Jakarta Intercultural School (Pattimura Elementary)

  1. PLC Story
  2. PLC Practices
  3. Achievement Data
  4. Awards
  5. Resources

Jakarta Intercultural School, JIS, (formerly Jakarta International School), began in 1951 and has flourished into a dynamic international school during the past sixty four years. Its rich history started from a small garage in the diplomatic suburbs of Jakarta to ultimately becoming three campuses serving nearly 2650 students from over sixty countries. Two separate elementary divisions are now housed in the Pattimura (PEL) and Pondok Indah (PIE) campuses, while middle and high school students use the Cilandak (CIL) campus.

JIS is truly an International School; with a diverse student and faculty population and a curriculum developed from the best research around the globe. Students, parents, and employees routinely refer to the “spirit of internationalism” found at JIS. A powerful example of this was shared during the 2013 WASC-CIS preliminary visit.  A visiting member shared a conversation with a student about his experiences at the school, “One word to describe JIS would be international-it broadens your perspective culturally and in all other aspects it changes your perception about how to deal with life.”

Pattimura Elementary (PEL) is one of two elementary campuses serving Early Childhood through Grade Five students. It has had a stable leadership team for nine years. The Principal, Vice Principal and the campus Learning Coach collaboratively supervise, evaluate and develop each PEL collaborative team. The current enrolment is 384 students, 32 nationalities and 42 teaching faculty. The Elementary School comprises EC1 to Grade 5. The Early Childhood Program (EC1&2) serves children aged three to five. Bridging our EC program to the primary years is Kindergarten. The Elementary School operates with an overall 10:1 teacher-student ratio.  

As JIS supports a range of different learning styles, we offer support for the learning differences found in large groups of children. Much time, study, and implementation has been devoted to this area since the 2002 accreditation visit. The Student Support Team (SST) employs professionals from many diverse backgrounds including, but not limited to, Counselors, Speech Pathologists, Learning Resource Teachers, English as an Additional Language Teachers and Reading / Math Interventionists and are extensions to our RTI programmes.

Starting PLCs

The PLC journey started for JIS in 2007. A group of 12 administrators travelled to Hawaii in March to attend a 2-day PLC conference with the DuFours. Further administrators headed to other PLC training in Canada. This created a strong guiding coalition that planned the implementation of the PLC process across the school. Austin Buffum was invited and came to speak to the entire Faculty at the start of the 07-08 year, and two full days of PLC training/workshops followed. The PEL grade level schedule was modified to build in up to one 90 minute block of time for dedicated PLC focus per rotation cycle. The schedule evolved from a 5 day schedule to a 6-day and then its current iteration as a 7-day schedule. Also built into the workplace routine is collaborative time for Grade and Specialist teams to focus on “nuts and bolts” type issues, thus protecting the designated collaborative team time from being encroached upon. The schedule became a block schedule and the rotation of Physical Education, Performing Arts, Fine Arts in addition to Indonesian Studies (including Language) which opened 30 mins every day, allowing the blocked release time during the teaching day to be allocated to collaborative team time. The master schedule and examples of each grade level schedule are attached in the resource section.

Each collaborative team bases its set of beliefs on the proposition that every teacher is responsible for the growth of every student in that grade level, regardless of whether or not they are in ones own class. The work of our PLC is explicitly tied to the goals of each collaborative team, and these goals and the Action Research required to actualise them are part of the annual Supervision and Evaluation process. As well as developing avenues to address the four PLC questions, each collaborative team is tasked with focusing upon an interrelated school wide goal.

Each school-wide collaborative team is granted the autonomy to craft and work within a collaboratively agreed upon campus wide goal and measure student progress towards it. Mostly these have been carried out over a two year process allowing the improvement to be fully embedded into the practice and DNA of the school. These campus goals, as well as the ongoing targets, assessments, RTI and adaptations to the curriculum and pedagogy that result are part of ongoing learning conversations between teams and the supervising administrations. During these conversations, links are made to the work of other collaborative teams which may form support or resource networks for the work of others.

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

The goal of each collaborative team meeting is to address the essential PLC questions: What do we want the students to learn? How will we know they have learnt it? What do we do if they haven’t learnt it or knew it already? So with these questions in mind the collaborative team frequently discuss student work and each student’s individual progress towards the essential learnings. Collaborative teams will look at student learning results frequently, both formative and summative, on various timescales. All three stages of the improvement process are discussed and analysed in this way. The things we are trying that are new and are constantly being adjusted based upon students learning; that which needs adaption and refining due to the teacher learning that has taken place upon reflection upon the year before; and the more subtle adjustments made to embedded practice as a result of having a different cohort of students.

Pattimura Elementary collaborative teams monitor student learning both in progress towards shared common assessments of classes within a collaborative team, as progress towards the shared goals, in vertical common assessments within Literacy using the Diagnostic Reading Assessment (DRA) and moderated internal writing benchmarks unit based Mathematics assessments and the externally based assessments of The International Schools Assessment (ISA): Australian Council of Educational Research and The Measures of Academic Progress (MAP).

At the end of each unit assessment in Mathematics student performance in broken down by item and reviewed as either a formative item or summative. Due to the spiraling nature of the curriculum teachers are aware of what students need further support with the next time the cycle comes around, those students that need immediate intervention and those students who appear already to have mastered the formative items.

Results from DRA, ISA & MAP are systematically mined for information that can inform collaborative teams and generate goals for the current year, identify areas of individual and group weaknesses and strengths. Each Standardised Assessment result is triangulated against current student performance so as to ensure that a test effect has not resulted and that there is a consistency of assessment throughout the school. The work that collaborative teams do on moderation and development of common assessments, matched closely to learning goals, has gone a long way to making student learning much more consistent, aligned and of higher quality.

The progress and learning of each - and within each - collaborative team is embedded within the Supervision and Evaluation process of the school where the collaborative action of the team towards a results focused goal are the focus of annual professional conversations with that team. Individual teachers cycle through a supervision and evaluation cycle over 3-4 years but their contributions to the success of the PLC is supervised and evaluated annually.

2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

Using the data from in class summative and formative assessments as well as the information garnered from standardised assessments the four fundamental PLC questions form the basis of teacher work. As teachers teaching at any grade level have the collaborative and shared responsibility for the learning of all the students at their grade level, student progress is discussed frequently.

There are a number of layers to our intervention strategies that are working well to support students who are struggling, students who are maintaining growth and students that learn quickly or already know the work. Although not explicitly refered to in "tier terms" within the school - we we wish intervention to be a seemless natural part of our culture, for the sake of easy description it may be uselful here to descibe our work in these terms.

Tier 1 Intervention:

Firstly there is in class intervention where the class teacher will identify students that require an alteration in strategies at either end of the learning continuum. It is the expectation that any faculty member is able to differentiate readily for a grade above or below the actual grade level. We believe that this is within the scope of our teachers pedagogical repertoire. The members of each collaborative team support each other by offering intervention ideas. Due to the nature of our Inquiry programme and Literacy Workshop individual conferencing and feedback allow for students to tackle subject and conceptual matter from their individual starting points.

External Standardised Assessment tools are used as a way to benchmark at a particular time of the year our students’ progress. Every effort is made to combat the perception that these assessments are high-stakes even though our expectations - those of teachers, students and parents - are that the students will do their very best and take them seriously.

It is our belief that if we have accurately moderated assessments and our teachers are invested in quality feedback loops with students, then these external assessments should confirm what has already been uncovered in the context of the classroom. Generally this is the case. Through triangulating our data we are able to quickly identify outliers to our expectations and a full analysis of why this has occurred takes place within the collaborative team. In these cases, students have achieved better than expected and this will create a dialogue regarding appropriateness of challenge for a particular student  and identifying the student strengths to which we may have been “under-teaching”. Additionally, these external assessments may offer up lower than expected results within specific areas that are challenging for the student. Through professional conversation with peers, teachers determine the most appropriate type of intervention or whether it was “just a bad day” for the student.

Collaboratives team and individual teachers are supported in areas beyond perhaps their degree of specialisation or the three year differentiation spread of a year above or below grade level.

Tier 2 Intervention:

Teachers also have support within their collaborative teams and often teachers recognised strengths in a particular area are shares with the team. This support takes the form of either sharing strategies across teachers or actually spinning classes and regrouping students according to a specific short term need. Teaching Assistants working with small groups; regrouping students to reteach or group according to need; or individual assistance is arranged in a dynamic as required by each collaborative team.

An Intervention Specialist is also available to assist teachers with strategies, be embedded within a class or intervene with individuals or groups on a short term 8 week basis. An additional 8 weeks block can be schedules if the interventions are seen to be having an impact and it is deemed through the collaborative discussion for the Student Support team and the class teachers that there is not a Learning Support issue.  

Our Intervention Specialist focuses his time between predominantly on students at risk, but also allocates time to an advanced of Mathematics students outside the expected differentiated range of the class teachers.

Tier 3 Intervention:

If a student has not been successful at a Tier 1 or 2 intervention they are refered to our Student Support Team (SST). This PLC, consisting of English as an Additional Language Specialists, Learning Support Specialists, an Intervention Specialist, a Speech and Language Pathologist, a Counsellor and a part - time Psychologist meet with the teacher to discuss progress and assess student work and learning dispositions. This collaborative team has two scheduled blocks of meeting time within a cycle. One focusing on their work as a specialist team with professional goals and one focused upon Child Study during which professional dialogue and assessment of student referrals takes place.

If appropriate, an academic assessment is recommended to determine the nature of the learning need and the appropriate level of support. Parent’s are involved in discussion of results and either a Student Accommodation Plan (SAP) or an Individual Learning Plan (ILP) is written.

The SAP outlines classroom accommodations undertaken by the teacher and extended to  a student who is “at risk” but does not have a Diagnosed Learning Need. The ILP is written with clearly expressed and achievable individual learning goals. The ILP is dynamic and goals are adapted, reset, written and measured as students achieve them.

All Tier 2 and 3 interventions happen within the allocated classroom time (usually not encroaching on specialist classes) and can be in class push-in or out of class pullout; individual or group.

By drilling into the data we are able to accurately determine on areas of instruction to target enhanced student growth. Using the assessments as a “Curriculum Audit” in this way, we have in the rare occasion found students who should be referred to our SST team for further analysis or diagnostic assessment. If this happens it is usually with new students, it is extremely rare for a student with specific learning difficulties not to be receiving the appropriate interventions. This is becoming more and more essential as we become a more inclusive school.

3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.

Focused teacher collaboration dedication and belief in the PLC model is at the very heart of our school and has been the single most successful agent of change implemented in the history of the Pattimura Elementary School. Ten years ago PEL was complacently resting on the reputation of JIS as an excellent school although Pattimurra Elementary School’s own key external assessment data, in the form of International Schools Assessment, DRA and our own internal sporadically compiled data, pointed to our students not maximising their potential and a disjointed academic programme.

Bringing the PLC paradigm back to Pattimura Elementary we began with a certain set of beliefs. We believe that:

  • conversations about learning were more significant than conversations about teaching
  • everyone was responsible for the learning of every student
  • learning is a collaborative, social and transformationally exciting enterprise
  • learning is fun

We intentionally recruited teachers with those dispositions at the same time as building these in the faculty that we had.

We recognised we needed to build time into the schedule for teachers to collaborate during the school day, so we changed the structure of the day. The revised schedule allowed each grade level teacher a 90 minute team time per cycle in which student work and data analysis was conducted in a collaborative professional community. Garmston’s work on Adaptive Schools set the tone for Norm Setting and the expectations for collaborative work.

At the beginning of each year, each collaborative team establishes the norms which will guide learning conversations, the Essential Learnings, goal setting and action research. As it is impossible for elementary teachers to focus equally on all subject areas to the same degree at the same time we collaborative established for grade levels foci.

We established a 3 year cycle of school improvement as teachers.

  • Learn New Things - Through PLC work and Action Research we learned and applied our new learning as teachers.  
  • Refine & Introduce - The following year we consolidated all that we had learned in that field, refined our approach as well as introducing a new focus for our action learning.
  • Embed and Change our DNA - by the third year the original action research has become part of our school’s DNA; part of our school culture and just the way of working.

So at any time in the school year we are learning new ways to support student learning in a specific area, refining practice based on the learnings of the the previous year and embedding our learning as the new normal in the culture of our school. Building lasting school improvement is not a quick fix but the result of deliberate action over time.

Our journey for our grade level teachers began with the neediest part of our curriculum, one which we could achieve the greatest results and moved towards more intricate harder to measure areas of our school culture. The sequence was:

  • Mathematic
  • Reading
  • Writing
  • Inquiry Learning
  • Student Dispositions
  • Creating a Culture of Thinking and Making Thinking Visible.
  • Education 3.0

Our subject specialists who teach all grade levels from Early Childhood 3 year olds to Grade 5 focused their action learning on establishing the Essential Learnings collaboratively within their discipline. The specialist areas of Bahasa Indonesia, Fine and Performing Arts and Student Support Services established similar goal foci in their areas of speciality.  A typical, Physical Education focus for example following the Learn, Refine, Embed model would examine a sequence such as swimming, fitness, locomotion, within their curriculum and standard set.

Collaborative teams collaborate to select the Essential Learnings from within their standards sets. As an international school we have selected the standard sets across Early Childhood to Grade 10 that best suit our needs. For example, we use Ontario standards as the basis for our Literacy Programme and is taught using the Columbia Teachers College Literacy Workshop model; Australian standards for Science and we are currently exploring these for Physical Education; US Common Core Standards are used for Mathematics supported by the Everyday Mathematics programme Kg - 5; our Social Studies Standards are a set of integrated school standards developed internally by JIS for an international perspective rather than a state, national or parochial need. The Accelerative Integrated Methodology AIM technique for our Bahasa Indonesia language programme. Our Early Child to Kindergarten programme is inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach to these early years of learning. A very large part of our work is through the use of guided inquiry, either integrated to other disciplines through either explicit content, conceptual, skills or pedagogical integration utilising Visible Thinking techniques. A five unit conceptual learning journey matrix commences each grade levels’ work with a Learning to Learn exploration which shapes the metacognition and strategies that will weave their way the years’ learning (the Learning Journey Matrix is included in the resource section of the evidence).  Unit  In Grades 11 and 12 we use those standards which are outlined and support the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IBDP), Advanced Placement (AP), SAT and ACT assessments.  

As professionals in the field, members of each team examine, review and select the high leverage standards that are appropriate to be Essential Learnings on which the teams focus their work. As part of the introduction and review of curriculum we also identify the high leverage Essential Learnings. When these have been identified they remain in place although reviewed each year to confirm whether they are still relevant and adjusted or new sets identified if not.

We have found in recent years that our students are regularly achieving 1 to 2 grade levels above the norm of our Standardised assessments. We have also closed the gap between our bottom performers and our top whilst maintaining our top end performance. At the same time we have become more inclusive with regard to students entering the school. We now accommodate students who are complete beginners it English and increasing numbers of students with mild to moderate learning needs. We have been able to accommodate the intake of these students without seeing a dip in overall scores but more importantly, the vast majority of our students are showing individually a year or more growth regardless of where they individually started their learning journey.

Therefore over the last few years we are now expanding the PLC model into professional conversations that are more difficult to quantify in terms of numerical success. This is particularly in the conceptual areas of Education 3.0 where we are scrutinising the transformative capabilities and practices for our current and ongoing work. We will be achieving our Mission, Vision and Dreams when Students at Jakarta Intercultural School…

...apply new concepts, knowledge and skill to the “real world” through opportunities involving service learning, engagement with Indonesia, organizations and schools around the world.

...develop an inquisitive mindset by exploring the world around them.

... understand the importance of fun, wellness and balance and trefore make wise and informed healthy choices.

...conduct meaningful research, synthesize information and communicate their understanding to a wider audience- making their learning visible.

...use technology with fluency and responsibility in order to explore and test their thinking and then extend their understanding beyond their original expectations.

...reflect on their individual actions and the impact they have on the world around them.

...collaborate with culturally diverse teams from inside and outside the JIS community to explore issues of local and global importance.

...use various forms of feedback to reflect on how they learn and work best, and provide insight to their teachers with regards to their learning.

...are given the opportunity to have fun, foster their creativity, find their passions and develop resilience bo overcoming challenges and difficulties.

The focus of the PLC work going forward will be to focus upon these areas particularly around monitoring students enhanced thinking strategies, personal dispositions and the “world of work” type problem based learning. We believe this to be the next iteration of our highly successful PLC work so far.

International Schools Assessment

International Benchmarked Assessments in:

  • Mathematical Literacy
  • Reading
  • Narrative Writing – Writing A
  • Expositional Writing  - Writing B

The charts below show JIS Pattimura Elementary Schools scaled scores in relation to all other schools that took the assessment worldwide and those with a like demographic of language speakers.  At the start of our PLC journey these results did not look as strong particularly in Mathematics and non fiction writing. The results below are of the last three years which indicate results far beyond those of nine years ago. The impressive change in these results stem from the deliberate and intentional adherence to the principles of Professional Learning Communities.

Grade 3 ISA MATH Percentage

Oct. 2010-

2011

Oct. 2011-

2012

Oct. 2012-

2013

Feb. 2013-

2014

Emerging

12%

4.5%

9.1%

9.8%

Approaching

20%

4.5%

33.3%

24.4%

Proficient

48%

63.6%

39.4%

36.6%

Advance

16%

22.7%

18.2%

17.1%

High Advance

            4%

4.5%

             0%

12.2%

Grade 4 ISA MATH Percentage

Oct. 2012-2013

Feb. 2013-2014

Emerging

                0%               13%

Approaching

29.2%

26.1%

Proficient

45.8%

41.3%

Advance

12.5%

15.2%

High Advance

12.5%

              4.3%

*Grade 4 included in testing regime Oct 2012.

Grade 5 ISA MATH Percentage

Oct. 2010-

2011

Oct. 2011-

2012

Oct. 2012-

2013

Feb. 2013-

2014

Emerging

5.3%

15.4%

5.6%

              0%

Approaching

26.3%

11.5%

27.8%

38.9%

Proficient

21.1%

42.3%

44.4%

30.6%

Advance

36.8%

30.8%

16.7%

            25%

High Advance

10.5%

             0%           5.6%

  5.6%

By comparing scaled scores, JIS Pattimura on the whole scores significantly higher than our norm reference group of schools including those with a similar demographic as JIS and all other schools involved in the assessment globally. A scaled score of 500 is equivalent to a scaled score of 500 in the PISA 15 year olds for Mathematics and Reading.

 

ISA SY 11-12

JIS Pattimura

Elementary Mean

 

All Other Schools

 

Like Schools

Grade 3

Math

334

296

298

Reading

282

247

254

Writing A

387

361

360

Writing B

383

383

383

Grade 5

Math

455

422

430

Reading

423

387

399

Writing A

464

454

459

Writing B

482

461

462

 

ISA SY 12-13

JIS Pattimura

Elementary Mean

 

All Other Schools

 

Like Schools

 

Grade 3

Math

336

321

320

Reading

284

258

262

Writing A

365

362

361

Writing B

397

388

389

 

Grade 4

Math

407

378

368

Reading

361

323

316

Writing A

426

410

408

Writing B

449

427

425

Grade 5

Math

445

428

422

Reading

373

364

365

Writing A

469

457

460

Writing B

474

468

468


ISA SY 13-14

JIS Pattimura

Elementary Mean

 

All Other Schools

 

Like Schools

Grade 3

Math

345

311

307

Reading

330

265

286

Writing A

404

378

383

Writing B

432

409

414

Grade 4

Math

415

373

383

Reading

364

317

344

Writing A

455

412

427

Writing B

471

445

449

Grade 5

Math

469

431

441

 

Reading

416

360

376

 

Writing A

498

460

473

 

Writing B

522

487

494

Everyday Mathematics End of Year Assessment    

 EDM

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

End of Year 2011-2012

94%

84%

88%

85%

90%

End of Year 2012-2013

94%

80%

85%

86%

79%

End of Year 2013-2014

93%

79%

86%

82%

*N/A

* Grade 5 EOY Assessment was substituted for a context / problem based  assessment outside the Everyday Mathematics programme.

  • Mathematics    
  • Reading  
As our school achieves consistently highly in these assessments the breakdown of proficiency are disaggregated by MAP percentile bands to illustrate the achievement areas of our students. Since developing our PLC model across the school we have seen consistent improvements at both the high end and reducing the numbers of students at risk. Please see the resource section for detailed data breakdown for the MAP Assessments.

MAP FALL_SY 2013-2014

 

 

Grade 3

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

       0     8.3

LoAvg %ile 21-40

     10     8.3

Avg %ile 41-60

18.3

  18.3

HiAvg %ile 61-80

     25   28.3

Hi %ile > 80

     43   36.7
Grade 3 

MAP SPRING_SY 2013-2014

 

 

Grade 3

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

      0            7

LoAvg %ile 21-40

7.1

15.8

Avg %ile 41-60

17.9

28.1

HiAvg %ile 61-80

33.9

22.8

Hi %ile > 80

37.5

  6.3

MAP FALL_SY 2014-2015

 

 

Grade 3

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

      0         5.4

LoAvg %ile 21-40

20

        7.3

Avg %ile 41-60

10.9

18.2

HiAvg %ile 61-80

30.9

29.1

Hi %ile > 80

38.2

         40
    

MAP FALL_SY 2013-2014

 

 

     

Grade 4

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

1.7

      6.9

LoAvg %ile 21-40

8.6

        6.9

Avg %ile 41-60

13.8

         19

HiAvg %ile 61-80

34.5

39.7

Hi %ile > 80

41.4

27.6

MAP SPRING_SY 2013-2014

   
     

Grade 4

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

1.6

        4.9

LoAvg %ile 21-40

6.6

 8.2

Avg %ile 41-60

14.8

26.2

HiAvg %ile 61-80

26.2

36.1

Hi %ile > 80

50.8

24.6

MAP FALL_SY 2014-2015

 

 

     

Grade 4

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

6.9

11.3

LoAvg %ile 21-40

1.8

        9.4

Avg %ile 41-60

13.8

         17

HiAvg %ile 61-80

17.2

20.8

Hi %ile > 80

60.3

41.5

                                                                                                                                                                

MAP FALL_SY 2013-2014

   
     

Grade 5

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

1.6

        1.7

LoAvg %ile 21-40

6.7

         10

Avg %ile 41-60

11.7

16.7

HiAvg %ile 61-80

23.3

43.3

Hi %ile > 80

56.7

28.3

 

MAP SPRING_SY 2013-2014

 

 

     

Grade 5

Math

Reading

Lo %ile < 21

1.6

          0

LoAvg %ile 21-40

4.8

9.7

Avg %ile 41-60

16.1

27.4

 

Please see the PDF titled "pel-datadashboard-5342" (in the Resources section) for more data from this Model PLC.

In 2012, representing the combined leadership team’s innovations towards school improvement, the Pattimura Elementary Principal was one of only two internationally based candidates globally to be be honoured with the National Association of Elementary School Principals’ Distinguished Principal of the Year Award. In the nomination, it was stated that,

"while compelled by data and extensive research, (they are...) sensitive to the gestalt of a situation and (the school) incorporates intuitive data into decision-making as well."

Although an individual award, the entire school faculty and leadership team were honored through their collaborative and transformational efforts to establish school improvement through data gathering, collaborative analysis, goal setting and quality constructivist based pedagogy.   

Top