ILD Meeting Summary March 12th , 2013 C-109 at 3:00 4:30 In attendance: Pat Barrett, Carrie Carlsen, Heather

r Hart, June James, Andrew Holland, Katie Lomax, Kim Gill, Rebecca Oneill, Tammie Stockli, Shelley Simmons, Paula Jamieson, Laurel Cooper, Michael Dumouchelle Overview: This meeting was held for staff to raise any final questions/ concerns about the proposed Integrated Studies. Stefan previously had meetings with the SESM, Math, Science, Social Studies and English departments. Although many questions remain, there was agreement that ILD has the ok to proceed with the pilot. The plan is for ILD to begin this work immediately after spring break. The following questions were raised at this meeting and discussed: 1. How do students feel? Because we want our pilot participants to be randomly chosen so we can have a reasonable basis for comparison we are not planning on giving students a choice about participating at this time. However, if a student really doesnt want to be in the pilot well try to accommodate that. We definitely want the pilot classes to have average SESM size and composition. 2. How will we measure success of the pilot? We have not made final decisions about this but are considering the following: a. Measure the success of our students in grade 10 and beyond somehow (failure rates, dropout rates, graduation rates) b. Assess student success at the end of grade 9 based on core competencies and content. Whatever assessment we come up with should be created in consultation with the relevant departments. c. Attitude survey looking at engagement in school, ownership of learning. d. Discussion with teachers staffing the pilot about the sustainability of the IS without extra preparation time in place (ie. Will it lead to burn-out?) 3. What supports will we have in place to help students transition to a semester system at the end of this 2 year program? We dont know. Our hope is that because the teachers in the program will know their students very well by year two, we will better be able to help them transition to grade 10 by ensuring they are in the right place and are supported. The IS teachers should be in a good position to advocate for these students. 4. What happens to students who are not meeting expectations and still lacking skills at the end of the 2 years? How are we defining mastery? In the worst case scenario they repeat any grade 9 courses in which they have not been successful. Our hope is that there will be fewer students in this predicament because well have more time for intervention. The definition of mastery will be discussed by the IS teaching team as they plan their program and assessments. 5. Will this program be sustainable after the pilot is complete if funding for extra prep is being funded by ILD for the pilot only? Where will funding come from afterwards? Will teachers be able to meet the collaboration goals of this program if this prep is no longer an option?

Our thinking is to provide extra support in the first two years to help the program get established. We have frequently discussed the concern of teacher burnout and plan to monitor this closely. Sustainability of the program is one of the evaluation criteria. 6. What might some potential impacts be on students of teachers who may be teaching outside of their specialist areas? We plan to work with departments to support the teacher in IS. Ideally well look for teachers with training and/or experience in both subjects they are teaching. We will also be working with the Math and English district helping teachers (and possibly others). 7. How will the pilot and potential expansion of this program impact permanent staff in the affected departments? Are there enough permanent returning staff members who are interested in teaching in the program? How is support for the IS program being measured? Is it by teacher interest and desire to participate? There will be a trickle-down effect but we are committed to only staffing IS with volunteer teachers. This will also slightly decrease the flexibility of participating teachers in terms of their scheduling since theyll be committed to IS for two years. 8. Is there research that shows success for having a two-year program that supports our students particularly (inner city, at-risk)? There is a solid research base supporting programs for inner city/ at-risk students which facilitate close and long term relationships between teachers and students. The direction IS takes us is also compatible with Coleen Drobots workshop on building resiliency through attachment. 9. I am concerned with how the support of teachers and departments is being represented by ILD to other departments, and the school as a whole. Teachers who have stated, for example, that they dont mind if someone tries this, as long as it doesnt affect them, is a very different kind of support from yes, lets do it!. I do not think representing a lot of that support as particularly positive or on board is necessarily accurate. I would perhaps rather characterize some of the support for this program as cautious, indifferent, or even resigned to the fact that it is going to happen. Some teachers are very excited about where this is going while others expressed concerns and are feeling cautious. It would have been more accurate to explain that rather than use the word support. It was not our intention to mislead in any way. In every meeting (with departments and today) there were many points of view expressed and ultimately we feel that weve received the ok to move ahead with pilot but were aware that there are concerns. We plan to work hard to address them and to continue to communicate openly about our progress.

Heres the original proposal thats been shared with the whole staff and about which all affected departments were consulted:

Integrated Studies 8 & 9 An ILD Pilot Project for Fall 2013 The GPILD team has been meeting with affected departments to discuss running a pilot Integrated Studies (IS) Program in the fall of 2013. The SESM, English, Science, Social Studies and Math departments have all offered their support for our pilot program. IS 8 & 9 uses the same structure as SESM. The main difference is that its teachers and students are committed to each other for two years. ILD would like two or four SESM classes to run as IS in the fall of 2013. Teachers would volunteer and commit to trying to incorporate some of the following ideas: Piloting the new curriculum which includes fewer detailed PLOs and will allow more focus on competencies and in depth learning. End of grade 9 assessment that shows mastery of core competencies (reading, writing, numeracy, critical thinking, metacognition) and core subject area content Emphasis on authentic performance tasks that frame the learning Offering more student voice/ choice Integrating the SESM courses wherever desirable to promote in-depth understanding of the big picture and all the subjects involved Culture of revision and serious peer critique Kids have the opportunity to focus on a passion (to shine) Some of the authentic tasks contribute to the community Opportunities for critical thinking across the curriculum Teach tools to create more self-regulated learners Of course, many of these ideas are already happening throughout our school. Whats different is a more systematic and supported effort to put them in place. Some possible means of support include: Release time or possibly extra prep time for collaborative planning Various pro-d opportunities A common prep for collaboration Working with Iain Fisher and Chris Hunter Working with Roland Case and the Critical Thinking Consortium An extra teacher for one linear block/ two SESM classes paid for by ILD in the first two years These and further supports will be discussed extensively once a team of IS teachers is in place. Possible Extension In addition, we are open to integration possibilities with other subjects. These would have to work within the current timetable and would rely on volunteer teachers currently teaching Grade 8/9 courses. For example, if an art teacher wanted to work with IS, then the Art and IS teachers could collaborate on some units or projects during the year. If you are interested in collaboration like this, please see Stefan or Andrew ASAP.