Green Bay High School Annual Report 2009  2008
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Green Bay High School Annual Report 2009 2008

on

  • 655 views

annual report

annual report

Statistics

Views

Total Views
655
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
654
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.docshut.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Green Bay High School Annual Report 2009  2008 Green Bay High School Annual Report 2009 2008 Document Transcript

    • Green Bay High School Science Department Annual report 2009 (2008)
    • Level 1 NCEA Science Results Analysis 2009 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 39.9 39.1 42.3 35.4 38.1 33.6 achieved achieved 44 42.1 44 40.7 48.3 45.7 merit 11.1 14.6 11.3 17.8 11.3 15.6 excellence 5 4.2 2.4 6 2.3 5.1 Comparative Results Level 1 NCEA Science 2009 50 45 40 35 30 not achieved 25 achieved 20 merit 15 excellence 10 5 0 2007 GB 2007 Nat 2008 GB 2008 Nat 2009 GB 2009 Nat Comments 2009 (2008) We have a larger ” not achieved” tail compared with decile 8 national results. We experience difficulty in allocating students to appropriate programmes. The limited number of year 11 classes is a factor here.
    • Level 2 NCEA Chemistry Results Analysis 2009 level 2 chemistry 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 48.5 32.2 32.1 31.3 40.6 28.9 achieved achieved 31.4 37.8 46.8 39.4 41.4 38.3 merit 16 22.6 18.3 20.8 15.8 22.7 excellence 4.1 7.4 2.8 8.6 2.3 10.1 Comparative results Level 2 Chemistry 2009 50 45 40 35 30 not achieved 25 achieved merit 20 excellence 15 10 5 0 2007 GB 2007 Nat 2008 GB 2008 Nat 2009 GB 2009 Nat Comments 2009 (2008) There is a large “not achieved” tail that impacts on the overall picture. Many students would benefit from a level 2 NCEA science programme. We need to push this as an option for next year.
    • Level 3 NCEA Chemistry Results analysis 2009 level 3 chemistry 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 40.7 33.3 41.1 29.8 23 33.6 achieved achieved 42.4 43.8 30.1 40.5 41 37.1 merit 16.9 17 23.3 21.3 31.1 21.8 excellence 0 5.9 5.5 8.4 4.9 7.4 Comparative Results Level 3 Chemistry 2009 45 40 35 30 not achieved 25 achieved 20 merit 15 excellence 10 5 0 2007 GB 2007 Nat 2008 GB 2008 Nat 2009 GB 2009 Nat Comments 2009 (2008) Level 3 chemistry results compare very favourably with national decile 8 figures. The “Not Achieved” tail is relatively small with a significant bulge in merit results. By the time students reach Level 3 at GBHS they are performing above the decile 8 national average
    • Level 2 NCEA Biology Results Analysis 2009 level 2 Biology 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 46.9 31.4 38 35.3 11.6 17.8 achieved achieved 34.6 44.4 44.5 43.8 32.1 33.4 merit 14 19.4 16.1 15.6 27.7 24.1 excellence 4.5 4.7 1.5 5.4 20.5 20.9 Comparative Results Level 2 Biology 2009 50 45 40 35 30 not achieved 25 achieved 20 merit 15 excellence 10 5 0 2007 GB 2007 2008 GB 2008 2009 GB 2009 Nat Nat Nat Comments 2009 (2008) Level 2 Biology students achieved at or above the national average. Excellent results.
    • Level 3 NCEA Biology Results Analysis 2009 level 3 Biology 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 32.9 34.7 44.7 34.7 31.9 33.3 achieved achieved 48.7 45.5 41.2 45 40.8 41.4 merit 15.8 16.1 10.6 17.3 22 18.9 excellence 2.6 3.7 3.5 3.1 5.2 6.4 Comparative Results Level 3 Biology 2009 50 45 40 35 30 not achieved 25 achieved 20 merit 15 excellence 10 5 0 2007 GB 2007 2008 GB 2008 2009 GB 2009 Nat Nat Nat Comments 2009 (2008) Level 3 biology students are achieving at or above national averages. Excellent results
    • Level 2 NCEA Physics Results Analysis 2009 level 2 physics 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 45.1 37.4 32.5 32.9 43.9 29.3 achieved achieved 37.5 38.5 46.5 39.3 43.2 43.4 merit 16 18.4 20.9 20.2 12.1 20.6 excellence 1.4 5.7 0 7.6 0.8 6.8 Comparative Results Level 2 Physics 2009 50 45 40 35 30 not achieved 25 achieved 20 merit excellence 15 10 5 0 2007 GB 2007 Nat 2008 GB 2008 Nat 2009 GB 2009 Nat Comments 2009 (2008) Students are achieving at level 2 but some work is still needed at the merit and excellence level. There is a large tail of students who are not achieving.
    • Level 3 NCEA Physics Analysis 2009 level 3 Physics 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2009 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 25 30.1 37.3 31.4 31.7 26 achieved achieved 62.5 49 45.8 42.2 46.3 48.8 merit 6.3 16.3 15.3 18.2 17.1 17.7 excellence 6.3 4.6 1.7 8.2 4.9 7.5 Comparative Results Level 3 Physics 2009 70 60 50 not achieved 40 achieved 30 merit 20 excellence 10 0 2007 GB 2007 Nat 2008 GB 2008 Nat 2009 GB 2009 Nat Comments 2009 (2008) Level 3 physics students are achieving at the decile 8 national average. Merit and excellence results are very pleasing.
    • Discussion 2009 (2008) When students leave GBHS after taking level 3 external exams their performance is above the decile 8 average. This year’s level 3 contain the first students to benefit from the introduction of data projectors and interactive boards to the Science department. We feel that access to web based resources and improved pedagogy has benefited our students. The focus on literacy and examination technique has helped to improve excellence statistics. Factors that impact on level 2 results include a lack of alternative science courses for those students who find the rigors of level 2 individual sciences too hard. Paul Warren is developing a level 2 program this year to follow on from the 01SCC course, however another level 2 academic science course would be helpful in reducing this tail at level 2. To help remove the tail at level 1 we need to be firmer in directing students into appropriate courses, however an SCC class was dissolved and those students absorbed into level1 science and other SCC classes. Results are still being negatively affected by removal from class for sport and other activities. Any loss of class time by individuals should be avoided as much as possible. Developments 2009 (2008) In the junior department we have trialed topics and schemes of work to implement the new curriculum realignment. Increasing numbers of junior students are getting hands on experience of Science in the 9Bio option course which has been successfully expanded to fit the half year option structure. In 2008 a large number of students were exposed to a short single term introduction to forensics. In 2009 the options were expanded to half year courses and although fewer students took the subject, the content of the course was expanded to included a genetics and health component. This coincides with courses offered by the Liggins institute. This gave students valuable hands on experience of science in context and the use of equipment not ordinarily available . They were also able to meet and talk with scientists about the latest research. Students benefit from the extra science teaching by gaining skills in experimental method, practical uses of science and science learning in an authentic context.
    • Our professional development day with John Bennett allowed us to develop pedagogy and investigate the use of ICT . Although work was focused on the junior end of the curriculum, teachers were encouraged to extend this into their senior teaching. The need for improved access to computers in the classroom and other ICT equipment was identified, We do compensate by encouraging students to use mobile phones in class and bring their own laptops to school. This does bring other issues to the fore that the school may need to address. The introduction of the LENScience lectures on Thursday afternoons were well received by year 13 students and put their learning into a real life context. Liggins have invited us to be part of a pilot study into integrating the lastest research into a unit of work for year 10 students. We have been helping to plan the unit and to produce the books and worksheets for students. This will be provided to us in 2010 along with access for our top year 10 students to practical work at the Liggins institute. The introduction of top year 9 and 10 classes has been well received by staff. Although the plan to have 1001 and 1005 sit external Science exams at the end of the year did not work out, students were given a thorough grounding in physics and chemistry and this has allowed us to offer them an intensive programme at level 1 2010. The introduction of the bottom classes has also helped improve the standard of the mid band classes????? The students in the bottom classes are getting the type of work that they are capable of achieving and at the speed at which they are capable of understanding.
    • Green Bay High School Science Department Annual report 2008
    • Level 1 NCEA Science Results Analysis 2008 Comparative results for level 1 Science 50 40 not achieved 30 achieved 20 merit 10 excellence 0 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 33.7 36.3 39.9 39.1 42.3 35.4 achieved achieved 49.3 44.8 44 42.1 44 40.7 merit 15.3 14.9 11.1 14.6 11.3 17.8 excellence 1.7 4 5 4.2 2.4 6 Comments Our Achievement figures are satisfactory however there is still room for improvement in the Merit and Excellence grades. The high number of Not Achieved grades is a reflection of a policy that prevents students from being withdrawn from standards. A large number of these students were doing an inappropriate course due to the small number of classes available for the 01SCC course. The school wide target for credits is unreasonable in Science as the number of standards available relative to the time limit and size of classes means that only 18 credits maximum can be offered.
    • Level 2 NCEA Chemistry results Analysis 2008 Comparative Results for Level 2 Chemistry 60 50 40 not achieved 30 achieved 20 merit 10 excellence 0 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 38.1 36.5 48.5 32.2 32.1 31.3 achieved achieved 57.1 37.9 31.4 37.8 46.8 39.4 merit 4.8 18 16 22.6 18.3 20.8 excellence 0 7.7 4.1 7.4 2.8 8.6 Comments In general these results are reflective of the national profile. Further work to be done on shifting students from achieved to merit and excellence.
    • Level 3 NCEA Chemistry Results Analysis 2008 Comparative Results for Level 3 Chemistry 50 40 30 not achieved 20 achieved merit 10 excellence 0 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 40.6 35.5 40.7 33.3 41.1 29.8 achieved achieved 46.9 40.3 42.4 43.8 30.1 40.5 merit 9.4 18.4 16.9 17 23.3 21.3 excellence 3.1 5.8 0 5.9 5.5 8.4 Comments Merit and excellence results reflect national averages however the number of achieved results was skewed by the non-removal of students who were struggling to cope with this course.
    • Level 2 NCEA Biology Results Analysis 2008 Comparative Results Level 2 Biology 50 40 not achieved 30 achieved 20 merit 10 excellence 0 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 46.9 31.4 46.9 31.4 38 35.3 achieved achieved 34.6 44.4 34.6 44.4 44.5 43.8 merit 14 19.4 14 19.4 16.1 15.6 excellence 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.7 1.5 5.4 Comments These results reflect the national profile although there is still room to improve on the excellence results.
    • Level 3 NCEA Biology Results Analysis 2008 Level 3 Biology Comparative Results 50 40 30 not achieved 20 achieved merit 10 excellence 0 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 37.5 33.6 32.9 34.7 44.7 34.7 achieved achieved 50 48.5 48.7 45.5 41.2 45 merit 8.3 13.7 15.8 16.1 10.6 17.3 excellence 4.2 4.2 2.6 3.7 3.5 3.1 Comments This cohort had a number of students who were struggling with the level three science and we were not able to follow through on recommendations to remove them from these standards.
    • Level 2 NCEA Physics Results Analysis 2008 level 2 Physics Comparative Results 50 40 30 not achieved 20 achieved merit 10 excellence 0 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 45.1 37.4 45.1 37.4 32.5 32.9 achieved achieved 37.5 38.5 37.5 38.5 46.5 39.3 merit 16 18.4 16 18.4 20.9 20.2 excellence 1.4 5.7 1.4 5.7 0 7.6 Comments Entry requirements restricted entry into this course which reduced the number of not achieved grades to national average. Work is still required to move students from achieved to merit and excellence.
    • Level 3 NCEA Physics Results Analysis 2008 Level 3 Physics Comparative Results 70 60 50 40 not achieved 30 achieved 20 merit 10 excellence 0 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 GB Nat GB Nat GB Nat not 25 32.3 25 30.1 37.3 31.4 achieved achieved 60 44.8 62.5 49 45.8 42.2 merit 15 18.1 6.3 16.3 15.3 18.2 excellence 0 4.8 6.3 4.6 1.7 8.2 Comment These results fit the national profile.
    • Discussion and Developments 2008 Discussion 2008 As a department we feel that the reduction of student contact time with the move from five to six subjects is still having a negative affect on our results. There is a lot of course content that needs to be covered in science before the application of this knowledge can be practiced and examination techniques acquired. Winter and summer sports weeks, other sport trips, production and some internal assessment activities do have a negative impact on our top end academic results. For instance I can track student results to the impact a week out of school for sport had on a particular achievement standard. This trend continues into 2009. A high performing year 12 student has already asked to limit the number of achievement standards taken in a senior science course because she is struggling to perform to her maximum in all areas of her life. Developments 2008 The success of the year 9 forensics course as a vehicle for exposing students to a wider range of science activities has been expanded in 2009 to a half year course which will include a health component and field trip to Liggins Institute to expose student to the latest research. There are also opportunities to include career education with health professionals possible being invited to give talks to students. Planning in 2008 and 2009 has resulted in the opportunity to offer two NCEA standards to the two top year 10 classes. This will lead to an extended year 11 program for these students to give them a broader knowledge of basic science with the aim to improve merit and excellence grades in years 12 and 13. Timetabling issues will need to be resolved in 2009 / 2010. Meetings have been held with a local intermediate school towards the end of 2008 with the intention of offering science activities with a string curriculum focus to the local primary and intermediate schools (Titrangi Primary, Kaurilands Primary, Glen Eden Intemediate) and to offer professional develop to intermediate and primary teachers in the Science area. A number of outside speakers have been invited into the science department to talk to students to broaden their knowledge of possible careers opportunities within the science area. The science blog continues to be developed to offer links not only to academic help sites but also to careers opportunities. Rob Duff was successful in gaining a Royal Society Fellowship with Genesis Energy. He will bring additional expertise and enthusiasm back into the department. The year nine schemes of work have been rewritten to align with the new curriculum, to be introduced in 2009. Units of work to include inquiry learning and differentiation have been
    • written and trialled with some year 10 classes. Further development of these units will continue in 2009.