1. 1070 - Peace River School Division No. 10
      2. Certificated Teachers
      3. Other Personnel
      4. Using the evidence that you have collected (Qualitative, Quantitative and
      5. Description of Quality Measures in Section B, C & D).
      6. 2006/2007
      7. 2006/2007
      8. 2006/2007
      9. 2006/2007
      10. 2006/2007
      11. 2006/2007
      12. 2006/2007
      13. 2006/2007
      14. 2006/2007
      15. 2006/2007
      16. 2006/2007
      17. 2006/2007
      18. Year: 2006/2007

AISI Project Annual Report (APAR) 2006/2007
(To print these forms, set your browse margins to 0.5' for all margins, left right, top and bottom)
Section A1: Project Demographics
School
Authority:
1070 - Peace River School Division No. 10
Project:
30038 - Building Student Learning Through Assessment
Project Scope: 3370 Students, Grades K to 12, 18 Schools
Project
Description:
Focus on Assessment for Learning and Differentiated Instruction utilizing the
coaching/modelling collaborative method of professional development at the site level.
Project Purpose:
To improve student learning and achievement and increase student involvement in
assessment.
Budget for
2006/2007:
Approved:
Working:
Actual:
417,000
417,344
417,344
Project Years:
?
2006/2007
?
2007/2008
?
2008/2009
Improvement Goals:
1- Improve student learning and achievement through assessment practices in the areas of Language
Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies.
2- Increase students' involvement in their own learning
3- To increase the percentages at acceptable standard and standard of excellence for the 5 priority
(focus)schools in Peace River School Division.
4- School specific site goal (s) related to assessment for learning (to be identified collaboratively with
the school leadership teams and AISI facilitators at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year)
5- To improve teacher capacity in using a variety of assessment practices to inform instruction.
Last update by: Maria Crudo
Annual Report Status: Review for Requirements
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 1 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section A2. Variable Demographics
This is an opportunity to update some of the project demographics for the AISI 2006/2007 school year. Please review your
original data shown below (the system will display the most current information you have in your current approved AISI
project plan). Click on a number to update where applicable.
Actual Number of Students Impacted By The
Project This Year
3322
Estimated Number of Students Involved For Three
Years
3370
Estimated Number of PreSchoolers Involved
0
Estimated Number of Students (in your authority)
that project could be applied to
3370
Student Ages
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19
Grades
K , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Actual number of schools involved
18
?
Breaking Point
Colony School
?
Cleardale Colony
School
?
Dixonville School
?
E E Oliver
Elementary School
?
Fairview High
School
?
Grimshaw Junior
Senior High School
?
Hines Creek
Composite School
?
Kennedy Elementary
School
?
Lloyd Garrison
School
?
Manning Elementary
School
?
Menno-Simons
Community School
?
Nampa Public School
?
Paul Rowe Junior
Senior High School
?
Peace River High
School
?
Springfield
Elementary School
?
T A Norris Middle
School
?
Whitelaw School
?
Worsley Central
School
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 2 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section A3 : Project Type for Project
30038
Alberta Education, school authorities, universities and other AISI users often want to undertake various
analyses of AISI projects. This type of analytical work requires the capability to extract and group AISI
projects accurately by various categories.
Not all categories may apply to your project. Only do the checklists for the categories that are needed to
describe your project. However, you must do the following categories:
Targeted Students
,
Subject
and/or
Themes
,
Teaching Strategies
and
Types of Measures
.
Please review the project categories and contact SIB at (780) 427-3160 if you have any concerns.
Main Project Category (select
only one)
Targeted Students
?
All Students
Number of Students in Project
?
2,501-5,000
Grade
?
K
?
1
?
2
?
3
?
4
?
5
?
6
?
7
?
8
?
9
?
10
?
11
?
12
Zone
?
Zone 1
Number of Schools in Project
?
6 or more
Area (Urban/Rural)
Subject
?
Other
Division Grade Level
?
1 (K-3)
?
2 (4-6)
?
3 (7-9)
?
4 (10-12)
Themes
?
Assessment
Teaching Strategies/Programs
?
Assessment for Learning
?
Alternative Delivery
?
Balanced Literacy
?
Differentiated Instruction
?
Guided Reading/Blended Structure
?
Project Based Learning
?
Teaching to Accommodate Learning Styles
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 3 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

2000/2001 Approved Budget
2001/2002 Approved Budget
2002/2003 Approved Budget
2003/2004 Approved Budget
2004/2005 Approved Budget
2005/2006 Approved Budget
2006/2007 Approved Budget
?
250,001-500,000
2007/2008 Approved Budget
?
250,001-500,000
2008/2009 Approved Budget
Project Control
?
Centralized
School Authority Type
?
Public School Jurisdiction
Types of Measures
?
Provincial Achievement Tests
?
Provincial Diploma Examinations
?
School Completion/Graduation Measures
?
Surveys
PAT - English Language Arts
?
Grade 3
?
Grade 6
?
Grade 9
PAT - French Language Arts
PAT - Mathematics
?
Grade 3
?
Grade 6
?
Grade 9
PAT - Social Studies
?
Grade 6
?
Grade 9
PAT - Science
?
Grade 6
?
Grade 9
Diploma Examinations -
English
?
English Language Arts -1
?
English Language Arts -2
Diploma Examinations -
Mathematics
?
Applied Math 30
?
Pure Math 30
Diploma Examinations -
Social Studies
?
Social Studies 30
?
Social Studies 33
Diploma Examinations -
Sciences
?
Biology 30
?
Chemistry 30
?
Physics 30
Diploma Examinations-
French
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 4 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Surveys
?
Parents
?
Student
?
Teacher/Staff
School Records
Standardized/Commercial
Tests
Std. Tests - General
Achievement/Math/Language
Arts
Std. Tests - Reading
Std. Tests - Spelling
Std. Tests - Writing
Std. Tests -
Developmental/ECS/Grade 1
Readiness
Constituency
?
Peace River
City or Town Name
?
Berwyn
?
Cleardale
?
Dixonville
?
Fairview
?
Grimshaw
?
Hines Creek
?
Manning
?
Nampa
?
Peace River
?
Whitelaw
?
Worsley
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 5 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section A4 - AISI Project Staffing Allocations
Report staffing specifically assigned for the AISI project in FTEs. Use best estimates if necessary
FTE
2006/2007
FTE
2007/2008
FTE
2008/2009
AISI Funded
Funded From
Other
Sources*
AISI Funded
Funded From
Other
Sources*
AISI Funded
Funded From
Other
Sources*
Certificated Teachers
Teachers
2.85
2.85
2.85
AISI Coordinators
0.15
0.15
0.15
Other Personnel
Professionals (e.g.,
Social Worker, Liaison
Worker)
Teaching Assistants
Administrative
Support Staff
0.00
Other
Total FTE
3
3
3
* FTEs allocated for AISI projects that are not paid with AISI funds
If there are no FTEs please indicate with a '0'
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 6 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section B - Quantitative Measures (From Project Plan)
Measure
(From project plan)
Baseline
2006/2007
Number(*)
Target
Actual
Measured
G3-A1-English Language Arts
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
87
88
76.50
219
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
This is an unusual drop for our division. Absenteeism did affect results a bit but not enough to solely explain the decline.
Writing and reading were equally affected. A couple of the large schools experienced declines in the Acceptable Standard
as well as some of the smaller schools. Some of the small schools experienced big successes with 100% of their students
achieving the Acceptable Standard. Individual programs were looked at, FNMI, ESL and Special Education students, but
all of those results were similar to last years. One of our largest elementary schools had a French Immersion class with an
unusually weak group of students which may have affected the overall success of that school. The only common
denominator is the level of committment to practices in Assessment for Learning by grade 3 teachers. Our highest
achieving elementary school had the admin team and teachers engaged in collaborative unit planning and indepth
investigation in Assessement for Learning strategies. Other lower achieving schools were not committed nor engaged in the
strategies. This year there is a definite shift in teachers interested in learning more about assessment and are beginning to
use a variety of assessment strategies. Grade 3 PLC's are planned to analyze PAT results and plan for common
assessments.
G3-A2-Mathematics
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
85
86
82.70
215
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
Did not meet the target, however is above provincial acceptable standard by 2.8%. 82.7% of the students met the
Acceptable Standard and the 2% dip did follow the provincial trend of a 3.1% dip. 6% of the students were absent from
writing the exam, compared to 1% in previous years. This may account for some of the dip.
G3-A1-English Language Arts
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
13
14
11.00
219
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was an increase of 1.1% from the previous year, however this did not meet the target set nor match the provincial
Standard of Excellence. One of our large schools experienced a great increase in the Standard of Excellence, raising it 7.9%
from the previous year and exceeding the provincial standard by 1.7%. However a number of the other large schools
experienced declines in the Standard of Excellence as well as some of the smaller schools. This year there is a definite shift
in teachers interested in learning more about assessment and are beginning to use a variety of assessment strategies. Grade
3 PLC's are planned to analyze PAT results, unpack the curriculum to a greater degree than before and plan for common
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 7 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

assessments.
G3-A2-Mathematics
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
23
25
21.20
215
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
Though the target we set was not reached there was an increase of 1.6% from the previous year closing the gap between the
jurisdiction and the provincial standard of excellence by 5%. A number of our larger elementary schools experienced a
significant decrease in the standard of excellence. This year there is a definite shift in teachers interested in learning more
about assessment and delving into the program of studies. Grade 3 PLC's are planned to analyze PAT results, unpack the
curriculum to a greater degree than before and plan for common assessments.
G6-A3-English Language Arts
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
76
77
76.80
221
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was no significant change from the previous two years though the target was almost met. While most of our
divisional schools experienced substantial increases in the percentage of students achieving the Acceptable Standard, two
of our larger schools experienced approximately 20% declines, thus affecting the overall results. Divisonal Grade 6 PLC's
are planned to analyze PAT results, unpack the curriculum to a greater degree than before and plan for common
assessments.
G6-A3-English Language Arts
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
10
12
13.60
221
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a significant increase in the percentage of students achieving the Standard of Excellence over the previous 3
years with the set target being exceeded. All except two of our elementary schools experienced an increase in the Standard
of Excellence.
G6-A4-Mathematics
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
73
75
66.20
223
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a slight decline from the previous year. Eight of our schools experienced increased in the percentage of students
achieving the Acceptable Standard, however three schools, two of the largest, experienced significant declines affecting the
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 8 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

overall divisional results. The Northwest Regional Learning Consortium is conducting Math workshops targeted at division
2. A Math consultant will be accessed to provide support for the schools in need over the course of this year.
G6-A4-Mathematics
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
10
12
9.20
223
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
Though there has been an increase over the previous two years, the target was not met. Four of our elementary schools
increased the percentage of students achieving the Standard of Excellence, however six of our schools experienced no
change or a decline. The Northwest Regional Learning Consortium is conducting Math workshops targeted at division 2. A
Math consultant will be accessed to provide support for the schools in need over the course of this year.
G6-A6-Science
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
77
78
68.40
221
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a significant decline in the overall divisional results from the previous year. However, eight of our schools
experienced increases in the percentage of students achieiving the Acceptable Standard, some as much as 15 to 40%. Three
schools, two of the largest, experienced significant declines affecting the overall divisional results. Divisonal Grade 6 PLC's
are planned to analyze PAT results, delve into the learner outcomes in the curriculum and plan for common assessments.
G6-A6-Science
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
17
18
17.10
221
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a slight increase from the previous year. Once again there are significant differences between schools. Some
schools raised the percentage of students achieving the Standard of Excellence significantly, others experienced no change
or a significant decrease. Divisonal Grade 6 PLC's are planned to analyze PAT results, unpack the curriculum to a greater
degree than before and plan for common assessments.
G6-A5-Social Studies
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
72
74
64.50
223
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 9 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

There was a decline in the overall divisional results from the previous year. However, seven of our schools experienced
increases in the percentage of students achieiving the Acceptable Standard, some experience huge increases. Four schools,
two of the largest, experienced significant declines affecting the overall divisional results. Divisonal Grade 6 PLC's are
planned to analyze PAT results, delve into the learner outcomes in the curriculum and plan for common assessments.
G6-A5-Social Studies
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
12
14
12.70
223
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a significant increase (4.7%) in the percentage of students achieving the Standard of Excellence over previous 3
years with the set target being exceeded. Most of our elementary schools experienced an increase in the Standard of
Excellence, some improved their results over 25%.
G9-A7-English Language Arts 9
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
78
81
79.50
233
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a substantial increase from the previous year's result (9.5%). The divisional results exceeded the provincial
percentage of students achieving the Acceptable Standard by 2%. There was a marked improvement in almost all of our
school's results.
G9-A7-English Language Arts 9
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
11
12
9.20
233
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was an increase of 1.1% from the previous year though the target was not met and the divisional results are still
significantly (5.6%) below the provincial standard.
G9-A8-Mathematics
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
64
66
54.40
233
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was no improvement from the previous year. The three largest schools are all below the provincial acceptable
standard. We had a number of new teachers teaching Math 9 this year, which may have had an effect. It is interesting that
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 10 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

we have an experienced teacher who has traditionally had excellent results, get results below the provincial standards and a
significant decrease in the Standard of Excellence. The teacher found this a difficult exam compared to previous provincial
exams, but when we looked at the provincial average compared to last year's, there was very little change.
G9-A8-Mathematics
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
13
15
9.00
233
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was no improvement from the previous year. The three largest schools are all below the provincial standard of
excellence. We had a number of new teachers teaching Math 9 this year, which may have had an effect. It is interesting that
we have an experienced teacher who has traditionally had excellent results, experience a significant decrease in the
percentage of students achieving a Standard of Excellence. The teacher found this a difficult exam compared to previous
provincial exams, but when we looked at the provincial average compared to last year's, there was very little change.
G9-A9-Social Studies
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
70
72
64.00
235
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a slight increase over the previous year's results, however the division is significantly below the provincial
acceptable standard. There were very significant improvements in three of our schools but declines in five other schools.
One of our schools that usually experiences exceptional results experienced a significant dip in the percentage of students
achieving the acceptable standard though the results remained above the provincial standard.
G9-A9-Social Studies
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
18
20
12.00
235
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous 3 year average of cohort results (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/2006).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a slight dip from the previous year. One of our schools that usually experiences exceptional results experienced a
significant dip in the percentage of students achieving the standard of excellence though the final results remained above
the provincial standard.
G12-A18-Biology 30
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
77
78
76.00
96
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a dip in the divisional achievement of the acceptable standard. Four of our high schools offered Biology 30 this
year, two of the schools achieved above the provincial acceptable standard while two achieved well below.
G12-A18-Biology 30
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
25
26
21.00
96
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 11 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
There was a significant drop over the previous 2 years. All four of our high schools experienced a big drop in the
percentage of students achieving the Standard of Excellence.
G12-A19-Chemistry 30
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
76
77
81.30
96
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target set was exceeded. There was a significant increase over the previous three years, with two of our weaker schools
making impressive gains. Even though our division is still below the provincial acceptable standard, we are well on our
way to making improvements in student learning in Chemistry.
G12-A19-Chemistry 30
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
20
21
32.30
96
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target set was greatly exceeded. There was a significant increase over the previous four years. While two of our
schools lost some ground, the other two offering the program made great gains and exceeded the provincial standard of
excellence.
G12--English Language Arts 30-1
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
88
90
80.30
147
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
Almost all of our high schools offering English 30-1 experienced a slide in the percentage of students achieving the
acceptable standard, however the slide was between 2 and 4%. This in itself is not significant. One of our small high
schools experienced a big improvement but still remains well below the provincial standard. We found a number of
teachers introducing Assessment for Learning strategies into their English classrooms, but did not delve as deeply as may
have been needed. Whenever one changes a method or style one is used to, there tends to be a change in results while
expectations are high anticipating great improvements. One of our teachers was attempting to impart the importance the
final exam and in turn created a huge test anxiety among her students and this unanticipated outcome negatively affected
her results .
G12--English Language Arts 30-1
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
15
16
15.00
147
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 12 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

The target was not met, however there is a significant increase over the previous year. Two of our high schools offering
English 30-2 significantly increased the percentage of students achieving the standard of excellence.
G12--English Language Arts 30-2
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
84
85
91.80
49
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target set was greatly exceeded. There was a substantial increase over the previous three years and the results are
significantly above the provincial acceptable standard. Almost all of our high schools experienced an increase in the
percentage of students achieving the acceptable standard.
G12--English Language Arts 30-2
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
8
9
10.20
49
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target was exceeded. There was an increase of 8.6% over the previous year and the divisional results are above the
provincial standard of excellence.
G12--Pure Mathematics 30
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
69
70
60.20
108
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target was not met and the divisional results took a huge slide. All of our high schools offering Pure Math 30
experienced a drop in the percentage of students achieving the acceptable standard, though the range of this drop was
varied. There was a big turn over in the Math 30 teachers in our division and in all cases there was a new teacher presenting
the material to the students. We feel this resulted in the significant decline in results. The returning teachers are working as
a Professional Learning Community to address some of the issues of concern.
G12--Pure Mathematics 30
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
17
18
13.90
108
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target was not met and the divisional results took a huge slide. All of our high schools offering Pure Math 30
experience a drop in the percentage of students achieving the standard of excellence, though the range of this drop was
varied. There was a big turn over in the Math 30 teachers in our division and in all cases there was a new teacher presenting
the material to the students. We feel this resulted in the significant decline in results. The returning teachers are working as
a Professional Learning Community to address some of the issues of concern.
G12--Applied Mathematics 30
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
83
84
88.20
17
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 13 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target set was exceeded. There was a significant increase over the previous year. The divisional results are 10.6%
above the provincial acceptable standard. We did not have many students taking Applied Math 30 this year as it tends to be
a cycled course with the small numbers of students taking it.
G12--Applied Mathematics 30
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
18
19
17.60
17
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
Even though the target was not met, there was a significant increase over previous years results and the divisonal results are
5.5% above the provincial standard of excellence.
G12-A20-Physics 30
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
76
77
72.70
77
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target was not met and there was a significant slide in the divisional results. Two of the four high schools offering
Physics 30 experienced huge drops in their results, while one of the schools had a 10% increase and the fourth remained
constant. The two with the big drops had teachers new to the division offering the program and one new to the profession.
Collaborative work is being done to analyze the results and address the areas of concern.
G12-A20-Physics 30
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
18
19
15.60
77
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
Though the target was not met, there was a slight increase from the previous year's results. Three of the four schools
offering a Physics 30 program had an increase in the percentage of students achieving a standard of excellence while one
experienced a big drop.
This particular class was taught by a teacher new to the profession. Collaborative work is being done to analyze the results
and address the areas of concern.
G12-A13-Social Studies 30
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
78
79
74.80
123
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target was not met and there was a decline in the divisional percentage of students achieving the acceptable standard.
Of the six schools offering Social 30, three experienced and increase, two a slight decrease and one a significant decrease in
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 14 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

the percentage of students achievind the acceptable standard.
G12-A13-Social Studies 30
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
19
20
17.10
123
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target was not met and only one of the schools offering Social 30 is above the provincial standard of excellence. Of the
six schools offering the program, all experienced a decrease in the percentage of students achieving the standard of
excellence.
G12-A14-Social Studies 33
B1-% of students meeting the acceptable standard
84
85
87.50
64
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
There has been a continuous increase over the last four years and the division has been above the provincial acceptable
standard for the last three years. Of the five schools offering Social 33, four are above the provincial acceptable standard,
with one smaller school experiencing a significant decrease.
G12-A14-Social Studies 33
B2-% of students meeting the standard of excellence
14
15
26.60
64
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is calculated as the previous three year average (2003/04; 2004/05; 2005/06).
Comment on results (optional)
The target was vastly exceeded and there was a 13.2% increase from the previous year. The divisional results are 7% above
the provincial standard of excellence. Most of our schools are faring well with one school raising it's results by 28.4% and
another by 33.3%.
B7-Frequency/incidence of behaviour
Percentage of eligible teachers participating in divisional workshops
55
75
100.00
100
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is an estimate based on attendance in workshops in Cycle Two.
Comment on results (optional)
The structure of the August Kick Off offered all teachers the opportunity to attend Assessment for Learning workshops, at
the elementary level, junior/senior high level and administrative level. The structure of the March PD day was such that all
teachers participated in a school based planning session of Assessment for Learning strategies.
B7-Frequency/incidence of behaviour
Percentage of schools that met their specific site-strategy goal(s).
Baseline will be set by reviewing 2005-2006 school improvement plans
and AERR to determine success in achieving site based goals.
62
90
67.00
18
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Schools will be developing specific site strategies early in the school year.
Comment on results (optional)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 15 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Twelve of the eighteen schools responded that their goals were met while eight responded that as they were still working on
their goals, they had not been met as of yet. They would be continuing their work this year. Our division experience
administrative changes in five of our schools, three partway through the year. Three of the new principals did not feel
confident enough in the success of the goals so chose to say they were not met. In two of the schools report writing and
planning did not get done. This years's site based goals are more aligned to AISI's goals and schools are developing specific
strategies to utilize the AISI team to help meet their goals.
The average percentage of students in identified (focus) schools
achieving acceptable standard for diploma exams.
69
74
70.00
288
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is set using the 2004-2005 Priority Schools information. The baseline is a three-year average. The results for all
priority schools were averaged and a percentage gain calculated and set as targets to close the gap between the current
achievement and provincial standards.
Comment on results (optional)
The target was not met, however there was a slight improvement. There are four schools in this category with a total of
eleven courses identified as ones to focus attention on. In one school out of three courses, there was a marked improvement
in two and no change in the third. In a second school with two courses identified, there was a 14% improvement in one
course, far exceeding the target and the provincial acceptable standard, and a slight decline in the second course. In the
third school with four courses identified, there was a marked improvement in three courses and a decline in the fourth.
Unfortunately the improved courses are still below the provincial acceptable standard but the school is gaining ground. The
AISI team is working with this school on a regular basis.In the fourth school with two identified courses,one experienced
an impressive improvement (11.7%) and the other a slight decline (4.1%).
The average percentage of students in identified (focus) schools
achieving acceptable standard for provincial achievement tests.
54
59
52.30
82
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is set using the 2004-2005 Priority Schools information. The baseline is a three-year average. The results for all
priority schools were averaged and a percentage gain calculated and set as targets to close the gap between the current
achievement and provincial standards.
Comment on results (optional)
There is one school with two courses identified in this area. One of the coursed experience a marked improvement while
the other experienced a decline. The average between these two courses results in poor results.
The average percentage of students in identified (focus) schools
achieving the standard of excellence for diploma exams.
13.35
17.7
20.00
127
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is set using the 2004-2005 Priority Schools information. The baseline is a three year average. The results for all
priority schools were averaged and a percentage gain calculated and set as targets to close the gap between the current
achievement and provincial standards.
Comment on results (optional)
There are two schools with two courses each identified in this category. There was a marked improvement in all four
courses. The target set was exceeded.
The average percentage of students in identified (focus) schools
achieving the standard of excellence for provincial achievement tests.
6
10
4.80
246
Baseline and Measure Comments:
Baseline is set using the 2004-2005 Priority Schools information. The baseline is a three year average. The results for all
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 16 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

* Indicate the number of individuals included in the student measure or test
priority schools were averaged and a percentage gain calculated and set as targets to close the gap between the current
achievement and provincial standards.
Comment on results (optional)
The target was not met and there was a slide in the results. There are two school with two courses in one and four in the
other identified. One school made a slight gain in one course and lost groud in the second. Professional Learning
Community meetings are planned to analyse PAT results and to take a careful look at the program of studies to see how
learner outcomes are being met. The second school experienced an increase in three of the four courses and a decline in the
fourth. Work is in progress to unpack the program of studies to a greater depth and to address student learning issues.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 17 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section C - Qualitative Measures (From Project Plan)
Measure
Baseline
2006/2007
N*
Response
Rate(%)
(For
surveys
only)**
Target
Actual
Parents complete a survey about their perceptions regarding
the standards. This measure looks at Standard 1:
Assessment is based on the general and specific outcomes
outlined in the Program of Studies.
69.45
74
75.00
151
29
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of parents who agree with the statements. (Choices for each statement are "agree; disagree;
undecided")
Parent survey will be a representative sample. The survey will be sent home with students in grades 3, 6, and 9 for baseline
in October 2006 and again in the Spring of 2007. The parents of students in grades 4, 7, and 10 will be surveyed in the
Spring of 2008, and the parents of students in grades 5, 8, and 11 will be surveyed in the Spring of 2009.
Survey tatements for Standard 1 are: My child understands what he/she is supposed to learn; My child knows what will be
covered on a test; My child knows what he/she will learn next; My child can state what he/she is learning in terms that
he/she can understand
Comment on results (optional)
In light of the low response rate (29%), the data on the parent surveys has to be considered to have a lower reliability level.
In this case the targets were met or exceeded. This could be because the parents who responded were involved in the school
and were following newsletter articles, discussing the project with teachers and the team and may have viewed displays at
Parent-Teacher Interviews.
Parents complete a survey about their perceptions regarding
the standards. This measure looks at Standard 2: Students
are actively involved in assessment.
56.45
62
63.00
151
29
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of parents who agree with the statements. (Choices for each statement are "agree; disagree;
undecided") Parent survey will be a representative sample. The survey will be sent home with students in grades 3, 6, and 9
for baseline in October 2006 and again in the Spring of 2007. The parents of students in grades 4, 7, and 10 will be
surveyed in the Spring of 2008, and the parents of students in grades 5, 8, and 11 will be surveyed in the Spring of 2009.
Survey Statements for Standard 2 include: My child can explain why his/her work is good or not good; My child knows
what he/she needs to work on to improve; My child can write or use scoring guides or rubrics to judge the quality of work;
My child enjoys the experience of taking tests and assessments; My child sets goals for his/her learning; My child shares
information about his/her achievement and improvement at home
Comment on results (optional)
In light of the low response rate (29%), the data on the parent surveys has to be considered to have a lower reliability level.
In this case the targets were met or exceeded. This could be because the parents who responded were involved in the school
and were following newsletter articles, discussing the project with teachers and the team and may have viewed displays at
Parent-Teacher Interviews.
Parents complete a survey about their perceptions regarding
the standards. This measure looks at Standard 3:
Assessment informs the teaching practice.
58.80
64
66.25
151
29
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of parents who agree with the statements. (Choices for each statement are "agree; disagree;
undecided") Parent survey will be a representative sample. The survey will be sent home with students in grades 3, 6, and 9
for baseline in October 2006 and again in the Spring of 2007. The parents of students in grades 4, 7, and 10 will be
surveyed in the Spring of 2008, and the parents of students in grades 5, 8, and 11 will be surveyed in the Spring of 2009.
Survey statements for this standard include: My child knows how to look back on his/her work to see how he/she can
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 18 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

improve; Based on the feedback my child receives from his/her teacher, he/she knows which areas are in need of
improvement and the steps they need to get there
Comment on results (optional)
In light of the low response rate (29%), the data on the parent surveys has to be considered to have a lower reliability level.
In this case the targets were met or exceeded. This could be because the parents who responded were involved in the school
and were following newsletter articles, discussing the project with teachers and the team and may have viewed displays at
Parent-Teacher Interviews.
Parents complete a survey about their perceptions regarding
the standards. This measure looks at Standard 4: Summative
assessment informs reporting and evaluation.
59.01
64
66.67
151
29
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of parents who agree with the statements. (Choices for each statement are "agree; disagree;
undecided") Parent survey will be a representative sample. The survey will be sent home with students in grades 3, 6, and 9
for baseline in October 2006 and again in the Spring of 2007. The parents of students in grades 4, 7, and 10 will be
surveyed in the Spring of 2008, and the parents of students in grades 5, 8, and 11 will be surveyed in the Spring of 2009.
Survey statements include: My child knows how to assemble a portfolio of his/her work; After learning something my child
can explain what he/she has learned; My child knows when a test is coming up; I know when my child's test is coming up; I
have been to a student led conference where my child has showcased their achievement; I am confident that my child's
evaluation comes from a variety of sources
Comment on results (optional)
In light of the low response rate (29%), the data on the parent surveys has to be considered to have a lower reliability level.
In this case the targets were met or exceeded. This could be because the parents who responded were involved in the school
and were following newsletter articles, discussing the project with teachers and the team and may have viewed displays at
Parent-Teacher Interviews.
Students complete a self-assessment survey. This measure
looks at Standard 1: Assessment is based on the general and
specific outcomes outlined in the Program of Studies.
54.98
60
56.34
2259
84
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of students who indicate the agree with the survey statements (choices are agree; disagree;
undecided). All students in grades 1-12 were surveyed in October 06 for baseline. They will be surveyed again in the spring
of 07, and each spring for the remainder of the project term. Statements for Standard 1 are: I understand what I am
supposed to learn; I know what will be covered on the test; I know what I will learn next; I can state the learning outcomes
in terms I understand.
Comment on results (optional)
The students are for the most part quite honest in their responses. On occasion, it was clear that they felt their survey
responses could negatively or positively impact their teacher or themselves. (e.g. one group responded to any question
about classroom practices with consistently negative responses. Another responded with all positive responses only. )
Students have become more aware of the language and its distinctions and have become more savvy. This means that the
lower results could be interpreted to show their realization that what they thought was meant by the word "assessment", for
example, was really "evaluation" instead. The two words are not interchangeable.
Students complete a self-assessment survey. This measure
looks at Standard 2: Students are actively involved in
assessment.
52.37
57
54.61
2259
84
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of students who indicate the agree with the survey statements (choices are agree; disagree;
undecided). All students in grades 1-12 were surveyed in October 06 for baseline. They will be surveyed again in the spring
of 07, and each spring for the remainder of the project term. Statements for this standard are: I can explain why my work is
good or not good; I know what I need to work on to improve; I can create or use scoring guides or rubrics to judge the
quality of work; I enjoy the experience of taking tests and assessment; Peer assessment is a strategy we use to help each
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 19 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

other learn; I set goals for my learning; I am encouraged to share information about my achievement status and
improvement
Comment on results (optional)
The students are for the most part quite honest in their responses. On occasion, it was clear that they felt their survey
responses could negatively or positively impact their teacher or themselves. (e.g. one group responded to any question
about classroom practices with consistently negative responses. Another responded with all positive responses only. )
Students have become more aware of the language and its distinctions and have become more savvy. This means that the
lower results could be interpreted to show their realization that what they thought was meant by the word "assessment", for
example, was really "evaluation" instead. The two words are not interchangeable.
Students complete a self-assessment survey. This measure
looks at Standard 3: Assessment informs the teaching
practice.
56.83
62
57.50
2259
84
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of students who indicate the agree with the survey statements (choices are agree; disagree;
undecided). All students in grades 1-12 were surveyed in October 06 for baseline. They will be surveyed again in the spring
of 07, and each spring for the remainder of the project term. Survey statements include: I know how to look back on my
work to see how I can improve; I learn how to write practice test questions that cover what I am learning; Based on the
feedback I receive from my teacher I know which areas I need to improve and the steps I need to take to get there
Comment on results (optional)
The students are for the most part quite honest in their responses. On occasion, it was clear that they felt their survey
responses could negatively or positively impact their teacher or themselves. (e.g. one group responded to any question
about classroom practices with consistently negative responses. Another responded with all positive responses only. )
Students have become more aware of the language and its distinctions and have become more savvy. This means that the
lower results could be interpreted to show their realization that what they thought was meant by the word "assessment", for
example, was really "evaluation" instead. The two words are not interchangeable.
Students complete a self-assessment survey. This measure
looks at Standard 4: Summative assessment informs
reporting and evaluation.
49.82
55
50.78
2259
84
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline is set as the percentage of students who indicate the agree with the survey statements (choices are agree; disagree;
undecided). All students in grades 1-12 were surveyed in October 06 for baseline. They will be surveyed again in the spring
of 07, and each spring for the remainder of the project term. Survey statements for this standard include: I know how to
assemble a portfolio of my work; After learning something, I can explain what I have learned; I know when a test is coming
up; I have learned how to lead a conference (meeting) with my parents or other adults on what I have learned
Comment on results (optional)
The students are for the most part quite honest in their responses. On occasion, it was clear that they felt their survey
responses could negatively or positively impact their teacher or themselves. (e.g. one group responded to any question
about classroom practices with consistently negative responses. Another responded with all positive responses only. )
Students have become more aware of the language and its distinctions and have become more savvy. This means that the
lower results could be interpreted to show their realization that what they thought was meant by the word "assessment", for
example, was really "evaluation" instead. The two words are not interchangeable.
Teachers complete an online self-assessment survey. This
measure looks at Standard 1: Assessment is based on the
general and specific outcomes outlined in the Program of
Studies.
75.6
80
79.78
101
53
Baseline and Measure Comments
The tool measured teacher perception of their assessment literacy according to 4 standards. Baseline, targets, and yearly
data are the average of the combined results for the teachers who responded "always" or "often" to the questions
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 20 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

underpinning each Standard.
Questions for Standard 1: (1) I identify key concepts, principles, and processes that students must understand. (2) I
communicate key concepts, principles, and processes to students and parents. (3) I plan assessment tasks early in the stages
of unit design. (4) I ensure that the assessment tools and the purpose of the assessment match.
Comment on results (optional)
With a difference of only 0.22%, we believe that this target was met.
Teachers complete an online self-assessment survey. This
measure looks at Standard 2: Students are actively involved
in assessment.
57.7
65
65.33
101
53
Baseline and Measure Comments
Baseline, targets, and yearly data are the average of the combined results for the teachers who responded "always" or
"often" to the questions underpinning each Standard.
Questions: (1) My students can describe learning goals and what evidence of their learning will look like. (2) My students
understand the criteria by which their work will be judged. (3) Formative assessment is used to provide students with teh
opportunity to respond and grow. (4) Formative assessment provides students with the opportunity to experience
assessment without risk.
Comment on results (optional)
Exceeded target by 0.33%.
Teachers complete an online self-assessment survey. This
measure looks at Standard 3: Assessment informs the
teaching practice.
64.5
70
75.10
101
53
Baseline and Measure Comments
Teachers completed an online self-assessment in early September 2006. The tool measured teacher perception of their
assessment literacy according to 4 standards. Baseline and targets are set as the combined results for each standard, for
those who indicated "always" or "often".
Survey statements for this standard are; (1) I use on-going, formative assessments to gather information about student
learning and revise instruction. (2) I use on-going, formative assessment to provide students with feedback about their
learning.
Comment on results (optional)
Exceeded target by 5%. This shows that more teachers are becoming aware of the proper use of assessment, its benefits,
and understanding the language of assessment.
Teachers complete an online self-assessment survey. This
measure looks at Standard 4: Summative assessment
informs reporting and evaluation.
70.3
75
74.50
101
53
Baseline and Measure Comments
Teachers completed an online self-assessment in early September 2006. The tool measured teacher perception of their
assessment literacy according to 4 standards. Baseline and targets are set as the combined results for each standard, for
those who indicated "always" or "often".
Survey statements include: (1) I determine grades based on the achievement of learner outcomes. (2) I make judgements
about student achievement using summative assessments only. (3) My summative assessment uses evidence from a variety
of tools. (4) My summative assessments are relevant and representative of concepts taught. (5) I communicate to students
and parents about assessment.
Comment on results (optional)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 21 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

* The number of surveys returned or the number of individuals included in the measure (e.g., observation, assessment, etc.)
** Response rate equals the number (N) of surveys returned divided (/) by the number of surveys sent out times (x) 100.
Missed target by only 0.50%. There are still pockets of teachers who are still a little unsure of the difference between
Assessment For Learning and Assessment Of Learning. This missed target is so minimal that it would be a target that
would be considered to be met.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 22 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section D - Description of Quality Measures (From Project Plan)
Current Situation
Desired Change
Success Indicators
Research indicates that improving
teachers' assessment practices,
specifically formative or
"Assessment For Learning"
practices, results in improved
learning for all students. Our work
in Professional Learning
Communities during Cycle 2
indicated a need for improved
understanding and consistency of
assessment practices.
Teachers assessment literacy will
improve, and as a result, student
learning and achievement will
improve. Teachers will work
collaboratively to implement the
strategies and practices in the
Assessment Framework.
The AISI Team will use a process of
triangulation to determine the success of our
project. This will include records of
observations, conversations, and products
related to the indicators of success. The AISI
team will collect and record their observations,
records of meetings and conversations, and
products created by teachers that have shown
improvement in student's learning (i.e. rubrics).
The data collected combined with an analysis
of the quantitative measures, will provide us
with an accurate assessment of the impact of
the project.
Teachers:
Plan in PLC teams, working collaboratively not
in isolation
Share clear learner outcomes and assessments
with students at the beginning of the work
Focus on the student; understanding of
individual student needs and adjusting teaching
to help students learn; know where the students
are, where to go next, and how to get there
Provide ongoing, frequent, descriptive feedback
to the learners throughout the process, not only
at the end of the learning.
Adjust teaching in response to assessment
feedback
Collaboration between Teachers and students in
order to understand the learning needs of each
student.
Increased use of assessment for learning
strategies in order to increase student
motivation and self-esteem.
Use of questioning as an assessment tool
Providing sufficient wait-time
Teaching students peer and self-assessment
skills
Implementation of GLA will be supported by
increased assessment literacy.
Students:
Articulate the learning objectives (i.e. "I can"
statements)
Involved with the outcomes and assessment in
advance of the work
Practicing Self and Peer assessment
Active involvement in their learning¬° greater
ownership
Plan their learning along with the teacher
Engaged, curious, asking questions¬°knowing
what they need to learn
Develop tolerance and helping attitude towards
fellow students/peers. Students become
responsible for other students learning.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 23 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Set realistic learning goals, know what those
goals are during work, and be able to identify
when those are met (self assess).
2006/2007 How well was the success indicator achieved:
Well
Briefly describe the evidence of success achieved (required) for each identified success indicator.
Records of Triangulated evidence included:
Observations - How well was the success indicator achieved? Well.
o In schools it was observed that 100% of schools had copies of Making Classroom Assessment Work
by Anne Davies as well as other Assessment For Learning literature. (Rick Stiggins, Barrie Bennett)
We observed that numerous schools were using Assessment For Learning Portfolio binders to record
Assessment For Learning Professional Development activities. Many schools were using their full
allotment of substitute teacher days provided by AISI as well as their allotment of money in order to
pursue Assessment For Learning related Professional Development. Several schools had Assessment
For Learning articles in their newsletters home to parents. Many teachers collaborated both within
their schools and through divisional Professional Learning Communities. It was observed that
Assessment For Learning posters and products were on display in classrooms and staff rooms in many
schools. A few schools had bulletin boards explaining Assessment For Learning to students.
Numerous schools had the AISI team attend parent teacher interview nights to share the language of
Assessment For Learning with parents and guardians.
Conversations - How well was the success indicator achieved? Well.
o In talking to teachers, we noticed an increased use of Assessment For Learning terminology grew
throughout the year. In conversations with most administrators there was a realization that
Assessment For Learning practices were of a real benefit to all students, rather than being another
"bandwagon" approach to pedagogy. Numerous teachers had conversations with each other and the
AISI team on current practices and concerns indicating a shift in thinking beginning to occur. These
teachers were recognizing a shortcoming in current practice in terms of reaching all students. Many
teachers began to express the desire, as the year progressed, to move from conversations about the
language and theory of Assessment For Learning and bring it into practice. Conversations began
towards the end of the year among teachers regarding changing reporting methods for grades to
reflect good assessment practices.
Products - How well was the success indicator achieved? Marginally.
o Minutes from meetings with Administrators' Association, Professional Learning Communities, and
School Assessment Teams were collected;
o Aligned curriculum and agreed upon essential learnings were created; a web-page to share
Assessment For Learning information with teachers and the public was created. Updates were sent out
on a regular basis to all teachers when new information was added to the page.
http://www.prsd.ab.ca/cf/content.cfm?category_id=13
o Common assessments were created in Kindergarten through Grade 2 and Science 10 Professional
Learning Communities;
o Results of Parent and Teacher Surveys were collected. A comparison of the baseline in these
surveys indicated a growth in Assessment For Learning concepts and awareness.
o Units were created using Understanding by Design (backwards design) to bring lesson planning
even more closely aligned with curriculum to ensure better results for all students.
Overall, using the Assessment for Learning strategy of triangulating evidence, we believe the success
indicator was achieved well.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 24 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

* N/A means the quality measure did not apply to the current year.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 25 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section E - Budget Estimates and Reported 'Actuals'
(From Project Plan)
Budget Area
2006/2007
Explain any variance of (+/-) 25% or more on
Approved
"Total Expenses"
Budget
Actual
(*)%
Variance
A. Unexpended AISI Funds (at
beginning of year)
B. AISI Funding
417,000
417,344
C. Funding from other sources
0
0
D. Carry over AISI Funds from
previous cycle
10,917
10,922
Total Available Funds (A+B+C)
427,917
428,266
Expenses Paid or Payable:
Staffing and Benefits (includes
salary, wages, benefits, outside
PD services (i.e., speakers,
presenters, facilitators),
substitute cost, release time and
contract personnel)
350,000
310,826
9.15
Supplies and non-staffing
Services
6,000
4,022
0.46
Equipment
3,000
319
0.63
Other Capital
0
0
0.00
Other Expenses (includes travel,
accommodation, meals and
conference fees)
68,917
56,346
2.94
Other Authorities ** (group
projects only)
0
0
0.00
Total Expenses
427,917
371,513
Unexpended Funds
0
56,753
* System will automatically calculate the variance as a percentage of Total Expenses.
** This applies to school authorities who have combined their AISI funds to create a group project.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 26 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section F - Project Expense Percentages (From Project Plan)
Expense Area
2006/2007(%)
Explain any positive or negative percentage point variance
Approved
of 10% or greater for PD and Admin
Estimate
*
Year End
Actual
**
%
Variance
(Approved
Estimate
minus Y/E
Actual)
Professional
Development
(include all
costs associated with PD -
eg substitute coverage,
conference, workshops,
speakers` fees, release time
on total cost of PD from all
budget, categories)
83
85
-2
Project Management &
Coordination
(administration, data
collection, reporting)
5
5
0
Front-Line Staff
(include
staff who work directly
with students eg teachers,
educational assistants,
counsellors)
0
0
0
Other Costs
(equipment,
materials)
12
10
2
Total Percentage
100
100
0
Total Expenses
427,917 371,513
* If the actuals are not available, then a reasonable estimate of the actual is acceptable.
** The system will automatically calculate the % Variance (Y/E Actual Less Approved Estimate.)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 27 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Note:
Point form is preferred. Due to each section being limited to 7,000
characters, it is suggested that you cut and paste the information from a Word
document.
Section G1 - Summarize and Analyze Student Outcomes
Using the evidence that you have collected (Qualitative, Quantitative and
Description of Quality Measures in Section B, C & D).
Provide a summary and explanation of overall student outcomes by explaining the
extent to which student learning targets were achieved. (Point form is preferred.)
2006/2007
Our student outcomes as measured in our project by PAT's and Diplomas were not as strong as we had
hoped in all areas. In some areas however, such as the Standard of Excellence in Grade 6 Language
Arts, Chemistry 30, English 30-2 and Social 33 , there was a significant improvement and targets were
met and exceeded. The same is true for the Acceptable Standard in Chemistry 30, English 30-2,
Applied Math 30 and Social 33. There was a big improvement in results in the non-academic high
school courses.
Even though many of our targets were not met, there was significant improvement in many of our
school's results closing the gap between the jurisdiction and the province.
Detailed comments on the results are included in Section B, Quantitative Measures.
Some of the main reasons for the lack of improvement in all areas may include:
- While some of our schools made significant improvements or maintained high achievements on the
Provincial Achievement tests, two of our largest elementary schools did not thus the averages did not
reflect the improvement.
- Our division experience a huge turn over in junior/senior Mathematics teachers this year. Several of
the new teachers were new to the profession and some were not Math specialist.
- Our division experienced a significant turn over in administration, two of which were part way
through the year. These schools experienced difficulty in addressing a focus of improving student
learning through assessment with the lack of consistent, instructional leadership and vision. We believe
the principal is key to the success of the school assessment team and with the changes that occurred it
was difficult for the school assessment team to meet their mandate.
- The focus of the first year of our project was developing a common language with all stakeholders.
We believe this was successful. However, teachers are only beginning to incorporate Assessment For
Learning strategies into their classrooms and we believe it is too early to expect significant changes in
student learning outcomes.
Section G2 - Effective Practices (Processes)
Select a category (1-5) and describe
one
effective practice that resulted from this
project. If you have additional effective practices to share, please complete the
appropriate category below. Leave any box blank if you do not wish to share an
effective practice in a particular category.
1. Instructional Strategy
2006/2007
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 28 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

2. Professional Development
2006/2007
Research has shown Informed and Flexible PD occurred in many layers:
Divisional:
-The project was introduced to the entire division at once in a Kick Off day that created a clear
overview of the project. The whole division was brought back together in March to be supported in the
change process as well as refreshing the vision of the project. Schools met and planned their next steps
in the project
-Administrators were brought into the project first as instructional leaders and prepared for the project
-Working within the structures of Divisional Calendar
-Site-based PD/Staff Meeting days in conjunction with webcam support and travel through the team
-3(geographically located) members resulted in many workshops taking place
Site:
-Multi-layered Professional Development with numerous entry points accessible to all teachers was
provided. For e.g. one school worked on developing rubrics, another developed units using the
Understanding by Design concept, several schools developed learner outcomes in student friendly
language.
-The Needs Assessment Tool gave schools an opportunity to customize the project for a best fit to their
particular needs. School Assessment Teams were integral to the process (including a Principal as a
member)
Individual:
-Teachers were provided with opportunities for cognitive dissonance through reflection on current
practices (e.g.Survey; School Needs Assessment Tool, Keynote Speakers)
-Presentations assisted teachers to develop common Assessment For Learning language, understanding,
and strategies
How do the above PD strategies link to student learning?
-Research has shown that developing a common language with all stakeholders is a first and necessary
step in improving student learning. (Anne Davies:Assessment For Learning:Learning From Success
Workshop 2006)
-"We must emphasize that this process will inevitably be a slow one. To repeat what we said above, if
the substantial rewards promised by the evidence are to be secured, each teacher must find his or her
own patterns of classroom work. Even with optimum training and support, such a process will take
time." (Black and Wiliam 1998)
-Teacher Collaboration in PLC results in improved student learning. We need to address where schools
should begin: "We need to focus on a few things. Those few things are, number one, measurable goals.
That's a good starting point. Number two, once you have those measurable goals, the question is: How
do you reach them? Well, you look at your data-in this case, assessment data. It tells you where you
have areas of weakness-or, as I like to say, areas of opportunity. You look for those high-leverage areas
where kids aren't doing so well, and then you bring the real resource, teacher expertise, to the scheme.
The name of the game is to get teachers, once they've identified those areas of weakness, to talk
optimistically about better ways to teach to those areas. To invent, reinvent, and refine those strategies,
those lessons-literally, those lessons."
(Mike Schmoker, 2001 ASCD)
-"Newmann and Wehlage and their colleagues found that some schools did disproportionately well in
affecting the performance of students. The essence of their finding is that the more successful schools
had teachers and administrators who 1)formed a professional learning community, 2)focused on student
work (through assessment), and 3)changed their instructional practice accordingly to get better results.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 29 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

They did all of this on a continuing basis... Put another way, even if there were no external pressure for
accountability, teachers and principals would need to become assessment literate in order to be
successful. In collaborative schools, pedagogy and assessment feed on each other, through the
interaction of teachers, to produce better results." (Michael Fullan, "The Return of Large-Scale
Reform," Journal of Educational Change, vol. 1, 2000, pp. 1-23)
Teachers were made Accountable for AISI-funded Professional Development
-Teachers/administrators/personnel were accountable for their PD experiences through sharing their
learnings with their staffs in a personal synopsis. A copy of the synopsis was submitted to the AISI
coordinator, stored in their Assessment For Learning Portfolio in their school, and managed by their
School Assessment Team
-Teachers were encouraged and supported in taking risks implementing their Balanced Assessment and
instructional practices
-AISI team provided teachers with best practice strategies and encouraged them to try them out
-AISI team discussed and debriefed successes and challenges in those situations
-AISI team supplied research-based articles to teachers on best assessment practices
-As administrators are required to include an AISI component in their school improvement plan, school
organizational plan, and annual educational results report, they strongly encouraged best assessment
practices in their schools
How do the above PD strategies link to student learning?
-Based on the needs of the students in the classroom, teachers were able to go the the AISI website
which provided instant access to articles, tips, strategies, resources, and contact personnel
-Synopsis (attachment), required by anyone accessing AISI funds for Assessment For Learning related
Professional Development, had teachers explain what practice would be carried on into their classroom
and shared with the school staff through the Assessment Portfolio
-DVD made of teachers in our division talking about the strategies they used and the work they are
doing in their classrooms also included students talking about the difference these strategies made in
their learning
Effective PD requires Effective Communication
-An effort to be transparent with available finances, expectations, time, direction and vision in the
project was critical
-Careful and deliberate communication channels were set up and maintained through web pages, web
cam, e-mail, newsletters, School Assessment Teams and school visits
-AISI team members have credibility with teachers as long time teachers in the school division
-The research base was highly credible and often referenced
-Professional Development opportunities in Assessment were posted on the AISI website
-Shared units, assessments, strategies and resources were posted on the AISI website, through the
intranet and Moodle
-Teachers are required to share their Professional Learnings with others in the division
How do the above PD strategies link to student learning?
-Student involvement is encouraged and increased through parental support in a Community of
Learners "Only when we work together can the foundation for classroom assessment-and learning-be
established."(Making Classroom Assessment Work:Anne Davies)
-Research has shown that developing a common language with all stakeholders is a first and necessary
step in improving student learning, which was the focus of the first year. (Anne Davies)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 30 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

3. Student Assessment
2006/2007
4. Project Management
2006/2007
5. Parental Involvement
2006/2007
Section G3 - Project Summary and Reflections
1. WHAT is working well in your AISI project? (Point form preferred)
2006/2007
?
There is a team of three Assessment Facilitators with a range of educational experience,
backgrounds, and expertise. The team is spread geographically across the division with offices right in
schools. There is strength in the compatibility and shared work ethic of the AISI team.
?
Complaints and resistance are viewed as an opportunity to work together to solve a problem,
however in June the Steering Committee (including the Superintendent and Board of Trustees) offered
support in the program implementation by way of giving the AISI team a mandate to go into
classrooms. Any resistance encountered may be be reported back up the chain of command, ultimately
ending with the Board of Trustees and Superintendent themselves.
?
Many teachers view this movement as having begun through them.
?
School Assessment Teams are working as a way to communicate between the schools and the AISI
team. This capacity building is taking place by way of regular visits, school assessment team meetings
with AISI representatives attending, communicating through school key contacts, training of key
contacts to facilitate school PD.
?
Common language of assessment has become prevalent in conversation amongst teachers and
administrators.
?
Resurgence of Professional Learning Communities has provided a venue for focused collaboration
on Assessment for Learning.
?
Teachers have accepted the concept of Assessment For Learning as a way to improve student
learning in PRSD#10 because of the credibility of the AISI team as teachers who have used the
initiatives in their own classrooms and the sharing of successes by other teachers in the division.
?
The AISI team members are requested as supports to both teachers and administrators.
?
The educators in our division are seeing Assessment For Learning as a valuable instructional practice
to improve student learning. There is a spoken desire to learn more.
?
Teachers were willing to take a risk in sharing with their peers their successes, and learning
experiences through a DVD of their own Assessment For Learning journey.
?
Principal evaluation now has an AISI Assessment component. Increase in sub days from AISI
funding (used for Professional Development) from previous AISI cycles.
?
Teachers' knowledge and familiarity of curriculum, learning outcomes, and general outcomes has
grown from an awareness regarding the document to a living plan that responds to the needs of
learners.
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 31 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

2. WHAT did not work well? (Point form preferred)
2006/2007
?
Not every school had a School Assessment Team. Some just had administrators who filtered the
information to be shared with teachers.
?
The school-centered attitude that a school is so specific, special, or unique that no technique,
concept, or practice could possibly meet their needs prevents change; as well as the attitude that change
is not needed - that "good enough" is acceptable prevented commitment to the project.
?
Administrator as gate-keeper.
?
Initiative overload is a problem. Other issues over-rode the project.
?
New administrators had problems with work overload. As a result, AISI did not seem to be a
priority.
?
We see a trend of two of our largest elementary schools having difficulties in all core subjects. We
are focusing our time at more strategies for getting into the schools and assist teachers.
?
The belief that Assessment for Learning will make a difference in student learning is not held
throughout the entire system. Pockets of resistance exist especially in high schools. (The belief that
Assessment For Learning is a fad, or fashion. Disregarding the highly reliable, proven research.)
?
This initiative involves collaboration and working with others. Some teachers and administrators find
this threatening and have difficulties sharing, although this seems to be improving as time goes on.
?
Regardless of what the team does, there remains a belief that change is out of the teachers' hands due
to a variety of excuses (e.g. shallow gene pool, special education needs, behaviour, changing societal
trends, etc.) These arguments indicate a fundamental underlying belief that all children cannot learn or
are not equipped to do so. This fundamental belief must be addressed before change can take place.
3. Outline the project adjustments (if applicable). (Point form preferred)
2006/2007
Even though Grade Level of Achievement is a government initiative, it became a part of our scope as
being under the umbrella of Assessment For Learning. Other initiatives that AISI provided support and
assistance with included Mentorship, Mobile 1 to 1, and School Improvement Toolkit.
4. Specify how you shared and celebrated your AISI project and findings. (Point
form preferred)
2006/2007
?
DVD created to share challenges and successes within teachers from across the division
?
3 copies of DVD placed in Instructional Materials Center for sharing with schools at the request of
teachers and administrators
?
Presented to other school jurisdictions (Chinook's Edge, High Prairie School Division
?
Website
?
Newsletters
?
Bulletin Boards
?
Telling Our Stories
?
Carol Fedoruk published in AAC, presented at the 2006 AAC Conference; request from Anne
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 32 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Davies for Carol Fedoruk to share the AAC article for her.
?
At Alberta Assessment Consortium's Regional Assessment Specialist seminars we share what
happens in our jurisdiction in terms of Assessment For Learning.
?
We submit updates and articles to the School Division's newsletter "exPRSD"
?
Conversations
5. Explain the unanticipated results/effects? (if applicable) (Point form preferred)
2006/2007
?
Deputy Superintendent added AISI to school improvement plan, school organizational plan, and
annual education results report; Included AISI involvement component in evaluation of administrators
?
At times AISI mat seen as a scapegoat by some people. (e.g. A dip in results is being attributed to
AISI, as are weak results in PAT and Diploma Exams, but the reach and scope of AISI is not far
enough in the first year to have impacted these measures as yet.)
?
The work that we have been doing and the successes that teachers are experiencing in the classroom
cannot always be measured in numbers.
Section G4 - Sustainability (Optional in Year 1 and 2 - Required in final year)
How will this project be sustained?
2006/2007
IF ACTed upon. Where people are Informed, plans are Flexible to the needs of the teachers and
students. All parties are held Accountable, the research that indicates a positive change is Credible and
the vision and direction are Transparent - the change will occur because it will be acted upon as a part
of the teachers' growing understanding of best practice pedagogy. Teachers/Schools were required to
address one of four possible standards of assessment. Assessment practices in a school are now
addressed through a mandatory category of their school assessment plan. We have ensured there is a
School Assessment Team in every school. We meet with them regularly to ensure they are supported.
Section G5 - Project Status (for 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 only)
Year: 2006/2007
Please check one of the following boxes:
Continuing
Completed
Discontinued If so, please explain WHY
Section H. Attachments (Optional)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 33 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

*Please attach additional supporting documents in this section that provides
significant infomation about your project. Since your attachment may be posted on
the Internet any names should be excluded unless you have permission to publicly
release the names.
File Sent
File Received
Sent Date
Received
Status
Copyrighted
Document
Professional Development in AISI
Year One.doc
1070_30038_1.doc
2007-10-04
15:12:22
Successful N
Conference PD Synopsis Form.doc 1070_30038_2.doc
2007-10-04
15:13:17
Successful N
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 34 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Section I. Superintendent/CEO Certification and Electronic 'Signature' Approval
The information provided in this AISI Project Annual Report is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate, reliable and valid. I
believe that all AISI requirements have been met.
The school authority has the documentation and systems that support
the reported information.
Parents are involved and aware of the progress and results of the
project.
___________________
Superintendent/CEO Name
(electronic signature)
AISI Project Annual Report - Project 30038 (Print Preview)
Page 35 of 35
https://phoenix.edc.gov.ab.ca/login/aisi/APAR/APAR_PrintPreview.cfm?Project_id=300
...
13/11/2007

Back to top