Review of School Effectiveness(ROSE)Cudworth School

Review of School Effectiveness(ROSE)Cudworth School

October 4, 2016

Table of Contents

Section 1

Acknowledgementspage 1
Horizon Review of School Effectiveness (ROSE) Modelpage 2
Horizon Review of School Effectiveness (ROSE) Purposepage 4
Horizon Review of School Effectiveness (ROSE) Processpage 5
The School Effectiveness Correlatespage 6

Cudworth School Review of School Effectiveness Reportpage 7
Procedures and Data Collectionpage 9
Data Analysis and Presentationpage 14
Section 2

Safe and Orderly Environmentpage 15
Climate of High Expectations for Successpage 18
Instructional Leadership page 21
Clear and Focused Missionpage 23
Opportunity to Learn and Student Time on Taskpage 26
Opportunity to Learn and Student Time on Task (Literacy Practices)page 28
Frequent Monitoring of Student Progresspage 30
Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress (Assessment Practices)page 32
Home-School Relationspage 35
Section 3

Major Themes and Priorities for Action page 38
Synergypage 41
Contemplationspage 41
Concluding Commentspage 42

Several Horizon School Division professional staff assisted in the Review of School Effectiveness (ROSE) process at Cudworth School, on October 4, 2016. This important process for continued school improvement was initiated and authorized by Kevin C. Garinger, Director of Education and CEO for Horizon School Division, and supported by the Board of Education. The ROSE team appreciated that the review operated in an independent manner, and was open and inclusive. This process illustrates the importance the Horizon Board and its Director place on continued growth and effectiveness of all schools across the Horizon School Division.
Horizon School Division believes that the effectiveness of a school, can be seen as a support to school planning. The Cudworth School staff appreciated the commitment that the process was nonjudgmental, open, and inclusive.

Lindsay Perry, principal, was a key player in authorizing the collection of data from parents/caregivers, students, and staff.Lindsayworked with the ROSE team leader, Crandall Hrynkiw, to provide the requested school documents. Lindsayis to be commended for his support during the ROSE process. He demonstrated professional regard, integrity, enthusiasm, and objectivity.

The staff of Cudworth School contributed time and insight about practices and pedagogy through individual Curriculum and Instruction/Assessment (CI/A) interviews and electronic survey completion. Their reflective thoughts and perceptions provided valuable information in understanding the school, its culture, and how it operates.

Parents/Caregivers, students, and staff took advantage of the opportunity to provide their perceptions of the school. Their approach was very open, honest, and direct.

MuchappreciationisextendedtoCrandallHrynkiw,SuperintendentofLearningServices,JasonNeville, SupervisorofStudentServices,andJanB.Paproski,CoordinatorofLearningServices,fortheireffortsin collatingthedata,andcompilingthisreportandtheinformationcontainedtherein.

This model for an effective, student-focused school system is based on the research of Dr. Lawrence W. (Larry) Lezotte where he identifies the conditions that correlate to a school’s effectiveness (the 7 Correlates of Effective Schools).

The following stakeholders’ roles are implicit to the process:

Board of Education

• Elected every four years;
• Conducts annual self-evaluations to ensure that they are meeting the needs stakeholders;
• Supports a centralized system of resources for all schools;
• Approves budgetary resources based on needs.

Director of Education

• Honours the Board’s vision, mission, and values;
• Ensures a system-­‐wide culture of high expectations and accountability;
• Ensures ongoing improvement through such areas as systematic and school improvement planning, implementation of administrative procedures, and Review of School Effectiveness (ROSE);
• Literacy, assessment for learning, and safe and caring school environments are long term priorities for student success;
• Ensures personnel and services are in place to support principals and teachers.

Principals

Must demonstrate professional practice competency in these areas:

• Fostering effective relationships;
• Embodying visionary leadership;
• Leading a learningcommittee;
• Providing instructional leadership;
• Developing and facilitating leadership;
• Managing school operation and resources;
• Understanding and responding to the larger social context.

Teachers

• Acknowledged, in the school, as having the single most impact onstudent learning;
• Supported through mentorship, coaching, professional development, and collaborative time;
• Fosters high expectations for individual student learning.

Students

• The system exists to support each student to achieve the highest level of success possible.

Parents/Caregivers

• The first educator;
• Crucial partners with the school in the education of students;
• Supports the school through the SCC and volunteerism.

A Review of School Effectiveness provides feedback and information to assist in future school planning. As the ROSE process is appreciative in approach, classroom observations, interviews, focus group discussions, and surveys gather data on a wide variety of programs and initiatives that enhance student learning. The ROSE process is designed to provide information regarding the quality of education and gives a picture of the school as perceived by students, parents/caregivers/SCC members, and staff.
The underlying assumptions of the ROSE process are:

1.Regardless of how effective or how good a school is, it canimprove.

2.Staff members are committed to continual professional growth.

3.Stakeholders support improvement andgrowth.

4.Staff should lead the school improvement process under the direction of the principal.

Specifically, the purpose of the ROSE process is to:

1.Celebrate the successes of theschool.

2.Provide a picture of the school, as perceived by the variousstakeholder groups.

3.Identify areas in which the school is performingwell.

4.Identify areas in which the school can improve.

5.Enhance the collaborative efforts of schoolstakeholders.

6.Provide information to be used in planning for thefuture.

At the outset, the ROSE Team, comprised of the principal, vice-principal, (where applicable), central office personnel, and visiting principals/vice-principals, are asked to provide rich data to extend collaborative planning for the future of the school. Perceptions of students, parents/caregivers/SCC members, and staff are included to inform the ROSE process. Other school data which is reviewed by the ROSE team includes, but, is not limited to: school community council meeting minutes, staff meeting minutes, names of external organizations which support the school, school newsletters, school website, school mission and vision, and current school Learning Improvement Plan (LIP).

The Review of School Effectiveness (ROSE) process has been introducedto review the effectiveness of schools within Horizon. The Appreciative Inquiry approach is the foundationof the ROSE process.Appreciative Inquiry is the search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them. In its broadest focus, it involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a system when it is most effective.

The ROSE process gathers school data related to the Seven Correlates of Effective Schools (Lezotte): Safe and Orderly Environment, Climate of High Expectations for Success, Instructional Leadership, Clear and Focused Mission, Opportunity to Learn and Student Time on Task, Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress, Home-School Relations. Embedded within these seven correlates are Assessment and Literacy.

Schools have the ability to improve and make informed decisions, using data to identify trends, direct learning improvement planning, inform professional practice, andallocate resources. School staff own the data and is charged with its interpretation. Further, all stakeholders need to be part of the ROSE process, as they also influence and support the direction of the school.

The purpose of the ROSE processis two-­‐fold:

• To gather data along school effectiveness correlates and organize it into a report that is ultimately presented to the Director and Board of Educationand the school staff. It is shared with parents/caregivers/SCC members. The reportisthen used to guide the school’s Learning Improvement Plan (LIP).
  
• The ROSE process is designed to provide professional development opportunities for visiting principals, vice-principals,and central office personnel.

The premise for the ROSE process is based on The 7 Correlates of Effective Schools(Lawrence W. Lezotte, 1997)

1. Safe and Orderly Environment

The effective school has a positive, purposeful, businesslike environment, which is free from the threat of physical and emotional harm. Desirable student behaviors are consistently articulated and expectations are clear. Students and teachers help each other and want what is best for all. This environment nurtures interaction between principals/vice-principals, teachers, and students that is collaborative, cooperative, and learner-centered.

2.Climate of High Expectations forSuccess

The effective school holds high expectations for all---students, parents/caregivers/SCC members, teachers, staff, and principals/vice-principals. In order to meet these high expectations, a school is restructured to be an institution designed for "learning", not "instruction". Learning for all, opens the door to the continued learning of the educators, as well as the students.

3.Instructionalleadership

The effective school practices that the principal is the "leader of leaders", not the "leaders of followers". A principal cannot be the only leader in a complex organization, like a school. The leadership function becomes one of creating a "community of shared values". The principal and all staff members must take an active role in instructional leadership.

4.Clear and FocusedMission

The effective school has a clearly articulated mission. The staff shares an understanding and commitment to the mission and instructional goals, priorities, and assessment procedures it projects. The staff accepts responsibility and accountability for promoting and achieving the mission of learning for all.

5.Opportunity to Learn and Student Time onTask

The effective school allocates and protects a significant amount of time for instruction of the essential curricular areas. The instruction must take place in an integrated, interdisciplinary curriculum. Effective instruction time must focus on skills and curriculum content that are considered essential.

6.Frequent Monitoring of StudentProgress

The effective school frequently measures academic student progress through a variety of assessment procedures. The monitoring of student learning will emphasize moreauthentic assessments of curriculum mastery. Assessment results are used to improve individual student performance and also improve instructional delivery. Assessment results will show that alignment must exist between the intended, taught, and tested curricula.

7.Home-­‐School Relations

The relationship between parents/caregivers and the school must be an authentic partnership between the school and the home. The effective school must build enough trust and communication to realize that teachers and parents/caregivers have the same goal and effective school and home for all children.

The ROSE process is designed to look at the total operation of the school with the purpose of highlighting areas of strength and those areas requiring further attention by the school and its community. There is no intention to evaluate any individuals through this process.

Cudworth SchoolStaff

Lindsay Perry – Principal - 1 period of Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 3 Physical Education
Raelene Dyke –(employed 0.50 FTE) Kindergarten

Katelyn Templeton - Grade 1
Paige Bautz - Grade 2 (mat leave for Shelene Hoffman)

Trina Pasloski - Grade 3

Lisa Bauml - Grade 4

Carla Medernach – (employed 0.75 FTE) - Grade5/6 homeroom – Grade 5/6 ELA, Health, and Science,
Grade 9 ELA, Grade 11 History

Lisa Schwark - Grade 7 homeroom - Grade 7 ELA and Health, Grade 9 Math, Grade 10 and 11 ELA,

andGrade 11 Visual Art

Maureen Vossen - Grade12 homeroom – Grade 7 Social Studiesand Art, Grade 8 ELA,
Grade 10Accounting, Grade 12 ELA and History

Lorena Sosnowski - Grade11 homeroom – Gr. 5/6 Math and Art, Grade 7 Computers,
Grade 7/8/9 PAA, Grade 8/9 Art, Grade10 Math, Grade11/12 Pre-Calculus

Brent Stewart– Grade 10 homeroom - Gr. 2, 4, 5/6, 7, 8/9, and 11/12 Physical Education,
Grade 7 Science, Grade8/9 Health, Grade 7/8/9 Practical and Applied Arts,
Grade 10 Industrial Arts and Wellness

Melanie Macpherson - Grade 8/9 homeroom - Grade 8 Math, Grade 8/9 Science, Grade10 Science,
Grade 11 Physical Science 20, Gr.11/12 Health Science 20, Grade 12 Work
Experience

Rod Dignean - 60% LRT, Grade 5/6 Social Studies, Grade7 Math, and Grade 8/9 Social Studies

Glenda Ireland - Secretary

Audrey van der Gracht - Librarian

Lucy Miskolczi - Educational Assistant

Sharon Jungwirth - Educational Assistant

Sonia Miskolczi - Custodian
Sheldon Doetzel - Custodian

School Community Council Members

Chairperson/Teacher - Brent Stewart

Secretary/Treasurer - Melanie Goller

Student Representatives - Raelyn Guenther, Madison Palchinski

Community Member - Ida-Rose Wilde

Other Members - Leah Palchinksi, Reigan Gampe, Carol Ireland, and Sheldon Doetzel
Principal - Lindsay Perry

Division Board Trustee - Dave Holinaty

Visiting Principals:

Carol Baade, Imperial School

Jeff Stroeder, Lanigan Central High School

Janice Fansher, Lanigan Elementary School

Dennis Gerwing, Muenster School

Central Office Personnel:
Kevin Garinger, Director of Education/CEO
Crandall Hrynkiw, Superintendent of Learning Services

Jason Neville, Supervisor of Student Services
Katherine Oviatt, Supervisor of Literacy and Early Learning Services
Darrell Paproski, Superintendent of Student Services
Jan B. Paproski, Coordinator of Learning Services

The following procedures were used to gather information for the ROSE process (listed and described below).

Preliminary Site Visit

On Monday, September 19, 2016, an initial meeting was held with the Cudworth School staff, (following a Collaboration Day), to explain and discuss the ROSE process---the focus, philosophy, Dr. Lezotte’s Effective School Correlates, Appreciative Inquiry, Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) model, expectations, and timelines of the ROSE process.Methods for collecting data from students, parents/caregivers/SCC members, and staff were also discussed at this time.

ROSE Site Visit
In order to obtain an understanding of the operation of Cudworth School, the ROSE team members, met at Cudworth School, prior to 8:00 am, on October 4, 2016. Lindsay shared his perspective about the school, and what made it unique. Following that, the ROSE team had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the facility.

Throughout the day, ROSE Team members completed classroom observations, interviewed teaching staff in regard to Curriculum and Instruction/Assessment, and conducted Focus Group interviews with the students and support staff.

During the evening of October 4, members of the ROSE Team met with thirty-one parents/caregivers/SCC members to explain the rationale for the ROSE process and to conduct a Focus Group session.
Classroom Observations
Classroom observations are a major part of the ROSE process. Visiting principals and Horizon central office personnel collected data using the TESA model, a non-evaluative tool that gathers information on three types of positive interactions between classroom teachers and their students. These three areas are defined as:Response Opportunities, Feedback, and Personal Regard.

Classroom visits were approximately thirty minutes in length, which was enough time for the observer to get an impression of the classroom climate and instruction. Horizon School Division’s “ROSE Classroom Observation Tool”, was the form used by observers in the classroom. This form provided detailed information gathered during classroom visits.

Each classroom was visited a minimum of two times by different ROSE Team members. After each classroom visit was completed, the ROSE Classroom Observation Tool, was put into a file folder, in the meeting room. At the end of the school day, a photocopy was made for the ROSE leader, and the original documentation was given to the classroom teacher. The photocopy was used in the writing of this ROSE report.

Curriculum and Instruction Interviews

In addition to classroom observations, the ROSE Team leader conducted Curriculum and Instruction/Assessment (CI/A) Interviews with teachers. During the interview, the responses of the teacher were recorded verbatim, by a member of the ROSE Team. Questions for the CI/AInterviews were sent to Lindsay, to be distributed to the teachers, the week prior to the ROSE process. Teachers were invited to bring their copy of the questions/answers to the interview. Upon exiting, they left their responses with the ROSE Team leader.

Focus Groups

Focus Groups are open discussions that members of the ROSE Team have with numerous groups in the school. These discussions take place with students, support staff, and parents/caregivers/SCC members. The Director of Education led the discussion regarding the established questions. Responses were recorded verbatim, and used in the writing of this report.

Electronic Surveys

Electronic surveys are an integral part of the ROSE process. Principal, Lindsay Perry sent the link for the electronic surveys to parents/caregivers and interested members of the community. Jan Paproski, Coordinator of Learning Services, sent the electronic survey link to each member of the Cudworth staff, as well as each classroom homeroom teacher, to ensure that their students had access to the survey. The results of the surveys were collected and used in the writing of this report. All surveys addressed school effectiveness correlates, but the number of items and wording varied according to student maturity level. The electronic surveys opened for students, parents/caregivers, staff, and members of the community on October 5, 2016. Student and staff surveys were closed onTuesday, October 25, 2016. The parent/caregiver surveys were closed on Thursday, October 27, 2016. Community surveys were closed on Monday, November 14, 2016.

Student/Family Demographics at Cudworth School

Number of Family Units = 91

Number of Students by Grade = 149 students

Kindergarten – 11

Grade 1 – 14

Grade 2 – 12

Grade 3 – 12

Grade 4 – 14

Grade 5 – 8

Grade 6 – 10

Grade 7 – 15

Grade 8 – 13

Grade 9 – 8

Grade 10 – 9

Grade 11 – 10

Grade 12 – 13

Table 1: Survey Returns for Each Responding Group

Electronic Survey / Number of Eligible Participants / Number of Responses / Percentage of Surveys Completed
Grades 4-6 students / 32 / 30 / 94%
Grades 7-9students / 36 / 29 / 81%
Grades 10-12students / 32 / 31 / 97%
Total students / 100 / 90 / 90%
Parents/Caregiver (Family Units) / 91 / 30 / 33%
Staff / 18 / 18 / 100%
Grand Total / 309______/ 228 / 74%

From the information in Table 1, it is evident that students and staff were adequately represented. Electronic surveys were used for all Grades 4-12 students, parents/caregivers, and staff at Cudworth School, as well as interested members of the community. The parents/caregivers response was further supported by the Parents/Caregivers Focus Group that was conducted on the eveningof October 4, 2016.