Singapore American School WASC Report

SINGAPORE AMERICAN SCHOOL

WASC REPORT

Introduction SAS is proud of the results that it achieves in academic terms but recognizes that high achievement is not sufficient to classify oneself as a great school. In the interest of preparing students for academic, professional, and interpersonal success, a great school needs go beyond traditional academics to expand its understanding of what is required of a “21st century� Education and monitor the growth and achievement in these areas.

Through the process of developing the vision and desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs), SAS has identified seven critical 21st century outcomes: character, collaboration, communication, core knowledge, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence. Of these, core knowledge is the only one that SAS currently monitors.

SAS received permission from WASC to conduct a non-traditional focus on learning by focusing the self-study on five of the DSLOs: character, communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking (note: cultural competence was not included in the self-study because it was identified as a DSLO after the process had begun). The purpose of completing the self-study around these five DSLOs was to establish baseline programmatic data to complement the research taking place on reinventing SAS. The gap analysis between these two sets of information will inform the next strategic plan, helping SAS to move to the next level of excellence.

Professional learning communities (PLCs) acted as home groups, completing a deep dive into the DSLOs to identify where each one is currently explicitly taught and assessed. Divisions acted as focus groups and met to analyze the results and identify areas of strength and areas for growth.

The one exception to this was Chapter IV, Category C. Because the support services renewal was also taking place, support service PLCs acted as home groups to answer the prompts for support for student personal and academic growth and the support services renewal team acted as the focus group to analyze the results and identify areas of strength and areas for growth.

To facilitate the 2014 self-study, SAS convened a WASC leadership team that was representative of faculty, classified staff, parents, administration, and board members.

Name

Role

Name

Role

Jay Atwood

HS Technology Coordinator

Anita Langlois

Board Member, Parent

Erin Barker

Academic Data Coordinator

Doug Neihart

HS Deputy Principal

Treena Casey

Director of Curriculum, Parent

Robin Pearson

PS Counselor

Jason Cone

Executive Director of Information Technology, Parent

Devin Pratt

MS Principal

Chris Raymaakers

Grade 7 Math Teacher, Parent

Laurynn Evans

Executive Director of Talent Management

William Scarborough

Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Operations

Darin Fahrney

HS Deputy Principal, Support Services Coordinator, Parent

Jennifer Sparrow

Executive Director of Teaching & Learning, parent

Marian Graham

IS Principal

Vanessa Spier

Director of Communication, Parent

Crystal Hayling

Board Member, Parent

Dennis Steigerwald

HS Science Teacher, Parent

Jemma Hooykaas

Grade 5 teacher

Selvie Sundari

Grade 4 Instructional Assistant

David Hoss

PS Principal

Kerri Izzo

Parent

Chip Kimball

Superintendent

Ylva Kovacs

Admissions Specialist

Robert Landau

Deputy Superintendent

Josh Symes

Grade 6 PE Teacher

Sue Taylor

IS Counselor, Parent

Lisa Wan

Kindergarten Teacher, Parent

Amanda Wood

Grade 2 Resource Teacher, SelfStudy Coordinator

Section of Report

Description

Authors

Chapter 1: School Profile

Shares the results of demographic, student learning, and parent perception data

Jennifer Sparrow, Erin Barker, WASC Leadership Team, Admissions, Human Resources, and Finance

Chapter 2: Progress Report

Overviews significant changes and progress made since the 2008 self-study and the 2011 midterm

Jennifer Sparrow, WASC Leadership Team

Chapter 3: Analysis of Profile

Analyzes the data contained in Chapter 1

Jennifer Sparrow, Erin Barker, WASC Leadership Team

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings

Contains the results of investigating the four categories prescribed by WASC

WASC Leadership Team

Category A: Organizing for Student Learning

Subsections include: School Purpose; Governance; School Leadership; Staff; School Environment; Reporting Student Progress; School Improvement

Jennifer Sparrow, Chip Kimball, Laurynn Evans, SAS Administration

Category B: DSLOs (Character, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity & Innovation, Critical Thinking)

Subsections include: What Students Learn; How Students Learn; How Students are Assessed

Focus Group Leaders with input from PLCs & Focus Groups

Category C: Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth

Subsections include: Student Connectedness; Parent/Community Involvement

Darin Fahrney, Support Services Team; Amanda Wood, PTA Leadership

Category D: Resource Management and Development

Subsections include: Resources, Resource Planning

William Scarborough, Michael Kingan, Anthony Wong, Jason Cone, and Mike Kewelar

Chapter 5: Action Plan

Outlines suggested actions for each of the School-wide Areas of Growth

Jennifer Sparrow, WASC Leadership Team

Appendix A: Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment

Contains the results of investigating the prompts of the traditional Category B

Treena Casey, Jennifer Sparrow, WASC Leadership Team

Appendix B: Research and Development

Overviews the research and development process currently underway at SAS

Michael Clark, WASC Leadership Team

Each chapter and appendix was made available to employees for comments and questions and the feedback was utilized in the final draft. The parent section of Category C was shared with parents at parent coffees for feedback. Parents at these coffees also had the opportunity to provide input into the school-wide areas of strength and growth.

WASC REPORT PG 3

Although Chapter IV, Category B was the focus for teachers, the remaining content of the self-study was drafted through a collaborative process that involved the group closest to the work (e.g., finance, facilities, advancement, and technology administrators crafted the resource section). The following table indicates the authors of each section.

WASC REPORT PG 5

CHAPTER 1

SAS Profile School Purpose, Desired Student Learning Outcomes (DSLOs), and Institutional Commitments Student Demographics Faculty Demographics Student Learning Results MAP Results - Grades 3 to 5 ACT PLAN Results - Grade 9 PISA Results PSAT/NMSQT Results - Grades 10 and 11 SAT Results - Grade 12 Advanced Placement Results - High School College Admissions

Parent Perception Data

Singapore American School (SAS) is an independent, non-profit school. SAS offers educational programs through its primary school (including an early childhood center), intermediate school, middle school, and high school. SAS provides support for students with mild to moderate learning needs. Support for English as a second language is offered through grade three.

SAS has developed a preschool through grade 12 curriculum aligned to US standards in all subjects. This includes adoption of the Common Core State Standards for mathematics and English language arts.

SAS currently has 380 teachers and 230 support staff. The SAS leadership team consists of 24 administrators.

Eleven of these positions are divisional administrators (principals and deputy principals); the remaining have school-wide responsibility.

The school is financed through tuition and fees. A small grant is provided by the US State Department’s Office of Overseas Schools to support the learning needs program. The current operating budget is $134 million, including allocations to reserves. Through the advancement office, $1 million is available to support additional opportunities for students through enhancements in school programs.

WASC REPORT PG 7

School Purpose, Desired Student Learning Outcomes (DSLOs), & Institutional Commitments rld Leader in Education A Wo

N

ical thinking Crit

uture

uni

tiv crea

g atin Cultiv

mm

ty

co

Pr

e pa

ce

ers

ear sional l ning comm s e f uni tie Pro s ulum ric ur

aranteed viab le c n, gu o mm

r nin g

Great

Teaching Integ rat

f Lea

Every Student, Every Day

eo

in k

ral Co mpeten

ion

of

Hea

nc

ion

Th

Co

ept

al

Cultu

red

for

i

Exc

The mission of SAS is to provide “each student an exemplary American educational experience with an international perspective.” Six institutional commitments have been identified to ensure that SAS provides this exemplary experience. These commitments are written into all employee contracts and will become a foundation of the new professional growth and evaluation system (currently in development).

The six commitments are identified in the graphic to the side.

c atio n s

CORE KNOWLEDGE

the F

COLLA BOR ATI O

N

er ract cha

The vision of SAS is to be “a world leader in education cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future.” The measurable outcomes of the vision are defined by the desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs). The relationship of the DSLOs to the vision is illustrated in the graphic to the side.

Tec

h nol og

lthy or

y

E vi

ganizationa

de

lt l cu

ur

e

Student Demographics SAS is the world’s largest American-curriculum school outside of the United States, with a maximum enrollment of 3,939 students. SAS provides priority acceptance to students with US passports and students whose parents work for US companies in Singapore. SAS started the 2013-14 school year with 3,935 students (based on tuition collected). This is an increase of 90 students from the 2011 mid-term. This increase reduced the wait list numbers as it drew more students than usual from the applicant pool.

With six months of applications still pending before the start of the 2014-15 school year, SAS has a current combined applicant pool of 929 through August 2014. Within this, SAS is carrying a remainder of 211 students who are still hoping for admission during the 2013-14 school year. SAS has confidence that this wait list number is optimal for the remaining seats that will come available in second semester. The 211 includes a combination of 60 US citizens and Green Card holders waiting for admission. In addition, SAS is on track for August 2014 enrollment, with over 718 in the applicant pool as of February 6, 2014.

Enrollment

Maximum capacity

f10

f13

f10

13

total

3845

3935

3878

3939

PS

55

32

64

32

PK

96

110

96

112

KG

215

220

220

220

G1

268

285

286

286

G2

284

286

286

286

PS

918

933

952

936

G3

285

287

286

286

G4

284

286

286

286

G5

286

287

286

286

IS

855

860

858

858

G6

307

316

308

316

G7

304

318

308

316

G8

308

316

308

316

MS

919

950

924

948

G9

301

309

N/A

304

G10

295

301

N/A

304

G11

286

306

N/A

304

G12

271

276

N/A

285

HS

1153

1192

1144

1197

WASC REPORT PG 9 The percentages of new students at SAS range from 38% in the primary school to 11% in the high school.

Fifty-four percent of grade five students have been at SAS four years or longer, along with 51% of grade eight students, and 73% of grade twelve students. The average length of enrollment is 4.0 years, which is up slightly since the 2011 mid-term visit. When considering the actual possible number of years of schooling, the average grade five student has spent 66% (four years) of his or her education since kindergarten at SAS, the average grade eight student has been here 52% of that time (4.7 years), and the average grade twelve student has been here for 51% (6.6 years). At 3.7 years, the average tenure for US citizens is slightly lower than the school average.

The average tenure for Singapore citizens is slightly higher at 5.1 years.

NEW STUDENTS

RETURNING STUDENTS

f10

f13

f10

13

total

20%

21%

80%

79%

PS

98%

100%

2%

0%

PK

42%

46%

58%

54%

KG

61%

61%

39%

39%

G1

29%

31%

71%

69%

G2

15%

19%

85%

81%

PS

38%

38%

62%

62%

G3

15%

16%

85%

84%

G4

18%

16%

82%

84%

G5

15%

19%

85%

81%

IS

16%

17%

84%

83%

G6

20%

24%

80%

76%

G7

15%

16%

85%

84%

G8

12%

16%

88%

84%

MS

16%

19%

84%

81%

G9

17%

15%

83%

85%

G10

12%

10%

88%

90%

G11

14%

14%

86%

86%

G12

6%

6%

94%

94%

HS

12%

11%

88%

89%

Average Years of Enrollment at SAS Fall 2013 Average years 2013-14 of enrollment* 4.0

793

2012-13

2011-12

3.7

3.9

2010-11 3.6

802

526

Number of STUDENTS

429 348 255 178

200 133 81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Number of Years at SAS

9

10

*Current students are considered as having enrolled in SAS for one year.

54

11

44

12

26

13

9

13

14

15

WASC REPORT PG 11

Years of Enrollment at SAS (By Grades) Fall 2013

6.6

5.6 5.0 4.5 4.0

3.9

5

6

5.1

4.7

3.6 3.2 2.6 2.1 1.5

1.6

PK

KG

1.0

PS

1

2

3

4

Grade Avg Yrs of Enrollment by Grades Avg Yrs of Enrollment (All Students)

7

8

9

10

11

12

Average Years of enrollment at sas by nationality sept 2013 Bangladesh Nepal Poland Ireland South Africa Angola Finland Bulgaria Malaysia Mexico Denmark Indonesia Philippines Sri Lanka Singapore Austria Korea Sweden Canada United Kingdom Brazil Japan New Zealand Peru Australia **United States years 0.0

15.0

1

11.0 1 10.5 2 10.5 2 7.5 6.8 5 6.5 2 6.0 23 6.0 3 6.0 1 6.0 38 5.9 73 5.3 3 5.1 206 5.0 1 5.0 222 4.8 5 4.8 90 4.8 64 4.6 5 4.6 57 4.6 18 4.5 2 4.4 41

8.6 4

8

*

= number of students

^ Countries that are presented in red

are the ten largest nationalities at SAS

**Average Length of Enrollment for US Population by Sponsors

US Navy : 2.4 yrs US Embassy : 2.3 yrs SAS : 5.8 yrs Others : 3.7 yrs

154 63 131 2,325

3.7 2,670 2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Female

GENDER Distribution Although there are slightly more males than females across the school, gender distribution is relatively even in each grade.

Overall, 69% of SAS students are US citizens; 13% of these students hold a second passport. The remaining 31% of SAS students have passports from an East Asian country (9%), Singapore (5%), another Southeast Asian country (4%), a Southern Asian country (5%) or one of a variety of other countries (8%). Although the overall percentage of students in each grade who are US citizens is relatively similar, there have been some shifts with several of the lower grades seeing a reduction of US citizens and several upper grades seeing an increase.

Male

f10

f13

f10

13

Total

**%

49%

**%

51%

PS

44%

39%

56%

61%

PK

46%

45%

54%

55%

KG

48%

46%

52%

54%

G1

46%

51%

54%

49%

G2

49%

42%

51%

58%

G3

50%

49%

50%

51%

G4

51%

51%

49%

49%

G5

47%

49%

53%

51%

G6

51%

50%

49%

50%

G7

54%

53%

46%

47%

G8

48%

53%

88%

47%

G9

51%

47%

49%

53%

G10

44%

51%

56%

49%

G11

52%

51%

48%

49%

G12

48%

43%

52%

57%

Australasia

EAST ASIA

EUROPE

NORTH AMERICA

Singapore

(Not US)

Southeast Asia

Southern ASIA

(Not Singapore)

Us

f10

f13

f10

F13

f10

F13

f10

F13

f10

F13

f10

F13

f10

F13

f10

F13

Total

2%

2%

9%

9%

4%

4%

3%

2%

5%

5%

4%

4%

5%

5%

67%

69%

PS

4%

3%

9%

0%

4%

3%

1%

0%

6%

3%

5%

3%

4%

10%

66%

78%

PK

1%

5%

3%

11%

1%

5%

5%

4%

5%

8%

2%

4%

1%

4%

82%

59%

KG

3%

2%

7%

18%

2%

4%

3%

3%

4%

3%

6%

1%

4%

6%

70%

63%

G1

1%

2%

8%

15%

5%

5%

3%

2%

4%

5%

4%

2%

6%

6%

69%

63%

G2

2%

2%

7%

8%

4%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

5%

5%

3%

4%

72%

72%

G3

1%

2%

7%

7%

4%

3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

6%

5%

4%

3%

74%

72%

G4

1%

0%

8%

6%

2%

4%

2%

4%

6%

4%

5%

4%

5%

8%

71%

70%

G5

1%

1%

6%

5%

6%

4%

3%

2%

3%

3%

4%

3%

4%

3%

72%

79%

G6

2%

1%

8%

7%

4%

4%

2%

1%

5%

4%

2%

4%

5%

5%

70%

74%

G7

1%

1%

12%

8%

5%

2%

6%

1%

3%

8%

4%

5%

4%

4%

65%

71%

G8

1%

1%

8%

6%

4%

5%

3%

3%

6%

5%

6%

4%

6%

5%

65%

71%

G9

2%

2%

10%

8%

3%

4%

3%

1%

3%

7%

3%

3%

5%

5%

70%

70%

G10

3%

1%

8%

12%

5%

6%

3%

4%

8%

6%

4%

4%

7%

5%

61%

62%

G11

1%

0%

15%

9%

5%

4%

6%

2%

10%

8%

7%

7%

6%

4%

49%

66%

G12

2%

2%

17%

10%

3%

3%

3%

3%

9%

6%

8%

3%

4%

5%

53%

68%

Student Enrollment By Nationality Fall 2013 Japan 1% United Kingdom 2%

China 1%

Australia 1%

Others 6%

Philippines 2% Canada 2% India 5%

Singapore 5%

Details on 2nd Passport Holders

Korea 6%

Japan United Kingdom Korea Canada Australia France Indonesia Germany Philippines Others

US passport holders with second passport 13% of American student population

2.5% 1.9% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 3.9%

United States

69%

WASC REPORT PG 13

Student nationalities

lim chu kang yew tee 8

2

bukit batok

chua chu kang

2

104

66

singapore american school

woodlands marsiling 562 kranji

16 37

111

5

144

57

96

sembawang yishun

10

yio chu kang

khatib

59

7

46

5

15

toa payoh

bishan

ang mo kio 30

marymount bukit brown 110

132

istric

25 d 9

queenstown

5 3

12

443

19

2

seletar 3

2

punggol

hougang

tai seng

lorong chuan serrangoon 9 1

t

istric

09

7

clark quay 2 chinatown 4 tanjong pagar 1 7 marina bay

135

1

1

1

expo

p.ubin

simei

tampines

3

PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL CURRENT STUDENT POPULATION

changi airport

4.0% - 7.9%

2.0% - 3.9%

0.01% - 1.9%

13.0% - 14.9%

10.0% - 12.9%

* As at 1 September 2013. Number of students are presented in

macpherson botanic garden bedok 167 newton farrer park 6 farrer road 226 holland village 493 13 little india paya lebar 1 3 common wealth somerset east coast park stadium 13 dhoby ghuat 3 1 nicoll highway 280

170

t

boon lay

jurong east

46

clementi

13

18

sentosa

habour front

34

d

Students live all over Singapore.

14% live in suburban District 25, where SAS is located. Around 84% of students take SAS buses to school.

12

joo kooh

1 3

istric

10 d

123

t

Student Receiving Support or extension

ecc #

ps % of

division

#

Is % of

division

#

Ms % of

division

#

hs % of

division

#

% of

division

Total % of # division

Students with IESPs receiving services

21

15%

107

14%

113

13%

76

8%

67

6%

384

10%

Students without IESPs receiving services

2

1%

37

5%

3

0%

35

4%

25

2%

702

3%

23

16%

144

18%

116

13%

111

12%

92

8%

486

12%

0

0%

26

3%

7

1%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

o

0%

52

7%

176

20%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total Students with receiving learning services Students receiving ESOL support Students receiving GATE and Enrichment services

WASC REPORT PG 15

SAS admits students with learning differences. In all grades, there is support for students with mild to moderate learning disabilities. These students account for 12% of the total student body. In kindergarten through grade three there is support for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students. In kindergarten through grade five, there is extension support (see Section C for full description). Although data is collected measuring participation in support services, mechanisms have not yet been established to gather data about exiting services. This recommendation has emerged from the support services review and Section C of Chapter 4.

Faculty Demographics SAS employees 380 faculty, 230 support staff, and 24 administrators. This is an increase of 25 faculty positions since the mid-term visit. There has been no change in the number of administrator positions. The majority of administrators and faculty have a master’s degree or higher.

Faculty Demographics 2013-2014 Total #

HS

MS

IS

PS

Aug-10

Aug-13

Aug-10

Aug-13

Aug-10

Aug-13

Aug-10

Aug-13

Aug-10

# of faculty

354

379

109

113

90

96

77

84

78

Aug-13 86

# of FTE

349.33

373.41

108.6

111.95

89.1

94.5

74.63

80.96

77

86

% U.S. passport

224

230

72%

67%

64%

59%

61%

64%

53%

50%

% Host Country

10

10

1%

1%

1%

2%

4%

2%

6%

6%

% Others

120

139

28%

32%

34%

39%

35%

34%

41%

44%

Male

146

142

61%

58%

48%

44%

29%

24%

18%

17%

Female

208

237

39%

42%

52%

56%

71%

76%

82%

83%

Bachelor's

105

97

23%

20%

26%

22%

34%

29%

40%

34%

Master's

240

275

72%

76%

71%

77%

66%

71%

60%

64%

PhD

9

7

6%

4%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

2%

Nationality

Gender

Educational Level

Years at SAS % in 1st year

46

43

9%

10%

19%

8%

16%

13%

9%

15%

% in 2nd to 5th year

115

132

31%

35%

33%

36%

31%

36%

35%

31%

% in 6th to 10th year

118

96

29%

20%

30%

31%

42%

30%

35%

21%

% in 11th to 15th year

45

68

18%

19%

10%

13%

6%

17%

14%

24%

% in 16th and above year

30

40

12%

16%

8%

11%

5%

5%

8%

8%

Contract Renewal % of faculty who renewed contracts

343

340

88%

90%

89%

93%

87%

87%

87%

89%

% of faculty who left

42

39

12%

10%

11%

7%

13%

13%

13%

11%

% of local hire faculty

51

61

6%

9%

10%

11%

21%

23%

24%

24%

% of overseas hire faculty

303

318

94%

91%

90%

89%

79%

77%

76%

76%

Type of Contract

Faculty in Special Services Positions, 2013-2014 Role

PS

IS

MS

HS

ESOL

2

1

-

-

Speech/Language

2

1

1

-

Learning Support

-

7

-

5

Resource

5

-

7

-

Counselor

3

3

3

9

Psychologist

0.5

0.5

1

1

% (#) attending Forbes Top 200, non-selective school

2% (3)

2% (3)

2% (3)

2% (3)

WASC REPORT PG 17

Student Learning Results MAP Results - Grades Three Through Five

Students in grades three through eight take the Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments in the areas of language skills, math, and reading. Since MAP assessments are given twice each year, growth can be calculated. For comparison purposes, average grade-level scores and growth rates are calculated. The MAP publisher, Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), then converts each into a percentile rank. The chart below shares various statistics for the spring 2013 testing session.

Spring 2013 Results Language Average SAS Score

Average US Score

Average EARCOS Score

Math Average Gain Percentile

School Percentile

Average SAS Score

Average US Score

Reading

Average EARCOS Score

Average Gain Percentile

School Percentile

Average SAS Score

Average US Score

Average EARCOS Score

School Percentile

Average Gain Percentile

G3

210

199

199

99

59

216

203

200

99

78

208

200

195

97

59

G4

218

207

206

99

91

231

212

211

99

94

217

207

203

99

88

G5

223

212

212

99

95

239

221

221

99

66

225

213

210

99

97

G6

228

216

217

99

97

240

226

230

99

27

228

216

217

99

92

G7

230

220

220

99

98

246

230

236

99

55

232

219

219

99

96

G8

233

222

225

99

99

251

234

243

99

62

236

221

225

99

99v

MAP results are reported in Rasch Unit (RIT) scores, which represent the level of difficulty at which students correctly answer approximately 50% of questions posed. RIT scores equate to a place on a continuum that measures concept and skill acquisition called the DesCartes Continuum. The following table shows the percentage of students in each grade who fall within each RIT range, with the red representing ranges in which at least 25% of the grade scores. The top row states the average RIT score for all SAS students in that grade.

Teachers use this information to select skills from DesCartes continua to support differentiation in the classroom.

Language RIT Ranges Overall

Plan/ Organize/ Research

Understand Grammar/ Usage

Punctuate/ Spell Correctly

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

Average RIT

210

218

223

228

230

233

210

218

225

229

232

235

210

216

221

226

228

230

211

218

224

228

231

234

170-179

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

180-189

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

190-199

10%

3%

1%

0%

0%

0%

12%

3%

1%

0%

0%

1%

11%

5%

1%

0%

0%

0%

14%

4%

1%

0%

0%

0%

200-209

31%

14%

3%

2%

1%

2%

27%

17%

4%

3%

2%

1%

31%

18%

10%

4%

3%

2%

27%

17%

6%

1%

1%

2%

210-219

38%

40%

27%

13%

9%

6%

36%

33%

26%

10%

6%

6%

35%

37%

31%

23%

18%

10%

35%

33%

24%

16%

12%

6%

220-229

16%

36%

46%

41%

36%

27%

16%

37%

34%

34%

29%

25%

19%

32%

38%

35%

32%

32%

17%

28%

40%

42%

33%

25%

230-239

1%

7%

20%

40%

40%

43%

3%

8%

30%

42%

40%

33%

1%

7%

17%

32%

34%

40%

5%

17%

23%

31%

34%

39%

240-249

0%

0%

4%

3%

13%

18%

0%

1%

4%

10%

19%

26%

0%

0%

2%

5%

10%

11%

0%

1%

5%

8%

15%

19%

250-259

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

4%

0%

0%

1%

1%

3%

8%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

3%

7%

260-269

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Reading RIT Ranges Overall Average RIT

Literature

Informational Text

Foundation/Vocabulary

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

208

217

225

228

232

236

209

218

226

228

232

235

208

217

224

227

231

235

207

217

224

228

22

236

170-179

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

180-189

6%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

4%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

4%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0%

190-199

13%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

16%

7%

0%

1%

0%

1%

14%

7%

1%

1%

0%

1%

16%

4%

1%

0%

0%

0%

200-209

27%

18%

5%

4%

2%

1%

25%

15%

5%

4%

3%

1%

29%

18%

10%

5%

2%

2%

34%

22%

6%

2%

2%

0%

210-219

38%

33%

23%

13%

9%

7%

35%

31%

20%

14%

9%

6%

28%

33%

20%

18%

13%

7%

28%

31%

25%

18%

10%

8%

220-229

13%

33%

35%

38%

33%

16%

15%

30%

34%

35%

30%

20%

18%

28%

35%

29%

30%

19%

11%

29%

36%

33%

33%

18%

230-239

1%

10%

32%

35%

36%

38%

3%

13%

31%

33%

38%

36%

3%

13%

25%

34%

32%

33%

4%

12%

25%

35%

33%

34% 30%

240-249

0%

0%

4%

11%

18%

31%

0%

3%

7%

11%

15%

28%

0%

0%

8%

10%

19%

27%

0%

1%

5%

12%

16%

250-259

0%

0%

0%

0%

2%

6%

0%

0%

1%

2%

5%

7%

0%

0%

0%

3%

4%

10%

0%

0%

1%

1%

4%

7%

260-269

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

270-279

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Math RIT Ranges - Grades 3-5 Overall Average RIT

Algebraic Thinking

Number & Operations

Fractions

Measurement & Data

G3

G4

G5

G3

G4

G5

G3

G4

G5

G3

G4

G5

G3

G4

G5

216

231

239

225

227

235

213

228

236

218

232

245

214

231

241

170-179

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

180-189

1%

0%

0%

2%

0%

1%

3%

0%

1%

1%

0%

0%

2%

1%

0%

190-199

6%

1%

1%

7%

2%

1%

15%

2%

0%

7%

1%

1%

12%

0%

1%

200-209

24%

3%

1%

22%

6%

2%

22%

6%

2%

21%

4%

2%

24%

7%

1%

210-219

35%

16%

3%

30%

19%

7%

30%

22%

6%

24%

13%

4%

27%

21%

2%

220-229

22%

30%

15%

24%

28%

21%

20%

26%

24%

26%

28%

13%

21%

17%

13%

230-239

8%

26%

29%

10%

30%

29%

8%

22%

28%

12%

21%

18%

7%

23%

26%

240-249

3%

16%

29%

4%

12%

27%

2%

16%

21%

6%

24%

26%

4%

18%

26%

250-259

1%

5%

17%

0%

2%

8%

0%

3%

15%

1%

6%

20%

2%

8%

21%

260-269

0%

1%

5%

0%

1%

1%

0%

2%

1%

1%

2%

10%

0%

5%

7%

270-279

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

5%

0%

1%

1%

280-289

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

2%

0%

0%

1%

Math RIT Ranges - Grades 6-8 Overall

Algebra & Functions

Real & Complex Number Systems

Statistics & Probability

Geometry

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

Average RIT

240

246

251

236

242

252

243

246

251

239

242

249

241

248

252

200-209

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

0%

210-219

5%

3%

1%

5%

3%

2%

4%

3%

2%

6%

3%

2%

4%

3%

2%

220-229

11%

6%

4%

20%

12%

4%

9%

6%

5%

14%

13%

7%

14%

8%

8%

230-239

33%

25%

12%

34%

32%

15%

24%

21%

11%

27%

26%

14%

29%

18%

13%

240-249

30%

31%

28%

28%

28%

20%

29%

26%

27%

33%

30%

33%

23%

24%

21%

250-259

18%

23%

27%

9%

11%

24%

25%

31%

27%

15%

20%

20%

22%

24%

21%

260-269

1%

10%

18%

1%

8%

23%

6%

10%

17%

4%

5%

13%

5%

15%

22%

270-279

1%

1%

8%

0%

5%

9%

1%

2%

8%

0%

2%

8%

2%

6%

11%

280-289

0%

1%

1%

0%

1%

2%

0%

1%

3%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

2%

290-299

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

1%

1%

Language Stanines Below Average Stanine 1 %ile = 1-3

Stanine 2 %ile = 4-10

Average Stanine 3 %ile = 11-22

Stanine 4 %ile = 23-39

Stanine 5 %ile = 40-59

Above Average Stanine 6 %ile = 60-76

Stanine 7 %ile = 77-88

Stanine 8 %ile = 89-95

Stanine 9 %ile = 96-99

G3

0%

1%

1%

5%

14%

29%

23%

17%

9%

G4

0%

1%

1%

6%

12%

24%

27%

21%

7%

G5

0%

1%

0%

3%

18%

23%

28%

21%

6%

G6

0%

0%

0%

4%

11%

24%

26%

28%

6%

G7

0%

1%

0%

3%

9%

26%

28%

23%

9%

G8

0%

1%

1%

4%

10%

22%

31%

21%

11%

Stanine 3 %ile = 11-22

Stanine 4 %ile = 23-39

Stanine 5 %ile = 40-59

Stanine 6 %ile = 60-76

Stanine 7 %ile = 77-88

Reading Stanines Below Average Stanine 1 %ile = 1-3

Stanine 2 %ile = 4-10

Average

Above Average Stanine 8 %ile = 89-95

Stanine 9 %ile = 96-99

G3

0%

2%

4%

6%

18%

17%

30%

15%

8%

G4

0%

0%

4%

6%

18%

18%

23%

25%

7%

G5

1%

0%

1%

2%

14%

23%

23%

28%

8%

G6

0%

0%

1%

4%

12%

25%

26%

25%

6%

G7

0%

0%

1%

3%

14%

30%

21%

21%

9%

G8

0%

0%

1%

4%

10%

24%

29%

22%

10'%

Math Stanines Below Average Stanine 1 %ile = 1-3

Stanine 2 %ile = 4-10

Average Stanine 3 %ile = 11-22

Stanine 4 %ile = 23-39

Stanine 5 %ile = 40-59

Above Average Stanine 6 %ile = 60-76

Stanine 7 %ile = 77-88

Stanine 8 %ile = 89-95

Stanine 9 %ile = 96-99

G3

0%

1%

3%

4%

14%

21%

22%

18%

19%

G4

0%

1%

0%

2%

9%

18%

21%

18%

31%

G5

1%

0%

1%

2%

6%

13%

21%

26%

30%

G6

0%

0%

1%

5%

10%

25%

22%

25%

11%

G7

0%

0%

2%

5%

13%

27%

27%

16%

10%

G8

0%

0%

2%

4%

10%

23%

25%

20%

16%

WASC REPORT PG 19

SAS also examines the percentage of students who fall into each stanine, which is based on percentile rankings. Monitoring this data helps to identify students at either end of the spectrum: those needing remediation support and those needing extension support.

To monitor growth, SAS examines the difference between fall and spring scores. Note that -3 to 3 is the average standard of error for the test, so changes within this range are considered insignificant and do not qualify as growth. The red shaded areas indicate ranges that represent at least 25% of students.

2012-13 Language Growth Results Overall Language RIT

Plan/ Organize/ Research

Understand Grammar/ Usage

Punctuate/ Spell Correctly

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

NWEA Ave

9.2

6.1

4.9

3.9

2.9

2.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

SAS Ave

7.7

7.0

5.7

4.9

4.4

4.2

7.9

7.6

6.5

4.9

4.2

3.7

7.1

6.7

4.8

5.4

4.6

4.8

8.2

6.9

5.7

4.5

4.3

4.1

>-9

0%

0%

1%

1%

0%

1%

3%

1%

4%

5%

5%

5%

3%

4%

5%

7%

5%

6%

3%

2%

3%

3%

7%

7%

- 7 to -9

1%

1%

0%

2%

1%

2%

3%

5%

3%

3%

4%

5%

3%

2%

5%

4%

5%

4%

3%

3%

5%

3%

5%

5%

-4 to -6

3%

4%

5%

5%

6%

7%

4%

3%

5%

9%

7%

9%

8%

7%

5%

6%

7%

8%

6%

6%

8%

8%

7%

8%

-3 to 3*

25%

24%

31%

37%

34%

33%

23%

23%

23%

30%

30%

31%

23%

25%

28%

22%

31%

25%

19%

22%

28%

34%

26%

28%

4 to 6

16%

15%

19%

17%

25%

25%

12%

14%

13%

11%

16%

14%

12%

12%

15%

13%

11%

14%

11%

13%

11%

15%

14%

13%

7 to 9

17%

22%

19%

20%

19%

18%

10%

12%

14%

13%

16%

18%

13%

14%

12%

16%

12%

12%

17%

16%

12%

10%

16%

12%

>9

37%

34%

25%

19%

15%

15%

44%

42%

38%

29%

22%

18%

38%

37%

31%

33%

30%

30%

41%

37%

33%

26%

25%

26%

2012-13 Reading Growth Results Overall Reading RIT

Literature

Informational Text

Foundations/Vocabulary

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

NWEA Ave

9.3

6.3

5.2

4.1

3.4

3.1

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

SAS Ave

7.5

6.4

6.3

4.5

3.9

3.8

6.4

6.2

6.3

3.9

3.5

3.8

8.6

5.9

6.1

4.9

4.5

4.5

7.3

7.2

6.4

4.5

3.7

3.5

>-9

1%

1%

0%

2%

1%

1%

3%

6%

4%

9%

8%

8%

3%

4%

4%

6%

8%

8%

4%

2%

5%

7%

8%

8%

- 7 to -9

1%

1%

2%

5%

3%

2%

4%

4%

5%

5%

6%

5%

5%

5%

7%

6%

4%

6%

5%

4%

4%

5%

5%

5%

-4 to -6

3%

6%

4%

6%

5%

8%

9%

6%

10%

7%

6%

9%

5%

6%

7%

8%

7%

7%

6%

6%

5%

8%

7%

9%

-3 to 3*

23%

25%

27%

31%

39%

38%

26%

22%

19%

30%

28%

27%

16%

30%

24%

25%

27%

26%

21%

23%

24%

25%

30%

29%

4 to 6

19%

15%

18%

20%

17%

21%

11%

15%

11%

9%

15%

15%

10%

8%

13%

14%

16%

11%

12%

14%

13%

13%

12%

15%

7 to 9

18%

20%

18%

14%

16%

15%

13%

13%

13%

12%

11%

11%

15%

12%

9%

10%

11%

11%

11%

11%

14%

13%

11%

9%

>9

35%

32%

31%

22%

18%

16%

34%

35%

38%

28%

25%

26%

46%

35%

36%

31%

28%

31%

40%

41%

36%

29%

27%

26%

2012-13 Math Growth Results - Grades 3-5 Algebraic Thinking

Number & Operations

G3

Overall Math RIT G4

G5

G3

G4

G5

G3

G4

G5

G3

Fractions G4

G5

G3

Measurement & Data G4

G5

NWEA Ave

11.2

8.9

8.0

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

SAS Ave

11.0

8.7

8.1

9.7

9.8

5.0

12.7

15.4

9.1

13.5

15.6

13

9.3

12.6

9.2

>-9

0%

0%

0%

3%

4%

13%

2%

2%

9%

2%

1%

3%

5%

2%

7%

- 7 to -9

0%

0%

1%

3%

5%

4%

1%

3%

3%

3%

1%

3%

5%

4%

3%

-4 to -6

1%

0%

3%

5%

5%

5%

4%

3%

3%

2%

1%

5%

5%

3%

4%

-3 to 3*

11%

10%

14%

19%

14%

21%

18%

6%

17%

15%

12%

10%

15%

12%

15%

4 to 6

12%

10%

15%

10%

10%

11%

10%

8%

6%

9%

6%

8%

11%

11%

11%

7 to 9

18%

13%

15%

12%

13%

10%

7%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

13%

7%

9%

>9

58%

67%

50%

48%

50%

36%

58%

69%

52%

61%

70%

63%

47%

60%

50%

Overall Math RIT

Algebra & Functions

Real & Complex Number Systems

Statistics & Probability

Geometry

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

G6

G7

G8

NWEA Ave

6.0

4.9

4.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

SAS Ave

4.4

5.0

4.1

4.7

5.7

6.5

6.6

5.3

3.1

2.5

1.9

3.0

3.8

7.0

3.6

>-9

2%

1%

2%

8%

7%

7%

4%

7%

12%

12%

14%

13%

7%

6%

13%

- 7 to -9

3%

4%

3%

4%

2%

4%

4%

4%

5%

6%

7%

6%

8%

6%

5%

-4 to -6

5%

5%

7%

8%

6%

6%

5%

6%

7%

9%

9%

9%

8%

5%

8%

-3 to 3*

37%

31%

35%

25%

24%

18%

23%

26%

27%

28%

26%

25%

28%

18%

25%

4 to 6

17%

21%

18%

14%

15%

13%

13%

15%

11%

12%

11%

12%

12%

13%

10%

7 to 9

16%

19%

14%

11%

13%

15%

15%

11%

9%

7%

11%

11%

9%

9%

9%

>9

21%

20%

21%

31%

34%

38%

35%

27%

28%

25%

22%

25%

28%

43%

30%

Recognizing that SAS is a well-resourced school serving economically and educationally privileged families, SAS obtained a Virtual Comparison Group (VCG) report from NWEA for the 2012-13 school year. This report compares every tested SAS student with a unique cohort of 51 students matched for baseline RIT score, gender, grade, and socioeconomic context of the school. Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent references to SAS student growth relative to peers refer to data from this comparison.

The following tables compare the growth of SAS students against VCG peers, by baseline MAP percentile.

They present comparisons for all students and gender-specific groups, excluding strata with two or fewer SAS students: Intermediate School Baseline Percentile

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Reading

Language

Math

All

Female

Male

All

Female

Male

All

Female

Male

0-9

NS

N/A

N/A

NS

NS

N/A

NS

NS

N/A

10-19

NS

N/A

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

N/A

N/A

20-29

NS

NS

NS

NS

N/A

NS

NS

NS

NS

30-39

NS

NS

NS

NS

N/A

NS

NS

NS

N/A

40-49

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

+

NS

N/A

NS

50-59

-

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

60-69

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

70-79

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

80-89

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

90-99

NS

NS

NS

NS

-

NS

NS

NS

NS

0-9

N/A

N/A

N/A

NS

N/A

NS

N/A

N/A

N/A

10-19

NS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NS

N/A

N/A

20-29

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

N/A

30-39

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

N/A

40-49

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

50-59

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

60-69

NS

NS

-

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

70-79

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

80-89

+

+

NS

NS

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

90-99

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

0-9

NS

NS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10-19

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

20-29

+

N/A

+

NS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

30-39

NS

NS

NS

+

NS

N/A

NS

NS

N/A

40-49

+

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

+

N/A

50-59

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

60-69

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

70-79

+

NS

+

+

+

+

NS

NS

NS

80-89

+

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

90-99

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

LEGEND <3 students in stratum

No significant difference

SAS students gain significantly greater than comparison, effect size >0.8

SAS students gain significantly greater than comparison, effect size 0.5-0.8

SAS students gain significantly lesser than comparison, effect size >0.8

SAS students gain significantly greater than comparison, effect size of 0.2-0.5

SAS students gain significantly lesser than comparison, effect size of 0.2-0.5

SAS students gain significantly lesser than comparison, effect size 0.5-0.8

WASC REPORT PG 21

2012-13 Math Growth Results - Grades 6-8

Middle School Baseline Percentile

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Reading

Language

Math

All

Female

Male

All

Female

Male

All

Female

Male

0-9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10-19

NS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

20-29

NS

N/A

NS

+

N/A

NS

NS

N/A

N/A

30-39

NS

NS

NS

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

N/A

40-49

NS

+

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

50-59

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

60-69

+

NS

+

+

+

NS

-

-

NS

70-79

+

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

ores

NS

NS

NS

+

+

+

-

-

-

SAS students gain significantly greater than comparison, effect size >0.8

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

-

-

-

0-9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10-19

NS

N/A

NS

NS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

20-29

NS

NS

N/A

+

NS

+

NS

NS

N/A

30-39

NS

NS

N/A

NS

N/A

NS

NS

NS

NS

40-49

+

NS

+

NS

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

+

+

+

+

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

60-69

+

+

+

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

70-79

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

-

80-89

+

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

90-99

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

-

0-9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NS

N/A

+

N/A

N/A

N/A

20-29

NS

-

NS

+

N/A

+

N/A

N/A

N/A

30-39

+

+

NS

NS

N/A

NS

NS

NS

NS

40-49

+

+

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

60-69

NS

NS

NS

+

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

70-79

+

+

+

+

NS

+

NS

NS

NS

80-89

+

NS

+

+

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

90-99

+

+

NS

NS

NS

-

-

-

-

SAS students gain significantly greater than comparison, effect size 0.5-0.8

SAS students gain significantly lesser than comparison, effect size >0.8

10-19

50-59

<3 students in stratum

No significant difference

90-99

50-59

LEGEND

SAS students gain significantly greater than comparison, effect size of 0.2-0.5

SAS students gain significantly lesser than comparison, effect size of 0.2-0.5

SAS students gain significantly lesser than comparison, effect size 0.5-0.8

American College Testing (ACT) Plan Results - Grade 9 The American College Testing (ACT) Plan is administered at SAS to all grade nine students in the fall.

Components of the Plan include English (usage/mechanics, rhetorical skills), mathematics (pre-algebra/ algebra, geometry), and reading (prose fiction, humanities, social studies) and science reasoning (general science). The raw score is equated to a score on the ACT Plan scale of one to thirty-two.

PLAN Longitudinal Results - Grade 9 English Middle 50%

SAS Mean

National Mean

Math National Percentile

Middle 50%

SAS Mean

National Mean

Reading National Percentile

Middle 50%

SAS Mean

National Mean

Science Reasoning National Percentile

Middle 50%

SAS Mean

National Mean

National Percentile

2008

17-23

20.1

16.9

79

18-27

21.8

17.4

86

16-23

19.8

16.9

78

18-24

21.4

18.2

85

2009

17-23

19.8

16.9

79

17-24

20.9

17.4

83

16-23

19.4

16.9

73

17-22

20.3

18.2

78

2010

16-21

19.1

16.9

72

18-25

21.6

17.4

86

16-23

19.9

16.9

78

18-24

21

18.2

85

2011

17-23

20.3

16.2

84

18-27

22.2

17.6

85

16-23

20.1

16.7

78

19-24

21.6

17.8

89

2012

18-23

20.3

16.2

84

18-25

21.4

17.6

82

16-24

20

16.7

78

19-25

21.7

17.8

89

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is administered every three years to a random sampling of students who are 15 years old. The PISA measures to what extent students can apply their knowledge to real-life situations and be equipped for participation in society through both multiple choice and open-ended questions. During the 2012 administration of PISA, the Singapore government invited SAS

SAS 584

#1

Shanghai 613

SAS 588

#2

Singapore 573

#16

#1

Singapore 566

Shanghai 580

SAS 588 computer-based

SAS 584

mathematics

SAS 572

#1

Shanghai 570

#6

SAS 633

#3

science

#1

Singapore 567

#12

#17 usa

ma, usa 527

Singapore 551

SAS 570

mathematics

Singapore 542

#3

#21 usa

ma, usa 527

usa 498

481

SAS 570

#9

#15

#26 usa

ma, usa 573

#1

usa 511

498

SAS 633 computer-based

SAS 572

reading

reading

Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) Results - Grades 10 and 11 The Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) measures critical reading skills, math problem-solving skills, and writing skills. Students in grades 10 and 11 grade take the test. The raw score is equated to a score on the PSAT/NMSQT scale of 20 to 80. Percentile ranks are based on a norm group comprised of all students who took the test.

The table below shows the longitudinal results of the highest scores recorded for that graduating class. The score may have come from grade 10 or 11 students. The middle 50% represents the middle range of scores; 25% of scores fell below the lower number and 25% of scores fell above the higher number.

PSAT Longitudinal Results - Highest Score by Graduating Class Critical Reading

Math

Writing

middle 50%

SAS mean

US mean

middle 50%

SAS mean

US mean

middle 50%

SAS mean

US mean

2009

51-63

57

47

53-68

60

48

48-62

55

46

2010

50-63

57

47

54-69

61

48

47-61

54

46

2011

50-64

57

47

52-67

60

49

48-61

55

45

2012

50-62

56

47

52-67

59

49

49-62

55

46

2013

50-63

57

48

55-67

60

49

48-63

55

47

WASC REPORT PG 23

to participate. In total, approximately 510,000 students were assessed in 65 economies; in Singapore, 5,369 students from all 166 public secondary schools and six private schools participated. The number above the country/economy shows the ranking of that country/economy. The numbers below show the average of each group. Although the sample size for SAS is small (35 students), it is a random sample selected by the Ministry of Education and is considered statistically reliable. Please note that Massachusetts was added because it was the highest-performing state in the US.

SAT Results - Graduating Class The SAT assesses how well students analyze and solve problems. High school juniors and seniors typically take it. The SAT includes critical reading, mathematics, and writing sections. Each section of the SAT is scored on a scale of 200 to 800. A perfect total score is 2400.

During the past five years, the SAS mean score has increased in all areas: from 613 to 621 in critical reading, from 646 to 659 in math, and from 613 to 632 in writing. This is contrary to the US trend that has seen a slight decrease in critical reading (from 501 to 496) and writing (from 493 to 488).

The infographics below represent the Class of 2013.

SAT REASONING TEST SUMMARY 261

The SAT was administrated to members of the Class of 2013 (95% of the class).

All scores, including those from non-native English speakers, are included.

Critical Reading

Math

560 - 690

Writing

600 - 740

570 - 710

Class of 2012 Middle 50%

TOTAL

1730-2140

SAT SUBJECT TEST SUMMARY

SAT subject tests are reported for the Class of 2013 if ten or more students were tested.

US 604 Mean 620 - 730

English Lit

26 students

US 617 Mean Math Level I

540 - 650

21 students

US 677 Mean 680 - 790

Math Level II

96 students

US 662 Mean 660 - 780

Chemistry

22 students

US 654 Mean Biology - molecular

690 - 780

26 students

US 662 Mean Physics

660 - 770

40 students

US 640 Mean 650 - 740

US History

31 students

US 619 Mean 650 - 720

World History

30 students

US 759 Mean Chinese with Listening

500

720 - 780

20 students

550

600

650

CLASS OF 2013 MIDDLE 50%

700

750

800

Advanced Placement (AP) exams are standardized criterion-referenced summative assessments. AP scores range from one to five, with scores of three or higher considered passing and eligible for waiving of the equivalent college course at most US universities. SAS continues to have one of the largest AP programs outside of the US with 29 AP courses and 539 students taking AP exams. In the past five years, there has been an increase in the number of exams completed (from 1,237 to 1,333) and the number of students taking exams (from 535 to 539). SAS exam results also continue to be among the highest in the world. Over the past five years, the percentage of exams earning a three, four, or five has consistently been around 95%, which is significantly higher than the global percentages that are around 61%. The number of students receiving a four has decreased slightly (from 32% to 30%) and the number of students receiving a five has increased (from 44% to 48%).

The infographics give more information about the AP results for 2013.

% OF CLASS OF 2013 100 90

86%

80

76% 68%

70

AP EXAMS COMPLETED

86%

of the Class of 2013 (237 out of 276 graduates) completed at least one AP exam during high school.

60%

60

50%

50

42%

40

34%

30

24%

20 10 0 at least 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

NUMBER OF AP EXAMS COMPLETED

AP RECOGNITION AWARDS

A member of the Class of 2011 was named as a 2011 AP International Scholar. This honor is granted to one male and one female student attending a school outside the US with the highest average score on the greatest number of AP Exams.

91

89

77

54

54

57

158

170

AP Scholars

AP Scholars

AP Scholars with Honor

AP Scholars with Honor

AP Scholars with Honor

163

AP Scholars with Distinction

AP Scholars with Distinction

2011 total:303

AP Scholars

2012 total:313

AP Scholars with Distinction

2013 total:297

WASC REPORT PG 25

Advanced Placement (AP) Results - High School

2013 AP RESULTS BY SUBJECT Out of the 1,332 exams given in May 2013, 95% of the scores were 3 or higher, with 79% of the scores either 4 or 5. % OF SCORES: 3 OR HIGHER

Art History

93%

Music Theory

100%

Studio Art 2D

88%

Studio Art 3D

90%

Studio Art Drawing

84%

English Lang/Comp

95%

English Lit/Comp

100%

Chinese Language

100%

French Language

100%

Spanish Language

77%

Calculus AB

98%

Calculus BC

100%

Computer Science A

92%

Statistics

94%

Biology

100%

2013 SAS MEAN

2012 US MEAN

4.1

4.4

Chemistry

92%

Environmental Science

82%

3.5 3.3

Physics B

93%

3.5

Physics C E & M

86%

3.6

Physics Mech

93%

3.6

Economics - Macro

93%

Economics - Micro

96%

European History

96%

Gov/Politics - Comp

100%

Gov/Politics - US

100%

2.7

Human Geography

97%

2.7

Psychology

97%

U.S. History

91%

World History

87%

2.9 4.4 3.0

3.0 3.2 3.2 4.1 2.9 4.3 2.8 4.4 3.4 4.5 3.2 3.4 2.8 4.6 3.0 4.8 3.9 3.8 3.1 4.0 2.8

2.8 4.0 2.7 4.1 2.9 4.0 4.2 4.2 2.8 4.3 3.1 3.7 2.8 4.6 3.1 3.9 4.4 4.7 3.1 4.2 2.8 3.6 2.7

4.4 2.7

External benchmarking is challenging because SAS is not associated with a state and therefore does not give a state assessment. Following a protocol established in 2011 for external benchmarking, SAS uses AP scores and America’s Top High Schools Gold Medal List (US News & World Report) to compare how SAS’s high school ranks in relation to top US public schools. For 2013, SAS would rank between the 44th and 45th high schools identified through US News & World Report’s methodology, putting SAS in the top .2% of US high schools. This list includes 21,035 public high schools (including magnet and charter) in 49 states (omitting Nebraska) and the District of Columbia. If the filter of non-merit based admissions is added, SAS would rank #14. Although this is not a perfect method of external benchmarking, it is a starting point to determine how SAS compares.

Ranking (out of 100)

Size of high school

Charter or Magnet?

Top 100 STEM school?

Merit-Based Admissions?

Quality Adjusted AP Participation

Quality Adjusted AP exams per Test Taker

BASIS Tucson (Tucson, AZ)

2

670

C

Yes

No

100%

7.2

Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science and Technology (Lawrenceville, GA)

3

596

C

No

No

100%

7.2 6.5

BASIS Scottsdale (Scottsdale, AZ)

5

647

C

No

No

100%

International School (Bellevue, WA)

9

547

No

No

No

100%

4.8

Pacific Collegiate School (Santa Cruz, CA)

11

480

C

No

No

100%

4.4

Stanton College Preparatory School (Jacksonville, FL)

19

1623

M

No

No

97%

5.6

International Community School (Kirkland, WA)

22

375

No

No

No

96%

5.2

Signature School (Evansville, IN)

23

325

C

No

No

95%

4.9

Gilbert Classical Academy High School (Gilbert, AZ)

28

163

No

No

No

93%

3.6

The Preuss School (La Jolla, CA)

30

816

C

No

No

92%

4.4

High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies (New York, NY)

35

339

M

No

No

92%

1.5

American Indian Public High School (Oakland, CA)

38

145

C

No

No

89%

4.2

Lennox Mathematics, Science, & Technology Academy (Lennox, CA)

39

542

C

No

No

89%

1.7

Singapore American School

-

1195

-

No

No

84%

5.8

YES Prep North Central (Houston, TX)

46

823

C

No

No

84%

2.3

For the Class of 2013, 87% of students began college directly after graduation, 9% were required to serve for two years in the Singapore National Service, and 4% completed a gap year before beginning studies.

Approximately 80% of the graduating class matriculated to US colleges and universities. The final results for the Class of 2013 will not be determined until 2015 because of January start dates for many non-US colleges as well as National Service men who enroll in university after fulfilling their two-year, full-time obligation to Singapore’s armed forces. For previous classes, approximately 99% of students have matriculated to a fouryear college.

The following list reports the 20 most popular college and university destinations for the Classes of 2010 through 2013.

New York University (37)

Carnegie Mellon (13)

University of British Columbia – Canada (23)

Duke University (12)

Northeastern University (21)

Elon University (12)

University of Illinois (21)

University of Virginia (12)

Boston University (19)

George Washington (11)

Northwestern University (17)

University of Texas, Austin (11)

Cornell University (14)

University of Washington (11)

Pennsylvania State University (14)

University of Miami (10)

Texas A&M University (14)

University of Michigan (10)

McGill University – Canada (14)

University of Southern California (10)

The Forbes Top 200 Colleges rankings assess 650 institutions of higher education that award undergraduate degrees or certificates requiring “four or more years” of study. Within the top 200 list, additional distinction can be made based on the percentage of applying students who are admitted: • Hyper-selective schools admit fewer than 11% of students who apply; examples include Princeton, Harvard, University of Chicago • Highly selective schools admit 11% to 24.9% of students who apply; examples include Cornell, Duke, Northwestern • Selective schools admit 25% to 49.9% of students who apply; examples include Boston College, Emory, New York University, UCLA • Slightly selective schools admit 50% to 74.9% of students who apply; examples include Clark University, Loyola Marymount, Pennsylvania State University, Texas A&M, and University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign • Non-selective schools admit more than 75% of students who apply; examples include Furman University, Thomas Aquinas College, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Calvin College

Class of 2013 – Attendance at US Schools % (#) attending Forbes Top 200, hyper-selective school

6% (11)

% (#) attending Forbes Top 200, highly-selective school

14% (27)

% (#) attending Forbes Top 200, selective school

29% (57)

% (#) attending Forbes Top 200, slightly selective school

16% (31)

% (#) attending Forbes Top 200, non-selective school

2% (3)

% (#) attending a school not ranked in the Forbes Top 200 (e.g., Babson College, Colorado State University, DePaul University, Elon University, Northeastern University, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Pratt Institute)

35% (68)

Class of 2013 – Attendance at non-US Schools (14% of graduating class) % (#) attending hyper-selective school

3% (1)

% (#) attending highly-selective school

34% (13)

% (#) attending a slightly selective or non-selective school (e.g., Architectural Association School of Architecture [UK], Dalhousie University [Canada], Lasalle College of the Arts [Singapore], Temple University [Japan])

63% (24)

WASC REPORT PG 27

College Admissions

Parent Perception Data An annual SAS parent survey asks a random sample of parents to rate their level of agreement with a series of indicators on the major aspects of Singapore American School. Over the past three years, parents have indicated a consistently high level of satisfaction with most facets of SAS. The items in green represent 85% or greater agreement, the items in red represent 15% or greater disagreement, and the items in orange represent 15% or greater not applying or not knowing. Please note that the vision reference below is out of date; the new vision will be included in the 2013-14 survey.

2010-11 SAS' Strategic Focus SAS is fulfilling its Mission: "Singapore American School provides each student an exemplary American educational experience with an international perspective."

SAS is fulfilling its Vision: "Singapore American School inspires a passion for learning, encourages emotional and intellectual vitality, and empowers students with the confidence and courage to contribute to the global community and to achieve their dreams."

SAS encourages students to "work independently and collaboratively."

SAS encourages students to: "think critically and creatively."

SAS encourages students to be "effective communicators."

SAS encourages students to serve as "engaged and responsible citizens."

Staff at SAS demonstrates "professional excellence."

SAS educational programs encourage "academic rigor."

SAS encourages core values (i.e., compassion, honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect) among students, staff and parents.

2011-12

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

8%

90%

2%

4%

93%

3%

5%

94%

1%

9%

89%

3%

6%

91%

3%

7%

92%

2%

3%

93%

3%

1%

94%

4%

6%

94%

1%

7%

91%

2%

6%

91%

3%

6%

93%

1%

7%

91%

2%

3%

93%

4%

8%

90%

3%

9%

88%

3%

5%

92%

3%

7%

91%

2%

8% 15%

88% 82%

4% 3%

8% 13%

89% 84%

3% 2%

13% 10%

87% 89%

0% 1%

10%

88%

2%

7%

90%

3%

9%

88%

3%

2010-11 School Operations Safety and security measures are appropriately taken by SAS to protect students.

Bus transportation is efficient and effective.

There are a variety of healthy food choices available through the school cafeteria.

Facilities are well-maintained and effectively support daytime and after-school programs.

SAS makes effective use of the financial resources available.

2011-12

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

4%

93%

3%

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2%

The school staff provides a welcoming and inviting environment for families.

SAS parent organizations (e.g., PTA, Booster Club, Arts Council, Community Library) provide a welcoming and inviting environment for families.

Opportunities are available for parent involvement at the school.

There is a feeling of partnership for student learning between the home and the school.

I understand my role as a partner in my child's education.

School rules are clearly communicated to parents.

Overall, I would say there is a positive school climate at SAS among parents, students, and faculty.

2012-13

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

93%

5%

2%

97%

1%

7%

77%

16%

11%

73%

16%

9%

76%

15%

16%

76%

8%

20%

75%

5%

25%

71%

5%

2%

96%

3%

3%

93%

4%

4%

96%

0%

11%

69%

20%

9%

64%

27%

6%

69%

25%

2010-11 Connection Between Home and School

2012-13

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

2011-12

2012-13

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

6%

92%

2%

4%

92%

3%

4%

94%

2%

4%

89%

8%

4%

86%

9%

3%

90%

7%

4%

92%

4%

4%

92%

4%

2%

95%

3%

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

12%

85%

3%

11%

85%

5%

11%

86%

2%

5% 8%

94% 91%

2% 2%

3% 6%

94% 91%

3% 3%

3% 6%

96% 93%

1% 1%

7%

91%

2%

3%

95%

2%

5%

94%

2%

WASC REPORT PG 29 2010-11 Quality of the Academic Program Teachers use a variety of teaching strategies and learning activities to help students learn.

Teachers hold high expectations for student learning.

The types and amount of homework are meaningful and appropriate.

Although there may be differences in teaching styles and approaches, the learning outcomes are consistent within the same grade levels and courses taught by different teachers.

Clear learning targets are communicated, informing my child and me on learning expectations.

Feedback my child and I receive on academic progress informs me of my child's strengths and challenges, as well as the next steps for further growth.

Reports on my child's progress are clear and easy to understand.

The division is doing an effective job teaching reading language arts/english.

The division is doing an effective job teaching mathematics.

The division is doing an effective job teaching science.

The division is doing an effective job teaching social studies.

The division is doing an effective job teaching modern language (i.e., Spanish, French, Japanese).

The division is doing an effective job teaching Chinese language.

The division is doing an effective job teaching physical education.

The division is doing an effective job teaching health/ wellness.

The division is doing an effective job teaching visual and performing arts.

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

2011-12 Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Teachers challenge my child to do his/her best work.

Teachers provide extra support and help when needed.

Teachers are responsive to my input and interests.

Counseling services provide effective support for the academic, social and emotional needs of students.

Special services/resource/ESOL/GATE teachers provide effective support for students with unique learning profiles.

There is a consistently high standard of teaching at SAS. Classified support staff and instructional assistants/aides are helpful and courteous.

Divisional administrators provide appropriate opportunities for parents input and involvement.

Divisional administrators demonstrate leadership and support ongoing school improvement.

Class size is appropriate.

There are a range of accessible sports opportunities available at SAS for students.

There are a range of interesting and meaningful afterschool programs and clubs that address the diverse interests and talents of students.

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

6%

90%

4%

6%

90%

4%

6%

87%

7%

10%

87%

3%

9%

90%

1%

9%

89%

2%

23%

73%

4%

18%

76%

6%

22%

75%

3%

25%

59%

16%

23%

59%

18%

22%

59%

19%

22%

76%

3%

18%

79%

3%

18%

80%

2%

23%

76%

1%

23%

75%

2%

24%

74%

2%

16%

83%

2%

13%

82%

5%

13%

84%

3%

14%

81%

4%

10%

87%

3%

11%

87%

2%

16%

81%

3%

14%

83%

2%

18%

80%

2%

10%

85%

5%

8%

88%

5%

3%

92%

5%

6%

89%

6%

6%

89%

5%

5%

91%

5%

16%

41%

43%

10%

44%

46%

7%

51%

42%

26%

51%

23%

23%

49%

29%

12%

62%

26%

4%

91%

5%

4%

89%

7%

3%

93%

4%

5%

82%

13%

4%

82%

14%

2%

85%

12%

6%

79%

15%

5%

74%

21%

4%

77%

18%

2010-11 Support for Student Learning

Agree/ Strongly Agree

2012-13 Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

2011-12

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

13% 14% 12%

83% 79% 81%

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know 4% 7% 7%

10%

76%

3%

2012-13

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

8% 14% 8%

89% 78% 79%

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know 3% 8% 13%

14%

12%

73%

34%

63%

3%

*

*

*

3%

69%

12%

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

13% 15% 5%

83% 73% 82%

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know 4% 12% 13%

15%

12%

70%

18%

36%

60%

2%

31%

66%

*

*

*

15%

80%

5%

28%

2%

64%

34%

2%

74%

24%

72%

16%

11%

72%

18%

9%

77%

14%

8%

79%

12%

6%

78%

16%

6%

75%

18%

7%

90%

3%

6%

91%

3%

5%

92%

3%

9%

84%

7%

8%

87%

5%

9%

86%

6%

7%

89%

5%

9%

86%

5%

7%

88%

5%

2010-11 Technology

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

2011-12 Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

2012-13 Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Technology in the classroom is essential.

7%

90%

3%

4%

92%

4%

6%

94%

0%

The amount of technology for student use is acceptable.

10%

84%

6%

4%

91%

5%

8%

87%

5%

The division is doing an effective job emphasizing internet safety and privacy of personal information.

9%

73%

18%

7%

68%

25%

10%

66%

24%

The division is doing an effective job instructing students in technology skills.

9%

83%

8%

5%

83%

12%

7%

80%

13%

The division is doing an effective job in using technology as a tool for learning.

12%

80%

8%

4%

84%

11%

8%

88%

5%

The use of technology and/or technological tools in the division benefits my child's ability to learn.

9%

85%

6%

3%

87%

9%

11%

83%

6%

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Governance and Central Administration

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

The board works to fulfill its fiduciary obligation to the financial future of SAS by maintaining its commitment to establishing reserves and alternative sources of funding.

5%

68%

27%

3%

62%

35%

1%

65%

34%

The board is diligent in fulfilling its obligation to oversee the direction of SAS by evaluating and supporting the superintendent whose job it is to run the day to day operations of the School.

11%

64%

25%

5%

64%

31%

2%

66%

32%

The board ensures that board policies remain current and provide clear direction for administrative action in support of the mission and vision of SAS.

11%

68%

21%

5%

62%

32%

1%

67%

31%

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

The board communications are timely and informative.

12%

79%

9%

11%

72%

17%

6%

78%

16%

The superintendent provides appropriate opportunities for parent input and involvement.

*

*

*

*

*

*

8%

77%

15%

The superintendent demonstrates leadership and supports ongoing school improvement.

*

*

*

*

*

*

4%

80%

16%

Central administrators provide appropriate opportunities for parent input and involvement.

17%

72%

11%

11%

67%

21%

8%

69%

23%

Central administrators demonstrate leadership and support ongoing school improvement.

11%

73%

15%

6%

72%

22%

3%

76%

21%

School Communications

Strongly Disagree/ Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

5%

93%

2%

4%

93%

3%

4%

94%

2%

4%

94%

5%

92%

3%

7%

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

2010-11

Adequate and manageable information is available from divisions about programs and events.

Adequate and manageable information is available from the school's communication's office (e.g., NewsFlash, SAS Communications, website, mailings).

School technology tools provide ease of navigation and helpful information (e.g., SAS website, Blackboard, PowerSchool).

I receive the level and amount of communications I need to be informed about programs and events in my child's division.

I receive the level and amount of communications I need to be informed about school-wide programs and events (e.g., weekly SAS eNews, monthly PTA and Booster eNews, Crossroads, Journeys).

The information provided through online resources is helpful and easy to use (e.g., SAS website, PowerSchool, Blackboard).

2011-12 Does Not Strongly Apply or Do Disagree/ Not Know Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

2012-13 Does Not Strongly Apply or Do Disagree/ Not Know Disagree

Agree/ Strongly Agree

Does Not Apply or Do Not Know

*

*

*

3%

*

*

*

90%

3%

*

*

*

*

*

*

8%

91%

0%

*

*

*

*

2%

98%

0%

*

*

*

*

11%

88%

1%

Briefly share your reason(s) for choosing SAS as your school of choice in Singapore.

ECC

PS

1

US/American curriculum Well rounded/great school

IS

MS

HS

Overall

6

13

11

29

59

6

10

9

13

39

Reputation

5

7

4

20

36

Values

3

3

2

2

10

6

7

1

1

7

2

6

Academic rigor

1

Teacher at SAS

1

4

Special services

4

Facilities

3

Holistic approach

1

1

Teachers/leadership

1

1

First choice was full

1 1

World language

1

What are areas of commendation you would like to applaud and recognize?

ECC

Staff: Teachers, Counselors, Principals

1

Facilities 1

Community

4 1

3

1

1

2

Total

2

3

PS

IS

MS

HS

5

15

10

35

66

4

1

2

7

14

2

1

1

9

14

1

3

5

1

10

Forward looking

1

2

Language

3

3

Global

1

3

1

Differentiated

2

2

2

Curriculum

2

1

Communication

1

5

Everything

4 2

6 6

3

6

3

6

1

5

1

4

1

1

1

Extracurricular

1

1

IS

MS

PS

1

1

New superintendent

ECC

8 6

2

Special services

What are your suggestions for areas in which SAS might improve?

4 4

2 2

At enrollment SAS was the best

Building well-rounded children

1

Communication

16

5

1

Better or more lunch options

3

4

4

3 2

HS

Total

3

14

22

Math

2

4

2

5

13

Teacher quality/consistency

4

6

1

2

13

More sports/extracurricular

5

2

10

Differentiated learning

6

Transitions

5

Tuition too high

2

College counseling

6

Language

1

1

Less homework

3

Opportunities for teacher feedback

1

Security Academic rigor

1

Ethics/sense of community

1

RLA

3

2

1

1

1

8

1

1

1

8

3

1

1

7

1

2

2

1

2

1

6

1

2 1

Uniform

1

4

4 3 3 1

2 2

1

2 1

2 1

Global Well-rounded/holistic approach

1

3

Bus IB

5

1

1

Science

2

2

Community service Leadership

5

1 1

1 1 1

1

1

WASC REPORT PG 31

The parent survey also invites parent comments. These comments are categorized using a protocol adapted from the University of Texas. The synthesis of the comments from 2013-14 follows.

Progress Report Introduction 2008 Self-Study 2011 Mid-Term Visit

Significant Changes Since 2008 Leadership Programs Structures Resources Progress Since 2008 Focus on Learning Curriculum Assessment Instruction Systems and Structures Finance

Conclusions

WASC REPORT PG 33

CHAPTER 2

INTRODUCTION 2008 Self-Study

As a result of the 2007-08 WASC self-study, six school-wide recommendations were identified. The visiting committee confirmed these six recommendations and added six areas of emphasis. Because these recommendations and areas of emphasis overlapped, during the 2009-10 school year SAS leadership combined similar elements to form the SAS Student Learning Strategic Plan as illustrated below.

SAS Student Learning Strategic Plan

Self-Study Recommendation

Visiting Team Area of Emphasis

Focus on Learning

#1: Develop a school community that understands the direction and vision of the school, and is unified and collaborative in its focus and support for student learning as it relates to academic excellence, as well as for the social, emotional, and physical well-being of the student.

#1: Continue with the curriculum review and development process that will result in the establishment of identification of how the DSLOs are embedded in the curricular units of study.

Curriculum

#2: Clarify the use of cross-curricular expectations in subject areas. #4: Enhance high standards of consistent classroom practice within curriculum unit development and resources to ensure that each student is “appropriately challenged.” #5: Clarify the student expectations that will be commonly used in subject areas (horizontally and vertically) to show student progress.

#1: Continue with the curriculum review and development process that will result in the establishment of curriculum units.

Assessment

#2: Clarify the assessment of cross-curricular expectations in subject areas. #3: Determine the types of data that will be used to show: continuous improvement on division and school levels; progress of the school’s strategic plan; and benchmarking with other exemplary schools in the world. #4: Enhance high standards of consistent classroom practice within assessment to ensure that each student is “appropriately challenged.” #5: Clarify the student assessments and data that will be commonly used in subject areas (horizontally and vertically) to show student progress.

#1: Continue with the curriculum review and development process that will result in the establishment of common assessments and standards-based assessments. #2: As a comprehensive assessment model is developed and implemented, shift to analyzing student performance data as the basis for identifying areas for focus, establishing student performance growth targets, designing instructional strategies and re-assessing the impact of classroom practice on student learning. #3: Develop assessment measures that specifically identity student performance on benchmark standards and expectations. The analysis of this data will inform instruction and provide a specific focus on students’ learning needs.

Instruction

#4: Enhance high standards of consistent classroom practice within instruction “appropriately challenged.”

#6: The administration with significant faculty involvement should identify approaches that will accelerate the seamless integration of technology to improve learning.

Systems & Structures

#6: Establish organizational direction and coherence as they relate to the various functions of the school to support student learning.

#4: Provide administrators and lead teachers professional development opportunities to expand their knowledge and skills as they transition into learning-focused leadership.

Area of Emphasis #5 was facing significant and unavoidable financial challenges in a number of areas, the SAS Board and administration should actively pursue means to increase income streams associated with both capital and operating budgets. This was addressed through the finance and advancement strategic plans.

The 2011 mid-term visiting committee reported “What has been accomplished in such a short period of time is remarkable and will no doubt have positive impacts on student learning in the near future. The visiting committee agrees with the direction of the student learning strategic plan and the major areas of focus identified in the plan for the next few years.

As a result, there is not a need to develop additional recommendations for what SAS should work on over the next few years. However, the mid-term visiting committee has only one recommendation for SAS moving forward and that is to “STAY THE COURSE.” In addition, the visiting committee has framed the following essential reflective questions (ERQs) for follow up. It is the intent of the visiting committee that by engaging key stakeholders in deep dialogue around these ERQs, value and clarity will be added to the work currently in progress and the work to be continued over the next few years.”

A sample of these ERQs include: • How can SAS ensure that a comprehensive balanced assessment system (including all aspects of assessment such as grading and reporting) is aligned to a “learning-focused school?”

• In an open admissions system, how can we most effectively meet the needs of a student population who come to us with diverse and unique learning needs?

• What are specific indicators that show we have moved from a school characterized by independence to a school characterized by interdependence and collaboration?

These ERQs have been used by the leadership team to guide progress since the 2011 mid-term visit.

WASC REPORT PG 35

2011 Mid-Term Visit

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SINCE 2008 SAS continually strives for the next level of excellence and as a result, change is constant. The following list captures major changes but is not all-inclusive.

Leadership Since 2008, there have been several significant changes in leadership: • Mark Boyer, the previous director of curriculum, was made assistant superintendent for learning in 2008-09. This led to the creation of the Office of Learning, whose purpose is to guide teaching and learning throughout the organization by providing clarity, fostering consistency, and promoting coherence of the student learning strategic plan. A director of curriculum was added to this team in 2008-09 (Louise Perdana), a director of assessment and educational data (Jennifer Sparrow) was added in 2009-10, a director of Chinese language (Dr. Susan Zhang) was added in 2010-11, and a director of educational technology (Jason Cone) was added in 2011-12. Treena Casey became the current director of curriculum in 2011-12.

• Mr. Devin Pratt became middle school principal in 2008-09. Tico Oms became a middle school deputy principal in 2013-14.

• Dr. Tim Stuart became high school principal in 2010-11. Darin Fahrney became a high school deputy principal in 2011-12.

• In 2011-12, a chief advancement officer position was created. Michael Kingan, who currently holds this position, also manages alumni relations and the annual fund campaign.

• Mona Stuart became director of admissions in 2012-13.

• Dr. Brent Mutsch announced his resignation in 2010-11 for the 2012-13 school year. The board intentionally followed a new process in recruiting Dr. Chip Kimball. Input was gathered from all stakeholders in the community as to the future needs of SAS, and this information was used by an external recruitment agency to conduct a confidential, international search. The new superintendent was hired to challenge the status quo and help SAS leverage the excellence it has already achieved to evolve to better meet the needs of students in the 21st century. Dr. Kimball became the new superintendent in 2012-13 following a year of transition with Dr. Mutsch.

• With the shift in focus of the superintendent, the vacancy created by the departure of Assistant Superintendent Mark Boyer was reallocated to a deputy superintendent role. Robert Landau joined in 2013-14 in this position. The focus of this position is implementation of the student learning strategic plan, including supervision of division principals.

Programs Important program and technology changes have been made since the last self-study, including: • A change to the middle school schedule and additional staffing allowed for daily reading language arts (RLA) beginning in 2010-11.

• Beginning in August 2012, a change to the elementary school schedule and additional staffing allowed for a daily world language program in kindergarten to grade 5. Students have a choice of Spanish or Chinese.

• The Common Core State Standards were adopted in math and English/RLA. In math, full implementation of these standards began in 2013-14. Because RLA/English was not “on cycle,” a phased transition is taking place.

• For more information about changes in SAS curriculum and programs, please see Appendix A. • In 2012-13, SAS introduced Apple hardware as the operating platform for teachers and students. This included the deployment of an enterprise-level Apple TV implementation. More than 100 classrooms and conference rooms were equipped with Apple TVs.

• From 2009 to date, SAS has been implementing a one-to-one technology program using a phased approached in the middle school and high school. Currently, the high school is one-to-one BYOD (bring your own device) and the middle school is one-to-one MacBooks.

• The primary and intermediate programs moved from a computer lab/computer teacher drop-off model to a fully-integrated model. Computer teacher positions were transitioned to educational technology coaching positions and two additional coaches were hired. Currently, all grade five classes are equipped with MacBook carts providing one-to-one access with laptops that remain at school. Grade three and four classes moved to one-to-one models with a combination of one-to-one iPad classes and one-to-one laptop/netbook classes. All kindergarten through grade two classes were equipped with class sets of iPads and iPad Minis at a one-to-two ratio.

• For more information about changes in technology, please see Section D of Chapter IV. • A research and development (R&D) process was introduced during 2012-13 for the high school and was expanded to elementary school (combined primary and intermediate schools) and middle school in 2013-14. The purpose of research is to investigate “21st century schooling” by reading current literature, interviewing colleges and universities, using current school data, and visiting a variety of schools worldwide, and then identifying themes to shape implementation at SAS. The development phase will determine how SAS will implement the themes to become a model 21st century school. For more information about research and development, please see Appendix 2.

• During 2012-13, a new vision and desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs) were identified as the result of a collaborative process that included faculty, parent, board, and student input. Two additional DSLOs were added at the beginning of 2013-14 as a result of further conversation with faculty and administration.

For more information about the vision and DSLOs, please see Section A of Chapter IV.

Structures Several structures have been established to help promote clarity, coherence, and consistency within and across divisions.

• In 2011-12, SAS identified professional learning communities (PLCs) as its primary structure for moving forward with the student learning strategic plan. During 2011-12, PLC leaders were identified and trained in the components of PLCs as well as facilitation strategies. In 2012-13, all faculty were trained in the components of PLCs and were assigned to participate in one. Additionally the high school schedule was changed to include a weekly late start day to accommodate PLCs in the division. In 2013-14, PLCs are the main structure used to focus on student learning and professional practice. This included acting as the WASC self-study home groups. For more information about PLCs, please see Section A of Chapter IV. • In 2012-13, six institutional commitments were identified. These institutional commitments include: professional learning communities; common, guaranteed, viable curriculum; evidence of learning and performance; great teaching and learning for every student, every day; integration of technology; and healthy organizational culture. These statements were written into all employee contracts. In 2013-14 they were unpacked to bring greater clarity to the expectations associated with each commitment. For more information about the institutional commitments and the role they play at SAS, please see Section A of Chapter IV. • At the beginning of 2013-14, the decision was made to consolidate the primary and intermediate divisions at SAS into one elementary school beginning in 2014-15. This decision was made to lessen the transition for students moving from grade two to three, to facilitate vertical articulation, and to allow the research and development work to focus on whole kindergarten through grade five programs instead of isolated kindergarten through grade two programs and grade three through five programs.

WASC REPORT PG 37

• Google Apps for Education were implemented throughout the school beginning in 2012-13. All students from grade three onwards have a Google account for the purpose of accessing email and Google docs.

Resources • The 2008-09 worldwide financial crisis did not affect overall enrollment, and affected the waitlist only modestly. SAS began accepting applications from families outside of the first two priority lanes for admission, allowing more non-Americans and those not employed by US-based companies.

• The board created a new investment advisory committee (IAC) charged with developing a new investment policy statement and strategic asset allocation as well as on-going monitoring of fund manager performance and investment returns.

• There is increasing competition for students amongst schools in Singapore. Several established schools (e.g., United World College, Canadian International School) expanded to a second campus and many new schools have opened or are opening (e.g., Stamford American International School, GEMS World Academy, Dulwich College). Between 2010-11 and 2013-14, an additional 6,516 seats became available.

It is predicted an additional 15,000 seats will become available by 2016-17. This increased competition in Singapore will put pressure on SAS enrollment and programs.

• The growth in the expatriate population was a contentious issue in Singapore elections in 2011, with the government responding by implementing measures limiting the hiring of foreigners and increasing costs for companies doing so. By the end of 2012, the number of work permits had declined slightly from 2011.

The issuance of a government white paper in early 2013 projecting a growth in total population to 6.9M by 2030 generated even greater resistance from Singaporeans. This was followed by further curbs on the issuance of employment passes and new “Singaporeans first” requirements for filling job openings.

These requirements will be applied not only to new positions but to those with expiring work permits as well. The political dynamics around foreigners in Singapore could affect SAS in two ways: fewer expatriate families with children seeking an American/international education and limits on the school’s ability to hire qualified staff for certain positions, including IT and administrative roles. Additionally, certain proposed implementation rules, including a requirement that foreign employees begin within three months of hiring, could affect our recruiting and hiring of faculty. The SAS business and human resource offices are monitoring the situation closely.

• SAS has established several policies and procedures regarding human resources. The intent of these policies is to create clarity and equity among faculty as well as to respond to emerging Singapore regulations. Example changes include ensuring all overseas hires receive equitable home leave, mandatory retirement at the age of 65, and changes to tax supplements. In several cases, these new policies and procedures have had a negative impact on the climate at SAS.

PROGRESS SINCE 2008 SAS Strategic Objective: Clarity exists around what learning means at SAS and how learning is optimized.

Recommendation 1: Develop a school community that understands the direction and vision of the school, and is unified and collaborative in its focus and support for student learning as it relates to academic excellence, as well as for the social, emotional, and physical well-being of the student.

Area of Emphasis 1: Continue with the curriculum review and development process that will result in the establishment of: (a) curriculum units; (b) common assessments and standards-based assessments; and (c) identification of how the DSLOs are embedded in the curricular units of study. The results of this work will provide for more specific analysis of the impact of the actual student program on student learning with respect to the curricular program and the DSLOs. • School leadership (board members, administrators, teacher-leaders) regularly references the strategic focus at various meetings and work sessions throughout each year.

• Dr. Chip Kimball joined SAS as superintendent at the start of the 2012-13 school year. He led the SAS community through the process of developing a new vision: world leader in education cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future.

• All board members, administrators, and faculty have ‘unpacked’ the vision to operationally define and identify success indicators for the phrases ‘a world leader in education,’ ‘cultivating exceptional thinkers,’ and ‘prepared for the future.’ Administrators are using this information to finalize operational definitions for each phrase (to be used in marketing materials) and to identify key performance indicators (to be used in monitoring implementation).

• In March 2013, a cross-representational group of administrators, board members, parents, faculty, and students gathered for a “21st century summit.” The purpose of this summit was to identify the specific 21st century skills that are vital to the SAS context. Through an examination of multiple research reports as well as data capturing community perspectives, participants identified five critical skills: character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking. These skills are viewed as measurable outcomes of the new vision and now act as the school-wide desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs).

• Through the ‘unpacking’ of the vision that occurred after the 21st century summit, two additional skills were identified as important to the vision: core knowledge and cultural competence. In September 2013, it was decided that these would be added to the list of DSLOs. The final list of DSLOs is: character, collaboration, communication, core knowledge, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence.

• Through professional learning communities (PLCs), all faculty are examining five of the DSLOs (the ones identified at the 21st century summit) as the core of the 2014 WASC self-study. Additionally, the vision and DSLOs are the goals for the research and development work being completed by each division. This is resulting in a deeper, shared understanding of how to teach and assess each one.

• Parents and students continue to be exposed to the vision and DSLOs through community publications, town hall meetings, surveys and reports on results, and teacher-home communications.

• Throughout 2013-14, the school community will become more aware of and deepen their understanding of the new DSLOs. Work will continue on how these DSLOs will be embedded into all content areas.

• During the 2012-13 school year, six institutional commitments were identified: 1) professional learning communities (PLCs); 2) common, guaranteed, viable curriculum; 3) great teaching to enhance learning for every student, every day; 4) evidence of learning; 5) integration of technology; and 6) healthy organizational culture. These commitments are starting to provide clarity to the organization about how SAS will achieve its vision.

WASC REPORT PG 39

Focus on Learning

Curriculum SAS Strategic Objective: A coherent and articulated curriculum facilitates appropriately challenging student learning.

Recommendation 2: Clarify the use of cross-curricular expectations in subject areas.

Recommendation 4: Enhance high standards of consistent classroom practice within curriculum unit development and resources to ensure that each student is “appropriately challenged.”

Recommendation 5: Clarify the student expectations that will be commonly used in subject areas (horizontally and vertically) to show student progress.

Area of Emphasis 1: Continue with the curriculum review and development process that will result in the establishment of: (a) curriculum units; (b) common assessments and standards-based assessments; and (c) identification of how the DSLOs are embedded in the curricular units of study. The results of this work will provide for more specific analysis of the impact of the actual student program on student learning with respect to the curricular program and the DSLOs. • As explained above, new DSLOs were identified as the result of a 21st century learning summit in March 2013. Subsequently two additional DSLOs were added resulting in the final list: character, collaboration, communication, core knowledge, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence.

Because the new DSLOs overlap with information literacy standards, technology standards, and communication skills, the decision has been made to use the DSLOs as the framework for teaching and assessing cross-curricular expectations.

• SAS has joined EdLeader 21, a US-based network of school and district leaders focused on integrating critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity into education. By joining this network, SAS now has access to a set of rubrics to guide conversations around explicitly teaching and assessing these outcomes. Development of equivalent rubrics for character, core knowledge, and cultural competence still needs to take place. The faculty is also engaged in discussions about the implicit teaching and assessing that occurs around each DLSO. • SAS is adopting the Common Core State Standards for both English language arts and math. The grades six through twelve literacy standards in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects are being integrated into appropriate courses, with implementation in social studies farther along than implementation in science.

• In 2012-13, a daily world language program was fully implemented in kindergarten through grade five for Spanish and Chinese. This involved a building project, increased staffing, and curriculum development.

• Although many divisions have had professional learning communities in one form or another for several years, during the 2012-13 school year the “DuFour” PLC model was adopted school-wide. Currently, all faculty participate in at least one PLC. PLCs address what they expect students to know and be able to do, how they will assess whether students have achieved identified targets, what they will do for students who are struggling, and what they will do for students who already know the material. During the 201314 school year, all PLCs in grades six through twelve produced common syllabi. PLCs in primary school and intermediate school are organized by grade level and have developed common units (including assessments) for RLA, math, and social studies. Additionally, PLCs for kindergarten through grade five have developed common units and assessments for art, music, PE, and world languages (Spanish and Chinese).

Through the process of creating consistency between classrooms, PLCs have improved clarity around standards, outcomes, and learning targets.

• PLCs and teachers of singleton courses have utilized the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework to identify standards and outcomes, assessments, and key learning activities for units of study. This has increased clarity around what learning is expected and what assessments are to be used. Units are housed in Atlas Rubicon to allow easy access by faculty in other grade levels and divisions. Although all subject areas and grade levels have units in some form, inconsistencies remain regarding quality of units and where units are maintained. This remains a work in progress for 2013-14.

• When multiple sections of the same grade and/or course are offered, it is important to have consistency of targets so that the learning outcomes are the same regardless of the teacher. For the past three years on the annual parent survey, there has been a slight drop in the percentage of parents who think that consistency is an issue (from 25% to 22%). Although this is a slight improvement, SAS recognizes that greater clarity in communicating learning targets is an area to improve.

• In 2010-11, a service learning summit was held to build shared understanding around the concept of “service learning” and determine how it applies in the SAS context. As a result, kindergarten through grade eight teams have developed service learning experiences that are tied to curricular programs (usually social studies or science). This integrated approach allows the experiences to be service learning and not just community service. In high school, service learning clubs remain a strong component of the extra-curricular program.

SAS Strategic Objective: Effective assessment and evaluation practices are utilized to inform decisions impacting student learning and to demonstrate progress.

Recommendation 2: Clarify the assessment of cross-curricular expectations in subject areas.

Recommendation 3: Determine the types of data that will be used to show: continuous improvement on division and school levels; progress of the school’s strategic plan; and benchmarking with other exemplary schools in the world.

Recommendation 4: Enhance high standards of consistent classroom practice within assessment to ensure that each student is “appropriately challenged.”

Recommendation 5: Clarify the student assessments and data that will be commonly used in subject areas (horizontally and vertically) to show student progress.

Area of Emphasis 1: Continue with the curriculum review and development process that will result in the establishment of common assessments and standards-based assessments.

Area of Emphasis 2: As a comprehensive assessment model is developed and implemented, shift to analyzing student performance data as the basis for identifying areas for focus, establishing student performance growth targets, designing instructional strategies, and re-assessing the impact of classroom practice on student learning.

Area of Emphasis 3: Develop assessment measures that specifically identify student performance on benchmark standards and expectations. The analysis of this data will inform instruction and provide a specific focus on students’ learning needs.

• Continuous improvement in each subject area is the focus of the SAS subject area renewal cycle. Phase one is focused on research and recommendations, phase two is focused on development, and phase three is focused on implementation. During the first phase of the cycle, a gap analysis is conducted to identify the current reality at SAS in relation to best practice research. Starting with the math renewal cycle (2012-13), a step was added to the end of the second phase (development) to collect baseline student learning data.

This will allow comparison of results after implementation has occurred to see what impact changes have had, if any. During phase three, PLCs use evidence from classroom assessments to monitor the degree to which students have achieved the identified learning targets. Although this continues to be a work in progress, every PLC has common assessments in place to allow for this evidence gathering.

• SAS has begun implementation of EDmin Inform as its data management system. This web-based platform will allow teachers, administrators, and board members to quickly access dashboards to monitor student learning. Teachers will be able to drill down into results to identify specific areas of need. The biggest challenge is finding ways to automate the process of scoring assessments and entering results. SAS is exploring different Google options to help with this process, such as Goobric and Flubaroo.

• SAS distinguishes between key learning indicators (KLIs) and benchmark schools. KLIs are internal measurements that are continually monitored. Examples include MAP results, enVision math results, Columbia Teacher College and DRA2 reading assessment results, and grades. These results are specific to each student and allow PLCs and administrators to identify students who need extension or support. This is inconsistently instituted and is one of the goals for 2013-14.

• Benchmarking with other schools is completed annually through comparison of MAP results (intermediate and middle schools) and a process using the U.S. News and World Report Top 200 Schools list (based on AP results). SAS continues to explore other ways to benchmark to ensure appropriate showcasing of students’ progress.

• SAS has developed guidelines for assessment (kindergarten through grade twelve), grading (grades six through twelve), and reporting (kindergarten through grade five) to provide clarity and improve consistency around assessment practices. Implementation of these policies is a goal for 2013-14. Additionally, the middle and high schools will develop reporting guidelines to accompany a new standards-based report card.

WASC REPORT PG 41

Assessment

• As part of the UbD unit design and PLC process, common assessments are utilized in the majority of classrooms. Calibrating results is improving clarity around expectations. PLC use of data to inform instruction is inconsistent; this is a school-wide area of focus for 2013-14.

• SAS continues to identify the best data points to use to measure student growth. The Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) is now given to all students in grades three through eight twice each year.

The Developmental Reading Assessment 2 (DRA2) is given to all students in kindergarten through grade two. The Columbia Teacher’s College Reading Assessment is given in kindergarten through grade five. In kindergarten through grade five, enVision topic tests and benchmark tests are given to assess understanding in math. High school teachers of the same subject give common finals. Although progress has been made in this area, further conversations clarifying the concept of growth data and identification of key data points are necessary.

• During the 2012-13 school year a new standards-based report card was launched for kindergarten through grade five. Report card guides were developed for both teachers and parents to provide clarity regarding the terms on the report card. This has provided greater clarity across grade levels and between divisions.

• During the 2013-14 school year, new grading policies were introduced in the middle and high schools.

Ongoing professional learning and education for students and parents is taking place. These policies are a step towards becoming a standards-based school. Teams of teachers will continue to assess current practice and determine next steps. The goal is to fully implement standards-based grading and reporting by the 2015-16 school year.

Instruction SAS Strategic Objective: Effective instructional strategies and integration of cross-curricular skills increase student learning.

Recommendation 4: Enhance high standards of consistent classroom practice within instruction “appropriately challenged.”

Area of Emphasis 6: The administration, with significant faculty involvement, should identify approaches that will accelerate the seamless integration of technology to improve learning.

• Many PLCs have completed work on question one (What do we want students to know and be able to do?) and question two (How will we know if they learned the targets?), and are now focused on question three (What do we do for kids who are struggling?) and question four (What do we do for kids who have already mastered the targets?). The goal for next year is to have all PLCs engage in conversation about questions three and four. To support PLCs in answering questions three and four, SAS is in the early stages of implementing a Response to Intervention (RTI) model. In the coming years, the challenge will be to incorporate the response to intervention model in such a manner that PLCs are empowered to intervene to the level of support services to ensure that all students are appropriately challenged and learn to a high standard.

• The support services review is currently taking place. Implementing an effective RTI model is one of the primary goals of this review. This review will create and align preschool through grade twelve systems for to ensure learning is maximized for all students.

• The kindergarten through grade twelve technology strategic plan has guided significant development in this area. A generous infusion of tech tools for kindergarten through grade eight means that the oneto-one laptop program extends from grades five through twelve and tablets are available for every two students in kindergarten through grade four for the 2013-14 school year.

• Technology coaches in each division have promoted deeper technology integration throughout the school to enhance teaching and learning.

• In 2012-13, SAS became part of the International Research Collaborative through Boston College that studies the efficacy of educational technology and measures evolving teaching and learning practices. This area will continue to grow and emerge as is detailed in the technology for learning strategic plan.

Systems and Structures SAS Strategic Objective: Learning-focused structures and systems advance student growth.

Recommendation 6: Establish organizational direction and coherence as they relate to the various functions of the school to support student learning.

• As described throughout this progress report, institutionalizing PLCs has been a significant area of progress since the 2008 self-study.

• During the 2012-13 school year, six institutional commitments were identified: 1) professional learning communities (PLCs); 2) common, guaranteed, viable curriculum; 3) great teaching to enhance learning for every student, every day; 4) evidence of learning; 5) integration of technology; and 6) healthy organizational culture. Commitments two, three, and four directly relate to this recommendation. These institutional commitments were added to all employee contracts beginning in the 2013-14 school year. SAS administrators and faculty are continuing to unpack the commitments to ensure consistent understanding.

• The identification of six institutional commitments has provided organizational direction and helped establish coherence across divisions and departments. All division and Office of Learning goals are now aligned to these commitments.

• The focus of the Office of Learning continues to be creating clarity, consistency, and coherence around the six institutional commitments. The role of the deputy superintendent (new in 2013-14) is to work with the divisional administrators to focus on implementation of the six institutional commitments at the classroom level.

• In 2012-13, the superintendent restructured the administration organization to establish a cabinet. Current members of the cabinet include representation of all of the various functions of the school. The cabinet acts as a guiding coalition who is collectively responsible for achieving common objectives for SAS. • Although significant progress has been made in this area since 2008, SAS continues to identify areas requiring further development. For example, even though the institutional commitments are included in all employee contracts, there is varied understanding about what these commitments mean. During the 201314 school year, these commitments will be defined and success indicators will be identified. This work will then inform other projects (e.g., recruiting, teacher appraisal processes).

• In recent years, SAS has hosted the following degree and/or certificate programs through SUNY Buffalo State: International Interdisciplinary Masters and Education Leadership Certificate. The majority of these courses were taught by Office of Learning administrators which allowed the topics to be tailored to needs of SAS. Topics included: Understanding by Design, Looking for Learning, Quality Assessment, Differentiation, Home-School Communications, and Being a Learning Leader.

• SAS also provides opportunities not associated with post-graduate credit. Examples include: professional learning communities; facilitative leadership; Google Summit; Columbia Teachers College Reading and Writing Institutes; and StrengthsFinder.

• A number of faculty members have become Apple Distinguished Educators (seven) and Google Certified Trainers (five).

• SAS faculty and administrators have become regular trainers and presenters at Google Summits, technology conferences, and workshops throughout the EARCOS region.

• SAS hosted a Google Apps for Education Summit in 2012 and 2013.

WASC REPORT PG 43

Area of Emphasis 4: Administrators and lead teachers need professional development opportunities to expand their knowledge and skills as they transition into learning-focused leadership.

Finance Area for Emphasis 5: Facing significant and unavoidable financial challenges in a number of areas, the board and administration should actively pursue means to increase income streams associated with both capital and operating budgets. â&#x20AC;˘ Progress is being made to increase income streams and operate with greater fiscal-mindedness. Examples included: - The implementation of the guaranteed placement program (2009) has provided an additional revenue stream (raising S$10,800,000 for the reserves and endowment).

- A chief advancement officer was hired (2010) to increase gift and donation income.

- Fee payment policies were changed to increase working capital and financial stability. These funds have been invested to increase available resources.

- A new technology fee has been added to fund the middle school one-to-one program.

- Non-programmatic users (e.g., SACAC) are now required to support costs for their use of facilities and energy. This has resulted both in increased non-tuition revenue and reduced utility costs.

- An investment advisory committee (IAC) was created to bring greater discipline (and returns) to the investment of reserves and the endowment.

- New payment policies around student re-enrollment and enrollment of new students have allowed the school to open in August each year with full enrollment, resulting in additional tuition and fee income equivalent to more than 50 students. â&#x20AC;˘ School-initiated cost containment efforts include: - An energy conservation effort began in 2009-10 with the creation of a position to manage conservation and other sustainability efforts.

- Solar panels were installed to help contain future energy costs.

- A new portal was created to encourage competition in bids for facilities projects.

- The renovation of the intermediate/middle school cafeteria to a non-air conditioned space reduced energy use and costs as well as created a more pleasant dining environment.

- Food digesters (for cafeterias) have been added to save costs through reduced landfill wastes.

- SAS participates in peak-use mitigation and cost-savings program offered by the local utility.

- SAS has taken advantage of several governmental subsidies (e.g., green walls) - SAS has corrected tax supplement benefits and gained consistency in airfare benefits using funds to address high increases in health insurance costs.

- In an effort to control benefits cost increases, the school now limits the number of dependents for benefit purposes (previously no limit) and has ceased offering tuition remission to new local hire teachers.

- Division principals agreed to small (3%) reductions in non-wage budgets to fund additional personnel in academic areas.

- Certain administrative positions without academic responsibility have moved from faculty status to professional/technical positions.

- Improved decision-making processes were implemented for allocating additional resources to personnel.

• The school established a benchmark of a 3.5% annual increase in the cost of attendance (tuition fees) to reduce the premium cost for attending SAS relative to other schools in Singapore.

• The investment advisory committee has brought a level of sophistication to the management of the SAS investment portion and increased income from investments. The board, at the committee’s advice, has continued to update and refine the IPS/SAA.

• A multi-year financial plan has been developed to provide an improved understanding of the demands on available resources, the development of reserves, and anticipated tuition fee increases.

• The school bid for and signed two lines of credit (LOCs) totaling $60M as a backstop in the event of a sudden enrollment decline.

• The school conducted a full review of insurances resulting in a more robust overall program including coverage for terrorism, income protection, and extra expense, among other improvements.

CONCLUSIONS SAS focuses on ongoing improvement and uses accreditation findings to inform its strategic and school improvement plans. As recommended by the mid-term visiting committee, SAS has “stayed the course” and has continued to make significant progress in the recommendations that emerged from the 2008 self-study and visit.

WASC REPORT PG 45

• A 10-year asset management plan has been developed to ensure planning and adequate attention to facilities maintenance and renewal.

Analysis of Profile & Progress Implications of Data Demographic Data Student Learning Data

- MAP Results - PISA Results - SAT Results - AP Exams - College Admission Results Perception Data Critical Learner Needs Based on Data Questions Raised by [Absence of] Data to Inform Self-Study

WASC REPORT PG 47

CHAPTER 3

IMPLICATIONS OF DATA Demographic Data SAS demographics, as described in Chapter 1, provide the following key strengths and challenges:

Strengths

Challenges

Great diversity among student nationality and experience

Turnover: average length of enrollment is four years

With a well-balanced wait list, SAS anticipates students waitlisted for the current year may enroll during semester two

Very slight decline in the proportion of returning students from FY10 to FY13

Inclusive of students with various learning profiles, SAS identifies and provides needed support for approximately 12% of students

Only 14% of students reside nearby, the majority travel to reach school

Many of these factors are attributable to SASâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s status as an international school. Although attrition is expected at any school serving an internationally transient population, SAS does monitor attrition data closely and aspires to retain those students who remain in Singapore. Notably, students holding passports from Southeast Asia consistently remain enrolled at SAS longer than their American peers, suggesting geographic origin influences duration of stay in Singapore and/or enrollment at SAS. An even deeper look at SAS demographics could examine reported causes of attrition as well as experiences prior to enrolling at SAS, such as prior countries of residence or type of schools attended. As described in Chapter 1, SAS is actively working to expand data collection related to learning profiles and exit of support services, which will enable the school to isolate trends related to success and college enrollment among supported students, and to inform resource forecasting for support services.

As SAS develops data collection strategies around desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs), the school realizes that it should also consider integrating factors that may shape DSLO baselines into demographic data collection, whether data already collected, such as duration of enrollment, or potentially new data, such as number of countries lived in. SAS information systems allow integration and cross-tabulation of data from different sources; as the school implements DSLO reporting, SAS should routinely check for correlation between DSLOs and other data points.

Student Learning Data Data described in Chapter 1 provide the following key student learning strengths and challenges:

Strengths On the MAP test, SAS studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; RIT (raw) scores are consistently higher than peers across subject areas In most areas, SAS students demonstrate significantly more growth than their peers on the MAP test Deep-dive analysis matching SAS students with only statistically-similar peers still reveals generally high performance and growth on MAP

Challenges Although overall performance is high, at every grade level there are students who receive MAP scores that indicate academic interventions and/or support is needed Having a high percentage of students achieving in the top stanines requires SAS to ensure there are opportunities for extension and challenge in every grade level and every subject Because MAP is given only to grades three through eight, in-depth data on growth are not collected for other grades In-depth data is only collected in reading, writing/ language, and math Grades, test scores, and college enrollment do not adequately represent the entirety of student development SAS lacks data on DSLOs, particularly character, creativity, critical thinking, and cultural competence

MAP Results SAS consistently scores in the 99th percentile among MAP schools for language, reading, and math RIT (Rasch Unit) scores. RIT scores indicate more consistent performance in reading and language than in math. In language, 35% to 46% of students in each grade have an RIT score within the same ten-point range, and 69% to 81% of each grade scored within the same twenty-point range. Reading scores were nearly as concentrated, with 35% or more of students in one ten-point range for all grades except fourth, and 65% to 73% scoring in within twenty points of each other, within each grade. Math scores are markedly more distributed: no more

than 35% of any grade scored within the same ten-point range and no more than 63% scored within the same twenty-point range.

Key Findings: Growth In general, MAP results show that while a large number of SAS students show significant growth between fall and spring testing - over 25% gain more than ten points on most standards in most grades - 25% to 30% do not demonstrate statistically significant growth, scoring within three points (gain or loss) of their baseline on all reading and language standards and, for middle school students, on math standards. This pattern does not apply to intermediate school math (grades three through five), where stagnation is uncommon and between 48% and 70% of students demonstrate growth greater than nine percentage points.

This pattern of large portions of students demonstrating either high or insignificant growth is illustrated in the following charts, which aggregate growth data for each standard tested, within each school. For reading and language, patterns are similar in both schools, with about one-quarter of students in the insignificant range and between 30% and 40% in the high growth category:

41

30 23

23

28 22

28

26 23

3

5 4

6

6 3

4

7 4

8

8

5 6 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4

4

Major Negative Growth (> -9)

4

Moderate Negative Growth (-7 to -9)

Language:

12

14

No Significant Change (-3 to +3)

12 13

14 13 13 10

Low Positive Growth (4 to 6)

16 12

13 13

15

13 13

Language:

Understand Grammar/Usage Lang: Grammar/Usage - MS

Reading:

Reading:

Language:

Language:

Reading:

Reading:

Language:

Language:

Reading:

Reading:

Punctuate/Spell Correctly Lang: Punctuate/Spell - IS

Understand Grammar/Usage Lang: Grammar/Usage - IS

Literature Read: Literature - IS

High Positive Growth (>9)

Informational Text Read: Informational - MS

Literature Read: Literature - MS

Punctuate/Spell Correctly Lang: Punctuate/Spell - MS

27

11 12 11 12 11

Moderate Positive Growth (7 to 9)

Plan/Organize/Research Lang: Plan/Org/Research - IS

Plan/Organize/Research Lang: Plan/Org/Research - MS

26

23

23

8 7 8 7 7 6 7 8 6 6

Minor Negative Growth (-4 to -6)

30 26

13 14 13 13 8

39

36

31

29 25 26

39

37

35

Foundations/Vocab Read: Foundation/Vocab - IS

Informational Text Read: Informational - IS

Foundations/Vocab Read: Foundation/Vocab - MS

In math, however, the majority of intermediate school students demonstrated high growth, while only about one-third of middle school students did so. With the exception of algebraic thinking/functions, where they exhibit similar growth rates, intermediate school students demonstrated growth greater than 9% far more often than middle school students.

65 60

Percent of Intermediate School Students in Each Growth Category for Math, by Standard: 18 7

4

2

5

Major Negative Growth (> -9)

7 2

2

4

Moderate Negative Growth (-7 to -9)

math:

Algebraic Thinking

5

3

3

12

14

10

4

Minor Negative Growth (-4 to -6)

MATH:

14

No Significant Change (-3 to +3)

Number & Operations

8

8

52 45

11

Low Positive Growth (4 to 6)

MATH:

Fractions

12

8

9

10

Moderate Positive Growth (7 to 9)

MATH:

Measurement & Data

High Positive Growth (>9)

WASC REPORT PG 49

Percent of Students (Grades 3-8) In Each Growth Category For Language and Reading, by Standard and School

Percent of Middle School Students in Each Growth Category for Math, by Standard 7

8

13

22 9

Major Negative Growth (> -9)

3

4

6

6

Moderate Negative Growth (-7 to -9)

7

6

9

Algebra & Functions

MATH:

26

34 24

7

Minor Negative Growth (-4 to -6)

math:

26

14

No Significant Change (-3 to +3)

Real & Complex Num Sys

13

12

12

Low Positive Growth (4 to 6)

MATH:

Geometry

13

12

10

30

24

34

9

Moderate Positive Growth (7 to 9)

High Positive Growth (>9)

MATH:

Statistics & Probability

SAS students compared favorably to other MAP schools, particularly in reading and language arts. Relative to all MAP schools, the average gain percentile among SAS students in grades four through eight was uniformly greater than 90 in both reading and language overall. Grade three students had less competitive growth, with an average gain percentile of only 59 in both reading and language. In math, grade three and four students were in the leading gain percentiles (78 and 94, respectively), with grades five, seven, and eight falling between the 55th and 66th percentiles. Alarmingly, the average gain percentile in grade six for math overall was only 27; analysis of individual student scores shows that the lowest growth in grade six occurred among the most advanced math students, indicating a need for greater challenge.

When examining the Virtual Comparison Group (VCG) data, SAS students in most strata display no significant difference in growth relative to their like peers. SAS students are also rarely represented in the lowest growth percentiles. Where significant difference does appear, SAS students generally demonstrate greater gains than their peers, with a few notable exceptions: in reading, only the lowest-scoring cohort of grade seven girls (baseline 20th to 29th percentile, n=3) displayed lower-than-average growth. Growth relative to peers does vary by gender in several strata, most notably in grade five reading and in middle school; however, in most subjects, within a single grade, there are a similar number of strata where boys outscore their peers but girls do not, and vice-versa. Grade eight language is an exception to this pattern, where boys show significant growth relative to peers more often than girls do, although generally these effect sizes are small.

Key Findings: Transitional Years Relative to all MAP schools, grade three students were the only SAS cohort in which mean growth was lower than NWEA averages in all topics: 1.8 points lower in reading, 1.5 points lower in language, and 0.2 points lower in math. Average raw scores, however, were still consistently high, with 49%, 53%, and 59% of grade three students scoring in the top three stanines in language, reading, and math, respectively. Moreover, SAS grade three students showed almost no significant difference in growth relative to the VCG group. These patterns indicate that SAS grade three students enter intermediate school with strong skills, relative to other MAP-tested students, and continue to learn; while the incremental gains that SAS students make in grade three are smaller than those made by the average MAP-tested student, SAS grade three students still finish the school year performing well above average, having learned about as much as students at comparable schools with the same, high baseline scores.

Grade six (n= 208) and grade eight (n=104) students entering the school year with the highest math scores demonstrated the least growth, even relative to similar schools in the VCG cohort, suggesting that SAS could do more to challenge these students. In fact, relative to all MAP schools (not just the VCG group), SAS grade six students overall were in only the 27th gain percentile, gaining 1.6 points less than the MAP average.

Intermediate school math scores indicate that students generally make very good progress in grades three through five, but VCG data suggests many of the strongest students subsequently plateau on arrival at middle school. Grade six students demonstrated the greatest growth in real and complex number systems, which was also the math sub-topic with the highest RIT scores. Geometry was the sub-topic with the least growth among grade six students, while RIT scores were lowest in algebra and functions. Grade six is a transitional year, where students move from grade-level math instruction into classes based on placement assessments. SAS can examine these processes with the intent to increase learning among this strong grade six cohort.

Key Findings: Results by Subject In reading, students scored slightly higher in literature than in informational text at all grade levels, while growth by sub-topic varied slightly by grade. Growth was greatest among grade three and four students, particularly in foundations/vocabulary and, for grade three students, informational text. RIT scores in language were similar across sub-topics, as was average growth across all grades although, as discussed, students in

grades three and four demonstrated the most improvement. While most cohorts displayed growth similar to the VCG group, grade five students at various levels demonstrated greater growth than their peers.

Intermediate school students demonstrated significant growth in math, although average growth scores at this level are high among all MAP-tested students; SAS growth averages are very close to the national mean, and with the exception of one stratum comprised of four students, there was no significant difference in growth among SAS and VCG students.

In middle school, math growth was slightly below MAP averages in grades six and eight, as described above. Grade seven students scored 0.1 points above the national average for grade seven, although, as in intermediate school, most of these growth scores did not depart significantly from the VCG group. While subtopic averages are similar for math, middle school students demonstrated the greatest growth in grade six in real and complex number systems, in statistics and probability at grade seven, and algebra and functions at grade eight. Curiously, middle school students showed the least growth in the sub-topic of geometry, which was the area of greatest growth in the intermediate school.

PISA results are publicly reported at the national level only, and Singapore scored high in all metrics. SAS contributed 37 students to the 2012 sample of 5,369 15-year-olds in Singapore, and private schools, including SAS, contributed approximately 3.3% of the total sample. Thus, national data do not reflect SAS specifically.

As a PISA-participating school, SAS receives a confidential report with further detail comparing the SAS sample against all other tested students in Singapore. While the report did not compare SAS to schools in the United States or to other international schools, Singapore generally scores well ahead of the US on PISA, and SAS scored well relative to Singapore. The SAS group outperformed the overall Singapore sample in all subjects tested (math, reading, and science). These scores suggest that SAS students receive an effective education even relative to the high-scoring students enrolled in other schools in Singapore. Student-reported data on teaching practices warrant follow-up with relevant PLCs, however on most questions, the majority of SAS students reported practices in line with expectations.

SAT Results Within the US, mean SAT scores declined slightly from 2009-13. Mean scores at SAS are consistently well over 100 points higher than US averages, with last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mean scores in critical reading, math, and writing 125, 145, and 144 points above the US means, respectively. In 2011, SAS saw a step-improvement in mean scores, with particularly notable gains in math (from a mean of 643 in 2010 to 660 in 2013) and writing (from 612 to 633), which have been largely sustained in subsequent tests.

AP Exams Last year, SAS students took 31 different AP exams, with over 90% of tested students scoring a three, four, or five (passing) on each of 27 tests. Spanish Language had the lowest pass rate, at 74%, an anomaly, as all other world language tests (Chinese Language and Culture, French Language) had 100% pass rates last year.

The most popular AP exams among SAS students are Calculus AB, English Language, and Statistics, all of which were taken by more than 100 students and passed by 95% to 97%. Physics B and Psychology have historically been almost as popular and had pass rates at or above 86% since 2009. Although in less demand, with fewer than 50 tests taken in each subject annually, SAS students have also been highly successful with Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, European History, Physics C, and Studio Art (Drawing), all of which have had pass rates greater than 90% since 2009. Overall, from 2009-13, SAS students have maintained pass rates between 90% and 100% for 15 of the 31 tests taken.

College Admission Results Nearly all SAS graduates attend college within two years of graduation. Approximately half of SAS graduates attend selective, highly-selective, or hyper-selective colleges or universities. Compared to the cohort of graduates who enroll in US institutions, the subset of SAS graduates is skewed strongly towards more selective schools: 3% and 9% of SAS graduates studying in the US attend hyper- and highly-selective schools, respectively, while 9% and 35% of those graduates enrolled elsewhere enter hyper- and highly-selective schools, respectively. The most popular destinations among SAS graduates are the Northeastern United States, Vancouver, and Chicago.

SAS is preparing to expand college matriculation analytics to include college completion, where data is available, and to correlate college admissions data with learning profiles defined at admissions and with support and enrichment services provided. Given the popularity of more selective institutions, many of which

WASC REPORT PG 51

PISA Results

are known to weigh extracurricular and leadership activities heavily when choosing among academicallyqualified applicants, SAS’s ongoing work defining DLSOs will aid the college counseling process, as counselors will eventually have easy access to standardized data on a student’s overall contribution to the SAS community.

Parent Perception Data Data described in Chapter 1 provide the following key parent perception strengths and challenges:

Strengths

Challenges

Favorable views and a high degree of parent engagement on strategic focus and school-home connection

Low response rates to questions on support services and world languages

Generally upward trends in satisfaction with teaching

Disparate opinions on whether instruction is consistent across teachers

Parents cite curriculum, overall positive view of SAS, and reputation are the main reasons for choosing SAS

Popular comment topics are improving communication, lunch menu, math, and teaching

SAS analyzes longitudinal parent survey data over three-year periods. Since the 2010-11 school year, parents have indicated a consistently high level of satisfaction with most facets of SAS. Approximately 90% of respondents continually express agreement with statements that SAS operates in alignment with its strategic focus, encouraging critical thinking, core values, and academic rigor. Last year, 92% of parents agreed that SAS fosters strong connections between home and school, a proportion that has increased gradually since 2010-11.

Feedback on quality of the academic program and support for student learning also exhibit a positive trend, with small but steady increases in the proportion of parents who agree that learning targets are well communicated and that reading, science, and social studies are taught effectively.

Chinese and world languages remain areas for improvement, with the greatest number of parents disagreeing with statements that these areas are taught effectively, although responses to these indicators have improved over time and non-response is consistently high; of those parents who did express an opinion on Chinese and modern languages last year, 84% and 88% respectively agreed that teaching is effective. A similar pattern exists for the indicator on support to unique learners: while only 31% of survey respondents agreed this support is effective, few disagreed.

Non-response was also common for indicators on governance and central administration, although two new metrics introduced last year, “the superintendent provides appropriate opportunities for parent input and involvement” and “the superintendent demonstrates leadership and supports ongoing school improvement,” were the most frequently answered and were agreed with by 77% and 80% of survey respondents, respectively.

Questions on safety, communications, and facilities were also enthusiastically met with positive responses from more than 90% of parents.

CRITICAL LEARNER NEEDS BASED ON DATA The typically high scores and solid growth most SAS students demonstrate on external assessments reveal the strengths of the academic program at SAS. Internal monitoring systems set rigorous cut scores, anticipating that most SAS students surpass grade-level expectations set for norm groups.

Although no academic area emerges as a school-wide critical learner need, several actions are taking place to address questions or concerns that emerge from analysis of the results. First, several areas have been identified to review after the next cycle of assessment is completed to determine whether the 2012-13 results were an anomaly or a trend with either the cohort or the grade level. This includes monitoring growth during transitional years, particularly for high achieving math students in grade six. Second, each student in grade

three to eight who had percentile scores of 40% or below are either being monitored (because performance on in-class assessments are meeting expectation) or are receiving support services (because performance on in-class assessments are also below expectation). Third, SAS is implementing an online data dashboard that will allow teachers access to data that is representative of the whole child (including standardized test scores, classroom assessment information, grades, behavioral information, and participation in extracurricular activities) to make the use of results at the classroom level more effective and efficient. Finally, SAS is determining how to expand the collection of growth data beyond grades three through eight and beyond math and literacy.

QUESTIONS RAISED BY [ABSENCE OF] DATA TO INFORM SELF-STUDY • What does 21st century learning mean in the SAS context?

• What do character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking mean in the SAS context?

• To what degree do teachers explicitly teach character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking?

• To what degree do teachers explicitly assess character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking?

• To what degree do students currently exhibit attributes of character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking?

• How can SAS move from the current reality to a future where character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking are integrally woven into the program for each student?

• How can SAS monitor/measure student growth in and provide student feedback on character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking?

• How does SAS establish systems that lead change and allow for continuous improvement in all of the DSLOs? How do these systems accommodate transient staff and student populations to ensure change is sustainable?

WASC REPORT PG 53

SAS is proud of the results that it achieves in academic terms but recognizes that high achievement is not sufficient for classifying oneself as a great school. In the interest of preparing students for academic, professional, and interpersonal success, a great school needs go beyond traditional academics to expand its understanding of what is required of a 21st century education and monitor the growth and achievement in these areas. Through the process of developing the vision and DSLOs, SAS has identified seven critical 21st century outcomes: character, collaboration, communication, core knowledge, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence. Of these, core knowledge is the only one that SAS currently monitors. To begin the process of monitoring the remaining DSLOs, five became the focus of the current self-study. The purpose of completing the self-study around these five DSLOs was to establish baseline programmatic data to complement the research taking place on reinventing school. The gap analysis between these two sets of information will inform the next strategic plan, helping SAS to move to the next level of excellence.

CHAPTER 4

Self-Study Findings CATEGORY A: ORGANIZATION FOR STUDENT LEARNING

CATEGORY B: DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (DSLOS) - B1. What Students Learn - B2. How Students Learn - B3. How Students are Assessed - Desired Student Learning Outcomes Areas of Strength - Desired Student Learning Outcomes Areas of Growth

CATEGORY C: SUPPORT FOR STUDENT PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC GROWTH - C1. Student Connectedness - C2. Parent/Community Involvement - Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth Areas of Strength - Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth Areas of Growth

CATEGORY D: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT - D1. Resources - D2. Resource Planning - Resource Management and Development Areas of Strength - Resource Management and Development Areas of Growth

School-wide Areas of Strength School-wide Areas of Growth

WASC REPORT PG 55

- A1. School Purpose - A2. Governance - A3. School Leadership - A4. Staff - A5. School Environment - A6. Reporting Student Progress - A7. School Improvement Process - Organizing for Student Learning Areas of Strength - Organizing for Student Learning Areas of Growth

CATEGORY A: ORGANIZATION FOR STUDENT LEARNING A1. School Purpose The vision of Singapore American School (SAS) is to be “a world leader in education cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future.” The measurable outcomes of the vision are defined by seven desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs): collaboration, communication, core knowledge, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence. The relationship of the DSLOs to the vision is illustrated in the graphic below.

N

N

ical thinking t i r C

er ract cha uture

uni

tiv crea

g atin Cultiv

c atio n s

CORE KNOWLEDGE

mm

ty

the F

COLLA BOR ATI O

rld Leader in Education o W A

ion

Th

in k

ers

ce

red

ral Co mpeten

e pa

ept

al

Cultu

Pr

Exc

for

i

co

aranteed viab le c n, gu o m m

ulum ric ur

Co

ional learning comm s s e f uni tie Pro s

r nin g

Great

Teaching Integ

ion

of

Hea

nc

eo

rat

f Lea

Every Student, Every Day

Tec

h nol og

lthy or

y

E vi

ganizationa

l

de

tur l u c

e

WASC REPORT PG 57

The mission of SAS is to provide â&#x20AC;&#x153;each student an exemplary American educational experience with an international perspective.â&#x20AC;? To ensure that SAS provides an exemplary experience, six institutional commitments have been identified. The six commitments are identified in the graphic below.

Beliefs and Philosophy In 2012-13, SAS underwent a process to identify a new vision. Dr. Chip Kimball held town hall meetings and conducted multiple focus groups to elicit feedback from community and staff regarding their thoughts on what students need in order to be successful in the future, as well as how SAS can best serve these students.

A survey was sent to parents and faculty to reach a wider audience. Multiple parent focus groups were held to gain further perspective. More than 100 college admission officers were interviewed regarding what they felt was most important for students today and in the future. Several iterations of the vision were presented to faculty, parents, and administration before the board approved the final version in spring 2013. At the same time, the mission, which was rewritten in 2008, was reaffirmed.

Purpose, DSLOs, and Profile Data SAS continues to be the school of choice for American families residing in Singapore. The majority of students at SAS are US citizens and the large majority of graduating seniors attend US universities or colleges (see Chapter 1). For this reason the mission of SAS was re-affirmed: to provide an exemplary American education with an international perspective. Providing an exemplary education requires a school to focus on adequately preparing students for their future. This was the focus of the visioning work and identification of the DSLOs. Involvement of All SAS has a process for involving representatives of the entire school community in the development/refinement of the vision, mission, and DSLOs. The vision was crafted with the input of 359 faculty, 206 randomly-selected surveyed parents, and more than 100 other parents who attended town hall sessions, parent coffees, or focus groups. Additionally, college admission officers and alumni were asked for input. The DSLOs were developed during a summit that had representatives from all major stakeholder groups - administrators, faculty, classified staff, parents, and students.

At the beginning of 2013-14, the vision was the focus of a World Cafe activity for faculty. All faculty gave input into the definitions of ‘a world leader in education,’ ‘cultivating exceptional thinkers,’ and ‘prepared for the future.’ As a result of this feedback, the DSLOs of core knowledge and cultural competence were added to the five that had originally been identified.

Consistency of Purpose, DSLOs, and Program The school purpose (vision and mission) and DSLOs are closely aligned. The alignment of the school program to the vision and DSLOs is varied, as identified in Category B (starting on page 18). The strengths and growth areas identified by the focus groups clearly state where the program is closely aligned, and where there is a gap. Closing the gaps will be core to the next strategic plan.

Learning Results SAS has publicized the vision and DSLOs to core constituency groups through a variety of formats. For faculty and staff, this has mainly been through conversation during a World Cafe activity and divisional faculty meetings. Additionally, the DSLOs were the primary focus of the self-study. For students, some courses have started to address one or more DSLOs in rubrics or in conversations. This exposure is not yet consistent for all students. For parents and other external stakeholders, communication has occurred through written communications like Crossroads, school-wide presentations, divisional presentations, published reports, and research and development outreach. For all future communications and presentations, the vision is embedded in a presentation template.

Regular Review/Revision The school has a process for regular review/revision of the vision/mission and DSLOs based on student and community needs. These components are embedded in the beginning stage of each WASC self-study resulting in review and revision or reaffirmation every six years. The development of the new vision and DSLOs was based on input from community members (inclusive of faculty, parents, and college admission officers).

Additional Findings SAS has a process for involving representatives of the entire community in the development and/or refinement of the vision, mission, and DSLOs. Although there is a strong correlation between the vision and the DSLOs, there are varying degrees of consistency between the DSLOs and school programs; this is the focus of this self-study and future actions will be taken to address identified gaps. While sharing the new vision and DSLOs has begun, communication to ensure all stakeholder groups understand them remains a need.

A2. Governance A twelve member elected board responsible for the realization of the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overarching vision and mission governs SAS. The SAS Board is deliberate in its role, responsibilities, structure, and operating norms to ensure that it is fulfilling its obligation in governance to support student achievement.

The board operates as a policy board. In this role the board centers its work on three major responsibilities.

These responsibilities are: 1) influencing and guiding the long-term strategic plan to accomplish the vision/ mission; 2) fiduciary responsibility for the school and; 3) hiring, evaluating, and supporting the superintendent.

To accomplish these duties the board develops goals for the superintendent as well as policies that serve as operating parameters for the superintendent to operate within. The board monitors progress on these goals and compliance related to the policies.

The board is deliberate in the policy that it sets to ensure that the best interests of students are served, and that the superintendent has appropriate direction, and operational discretion, to most effectively lead the school.

The board understands that its sole employee is the superintendent. As such, goal setting for the superintendent is focused on organizational expectations including major project milestones, student outcomes, and improvement processes.

Over many years of board policy development and changes in administrative leadership, the board policies that govern the work became increasingly complex and operational. This year (2013-14), the board is revising the policy document to eliminate redundancy, remove operating procedures out of board policy, and ensure that policies are actually reflective of the practice in the school. The board governance committee, with the help of a governance consultant, is completing this work. This has resulted in a new architecture of governance documents that now include a statement of community, board policies, board regulations, and administrative regulations. These now serve as the governing policies for the board, and the administrative regulations serve as administrative guidelines that interpret the intent of the board documents into operating procedures.

Clear Policies and Procedures Board composition, terms, and responsibilities are clearly articulated in the articles of association that serves as a foundational document for the board. In practice, the board pays very close attention to the articles and bylaws that outlines how the board should operate, including selection processes.

The board believes that it is in the best interest of the board to cultivate potential members through other volunteer committees and activity. This cultivation assists the board in understanding the strengths of potential members and gives potential members practical experience with the school.

The board seeks to intentionally include the diverse community that it represents by encouraging service from members of varying backgrounds. This serves the school well by ensuring that multiple voices are heard.

The governance committee is responsible for vetting potential board candidates, and for cultivating potential board members that may consider running. The governance committee will recommend to the board replacement members by appointment when a vacancy occurs. The governance committee will also endorse a candidate that has been vetted for election when appropriate. Any community member may run for election according to the procedures outlined in the articles of association.

Board Training Each new board member is provided training to ensure that they are given the tools necessary for successful board membership. Board training is overseen by the governance committee, but is executed by the board chair with the support of the superintendent.

Newly elected or appointed board members are invited to the annual board retreat in May so that they can familiarize themselves with board practices, observe and participate in strategic planning exercises, and get a flavor for the board dynamic. New board members are strongly encouraged to attend the annual EARCOS conference where sessions for new board members are designed. Each board member is assigned a committee responsibility and existing committee members are asked to mentor new board members.

WASC REPORT PG 59

The board operates through several foundational documents that include the memorandum of association, articles of association, bylaws, and board policies. Each of these documents creates a framework for the board to operate and govern.

Lastly, a new board member orientation session is designed for new board members with school administration, the board chair, the superintendent, and when appropriate, consultants with expertise in governance and/or leadership.

Relationship of Policies Board policies are a direct reflection of the priorities of the board to specifically accomplish the vision and mission of SAS. The vision and mission are specifically codified in policy.

Recently, the administration has developed a board portal on the Edmin data dashboard. This will allow board members to have a “30,000 foot view” of learning results to assist in monitoring progress against goals and policy development for programs and resource investments.

Involvement of Governing Authority Annually, the SAS Board conducts a strategic planning retreat to assess the school’s direction, goals, progress, and priorities. The board, in a series of reports and discussions, looks at student results and reports those results out to the larger community. The board also uses the superintendent’s evaluation as an opportunity to reflect on strategy and direction of the school, as well as student results.

As the board has become increasingly policy and student outcome oriented, this has also increased the desire for relevant and current research regarding student learning. There has been a long-standing culture at SAS to implement research-supported best practices, and that research is shared with the board as strategies are presented and discussed.

Further, as research emerges, the administration prepares research briefs for the board that are provided at board meetings, in board communication, and are an active part of the board dialogue. Recently an online environment was created for board members to participate in an professional learning community regarding the latest research and educational thinking.

School Community Understanding The board role is communicated to the community at large through written communication (annual report), large forums (PTA, AGM, budget presentation, EGM), and through individual members that contact the board.

The board is very clear about its role and consistently communicates how it operates.

That said, practice would suggest that there is work to be done to better inform the community regarding the role of the board. Too often, board members are contacted when a patron is not happy with a decision that is clearly operational and is outside of the board domain. Consistent efforts should continue to inform the community of the board role, and of venues to address complaints and issues.

Relationship to Professional Staff Two years ago, Dr. Chip Kimball became superintendent at SAS. During that transition, the board significantly shifted its focus to ensure that as the governing body it remained true to its policy role and was not serving in an operational capacity. This was not necessarily the case prior to the leadership change in 2012.

Now two years into the new administration, the board has made progress towards remaining at the policy level working through the superintendent to access staff. Strong agreements are in place and are followed regarding communication with staff. The board is united in its voice and its understanding of its lines of authority and influence.

Evaluation Procedures The SAS Board has a very deliberate process for evaluating its sole employee, the superintendent. The current practice is to do an annual formal evaluation and a mid-year progress report with feedback provided to the superintendent through the executive committee of the board. The superintendent provides quarterly goal progress updates to the entire board in executive session, and meets at least once a month with the board chair to discuss progress.

Further, as part of the annual reporting, the board receives a broad range of reports from the superintendent on student results, finances, project updates, and initiatives underway. These reports are scheduled and prioritized by the board chair and superintendent.

Evaluation of Governing Authority The board has in place expectations of behavior and protocols that have been agreed to. At the end of each academic year the board will self-monitor assessing its adherence to these expectations and policies. The superintendent is also asked to provide feedback to the board on how functionally it has operated.

Additional Findings The board adopts policies which are consistent with the vision and mission of SAS and support the achievement of the desired student learning outcomes, delegates implementation of these policies to the professional staff, and monitors results by working closely with the superintendent.

A3. School Leadership

Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Operations

Chief Advancement Officer

William Scarborough

Michael Kingan

Deputy Superintendent

Executive Director of Technology

Robert Landau

Jason Cone

Executive Director for teaching & Learning

Superintendent

Dr. Chip Kimball

Jennifer Sparrow

Executive Director of Talent Management Dr. Laurynn Evans

Elementary school principal

2014 high school principal

David Hoss

Dr. Darin Fahrney

Middle School Principal

2013-14 high School Principal

Devin Pratt

Dr. Tim Stuart

WASC REPORT PG 61

SAS leadership is unified in its efforts to optimize learning for each student, and has several leadership structures in place to facilitate the accomplishment of this goal. Dr. Kimball has organized senior leadership into a decision-making cabinet; composition of this cabinet is illustrated below. The purpose of the cabinet is to ensure coordination between central office and each division. Centralizing decision-making has been a major shift in the operation of SAS. The positive impact of this has been alignment across all parts of the school towards the same strategic direction. Understanding of the role of cabinet, including what decisions come to cabinet and the relationship of cabinet to other leadership teams, will continue to evolve as this new structure becomes more established.

The structure for educational leadership is described below.

Board Superintendent

Dr. Chip Kimball

Deputy Superintendent

Robert Landau

Executive Director for teaching & Learning

Elementary school principal

Intermediate school principal

Middle School Principal

high School Principal

Jennifer Sparrow

David Hoss

Marian Graham

Devin Pratt

Dr. Tim Stuart

Director of Curriculum

Deputy Principal

Deputy Principal

Deputy Principal

Deputy Principal

Treena Casey

Ken Schunk

Marc Lâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Heureux

Brian Combes

Doug Neihart

Director of Chinese Language

Deputy Principal

Deputy Principal

Deputy Principal

Dr. Susan Zhang

Geri Jonson

Tico Oms

Darin Fahrney

The structure of business leadership is described below. Please note that although the executive director of information technology appears on this structure, he is also a part of the Office of Learning with the executive director of teaching and learning, director of curriculum, and director of Chinese language.

Board Superintendent

Dr. Chip Kimball

Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Business Operations William Scarborough

Chief Advancement Officer

Executive Director of Talent Management

Executive Director of Information Technology

Michael Kingan

Dr. Laurynn Evans

Jason Cone

Director of Admissions

Director of Facilities

Mona Stuart

Anthony Wong

Defined Responsibilities, Practices, etc.

SAS has written policies, charts, and handbooks that define responsibilities, operational practices, decisionmaking processes, and relationships of leadership in most areas of the school. These processes are made explicit in faculty handbooks, which were originally created by human resources and personalized by division administration (primary school faculty handbook, intermediate school faculty handbook, middle school faculty handbook, high school faculty handbook). Understanding of these processes and the roles and responsibilities of various levels of leadership are not always clear, particularly because SAS is revising many of the existing systems to better accomplish its strategic objectives.

Parents are made aware of leadership responsibilities and operational practices through parent handbooks (ecc/primary school parent handbook, intermediate school parent handbook, middle school student/ parent handbook, high school student handbook) as well as parent coffee presentations. The expectation that parents follow the escalation protocol of teacher - deputy principal - principal - deputy superintendent - superintendent is followed by all levels of leadership from the board to teacher leaders by redirecting concerns to the appropriate level.

SAS has several existing structures for internal communication including faculty PLCs, subject area team meetings, division faculty meetings, superintendent open forums, and superintendent messages to faculty.

To promote communication with board members, Dr. Kimball submits a weekly board brief that outlines upcoming events and gives detail about issues or upcoming changes. Structures for planning include division specific committees (e.g., research and development teams), school-wide subject area teams (e.g., math renewal team), and task-specific teams (e.g., WASC leadership team). Additionally, the introduction of Google for Education solutions like Google docs and Google forms has allowed more efficient collaborative planning, especially between grade levels, subject areas, and/or departments. Structures for resolving differences include clear procedures for addressing issues (e.g., go to source first, then to supervisor, then to principal, then to superintendent). When specific issues have surfaced, Dr. Kimball has held open forums to hear from concerned faculty (e.g., concerns regarding benefit changes, concerns regarding elementary school consolidation). Additionally, there is a faculty senate that proactively discusses issues with the superintendent and executive director of talent management.

Although these structures exist, there are challenges due to the large size of SAS and elements of the organizational culture. SAS leadership needs to continue to explore and implement strategies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing structures, and develop new structures as appropriate.

Involvement of Staff Professional learning communities (PLCs) are the primary mechanism for involving staff in shared responsibility and accountability for improvements in teaching and learning. All faculty members are expected to actively participate in a primary PLC and many are involved in secondary PLCs. Time has been allocated during the school day for PLCs to meet. In the primary through middle school divisions, this is during common planning times; in the high school this is during a late start every Wednesday morning.

The purpose of PLCs is to ensure that all members are accountable for the students served by the PLC. This includes collaboratively identifying essential learning targets, determining how they will gather and utilize evidence of student learning, what they will do for students who are struggling, and what they will do for students who already demonstrate mastery of the learning targets. As needed, professional learning is embedded in the PLC conversations.

School leadership is in the process of ensuring that shared accountability for student learning and active participation in PLCs is explicitly described in the new performance appraisal system that will be completed by the end of 2013-14.

Review of Existing Processes At the same time that divisions are undergoing research and development to determine the future of learning for students, school leadership is engaged in research and development around the adult systems.

This includes leadership structures (including teacher leadership), performance appraisal, professional development, institutional use of data (including the development of a web-based dynamic dashboard), subject area renewal processes, and communication. It will be important that these structures are regularly examined to make sure any changes are positively contributing to the evolution of the programs and expectations for students.

WASC REPORT PG 63

Existing Structures

Additional Findings SAS leadership is committed to continuous improvement and has many structures and processes in place to support its strategic directions. The biggest challenge facing SAS is making sure that these structures and processes effectively and efficiently foster clarity, consistency, and coherence.

A4. Staff At this point in time, all faculty and leadership team members at SAS hold a minimum of a bachelor’s degree.

The vast majority of SAS faculty members hold current and valid teacher certification from their country or state of origin. For those who do not, an SAS certificate program has been crafted in conjunction with SUNY Buffalo State to provide the equivalent ongoing training and experience that is required by most US states for maintenance of certification.

The vast majority of the SAS leadership team holds a master’s degree or higher, with several holding US-based administrative credentials. Those who do not hold state administrative credential hold training completion certificates from the Principal Training Center, which is recognized as the leading administrative training and preparatory program for international school leaders.

Faculty and leadership team members indicate their commitment to the purpose and vision of the school via ongoing conversations about the future of the school, and the intensive research and development process that is discussed in Appendix B. All employees annually sign a new contract for the ensuing year, in which they indicate their support and commitment to the six institutional commitments, the vision, and the mission of SAS. During the 2013-14 school year, school-wide professional learning time was provided for faculty and leadership team members to delve into the meaning of the institutional commitments, vision, and mission so that shared meaning and support could be cultivated. Moving forward, additional time will be invested in nurturing shared understanding of these items, and additionally, the evaluation for all faculty and leadership team will be based upon the tenets found in the institutional commitments as well as employee contributions towards attaining school-wide goals.

Employment Policies/Practices There has been significant work and growth for SAS in the area of employment practices over the past two years. Substantial work has taken place among divisional leadership and the human resources office to ensure consistency of practice, correct procedures, and equity of experience for both candidates and the school in hiring protocols.

In this work, clear communication has been shared with both potential candidates and current employees around qualifications for employment. All faculty and leadership team members must hold a valid bachelor’s degree at a minimum, as well as hold current and valid certification or a valid proxy of certification. A great deal of time and effort has gone into ensuring that SAS files are correct in this regard, as well as ensuring that those faculty who did not have valid licensure were able to attain a proxy via the SAS certificate program (discussed in prior section).

Further, hiring processes have been completely overhauled to ensure that processes are clear and consistent.

Documentation of process across all divisions began in the 2013-14 school year, and to date, there is strong and consistent follow through by all hiring managers in vetting, interviewing, and completing reference checks on candidates. SAS is currently aligned and compliant with human resources stated policy. That said, SAS will continually review practices to ensure continued compliance.

A potential area of growth for the school is to more deeply examine how it holds all hiring managers accountable in the pre-screening process to ensure that all players hold to the stated processes and policies.

SAS will also need to more effectively seek out candidates outside of the international school “circuit” to ensure a broad pool of high-quality candidates.

Qualifications of Staff Prior to bringing on new faculty and leadership team members, SAS attains sealed and official transcripts from all colleges the candidate attended. SAS also completes a thorough vetting of their stated experience to ensure that they in fact have the background experience presented during their candidacy. Finally, SAS attains copies of faculty and leadership team credentialing from their home state or nation to ensure that they are, in fact, recognized as prepared and qualified to take on the position offered at SAS.

The hiring process also helps ensure that potential candidates have the requisite background experience and assets as stated in their application. All hiring managers complete a minimum of three confidential reference checks on each candidate. SAS has incorporated the use of a common set of interview screening questions across all divisions to ensure consistency in what is being sought in interviews with candidates. The HR office then does an investigation into the stated experience and education of each candidate to verify their background experience and education.

The HR team performs an annual audit of all employee files to ensure that all required documentation is in hand and also maintains files to help ensure communication with employees in regards to the need for renewal of essential certifications or other documents related to their qualifications to work at SAS. SAS practice and implementation around this area have improved in the past two years. There is a plan in place to evaluate progress in this area on an annual basis both within the HR department and across divisional leadership teams so as to continually improve efficacy of implementation.

Maximum Use of Staff Expertise The process SAS uses to ensure that it maximizes the expertise of its employees is effective. During the hiring process managers do a thorough screening of candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s past experience to determine appropriate placement within the school community. Hiring managers discuss the fit of candidates within the existing team climate and dynamic for the posted position and the team they will serve on.

Each year, divisional leadership is given the opportunity to re-assign staff as necessary to ensure that their best work emerges in the position to which they are assigned. This is part of the larger hiring process each autumn for faculty, and it is part of the annual review process for the support staff team.

Support of Professional Development PLCs are the primary mechanism for involving staff in shared responsibility and accountability for ongoing improvements in teaching and learning. This includes job-embedded professional learning. As needs arise, PLC members call on coaches, Office of Learning administrators, and/or divisional administrators to provide support. Additionally, PLCs are supported through teachers who have expertise in specific areas like Understanding by Design unit planning, quality assessment development, and research-proven pedagogical approaches like readerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s/writerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s workshop and flipped classrooms.

The purpose of PLCs is to ensure that all members are accountable for the students served by the PLC. This includes collaboratively identifying essential learning targets, determining how they will gather and utilize evidence of student learning, what they will do for students who are struggling, and what they will do for students who already demonstrate mastery of the learning targets. As needed, professional learning is embedded in the PLC conversations.

SAS provides multiple means for professional development. Each faculty member is provided S$800 per year for the purpose of individual professional development; this may be accrued for up to three years.

Additionally, S$150,000 is budgeted to support school-wide professional development and another S$150,000 is budgeted to support professional development at the divisional level. Finally, the technology department budgets additional funds to provide targeted professional development related to technology initiatives.

During 2012-13, the Office of Learning and human resources conducted a comprehensive review of professional learning at SAS in order to determine how to best align our practices and resource investments with industry practice and research. The review included a dive into research, surveys of staff, and outside consulting support to review current practices at SAS. As part of this work, a statistically reliable random survey was designed and scored for SAS by Learning Forward (formerly the National Council of Staff Development). The survey identified 50 best practices in professional learning that are categorized by seven standards. Scoring ranked responses to these standards on a five-point scale (five being high). The summative scores reflected the following: learning communities (3.7 average score); leadership (4.0 average score); resources (3.6 average score); data (3.2 average score); learning designs (3.2 average score); implementation (3.9 average score); and outcomes (3.7 average score).

WASC REPORT PG 65

To ensure continued effectiveness, SAS regularly reviews the hiring processes and employee assignments at SAS. Divisional leadership and HR meet weekly to discuss employee performance issues and concerns, as well as to troubleshoot potential areas for remediation in hiring and placement processes. SAS is continues to work on creating greater clarity and transparency around these processes for all employees.

As a result of the review, a number of areas were found that need attention. The professional learning guidelines were revised; this included approval processes for professional learning, leadership expectations, and financial requests. These guidelines were shared with staff in August, with principals highlighting the changes and expectations connected to these guidelines in a faculty presentation.

The following is a summary of the recommendations that emerged from the report: • Use the institutional commitments as the fundamental criteria for decision-making in professional learning.

• Build a common understanding of effective professional learning throughout the school to strengthen its purpose, effectiveness, and results.

• Review the distributed leadership model to clarify teacher-leader roles and responsibilities, to more effectively impact the implementation of professional learning.

• Develop capacity among teacher-leaders and administrators to lead professional learning to achieve consistently high levels of performance and organizational change.

• Use data/evidence to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and results of professional learning in order to improve teaching and learning.

• Develop a common definition, indicators of success, and expectations for professional learning communities (PLC) to advance effective implementation of the institutional commitments.

• Review and refine systems and structures that support implementation of effective professional learning to achieve school, division, and PLC goals.

• Develop PLC, division, and school capacity to utilize appropriate learning designs that most effectively achieve defined learning goals.

Work is underway to implement these recommendations across the school.

Supervision and Evaluation To provide greater clarity about professional expectations and better support professional growth, the current performance appraisal system (TPR) that has been in place for five years is being revised. The new framework, or professional growth and evaluation (PGE) system, will be centered on the six institutional commitments.

School leadership has drafted a rubric to clearly delineate between knowing the expectations, applying the expectations, and being a leader in the area of expectation. Faculty senate has given feedback on the rubric. Together, school leadership and faculty senate are determining implementation logistics. SAS has identified TeachScape as an online portfolio platform to help with the collection of evidence and analysis of performance. The revised performance appraisal system will be completed by the end of 2013-14, with a soft launch during 2014-15, and full implementation beginning in 2015-16.

Measurable Effect of Professional Development SAS leadership has begun to evaluate the effectiveness of professional development and uses the data to inform planning and future decision-making. During 2012-13, the Office of Learning developed a survey that is administered post-event to measure the impact of professional development on faculty practice and student learning. Although the survey has been administered several times during 2012-13 and 2013-14, it is not yet consistently given following all professional development events. This information is shared with presenters and is used by the Office of Learning, divisional administrators, or coaches to determine next steps, including whether further professional learning in the area is warranted. An example of this is the recent survey administered after training in project-based learning offered by Buck Institute of Education. As a result of the survey, SAS will continue to offer professional development in the Buck Institute PBL model using a ‘just-intime’ approach that allows faculty to select when the training is most relevant to them.

Additional Findings SAS is able to recruit and retain high quality faculty, administrators, and classified staff who are committed to the vision and mission of the school. Faculty and administrators are dedicated to optimizing learning for all students, and structures are in place to support them in their efforts to do so.

A5. School Environment SAS has a safe, healthy, nurturing environment that reflects the school’s vision and mission and is characterized by respect for differences, trust, caring, professionalism, support, and high expectations for each student.

Extraordinary care for the welfare of each child is one of the characteristics that is most valued by all members of the school community, and is a driving force behind decisions made at all levels of the organization.

Caring, Concern, High Expectations SAS has a rigorous curriculum established for all subject areas and expects students to be able to meet or exceed high standards. At the same time, SAS recognizes that students learn in different ways, with different styles, and at different times. PLCs are one of the most promising structures to ensure that students’ needs are met. Members of each PLC are asked to use formative assessment data to identify needs for differentiation.

For students who are struggling and need additional support, a support services structure is in place. For students who have already achieved the targets and need additional challenge, there are structures to provide depth and/or extension, though support is not as extensive as for remediation services. Because of its size, SAS is able to offer a wide range of elective classes in the middle school and high school that allows students to pursue areas of interest. All divisions have extensive after school activities to also support diverse interests and passions.

SAS fosters student self-esteem through clear and high expectations for each student, and recognition when students meet those expectations. In the elementary school, students are recognized by their teachers and given opportunities to visit with the principals and share their good work. It is the intention that all students will at some time have been sent to the principal to recognize them for outstanding work, behavior, or character. In the intermediate school, this is not something that all students receive, but rather is given to those that show recognizable work, behavior, or character. Teachers recognize accomplishments of their students at student assemblies and class meetings. Students are given certificates to recognize and celebrate their efforts and achievements. Many teachers have incentive programs to recognize success within their learning program. These incentive programs range from filling up sticker charts for demonstrating good work and behavior, to programs that recognize model group or class performance during an activity. By completing these charts the students earn the right to a reward and recognition. Teachers also provide opportunities to recognize student success through allowing individuals to present their work within the classroom. This sharing opportunity allows each student to be highlighted multiple times throughout the year within each subject area and students enjoy the feeling of success and recognition in front of their peers. This individual recognition is one of the most important and most commonly used strategies to build a student’s self-esteem.

In the middle school, an honor roll and honor roll lunch recognizes students for academic achievement.

Regularly scheduled assemblies recognize athletes, clubs, dancers, performers, and student leaders who organize and conduct the assemblies. Advisory teachers celebrate accomplishments of students in small group settings. Additionally, teams have side meetings where they recognize students in a large group setting.

The eighth grade celebration at the end of the school year celebrates each student and their uniqueness.

Finally, there are many opportunities for students to excel or perform in the middle school, including dance performances, play productions, band and string performances, talent show, sports competitions, and special events like the Egyptian Museum and Water Project. Peer Counsel also gives students an opportunity to build self-esteem through projects that require leadership and collaboration. These projects are often experienced by the entire middle school and recognition is given both informally via the actual implementation of the project and formally through monthly “all peer counsel” meetings. The students themselves develop many of the projects. For example, a middle school wellness committee has developed activities for the entire middle school over four months. Each month has different theme. The students in the committee meet weekly to discuss progress of activities implemented and to plan for new activities.

The high school recognizes student learning and achievement through the use of a scholars list (formerly the honor roll). Students qualify each semester for the scholars list based on the following criteria: must achieve a semester GPA of 3.7 or above; all courses receiving a letter grade are included in the calculation; students who earn a C, D, F, or incomplete for the semester are not eligible; and students with an academic integrity violation during the semester are not eligible. A small number of students who have demonstrated excellent performance are recognized at the conclusion of each course. For first semester courses, certificates are presented in December, with other awards being presented in May. If more than one faculty member teaches a course, the teachers make a collaborative decision on the award winners. Departments or groups of departments identify an outstanding student who is recognized at the annual awards program in May. The following awards are presented: a humanities award, selected jointly by the English, social studies, world languages, art, and music departments; a mathematics-science award, chosen by the mathematics and science departments; and a technology leadership award, selected by the technology team. As listed in the high

WASC REPORT PG 67

Student Self-Esteem

school student handbook, there are several other awards given to seniors (and two to juniors) at the awards program. In addition, the student council gives â&#x20AC;&#x153;cornerstone awardsâ&#x20AC;? twice a year and the athletics/activities department gives awards at the end of each season.

While there are a number of outstanding ways that students are recognized and self-esteem is developed, it is also recognized that these systems can be improved. As a high achieving school, SAS struggles with an overly competitive culture, especially at the high school, that is not conducive to building the self-esteem of all students who are performing at high levels. This is an area that will continue to need attention as SAS considers how to best support all students.

Mutual Respect and Communication Mutual respect and effective communication among and between staff, students, and parents is evident in many cases at SAS. However, this is also recognized as an area that needs prompt attention and improvement.

Recent changes to organizational structures, employee benefits, retention of some employees, and changes in strategic direction of the school has created a fragile organizational climate, reduced stability for faculty, and has exposed issues of trust between senior administration and other levels of the organization. The superintendent has recognized this and addressing this issue is a top priority. He is proactively taking action to improve the climate and culture.

Continuing to address organizational climate issues is vital to ensure the existence of a healthy organizational culture. As one step, SAS will implement an annual organizational climate survey this spring to more systematically gather data regarding staff perceptions and possible solutions while working through organizational change at SAS. Additional examples of action include open forums where faculty can discuss issues with Dr. Kimball and using faculty senate for collaborative problem-solving.

Although the vast majority of the parent population is respectful, there are incidents of parents being abusive to classified staff, faculty, or administration. Although processes are in place to deal with these incidents, procedures for directly addressing the behavior is unclear. As changes become more substantial, it will be important to clarify these procedures so that all community members understand behavioral expectations and consequences for when those expectations are not met.

Mutual respect and effective communication appears to be strong between faculty and students. There are not good systems in place, however, for students to provide feedback to teachers. To better monitor this, SAS is investigating online student surveys so they can provide productive feedback to individual teachers and school programs. A group of teachers are piloting YouthTruth this spring; if the results are useful, SAS will expand implementation of the survey next year.

Teacher Support and Encouragement Starting in 2013-14, SAS established a process to support innovation. In the Office of Learning budget, S$95,000 was allocated to support innovation within PLCs. Grant funds can be used for consultations with experts (virtually or on-site), the purchase of professional or classroom resources, participation in an external workshop or conference, or the purchase of software or hardware. Four grants were approved during the first semester; a second round of applications are being submitted at the time this report was written. In addition to these funds, the chief advancement officer and superintendent have funds that can be used for programs or events that encourage innovative thinking and creative approaches to learning. For example, the advancement office supported the purchase of robotics equipment for the high school robotics team. The superintendent supported bringing Buck Institute of Education to SAS for three days of inservice on project-based learning.

Starting in 2014-15, the process for receiving an innovation grant will be streamlined to make coordination between funding sources more efficient.

Policies, Codes, Procedures, Resources The student handbooks at each level outline the expectations for student behavior and consequences for when these expectations are not met. Division administrators monitor behavior infractions that rarely escalate to the level requiring suspension or expulsion. The facilities and security departments regularly review their policies and resources to ensure safety and compliance. Other departments are each required to have in place policies and procedures, and periodically those departments are audited for compliance. Many of those policies are currently under review. SAS is compliant with all government regulations regarding safety and health, as is evidenced by the audit that is performed annually for the Singapore Council for Private Education.

Additional Findings SAS is prides itself on the extraordinary care it provides to students. Even during challenging times when there

may be dips in organizational climate, faculty and administrators dedicate their energy to foster student selfesteem, recognize student success, provide support for student struggles, and encourage student interests.

A6. Reporting Student Progress SAS regularly and explicitly assesses and reports student progress in one of the seven DSLOs: core knowledge. The other six DSLOs are either assessed and reported implicitly or are not addressed.

Student Progress SAS has curricular standards for all subject areas. These standards provide the basis for assessment and grading for preschool through grade 12, and for reporting in preschool through grade five. Additionally, SAS has developed performance standards for every division. These performance standards are used to determine the degree to which students achieve the curricular standards.

In the middle school and high school, standards-based grading policies guide evaluation procedures to ensure that grades reflect learning, and to improve consistency of grades between teachers of the same grade and subject. Both divisions generate traditional report cards at the end of every semester. PowerTeacher is used during the course of the semester as the primary method of communicating progress electronically. In the middle school, parent-teacher conferences are held twice each year (October and March). The middle school is currently developing a standards-based reporting system that will be implemented in 2014-15.

Existing Standards and Procedures SAS has clear guidelines for communicating student progress. SAS assessment guidelines articulate the difference between assessment and evaluation and provide direction for classroom assessment practices.

The elementary divisions have primary and intermediate school report card guidelines that clearly outline expectations for teachers. The middle school and high school have grading policies that are shared with students and parents through handbooks, course syllabi, and teacher communications. The change in grading practices, particularly at the high school level, has required continuing education for all stakeholders. To support this, a standards-based grading site was developed to share not only the policies but also research to support the changes taking place.

In addition to reporting to parents about their children, SAS regularly reports aggregated results to the parent community and board. This is evidenced through the student learning section of the annual report, annual data presentations to the board, and data presentations by the superintendent to the community.

SAS is currently institutionalizing a data dashboard to allow appropriate access to real-time reports for board members, administrators, and faculty.

Additional Findings SAS has policies and procedures in place to ensure that student progress in curricular standards is accurately evaluated and reported. The elementary divisions have completely implemented standards-based assessment, grading, and reporting. The middle school and high school are in the process of this implementation, with complete implementation in the middle school targeted for 2014-15 and in the high school for 201516. Explicitly assessing and reporting the remaining DSLOs remains an area for growth. Ensuring a deep understanding of standards-based grading practices and consistent implementation is also an area of growth, particularly at the middle school and high school levels.

WASC REPORT PG 69

In the primary and intermediate schools, formal standards-based report cards are produced at the end of every semester. The report card format is replicated from preschool through grade five to provide consistency for parents and students. To promote consistency of evaluating and reporting progress in each core academic area, core classroom guides have been developed for teacher use. Report card guides at each level have also been created to help readers understand the purpose and composition of the report card and to unpack the content and skills represented in each area that is reported. Additionally, elementary teachers send home standards-based progress checks or reports periodically throughout the semester. In core classrooms and some specialist classes, this is in the form of rubrics or progress checks at the end of the semester. In most specialist classes, this reflects progress towards semester â&#x20AC;&#x153;I canâ&#x20AC;? statements. Finally, conferences are held twice each year. The October conference is focused on goal-setting and the March conference is student-led and is focused on progress and growth.

A7. School Improvement Process As described in Chapter II, during the 2009-10 school year, SAS leadership combined overlapping elements that emerged from the 2007-08 WASC self-study and visiting committee report into one SAS student learning strategic plan that would enhance the quality of learning for all students. This plan has five components: focus on learning, curriculum, assessment, instruction, and structures and systems. Every year, school leadership uses the plan to guide the work for that year. Additionally, administrators directly responsible for components of the plan monitor implementation and report progress to the superintendent, board, and WASC (through annual interim reports).

In 2013-14 divisions were asked to develop a school improvement plan for each division that outline their specific improvement goals based upon their student data analysis.

Broad-Based and Collaborative SAS has planning processes that are broad-based and collaborative. The current strategic plan was established after the 2008 self-study and has been reviewed and revised annually by school administration. For the 2020 strategic plan, a new vision was adopted after a process that solicited input from parents and faculty (see A1 on page 2). Teachers will give input for the new strategic plan through both the current self-study and the division research and development processes. Parents will give input for the new strategic plan through representation on the WASC leadership team.

School Plan Correlated to Student Learning As explained in Chapter III, SAS regularly examines student achievement data related to the core knowledge DSLO and uses the information to address areas that need specific attention. Although SAS has begun to rely on hard data to inform decisions, this is not yet systematic and continues to be an area of emphasis, particularly for PLCs. Achievement related to the other DSLOs remains an area of growth.

Systems Alignment Alignment of systems to support student learning is the fifth component of the current strategic plan.

Components of the portion of the plan include learning leadership; structures for subject area renewal and unit planning, development, and implementation; professional development; professional learning communities; organizational operations; communication; and monitoring systems. As outlined in Chapter II, implementation of structures and systems in each of these areas has been significant since the last self-study.

Correlation Between All Resources, DSLOs, and Plan As explained in category D (beginning on page 37), resources are directly aligned to implementation of the strategic plan for student learning. School operations are evaluated regularly for improvement and to ensure congruence to improving student learning and the strategic plan.

Additional Findings SAS is an institute that is continuously improving. This results in many simultaneous changes and a perception of initiative overload. SAS needs to investigate ways to enhance change leadership, including helping staff distinguish between different levels of change (e.g., the difference between operational and transformational change) and making connections between related changes. Additionally, SAS leadership needs to merge the plans resulting from various reviews and processes into one unified strategic plan. This is targeted for completion summer 2014.

Organizing for Student Learning Areas of Strength 1.The vision and DSLOs were developed through a collaborative and research-based process that included input from all stakeholders.

2.The board is committed to operating as a governing and policy body to ensure that the mission and vision are accomplished through its work in strategy, policy, and accountability.

3.The board is deliberate in its role, responsibilities, structure, and operating norms to ensure that it is fulfilling its obligation in governance to ensure student achievement.

4.SAS leadership is unified in its efforts to optimize learning for each student.

5.In all divisions, SAS has fully implemented professional learning communities as the primary mechanism for professional learning and accountability for ongoing improvements to teaching and learning.

6.SAS employs highly qualified administrators, faculty, and classified staff who are dedicated to the vision and mission of SAS and to high levels of learning for all students.

7.SAS leadership has established hiring protocol policies to ensure consistency of practice, correct procedures, and equity of experience for both candidates and the school.

8.Extraordinary care for the welfare of each child is highly valued by all members of the school community and influences decisions made at all levels of the organization.

9.The school fosters student self-esteem through high expectations for each student and recognition of success.

10.There is a robust professional learning program with significant opportunities that provide faculty a variety of opportunities to grow in areas related to the strategic direction of the school.

11.SAS has established a system and has dedicated resources to support innovative practices.

12.SAS regularly and explicitly assesses and reports student progress of the core knowledge DSLO. 13.SAS has clearly established guidelines for assessment, grading, and reporting student progress.

Organizing for Student Learning Areas of Growth 1.Ongoing communication needs to embed the vision and DSLOs need to ensure all stakeholder groups understand them.

2.Consistent efforts should inform the community of the board role and the appropriate venue to address complaints and issues.

3.The roles and responsibilities of the different levels of leadership need to be clarified and communicated.

4.SAS leadership needs to explore and implement strategies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing structures and to ensure they are positively contributing to the evolution of programs and expectations for students.

5.Data regarding the impact of professional learning on teacher practice and student learning needs to be regularly collected and used to inform planning.

6.Although mutual respect and effective communication among and between staff, students, and parents is evident in many cases, SAS needs to implement strategies to establish and maintain positive relationships amongst all stakeholders.

7.Organizational climate has eroded due to recent changes at SAS. Addressing climate issues is vital to ensuring a healthy organizational culture.

8.SAS needs to establish processes for assessing and reporting student attainment of the remaining DSLOs of character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence.

9.The change in grading practices, particularly at the high school level, requires continuing education for all stakeholders.

10.SAS should institutionalize a data dashboard to allow appropriate access to real-time reports for board members, administrators, and faculty.

WASC REPORT PG 71

14.SAS is committed to continuous improvement and has established structures and systems to facilitate change.

11.Although SAS has begun to rely on hard data to inform decisions, this is not yet systematic and should be an area of emphasis for PLCs and administrative teams.

12.SAS needs to investigate ways to enhance change leadership, including helping staff distinguish between different levels of change (e.g., the difference between operational and transformational change) and making connections between related changes.

13.SAS leadership needs to merge the plans resulting from various reviews and processes into one unified strategic plan.

CATEGORY B: DESIRED STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (DSLOS) B1. What Students Learn In March 2013, SAS held a 21st century learning summit. The objectives of the summit included identifying the measurable outcomes of a 21st century learning education in the form of desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs).

To guide the work during the summit, several research articles were assigned as pre-reading, including Cisco’s “Equipping Every Learner for the 21st Century,” The Hanover Research Report “A Crosswalk of 21st Century Skills,” and a review of “What is 21st Century Learning?” by Punya Mishra and Kristen Kereluik (Michigan State University). In addition, faculty, parent, and student perceptions were included through analysis of the 21st century survey results (97% faculty participation, 50% participation of 406 randomly surveyed parents) and focus group transcripts (parents, faculty, students).

Through a consensus approach, five DSLOs were identified: character, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking. Four other potential DSLOs were discussed: curiosity/passion for learning, cultural competence, technology/information literacy, and life skills (physical, emotional, financial health). Agreement was reached that although these skills are important, they are embedded in the previous five.

Small groups formed around each of the DSLOs to research what expert groups and other schools said about the topic. ISTE NETS standards, the P21 Framework and the American Association of Colleges and University rubrics are examples of resources referenced. In May 2013, SAS joined EdLeader 21, which is a US-based national network of school and district leaders focused on integrating the four “Cs” identified by P21 (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity) into education.

Small groups were created to draft an operational definition for each DSLO to provide clarity around what the skill means and to serve as the first step in developing indicators (rubrics) for assessment. The definitions for collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking were adapted from rubrics developed by EdLeader 21. These definitions are listed below, followed by links to rubrics that further unpack each skill. The operational definitions were used to guide PLC conversations during the self-study analysis. The rubrics were shared as a reference during conversations but teachers were not expected to implement them.

Crafting and utilizing age-appropriate rubrics for each division is the next step in the process.

In August 2013, all faculty participated in a World Cafe’ activity where they were able to discuss the new DSLOs by exploring what they would look like in action. Based on the conversations and feedback, it was clear that there was a need to designate core knowledge and cultural competence as two additional DSLOs. These additional DSLOs were processed by administrators and approved by the board.

Because SAS had already begun the self-study when the additions were made, this report focuses on the original five DSLOs. Core knowledge is described in the standards and outcomes identified in the SAS curriculum (see Appendix A). Cultural competence is continuing to be defined and will be a focus for 2014-15.

Character Character engages both the heart and mind, how one experiences and expresses self with others, and ultimately helps to improve the world around them. Components of character include: • Grit - The student demonstrates continual perseverance, flexibility, resilience, and responsibility in achieving personal best.

• Zest - The student actively invigorates self and others to approach learning with curiosity and passion.

• Respect - The student honors and values the feelings, wishes, and rights of self and others.

• Compassion - The student engages in caring for others and the environment.

• Integrity - The student demonstrates a principled life through ethical behavior and honesty with self and other Further definition of character remains a need for SAS. Particular questions that need to be answered are the degree to which the character DSLO intersects with the SAS core values and how/if the character DSLO should be explicitly assessed.

Collaboration Collaboration is the ability to work effectively towards a common goal in the process of shared creation while optimizing group and individual contributions within diverse teams. Components of collaboration include:

Communication Communication is the ability to effectively exchange ideas and information through oral, written, digital and creative expression on n interpersonal and global level. Components of communication include: • Engaging in conversations and discussions • Using 21st century communication tools • Listening • Communicating in diverse environments • Delivering oral presentations • Self-regulation/reflection Creativity and Innovation Creativity and innovation are the ability to integrate and combine ideas while following a passion or curiosity to develop a useful and novel idea, process, or product. Components of creativity and innovation include: • Idea generation • Idea design and refinement • Openness and courage to explore • Working creatively with others • Creative production and innovation • Self-regulation/reflection Critical Thinking Critical thinking is the ability to access and analyze key information to develop responses to complex problems and questions that may have no clear answer. Components of critical thinking include: • Information and discovery • Interpretation and analysis • Reasoning • Problem-solving/solution-finding • Constructing arguments • Self-regulation/reflection

WASC REPORT PG 73

• Leadership and initiative • Cooperation • Flexibility • Responsibility and productivity • Use of tech tools for synchronous and asynchronous collaboration • Responsiveness • Self-regulation/reflection

B2. How Students Learn Each professional learning community (PLC) was asked to identify examples of when each DSLO was explicitly and implicitly taught. Implicit teaching was defined as something that is likely not to happen if the teacher has a substitute in her or his place (e.g., a substitute teacher would not know a specific routine or might not emphasize the same points in general conversation). It might also be something that students may learn through exposure (e.g., placing students in groups does not guarantee they learn to collaborate). Explicit teaching is something a substitute could do; it is clearly included on the lesson plan for the day. This may include the topic of a mini-lesson, student work shared as a model, handout explanations or a specific learning activity.

Each division then acted as a focus group, analyzing the findings of the PLCs to determine the degree to which each DSLO is explicitly and implicitly taught in the division. The results of this analysis are below.

Teaching Character In the early childhood center (ECC), character is taught both implicitly and explicitly. Character is a major and integral part of what is taught, modeled, reinforced and expected everyday. For instance, a student will rebuild a block tower after it falls down or has been knocked down (grit).

The primary school teaches character through a number of means. Through the self-study it became evident that teacher modeling is consistently used to teach character to students in primary school. It is clear that character is taught explicitly in some areas but not all. In reading and language arts (RLA), character is taught explicitly through reading and writing workshop. For instance, this is specifically addressed in workshop format during small group work and partnership work. In math, science, social studies, and PE, character is taught implicitly through the embodiment of the five SAS core values. Reading and language arts, math, and science highlight the teaching of perseverance and stamina. Students learn character through independent investigations, self-reflections, and problem-solving. This intersection of the core values and the character DSLO needs to be better defined because these two components are not necessarily the same thing.

In the intermediate school, the character DSLO is not taught explicitly in most curricular areas. The exceptions are art, music, tech, science, and service learning projects. In art, students learn to respect materials, their work, and the work of others. Tech teachers also ensure that students understand what it means to be a digital citizen by incorporating specified lessons which include what a digital thumbprint is, how choices online affect others just like they do face-to-face, and the importance of appreciating outside perspectives and rights when thinking about publishing information. Finally, counselors explicitly teach students skills that enhance their understanding and abilities to understand and develop their character (goals, future dreams, perspective taking, acts of kindness, showing respect and compassion for others - filling buckets, being mindful).

The middle school primarily teaches character informally on a daily basis through home base. During this time, character issues sometimes arise through natural conversation or through more structured activities.

These conversations and lessons focus primarily on respect, compassion, and integrity. As an extension of the home base program, students and teachers also participate in a three-day Classroom Without Walls program where students are expected to demonstrate respect and show compassion for others. In the curricular areas, character is also taught primarily through informal means. In many classes, students are given the opportunity to demonstrate zest and grit by opting to rework assignments or retake assessments. There are some places where character is explicitly taught in the middle school. An example of this includes the grade six interdisciplinary Greek and Roman unit where students are taught how to work through problems as a team and are expected to demonstrate the SAS core values throughout the unit. Finally, students are also taught character through the one-to-one laptop bootcamp program at the beginning of the year where students are taught what it means to be a digital citizen. There is a significant focus on respect and integrity.

It was also noted during the self-study process that there is a lack of clarity around the roles of the newly created character DSLO and the long-standing core values of compassion, honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect.

Character education (or learning) seems to be evident in the high school classrooms, as well as extracurricular activities based on teacher’s descriptions of their lessons. There seems to be little or no explicit connection to terminology used from the current DSLO language (e.g., grit, zest), while the core values are explicitly highlighted, modeled, and expected. It is evident that teachers do not use a common language when observing and reporting the general progression of student character. In general, the evidence indicates that character is implicitly modeled and addressed in courses without specific learning targets and/or rubrics.

Teachers indicated that activities are structured in a way that students either have to explore character-related topics in a course (e.g. Compassion in AP Human Geology) or demonstrate the core values. SAS needs to explore more opportunities (beyond serendipitous moments) to foster the “climate” of good character; e.g., ethics case studies, “The Eagle Way.” Examples of potential activities where character could be incorporated

include but are not limited to Model United Nations, honor societies, service clubs, and debate. Many of these activities implicitly model, teach, document, and reward aspects of character.

Teaching Collaboration The self-study revealed that collaboration is taught formally and informally in the primary school. The primary school teaches collaboration informally through a number of means. Through the self-study, it became clear that collaboration is also taught explicitly in some areas but not all. In RLA, collaboration is explicitly taught through accountable talk, whole group instruction, small group projects, and literacy partnerships. In math, students collaborate through various methods such as turn and talk, games, explaining and justifying answers to partners, and use of multiple strategies to problem solve. In PE, collaboration is key. Sportsmanship helps students collaborate effectively in pairs, small groups, and teams. Collaboration is taught implicitly in science and social studies. In the ECC, collaboration is taught both implicitly and explicitly. Teachers provide learning environments and interactive centers where students can work together to solve problems, reflect, and be responsible for supporting each other. For instance, ECC students collaborate with grade one buddies to create a class book. In world languages, students work in pairs or small groups to develop a classroom environment where students can share and listen each other.

Within the reading and language arts curriculum, students in grades three through five are taught explicitly what collaboration is and how they can be effective collaborators. Students also learn explicit collaboration skills in Spanish through technology. Counselors explicitly teach collaboration skills to all intermediate school students; once students learn these skills, they are expected to carry them over into other areas of the curriculum like social studies, science, and the arts. These other areas of the curriculum heavily rely on students being effective collaborators, and they continue to learn about these skills implicitly as teachers refer to them through various instructional strategies. Students implicitly learn how to be effective collaborators through partner and group assignments, projects, and team efforts as numerous opportunities are given across all subject areas.

The middle school primarily teaches the collaboration DSLO through implicit means. Students are expected to work with partners and small groups on a regular basis in most of their classes. Teachers also make use of class discussion strategies such as turn and talk and think-pair-share. These classroom strategies help students implicitly develop collaboration skills such as cooperation, flexibility, productivity, and responsiveness to the ideas and thoughts of others. In addition, by providing the Google Apps suite of tools, all students have access to an array of collaboration tools including Docs, Spreadsheets, Presentations, Maps, and Chat. These are used to varying degrees across the curriculum for collaboration purposes. It was also revealed through the self-study that specific collaboration and group-work strategies are taught explicitly in some areas such as RLA and math, but this is not consistent throughout the middle school.

The high school provides many implicit opportunities for students to collaborate with other high school students, teachers, students in other divisions, and various groups outside of school. In surveying the evidence from the high school, it is apparent that there are many teaching examples of students having the opportunity to collaborate with their classmates. For example, every discipline identified courses in which group work is common. That said, however, there seems to be very little evidence of collaboration skills being explicitly taught. Teachers use instructional models such as socratic seminars that provide strong collaborative settings, yet do not explicitly teach the collaborative skills that students need to be successful. There is an assumption that most students understand how to collaborate even though they are not always directly instructed in how to be a good collaborator. Some of this seems to be due to lack of common understanding of the DSLO. Currently, there is no standard model of what collaboration looks like within high school classes (nor exemplars for teachers to begin to moderate from), so there are differing opinions as to what collaboration is and its components.

Teaching Communication Through this self-study, it became evident that communication is taught both implicitly and explicitly in the primary school. The primary school effectively teaches communication through a number means such as blogs and various iPad applications. The self-study made clear that communication is taught explicitly in most subject areas. In RLA, communication is taught explicitly through reading and writing workshops, book clubs, partner work, active listening, oral presentations, and references to assessment tools (rubrics and self reflections). In math, students learn to communicate through using mathematical practices. Students are explicitly taught communication through vocabulary, questioning and guiding clear explanations, and partner discussions. In science and social studies, communication is taught through hands-on student

WASC REPORT PG 75

Through the self-study it became clear that collaboration is taught explicitly in some areas but not in all. In the intermediate division, students work collaboratively on a daily basis. Teachers require their students to use collaborative skills on a daily basis through elbow partners, small group discussions, and larger class discussions. They use these collaborative observations as evidence of learning.

oral presentations. In the ECC, communication is modeled by teachers. Students have the opportunity to practice, listen, interact, and use verbal and nonverbal communication. In world languages, communication is explicitly taught to students with a particular focus on interpersonal communication skills; this is done through storytelling, retelling, and interactive games. In PE, positive communication is modeled and implicitly taught through utilization of SAS core values during activity time. Specific terminology is taught so that students can communicate effectively during activities and throughout class.

In the intermediate division, all subject areas naturally lend themselves to communication in many forms.

Communication is taught explicitly in RLA through Columbia Teacher’s College (CTC) units and lessons that break down this skill. Teachers explicitly teach skills such as engaging in conversations and discussions through the CTC writing units and in reading through book club units across grade levels. Listening is also explicitly taught through reading and writing partners. Every day in Spanish and Chinese, students are asked to demonstrate their interpersonal oral communication skills by engaging in conversation. In music, students are asked to self-reflect as they learn, and teachers rely heavily on students’ ability to communicate their learning and understanding in class. Art teachers define vocabulary that is used in discussions to communicate their reflections on their work through blog posts, reflection sheets, and journal entries. In math, communication is taught explicitly by teachers and students every day in both verbal and written form. Students work in small groups to express their thinking to one another, and every lesson is launched with students working interactively to solve problems and share strategies for solutions.

In social studies and science, teachers do not explicitly teach communication skills due to time limitations of a new schedule, but they rely heavily on these skills which are taught in other areas. All students in intermediate school have their own blogs and are expected to communicate through this media, however due to it not being a written expectation in the curriculum, consistency from classroom to classroom is not guaranteed.

In technology, communication is critical and recognized as an essential component of tech literacy, and encompasses visual literacy, where students choose the best tool to communicate based on a student’s individual skills, abilities, and task. Teaching appropriate formatting of different types of media and how to use different communication tools from blogs to Voicethreads to iMovies, presentations and documents are all 21st century communication skills that are key to preparing students. Counselors explicitly teach ongoing communication skills (perspective taking, taking responsibility for actions/honesty, knowing how to resolve problems using compliments, and assertive requests while being mindful of others’ feelings and values, the importance of active listening to friends and when working in groups) to all intermediate school students.

In the middle school, students learn communication skills through a combination of implicit and explicit means. Through the self-study it became evident that students have a myriad of opportunities to practice and develop communication skills implicitly through partner, small group, and whole class conversations in all of their classes. Students are also expected to give oral presentations and create multimedia presentations in many of their classes as a way to demonstrate their understanding of specific learning targets. In addition, all students in the middle school have a blog and a YouTube channel that they can use to communicate and reflect on their learning in a variety of different ways. While it is currently an expectation that students are blogging in all of their courses, this is not consistently taking place. Students are also explicitly taught communication skills in middle school. In RLA, students are taught specific conversation and discussion skills through partner talks, book talks, and grand conversations. In RLA, drama, and world language classes, students learn specific oral presentation skills. In foreign language classes, students also explicitly learn how to communicate in diverse environments by developing cultural understanding. It became evident through this process that communication is taught explicitly in some areas of the middle school, and that there are many implicit opportunities for learning.

Out of all the DSLOs, communication is the most prevalent in the courses and experiences of SAS high school students. In all courses it was expressed that communication skills plays a part, but the amount and explicit nature vary by subject. Looking within this outcome, it was noted that teachers are not fully utilizing communication technology available to students within each course. Teachers also need to provide opportunities for a variety of communication skills and modalities. There is a heavy reliance on written communication which is not balanced with other modes. Shared inquiry, fishbowls, socratic seminars, presentations, and informal discussion take place across departments and throughout nearly all courses.

Students are frequently given the opportunity to actively listen, engage in conversations with their peers or teachers, present their ideas, and reflect, all while teachers guide the process. Finally, there is alignment with the Common Core standards that apply to the English department classes.

Teaching Creativity and Innovation Through the self-study it became evident creativity and innovation is primarily taught implicitly through student choice in the primary school. It is currently not taught explicitly and the understanding of what

entails creativity and innovation differs among teachers. The primary school teaches creativity and innovation implicitly through a number of means. In RLA, creativity and innovation taught through student choice such as topics for writing within each unit and art projects. In technology, students demonstrate creativity through blogs, video creations, and digital art. In math, students demonstrate creativity through partner discussions, turn and talk, and written responses using multiple methods to solve a problem. Science teaches creativity through free exploration, investigation, and opportunities for students to develop their own thinking. It is noted that in kindergarten and grade one, there is no consistency in teaching this DSLO. Grade two, however, does provide multiple opportunities for students to explore creatively and share this learning with others. In world languages, students create stories using the target language learned in the class. PE teaches creativity through exploration and guided discovery. Teachers implicitly teach creativity through conversations with students or as part of a disciplined plan. In the ECC, creativity is encouraged through free exploration and open-ended activities. Students are given opportunities to generate ideas, work with others, and create.

The middle school teaches creativity and innovation primarily through a combination of implicit and explicit means. In RLA, science, social studies, and PE, students are explicitly taught creativity through creative production and innovation where students are challenged to create products that directly relate to a specific challenge. In the performing arts, students work together to create performance pieces that convey a specific mood based on foundational skills. In addition, students are taught creativity and innovation informally in many ways throughout the middle school. Many subjects provide students with open-ended tasks that require students to generate ideas, explore different ways to approach a problem, and refine the ideas of others.

Some specific examples of this include: the free writing process in RLA, creating stories from new vocabulary in Chinese, and improvisation activities in the performing arts. It was also noted during the self-study that while students are often encouraged to “be creative” or to “show creativity” on assignments and assessments, there is still room for improvement in terms of giving students specific tools to be creative.

The high school analysis found that teachers provide opportunities for students to be creative but do not provide explicit guidance in how to work creatively as an individual or in a group. Teachers reflected that creativity and innovation are foundational and often discussed or expected in disciplines like language or performing arts and courses like Innovation and Design. Especially in these concentrations, students have opportunities to creatively express themselves, creatively solve problems, or generate an original product (even within more objective instructional settings); yet there is no explicit evidence that teachers provide guidance in creating creative products, structuring creative processes, and providing boundaries. SAS will have to develop procedures, structures, and systems to help guide students through creative experiences. In addition, more opportunities for creativity via curriculum (teacher teams, student grouping, multimedia, and other ways to apply knowledge) need to be developed.

Teaching Critical Thinking Through the self-study it became clear that critical thinking is taught implicitly but not consistently across all subject areas. In RLA and math, critical thinking is taught explicitly. In RLA, this DSLO is taught through accountable talk during workshop format, constructing opinions, and arguments supported by evidence. In math, critical thinking is expected when students explain thinking, analyze language, interpret data, and solve problems in multiple ways. Science and social studies teach critical thinking implicitly through open-ended questions and forming conclusions from observations. In PE, critical thinking is taught implicitly by using a variety of strategies including reflective summary of learning, guided discovery, and problem-solving skills. In the ECC, critical thinking is defined as giving students time to explore and discover through planned activities and unstructured play.

In the intermediate school, students are taught explicitly how to be critical thinkers in reading, writing, math, and social studies. Overall in these subject areas, students are taught explicitly to evaluate and explain their thinking.

WASC REPORT PG 77

In the intermediate school, there are three curricular areas that have strongly identified explicitly teaching the DSLO creativity and innovation: art, music, and math (note: art and music incorporates kindergarten through grade five). Envision, the current math program, provides many opportunities for developing creativity and innovation. Daily slate work, interactive lessons, “writing to explain,” and problem-solving activities all support students learning skills to enhance their creativity and innovative abilities. Science, social studies, reading, and writing departments reported that they do not explicitly teach creativity or innovative skills to students. The integration of technology into all curricular areas has, however, presented more opportunities for students to be creative and innovative thinkers, although it is not implicitly or explicitly taught. Art teachers provide ongoing feedback to students as they make and develop ideas. They model how to use materials and ask prompting, open-ended questions to help facilitate the art-making process. Teachers refer to images or artists’ work to help illustrate a point or inspire students during the process. In music, students have many opportunities for open, individual expression. Teachers expressed that overall would like additional flexibility and time to inspire more creativity and innovation in their students.

The intermediate school division observed that critical thinking skills scaffolds from grades three to five. In grade three, critical thinking skills are introduced in a couple of the units. For example, the students write one paragraph to persuade the reader to agree with their point of view. In grade four, teachers continue to build upon the skills acquired in grade three and explicitly teach a five-paragraph structure with a thesis statement, three reasons of support, and a conclusion. Student writing includes information, interpretation, and reasoning skills. In grade five, students write persuasive essays and research-based essays. Students work on reasoning and constructing arguments clearly in their essays and are expected to identify counterarguments and refute them.

Math demonstrates this DSLO by integrating reading and writing to demonstrate critical thinking skills as students engage in problem-based interactive learning components each day via the Envision curriculum. In social studies, students across grade levels focus on global issues and at each grade level, they evaluate realworld scenarios, participate in service-learning projects, collaborate to help the cause, and think about others experiences while analyzing cause and effect.

Through the self-study it became clear that critical thinking is taught through a combination of implicit and explicit means throughout many areas of the middle school. In RLA, this DSLO is taught explicitly through student dialogue during workshop format, constructing arguments, and providing evidence to support claims during the writing process. In math, critical thinking is explicitly taught in conjunction with the math practice of “constructing viable arguments and critiquing the reasoning of others.” More specifically, students are taught to make and justify mathematical claims, analyze the work of others, and compare and contrast different approaches to solving math problems. In both science and social studies, critical thinking is taught explicitly as students gather and analyze information from multiple sources during research projects. Students use critical thinking skills to make and justify claims in a variety of different contexts. In PE and the performing arts, students explicitly engage in reflection and analysis as they create and analyze videos of themselves and others performing a variety of different tasks. In addition, students engage informally in critical thinking in many areas throughout the middle school. This is accomplished through use of primary and secondary sources in research assignments, the peer editing process, in-class teaching strategies such as “turn and talk”, analyzing problem solving tasks, and student reflection.

Through the self-study, it became evident that critical thinking is taught implicitly and explicitly in the high school. Tasks are often organized where students are asked to exercise critical thinking through analysis and synthesis of product, process, and results while suspending judgment. When using this construct for students to complete tasks or solve problems, teachers provide explicit direction in how to critically process or think.

Teachers also clearly expect students to justify and defend one’s thinking; yet, reflection seems more of a suggestion. Analysis of evidence produced examples of teachers loosely expecting reflection once students complete an expected task or solve a complex problem. Without explicitly teaching reflection, teachers are missing an important piece of critical thinking with regards to metacognition. Students need more explicit opportunities to learn critical thinking through reflection. Overall, it would also benefit everyone if there was greater consistency in describing critical thinking across the school and between departments.

B3. How Students are Assessed Each professional learning community (PLC) was asked to identify examples of when each DSLO was explicitly and implicitly assessed. Implicit assessment refers to evidence teachers did not keep track of, including the “gut feelings” about students’ growth and progress. This includes oral feedback or comments on homework.

Explicit assessment refers to assessments that were graded formatively and/or summatively and the data was somehow tracked. This could include a row or item on a rubric, an item on a checklist, an assessment tool, or conferring notes.

Each division then acted as a focus group, analyzing the findings of the PLCs to determine the degree to which each DSLO was explicitly and implicitly assessed in the division. The results of this analysis are below.

Assessing Character Through the self-study it became clear that in the primary school, character is not assessed explicitly across all subject areas. Character lends itself to formative assessment, more so than summative. In RLA, assessment data is gathered through teacher observations and anecdotal records, and this is formalized in quarterly students reports. In the ECC character is assessed implicitly and explicitly. In PE, character is assessed informally through teacher observations based on one-on-one, small group, and large group interactions.

Currently at SAS, the core values are used to teach character. It was noted by teachers that the SAS core values do not necessarily align with the descriptors of the character DSLO.

Through the self-study it became clear that character in the intermediate school is assessed explicitly in some areas but not in all. Homeroom teachers in the intermediate school reflect consistently on each student’s various character traits through specific identified behaviors on the report card. Counselors informally assess students’ abilities to apply various character-related skills through performances in role plays, class discussions, and application homework shared out to members of the class in many lessons throughout the year.

Through the self-study it became clear that character is not assessed explicitly in most areas of the middle school; however, there are a number of areas that assess implicitly through the use of rubrics, teacher observations, and anecdotal notes. In RLA, teachers assess character implicitly in blogging and literature circles with a focus on compassion and respect. In science, students are asked to explore the ethics in genetics and explore the character trait of integrity. PE informally assesses character through the use of the ACE rubric that focuses on attitude, cooperation, and effort. Counselors work with students in peer counsel to observe where these traits are taking place in committee work and how it impacts the work of the group. Overall, the character assessment that takes place in the middle school is of a more implicit nature. It was also noted that while character is primarily taught through the middle school home base program, there is no assessment associated with this program. There is a disconnect between the core values and the character DSLO rubric, which causes some confusion. Character assessment is an area in need of clarification and understanding.

Can character be objectively assessed or is it too subjective? At this point, according to the self-study, the character DSLO seems to be implicitly assessed within the high school, especially when teachers are provided with “teachable moments” or when students present a discipline problem. Greater coherency within the SAS community and the use of general rubrics would help teachers accurately observe, document, and develop a picture of a student’s character profile. The character rubric identifies specific learning targets, yet there is no feedback from the faculty that speaks to the specific descriptors of the rubric, e.g., assessing grit, perseverance, and integrity. At this point, anecdotal character profiles are used for student reflections, writing letters of recommendation, and vetting criteria for honor societies. Overall, character seems to be less about assessing objective learning targets and more about building a better understanding of oneself in order to further develop strong character.

Through the self-study it became clear that in the primary school, collaboration is not assessed explicitly across all subject areas. Collaboration lends itself to formative assessment, more so than summative. In RLA, assessment is accomplished through student self-assessments such as rubrics, editing checklists, and sentence frames for partnership discussions. In math, collaboration is assessed implicitly through observations of partnership talk. In PE, the assessment of collaboration between students is an ongoing process throughout units; students are continually assessed formatively by observation and inquiry of how well students work in pairs, small groups, and teams. Teachers summatively use this information to provide data for communicating student progress. In the ECC, collaboration is explicitly assessed. In science, social studies, and world languages collaboration is not formally assessed.

Through the self-study it became clear that in the intermediate school, collaboration is not assessed explicitly.

In the intermediate school, collaboration lends itself to formative assessment, more so than summative.

Teachers give students regular feedback about their collaborative skills, and student peers give each other feedback as well. Rubrics are used as a form of measurement in technology and RLA in the evaluation of students’ collaborative skills. However, most of these evaluations depict a student’s overall ability to be collaborative versus assessing their ability to demonstrate specific collaborative skills. Intermediate school students are also given numerous opportunities to practice and develop collaboration skills, such as video presentations, constructive blogging comments, pair/group projects, feedback (peer/teacher/self-reflection), comments on collaborative documents, and conversations about how our core values should permeate our collaborative work in technology.

In the middle school, collaboration is primarily assessed through informal means. In many classes this takes the form of oral feedback from teachers while students are engaging in group work either as a regular part of the day-to-day learning or through specific group assignments and projects. When collaboration is assessed explicitly, it is most often through the use of student self-reflection either as part of a rubric or online forms.

As part of the one-to-one program in the middle school, there has been an increase in the use of blog posts as a medium for students to provide constructive feedback to one another, and the quality of these blog posts are occasionally assessed. Students’ ability to cooperate with one another using defined roles is also explicitly assessed in some curricular areas. In PE, for example, teachers use the ACE rubric to assess students throughout the year on their ability to cooperate with one another.

The high school found that many teachers incorporate rich collaboration rubrics that use language commonly associated with collaboration, such as leadership, flexibility, and teamwork. One example of explicit assessment of collaboration is using a shared inquiry rubric. Another rubric supports our previous conclusion that collaboration is being explicitly addressed in physical education and health classes. Students are not

WASC REPORT PG 79

Assessing Collaboration

only assessed on frequency, but also on collaborative discussion skills. In other areas students are doing self-reflection and only implicitly being assessed on collaboration skills. Often, teachers use peer evaluation in which students are given feedback on their ability to collaborate. There are few assessment tools and instructional practices that highlight collaboration.

Assessing Communication Through the self-study it became clear that in the primary school, communication is assessed explicitly across most subject areas. In RLA, communication is assessed using rubrics, anecdotal notes, self-evaluations, and reflections. Math is assessed both implicitly and explicitly. Implicit assessment includes observations of student conversations for use of key math vocabulary and anecdotal records. Communication is explicitly assessed through written responses in student work. Social studies and science assess communication through presentation rubrics. World languages use rubrics and language checklists to explicitly assess student comprehension and communication skills. In PE, students receive continual formative feedback from both teachers and peers. Peer communication is explicitly taught which is then used and continuously assessed.

In the ECC, students are assessed both implicitly and explicitly by daily observation, digital assessment, checklists, and common assessments.

The intermediate school effectively assesses communication through a number of means. The use of rubrics is evident in nearly all curricular areas. Peer feedback is also utilized in all classrooms. The intermediate school explicitly assesses communication in reading and writing through the Columbia Teacher College (CTC) units with rubrics and checklists. Writing celebrations are done at the end of genre studies and there are self-reflection checklists provided, but this is not consistently used in the intermediate school. Daily â&#x20AC;&#x153;quick checksâ&#x20AC;? in math are built into the program where students communicate their learning in written format.

Social studies teachers also assess communication skills with rubrics in grades three and five, but in science, time constraints make it difficult to explicitly assess. World language teachers explicitly assess interpersonal oral communication and proficiency skills based on rubrics and observation checklists. Spanish and Chinese teachers also compare their data with external proficiency tests created by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and attend training workshops on how to best teach for and evaluate proficiency of communication. In music, performance assessments, peer, and self-reflections are used.

In addition to all of the formal assessment taking place, it is also important to note that there is a great deal of implicit teaching and assessing occurring. Writing partners are informally assessed through observations.

In reading, communication is a daily practice to have students talk about reading, think about reading, and question their classmates to further the conversation into deeper understanding (turn & talk, reading partners, buzzing about books, peer teachers). Students present regular book talks requiring independent written and verbal communication. In Spanish classes, teachers consistently assess students on performance-based tasks and their listening comprehension. In music, communication is inherent within the rehearsal process and musical listening activities. During instruction, there are opportunities for students to ask questions and give opinions. While students work on their projects, music teachers work one-on-one to determine their understanding of concepts and skills taught.

Through the self-study it became clear that the middle school assesses communication both implicitly and explicitly across most subject areas. In social studies and science, communication is explicitly assessed through the use of rubrics, checklists, and self-evaluations when assessing projects, collaborative work, and blog posts relating to current issues of study. Anecdotal notes, checklists, self-evaluations, and reflections on independent and group writing, literature circles, literature responses, independent writing project (IWP) listening assessment, conferring, book talks, grand conversations, and oral presentations are other common forms of explicit assessment in RLA. In dance, drama, and PE, students are explicitly assessed using rubrics and selfreflections to communicate their understanding and progress in individual and group projects.

Implicit assessment includes observations of student conversations, group work, and discussion along with anecdotal notes and formative assessment feedback for students across most subject areas. Students interact digitally in various subjects through collaborative work, feedback to others, and sharing thoughts and ideas in a digital learning environment. In math, RLA, technology, Chinese, and Spanish, students are observed and assessed implicitly through the use of rubrics, written feedback, and checklists in discussion, project, digital, and presentation contexts.

In the high school, rubrics have been created and are used to explicitly assess communication. Once again, socratic seminars were highlighted as a mode of instruction that promote more explicit assessment of the DSLOs, specifically communication. The self-study found, however, that the actual assessment of the quality of communication has been primarily within English and language classes. Many of the assessments in other areas implicitly assess communication based on the ability to get a point across and develop a coherent response, where communication is a part of rubrics and other measurements for class activities, lab reports, projects, and other assessments handed in for evidence. Teachers have developed rubrics and assessments for their respective courses, though it seems there is no set common criteria for successful communication that

was used as a baseline for all courses. Further development of self-reflection skills and protocols is an area to look towards.

Assessing Creativity and Innovation Through the self-study it became clear that in the primary school, creativity and innovation are seldom assessed. It is also apparent that there is not a clear, definitive understanding of this DSLO among faculty.

Grades one and two RLA teachers assess creativity through observation and feedback. Assessment for this DSLO is referenced for science (grades one and two) through open-ended note taking. In PE, this DSLO is assessed implicitly through teacher observations.

Through the self-study it became clear that creativity and innovation are assessed explicitly in some areas of the intermediate school but not all. Students are being assessed in creativity and innovation within art, music (kindergarten through grade five), and math only. Within these curricular areas, students are shown rubrics to ensure their understanding of the expectations and goals of each unit. At the end of each unit, students selfassess to evaluate their own learning within the parameters of the provided rubric. In addition to the explicit teaching and assessing taking place, it is important to note that significant implicit teaching is taking place as well. Teachers encourage and observe students taking risks and find different ways to express themselves creatively. In world languages, teachers encourage students to be creative with the language through authentic communication in and out of the classroom. Tasks like creating stories with problems and dramatic endings are given to students in order to kindle their interest and sharpen their world language skills.

In the high school, examples of assessment demonstrate (at times) a lack of understanding by the teacher of the definition of creativity. In addition, teachers provide opportunities for students to explore creativity, yet limit opportunities for students to be explicitly assessed. English courses provide assessments for creative writing, yet focus more on the writing process than on developing creativity. Other disciplines reference presentations and projects as areas in which they implicitly assess creativity, yet do not provide clear expectations. Overall, assessments are lacking or missing creativity. High school teachers do not have clarity on what quality assessments of creativity look like and did not provide a viable framework to interpret student engagement internally and externally and how these impact learning. Rubrics that include process and product could provide more structure for students and teachers. There is a concern that if teachers expect and assess creativity, they run the risk of reducing intrinsic desire and creative thought.

Assessing Critical Thinking Through the self-study, a common theme that emerged in primary school is that critical thinking is assessed informally. In subject areas such as RLA, math, science, world languages, and PE, this informal assessment is predominantly implemented through teacher observation. Critical thinking is explicitly assessed. Examples provided are informal rubrics and checklists.

Through the self-study it became clear that critical thinking is not assessed in many areas of the intermediate school. Throughout the division, teachers use rubrics and self-reflection tools to evaluate critical thinking skills in reading, essay writing, social studies, and math. However, assessment tools for critical thinking are few and not used consistently. If critical thinking skills are not assessed across subject areas explicitly, how do teachers know if students are truly learning them?

Many of the subject areas outside of RLA, math, and social studies do not assess critical thinking skills explicitly but they do assess it implicitly. Teachers consistently ask questions beyond the identified comprehension questions, and students are encouraged to express their personal opinions on certain topics. There are partner/small group discussions as students reflect and share their thoughts with others. In world languages, students identify errors and think critically about how to improve through listening exercises, problem solving stories, and evaluating their own sounds. Students frequently search for their own solutions to questions and problems while using technology and are provided with the vehicles to communicate results of their critical thinking through blogging.

In the middle school, it is evident that the majority of critical thinking tasks are assessed informally through class, small group, and individual discussions, conferring notes, gathering, and reading student reflection responses, and providing written feedback on assessments. In addition to these informal strategies, some aspects of critical thinking are also explicitly assessed in the middle school. During research projects in

WASC REPORT PG 81

In the middle school, while students are often asked to â&#x20AC;&#x153;be creative,â&#x20AC;? they are not often explicitly assessed in relation to the creative process. When creativity and innovation are explicitly assessed, it is through a combination of self, peer, and student evaluation. It was noted through the self-study process that while rubrics often contain a category where students are provided feedback on whether their product was creative, this definition of creativity does not necessarily match the description of creativity as defined by the DSLO.

both core and encore classes, students are assessed on their ability to gather and assess the credibility of information from a variety of sources. In RLA and social studies, students are assessed on their ability to construct arguments through short answer responses and persuasive essays. In math, students are expected to construct, justify, and analyze mathematical arguments as part of their summative assessments.

All high school subject areas provided examples of assessing critical thinking; yet the purpose, processes, or rubrics lack consistency in addressing the same definition of critical thinking. Tasks need to be aligned to explicit learning targets that incorporate critical thinking skills and aligned to rubrics that assess the targets.

At times, rubrics do not align with assigned tasks and/or do not seem to assess the DSLO definition of critical thinking. Critical thinking learning targets can involve constructive steps (e.g., problem solving processes) and therefore process needs to be explicitly assessed. Finally, when larger assignments incorporate critical thinking, teachers need to consider critical thinking as a subset of the learning targets and explicitly assess this component with a rubric. Overall, SAS will benefit from a clear and coherent understanding of the critical thinking DSLO, providing baseline rubrics that assess the major components of critical thinking, and comprehensive, as well as, baseline specific exemplars.

Additional Findings SAS has begun to provide clarity regarding what students are expected to learn in each DSLO. Overall, communication and collaboration are explicitly taught in all divisions to a greater degree than character, creativity and innovation, and critical thinking. Assessing student learning in all DSLOs remains the greatest challenge.

SAS deliberately chose to undergo a self-study process that asked faculty to focus on areas that have been identified as vital to the future vision of SAS but are not yet expected to be established. It is no surprise therefore that there are more areas of growth than strength when it comes to the DSLOs. Faculty should be proud of the critical analysis they conducted. The results will be vital to shaping the 2020 strategic plan.

Desired Student Learning Outcomes Areas of Strength 1.Through the self-study process, faculty members have engaged in a critical analysis of how they incorporate DSLOs into their programs. Faculty members are dedicated to capitalizing on strengths identified and developing means to explicitly teach and assess DSLOs not currently being adequately addressed.

2.SAS provides many opportunities for students to collaborate with other students within their division, teachers, students in other divisions, and various groups outside of school. In the primary and intermediate schools, collaboration skills are explicitly taught and assessed.

3.The communication DSLO is taught and formally assessed in multiple disciplines in all divisions of SAS. 4.Students are regularly asked to complete tasks requiring high levels of critical thinking at all levels of SAS.

Desired Student Learning Outcomes Areas of Growth 1.SAS needs to determine the degree to which each DSLO should be explicitly taught and/or assessed in each discipline (e.g., Should each discipline address all seven DSLOs, or should a matrix approach be implemented where certain disciplines are responsible for explicitly teaching/assessing certain DSLOs?).

Vertical and lateral follow-up with each discipline and/or grade level/course will need to occur to ensure the DSLOs are not seen as “add-ons” but are core to the curricular outcomes.

2.Faculty members need to continue to develop clarity around the difference between “explicit” and “implicit” teaching and assessing. After clarity regarding expectations is established, faculty will need professional development to acquire a deeper understanding of the relevant DSLOs and how to explicitly teach and assess them.

3.The character DSLO needs to be further defined/refined, including clarifying the definition, developing a common language, and understanding the connection between the DSLO and SAS core values, and the DSLO and elementary school learning behaviors. Once this is complete, SAS needs to determine the degree to which is it appropriate to assess character and if so, how to assess it. Finally, SAS needs to explore more opportunities (beyond serendipitous moments) to foster the “climate” of good character.

4.While there are many opportunities for collaboration, the degree of direct instruction of the components of collaboration varies from division to division and discipline to discipline. SAS needs to continue to develop assessment tools and instructional practices that highlight collaboration, including identifying differences in what collaboration is and how it looks depending on the discipline and/or and course design.

5.SAS needs to develop a deeper understanding of creativity and innovation as it relates to explicitly teaching and assessing the creative process. In addition, more opportunities for creativity via curriculum (teacher teams, student grouping, multimedia, and other ways to apply knowledge) need to be developed.

6.SAS needs to clarify the definition of critical thinking and how to explicitly teach and assess the identified skills. This includes identifying opportunities within the curriculum to teach critical thinking, further developing tools and strategies for explicitly teaching and assessing critical thinking, and providing students with more explicit opportunities to learn critical thinking through reflection.

WASC REPORT PG 83

7.The cultural competence DSLO needs to be defined and common understanding among stakeholders needs to be established. Once this is complete, SAS needs to develop assessment tools and instructional practices that address cultural competence.

CATEGORY C: SUPPORT FOR STUDENT PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC GROWTH C1. Student Connectedness Students are connected to a system of support services, activities, and opportunities at SAS and within the community that meet the challenges of the curricular and co-curricular program in order to achieve the desire student learning outcomes (DSLOs).

Personalized Student Support SAS offers a variety of coordinated academic and counseling/personal support services to meet the needs of each student. A variety of assessments, both internally developed and externally sourced, are used to identify and evaluate individual students needs. Individual educational support plans (IESPs) are used to identify services and goals and report student progress for those students who are struggling with their learning. The learning support program is well-defined and resourced with more than 50 learning support professionals supporting all grade levels. Learning support teachers successfully work with students, teachers, and parents to maximize the potential of each student.

Currently, students are supported in the core academic areas with an emphasis on literacy and math in the primary and intermediate grades. In-class support, by a support professional, is provided in grades two through five and typically occurs during the math or RLA block. Targeted interventions are also provided through small group pull-out sessions; the purpose of these sessions is for students to show growth in specific curricular areas and gain the skills required to meet benchmarks.

Over the last three years, SAS has expanded its support potential by establishing a professional learning community (PLC) structure. This structure provides grade level teams and subject teacher collaboration time to clearly define their learning targets, establish how the targets will be assessed, and plan interventions or extensions. This PLC structure allows teachers to share results so that there is collective responsibility for student achievement. The goal of this approach is to ensure that every struggling student will be identified and that support will be provided so they can meet or exceed grade level expectations. An immediate next step in the PLC process is for all teachers within the PLC to own the success of each student. This means that the primary focus will be on PLC questions three and four, and not simply referring students for learning support or extension assistance.

Throughout the primary and elementary schools, there are extra opportunities for students who demonstrate strength in core academic areas. Enrichment groups in the primary school support identified students with strengths in math through weekly pull-out classes focusing on problem-solving. In the intermediate school, there are various levels of math support. Differentiation in the classroom challenges students within the daily lesson; twice-weekly pull-out math enrichment classes for identified students and daily pull-out classes are provided for students identified as gifted in math. In addition to support classes in math, there is a twiceweekly pull-out enrichment reading and language arts (ERLA) class for identified grade five students. World language classes are leveled to meet the needs of students who are new to the language, who have some experience with it, or who are near native speakers.

For students in the middle school and high school, teachers differentiate within the classroom for RLA/English and social studies. Leveled classes in math, language, and performing arts are available for students in grades six through twelve.

There is opportunity in support services to better develop, implement, and track response to intervention (RTI) processes, and the schedule and resources to do so. Upper divisions may benefit from differentiated support to better serve categories of individual student need.

School Support Systems Each of the four school divisions has a clearly defined process for identifying students who are struggling academically, socially, or emotionally. The system has multiple avenues for identifying students who are struggling. These avenues include, but are not limited to, classroom teacher, PLC team, or parent referrals. In addition, SAS is further developing a Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment system for grades three through eight to be used as an early identification universal screener for students who struggle. The purpose is to ensure that students who may struggle academically are identified before they begin to struggle in their classes.

SAS continues to develop its support services program and is currently in a preschool through grade twelve renewal process that is identifying strengths and clarifying areas for growth. This yearlong review process includes internal/external audits, classroom walkthroughs, stakeholder surveys, school visits, and multiple conferences. One area that has emerged regarding the school support system is the need to be consistent in practice and vocabulary from division to division. Though each division has a philosophy that works for them and their service delivery, students, parents, and teachers are encumbered by the differences in approach and vocabulary as a result. This has been identified as an area of need and is being addressed for the coming years by the support services renewal committee.

An additional portion of the renewal includes the exploration of expanding services to include students with more severe cognitive disabilities in the American expatriate community living in Singapore. This feasibility study is assessing whether a cost neutral program could be created to provide services and enhance our school community.

Strategies Used for Student Growth/Development SAS provides a wide range of excellent programs at all divisional levels to help students and parents acclimate to the school environment. Scheduling, programming, and support teams are available so that a web of support surrounds each student at SAS. This support comes from student to student, student to faculty, and school and parent support structures. There is a continuum of support services that help students make connections and develop self-awareness and self-advocacy.

A comprehensive counseling program that meets regularly with students to address grade-appropriate needs and concerns is found in each division. The SAS program is supported by seventeen counselors on staff, three psychologists, and five certified speech pathologists. Further, the high school and middle school provide ageappropriate wellness instruction as part of their health curriculum.

All grade levels are participating in a research and development process that is looking for ways to further personalize learning. The high school is on the forefront of this effort and has rewritten their course selection guide to provide students more voice in the credits they take for graduation (fewer mandated courses), where those credits are achieved (online offerings), and which classes that are available (increased course variety).

Further, options for students to pursue their own educational passions are being planned. This process is also creating a student advisory program at the high school level to ensure that every student is known and supported at SAS. This is an area found to be in need of attention after visiting innovative schools around the world during the course of research and development. The middle school currently has an advisory program, however, in light of the research and development initiative, the division is studying schools around the world with highly-functioning advisory programs.

WASC REPORT PG 85

In most instances when a student is identified as needing assistance, the classroom teachers are primarily responsible for initial intervention, such as guided support, extra time, and scaffolds. If they are unsuccessful with their interventions or need extra assistance, they can refer their student to the divisional student service team (SST), made up of counselors, a psychologist, learning support teachers, and an administrator. The purpose of the SST is to rally resources and support to ensure that the student gets the assistance they need to be successful socially, emotionally, and academically. In the primary and intermediate schools, student concern meetings are held each week. The purpose of this meeting is to brainstorm ideas to support students who are having difficulty socially, emotionally, or academically. The student may or may not be referred to the SST as a result of the student concerns meeting. In the middle school, teams of teachers along with the grade level counselor and resource teacher also meet each week for â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;kid chatsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to identify kids who are having difficulty socially, emotionally, or academically. This help may come in many forms, but may include, learning support teacher assistance, counseling, teacher instruction, parent connection, outside assistance, or professional guidance.

Support Services and Learning In a recent survey, collaboration with core teachers was identified as a strong theme among learning support teachers. The PLC structure allows for consistency in teaching that means that support professionals have clarity on what their students are learning and what they need assistance with. Further, support services teachers take part in various PLCs to give professional advice regarding instruction and assessment to meet the needs of all students.

Though SAS has identified that collaboration between learning support teachers and others as strong, the external audit noted that there is room for growth in the area of speech services in high school, occupational therapy in all divisions, and possibly extending ESOL services beyond grade three.

Co-Curricular Activities Students across divisions have ample opportunities to engage in enrichment activities and apply their learning outside of the classroom setting. For example, students participate in a variety of sports, clubs, musical groups, and service work across divisions. These activities are supported by more than 100 clubs in the high school, competitive high school sports/performance teams, numerous clubs and sports teams in the middle school, an internal kindergarten through grade five sports program (EASA) and an external kindergarten through grade 12 activities and sports program (SACAC).

There is a discrepancy in the accessibility of extra-curricular programs. For instance, primary and intermediate students currently pay for clubs and enrichment programs. SAS is currently considering a more consistent way to provide services across all divisions especially as it relates to costs and staff obligations to assist in providing these services.

Adequate Available Services Support services are well-resourced and all elements (learning support, speech language, GATE, ESOL, counseling, psychologists) work effectively together to meet studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs. There are clear structures in place to ensure that studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs are met as quickly as possible. As noted earlier in this report, PLCs help to identify students who may need support within the classroom and the student services team meet regularly to develop action plans for individual students with more specific learning needs. Support services are very flexible to meet the individual needs of each student as new issues/concerns present themselves.

Some consideration should be given to the allocation of staff resources moving forward. Reviewing the schedules of various student services professions may help to better meet the needs of students with ESOL, occupational therapy (OT) needs, and speech-language difficulties. The addition of a preschool through grade twelve support services coordinator for the coming school year will assist in the equal allocation of resources.

Student Involvement in Curricular/Co-Curricular Activities All students can be involved in curricular and co-curricular activities. At the high school level, approximately 35% are involved with sports activities, with an equal amount involved in other performance and intramuralbased activities. A robust after school program for students in kindergarten through grade twelve allows for younger students to be involved with enriching activities after school that are age-appropriate and convenient.

Regarding curricular involvement, all students are mainstreamed into the regular classroom with a focus on the least restrictive environment for student learning. In all divisions the expectation is that students can meet the curriculum standards with accommodations rather than modifications. This focus challenges our teachers to help every student meet grade level expectations. There is a referral process in place in all divisions to facilitate access to support services when students struggle meeting this expectation.

Although all students have access to support services, the team is renewing their focus on developing individual student skills and assets to become independent learners with the goal of exiting from the program.

The renewal team has noted a concern that some students tend to receive support longer than necessary. To resolve this, a student tracking system has been created through the PowerSchool management system, which allows teachers to know who is getting support and why the support is needed. Providing measurable goals for students who have support has also been a target. The PowerSchool tracking system and measurable goals will help to justify the removal of services.

Student Perceptions Grade seven through twelve students were surveyed using Search Associates Developmental Student Assets instruments. Results indicated that SAS is in alignment with other international schools in student perceptions.

Though SAS is in alignment, one area for concern was the small number of students who feel connected to

school and to an adult at school. Though numbers are trending up from 2005 survey data, the results have spurred the high school to determine means to create advisory structures to better connect with students.

At the start of the 2013-14 school year, a representative from Search Associates provided professional development to high school staff regarding student assets and connecting with students. This is a start, and students will be surveyed again at the end of the 2014 school year. For more information about the results of the Search Associates Developmental Students Assets, see High School Psychologist Dr. Jeff Devens.

In addition to the Search survey and as part of the support services internal audit, special needs students were randomly polled about their perceptions of school. More than 80% of students feel their needs are being met and that their support services teacher is knowledgeable and sensitive to their needs. Seventy-seven% feel that their classroom teachers are knowledgeable and sensitive to their needs, and 75% are making progress towards graduation. Of concern in the results is the fact that only 50% of students feel that their regular education teachers know what is on their IESP. This is a concern and the addition of an icon in the PowerSchool student management system will help share that information with their teachers. Overall, students in middle school and high school feel that learning support teachers provide the necessary supports, structures, and consistency to allow for a measure of academic “success.”

For younger students, student-led goal setting and parent teacher conferences empower students to define areas they need to grow and allow them a venue to communicate with their parents. Further, elementary counselors are available for students who are struggling with social, emotional, and academic challenges.

Additional Findings Extraordinary care is one of the foundations of the SAS program. Through personalized student support, extensive support service systems, dedicated faculty, and a robust co-curricular program, students are appropriately supported and challenged in their achievement of the DSLOs.

SAS employs a wide range of strategies to ensure that parental and community involvement is integral to the school’s established support system for students.

Regular Parent Involvement Parents and community members are involved in all divisions of the school. The board is comprised of an elected group of parents of current SAS students. This group advises the long-term strategic and financial planning of the school.

Additional opportunities for parent involvement include the PTA, Booster Club, room parents, library volunteers, team moms, and cafeteria supervisors. These groups support ongoing programs at the school through fundraisers and community events such as County Fair and Food Fest.

The school provides regular opportunities for parents to learn about various school goals and provide feedback. These include parent forums with the superintendent and monthly parent coffees facilitated by administrators or counselors. The SAS SpeakerSeries provides workshops for parents on various educationrelated topics. Dr. Michael Thompson was a recent speaker in this series and provided insights for parenting and educating boys in the 21st century.

The annual open house and back to school night events provide scheduled opportunities for parents to learn about their child’s academic and co-curricular programs. Special events such as the intermediate school variety show, middle school and high school productions, sports events, and service clubs also provide opportunities for parents to take part in and support student learning.

Student learning progress is reported primarily through PowerSchool, the online portal for assessment. Parent teacher conferences are scheduled twice each year in the primary through middle school divisions, and teachers are available via email, phone, and in person as needed. Through the self-study it became apparent that there is interest in exploring parent teacher conferences in the high school.

Parent surveys from 2010 to 2013 indicate that parents are actively involved in the learning process. Results from parent surveys show that 94% to 96% of parents understand their role as a partner in their child’s learning. In the 2012-13 parent survey, the majority of parents indicated they receive an appropriate level of communication to be informed about programs and events in their child’s division (primary school - 100%, intermediate school and middle school - 90%, and high school - 87%). In 2012-13, the survey also gathered information related to the opportunities for parent input and involvement provided by the superintendent, and

WASC REPORT PG 87

C2. Parent/Community Involvement

the majority of parents indicated that they agree or strongly agree with the opportunities provided (primary school - 74%, intermediate school - 90%, middle school - 79%, high school - 72%). Further data from the parent survey can be found in the parent perception data section of Chapter 1.

Use of Community Resources SAS uses a number of resources within the community to support student learning. The PTA hosts the SAS SpeakerSeries, which brings in a number of experts from around the world and Singapore. Speakers in this series have included: Dr. Roby Marcou, a developmental pediatrician, Dr. Michael Thompson, a psychologist specializing in children and families, and Dr. Susan Engel, a developmental psychologist. In addition to the co-curricular programs sponsored by teachers, students also have the opportunity to participate in sports, community programs, and counseling through the Singapore American Community Action Council (SACAC), a non-profit group that operates on campus year round. High school students have the opportunity to participate in a job shadowing experience that is run through the Booster Club. This program offers students the opportunity to explore specific careers through a one-day observation. Students are assigned to a mentor in the community based on interests and fit, and participate in an orientation prior to the job shadowing experience.

Another example is the high school SAS Capstone project. This project allows students to design and create their own learning experience by pursuing an area of interest. The course is an opportunity for seniors to merge their passions with their academic learning and so demonstrate the fullest extent of their enthusiasm, autonomy, capacity, and complexity. Students may choose to sample a potential career, carry out an extended service-learning project, deeply explore and research an academic topic of interest, or create a novel artistic work. The students, with the support of an advisor, refine their topic and goals, determine the learning objectives, select the end-of-semester product, identify and receive support from an off-campus mentor, and publicly present their results at the end of the semester. Academic or professional mentors, institutional internships, and project managers are provided to help authenticate the students work as well as bring guidance through their learning experience. This is currently an optional course. Beginning with the Class of 2018, the Capstone project will be required of all students in their senior year.

Parents/Community and Student Achievement Student learning progress is reported primarily through PowerSchool, the online portal for assessment. Parents may access the portal for information about their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s achievement on a regular basis in the middle and high school. Report cards are distributed at the end of each semester in each division. Parent teacher conferences are scheduled twice each year in the primary through middle school divisions and teachers are available via email, phone, and in person as needed. Regular individual education plan (IEP) meetings are held for students who receive resource or speech/language support.

Through the self-study it became evident that the parent community does not have a strong understanding of the new DSLOs. As SAS moves forward in the next academic year, these DSLOs will need to be shared throughout the community.

Additional Findings SAS is fortunate to have active, dedicated parents and a supportive, involved community to be partners in supporting high levels of achievement and growth for all students.

Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth Areas of Strength 1.Extraordinary care is one of the foundations of the SAS program. Through personalized student support, extensive support service systems, qualified and dedicated faculty, and a robust co-curricular program, students are appropriately supported and challenged in their achievement of the DSLOs. 2.The PLC structure has been established at each division so that there is collective responsibility for student achievement.

3.Each of the four school divisions has a clearly defined process for identifying students who are struggling academically, socially, or emotionally.

4.SAS provides a wide variety of programs at all divisional levels that help students and parents acclimate to the school environment.

5.Collaboration with core teachers was identified as a very strong theme amongst support services personnel at SAS. 6.Students across divisions have ample opportunities to engage in enrichment activities and apply their learning outside of the classroom setting. A robust after school program for students in kindergarten through grade twelve allows younger students to be involved with enriching activities after school that are age-appropriate and convenient.

7.Support services are well resourced and all elements (learning support, speech language, ESOL, counseling, psychologists) work effectively together to meet studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs.

8.SAS is fortunate to have active, dedicated parents and a supportive, involved community who work in partnership to support high levels of achievement and growth for all students.

Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth Areas of Growth 1.Professional learning communities need to focus on PLC question three (What do we do for students who arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t learning?) and question four (What do we do for students who already know it?) to optimize learning for each student.

2.Both classroom teachers and support services teachers need to better develop, implement, and track response to intervention (RTI) processes, and the schedule and resources to do so.

4.Support services need to be consistent in practice and vocabulary from division to division. Though each division has a philosophy that works for them and their service delivery, students, parents, and teachers are encumbered by the differences in approach and vocabulary as a result.

5.SAS should consider whether it is feasible to expand services to include students with more severe cognitive disabilities in the American expatriate community living in Singapore. A study should be conducted to assess whether a cost neutral program could be created, and what the implications might be for the SAS community.

6.SAS needs to consider a more consistent way to provide services across all divisions, especially as it relates to costs and staff obligations to assist in providing these services. Reviewing the schedules of various student services professions may help to better meet the needs of students with ESOL, OT needs, and speech-language difficulties.

7.Support services need to implement a student tracking system that allows faculty to know who receives support and why the support is needed. This includes becoming clearer on providing measurable goals for students to reach and when it is justified to remove services.

8.SAS needs to consider a more consistent way to provide services across all divisions especially as it relates to costs and staff obligations to assist in providing these services.

9.As SAS moves forward, the new vision and DSLOs will need to be repeatedly shared throughout the community.

10.SAS should explore ways to formalize partnerships with community members to expand opportunities for students to engage in internships and/or mentoring programs.

WASC REPORT PG 89

3.Upper divisions may benefit from differentiated support to better serve categories of individual student need.

CATEGORY D: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT D1. Resources Allocation Decisions Community stakeholders are involved in the process of resource allocation through the annual budget process. Before the budget is developed, the superintendent and cabinet identify resource requests based upon staff and community input and school priorities. Following a review of the proposed annual budget by the board, an invitation is extended to the parent community to review, ask questions, and comment on the proposed budget and schedule of fees.

One example of where student achievement data informed resource allocation can be found in the middle school move towards daily language arts, including the addition of six FTE language arts teachers. This decision was based on relatively low reading and language scores as well as parent feedback. Another example of community influence regarding resource allocations was the move to daily world language in the elementary school. For multiple years, parent feedback regarding the twice per week Chinese language program was consistently lower than any other area of the school program. This informed a research process that culminated in a daily Chinese or Spanish program in kindergarten through grade five. The board approved a first year cost of $7.3M inclusive of a $4.7M investment in facilities and 12 additional positions costing $2.1M annually.

Practices The school administration develops a draft annual budget with input and priority-setting from the cabinet (division principals and other leadership team members) based on parameters established by the board. The draft budget is then reviewed by the facilities and finance committee of the board, and then the full board, before presentation to the larger community. The board receives input through this latter process before approving a final budget and schedule of fees. (See public budget material.)

The board commissions the performance of an annual audit that is also required by Singapore law. The audited accounts are presented in a public forum and must be voted on by the community for adoption at an annual general meeting.

The board reviews and updates board policy. The administration develops and implements quality business and accounting practices through administrative regulations (based on board policy) and related control and operating procedures.

The administration commissions a periodic review of its insurance and risk management practices including those for fraud, misrepresentation, and theft.

The administration believes that the budgeting process is appropriately open and allows community input before adoption of the annual budget. Additionally, there are deliberate actions to provide clarity and transparency around fiscal matters including the areas of resource allocation, financial stability, and investment practices and performance. Budget processes and issues around fiscal management are described in monthly eNews columns that are published for the entire community.

Facilities SAS delivers quality facility services using best business practices to improve efficiency, increase productivity, and contain operating costs. SAS is committed to financial and operational stewardship of the strategic physical assets comprising of 144,000m2 of land valued at $144,500,000 and 99,044m2 of buildings valued at about $291,000,000.

SAS ensures that buildings and service infrastructure is funded and are kept in reliable and safe working order, as well as to a high standard of attractiveness and commercial competitiveness. On a day-to-day basis, the purpose-built physical assets are used to enhance student learning and also to showcase their activities on campus. In order to meet commitments, SAS has a 10-year asset management plan totaling $102,101,000,

updated and submitted to the board annually, for the ongoing planning, budgeting, and renewing/ modernizing of physical assets.

Collaboratively, the annual summer works process invites faculty and staff to make requests and/or suggestions for divisional projects to make the campus safer, updated, and programmatically ready for the new academic year. Ad hoc professional learning communities involving facilities, faculty members, and/or students are formed as appropriate, to work on feasibility and scoping studies, sustainability projects, and periodically, the selection of consultants.

For competitiveness and communication purposes, SAS uses its website to publicize and invite tenders. To further improve efforts to make SAS an even safer workplace, a workplace safety and health manager was added for the 2012-13 year.

The SchoolDude job request system now processes more than 5,000 requests annually, and tracks ad-hoc as well as planned maintenance requests from beginning to completion.

The sustainability, green initiatives, and workplace health and safety programs put SAS in the forefront of EARCOS schools and have been recognized by the Singapore government through certifications and awards such as Green Mark Gold, Solar Pioneer Award, Water Efficient Building, Friendly Building, and bizSAFE 4.

The school maintains facilities reserves to ensure adequate year-on-year funds for larger renewal projects. This is reviewed and consistent with the 10-year asset management plan. Additionally, the school is accumulating funds for the eventual replacement of the Woodlands campus.

Instructional Materials

Instructional materials are designated by the school as copyrighted items used as part of the instructional program including textbooks, trade books, workbooks, video resources, illustrative materials, kits, and computer software, as well as ancillary materials and equipment that are an integral part of the instructional program.

The majority of these resources are budgeted and purchased through the Office of Learning by the submission of a rationale sheet and preparation of a purchase order requisition. These requests include resources for both the implementation year of a subject renewal cycle, and replacement materials in years thereafter. For adoption year materials, the Office of Learning communicates the adopted materials after the respective committees have chosen the materials and they have been approved for adoption.

Ordering procedures include grade level teams or departments requesting specific items to be ordered, quantities, and the total amount of all the purchase order requisitions by grade level or department.

For replacement of adopted materials in a non-adoption year, the same process is followed in identifying the order details, preparing the purchase order requisition, and completing the curriculum budget forms.

For additional resources that are not part of the adopted materials, the budget and orders are handled in the same way as requests for other curriculum materials.

All budget items identified by division staff through requests from the Office of Learning budget are accompanied by a completed purchase order requisition prepared by the requesting staff member, signed by the department/grade level chair, and reviewed by the division principal.

SAS has an educational technology plan and a device and use continuum that helps guide decision-making regarding technology resource allocation. In addition, general policies and procedures are in place to guide faculty and staff who request additional resources. Each division has an educational technology coordinator who works with faculty and administration to coordinate the acquisition and allocation of resources. The educational technology plan is organized around the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s DSLOs. Well-Qualified Staff SAS devotes considerable resources to the recruitment and induction of new staff each year to ensure that we have the highest quality candidates. SAS devotes a great deal of resources (time, people, money) to the new staff induction process to ensure they receive assistance during their transition to the school. Once on

WASC REPORT PG 91

SAS has policies and procedures for acquiring and maintaining sufficient instructional materials in order to facilitate a world-class learning environment for students. The Office of Learning, division principals, and educational technology personnel meet to determine the validity of requests in order to support and further learning.

board, professional learning opportunities are given to staff that directly ties to the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategic plan, DSLOs, and/or major foci of work within an academic year. Both personal and group professional learning opportunities are provided via funding that comes through the Office of Learning or from division offices.

Conclusions SAS has comprehensive and thorough processes in place to support the selection and allocation of resources across the school. Whenever appropriate and possible, SAS involves stakeholders from critical constituency groups: students, faculty, and parents. SAS is well resourced and uses the school mission, vision, and learning outcomes to guide decision-making when selecting and appropriating resources.

D2. Resource Planning Long-Range Resource Plan The administration develops and the board reviews a long-range financial plan - ten years for facilities and five years for the operating budget - on an annual basis. This process includes staff changes, major initiatives, and changes in fee levels.

The Office of Learning, in conjunction with the executive director for educational technology, develops a longterm plan for information technology.

Use of Research and Information SAS engages in research and information gathering in order to make data-informed decisions with regards to planning, selecting, and appropriating resources. Below are several examples of the processes that are used to gather data related to resource planning and allocation.

Benchmarking: IASIS regional schools, US states Tuition fee benchmarking October 2013 Enrollment demographics October 2013 Student course data to inform staffing University admissions Marketing Research and development processes (see Appendix B) Curriculum review/renewal cycle: math, Columbia, Innovative Partnership Plan (Alan November) School visits Involvement of Stakeholders SAS regularly involves stakeholders from our core constituency groups to inform future planning for resources.

The following are examples of process that are used to gather data from our stakeholders.

21st Century Learning Summit Community visioning process Math adoption Parent survey Annual budget presentation 2013-14 Informing SAS regularly involves stakeholders from our core constituency groups to inform future planning for resources through a variety of formats. These include written communications, school-wide presentations, divisional presentations, and published reports. The following are examples of process that are used to gather data from our stakeholders. eNews From the superintendent: eLetters School website (www.sas.edu.sg) AGM October 2013 - financial results for 2012-13 Finance 101 which offers explanations on financial issues Annual report 2012-13 (parents and members)

Parent sessions: math, grading, support, Parent coffees Annual reporting to the Council for Private Education (CPE) Marketing Strategies SAS carries out marketing efforts to ensure budgetary revenue in two primary areas: full enrollment through admissions and donations through advancement. Primarily tuition and fees fund SAS. Secondarily, nascent programs in fundraising and in a guaranteed placement program generate a smaller portion of revenue.

Subsequently, efforts to promote the school to potential applicants are an important element of the school’s marketing focus.

SAS continues to develop the strength and outcomes of its advancement program. Advancement is comprised of alumni and community relations and fundraising. The aims of advancement are to connect people, ideas, and resources to support the educational mission of the school through the collaboration of the global and local SAS communities. These communities include students, parents, alumni, former parents, and interested Singaporean parties, such as those who live in the neighborhoods surrounding SAS. SAS produces an alumni magazine and has several online social media venues to inform its community of updates on the school and to offer channels for communication among community members.

SAS also produces information relating to the benefits and outcomes resulting from its fundraising efforts, namely materials about the SAS Annual Fund and annual reports of programs and activities of the SAS foundations. The SAS Annual Fund is a charitable effort that provides monies for the school’s current programs. To complement the SAS Annual Fund, the school is developing a long-term endowment to provide ongoing support into the future.

Since 2010, the school’s fundraising through its affiliated foundations has increased by more than 50% to more than $1 million in 2013.

Conclusions SAS has comprehensive processes in place to gather information and to engage community members regarding long-term planning of resources. Whenever appropriate and possible, SAS involves stakeholders from critical constituency groups: students, faculty, and parents. SAS regularly reviews its policies and practices around resource planning, selection, and allocation to ensure alignment with the school’s mission, vision, and learning outcomes.

Resource Management and Development Areas of Strength 1.The community has opportunities to provide input into the budget and fee setting process and to review and vote on approval of audited statements.

2.There is a well-developed long-term facilities maintenance and renewal plan that was established with input from many stakeholders. This is supplemented by a long-term funding plan.

3.SAS has stable finances with full enrollment, annual surpluses, six months of operating expenses in reserves, and a growing endowment plan.

4.Large instructional (e.g., gymnasiums, theaters) and community (e.g., cafeterias) spaces are appropriately scheduled and modernized on a 15-year life-cycle basis.

5.A well-developed security access control plan for day-to-day operation is annually reviewed, and when necessary, calibrated and responsive to increased threat levels.

6.SAS has a well-developed sustainability plan championed by facilities, faculty, and students, which has led to Singapore Building Construction Authority’s Green Mark Gold certification for the whole campus in 2011 and the Solar Pioneer Award in 2013.

7.SAS is well-resourced with technology. Students have one-to-one access to personal computing devices from grades three through twelve. In 2014-15, this will start in kindergarten. Faculty have access to a quality “digital toolkit” to support teaching and learning. SAS enjoys state-of-the-art technology infrastructure, network, data centers, and bandwidth.

WASC REPORT PG 93

SAS has further established best practices governance of its two foundations, one based in Singapore and one based in the United States, to provide advocacy and oversight to fundraising activities.

8.High-quality instructional materials are available for all teachers and students across all grade levels and curricular areas.

Resource Management and Development Areas of Growth 1.SAS leadership needs to develop a comprehensive business continuity plan to provide for ongoing operations in the event of an event negatively affecting enrollment (e.g., fire, flood, economic downturn, terrorism).

2.SAS leadership needs to evaluate and update the campus master development plan taking into account changes resulting from the research and development effort, increasing the energy efficiency, providing for potential increased enrollment, and long-term sustainability.

3.The superintendent and board needs to continue to update policies to focus on strategic issues, update the related administrative regulations, and further develop financial and operating procedures.

4.The school should streamline processes to become more adaptive and responsive to emerging needs from research and development.

5.The Office of Learning needs to evaluate the current subject area renewal cycle and time frame to ensure it is adequate for changes in curriculum design and the outgrowth of the research and development effort.

School-Wide Areas of Strength 1.Extraordinary care for the welfare of each child is valued by all stakeholders and is a central, driving force behind decisions made at all levels. (Organizing Area of Strength #8, Support Area of Strength #1) 2.The community-developed DSLOs provide a framework for and a commitment to developing relevant, contemporary skills that our students will need for the future. (Organizing Area of Strength #1, DSLO Area of Strength #1) 3.There is a strong commitment to PLCs across all divisions as a primary mechanism for professional learning and accountability. The PLC structure allows teachers to use student assessment data to inform instruction and better meet the needs of each student. (Support Area of Strength #2, Appendix A Area of Strength #4, #8) 4.There is a robust professional learning program with significant opportunities that provide faculty a variety of opportunities to grow in areas related to the strategic direction of the school. The school has shown a commitment to implement recognized best practices and to support innovation. (Organizing Strength #10, Appendix A Area of Strength #6, #7, # 9) 5.SAS employs highly qualified faculty, classified staff, and leadership who are dedicated to the students of SAS. (Organizing Area of Strength #6) 6.There is a consistent understanding of and commitment to a high level of assessment literacy and best practices. (Appendix A Area of Strength #5, #9, #10) 7.The SAS Board is supportive and deliberate in its role, responsibilities, structure, and operating norms to fulfill its obligation in supporting the SAS mission and vision. (Organizing Strength #3) 8.There is an active and dedicated parent community. (Support Strength #8) 9.There are a wealth of resources for learning and development of the whole child. This includes facilities, instructional, and human resources. (Resource Area of Strength #4, #7, #8, Appendix A Area of Strength #3)

School-Wide Areas of Growth (in priority order) 1.SAS administration, faculty, and staff need to establish and maintain a healthy organizational culture characterized by open two-way communication, accountability with personal responsibility from all staff and faculty, freedom for risk-taking within appropriate limits, commitment to excellence, willingness to tolerate and learn from mistakes, integrity, consistency, collaboration, holistic thinking, courage, and persistence. (Organizing Area of Growth #6, #7) 2.As SAS evolves towards its vision, administrators and teacher-leaders need to implement effective change leadership strategies that challenge the status quo, provide direction, guidance, and support during transition, and reinforce SASâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future state. (Organizing Area of Growth #12, #13, DSLO Area of Growth #3, Support Area of Growth #9, Resources Area of Growth #3, 4, 5, Appendix A Area of Growth #1, #2, #3, #7) 3.The desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs) need to be developmentally defined (by division and within divisions), appropriately integrated in the curriculum, taught utilizing relevant instructional strategies, and explicitly assessed and reported upon. (Organizing Area of Growth #8, DSLO Area of Growth #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, Appendix A Area of Growth #6)

5.SAS administrators and faculty need to systematically use data to inform decisions at the classroom, division, and school-wide levels to monitor student growth and analyze the impact of professional practices on student learning. (Organizing Area of Growth #11, #12, Appendix A Area of Growth #4, #8)

WASC REPORT PG 95

4.SAS administration and faculty need to optimize learning for all students by increasing the capacity of professional learning communities (PLCs) to focus on question three (What do we do for students who arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t learning?) and question four (What do we do for students who already know/can do it?) through the implementation of response to intervention (RTI) strategies to ensure that appropriate tiers of intervention exist in all classrooms. (Support Area of Growth #1, #2, #7, #8)

CHAPTER 5

School-wide Action Plan SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 1: HEALTHY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 3: EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION & ASSESSMENT OF DSLOS SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 4: OPTIMIZE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 5: USE OF DATA

WASC REPORT PG 97

SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 2: CHANGE LEADERSHIP

The following action plans outline the goal, assessment evidence, and steps that need to be taken for each school-wide area of growth identified in Chapter 4. In June 2014, these action plans will be synthesized with the action plans emerging from the high school research and development, the support services review, and the revised professional growth and evaluation plan to form one comprehensive 2020 strategic plan. The comprehensive strategic plan will include timelines, who will be responsible, and resources needed. The strategic plan will be updated in June 2015 after the elementary and middle school divisions complete their R&D process.

SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 1: HEALTHY ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE Goal description: SAS administration, faculty and staff need to establish and maintain a healthy organizational culture characterized by open two-way communication, accountability with personal responsibility, freedom for risk-taking within appropriate limits, commitment to excellence, willingness to tolerate and learn from mistakes, integrity, consistency, collaboration, holistic thinking, courage and persistence.

Rationale for goal: Self-study findings - Organizing Area of Growth #6, #7

Assessment evidence: • Observations, artifacts and perception data reveal administrator and faculty understanding of the components of a healthy organizational culture.

• Climate survey (student, parent, faculty, administrator) results show a culture characterized by open twoway communication, accountability with personal responsibility, freedom for risk-taking within appropriate limits, commitment to excellence, willingness to tolerate and learn from mistakes, integrity, consistency, collaboration, holistic thinking, courage and persistence.

• Anecdotal evidence of people or teams demonstrates aspects of a healthy organizational culture.

Actions to Take Operational Definition

• Clarify the components of a healthy organizational culture, including the difference between culture and climate.

• Develop indicators of success for a healthy organizational culture.

Assessment

• Gather baseline data to determine where the current culture is healthy and unhealthy, and the distinctions between the state of culture versus climate.

• Establish an annual student, parent, faculty, administration survey results to monitor aspects of culture.

Strategies

• Once baseline data is gathered, identify and implement strategies to address areas of concern.

Professional Development

• Training for faculty and administration in: facilitation skills, having difficult conversations, conflict resolution.

• Training as determined by strategies identified as a result of the climate survey data.

Resources

• External consultant to help administration understand healthy organizational culture and strategies to establish/maintain it.

• Conflict resolution and/or facilitation consultant to increase capacity of administrators and teacher leaders.

Performance Appraisal

• Develop explicit expectations for behavior in the new professional growth and evaluation (PGE) system.

Other

• Regularly schedule opportunities for celebration and community-building.

SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 2: CHANGE LEADERSHIP Goal description:

Planning

• Clarify components of the strategic direction of SAS, including the role of core values and the vital few as well as the relationship of the character DSLO to the core values.

• Utilize educational research and data to inform decision-making and planning.

• Merge plans resulting from various reviews and processes into one schoolwide strategic plan.

• Vet strategic plan to proper stakeholder groups to ensure buy-in and momentum behind identified goals and targets.

• Develop annual division (e.g., elementary) and/or department (e.g., Office of Learning) improvement goals based on the school-wide strategic plan.

• Establish action plans that adhere to best practice in change management (e.g., Kotter’s 8 steps to change).

• Create and implement review cycle for strategic plan to determine progress towards goals and effectiveness of implemented items.

Monitoring

• Identify and monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) for each strategic plan component to assess effectiveness of implementation.

• Monitor change implementation to assess the impact on professional practice and student learning.

• Monitor impact of change on organizational culture.

Structures

• Evaluate existing structures (e.g., teacher leader structures, new teacher orientation, performance appraisal, professional learning, subject area renewal) to ensure they adhere to findings from research and positively contribute to change efforts.

• Clarify the roles, responsibilities, and intersections of the different levels of leadership (including teacher leaders, coaches, and coordinators); • Build distributed teacher leader capacity for facilitating change.

Professional Development

• Develop organizational understanding of change theory.

• Provide professional learning for administrators and teacher leaders in change leadership and change strategy.

• Provide professional learning opportunities based on needs identified through the school-wide strategic plan and/or annual improvement plans.

Resources

• External consultant to help administration understand effective change leadership and strategies .

Rationale for goal: Self-study findings - Organizing Area of Growth #12, #13, DSLO Area of Growth #3, Support Area of Growth #9, Resources Area of Growth #3, 4, 5, Appendix A Area of Growth #1, #2, #3, #7

Assessment evidence: • There is one clearly articulated and unified strategic plan that drives all changes at SAS. • Perception data (administrators, faculty, parents, students) reveals an understanding of the vision, DSLOs, and strategic plan.

• Perception data reveals a positive impact of change on organizational culture.

• Observational, anecdotal, and perception data exhibits administrator and teacher leader understanding of change process and change leadership.

• Operational goals and decisions are in alignment with the vision and strategic plan.

• Program data displays shifts in practice in alignment with the vision and strategic plan.

• Key performance indicators demonstrate progress towards accomplishment of the vision and strategic plan.

Performance Appraisal

Communication

• Develop explicit expectations in the professional growth and evaluation (PGE) system for actively supporting the strategic plan and proactively engaging in change initiatives .

• Develop clear lines of communication among and within teams, divisions, and departments.

• Communicate rationale for and implication of changes to stakeholders, including parents, feeder schools, and colleges and universities.

WASC REPORT PG 99

As SAS evolves towards its vision, administrators and teacher leaders need to implement effective change leadership strategies that challenge the status quo, provide direction, guidance and support during transition, and reinforce SAS’s future state.

Actions to Take

SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 3: EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION & ASSESSMENT OF DSLOS Goal description: The desired student learning outcomes (DSLOs) are developmentally defined (by division and within divisions), appropriately integrated in the curriculum, taught utilizing relevant instructional strategies, and explicitly assessed and reported upon.

Actions to Take

Curriculum

• Determine the degree to which each DSLO should be explicitly taught and/or assessed in each discipline.

• Review and revising standards and outcomes within the subject renewal cycle to ensure the DSLOs are embedded in the curriculum of each discipline.

• As appropriate, explicitly include the DSLOs into units of study.

Assessment

• Develop division-appropriate rubrics that clearly define each DSLO in an ageappropriate manner.

• Establish processes for assessing student achievement of the DSLOs. • Establish processes for reporting student achievement of the DSLOs.

Instructional

• Identify relevant instructional strategies that explicitly teach the DSLOs.

Rationale for goal: Self-study findings - Organizing Area of Growth #8, DSLO Area of Growth #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, Appendix A Area of Growth #6

Professional Development

• Provide professional learning opportunities for faculty to acquire a deeper understanding of the DSLOs and how to explicitly teach and assess them.

• Provide vertical and lateral collaboration opportunities to promote coherent implementation of assessment and instructional strategies.

Structures

• Establish school-wide teacher leadership teams (one per non-core knowledge DSLO) to oversee implementation of the DSLO.

Facilities

• Renovate/build facilities that are facilitate acquisition of the DSLOs (e.g., open areas, maker spaces, collaborative meeting areas).

Assessment evidence: • Perception data (administrator, faculty, parent, student), anecdotal evidence, and artifacts demonstrate clarity around each DSLO. • A matrix of expectations and curriculum audit establish where each DSLO is explicitly taught and assessed.

• Observational data and artifacts demonstrate relevant instructional strategies that explicitly teach each DSLO. • Division-appropriate rubrics clearly define each DSLO in an age-appropriate manner.

• Learning data (formative and summative) measures the degree to which students are achieving and growing in each DSLO. • Report cards and transcripts state the degree to which students achieved each DSLO. Student achievement data reveals an increase in accomplishment of each DSLO over time.

Performance Appraisal

• Develop explicit expectations for explicitly teaching and assessing the DSLOs in the new professional growth and evaluation (PGE) system.

Other

• Clarify the definition of each DSLO; • Clarify the difference between explicit and implicit teaching and assessing; • Communicating the DSLOs to all stakeholders to build community understanding;

SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 4: OPTIMIZE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS Goal description: Curriculum

• Determine the school-wide and division “need to know” vs “nice to know” standards and outcomes for each discipline.

Assessment

• Utilize data from common formative assessments to inform PLC conversations regarding interventions.

• Utilize data from classroom formative assessments to inform real-time classroom interventions.

• Utilize tiered summative assessments to measure the degree to which students achieve the standards and outcomes for each discipline.

• Implement a student tracking system through the PowerSchool management system that allows faculty to know who is receiving support or extension services, including entry and exit from support services.

Instructional

• Implement response to intervention (RTI) strategies to ensure appropriate tiers of interventions exist in all classrooms.

Rationale for goal: Self-study findings - Support Area of Growth #1, #2, #7, #8

Assessment evidence: • Faculty and administrator perception data reveals a belief held by school stakeholders that all students can meet or exceed grade level expectations.

• Student and parent perception data (surveys, focus groups) demonstrates that students are appropriately challenged in all areas of the curriculum.

• Program data demonstrates that students are supported in their learning through a range of support services that are inclusive of differentiated classroom instruction and strategic interventions by appropriate support faculty.

• Observations and written records reveal consistency in vocabulary and service delivery systems school-wide.

• Observation and artifacts demonstrate PLCs focused on how best to support students within a ‘least restrictive environment’ context and a practiced understanding of how and when support changes from a Tier 1/Tier 2/ Tier 3 intervention.

• Student learning data shows an increase in growth for all students, including top performing students.

Professional Development

• Increase the capacity of professional learning communities (PLCs) to focus on question 3 (What do we do for students who aren’t learning?) and question 4 (What do we do for students who already know/can do it?).

Resources

• Establish consistency in support services practice and vocabulary from division to division.

Performance Appraisal

• Develop explicit expectations in the professional growth and evaluation (PGE) system for focusing on interventions in PLCs, using data to inform decisions, and implementing RTI strategies to meet the needs of each student.

Other

• Define what optimized learning for all students means in the SAS context.

WASC REPORT PG 101

SAS administration and faculty optimize learning for all students by increasing the capacity of professional learning communities (PLCs) to focus on question 3 (What do we do for students who aren’t learning?) and question 4 (What do we do for students who already know/can do it?) through the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) strategies to ensure that appropriate tiers of intervention exist in all classrooms.

Actions to Take

SCHOOL-WIDE AREA OF GROWTH 5: EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION & ASSESSMENT OF DSLOS Goal description: SAS administrators and faculty systematically use data to inform decisions at the classroom, division, and schoolwide levels to monitor student growth and analyze the impact of professional practices on student learning.

Actions to Take Curriculum

• Determine the school-wide and division “need to know” vs “nice to know” standards and outcomes for each discipline.

Assessment

• Collect and analyze student achievement and growth data at the classroom level.

• Collect and analyze student achievement and growth data at the PLC level.

• Collect and analyze perception data from employees, students, and parents.

• Collect and analyze program data (e.g., implementation of an instructional practice like reader/writer workshop, fidelity to an identified resource like enVision math).

Instructional

• Use assessment results to inform instructional decisions and interventions.

Professional Development

• Strategically select professional development opportunities based on needs demonstrated in student learning data.

• Collect and analyze the impact of professional learning on teacher practice and student learning.

• Train teacher leaders in protocols to analyze data to ensure results are being examined critically and appropriately.

Resources

• Institutionalize a data dashboard to allow appropriate access to real-time reports for administrators, faculty, and board members.

Performance Appraisal

• Develop explicit expectations in the professional growth and evaluation (PGE) system for the use of formative and summative data to inform professional practice.

• Integrate student growth data into performance reviews.

Rationale for goal: Self-study findings - Organizing Area of Growth #11, #12, Appendix A Area of Growth #4, #8

Assessment evidence: • Observation, anecdotal, and/or artifact data shows the use of formative assessments in classrooms to inform realtime instructional decisions.

• Observation, anecdotal, and/or artifact data shows the use of common formative assessments in PLCs to inform conversations about RTI strategies.

• Common summative assessments indicate all students are meeting or exceeding grade level expectations.

• Standardized data (e.g., MAP results) illustrates growth for all students. If a student “tops out” of the assessment, alternate learning data demonstrates growth.

• Professional learning outputs align with demonstrated student need. Student learning data shows growth in the areas where professional learning occurs.

• Anecdotal or evidence data demonstrates the use of student learning, program, and perception data at the division and school-wide levels.

Appendix A

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment B1. WHAT STUDENTS LEARN B2. HOW STUDENTS LEARN B3. HOW ASSESSMENT IS USED

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Areas of Growth

WASC REPORT PG 103

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Areas of Strength

B1. WHAT STUDENTS LEARN Current Educational Research and Thinking SAS provides a comprehensive and sequential documented curriculum for the preschool through grade 12 experience. Curriculum is developed as part of a renewal cycle and the Atlas Rubicon mapping system is utilized. As curriculum development is a dynamic process, revisions are made when appropriate. In addition to Atlas, faculty collaboratively uses Google Docs and Dropbox for archival purposes. Units of learning are created using Understanding by Design principles and a common unit template is in place across the school.

An area the school is working on is evolving the curriculum documentation process in order for it to be as userfriendly as possible within the need for school-wide curricular integrity.

SAS conducts a ‘deep dive’ analysis of each subject area during the curriculum renewal cycle. This cycle consists of three phases. A representative team facilitated by the director of curriculum is collectively responsible for the process of the renewal cycle. The first phase, research and recommendations, is inclusive of the following tasks: • Collect data relating to current practices and research. This includes tasks such as surveys, parent focus groups, conferences, external audits, data-in-a-day, and a research review.

• Conduct gap analysis to formulate commendations and recommendations.

• Review curriculum outcomes and update resources accordingly.

Academic Standards for Each Area All curriculum is standards-based, aligned to the most current recommendations of professional associations in the United States, and collaboratively developed with faculty to ensure appropriate challenge and rigor.

Recent renewal efforts have resulted in the implementation of Common Core standards for English language arts and mathematics. Technology integration for enhanced and extended student learning is embedded within unit plans. All standards and outcomes for each course taught at SAS are published online on the school’s website.

Embedded Global Perspectives Opportunities are seized within curriculum and courses to integrate an international perspective, e.g., social studies units. Particular courses may have a greater emphasis on global perspectives and issues. Service learning is integrated within the curriculum for kindergarten through grade eight, and 40+ service clubs are student-initiated in the high school. The school has a very active Global Issues Network student organization and recently hosted 1,000+ students for a student-led conference grounded in how to best meet with challenges facing our global community. Interim Semester in the high school includes a diverse range of service opportunities and requires at least one service-focused Interim experience during a student’s high school years.

Congruence During phase two of the renewal cycle, curricular units are developed utilizing “Understanding by Design” principles. Attendance to these tenets of unit design ensures that there is congruence between academic standards and the targeted and assessed knowledge and skills. Explicit and implicit focus on the DSLOs is evidenced when reports are run utilizing Atlas Rubicon mapping analysis tools.

Student Work — Engagement in Learning It is evident throughout the school that student work is focused on explicit learning targets as derived from the course standards. When conducting classroom walkthroughs and data-in-a-day protocols, most students are focused on meeting expectations that are defined as proficiency towards targeted standards.

Accessibility of All Students to Curriculum Within the context of the PLC, it is the goal of the program to ensure that all students are appropriately challenged and that interventions are in place for students who are not attaining grade level expectations, or have already mastered the objectives (PLC questions three and four).

A continuum of services is in place for a wide range of students. The support services program provides individual students who have learning differences with the academic and emotional support they require to succeed at SAS. SAS recognizes the importance of involving students, parents, counselors, classroom teachers, support services staff, and administrators in a collaborative process in the delivery of support services.

The current approach to helping with learning differences is through early intervention. The school also provides enrichment and GATE programs in the primary school and intermediate school programs. There are structures in place in preschool through grade 12 that facilitate discussions about students (SST/M process and kid chats) and strong, supportive collaboration with counselors.

SAS has a flexible mindset in place in the support services department. Service delivery in all schools is in a constant state of evaluation in order for it to match student needs, and adjustments are made year to year accordingly. See Chapter 4 Category C for more details.

Acceptable Student Achievement SAS has implemented standards-based assessment throughout the divisions. This requires opportunities for students to achieve proficiency of learner outcomes. There are defined performance standards in place and these are used by PLCs to identify specific performance indicators for selected learning targets (often for use on rubrics).

As shared in Chapter 1, typically high scores and solid growth that most SAS students demonstrate on external assessments reveal the strengths of the academic program at SAS. Internal monitoring systems set rigorous cut scores, anticipating that most SAS students surpass grade-level expectations set for norm groups.

SAS needs to identify methods for determining acceptable student achievement in DSLOs other than core knowledge.

Curricular Review, Revision, and Evaluation SAS conducts a ‘deep dive’ analysis of each subject area during the curriculum renewal cycle. A representative team facilitated by the director of curriculum is collectively responsible for the process of the renewal cycle.

Phase one was described earlier. During the second phase, curriculum development takes place. This involves representatives from all PLCs developing units that translate the written curriculum into learning, through carefully planned assessments and instruction. During the third phase, implementation, the curriculum is taught and refined as necessary by PLCs with support and monitoring by the Office of Learning, coaches, and divisional leadership. An example is the timeline for the recent math renewal process.

Throughout all phases, there are continuous professional development opportunities targeted to identified needs in all curricular areas, e.g., readers’ and writers’ workshop, standards-based and data driven assessment, and math instructional strategies.

For 2014-15, each subject area will be represented by a primary school through grade 12 subject leadership team in order for the research, development, implementation, and ongoing monitoring to be sustainable.

These will be ongoing as opposed to ad hoc teams.

There are examples of areas within the school where the disciplines are integrated, e.g., service learning, however, this is an area where SAS is currently determining through its research and development initiatives, what, where, and how integration among disciplines optimizes learning. Please see Appendix B: Research and Development for more information.

Collaborative Work SAS has institutionalized PLCs throughout all divisions. This organizational structure and the processes associated are based on the work of Richard and Rebecca DuFour and Robert Eaker. The PLC is a collaborative team that is guided by four questions focused on improved student learning: What are student learning targets? What is the evidence that students are learning? What will we do for those students who are struggling? What will we do for those students who exceed our areas of identified mastery?

PLCs establish explicit and prioritized expectations and outcomes for how collaborative time is to be used.

Specific use of time includes: unit review and refinement; establishing agreement on learning targets and common assessments; establishing agreement on vertical alignment of curriculum and scope and sequence; looking at student work; analyzing data to improve student learning; developing interventions for students who are struggling and developing extensions for students who excel; evaluating the quality of assessment

WASC REPORT PG 105

Integration Among Disciplines

tasks; reviewing and/or using new resources (e.g., texts, technology, media); developing strategies to support new or ongoing school programs (e.g., reader/writers’ workshop); and engaging in professional development as directed by PLC goals (e.g., introduction of new ideas, processes, strategies, and challenge to existing dispositions).

SAS should continue to develop systems to determine the consistency and efficacy of these practices and this is an area for ongoing attention. An example of a tool to help this is a recent survey that was administered in the high school, which provided information regarding implementation and identified needs for future support.

Policies — Rigorous, Relevant, Coherent Curriculum SAS has policies in place for each division to communicate procedures and expectations regarding curriculum.

These are found in the primary school, intermediate school, middle school and high school faculty handbooks.

Additionally, expectations around delivering a guaranteed and viable curriculum have been identified through one of the six institutional commitments and is described in the rubric that will be the basis of the new appraisal system.

Currently SAS is undergoing an extensive research and development initiative, examining best practices in innovative schools around the world. As part of this process, these policies will undergo examination and revision accordingly.

Articulation and Follow-up Studies SAS attempts to follow up with alumni, feeder schools, and colleges and universities. As part of follow up with alumni, SAS high school counselors survey former students. It is difficult to maintain valid contacts due to changes in email addresses, however this year, 70 students completed the survey, which is a response rate of about 30%. Each year Naviance is used to survey current freshmen about their experiences in high school.

About two-thirds of the freshmen recently completed the survey, a higher response rate than usual. As part of the research for the research and development initiative, more than 100 college admissions officers were engaged in examining the SAS program and identifying desired exit outcomes. When asked what was the biggest distinguisher between students beyond the traditional data points of GPA, APs, SATs, and rigor of course selection, the answers could be summarized in this way: colleges want students who have pursued deep intellection exploration in an area of passion. This information was used to directly inform the vision and the identification of the DSLOs. As SAS continues to evolve in its programs and student expectations as a result of the research and development processes, it will be essential to develop means of articulating the rationale for and implication of changes to feeder schools and colleges and universities.

B2. HOW STUDENTS LEARN Research-Based Knowledge Professional learning is highly valued and systemic at SAS. As part of the subject area renewal cycle, determinations are made regarding professional learning requirements as a result of changes in curriculum and instructional practices. For example, as a result of the RLA review, readers’ and writers’ workshop was implemented and resources were and continue to be dedicated to professional learning through Columbia Teachers’ College. In addition to subject area professional learning, ongoing work takes place in all divisions around areas such as assessment, technology integration, and operating effectively as a PLC. As described in Chapter 4 Category A, SAS has established a process to support innovation. In the Office of Learning budget, S$95,000 was allocated to support innovation within PLCs. Grant funds can be used for consultations with experts (virtually or on-site), the purchase of professional or classroom resources, participation in external workshops or conferences, the purchase of software or hardware, or other areas that advance development. In addition to these funds, the chief advancement officer and superintendent have funds that can be used for programs or events. For example, the advancement office supported the purchase of robotics equipment for the high school robotics team. The superintendent supported bringing Buck Institute of Education to SAS for three days of in-service on project-based learning.

Planning Processes SAS uses a unit planning template based on Understanding by Design principles. Within that context, assessments are aligned to standards and outcomes. Rubrics and other assessment tools are designed to provide information to students regarding their achievement of the outcomes. Formative assessment opportunities are built into every unit. As part of the PLC process, formative assessment results are discussed.

This is an area for continued development. PowerTeacher is the instrument that is used to provide online information regarding grades to date for students in middle school and high school. It provides information regarding formative and summative assessments. Information regarding standards-based assessment practices is available on the SAS website.

Professional Collaboration PLCs examine curricular design and discuss appropriate instructional strategies. An example of this is viewing videos of practices in action and then discussing them. PLCs engage in professional development as directed

by PLC goals (e.g., introduction of new ideas, processes, strategies, and challenge to existing dispositions).

In addition to the PLC framework, departments examine curricular approaches and instructional design as part of the subject area renewal process. Examples of this include the math specialists in international schools institutes which aim to develop math leaders in the kindergarten through grade eight program; collaboration with Columbia Teachers’ College with the implementation of readers’ and writers’ workshops; focus on the character DSLO in middle school physical education; developing understanding around best practice using modeling in high school science and math classes; and examining learning applications utilizing technology.

Professional Development School-wide and divisional professional learning provide significant opportunities for staff to remain current in 21st century content and practices. As described in Chapter 4 Category A, SAS has a robust professional development program. SAS recognizes the importance of lifelong professional learning through self-directed learning; professional learning communities (PLCs); professional learning networks; internal, (literacy, math, and instructional) and external coaches; conferences, workshops, courses, and institutes; and on-site master’s degree programs.

The term “professional learning” means a comprehensive, differentiated, and sustained approach to improving teacher and administrator effectiveness in optimizing student learning and achievement. Areas of focus for professional learning include school-wide learning within the strategic plan for student learning; learning related to student learning targets and results based on school curriculum; learning aligned to the student learning strategic plan, but unique to the division and/or department; and individual goals aligned to one or more of these three areas.

Guidelines for professional development have been adapted from Learning Forward (formerly National Staff Development Council) and Becoming a Learning School by Joellen Killion and Patricia Roy (2009). A review was conducted during 2012-13 to inform this work. Results of the review were incorporated into the professional learning handbook.

Technological Integration

Technology tools allow for greater personalization and differentiation as well as developing a wide range of technology related skills. Starting in grade three, all students have a dedicated device and in the 2014-15 school year, the one-to-one program will begin in grade one. Personalized devices allow students and teachers to use technology to support and enhance their learning in authentic and relevant ways. Starting in grade two, students create an individual blog to document and reflect on their learning. The blog also provides relevant context to develop technology skills and DSLOs. Technology integration is documented in UbD unit planners and is aligned to NETS and DSLOs. Evidence of Results based upon Challenging Learning Experiences The purpose of conducting the self-study with a focus on the DSLOs was to determine the degree to which students are currently demonstrating critical and creative thinking, problem solving, knowledge attainment, and application skills. The findings of the self-study reveal that although there are many examples of where students are asked to perform at higher levels of Bloom’s, explicit teaching and assessing of these skills is limited. Several areas of growth related to this have been identified; see Chapter 4 Category B for more information.

WASC REPORT PG 107

Technology is integrated in meaningful ways across the curriculum from the early childhood years through grade 12. Teachers work with educational technology coaches to develop experiences for students that embed technology skills into all curricular areas and to specifically support DSLOs. Teachers receive ongoing professional development to support their use of technology and technology integration.

Student Understanding of Performance Levels SAS publishes curricular standards and outcomes on its website. Each course of study outlines expectations for students within the course or grade level. With a focus on standards-based assessment, the opportunity to receive feedback on formative assessments, and the move to standards-based grading, students are increasingly well-versed in expectations and performance criteria. Rubrics defining performance levels are utilized across the school.

Student Perceptions SAS continues to develop coherence and clarity around performance as defined by attainment of the standards and outcomes. The move to standards-based assessment and grading is making this more explicit for students. Rubrics are used extensively across all divisions to make explicit levels of performance, as demonstrated by examples from reading and language arts, social studies, and science.

Students providing feedback to teachers is an area that is sporadic because at this time it is up to the individual teacher to request the information. To approach this more systematically, SAS is piloting an online student survey tool called YouthTruth. This tool will be piloted by a group of teachers in the intermediate school, middle school, and high school during April 2014. If successful, use of this tool will be expanded in 2014-15 with full implementation by 2015-16.

Student Needs Part of the work of the PLC is to establish agreement on learning targets and common assessments; they also look at student work and analyze data to improve student learning, develop interventions for students who are struggling, and develop extensions for students who excel. By sharing instructional strategies that have proven to be effective, student learning improves. An example of an instructional approach where teachers are developing a level of expertise is in the explicit teaching of the math Common Core practice standards.

In addition, other examples include the ongoing work associated with readersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and writersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; workshops and the use of proficiencies to clarify expectations for students in the world language programs. With the move to daily world language in primary school and intermediate school, students are expected to gain interpersonal communication proficiency. Students are able to articulate their progress and use technology to reflect and assess their skills.

Student Use of Resources Students and teachers at SAS are able to utilize a multitude of resources in order to best facilitate learning.

In addition to textbooks, there are multiple resources employed in order for students to meet curricular expectations.

Technology across the school is widespread and accessible by all learners. All middle school and high school students have a laptop. As explained in the SAS device and use continuum and the actions and recommendations for 2013-14, at the start of the 2014-15 academic year all grades from one to twelve will have a one-to-one computing model. Grades one and two will use school-owned and managed iPads, grades three through five will be school-owned/family-managed iPads, grades six through eight will be school-owned MacBook Air with a technology fee, and grades nine through twelve will remain BYOD (bring your own device).

Kindergarten classes will be provided with one device for every two students. As an example of personalized learning, a parent may be requested to install a particular app on an iPad in order to better meet the learning needs of their child. In addition, there is a range of apps recommended for student and teacher use.

Students are off campus routinely for field trips to supplement and extend learning, service learning, and performances. The middle school Classroom Without Walls program extends student learning beyond experiences they can gain at school. The primary goal is for students to build positive relationships, trust, and cooperation with their peers and teachers by facing unique challenges and experiences outside of the classroom. Through these challenges and experiences, students will be given opportunities to grow as individuals and to build self-esteem. Students will further develop their own environmental awareness and cultural sensitivity through participating in activities specific to each trip. The lessons learned at Classroom Without Walls will support and enhance student learning throughout the rest of the school year. At the high school level, in addition to the annual Interim Semester experience, students may participate in a myriad of learning experiences that reach outside of the school and into the local and global community.

SAS libraries/media centers are well resourced and serve as hubs for learning at SAS. They recently underwent a renewal recommendation process and commendations.

b3.HOW ASSESSMENT IS USED Enhancing assessment literacy and the ability of teachers to create and utilize quality assessment tools and balanced assessment practices is one of the key components of the 2008 strategic plan for learning. Specific actions taken are specified in the assessment strategic plan. Significant progress has been made in the past five years, and in most classes, teacher and student use of assessment is frequent and integrated into the teaching/learning process. Assessment results are the basis for the measurement of each student’s progress toward the DSLOs and curricular standards, regular evaluation, modification, and improvement of curriculum and instructional approaches, and allocation of resources.

For more information regarding assessment practices at SAS, please see Executive Director of Teaching and Learning Jennifer Sparrow.

Appropriate Assessment Strategies Expectations for assessment at the classroom level are clearly defined in the assessment guidelines that were finalized in 2010. These guidelines distinguish between assessment and evaluation (grading), define “common” assessments, and give guidance for quality assessment utilizing five standards of quality assessment identified by the Assessment Training Institute. The second of these guidelines requires clear learning targets, and the third requires appropriate target-method match (i.e., using the correct assessment method for the learning targets identified). Additionally, the guidelines describe a balanced assessment approach that requires appropriate use of assessment as learning (self-assessment), assessment for learning (formative assessment), and assessment of learning (summative assessment).

Although the use of appropriate assessment strategies will always remain a work in progress, most disciplines across all divisions have suitable assessment practices in place. Examples of these assessments can be found in the unit plans uploaded into Atlas Rubicon.

Basis for Determination of Performance Levels SAS has developed performance standards for every division. These performance standards are used to determine the degree to which students achieve the curricular standards. The elementary divisions have report card guidelines and core classroom guides that clearly outline expectations for teachers in terms of grading and reporting.

In addition to clear guidelines regarding assessment and grading, PLCs use common rubrics and scoring guides to ensure consistency of grading by teachers of the same subject at the same grade level.

Demonstration of Student Achievement Examination and evaluation of student work demonstrates that students are achieving the curricular standards established by SAS as described in Chapters 1 and 3. PLCs also calibrate their expectations by selecting and referring to anchor papers when scoring. This allows teams of teachers to see the range of work being produced by students and helps improve consistency between teachers of the same subject and/or grade/ course. A next step for SAS is to identify and implement strategies for evaluating achievement in the other DSLOs, including collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence.

Correlation Because SAS uses the Understanding by Design approach to unit development, there is a high degree of correlation of assessments to curricular standards and instructional approaches used. With the move to

WASC REPORT PG 109

The middle school and high school have grading policies that are shared with students and parents through handbooks, course syllabi, and teacher communications. The change in grading practices, particularly at the high school level, requires continuing education for all stakeholders. To support the shifts in grading, a standards-based grading Google site has been developed to share not only the policies, but research to support the changes taking place. Additionally, the high school administration has regularly gathered data about the impact changes are making to students’ grades and GPA. At the end of the first semester, results indicated that “A” grades (A+, A) were 48%, which is comparable to the 49% of “A” grades last year (A+, A, A-). Last year “B” grades given (B+, B, B-) consisted of 37% of all grades; this year is it is 41% (B+, B). There were 60 “F” grades last year, and this year there was only one. Overall, GPA has increased from 3.52 to 3.56.

standards-based grading in the middle school and high school, this has been re-emphasized. PLCs at these levels are asked to review their common assessments to ensure they are measuring the essential learning outcomes the PLC has identified. While this remains a work in progress (particularly as learning targets are reviewed, revised, and refined), many examples can be found in Atlas Rubicon for all disciplines in all divisions.

Modifications/Decisions based on Assessment Data The collection, analysis, and use of data is one of the components of the assessment strategic plan. Data is utilized in a variety of ways at SAS. Classroom teachers analyze data about individual students to inform instructional practices. Professional learning communities analyze data from common assessments to identify students who need support or extension, as well as areas where they can accelerate (because most students already know the targets) or they need to remediate (because most students did not achieve an identified target). Division administration and counselors use data to inform decisions about students needing support or extension and to identify areas of professional development for faculty. School-wide administration uses data to inform decisions about resources and professional development. This is evidenced through the annual report on student learning (which this year is Chapter 1 of the WASC self-study) and the use of data during the curriculum renewal process (described in B1 above).

Although significant progress has been made in this area since the 2008 self-study, data use is still periodic instead of an integral component of the teaching-learning cycle. The implementation of the EDmin data dashboard should help make data more readily accessible to administrators and faculty. Professional learning community leaders will need to continue to receive training in protocols to use while analyzing data to ensure results are being examined critically and appropriately.

Student Feedback As described in the SAS assessment guidelines, teachers are expected to provide timely, specific formative feedback (in the form of assessment for learning) to students. In most disciplines at most grade levels, students regularly receive feedback around their accomplishment of core knowledge as identified through curricular standards. Technology tools like Teacher Dashboard and Turnitin.com have made this process more efficient. As indicated in Chapter 4 Category B, this is not common for the remaining DSLOs. Developing feedback loops for these DSLOs will be a critical area of focus moving forward.

Teacher Monitoring Teachers monitor student progress individually and collectively. Individually, teachers use rubrics and scoring guides, both of which are based on curricular standards, to inform decisions about whether learning targets have been achieved. Examples of rubrics and scoring guides can be found in Atlas Rubicon. To promote consistency of interpretation between teachers of the same discipline and/or grade/course, faculty adhere to established performance standards and, in the elementary school, core classroom guides. As a PLC, teachers calibrate expectations by examining student work samples. They also examine assessment results to determine which students are not achieving expectations and which students have already mastered expectations.

Conclusions Since the 2008 self-study, SAS faculty and administration have expended significant effort in the area of assessment. Although assessment practice will always remain a work-in-progress, a high level of assessment literacy exists across the organization. There is ample evidence of the use of quality assessment tools and balanced assessment practices to measure student progress and inform decision-making.

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Areas of Strength 1.SAS provides a comprehensive and sequential documented curriculum for the preschool through grade 12 experience.

2.All curriculum is standards-based, aligned to the most current recommendations of professional associations in the United States, and collaboratively developed with faculty to ensure appropriate challenge and rigor.

3.SAS provides a wealth of resources for learning beyond the limits of the textbook including technology, library/media resources, and community resources.

4.SAS has institutionalized professional learning communities (PLCs) throughout all divisions.

5.SAS has implemented standards-based assessment throughout the divisions.

6.Professional learning is highly valued and systemic at SAS. 7.SAS has established a process to support innovation.

8.School-wide and divisional professional learning provide significant opportunities for staff to remain current in 21st century content and practices.

9.A high level of assessment literacy exists across the organization, resulting in the use of quality assessment tools and balanced assessment practices to measure student progress and inform decision-making.

10.Assessment, grading, and reporting guidelines have established clear expectations for professional practice.

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment Areas of Growth 1.The Office of Learning needs to evolve the curriculum documentation process in order for it to be as userfriendly as possible within the need for school-wide curricular integrity.

2.SAS should continue to develop systems to determine the consistency and efficacy of PLCs. 3.As SAS continues to evolve in its programs and student expectations as a result of the research and development processes, it will be essential to develop means of articulating the rationale for and implication of changes to feeder schools as well as colleges and universities.

4.SAS needs to develop a mechanism for regularly gathering student perception data.

5.SAS needs to identify and implement strategies for evaluating achievement in the other DSLOs, including collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, and cultural competence.

6.To support the shifts in grading, parent and student education efforts need to continue to raise awareness of the implications of new policies, as well as the research to support the changes taking place.

WASC REPORT PG 111

7.PLC leaders need to continue to receive training in protocols to use to analyze data to ensure results are being examined critically and appropriately.

Appendix B

Research and Development

In 2012-13, SAS developed a research and development (R&D) strategy to plan for the future. This strategic approach to the future direction of the school aims to identify what SAS needs to continue doing, and what needs to change to meet students’ needs more effectively.

Throughout the 2012-13 school year, 22 high school faculty and administrators visited more than 30 schools in the United States, Finland, and Singapore. Additionally, the team spoke with college admissions officers, consulted educational research, and engaged in discussions about the future of education. Some of the schools visited in the US include Avenues World School, High Tech High, Thomas Jefferson (DC), and Illinois Math & Science Academy. These schools ranged from public to private and large to small.

At the end of the school year, the team presented its findings to the leadership team, the board, and the high school faculty. Eight themes were identified as crucial to the development of a relevant and world leading school. Leading schools had elements of some or all of these themes. These themes include: • Relationships: Building relationships with students through systematic advisory programs; • Personalized Learning: Establishing opportunities for students to pursue individual passions and interests; • Relevant and Deep Learning: Focusing on teaching students to problem-solve and produce, rather than consume information, through relevant pedagogical approaches including interdisciplinary studies and project-based learning; • Global and local connections: Fostering global citizenship connected to local and global communities; • DSLOs (desired student learning outcomes): Defining and explicitly addressing purposeful school-wide learning outcomes; • Technology: Using technology to maximize learning; • Spaces: Building purposeful innovative learning spaces to facilitate 21st century learning; and • School Culture: Actively and unapologetically developing and pursuing strong school culture.

Out of this research group, an eight-member high school development team was formed to review the information gathered on the research trips and make recommendations for the future of the high school. This proposal will be shared at the end of the 2013-14 school year with the faculty, board, and leadership team.

Recent updates to the board indicate that personalized learning is the foundation from which all other themes will be developed.

The research phase also extended to the middle school and elementary school in 2013-14. Twenty faculty and administrators were identified in each division to visit innovative schools in the US, Australia, and New Zealand.

Three trips took place through the school year and the teams will continue to review research while using the themes identified by the high school to guide their process. Each research group will present to their findings to their respective divisions at the end of the academic year.

WASC REPORT PG 113

Moving forward, development teams will also be established in both the middle school and elementary school for 2014-15. These subgroups of the research teams will also review the information gathered in 201314 and plan next steps. Additionally, a group of early childhood center educators will embark on researching innovative programs in preschool and pre-kindergarten education during the 2014-15.

SINGAPORE AMERICAN SCHOOL

40 WOODLANDS STREET 41 SINGAPORE 738547 PHONE: (65) 6363 3403 WEB: WWW.SAS.EDU.SG CPE Registration Number: 196400340R Registration Period: 22 June 2011 to 21 June 2017 Accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)