Did our Actions make a difference?

What targeted actions did we take to address our school’s learning focus?	To address our school story focus on literacy, we concentrated on professional learning opportunities and building up our materials for literacy instruction. We continued to examine our literacy instruction by using staff meeting time to reflect on where students were in their reading development and to identify next steps for instruction. In the fall and spring, RFRA and SPARK screeners were administered to collect data, review student progress and adjust instruction accordingly. Teams of teachers were provided with ongoing collaboration time to plan literacy instruction to enhance reading comprehension. Professional learning focused on literacy took place during Professional Development Days and lunch time sessions with our district curriculum consultants. We also purchased a variety of district‑recommended literacy resources, including Literature Circle sets for intermediate students and levelled books and literacy centre materials for primary students, all aligned with curriculum expectations and best practices.
What gap or problem were these actions intended to address? Why was this particular strategy/action chosen?	Our fall reading assessment data indicated that many students required targeted instruction and careful planning to strengthen their use of a range of reading comprehension strategies. In response, our goal for the year was to intentionally design instructional environments that supported students who were developing their literacy skills. Through this focused approach, we aimed to build greater student proficiency in reading comprehension.
What does the evidence tell us so far?	We administered the Richmond Formative Reading Assessment in the Fall and Spring. Making predictions showed the substantial growth: Fall: 36% Emerging; 35% Developing; 30% Proficient Spring: 18% Emerging; 33% Developing; 46% Proficient Making connections showed growth: Fall: 27% Emerging; 39% Developing; 31% Proficient Spring: 16% Emerging; 32% Developing; 48% Proficient Making personal connections requires attention: Fall: 28% Emerging; 33% Developing; 37% Proficient Spring: 23% Emerging; 35% Developing; 39% Proficient Overall, students demonstrated growth in a variety of reading comprehension strategies. A greater percentage of students were developing or proficient across all reading comprehension strategies and fewer students were emerging.
To what extent are the actions making a difference?	We are encouraged by the increased use of reading comprehension strategies across the school. From fall to spring, data showed a decrease in the number of students identified as emerging in reading comprehension, indicating overall growth. This progress suggests that ongoing professional dialogue during staff meetings, collaborative planning time, support from district consultants through lunch‑and‑learn sessions and Pro D days and access to a wide range of literacy resources have positively supported our school’s literacy focus.
How will we move forward accordingly?	Looking forward to the 2026 – 2027 school year, we will continue to: Provide opportunities for professional dialogue in staff meetings Use assessment data to adapt instruction and provide targeted support for students Access support from district staff to examine current instructional practice and how to build it Purchase materials to support literacy growth We can also consider: Targeting specific reading comprehension strategies and aligned instructional practices

Attachments

Fall Spring Cook RFRA Data 2025 2026.pdf

Updated: Monday, June 29, 2026