From the Director’s Desk

We spend a lot of time at work, with our colleagues – no doubt about that. And although we’re not going to love every minute of work (let’s be real), unless there are serious issues that need to be addressed (in which case we should be doing just that), we owe it to ourselves, our colleagues, our students and our organization to be positive and add joy to the workplace.

According to de Haaff, it just takes a commitment to small actions to bring more joy to one’s work:

Practice Self-Gratitude:When you work hard and achieve great results, take some time to recognize it; be proud of yourself. Let this afﬁrmation fuel you to take on the next challenge with renewed passion and energy.
Be Compassionate:We can be hard on ourselves. Try to be kind to yourself when things don’t go right. If you’ve done your very best with the information you have, that’s all you can do. Let it go.
Reframe Positively:Not everything will always go as planned. How we respond to obstacles and challenges directly affects our ability to be happy. Will we focus on the negative? Or will we look for lessons in the experience and use them to do better next time? By reframing positively, we allow ourselves the chance to view a setback as a learning opportunity.
Respect Others:Help others do well.

https://blog.aha.io/you-can-experience-joy-at-work-every-day/

Strategic Planning

The process to develop our strategic plan post 2020 has begun!

On Wednesday, December 18, central ofﬁce staff took part in the ﬁrst of several strategic planning sessions scheduled for this school year. The goals for the day follow:

To analyze the strategic context in which LSSD operates and to identity factors and trends that could have a signiﬁcant impact on the school division over the next ﬁve years;
To identify LSSD’s most signiﬁcant internal strengths/ weaknesses and external opportunities/threats to be addressed in the upcoming strategic plan;
To develop a visioning cover story for LSSD to assist in articulating our collective vision, and
To identify LSSD’s priority areas of focus for the next ﬁve years.

The day began with a brief overview of the present Education Sector Strategic Plan (ESSP) and the recently released framework for the new Provincial Education Plan (PEP). From there, Laura Soparlo facilitated a SWOT analysis, in which participants identiﬁed our internal strengths (preserve and protect)/ weaknesses (improve) and external opportunities (leverage and seize)/threats (mitigate or eliminate). Here is a small sample of what I’m talking about:

Strengths: Commitment to making connections with students, families and each other/Lots of really dedicated people;

Weaknesses: Collaboration and communication between departments/Aging assets (buses, facilities, IT infrastructure);

Opportunities: Entrepreneurial partnerships (to support different pathways for students), and

Threats: Increased need for cyber security/Declining rural population and student enrolment.

Following the SWOT analysis, participants took part in a group activity, Visioning Cover Story, in which they wrote about what things would look like if we were to accomplish everything that is important to us. What are the changes we would see? What outcomes would we achieve? What would people be saying about us? What new innovations would we see? What would be the big headlines?

After lunch, we began by sharing our ideas about what ought to be LSSD’s collective values and associated cultural practices.

The ﬁnal activity of the day had groups identifying and sharing what they believed should be the school division’s top ﬁve strategic priorities for the next ﬁve years.

This information will be sorted into themes and added to the rest of the data we will collect from future meetings:

March 9 in Spiritwood (Hafford, Hartley Clark, Leoville, Maymont, Meadow Lake Christian, Medstead, SWHS);
April 27 in Macklin (Cando, Colony Schools, Cut Knife, Kerrobert, Luseland, Macklin, McLurg, Norman Carter, UCHS, UPS), and
June 1 in North Battleford (BCS, Bready, Connaught, Heritage Christian, Lawrence, McKitrick, NBCHS, St. Vital).

Collective Efﬁcacy

… the belief a team of individuals has that through their uniﬁed efforts they can overcome challenges and produce intended results

Last time I wrote about the ﬁrst necessary component of collective efﬁcacy – cohesion – working well as a team to collectively inﬂuence student achievement and coming to agreement on fundamental educational issues.

Another critical component is to be certain that effective intervention systems are in place. These systems of intervention help to ensure that all students are successful. The most effective practice occurs when people work together to recognize and close gaps in student achievement.

So, as we work toward becoming more collectively efﬁcacious, we need to ask ourselves, How well do we respond to the learning gaps illuminated by the data? How well do we design focused intervention to support students’ mastery of deﬁcit skills/ strategies? Just some food for thought…

Tell us more about…

What is Living Sky’s practice when it comes to giving students zeros?

Ok, so this month’s question is stated above. And just so you know, you can ask easy questions too!

Before I provide the answer, let me provide some background.

To assign a zero, or not to assign a zero for incomplete work is a controversial topic. I’m sure that many people, regardless of whether or not they work in the ﬁeld of Education, have opinions either for or against giving a grade of zero to an assignment that is not ﬁnished on time and submitted for marking.

Some of the most common arguments in favour of using zeros follow:

Zeros communicate to students that they need to work harder.
If zeros are not part of the assessment practice, we are not teaching students the real-life consequences of not meeting their responsibilities.
Students need to be held accountable. Life is full of deadlines and obligations that, if unmet, carry real consequences.

Arguments against using zeros are listed below:

Grades should reﬂect actual learning. A paper that has not been submitted cannot receive a grade… any grade.
A zero is not the appropriate consequence for failing to complete an assignment; requiring the student to complete the assignment makes more sense.
Low grades encourage struggling students to give up. Instead of being motivated to work harder, students who get zeros may tend to withdraw, put in less effort, and come to school less often because they feel deﬂated.
Awarding zeros is more about punishing students than it is about assessing knowledge. Doug Reeves described the temptation to penalize students, especially students who do not turn in assignments at all, by giving them zeros. As he put it, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, there is an almost fanatical belief that punishment through grades will motivate students.
When a missing assignment is given a zero, it has a disproportionately negative effect on a student’s overall grade average. Even demonstrating consistent mastery for months can be undone by just one zero. For example: Student A has achieved scores of 100%, 100%, 100%, 100% and 0%. Student B has achieved scores of 75%, 80%, 90%, 80% and 90%. Mathematically, it is Student B, who has the higher average (83%), but student A has clearly demonstrated greater mastery.
Giving a zero on a 100-point scale is mathematically questionable. On a 100-point scale, the interval between numerical and letter grades is typically 10 points, so an A is equivalent to a score between 90% and 100%, B is from 80% to 89.9%, C is from 70% to 79.9%, and D is from 60% to 69.9%. When a zero is applied to a 100-point scale, the interval between the D and F is not 10 points; it’s 60 points. Therefore, to insist on the use of a zero on a 100-point scale is to say that work that is not turned in deserves a penalty that is far more harsh than work that is done poorly and is worth a D.

https://www.ccresa.org/Files/Uploads/252/The_Case_Against_Zero.pdf

So, what’s our policy?

Living Sky School Division developed an Assessment Handbook several years ago. It was based on current research and is updated from time to time. The document starts with foundational beliefs about assessment:

Assessment should allow students to receive immediate feedback that helps them to reﬂect and achieve success (growth) at a higher level through deeper thinking.
Assessment should allow students to be risk takers, knowing that trial and error lead to innovative thinking.
Assessment needs to involve students in meaningful ways.
Assessment should be frequent and timely.
Assessment should be authentic (purposeful/meaningful).

The document cautions teachers to avoid practices that distort achievement, and one of the practices listed is assigning zeros for incomplete or plagiarized work.

A zero does not reﬂect the value of work not ﬁnished and handed in. Instead, when work is not submitted, INC (incomplete) is recorded in the grade book, and IE (insufﬁcient evidence) is used on the report card. All summative tasks must be completed to meet the requirements of a high school credit.

You can access the Assessment Handbook on our Curriculum Connections page.

Shifting a paradigm such as how we look at student assessment takes time and immense effort. Neither a no-zero nor a zero policy will ensure student success. Whatever the policy, I believe that success depends much more on letting students know that we believe they can succeed and on supporting them to keep trying even when success doesn’t come easily.

Have a wonderful week!

Brenda Vickers – Director of Education, Living Sky School Division

—

by Director of Education Brenda Vickers

From the Director’s Desk

Strategic Planning

Collective Efﬁcacy

Tell us more about…

What's Trending