belonging that has strengthened over time.
“Kindness, respect and fairness” has been adopted by our staff and students as a
way of life, not just words spoken to each other. (Staff Member)
In the past three years, we have made great gains in purposeful and intentional
instruction. We have an inclusive environment based on kindness, respect and
fairness. (Staff Member)
The change did not happen overnight. We posted the Catholic Graduate
Expectations, Kindness, Respect and Fairness and adopted a new school prayer in
this theme. These things all came together and we began to live it. Kindness,
respect and fairness are now in everything we do. First it was conscious, but has
now become tacit. It is now part of our character. It is something that has become a
part of us. (Staff Member)
Over the years I have noticed more Catholicity within our classrooms. Our
assignments reflect on our Catholic religion and allow us to further express who
and what we believe in. Another change over the years that I have noticed is the
technological aspect. With more technology, such as projectors, it allows us to
become more engaged and enjoy our work. Teachers have also made more
connections with life lessons, as well as academic lessons. Over the years we have
grown closer to teachers and it has helped me learn because I can interact with
them in a different way! (Student)
44
9.
Using the Rational Path in LSA’s Theory of Action
for Leading Instruction in a Five-school Network
Steve Webb
This is a story about the growth and development of a Network Learning Community
(NLC) consisting of five kindergarten to grade 8 elementary schools. It is also a story about the
impact on the District School Board of Niagara (DSBN) of its participation in the Leading
Student Achievement project. Located in the Niagara Falls/Fort Erie region, the five schools
ranged in size from 230–425 students. The communities they served varied from high poverty to
relatively affluent, based on Low Income Cut-Off scores. Two of the schools were part of the
Ontario Focused Intervention Program umbrella.
Participation in the LSA project has had a positive impact, in particular, on leadership practice in
DSBN. While our LSA participation has included the use of Teaching-Learning Critical
Pathways and related Collaborative Inquiry processes, the greatest influence on our work had
been LSA’s Theory of Action.
With so much research and data to support multiple frameworks School Effectiveness
Framework (SEF), the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF) and entry points for school
improvement and school effectiveness, selecting the right variable and/or variables to focus on
seemed to be more of a “fire-ready-aim” approach, rather than a truly intentional one. LSA’s
Theory of Action significantly assisted our principal learning teams to focus their attention on
those conditions in their schools which the best available evidence suggests have significant
effects on student learning.
For the past five years all DSBN elementary principals have belonged to what LSA refers to as
Principal Learning Teams (PLTs), known locally as Network Learning Communities (NLCs).
Each of the NLCs is comprised of five to six administrators. The development of the NLCs was
based on a number of criteria, including demographics, school performance and staff growth and
development. Their purpose was to support the work of our school-based Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs).
In the early days of the NLCs, their focus revolved primarily around the reporting and sharing of
school initiatives and their effects on student learning. Most of the schools had selected a focus
on a similar instructional strategy and/or Teaching-Learning Critical Pathway (TLCP). Meetings
were more “show and tell” than a discussion about problems or challenges of practice. There was
limited differentiation in the content, challenge or problem, solutions and outcomes. For these
reasons, administrators began to question the effectiveness of the NLCs.
45
At this point, our principal learning team was presented with Dr. Kenneth Leithwood’s Leading
Student Achievement: Theory of Action. The information within the Theory of Action resonated
with our group because Dr. Leithwoods’ paper provided us with a framework that made sense
and information/data to help us select the best variable for a desired outcome.
Feeling invigorated, our NLC determined that the Rational Path seemed a good starting point and
we selected feedback as our focus (it is worth noting that a number of administrators had begun
to delve into the meta-analyses of John Hattie in his book Visible Learning3). Over the course of
the year, administrators reported some highly favourable results from implementing the feedback
initiative; it was having an impact on both teachers’ instructional practices and student
achievement, the Bump It Up Strategy and “assessment for learning” being key components. Our
NLCs however, were still struggling with lack of differentiation and recognition that, as
principals, we were not identifying our problems of practice. Meetings were still taking the form
of “bring and brag” around the same concept. It was almost as if our problem of practice was our
problem of practice.
It was during one of our NLC meetings that we had a breakthrough. One of our colleagues was
discussing some of the actions she had recently undertaken with her staff with respect to teacher
feedback. During this discussion, it became apparent that her immediate and most urgent
problem of practice was not rooted in improving the instruction, a condition on the Rational
Path, rather it was a problem related to teacher beliefs about their students and their own sense of
efficacy, a problem largely on the Emotions Path. Her staff didn’t believe that all kids could
learn and did not believe they had the ability or responsibility to affect change.
The simple act of posing the question “If teacher efficacy/beliefs is the issue, why are you
focusing on feedback?” was transformative. As a group, we recognized that our first problem of
practice was not so much about developing solutions or strategies aimed at improving teacher
practice and/or student achievement, it was about asking the right questions. Why were we doing
what we’re doing? Were the strategies or variables chosen (our “solutions”) for attention actually
related to the problem to be solved?
This simple act of questioning set in motion some in-depth inquiry into effective questioning,
which had a profound effect on our leadership practices and our NLC. We developed a protocol
predicated on a series of questions, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Develop the question – what is the challenge?
Why that question? What’s the purpose of the focus?
Who are your learners and what are their learning needs?
Have you developed a Theory of Action (if … then … statement)?
What is your Success Criteria?
What evidence would contribute to meeting your Success Criteria and how do you
measure it?
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. London: Routledge.
46
This simple, yet not simplistic, set of questions helped guide our intentions and set in motion the
need for clear and defensible arguments as to why we do what we do. The development of our
own theories of action – a series of if … then statements – has focused our energies on selecting
for attention those conditions in our schools that have the greatest potential for helping us
accomplish our intended outcomes. This is an example of how LSA’s Theory of Action
influenced the nature of the work we undertook in our Network Learning Communities and the
schools they represent.
It is worth noting that, in addition to this “vignette,” or example of the impact the research from
LSA has had on the participants from DSBN, we then began to incorporate facets of the LSA
Theory of Action into our School Growth Planning. A number of schools are now making
specific reference to the Rational, Emotions, Organizational and Family Paths and selecting
variables on which to focus their improvement efforts. Combined with the research from John
Hattie, the components, indicators and evidence from the School Effectiveness Framework and
the Ontario Leadership Framework, we now have a substantial body of work to support and
guide us in setting direction for school growth.
47
10.
Parcours Fondamental d’une équipe de directions apprenantes
(English Translation in Appendix A)
Mario Bisson
Besoin de l’équipe de directions
Toutes les directions et directions adjointes des écoles élémentaires du conseil scolaire
font partie d’une équipe de directions apprenantes. Ces équipes ont l’opportunité d’échanger de
façon régulière, tout au long de l’année scolaire, sur des sujets pédagogiques et administratifs.
Entre autres, les équipes discutent des processus d’évaluation en place dans leurs écoles
respectives. Il est important que les directions et directions adjointes soient en mesure de
superviser l’évaluation des élèves en salle de classe en se basant sur les dernières recherches et
sur la nouvelle politique d’évaluation « Faire croître le succès » (FCLS). C’est ainsi qu’en étant
guidé par l’agente du rendement du ministère de l’Éducation, leses équipes de directions étudient
et font la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle politique d’évaluation.
Démarche
En compagnie de l’agente du rendement du ministère de l’Éducation, Lyne Racine, les
directions se sont rencontrées lors de quatressessions pour aborder les thématiques suivantes,
toujours dans le cadre de FCLS :
1.
Comprendre FCLS et discuter de sa mise en œuvre dans nos écoles
2.
Analyser les données et créer un profil d’école selon les trois types
d’évaluation;
3.
Planifier la prochaine étape;
4.
Partager des expériences de monitorage.
Lors de chacune des quatre sessions, les directions et directions adjointes ont partagé leur
expérience ce qui leur a permis d’apprendre de l’une et l’autre. À la fin de chacune des sessions,
les directions et directions adjointes, en collaboration avec l’agente déterminaient une tâche à
accomplir qu’elles devaient réaliser avec les membres de leur personnel enseignant lors de leur
retour à l’école afin de mettre en pratique les concepts figurants dans la nouvelle politique.
Session 1 : Comprendre FCLS et discuter de sa mise en œuvre dans nos écoles
Dès la première rencontre de l’équipe de directions apprenantes, les directions et
directions adjointes déterminent leurs normes de fonctionnement afin d’assurer un
fonctionnement efficace des rencontres. Par la suite, l’agente du rendement présente le principe
de la simplicité, c’est-à-dire que le changement doit être simple et un certain temps doit être
investi de façon régulière par la direction et les membres du personnel de l’école. De cette façon,
le changement sera effectué de façon durable. Les directions ont alors l’opportunité de discuter
48
des éléments nécessaires pour qu’un changement soit efficace et durable en se servant des
travaux de recherche de Michael Fullan comme toile de fonds.
Lors de cette première session, l’agente du rendement remet aux directions un tableau qui
comprend neuf critères qui représentent et décrivent les trois intentions d’évaluation. Plus tard
dans le processus, ce tableau servira à effectuer le monitorage auprès du personnel enseignant.
Les directions et directions adjointes prennent le temps d’étudier le tableau pour bien
comprendre les concepts qui s’y retrouvent, comme, par exemple, résultat d’apprentissage et
critères d’évaluation. Par la suite, les membres de l’équipe de directions apprenantes se servent
de leurs observations dans leurs écoles respectives pour indiquer le niveau de connaissance et de
compréhension de ces par les membres du personnel enseignant de leurs écoles.
Comme prochaine étape, les directions et directions adjointes doivent retourner dans leurs
écoles et se servir du tableau comme un sondage afin de déterminer de façon réelle le niveau de
connaissance et de compréhension des membres du personnel enseignant de l’école.
Session 2 : Analyser les données et créer un profil d’école selon les trois types d’évaluation
Les directions reviennent brièvement sur leurs discussions des trois différents types
d’évaluation: l’évaluation de l’apprentissage, l’évaluation en tant qu’apprentissage et
l’évaluation au service de l’apprentissage. Par la suite, avec l’appui de l’agente du rendement, les
directions analysent les données recueillies tout en faisant le lien avec ce qu’ils avaient fait lors
de la première session (qui était basé sur leurs observations).
Ensemble, les directions conviennent de s’attarder d’abord aux résultats d’apprentissage et aux
critères d’évaluation. Les directions déterminent alors, pour leur école, le ratio d’enseignantes et
d’enseignants qui connaissent et font la mise en application des résultats d’apprentissage et des
critères d’évaluation et ceux qui ne le font pas. Ce ratio leur permet ensuite d’établir une cible
pour augmenter le niveau de connaissances des membres du personnel.
À la lumière des échanges, les directions reconnaissent aussi qu’elles ne sont pas des expertes de
contenus. Les directions doivent avoir un portrait global de la situation et elles doivent se donner
une vision, une direction. Cette façon de faire permet aux directions d’harmoniser les pratiques
au sein du conseil scolaire, d’une école à l’autre, et aussi à l’intérieur de chaque école, d’une
classe à l’autre, en ce qui concerne l’évaluation. De plus, les échanges qu’ont les directions
entre-elles leur permettent d’ensuite aborder ces mêmes sujets afin de développer la capacité au
sein de leur école. Ces discussions m’ont permis de me sentir sécurisé dans le monitorage
pédagogique par rapport aux pratiques en évaluation des enseignantes et enseignants de mon
école.
49
Pour mon école, les résultats du sondage démontrent que les enseignantes et enseignants qui recevaient
de l’accompagnement du FARE avaient un pas d’avance par rapport à celles et ceux qui n’avaient pas
cet accompagnement. J’ai donc déterminé ma cible à partir du tableau de monitorage. Alors, pour
permettre aux enseignantes et enseignants qui avaient cet accompagnement de partager leur
apprentissage auprès des autres enseignantes et enseignants, j’ai créé des occasions (réunion du
personnel, journée pédagogique) pour faciliter ce partage. Cette démarche m’a permis d’harmoniser les
pratiques pédagogiques au sein de mon personnel.
Session 3 : Planification de la prochaine étape
De retour en rencontre CAP-directions, chaque direction présente ses et ses observations
(données) et partage ses interventions. De plus à partir des échanges avec les autres directions, je me
suis familiarisé avec d’autres approches et d’autres stratégies.
Lors de cette session ou rencontre, toujours avec l’appui de l’agente du rendement, les directions et
directions adjointes ont continué de travailler à partir du tableau qui avait été présenté à la première
rencontre. À partir des informations dans ce tableau, les membres de l’équipe de directions apprenantes
ont déterminé un plan de monitorage. Ceci m’a permis d’apprendre à me servir d’un tableau pour
planifier et effectuer le monitorage auprès de mon personnel enseignant.
Le tableau en question comprenait les parties suivantes:
•
•
•
•
•
Le résultat d’apprentissage
Les critères d’évaluation observables et mesurables
Cibler les enseignantes et enseignants pour qui je dois faire du monitorage
Déterminer les actions que je vais prendre pour déterminer si le résultat d’apprentissage est
atteint
Déterminer le moment où je vais faire le monitorage et comment je vais le faire.
Lors du partage, j’ai continué mon apprentissage au sujet des trois intentions d’évaluation tout en
augmentant ma crédibilité auprès des enseignantes et enseignants.
Session 4 : Partage des expériences de monitorage
Lors de notre dernière rencontre, nous avons, partagé nos expériences de monitorage. Nous
avons aussi discuté de l’atteinte ou non de notre cible 4 (que nous avions établie au tout début. Ensuite,
nous avons déterminé quelles seraient les prochaines étapes à prendre afin de mettre en place des
situations gagnantes pour le personnel enseignant qui aurait pour effet d’améliorer le rendement des
élèves puisque c’est ça le but de nos interventions comme directions et directions adjointes.
L’utilisation du tableau de monitorage m’a permis d’avoir une meilleure connaissance des besoins des
enseignantes et enseignants de mon école par rapport au résultat d’apprentissage et aux critères
d’évaluation.
4
Déterminer le ratio d’enseignantes et d’enseignants qui connaissent et font la mise en application des résultats
d’apprentissage et des critères d’évaluation.)
50
J’ai utilisé ce que j’ai appris au sujet des enseignantes et des enseignants afin de mieux les « coacher »
ou les appuyer avec leur enseignement. De plus, cette approche leur a permis d’établir leurs objectifs
professionnels au niveau de leur PAP pour la prochaine année scolaire. Nos discussions en générale
nous ont amenés à avoir une discussion au sujet des commentaires qu’on retrouve dans les bulletins et
comment les commentaires sont en lien avec les critères d’évaluation coconstruits avec les élèves dans
un langage clair et précis. Les commentaires contenus dans les bulletins écrits de cette façon étaient plus
clairs pour l’élève et les parents. C’est ce que nous avons constaté. Les critères d’évaluations atteints
représentaient une force tandis que ceux qui n’étaient pas atteints représentaient les prochains défis, les
prochaines étapes.
Pour moi comme leader pédagogique, une prochaine étape sera d’améliorer le monitorage dans mon
école en utilisant différents outils pour effectuer un monitorage efficace dans le but d’améliorer le
rendement de mes élèves. Le processus vécu, le Parcours fondamental d’apprentissage des leaders, peutêtre répété chaque année au niveau de mon école. Je réalise que le Parcours que j’ai vécu en tant que
direction avec mes collègues se compare étroitement à celui que l’enseignante ou l’enseignant vit avec
ses collègues lors d’une CAP, communauté d’apprentissage professionnelle. Une autre prochaine étape
sera de vérifier et/ou de comparer les données bulletins pour un même groupe afin de déterminer l’effet
du Parcours.
51
11.
Leadership partagé interconseil
(English Translation in Appendix A)
Sylvie Léveillé
Il n’est pas évident d’établir une vision pédagogique incluant tous les membres de l’organisation
scolaire et qui a comme intention d’augmenter le rendement académique en écriture pour un groupe
d’élèves ciblés. Notre conseil scolaire a mis en place un projet pilote en littératie cette année, qui a eu
comme but d’établir des équipes de collaboration incluant tous les niveaux de l’organisation scolaire
afin d’avoir une même vision en ce qui a trait à la littératie et l’amélioration du rendement académique
des élèves en écriture dans nos écoles. Vingt et une écoles élémentaires des trois régions de notre conseil
scolaire ayant différents effectifs d’élèves ont participé à la mise en œuvre du projet ciblant, en
particulier, les élèves de la 6e année. Notre équipe collaborative a consisté d’un agent de supervision, de
notre chef de services pédagogiques, de trois conseillères pédagogiques en littératie (une par région), des
directions d’école, des leads en littératie de chaque école ainsi que des titulaires de 6e année.
Nous voulions offrir à toute l’équipe des orientations partagées face à l’amélioration du rendement
académique des élèves et un soutien de l'ensemble du conseil scolaire pour le personnel scolaire quant
aux nouvelles initiatives du Ministère en littératie en mettant en œuvre des parcours et des carrefours
pédagogiques. Dans ma région, nous avons aussi élaboré un outil de monitorage destiné aux directions
d’école qui a permis à celles-ci de collaborer avec le personnel scolaire soit en CAP ou en rencontres
informelles pendant la mise en œuvre des parcours. Les résultats d’apprentissage et les critères
d’évaluation pour l’outil de monitorage ont été établis par tous les gens autour de la table, afin de nous
permettre comme direction d’école de faire une meilleure rétroaction descriptive avec le personnel
impliqué au projet suite à chaque parcours. Le but de l’outil était de permettre à tous les gens impliqués
d’avoir une voix face à cette nouvelle initiative et de développer leur leadership pédagogique.
La mise en œuvre du projet s’est fait sur une période de six mois et a consisté de quatre parcours
d’environ quatre à cinq semaines chacun. Nous avons commencéle tout avec une rencontre régionale
pour établir les paramètres du premier parcours et partager l’information pertinente pour la mise en
œuvre des carrefours à suivre. Les critères d’évaluations face aux évaluations formatives et sommatives
ont été élaborés en groupe afin d’assurer une constance lors de la mise en œuvre des tâches proposées.
Chaque rencontre nous a aussi permis de construire des grilles d’évaluation et de rétroaction et de faire
notre planification à rebours. Ceci nous a permis d’avoir des données fiables, nous permettant par la
suite de bien mesurer le succès de notre projet.
Lors de nos carrefours, plusieurs pratiques efficaces ont contribué à améliorer le rendement des
élèves dans le domaine de l’écriture :
•
Assigner des tâches pour démontrer l’apprentissage : à la suite de nos rencontres, les
enseignants présentent une tâche diagnostique aux élèves. À la fin de quatre semaines, les élèves
52
•
•
•
•
•
doivent faire une tâche finale pour démontrer l’apprentissage qu’il y a eu lieu pendant les quatre
semaines.
L’utilisation de l’évaluation au service de l’apprentissage afin d’orienter l’enseignement :
chaque rencontre commence avec l’analyse des données recueillies dans les semaines qui
précèdent la rencontre.
Fournir régulièrement une rétroaction utile et constructive : des grilles de rétroaction sont
fournies aux membres du personnel enseignant pour faciliter la rétroaction descriptive aux
élèves, la rétroaction par les pairs ainsi que l’autoévaluation.
Capsules de formation : elles ont permis de présenter les initiatives de EDU et du conseil
scolaire tout en offrant des miniformations adaptées aux besoins de chaque groupe. Par exemple,
grammaire nouvelle (DDA-Démarche dynamique d’apprentissage, manipulations linguistiques),
évaluation au service et en tant qu’apprentissage, stratégies en écriture, utilisation de la
technologie, l’enseignement explicite pour l’étape de la correction et la révision.
Exploitation des ressources présentent en salle de classe : Curriculum de français, Faire
croître le succès, Si on parlait grammaire nouvelle, Le référentiel grammatical du CFORP, Guide
d’enseignement efficace en littératie (fascicules 4, 5, 6, 7), Moi, lire? Et Comment?, Ma trousse
d’écriture 6e.
Présentation de matériel didactique : centres d’activités, sites Web, jeu La course aux trésors,
Grammaire de base de Suzanne Chartrand, Grammaire de Sophie Trudeau et Marie Nadeau,
Web émissions, Monographies no 15, no 20, no6.
«Selon le rapport final/ conseillères pédagogiques CSCDGR, juin 2012 »
Dans mon école, l’enseignante de salle de classe et la lead en littératie ont collaboré en faisant du
coenseignement et de l’appui aux élèves afin de bien mettre en action les stratégies, les résultats
d’apprentissage et les critères d’évaluation que nous avions ciblés ensemble. Les tâches pédagogiques
avaient été préparées par l’équipe pédagogique ce qui fût très apprécié par le personnel enseignant. Le
matériel était convivial et facile à utiliser ce qui a aidé à la motivation des élèves face à ces nouveaux
travaux scolaires. L’enseignante n’avait qu’à faire la mise en œuvre des activités proposées. Chaque
parcours de quatre à cinq semaines a été monitoré par la direction dans le cadre des communautés
d’apprentissage professionnelles - CAP, des conversations pédagogiques avec les enseignantes
impliquées et des visites de classe déterminées à l’avance avec le personnel enseignant. Nous avions
aussi rassuré le personnel enseignant que le plan de monitorage n’était pas un outil d’évaluation, mais
bien un outil de collaboration et de partages pédagogiques ayant un même résultat, celui de
l’amélioration du rendement des élèves impliqués.
À la suite de la mise en œuvre de notre projet, voici quelques commentaires et constats de la part
du personnel impliqué.
53
Commentaires généraux
•
•
•
•
•
•
Les DDA sont excellentes! Ça donne une idée (ou des idées) comment organiser/gérer la
présentation des stratégies.
J’ai beaucoup apprécié le matériel reçu lors des carrefours, très profitable.
Les activités sont pertinentes aux apprentissages et aux buts ciblés. Je me sens plus confiante
avec les étapes de correction.
À mon avis, le carrefour devrait s’échelonner sur une plus longue période de temps. Ainsi, le
travail serait moins intense et nous aurions plus de temps pour enseigner d’autres concepts
pendant le bloc de littératie.
Un peu plus de temps entre les rencontres pour accomplir toutes les leçons et les tâches
demandées. On apprécie beaucoup recevoir le matériel qui est tout préparé à l’avance.
Ce fut agréable et très enrichissant. Un plus pour ma salle de classe.
Quels ont été nos défis face au carrefour?
•
•
•
Le temps entre les carrefours pour mettre en œuvre les activités.
La gestion des blocs de temps (écriture) à l’intérieur de mon cours de littératie.
Je mettais beaucoup d’emphase sur les stratégies que nous travaillons et en effet, certaines
matières secondaires ont été négligées.
J’ai eu et j’apprécie:
•
•
•
•
J’apprécie commencer avec une tâche diagnostique et qu’à la fin de quatre semaines, les élèves
doivent faire une tâche finale. Il est plus facile de voir le progrès des apprentissages qu’il y a eu
lieu lors des quatre semaines. De plus, nous pouvions utiliser la tâche finale pour nous permettre
d’évaluer nos élèves de façon sommative. Aussi, nous avions le temps de nous calibrer et
corriger les tâches finales en groupe (appui).
Le matériel, les tableaux d’activités, les grilles de pour la rétroaction, les banques d’activités, tel
que les leçons sur ActivInspire qu’on peut intégrer dans nos classes dès notre retour en salle de
classe.
Avoir la chance de faire de la planification à rebours.
Le modelage en salle de classe de la DDA, de l’écriture à quatre cases, du modèle en T de Anne
Davis.
En résumé
Tout d’abord, les résultats à la suite de nos évaluations pré et post carrefours démontrent que le
rendement des élèves a augmenté dans chacune des régions. Nous avons atteint nos objectifs SMART
dans trois des quatre carrefours. Pour le résultat du conseil scolaire, nous avions prévu une augmentation
de 20% et nous avons eu une augmentation de 26%. Nous avons dépassé notre objectif SMART. Les
résultats sont similaires dans mon école.
De plus, nous pouvons dire que nous avons apporté un changement de pratique chez nos élèves en plus
d’augmenter leur rendement en révision et en correction. Tout en ayant accru la capacité de nos
participantEs et participants, nous avons observé un changement de culture face à l’évaluation, la
54
grammaire nouvelle et les stratégies d’enseignement. Le format et le contenu des rencontres ont
contribué à ces changements.
En conclusion, la cueillette de données, les pratiques réflexives sur nos pratiques pédagogiques, les
stratégies choisies à partir des données et le partage du leadership de l’organisation scolaire sont les
éléments clés du succès du carrefour.
55
12.
Projet pilote de l’enquête collaborative de l’apprentissage
des mathématiques à l’intermédiaire
(English Translation in Appendix A)
Grégoire Lefebvre
Le conseil scolaire catholique Franco-Nord participe au projet de l’enquête collaborative de
l’apprentissage des mathématiques de l’Unité de la littératie et de la numératie (ULN) au cycle primaire
et par la suite au cycle moyen il y a déjà quelques années. Nous avons constaté, suite à l’implantation de
l’enquête, des améliorations aux résultats du testing provincial pour les regroupements d’élèves des
enseignantes et enseignants qui prient part au processus. Plus important encore, des nouvelles
compétences et connaissances conceptuelles en numératie furent développées par les enseignantes et
enseignants participants à l’enquête. Ce dernier, par sa nature, génère une pratique réflexive de sa
pédagogie qui nous a permis d’identifier l’importance des questions bien formulées ainsi qu’une
sensibilisation à faire parler les élèves lors d’échanges mathématiques et faire moins de papier crayon.
Nous tenions donc comme conseil à implanter le processus de l’enquête collaborative au cycle
intermédiaire afin d’améliorer le rendement de nos élèves au TPM en plus d’accroître la capacité de nos
enseignant.es en numératie. Le projet proposé ciblait individuellement et à tour de rôle l’une de nos trois
communautés scolaires afin de leur faire vivre le processus de l’enquête aux cycles intermédiaire et
secondaire. Le projet regroupait l’école secondaire de la communauté et ses écoles nourricières. Le
premier processus regroupait trois écoles élémentaires et son école secondaire située dans la
communauté de Sturgeon Falls. La deuxième enquête eu lieu à Mattawa et comprenait deux écoles
élémentaires et une école secondaire. La troisième enquête comprenait les écoles de North Bay dont
l’école secondaire et trois écoles élémentaires. À la suite d’une analyse de nos résultats au TPM, nous
avions choisi de cibler dans notre enquête le domaine des relations. L’analyse des résultats fut une
composante du processus de l’enquête. Tous les enseignantes et enseignants particpants au projet furent
sensibilisés aux améliorations nécessaires grâce à cette analyse des résultats. Historiquement, cette
sensibilisation fut strictement partagée avec les enseignant.es du secondaire.
La raison derrière la demande du projet pilote
J’ai eu le plaisir en tant que leader du Cadre d’efficacité de prendre part à une enquête
collaborative au cycle moyen en début d’année scolaire 2011. Les bienfaits du processus étaient
évidents. Le personnel enseignant est devenu davantage habileté dans des stratégies qui favorisent
l’enseignement des mathématiques particulièrement l’enseignement par la résolution de problèmes, la
planification à rebours, les échanges mathématiques, le calibrage et l’art de poser les bonnes questions.
Ces stratégies favorisant à l’apprentissage, il était donc évident pour moi comme direction du
secondaire et comme leader du cadre d’efficacité au moment que les mêmes dividendes pouvaient avoir
lieu aux cycles intermédiaire et secondaire si nous devions former les enseignantes et enseignants dans
le processus de l’enquête. De plus, le processus exigeait des échanges de données entre les écoles
nourricières et le secondaire de la communauté.
56
Depuis trois ans à l’École secondaire catholique Algonquin (ESCA), les enseignantes et enseignants des
écoles nourricières et les enseignantes et enseignants de mathématiques de la 9e année se rencontrent sur
une base régulière afin de calibrer les approches et entamer des discussions pédagogiques en vue
d’améliorer le rendement de nos élèves au TPM. Par contre, il manquait une structure aux rencontres,
avec des objectifs clairs et précis. Voilà que l’enquête collaborative, approche qui a fait ses preuves à
l’élémentaire vient répondre aux besoins du personnel enseignant et touche également plusieurs des
éléments du Cadre de leadership. De plus, il existait déjà dans cette communauté scolaire une ouverture
aux échanges interécoles ainsi qu’interpaliers. Le moment était opportun!
Cette même culture n’était pas évidente dans les deux autres communautés du conseil scolaire. Celles-ci
ressemblaient plutôt à ce qu’étaient les rencontres de l’ÉSCA avant le changement à des rencontres
interpaliers, interécoles. De plus, il existait, comme dans la grande majorité des écoles secondaires, une
certaine culture de vouloir s’isoler à l’intérieur de sa salle de classe et d’éviter les discussions et les
partages pédagogiques. Nous avions tellement à apprendre à l’intermédiaire et au secondaire du palier
élémentaire.
L’objectif immédiat du projet
L’objectif immédiat et premier fut d’entamer à l’intermédiaire et plus particulièrement au
secondaire le processus de l’enquête collaborative; un processus qui ferait comprendre au personnel
enseignant l’importance de l’évaluation diagnostique, l’importance des questions bien construites et
l’importance de faire parler les élèves, de même que de vivre le calibrage des tâches d’élèves,
l’élaboration d’une programmation d’après les besoins des élèves ainsi que les bienfaits pédagogiques
des échanges intercollègues. De plus, nous cherchions à accroître la capacité du personnel enseignant en
mathématiques en développant des communautés d’apprentissage interécoles et interniveaux. Autant
que nous avions débuté la mise en œuvre des CAP, nous en étions loin de ce qu’elles devraient être. De
plus, il existait déjà un certain climat de confiance vis-à-vis la collaboration entre les enseignantes et
enseignants des communautés du conseil scolaire. Le personnel des écoles témoigne ouvertement des
avantages. De plus, nous cherchions à mettre sur pied dans nos écoles une certaine philosophie dans la
nature d’une recherche action avec l’objectif d’améliorer le rendement des élèves au TPM,
particulièrement les élèves de la voie appliquée. Nous cherchions à implanter une philosophie
pédagogique qui préconiserait qu’on évalue constamment les progrès des élèves afin de modifier
l’enseignement selon les besoins! Tout un changement de paradigme.
Historiquement, le conseil scolaire semblait hésitant à vouloir financer de tels projets faute des
divergences de philosophies dans nos trois communautés scolaires. J’ai dû financer la suppléance des
enseignantes et enseignants de nos écoles nourricières du budget de l’École secondaire catholique
Algonquin. Le conseil scolaire semble à présent prêt à s’embarquer dans des projets aux cycles
intermédiaire et secondaire.
L’expérience du projet
Il existe à présent une ouverture d’esprit des enseignantes et enseignants des cycles intermédiaire
et secondaire, à un point tel que des projets de cette nature ont une place importante dans l’amélioration
du rendement des élèves, même que les changements dans les approches et dans les philosophies sont
permanents. Le personnel de l’intermédiaire et du secondaire ont présentement une soif d’apprendre de
57
nouvelles stratégies afin d’améliorer le rendement des élèves. Plusieurs discussions de partage en
découlent.
L’enquête a su faire valoir l’importance et la force de l’équipe versus le membre du personnel
enseignant autonome et unique. Les enseignantes et enseignants veulent partager leurs succès et surtout
questionner dans le but d’améliorer là où il semble y avoir des défis. Il est donc très important qu’on
facilite, comme direction, les échanges interpaliers afin qu’on puisse tous comprendre d’où provient
l’élève et surtout où il s’en va!
L’enquête a permis à tous les participants de bien comprendre l’ensemble du domaine dont nous avons
travaillé ensemble. Les enseignantes et enseignants du secondaire ont pu partager avec le personnel
enseignant de l’intermédiaire leurs observations des lacunes dans les habiletés des élèves. Nous avons
pu même informellement produire un alignement des apprentissages essentiels!
Le projet nous a permis de constater à deux reprises l’importance de bien formuler nos questions. Nous
avons tendance comme enseignant à formuler les questions d’après nos expériences et nos perceptions.
Ce n’est que lorsqu’on écoute les élèves discuter entre eux de leur perception de la signification de la
question qu’on comprend qu’il existe très souvent diverses interprétations de la question. Nous avons
donc été, comme conseil scolaire, très sensibilisé au défi de la formulation de la question. Nous faisons
souvent référence à l’importance de valider la signification de nos questions.
Le projet nous a permis de constater qu’il existe malheureusement encore des perceptions chez certains
membres du personnel enseignant comme quoi les habiletés d’apprentissage de nos élèves sont statiques
et que même certains élèves ne veulent pas apprendre! Comme direction, on doit consacrer davantage
nos énergies à changer ces fausses perceptions. On cite souvent que l’élève réussit d’après NOS
habiletés comme pédagogue!
Chez-nous à l’Algonquin, deux autres départements ont demandé de prendre part au projet l’an
prochain. La grande majorité des membres du personnel sont donc convaincu et voulant de participer à
l’enquête. Ils voient que le transfert se fait très facilement d’une matière à l’autre. Ils comprennent
l’importance de faire des changements à leur enseignement. « Change must comme from within » Fullan
Les indicateurs observables et mesurables de réussite du projet
• La fréquence et la qualité des échanges pédagogiques inter-écoles et inter-niveaux;
• L’harmonisation des pratiques réussies d’après les besoins et le profil des cohortes. Les
discussions/échanges/CAP interécoles assureront une meilleure harmonisation de nos pratiques.
Le personnel étant conscientisé de cet objectif cherchera davantage à discuter des
pratiques/stratégies réussies;
58
• L’augmentation des capacités du personnel au niveau de l’évaluation au service de l’apprentissage.
Par observation et par inspection, il devient évident que le personnel respecte la politique en
évaluation. Dans la même philosophie de l’harmonisation, la conscientisation du personnel à
l’objectif accroît l’importance qu’il y consacre;
• L’augmentation dans la réussite des élèves au TPM;
• Le progrès des élèves ciblés, particulièrement les élèves du niveau 2, faute d’interventions
personnalisées. Nous formaliserons le processus des profils des élèves qui seront partagés d’une
année à l’autre entre les membres du personnel enseignant. Chaque participant aura donc comme
objectif de faire progresser les élèves d’un niveau à l’autre!
Un petit budget pour les fonds demandés
Nous avons dépensé moins de 15 000 $ pour l’ensemble des trois enquêtes à l’intermédiaire dans
notre conseil scolaire. Ceci comprend les coûts des consultants, les coûts de déplacements des
participants, la suppléance et le repas. C’est un projet qui pourrait se financer par les budgets d’école!
Le nombre d’enseignantes et d’enseignants impliqués.
Nous avions 14 participants lors de la première enquête collaborative dont Émilie Johnson
(consultante), Serge Demers (consultant), Denise Lefebvre (conseillère pédagogique en mathématiques),
Mario Lapierre (accompagnateur en numératie), Grégoire Lefebvre (Leader du cadre d’efficacité) et 10
membres du personnel.
La deuxième enquête collaborative regroupera quatre membres du personnel de la communauté de
Mattawa. La troisième enquête regroupera huit membres du personnel de la communauté de North Bay.
59
5- Calendrier des rencontres
Écoles de l’ouest
25 nov
première rencontre
analyse des données et de
l’alignement des attentes au
niveau intermédiaire
10 janvier
Deuxième rencontre
Construction des résultats
d’apprentissage, d’une
évaluation diagnostique,
d’une programmation,
évaluations formatives et de
l’évaluation sommative
mi-février
Troisième rencontre
Retour sur les résultats
d’apprentissage et les
résultats de l’évaluation
diagnostique et la
programmation. Discussion
CAP pour fin
d’interventions et stratégies
ciblés
Mars
Quatrième rencontre
Retour et analyse sur les
résultats de l’évaluation
sommative.
Mise en commun et
évaluation des
apprentissages et de la
planification
Écoles de l’est
19 janvier
Première rencontre
analyse des données et de
l’alignement des attentes au
niveau intermédiaire
Février
Deuxième rencontre
Construction des résultats
d’apprentissage, d’une
évaluation diagnostique,
d’une programmation,
évaluations formatives et de
l’évaluation sommative
Mars
Troisième rencontre
Retour sur les résultats
d’apprentissage et les
résultats de l’évaluation
diagnostique et la
programmation. Discussion
CAP pour fin
d’interventions et stratégies
ciblés
Avril
Quatrième rencontre
Retour et analyse sur les
résultats de l’évaluation
sommative.
Mise en commun et
évaluation des
apprentissages et de la
planification
Écoles du centre
Janvier/Février
Première rencontre
analyse des données et de
l’alignement des attentes au
niveau intermédiaire
Février
Deuxième rencontre
Construction des résultats
d’apprentissage, d’une
évaluation diagnostique,
d’une programmation,
évaluations formatives et de
l’évaluation sommative
Mars/avril
Troisième rencontre
Retour sur les résultats
d’apprentissage et les
résultats de l’évaluation
diagnostique et la
programmation. Discussion
CAP pour fin
d’interventions et stratégies
ciblés
Avril/mai
Quatrième rencontre
Retour et analyse sur les
résultats de l’évaluation
sommative.
Mise en commun et
évaluation des
apprentissages et de la
planification
Rapport final des améliorations et l’atteinte des objectifs
Un rapport final pour chacune des communautés faisant valoir les forces et les points à améliorer de
chacune des enquêtes collaboratives fut déposé à la table pédagogique et remis à EDU. Un rapport
financier fut également remis au Ministère pour la subvention accordée.
60
Les résultats
En ce moment, nous attendons toujours les résultats de nos élèves au TPM. Par contre, je suis en mesure
de témoigner que l’enquête a su apporter des changements de comportements chez les enseignants qui y
ont pris part. Il existe à présent, au salon du personnel, davantage des discussions pédagogiques! De
plus, l’évaluation diagnostique a trouvé sa place au secondaire. On s’éloigne de vouloir enseigner un
programme et plutôt enseigner selon les besoins des élèves. Le tout complémente davantage
l’enseignement différencié! L’enquête fait à présent partie de notre culture. Nous sommes confiants qu’il
aura plusieurs dividendes à venir grâce aux diverses facettes du processus de l’enquête dont
particulièrement les échanges pédagogiques.
61
13.
The Scholars Community Program: Illustrating LSA’s Theory of Action
and the Ontario Leadership Framework in Practice in One District
Joanna Crapsi Cascioli 5
I am one of the original members of the team that developed the Scholars Community Program
in the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB), and also the principal of one of the
schools (Prince of Wales Elementary School) that has implemented this program. In this paper, I draw
on this experience to clarify how the Scholars Community Program was developed and the process of
early implementation. I also draw on my experience as the principal in one of the schools that
implemented the program to demonstrate the power of the program “on the ground.” Throughout this
account, I point to concepts from both LSA’s Theory of Action and the Ontario Leadership Framework
(OLF) that helped guide the effort, and explain what was done. HWDSB’s Scholars Community
Program is one that has evolved over time and has engaged leadership and vision from a variety of
sources.
From the original vision building, to the relationships, team building and networking, to building
capacity and measuring its impact, the Scholars Community Program has involved collaborative
leadership every step of the way. The journey is one of inspiration, innovation, collaboration, reaching
out to community, accountability and spread. It offers a strong promise of support to our highest-needs
students and their families and suggests continued hope for more students and families in the future.
Scholars Community builds on the work of Dr. Kenneth Leithwood, specifically the Theory of Action,
developed for the LSA project.
Through alignment of the four paths of leadership influence outlined in LSA’s Theory of Action
(Rational, Emotions, Organizational and Family), the Scholars Community Program has enhanced
student learning with targeted academic support, and promoted student engagement with the inclusion of
a parent engagement component. Organizationally, the program builds the capacities of students,
teachers and parents in a way that has made a positive contribution to student success. The program
provides an example of how the successful leadership practices outlined in the OLF assist in further
developing conditions in schools, such as those identified in LSA’s Theory of Action, that are keys to
student success.
Inspiration Achieved By Setting Directions through the Collective Efficacy Variable on the
Emotions Path
This story begins with a Superintendent undertaking the challenge of moving forward the
achievement of students in a group of high-needs schools. HWDSB Superintendent Pat Rocco, mindful
of the limitations that academic failure places on students and families in his district, embarked on a trip
New York, to visit a number of the city’s A-list schools situated in challenging communities, in search
5
Vice-principal of Prince of Wales Elementary School and Administrator of After-School Scholars Program, HamiltonWentworth District School Board
62
of ways to move his own students forward. What he discovered there became the kernel of inspiration,
which later blossomed into a board-wide initiative to support students in need of academic assistance.
HWDSB staff then visited these New York City schools that held “A” ratings, according to the
requirements set out by the City of New York and their respective Boards of Education. In meetings
with school administration at each of these schools, one common element was identified as crucial – the
length of time students spent in school enhancing their academic capabilities. Many students were in
school until 5 p.m., working on mandated after-school programming provided by the school with
existing qualified teaching staff. Furthermore, staff knew these students well and therefore had already
established the rapport and trusting relationships necessary for enhanced learning.
The after-school component in these New York schools was a targeted and focused academic program
aimed at improving students’ literacy and numeracy skills. They were not “play-based” after-school
programs, but truly academic programs taught by qualified teachers and were making demonstrable
improvements. Attendance at these programs was a non-issue; parents supported the programs, and
families received dinner at the conclusion of their childrens’ academic classes.
Bringing a suitable version of the New York approach to HWDSB required some innovation and
creativity, however. What would be the mission of the program, how would selection of schools be
handled, how could we secure the funding to support this model, who should be involved – all were
crucial decisions for successful implementation. The district was just emerging from intensive provincial
and district interventions aimed at turning around under-performing schools, many of which were also
high-needs schools. The After-School Scholars Program would be driven by a slightly different vision,
but with the same goal in mind – improving student achievement.
Building the Organization and Relationships by Achieving Efficacy through the Organizational
Path
The mission of the HWDSB Scholars Program is driven by the belief that schools know their
students best and should be supported in targeting student achievement. The structure of the Scholars
Program creates an authentic Professional Learning Network, providing opportunities for teachers to
collaborate, while framing all interactions within a climate of “high trust.” The Scholars Program is
organized so that schools receive centralized co-ordination; for example, funding, training of instructors
and provision of support and resources. However, schools are left in control of decisions such as hiring
instructors, allocating the 30 hours of after-school academic support and building engagement for their
After-School Scholars. The strength of the program lies in the achievement of this fine balance between
support and empowerment – the alignment of the organizational path and the emotions path. This
collaboration and shared leadership ensures that the program is targeted and strategic, but still
responsive. It was this flexibility which allowed the After-School Scholars Program to develop into the
Scholars Community Program to enhance parent engagement for high-needs students, based on specific,
identified needs: for example, at Prince of Wales Elementary School.
Leading the Instructional Program through Collaboration by Connecting the Rational Path and
Emotions Path
Initially, as the Program Consultant for the district, I was called upon to join Pat Rocco and his
team, which included personnel with experience in summer literacy programming and Continuing
Education. Each of our areas of expertise helped launch the program. I was able to support the training
63
of instructors and the provision of resources so that the after-school programs could offer a targeted
approach to literacy instruction, using methods that would successfully align the program with the work
of the district, as well as the capacities measured by EQAO tests. Together, we looked at student
achievement data to determine schools that would qualify for the program. Pat Rocco accessed budget
dollars innovatively to support the initiative. Schools were advised to seek out instructors who were
literacy experts, who knew the students and who could develop positive relationships.
Of particular importance to the success of the After-School Scholars Program was a collaborative
approach to decision-making about how to implement the program in each participating school, an
approach which took into account individual school needs and circumstances. One result of this
approach was expansion of the program into grades beyond the base grade 3 and grade 6 focus of the
program. Schools used individual school data to target grades or areas of focus. Some schools, for
example, extended their focus to numeracy, or focused on a specific aspect of literacy.
With the common goal for the project, well-established schools (those which increased student
achievement through targeted academic support) were trusted to select areas of focus based on their
school needs. It was from this responsive approach that the birth of the After-School Scholars
Community Program emerged. As a high-needs school with specific challenges in the area of parent
engagement, Prince of Wales Elementary School embraced the opportunity to expand its After-School
Scholars Program to include a parent component which mirrored its open and responsive approach.
Building Relationship by Reaching out to Parents and Community – The Family Path
The 2010–2011 school year marked the expansion of the Scholars Program to include parents in
the Scholars Community Program at Prince of Wales Elementary School. In my new roles as viceprincipal, and administrator of the After-School Scholars Program, I continued to play a role in
expanding the Program’s vision to include this important parental engagement component. In the pilot
phase, parents received their own parent group time while students received literacy instruction. Parents
generated their own topics of interest within the themes of Social Connections, Health and Wellness
Connections, Academic Connections, Safety Connections, and Community Connections. At the
conclusion of each evening, parents and their children came together to share dinner, which promoted a
strong sense of community. Expansion of the Scholars Community Program was about reaching out to
engage parents in achieving student success. The Family Path identified in LSA’s Theory of Action
stresses the importance of engaging the educational culture of students’ families. This culture has
significant consequences for students’ educational and vocational aspirations, retention in school and
learning. Family educational cultures also influence the amount and nature of “social capital” that
students bring to school, and have the potential to assist their learning.
http://resources.curriculum.org/LSA/files/LSATheoryofAction.pdf
According to Dr. Leithwood, examples of consequential variables on the Family Path include parental
expectation, parent role models, connections with other adults, and space and time in the home for
school-related work. LSA’s Theory of Action calls for leaders to understand student learning as “coproduced” by families and schools. The Scholars Community Program endeavours to engage parents in
ways that positively impact these variables and interact with family culture to shape school responses to
family needs. Making personal contact with parents, connecting the initiative to student programming
within the school, matching activities to the skills and needs of parents, and providing opportunities for
64
the parents to network with each other created meaningful connections between my school and my
students’ homes.
Securing Accountability
During the period 2010–2012, the program grew from approximately 20 schools to 74 schools as
the board opened the program to the district as an added support. During the 2011–2012 school year,
more than 159 teachers participated in targeted and strategic training aimed at building the capacity of
teachers in such areas as data informed instruction, differentiated instruction, student engagement, use of
technology and collaborative networking to support teacher efficacy.
Student achievement data continues to show growth for students involved in the program. Ebest,
HWDSB’s research department, has partnered with the program to monitor future progress. More
specifically, in 2011, the first year of the Scholars Community Program at Prince of Wales, parent
attendance was consistently 50% of the student scholars’ parents. In 2012, the program increased from
consistently engaging 10 parents to 15 parents.
Parents’ feedback, after only a few sessions of the 2010–2011 Scholars Community Program at Prince
of Wales, included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
I like the dinner and childcare component – makes it easier for me to attend
my kids are happy that their parents are coming and look forward to it
what I’ve learned is that I can say no (reference to building resilient children session)
each topic we have touched on, I take at least one thing away and it has helped
sometimes we can use the information to help a friend
gaining knowledge has been good, the examples are real.
In 2011–2012, parents reported similar learning:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I have kids of all ages and it has helped me to understand each level of each child by meeting
other parents and getting their input
learning about bullying really helped me to help my child when she was being harassed on
Facebook
I signed my kids up at Kiwanis after hearing about the presentation from Mr. Geyer
it helped me to help my kids when the teachers came to talk about how to help our kids at home
with their homework and explain that how kids learn has changed
learning about “Brain Gym,” calming kids down exercises, now I do it with them
receiving all the flyers of what is available in the community … I don’t think we would know
about these programs if we didn’t have Scholars
it keeps me moving and coming into the school
the dental assistance was awesome – getting affordable dental care
I liked going to the conference, now using the “love languages” at home
a great idea to organize a community clean up
it’s nice to have dinner together a couple of nights a week
I’m starting to volunteer in the school one hour per week
I have begun networking with other parents – setting play dates after the program ends
I got ideas and strategies to help our kids with reading
65
•
it helped bring us closer – we have learned together.
In 2011–2012, the Scholars Community Program expanded to a second school, W.H. Ballard, and was
facilitated by the administration there. Similar to the Prince of Wales program, Ballard has a consistent
attendance rate of 50% of student scholars’ parents – sometimes more. Parents reported:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a stronger connection between school, home and principal along with an increase in
communication between the groups
one parent commented that her daughter did not want to come to the program until she heard her
mother was coming for the parent group
the session with the math facilitator was very helpful because parents were able to ask guiding
questions at home and provide necessary support
there was an increase in parental confidence when supporting their child with homework
parents found the Parent Conference very informative and questioned why other parents did not
attend, believing it to be a great opportunity
parents appreciated the healthy meals
found community organizations helpful to develop a connection to their community
a parent with a child with a rare disorder wants to set up a similar support group for other parents
with children with the same condition; before the project, this parent was disengaged and had
little trust with the school, but by the end of the program he was a regular contributor to
discussions
parents and children began to take more responsibility for the meal, cleaning dishes, serving food
and setting tables.
By far the most powerful data is in the form of the impact statements collected at the end of the program
from the parents involved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHl59vNdvzU
Spread
The Scholars Community Program continues to evolve and spread. Spread has included a
parental engagement component to Prince of Wales’ CAMP POWER, a summer program that serves its
high-needs grade 2 students. Principal Janet VanDuzen added the parental engagement component for
parents who were drawn from other neighbourhood schools to participate in the summer program.
Attendance and feedback was equally strong.
In 2011–2012 Prince of Wales expanded its parent engagement initiatives to target not just the grade 2
and grade 5 parents, but also the grade 3 and grade 6 After-School Scholars’ parents. Teacher Karen
Must launched a monthly Parent Coffee House, in collaboration with the public health nurse, which
offers engagement opportunities for parents of all students, not just those involved in After-School
Scholars. It follows the same structure of parent-generated inquiries, and topics explored include healthy
baking, dental health, student summer programs and opportunities for their own continuing education. In
response to needs expressed by parents, there is the potential to offer courses to parents. In 2012 the
After-School Scholars Community parents and the Coffee House parents merged to plan a Community
Clean-Up Day to “give back” to the school and community that have supported them.
Spread has also included the sharing of our learning outside of our system. Scholars Program leaders
have participated in board and Ministry conferences and have met with other boards to share our
66
process, structures and learning – never with an eye to replication, always with an eye to innovation – in
an effort to be responsive to student needs, whatever and wherever that may be. It is this flexibility and
openness that is necessary to be responsive. It cannot be captured in a handbook, video or formula. It
requires open and honest communication, collaboration and networking … think talk … risk-taking …
and trust.
Looking Ahead
The road ahead continues to honor the original philosophy of the After-School Scholars
Program, which endeavours to balance support and empowerment, by aligning all aspects of leadership
as described in both the OLF and the LSA Theory of Action. We must continue to work within a
structure (Organizational Path) to build our organizations by supporting teacher development (Rational
Path), build relationships with teachers, students and parents through efficacy (Emotions Path) and
parent engagement (Family Path). Our structures and our processes must continue to recognize, build on
and take full advantage of the expertise both inside and outside of our buildings. By mobilizing the
knowledge in our system and providing the supports to strategically and powerfully target student
achievement, we have the ability to align the four paths to fulfill the promise of support to our highestneeds students and their families.
67
Appendix A
The following three stories are translated from the French stories on pages 48-61
Learning Critical Pathways of a Principal Learning Team
Mario Bisson
Needs of Principal Teams
Each and every elementary school principal and vice-principal in the board is part of a Principal
Learning Team. These teams discuss educational and administrative issues on a regular basis throughout
the school year. More specifically, they discuss their respective schools’ evaluation processes. It is
essential that school principals and vice-principals be able to supervise classroom student evaluations
based on the most recent research as well as the new Growing Success assessment policy. Thus, with the
guidance of the Education Ministry’s achievement officer, these teams are studying and implementing
the new assessment policy.
Approach
Accompanied by Lyne Racine, the Ministry’s achievement officer, school principals gathered over the
course of four sessions to discuss the following themes, all within the framework of Growing Success:
5.
6.
7.
8.
Understanding Growing Success and its implementation in our schools;
Analysing data and creating a school profile based on the three types of assessment;
Planning next steps;
Sharing monitoring experiences.
During these four sessions, principals and vice-principals shared their experiences, which allowed them
to learn from one another. At the end of each session, principals and vice-principals were asked, in
cooperation with the achievement officer, to design tasks they would do with members of their teaching
staff upon returning to their schools in order to implement the concepts found in the new policy.
Session 1: Understanding Growing Success and its implementation in our schools
At the first meeting of the Principal Learning Team, principals and vice-principals determined their
standards of performance to ensure the meetings would be run efficiently. The achievement officer then
introduced the simplicity principle, which states that changes must be simple and that the principal and
staff members must regularly invest a certain amount of time. This will ensure the changes are
sustainable. Principals were then afforded the opportunity to discuss the necessary components for a
change to be effective and sustainable, using Michael Fullan’s research as a backdrop.
68
During this first session, the achievement officer gave principals a table containing nine criteria that
represented and described the three assessment intentions. Further along in the process, this table will
help in monitoring the teaching staff. Principals and vice-principals took the time to study the table and
properly understand the concepts therein, such as learning outcomes and assessment criteria. Team
members then used the observations they made in their respective schools to determine the level of
knowledge and understanding of these concepts of their staff.
As a next step, principals and vice-principals will use the table as a survey to determine, in real terms,
the level of knowledge and understanding of their teachers.
Session 2: Analyzing data and creating a school profile based on the three types of assessment
Principals then briefly discussed the three types of assessment: assessment of learning, assessment as
learning and assessment for learning. Then, with the help of the achievement officer, they analyzed the
data collected, keeping in mind what they had done in the first session (which was based on their
observations).
As a group, principals agreed to first look at learning outcomes and assessment criteria. They
determined the ratio of teachers in their schools who know and apply these tools, and were then able to
set targets for increasing that level of knowledge.
Through their discussions, principals also acknowledged the fact that they are not content experts. They
need to see the big picture and establish a vision and direction. This will allow them to harmonize
assessment practices at the school board level (from school to school), and within schools (from
classroom to classroom). These discussions also allowed principals to address these same issues to build
the capacity of their schools. This reassured me in monitoring the assessment practices of my teaching
staff.
Survey results for my school showed that teachers who benefited from the Formation du personnel à
l'amélioration de la réussite scolaire des élèves (FARE) had a head start over those who did not. So I set
my target based on the monitoring table and proceeded to create opportunities (staff meetings, PD days)
for the teachers receiving this support to share their experiences. I was thus able to harmonize my staff’s
educational practices.
Session 3: Planning the next step
Back in the PLC-Principal meetings, each principal shared their observations (data) and interventions.
Through my discussions with other principals, I was exposed to other approaches and strategies.
Throughout this session, and with the continued support of the achievement officer, principals and viceprincipals continued to work from the table presented at the first session. Based on the information from
this table, Principal Learning Team members established a monitoring plan, which showed me how to
use a table to plan and perform teacher monitoring.
69
The table contained the following information:
• Learning outcomes;
• Observable and quantifiable assessment criteria;
• Teachers who were to be monitored;
• Measures to be taken to determine if learning outcomes have been reached;
• Time when monitoring was to take place and the chosen approach.
During this sharing, I continued learning about the three assessment intentions while increasing my
credibility with my teachers.
Session 4: Sharing monitoring experiences
During our last meeting, we shared our various monitoring experiences. We also discussed whether we
had reached the objectives 6 we had established at the outset. We then determined the next steps needed
to create the favourable conditions that would allow teachers to improve students’ achievement level,
that being the sole purpose of our interventions as principals and vice-principals.
The monitoring table allowed me to better understand the needs of my teachers regarding learning
outcomes and assessment criteria.
I used what I learned about teachers to better coach and support them. This approach also helped them
set their career objectives for the following school year’s School Improvement Plan (SIP). Our
discussions led us to address report card comments and their link to the clear and precise assessment
criteria established in cooperation with the students. We realized that comments written in this way were
clearer for students and parents. The assessment criteria that had been reached represented strengths,
while those that had not constituted the next challenges – the next steps.
As an educational leader, one of my next steps will be to improve the effectiveness of monitoring in my
school, using various tools in order to improve my students’ achievement level. Once the process has
been experienced, the Teaching-Learning Critical Pathways can be repeated every year in my school. I
understand that the Pathway I experienced with my colleagues as a principal closely resembles the one
teachers go through in a Professional Learning Community (PLC). Something else I will be doing is
determining and comparing report card data for a given group to assess the impact of the Pathway.
6
Determine the ratio of teachers who know and apply learning outcomes and assessment criteria.
70
Shared Inter-school Leadership
Sylvie Léveillé
It’s not easy to establish an educational vision inclusive of all members of the educational organization
and intended to increase the achievement level in writing for a given group of students. This year, our
school board has implemented a literacy pilot project with teams from all levels of the organization
tasked with setting a common vision of literacy and with improving the achievement level of our schools
in writing. Twenty one elementary schools, with various student bodies from our board’s three regions,
participated in the implementation of this project aimed specifically at grade 6 students. Our team
consisted of one Supervisory Officer, the director of educational services, three educational consultants
(one per region), school principals, the literacy leads from each school as well as some grade 6
homeroom teachers.
We wanted to offer the team common direction with respect to the improvement of the educational
achievement levels of students, as well as board support for staff regarding new Ministry literacy
initiatives by implementing educational pathways and hubs. My region also developed a monitoring tool
for school principals, which has allowed them to cooperate with school staff, either as part of a
Professional Learning Community or through informal meetings during the implementation of
pathways. The learning outcomes and assessment criteria of this monitoring tool were jointly set by all
those at the table in order to help us, as school principals, offer better descriptive feedback to project
staff after each pathway. The tool was designed to help those involved be heard with respect to this new
initiative and develop their educational leadership.
The project’s implementation was carried out over a period of six months and consisted of four
pathways of four to five weeks each. First came a regional meeting to establish the parameters of the
first pathways and to share relevant information for the implementation of the subsequent hubs. The
assessment criteria for formative and summative assessments were developed as a group so as to ensure
consistency in applying the proposed tasks. Each meeting also helped us to construct assessment and
feedback grids and to perform backward planning. We were thus able to obtain reliable data to properly
assess our project’s success.
During the hubs, several effective practices contributed to improving student achievement levels
in writing:
•
Assigning tasks to demonstrate learning: after our meetings, teachers gave their students a
diagnostic task. After four weeks, the students were required to perform one last task to demonstrate
the learning that had taken place over those four weeks.
•
Using assessment for learning to guide teaching: each meeting began with an analysis of the data
collected over the preceding weeks.
•
Provide regular, useful and constructive feedback: assessment grids were provided to the
teaching staff in order to facilitate descriptive feedback, peer feedback and self-assessment.
71
•
Information modules: these allowed for the presentation of Ministry of Education and board
initiatives, while providing mini training sessions tailored to the needs of each group. For example,
new grammar (DDA-Démarche dynamique d'apprentissage, linguistic manipulations), assessment
for and as learning, writing strategies, use of technology, explicit instruction for the correction and
review phase.
•
Use of classroom resources: French curriculum, Growing Success, Si on parlait grammaire
nouvelle, Le référentiel grammatical du CFORP, A Guide to Effective Instruction in Literacy (issues
4, 5, 6 and 7), Moi, lire? Et Comment? Ma trousse d’écriture 6e.
•
Presentation of educational material: activity centres, websites, La course au trésors game,
Grammaire de base by Suzanne Chartrand, Grammaire by Sophie Trudeau and Marie Nadeau,
webcasts, monographs nos 6, 15 and 20.
Excerpt from the CSCDGR’s educational consultant’s final report, June 2012
In my school, the homeroom teacher and literacy lead cooperated in co-teaching and student support
activities in order to implement the strategies, learning outcomes and assessment criteria that were
identified together. Educational tasks had been prepared in advance by the Educator Team, a fact that
was very much appreciated by teachers. The material was user-friendly, which helped with student
motivation. All that the teacher was required to do was to carry out the proposed activities. Each four- or
five-week pathway was monitored by the principal as part of the Professional Learning Communities
and during conversations with teachers and prearranged classroom visits. We had also reassured teachers
that the monitoring plan was not an assessment tool, but rather one of cooperation and instructional
exchange with the same result, the improvement of student achievement levels.
Comments and findings by staff following implementation of the project
•
•
•
•
•
•
DDAs are excellent! They offer good ideas on how best to organize and manage the presentation of
strategies.
I really appreciated the material I received during the hub, very useful.
The activities are relevant to the learning and the goals. I feel more confident with the correction
steps.
The hub should extend over a longer period. That way the work would be less intensive and we
could teach more concepts during the time allotted to literacy.
More time between meetings to do all the lessons and tasks required. We truly appreciate receiving
the material prepared in advance.
It was fun and meaningful. A definite plus for my classroom.
72
What were the challenges concerning the hub?
•
•
•
Time between hubs to implement activities.
Management of blocks of time (writing) during the literacy course.
I put a lot of emphasis on the strategies we were working on, which resulted in the fact that other
secondary issues were neglected.
Things I appreciated:
•
•
•
•
I appreciate starting with a diagnostic task and finishing four weeks later with the students doing a
final task. It’s easier to see the learning progress that has taken place during those four weeks. We
could also use that final task to assess students summatively. We also had the time to gauge and
adjust final tasks as a group (support).
The material—activity tables, feedback grids, idea banks, such as the lessons on ActivInspire—can
be integrated as soon as we get back to class.
Getting to do backward planning.
Classroom modeling of the DDA, and of Anne Davis’ T Model.
Summary
First, the results of pre- and post-hub assessments show that student achievement levels increased in
every region. We reached our SMART objectives in three of the four hubs. For the school board as a
whole, we had predicted a 20% increase and obtained 26%. For this we surpassed our SMART
objective. Results were similar in my school.
Furthermore, we can honestly say that we have changed our students’ practices, in addition to increasing
their achievement level in correction and revision. There has been a cultural shift with respect to
assessments, new grammar and teaching strategies, as well as an increase in participants’ capabilities.
The format and content of our meetings contributed to these changes. In conclusion, data collection,
reflective practices of educational practices, strategies based on said data and the sharing of the
organization’s leadership role are key elements of the success of the hub.
73
Collaborative Inquiry for Learning – Mathematics at the Intermediate Level –
Pilot Project
Grégoire Lefebvre
Several years ago, the Conseil scolaire catholique Franco-Nord participated in the Collaborative Inquiry
for Learning – Mathematics, of the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat at the primary and then
intermediate level. Following implementation of the Inquiry, we noticed certain improvements in
provincial testing results for students of the teachers who had taken part in the process. More
importantly, those teachers seemed to have acquired new conceptual skills and knowledge in numeracy.
This fact triggered a reflective practice of teaching methods, which helped us to identify the importance
of well-crafted questions and of having students speak during exchanges on mathematics, rather than
sticking with pencil and paper.
As a school board, we wanted to implement the collaborative inquiry process at the intermediate level in
order to improve our students’ achievement levels on the PMT as well as our teachers’ capabilities in
numeracy. The proposed project was aimed at our three educational communities, individually and on an
alternating basis, and was designed to allow them to experience the inquiry process at the intermediate
and senior levels. It included the community’s secondary school as well as its feeder schools. The first
process included three elementary schools and the secondary school in Sturgeon Falls; the second, in
Mattawa included two elementary schools and one secondary school; the third, in North Bay, included
the secondary school and three elementary schools. Following an analysis of PMT results, we had
decided that our inquiry would target relationships. This analysis was part of the inquiry process and
allowed us to make the participating teachers aware of the improvements that were needed. Historically,
this awareness raising had only been shared with secondary school teachers.
Project request
As leader of the Effectiveness Framework, it was my pleasure to take part in a collaborative inquiry at
the junior level during the 2011 school year. The benefits of such an exercise were obvious. The
teaching staff became that much more adept at strategies favouring the teaching of mathematics,
particularly those dealing with teaching through problem solving, backward planning, sharing,
benchmarking and the art of asking probing questions. These strategies encouraged learning. It was
obvious to me, as a secondary school principal and leader of the Effectiveness Framework, that these
same benefits could be obtained at the intermediate and senior levels if teachers were trained in the
inquiry process. This process required that information be exchanged between feeder schools and the
community’s secondary school.
74
For three years, the École secondaire catholique Algonquin’s (ESCA) feeder school teachers and grade 9
math teachers have been meeting on a regular basis in order to harmonize their approaches and discuss
educational issues in an effort to improve our students’ achievement levels on the PMT. These meetings,
however, lacked structure and clear and precise objectives. Enter the collaborative inquiry, which has
been proven at the junior level and is able to meet the needs of teachers in this respect and also touches
on several of the elements of the Leadership Framework. The community was already open to the idea
of inter-school and cross-panel exchanges. The time was right!
This same culture was not as evident in the school board’s other two communities. They were stuck with
the model of meeting the ESCA had had prior to switching to cross-panel and inter-school meetings.
There was also, as is the case in most secondary schools, a certain isolationism within the classroom and
a desire to avoid discussing educational issues. The junior level had so much to teach the intermediate
and senior levels.
Immediate objective
The immediate and primary objective of the project was to implement the collaborative inquiry process
at the intermediate and senior levels, but more so at the senior level. This process would show teachers
the importance of diagnostic assessments, of well-crafted questions, of having students speak, of
experiencing the benchmarking of students’ tasks, the development of programming geared to the needs
of students and the educational benefits of exchanges with colleagues. We were also trying to build
teacher capacity in mathematics by establishing inter-school and cross-panel learning communities.
Though we had put much effort into establishing these Professional Learning Communities, we were far
from where we should have been. Also, there already existed a certain climate of trust, with cooperation
between teachers of the school board’s communities. Staff at the schools openly talk about the benefits.
We were also trying to give our schools a certain philosophy of action research with the objective of
improving students’ PMO achievement levels, particularly those in the applied stream. We wanted to
implement an educational philosophy that would require us to constantly assess students’ progress and
adjust teachings accordingly. Quite a paradigm shift!
Historically, the school board has been hesitant to finance such projects because of the diverging
philosophies of the three educational communities. Supply teachers for our feeder schools had to be
financed through the budget of École secondaire catholique Algonquin. The board now seems ready to
proceed with projects at the intermediate and senior levels.
75
The project
There now seems to be an openness on the part of intermediate and senior level teachers, to the point
that projects of this nature now play an important role in improving students’ achievement levels, and
the changes to approaches and philosophies are permanent. Staff at the intermediate and senior levels are
now asking to learn new strategies for improving achievement levels. Talk of sharing has resulted.
The inquiry has highlighted the importance and strength of the team versus the lone member of the
teaching staff. Teachers want to share their success and challenge the status quo in order to make
improvements where they seem necessary. And so it is very important, in our role as principals, to
facilitate cross-panel sharing to understand where students are coming from, and where they’re going!
The inquiry has helped participants understand the field in which they worked together. Secondary
teachers were able to share with their intermediate colleagues the gaps they have identified in students’
skills. We were even able to informally harmonize essential learning!
The project helped us to realize the importance of well-crafted questions in two ways. As teachers, our
experiences and perceptions tend to colour the way we formulate our questions. When we listen to
students talking about their perceptions, however, we understand that very often several interpretations
of the question exist. As a school board, we have been sensitized to the challenge of formulating
questions. We often refer to the importance of validating the significance of our questions.
The project has also allowed us to see that some staff members, unfortunately, still believe that the
learning abilities of our students are static and that some don’t want to learn! As principals, we must
devote our energies to making sure these false perceptions change. It is often said that students succeed
based on OUR abilities as educators!
At Algonquin, two other departments have asked to take part in next year’s project. The vast majority of
staff members are convinced and wish to participate. They realize that the transfer between subjects is
quite easy, and they understand the importance of changing the way they teach. “Change must come
from within” — Michael Fullan.
Observable and measurable indicators of success
•
•
•
The frequency and quality of inter-school and cross-panel instructional exchanges;
The harmonization of successful practices based on the needs and profiles of the various cohorts.
Inter-school discussions, exchanges and PLCs will ensure a better harmonization of practices. Staff,
being more aware of this objective, will want to further discuss successful practices and strategies;
Increased staff capacity in the field of assessment for learning. It becomes apparent, through
observation and inspection that the staff respects the assessment policy. Following the harmonization
philosophy, the more staff members are made aware of the objective, the more importance they will
ascribe to it.
76
•
•
The increased success of students on the PMT;
The progress of targeted students, particularly level 2 students, without one-on-one intervention. We
will formalize the process of creating student profiles that will be shared year after year by teachers.
Each participant will thus be tasked with ensuring students’ progress from one level to the next!
Small budget
We spent less than $15,000 for all three inquiries at the intermediate level in our board. This included
the cost of consultants, participant travel, supply teachers and meals. It could easily be financed through
school budgets!
Number of teacher participants
There were 14 participants in the first collaborative inquiry, including Émilie Johnson (consultant),
Serge Demers (consultant), Denise Lefebvre (educational consultant in mathematics), Mario Lapierre
(numeracy coach), Grégoire Lefebvre (Effectiveness Framework leader) and 10 staff members. The
second collaborative inquiry will include four staff members from Mattawa, and the third inquiry will
include eight staff from North Bay.
77
6- Meeting schedule
West
November 25
First meeting
Data and expectation
alignment analysis at the
intermediate level
January 10
Second meeting
Development of learning
outcomes, of a diagnostic
assessment, of formative
assessments and of the
summative assessment
Mid-February
Third meeting
Review of the learning
outcomes, diagnostic
assessment results and
programming.
Discussion within PLC on end
of interventions and targeted
strategies.
March
Fourth meeting
Review and analysis of
summative assessment results.
Sharing and assessment of
learning and planning
activities.
East
January 19
First meeting
Data and expectation
alignment analysis at the
intermediate level
February
Second meeting
Development of learning
outcomes, of a diagnostic
assessment, of formative
assessments and of the
summative assessment
March
Third meeting
Review of the learning
outcomes, diagnostic
assessment results and
programming.
Discussion within PLC on end
of interventions and targeted
strategies.
April
Fourth meeting
Review and analysis of
summative assessment results.
Sharing and assessment of
learning and planning
activities.
Centre
January/February
First meeting
Data and expectation
alignment analysis at the
intermediate level
February
Second meeting
Development of learning
outcomes, of a diagnostic
assessment, of formative
assessments and of the
summative assessment
March/April
Third meeting
Review of the learning
outcomes, diagnostic
assessment results and
programming.
Discussion within PLC on end
of interventions and targeted
strategies.
April/May
Fourth meeting
Review and analysis of
summative assessment results.
Sharing and assessment of
learning and planning
activities.
Final report on improvements and objective attainment
A final report on the strengths and opportunities for improvement in the collaborative inquiry of
each community was presented at the educational table and provided to EDU. A financial report
on the subsidy was also provided to the Ministry.
Results
At the present time, we are still waiting on our students’ results on the PMT. However, I can
state that the inquiry produced some behavioural changes in the teachers who took part in it. The
teachers’ lounge is now the site of more instructional exchanges than before! Diagnostic
assessments have also found a foothold at the secondary level. We are moving away from
teaching a given program and towards teaching according to the students' needs, which better
complements differentiating instruction! The inquiry is now part of our culture. We are confident
78
that the many aspects of the inquiry process will have many positive benefits, including, in
particular, instructional exchanges.
79
The Leading Student Achievement: Networks for Learning project would
gratefully like to acknowledge Dr. Kenneth Leithwood for his contributions to
this LSA resource by coaching the authors, collecting the stories, and editing
the “real stories” of LSA participants gathered in this booklet.
As well, LSA offers many thanks to the authors who committed their time and
shared their stories so graciously in the service of “leading student
achievement.”
Le projet Diriger la réussite des élèves : des réseaux d’apprentissage (DRÉ) veut
reconnaître les contributions du Dr Ken Leithwood à cette ressource de DRÉ.
Entre autres, il a offert de l’appui aux auteurs des textes, a compilé les histoires
vécues et a fait l’édition des « histoires vécues » des participantes et participants
de DRÉ rassemblées dans ce document.
De plus, DRÉ tient à remercier les auteurs qui ont donné de leur temps pour
partager leurs « histoires » de façon si généreuse
au service de la réussite des élèves.
80
Leading Student Achievement: Networks for Learning is a project developed and led by l’
association des directions et directions adjointes des écoles franco-ontariennes (ADFO), the
Catholic Principals’ Council of Ontario (CPCO) and the Ontario Principals’ Council (OPC), in
partnership and funded by the Student Achievement Division, Ministry of Education, and
supported by Curriculum Services Canada (CSC). Dr. Ken Leithwood is the project researcher
and evaluator.
For further information:
Website: www.curriculum.org Click on Leading Student Achievement.
LSA Web Network (NING): http://lsanetwork.ning.com (Eng)
http://reseautagedre.ning.com (Fr)
LSA Coordinators:
ADFO: Gisèle Neil [email protected]
CPCO: Mary Cordeiro [email protected]
OPC: Linda Massey [email protected]
81