##### U.S. Department of Education September 2003

**2003-2004 *No Child Left Behind---Blue Ribbon Schools Program***

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Mr. Gregory N. Woodcock]{.underline}

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other) (As it should appear in the
official records)

Official School Name [Morgantown Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [210 West Cemetery Street PO Box 337]{.underline}

(If address is P.O. Box, also include street address)

[Morgantown KY 42261-0337]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [(270 ) 526-3361]{.underline} Fax [( 270 ) 526-2868]{.underline}

Website/URL [(District)]{.underline}
[www.butler.k12.ky.us](http://www.butler.k12.ky.us/) E-mail
[gwoodcock@butler.k12.ky.us]{.underline}

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge all information is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent [Mr. Larry K. Woods]{.underline}

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

District Name [Butler County School District]{.underline} Tel. [( 270 )
526-5624]{.underline}

I have reviewed the information in this application, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge it is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (Superintendent's
Signature

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson \_\_\_\_[Mr. Gary
Southerland]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_­­\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(Specify: Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr., Mr., Other)

I have reviewed the information in this package, including the
eligibility requirements on page 2, and certify that to the best of my
knowledge it is accurate.

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(School Board President's/Chairperson's Signature)

*\*Private Schools: If the information requested is not applicable,
write N/A in the space.*

**[PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION]{.underline}**

**\[Include this page in the school's application as page 2.\]**

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school\'s eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

1.  The school has some configuration that includes grades K-12.
    (Schools with one principal, even K-12 schools, must apply as an
    entire school.)

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2003-2004 school
    year.

3.  If the school includes grades 7 or higher, it has foreign language
    as a part of its core curriculum.

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 1998.

5.  The nominated school or district is not refusing the OCR access to
    information necessary to investigate a civil rights complaint or to
    conduct a district‑wide compliance review.

6.  The OCR has not issued a violation letter of findings to the school
    district concluding that the nominated school or the district as a
    whole has violated one or more of the civil rights statutes. A
    violation letter of findings will not be considered outstanding if
    the OCR has accepted a corrective action plan from the district to
    remedy the violation.

7.  The U.S. Department of Justice does not have a pending suit alleging
    that the nominated school, or the school district as a whole, has
    violated one or more of the civil rights statutes or the
    Constitution\'s equal protection clause.

8.  There are no findings of violations of the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act in a U.S. Department of Education
    monitoring report that apply to the school or school district in
    question; or if there are such findings, the state or district has
    corrected, or agreed to correct, the findings.

**[PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA]{.underline}**

**All data are the most recent year available.**

**DISTRICT** (Questions 1‑2 not applicable to private schools)

1\. Number of schools in the district: [4]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[1]{.underline} Middle schools

[0]{.underline} Junior high schools

[1]{.underline} High schools

> [1]{.underline} Other (Briefly explain)
>
> Green River Youth Development Center

[7]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$ 6769]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$ 7033]{.underline}

**SCHOOL** (To be completed by all schools)

3\. Category that best describes the area where the school is located:

> \[ \] Urban or large central city
>
> \[ \] Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban area
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[ X \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [4]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

If fewer than three years, how long was the previous principal at this
school?

5\. Number of students enrolled at each grade level or its equivalent in
applying school:

  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------
  **Grade**   **\# of   **\# of                **Grade      **Grade**   **\# of   **\# of     **Grade
              Males**   Females**              Total**                  Males**   Females**   Total**

  **K**       45        47                     **92**       **7**                             

  **1**       46        54                     **100**      **8**                             

  **2**       38        44                     **82**       **9**                             

  **3**       50        56                     **106**      **10**                            

  **4**       42        37                     **79**       **11**                            

  **5**       37        39                     **76**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other       4         0           4

                                    **TOTAL                                                   539
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [99 %]{.underline} White

the students in the school: [.2 %]{.underline} Black or African American

[.3 %]{.underline} Hispanic or Latino

[.3 %]{.underline} Asian/Pacific Islander

[.2 %]{.underline} American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[\_\_\_16\_\_\_]{.underline}%

> (This rate includes the total number of students who transferred to or
> from different schools between October 1 and the end of the school
> year, divided by the total number of students in the school as of
> October 1, multiplied by 100.)

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 46
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 38
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        84
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    536
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .1600
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    16
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
[\_\_\_\_0]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_\_[1\_\_\_]{.underline}Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_[1\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Specify languages: [Spanish]{.underline}

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[57\_\_\_]{.underline}%

[\_\_\_308\_\_]{.underline}Total Number Students Who Qualify

> If this method does not produce a reasonably accurate estimate of the
> percentage of students from low‑income families or the school does not
> participate in the federally‑supported lunch program, specify a more
> accurate estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it
> arrived at this estimate.

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_\_[15.8]{.underline}\_%

\_\_\_\_[85\_]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act.

[\_\_4\_]{.underline} Autism [\_\_1\_\_]{.underline} Orthopedic
Impairment

[\_\_0\_]{.underline} Deafness [\_\_2\_\_]{.underline} Other Health
Impaired

[\_\_0\_]{.underline} Deaf-Blindness [\_\_13\_]{.underline} Specific
Learning Disability

[\_\_1\_]{.underline} Hearing Impairment [\_\_22\_]{.underline} Speech
or Language Impairment

[\_\_10]{.underline} Mental Retardation [\_\_\_0\_]{.underline}
Traumatic Brain Injury

[\_\_3\_]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities [\_\_\_0\_]{.underline}
Visual Impairment Including Blindness

[29]{.underline} Developmentally Delayed

11. Indicate number of full‑time and part‑time staff members in each of
    the categories below:

    **Number of Staff**

**[Full-time]{.underline}** **[Part-Time]{.underline}**

Administrator(s) [\_\_\_\_3\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_1\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [\_\_\_\_27\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_0\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [\_\_\_\_8\_\_\_]{.underline}
[\_\_\_\_5\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [\_\_\_ 13\_\_]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff [\_\_\_ 11\_\_]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number [\_\_\_62\_\_]{.underline}\_
> [\_\_\_\_6\_\_\_]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
[\_\_\_14:1\_\_\_]{.underline}

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students as a
percentage. The student dropout rate is defined by the state. The
student drop-off rate is the difference between the number of entering
students and the number of exiting students from the same cohort. (From
the same cohort, subtract the number of exiting students from the number
of entering students; divide that number by the number of entering
students; multiply by 100 to get the percentage drop-off rate.) Briefly
explain in 100 words or fewer any major discrepancy between the dropout
rate and the drop-off rate. (Only middle and high schools need to supply
dropout rates and only high schools need to supply drop-off rates.)

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999

  Daily student attendance 95.41       95.43       95.10       94.54       93.9

  Daily teacher attendance 95.50%      94.23%      92.66%      94.97%      95.66%

  Teacher turnover rate    0%          .09%        .06%        4.6%        28%

  Student dropout rate     N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A

  Student drop-off rate    N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**[PART III -- SUMMARY]{.underline}**

Morgantown Elementary School in Morgantown, Kentucky is situated in a
small town, rural setting nestled on the banks of the Green River. When
you step into the front doors of our school, you face the school's
vision statement emblazoned for all to see: "All who enter these
hallways make a commitment to [C]{.underline}ooperate with those they
encounter, exhibit a positive [A]{.underline}ttitude, act
[R]{.underline}esponsibly by putting forth a maximum
[E]{.underline}ffort towards success and achievement." That
mission/vision statement encompasses Morgantown Elementary's belief that
everyone is a stakeholder and that everyone is held accountable for the
success of our students. Establishing pride daily through our motto
"Patriots C.A.R.E." is a motivational point for our students in carrying
out the decrees set by the mission statement. The motto is posted in
every room and used as a daily means of communicating high academic and
behavioral expectations.

The geographic boundaries include both rural and city areas. The
population that the school serves has a range of socioeconomic family
units. Morgantown Elementary serves all of the city population with a
vast amount of the student population coming from a concentrated area
within the city consisting of 180 subsidized housing units. It also
serves another fourth of the county population. 57% of our students
participate in the federally funded free/reduced lunch program. From the
late 1990's to present the area has suffered a major economic blow
caused by the relocating of three major industrial plants. The
unemployment rate skyrocketed to 16.2% in January 2003 (highest in the
state of Kentucky). Educational standards were not allowed to suffer as
the economy of the area plummeted. This can be evidenced by the
continued climb of state and national test scores, (top 10% in the
state), and the absence of statistical gaps within **any** subgroups in
the No Child Left Behind analysis done by the federal government. This
can only indicate a tenacious determination on the part of our parents,
community and educators to not allow adversity to be a controlling
factor in their children's future. We have worked diligently and will
continue to work in order to sustain positive attitudes, responsible
behavior and lifelong learning for our students so that they can be
successful not only in the classroom but throughout their lives.

How has Morgantown Elementary been successful in meeting the needs of
our 500+ students? Continued growth has been accomplished through
community vision and teamwork on the part of all stakeholders. Our
Parent -Teacher Organization (PTO) plays an important role in
decision-making and developing partnerships with community agencies. Our
staff qualifications and professionalism are unsurpassed. Rigorous
curriculum planning, instructional and behavioral goal setting, and
on-going assessment of programs are integral components of our success.
Focused professional development and teacher training in the areas of
curriculum-mapping, research-based instructional strategies, and meeting
the needs of children in poverty are a crucial attribute of our success.

###### 

###### 

###### 

###### 

###### PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS

1\. In Kentucky, we believe all children can learn at high levels, given
time, effort and opportunity. We are not willing to leave any student
behind regardless of the challenges and barriers he or she might face in
school. The Commonwealth Accountability Testing System was designed to
improve this teaching and student learning in Kentucky. It includes:

-   The CTBS 5-Survey Edition - A multiple-choice test that enables us
    to compare our students to their peers nationally in language arts,
    reading, and math.

-   The Kentucky Core Content Tests -- A mixture of multiple-choice and
    open-response (essay-like) questions in reading, science,
    mathematics, social studies, arts and humanities, and practical
    living/vocational studies.

-   Writing Portfolio -- A collection of a student's best writing over
    time.

-   Writing Prompts -- Writing tests that measure skills developed from
    writing instruction.

-   Alternate portfolio -- A collection of the best works of students
    with severe to profound disabilities.

The Kentucky Board of Education designed the Commonwealth Accountability
Testing Systems to accurately and reliably measure public school
progress in educating students. Each school in Kentucky is expected to
reach proficiency (100 on a 140-point scale) by the year 2014.

Professional test scorers working on behalf of Kentucky's testing
contractor, CTB-McGraw Hill, grade the tests. Each student's work in an
academic subject is identified as fitting into one of four categories:
novice, apprentice, proficient or distinguished.

-   Novice work is defined as showing a minimal understanding of core
    concepts and/or incorrect knowledge. A novice student also
    demonstrates ineffective communication skills with answers being
    unclear or ineffective.

-   Work at the apprentice level demonstrates a basic knowledge of core
    concepts and skills. This knowledge is conveyed however, without
    consistency, substance, or detail.

-   A proficient student demonstrates an understanding of major concepts
    and can apply them, make connections, and solve problems.
    Communication skills are accurately supported with sufficient
    details.

-   Student work at the distinguished level, demonstrates sophisticated
    application of core concepts and processes, innovative and efficient
    problem-solving strategies, effective communication and insightful
    interpretations or extensions.

Testing at Morgantown Elementary is a community-supported activity.
During the two-week testing window, every effort is made to set up an
optimal testing environment for students. Because of this co-operative
spirit, our students have successfully completed state assessments with
zero exclusions. While our school's racial groups do not comprise
sufficient numbers to be statistically significant, our school's high
percentage of students who receive free/reduced lunch services make this
subgroup not a minority but the **majority.** This majority, as shown in
Part VII, Tables 1 and 2, solidly performs at proficient and
distinguished levels on the state assessment. Even our special education
population achieves high scores. This is a group that typically does not
perform well on the state assessment as evidenced by the state scores
recorded under this subgroup in Part VII, Tables 3 and 4. Additionally,
students whose tested CSI (Cognitive Skills Index) is 85 or below do not
normally experience academic success. However, at Morgantown Elementary
these students are superceding anticipated test scores as per Part VII,
Tables 5 and 6. Our school and community, while struggling with economic
setbacks, know that education is the key to Butler County's triumphant
entry into the 21^st^ century and that every student at Morgantown
Elementary can contribute to that success.

2\. In early 2000, Morgantown Elementary School volunteered to be
audited by the Kentucky Department of Education's Region 2 Service
Center personnel using the Standards and Indicators for School
Improvement document. After participating in the scholastic audit, our
staff gained insight into the value of data analysis and how it can
improve student achievement. Since then, a responsibility that was once
owned by the school administration and district office, has shifted to
classroom teachers and resource staff. The facilitative role of
administration has helped empower teachers to analyze and use data in a
way that directly impacts individual classroom practices and student
achievement.

One day a year is dedicated solely to the purpose of training staff in
evaluating school, grade level, classroom, subgroups and individual
student data. Test formatting issues, content mastery issues, attendance
and school schedules are examined to see their effect on assessment.
From this annual data disaggregating session, a *School Improvement
Plan* containing short term and long-term goals, strategies and
activities to be implemented, and evaluation/monitoring is presented to
the School Based Decision-Making Council for approval. This council is
comprised of two parents, three teachers, and one administrator. The
council's role is to monitor school-wide programs and policies that
affect student achievement.

Analysis of state (Kentucky Core Content Test) and national tests
(CTBS/McGraw-Hill)

helps to guide our staff in planning curriculum and instruction,
monitoring student achievement, identifying gaps and developing teacher
professional growth plans. Additionally, on-going assessment in
teachers' classrooms (anecdotal records, writing samples, and rubrics)
helps the teachers adjust to student's individual needs on a daily
basis.

3\. Our school's mission statement anchors our community to
accountability for student achievement. The news media, including radio
and newspaper, are communication partners in spotlighting student
performance. Communication plays a major role in Morgantown Elementary's

student success. The media provides coverage of both classroom and
school-wide recognition of student achievement. There is a variety of
communication methods our school uses. The following activities allow
for communication with stakeholders:

-   Honor roll published each grading period

-   Awards ceremonies held throughout the year

-   Students with exemplary [A]{.underline}ttendance,
    [B]{.underline}ehavior, and [C]{.underline}oursework recognized and
    rewarded (ABC club)

-   School Based Decision Making Council and Board of Education reports
    to the community on student performance

-   State and national assessment results published in comparison to
    other schools

-   Progress reports given to parents each nine weeks

-   Parent/Teacher Conferences held each semester

-   Weekly communication folders sent home with student work and
    progress

-   Student agendas utilized as a communication vehicle for student
    performance

-   Display case in school lobby highlights students and staff
    achievements.

> Upon release of assessment results from the Kentucky Department of
> Education, conferences are made available to explain individual
> student results on the Kentucky Core Content test and CTBS.
>
> A community-sponsored awards ceremony is conducted for those students
> reaching the state expected standard of proficiency or beyond.
> Medallions and certificates are given and there is significant media
> coverage.

4\. The teaching staff of Morgantown Elementary is comprised of
thirty-five No Child Left Behind Highly-Qualified Teachers. Nineteen of
those teachers (54%) either teach a class at the local university, or
provide training for other educators. With a teacher turnover rate of
less than 1% for the past three years and 77% of the teaching staff with
15+ years teaching experience, our school is the one other schools in
the district look to for professional development. We have been sharing
our successes with other schools for many years! If Morgantown
Elementary is chosen for this award, our staff will continue to provide
quality mentoring for their colleagues.

Because we believe that time-on-task has a direct correlation to
learning, instruction in our classrooms is sacred time. Morgantown
Elementary exists to provide quality-learning experiences for our
students. In showcasing our students' successes, we hope that we never
lose focus of what is most important---our students' education. While
visitors to our building are always welcomed, with a Blue Ribbon school
honor, it would become necessary to provide interested parties with
information in non-classroom-intrusive ways. One solution would be to
produce a video that shows our school's research-based programs and
instructional strategies. This video could be shared with other schools.
Another way to provide others with our model would be through our
district professional development Focus on Teaching workshops held
throughout each school year. Out-of-District School personnel could also
attend these workshops focused on the specific teaching strategies,
learning programs, or instructional methods that Morgantown Elementary's
staff has found to be successful.

# 

# [PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION]{.underline} 

# 

# 1. Morgantown Elementary's curriculum is as diverse as the needs of our 500+ students. The infrastructure of Morgantown Elementary curriculum is centered around the *Kentucky Core Content for Assessment* and our district's *Butler County Curriculum Standards for grades K-5*. *Core Content for Ass*essment represents the content that has been identified by the Kentucky Department of Education's Division of Curriculum Development as essential for all students to know. *The Butler County Curriculum Standards* were developed in conjunction with the *Association for Effective Schools, Inc*. and represent both content and ability grade-level standards. Our *CHAMPS* behavioral curriculum allows for a structured, orderly environment conducive for optimal learning.

On-going assessment and individual student data drive the need for
varying instructional delivery and methodology in order to meet
students' needs. The standards set are high and expected to be met by
all children. The following is an outline of the curriculum as applies
to different subject areas:

-   Language Arts- K-3 curriculum used to teach language standards is: a
    combination of an integrated spelling, grammar, and controlled
    vocabulary basal text; a standards-based writing program; and a
    phonics and decoding curricula (varying according to developmental
    appropriateness). Additionally, a direct-instruction reading
    curriculum combined with communication skills and motor skills is
    utilized for at-risk students in K-3. A comprehension-tracking
    curriculum is in place for embedded on-going assessment in reading
    across all grade levels. Grades 4 and 5 reading curricula are more
    genre-based, with language skills being taught as a part of the
    writing curriculum.

-   Mathematics-curriculum is hands-on, manipulative-based strategies
    supplemented with mathematics text across all grades. Grade 4
    utilizes an individualized tracking curriculum called Accelerated
    Math.

-   Social Studies, Science, Arts and Humanities, and Health/ Practical
    Living are all departmentalized and texts are used to supplement
    curriculum standards.

All students who are not reaching their potential in Reading and Math
participate in our Extended School Services program. The curriculum
standards are the same but instructional delivery strategies differ from
the methods used in the regular classroom. In our after-school program a
whole language approach is utilized rather than phonetics for decoding
skills. Also, those students that have been identified as above average
academically, and are not reaching their potential, are offered an
accelerated curriculum after school in Math and the Arts and Humanities.

Curriculum mapping is monitored through the use of technology to track
standards mastered and standards remaining each week.

2\. The foundation of our reading curriculum is influenced by state and
national standards research-based practices and most importantly,
individual student mastery. It is our philosophy that in the early years
of development, children are [learning to read]{.underline}. As they
progress and master early decoding and fluency skills, children become
[readers that learn.]{.underline}

*Sing, Spell, Read, and Write*, a Pearson Learning product, *Benchmark
Word* *Identification*, developed by Irene Gaskins in conjunction with
Patricia Cunningham, SRA/*Direct Instruction* by McGraw-Hill are
programs that are utilized to teach phonemic awareness and fluency.
Vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension programs include a controlled
vocabulary basal by Harcourt Brace, *Accelerated Reader* and *Reading
Renaissance*, and *SRA/Corrective Reading* by McGraw-Hill. Programs and
curriculum differ for the individual level of each student.

A differentiated instruction approach is also offered in our Extended
School Services for those students that have been identified as not
mastering reading skills through the regular instructional day. Programs
include whole language instruction and language experience instruction.

Our reading curriculum is student-centered and data-driven. Our programs
are chosen based on the fact that they include on-going assessment,
group and individual accountability, and meta-cognitive elements. They
are all research-based in areas identified by the National Reading Panel
and the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA)
to have the greatest effect on achievement in reading. The effectiveness
and sustainability of Morgantown Elementary School's approach to reading
is evident through our continued growth as proven by state and national
test results.

3\. The growth and correlation between writing and reading at Morgantown
Elementary have been both phenomenal and proportional over the last
three years. This only further substantiates that the writing curriculum
is as effective as the reading. Writing is a vehicle for our students to
apply what they have learned in reading. Children write to learn, to
demonstrate knowledge, and to communicate with a variety of audiences.
Our goal is for students to apply the essential skills that they have
learned about communicating to writing. It has been our goal to
implement developmentally appropriate practices in both writing and
reading to help students reach proficiency.

In 1996, the Kentucky Early Learning Profile (KELP) developed a
continuum that spanned a six-year period with research based
developmental learning descriptors for content areas. In 1999, Kentucky
Marker Papers was developed as a training tool so teachers had examples
and models of developmentally appropriate writing at all grade levels,
including scaffolding strategies to analyze student work and plan for
next lessons. In 2000, Morgantown Elementary used these two documents as
well as the Kentucky Core Content for Assessment to develop a
school-wide student-writing portfolio. The school's Comprehensive
Improvement Plan Writing Committee mandated a writing portfolio across
all grade levels using *Kentucky Marker Papers* as a guide for planning,
teaching, and assessing effectiveness of student written communication.
Each year the portfolio goes with the student to the next grade level
and is evaluated by the teacher to build upon skills along the writing
continuum and thus guide the student to writing proficiency.
Additionally, Title 1 Curriculum Resource Teachers go into the
classrooms to model research-based writing strategies and work
collaboratively with teachers to analyze student writing. Morgantown
Elementary teachers employ *Writers Express* and *Write Track,* by
WriteSource as curricular resources. These resources are used for
examples, models and mini-lessons that have grammar embedded into
writing skills. Additionally, Barry Lane's *Discovery Writing* program
is used for strategies in teaching revision, fiction, and nonfiction
writing.

4\. While Morgantown Elementary School strongly believes that all
children can learn, it also recognizes that all students do not learn in
the same ways or at the same pace. Consequently, the instructional
methods we use are as diverse as our students.

Foremost, Morgantown Elementary uses a proactive and positive approach
to classroom management. *CHAMPS*, a model developed by Randall Sprick,
helps teachers carefully structure classrooms in ways that foster
student learning. For each classroom activity and transition, staff
members identify and then teach students precisely what the expectations
are, thus significantly reducing the amount of misbehavior and
increasing the amount of learning that takes place in the classroom. The
*CHAMPS* model is used consistently throughout our building and provides
students a happy and safe environment in which to learn.

All classroom teachers implement Robert J. Marzano's research-based
strategies and instructional methods from *Classroom Instruction that
Works* into planning and delivery. These strategies have proven to have
statistical, positive effects on students of all grade levels and
learning styles. Marzano's

instructional strategies, direct instruction and authentic assessment
practices summarize the methods used to improve student learning at our
school.

Research shows that students must begin kindergarten at a learning
readiness level to be successful. Morgantown Elementary School's
Preschool program works diligently to provide at-risk three and four
year olds with this readiness through curricular intervention. These
preschoolers are identified as at-risk by testing for speech
communication problems and developmental delays. Staff continues to
provide students with needed intervention through Speech/Communication
and Developmentally-Delayed Programs up to age nine.

Teachers also work with at-risk students at all grade levels by applying
learning structures through classroom strategies identified by Ruby
Payne's work with the effects of poverty on student learning. These
learning structures provide students with mental models that translate
the abstract to the concrete. When mental models are directly taught for
each discipline, abstract information can be learned much more quickly
because the mind has a way to contain or hold the information.

5\. Professional development at Morgantown Elementary was traditionally
based on needs assessment surveys given to stakeholders, and state and
national test analysis. However, in the fall of 2000, the voluntary
scholastic audit helped identify professional development needs that
have made a significant impact on student achievement.

First of all, the audit identified a need for grade level standards to
guide classroom instruction. Over the course of the remaining school
year under guidance and focus from Title 1-funded curriculum staff,
teachers met together using standards developed by the *Association for
Effective Schools, Inc.,* along with state and national standards to
guide them and developed rigorous, intentional, grade level content and
ability standards. The following summer, Janet Hurt, Kentucky teacher,
administrator, and author of *Taming the Standards*, led Morgantown
Elementary School's professional development. Ms. Hurt gave our faculty
a commonsense approach to higher student achievement by explaining how
to build the knowledge and understanding necessary to design
conceptually integrated standards-based units of instruction. Using the
newly designed Butler County K-5 Standards teachers were now able to
horizontally align the curriculum and provide students with learning
situations that included both process and product.

Teachers spent the next summer learning how to utilize multiple
assessment and teaching strategies to continuously monitor and modify
instruction in order to meet student learning styles and support
proficient student work. This training was provided using a 1998
research study by Robert J. Marzano at Midcontinent Research for
Education and Learning (McREL). These researchers analyzed selected
research studies on instructional strategies that had a high probability
of enhancing student achievement for all students in all subject areas
at all grade levels. Nine categories of instructional strategies that
affect student achievement were identified and modeled in classrooms by
MES curriculum resource staff in continuous staff development.
Morgantown Elementary School incorporated these nine strategies into
primary instructional methods that help our staff achieve student
learning.

#  [PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS]{.underline}

#  [Table 1]{.underline} 

#  [Fourth Grade Reading]{.underline}

## [The Kentucky Core Content Test]{.underline}

### [Free or Reduced Lunch/Not Free or Reduced Lunch]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------
                                     2002-2003    2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                      May          April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                           

  TOTAL                              101.5        91.9        84.8

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             92%          94%         89%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     85%          74%         61%

  Number of students tested          78           80          106

  Percent of total students tested   14%          14%         19%

  Number of students excluded        0            0           0

  Percent of students excluded       0%           0%          0%

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Free or Reduced Lunch                                   

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             90%          88%         83%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     80%          70%         54%

  Number of students tested          39           33          59

  2\. Not Free or Reduced Lunch                               

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             95%          98%         96%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     90%          76%         72%

  Number of students tested          39           45          46

                                                              

  **STATE SCORES**                                            

  TOTAL                              83.5         81.9        80.6

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             87%          85%         84%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     62%          60%         58%

  State Mean Score                   545          548         547

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Free or Reduced Lunch                                   

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             81%          78%         77%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     51%          48%         45%

  Number of students tested          24,597       24,818      24,423

  2\. Not Free or Reduced Lunch                               

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             93%          92%         92%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     74%          73%         71%

  Number of students tested          23,973       24,070      25,138
  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------

#  [Table 2]{.underline}

#  [Fifth Grade Mathematics]{.underline}

## [The Kentucky Core Content Test]{.underline}

### [Free or Reduced Lunch/Not Free or Reduced Lunch]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------
                                     2002-2003    2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                      May          April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                           

  TOTAL                              83.2         70.8        53.8

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             83%          76%         54%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     55%          39%         20%

  Number of students tested          75           108         110

  Percent of total students tested   14%          19%         19%

  Number of students excluded        0            0           0

  Percent of students excluded       0%           0%          0%

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Free or Reduced Lunch                                   

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             69%          72%         48%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     38%          35%         19%

  Number of students tested          32           60          63

  2\. Not Free or Reduced Lunch                               

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             93%          79%         62%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     67%          41%         22%

  Number of students tested          43           48          45

                                                              

  **STATE SCORES**                                            

  TOTAL                              67.6         66          63.9

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             69%          67%         65%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     38%          36%         34%

  State Mean Score                   558          561         558

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Free or Reduced Lunch                                   

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             58%          55%         52%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     26%          23%         21%

  Number of students tested          25,143       24,641      23,182

  2\. Not Free or Reduced Lunch                               

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             80%          79%         77%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     51%          49%         46%

  Number of students tested          24,537       25,152      25,937
  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------

#  [Table 3]{.underline}

#  [Fourth Grade Reading]{.underline}

## [The Kentucky Core Content Test]{.underline}

## [Special Education/Gifted and Talented]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------
                                     2002-2003    2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                      May          April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                           

  TOTAL                              101.5        91.9        84.8

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             92%          94%         89%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     85%          74%         61%

  Number of students tested          78           80          106

  Percent of total students tested   14%          14%         19%

  Number of students excluded        0            0           0

  Percent of students excluded       0%           0%          0%

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Special Education                                       

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             78%          100%        90%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     56%          100%        50%

  2\. Gifted and Talented                                     

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             100%         100%        100%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     100%         100%        100%

                                                              

  **STATE SCORES**                                            

  TOTAL                              83.5         81.9        80.6

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             87%          85%         84%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     62%          60%         58%

  State Mean Score                   545          548         547

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Special Education                                       

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             72%          69%         66%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     42%          37%         32%

  2\. Gifted and Talented                                     

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             99%          99%         99%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     93%          93%         92%
  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------

#  

#  [Table 4]{.underline} 

#  [Fifth Grade Mathematics]{.underline}

## [The Kentucky Core Content Test]{.underline}

### [Special Education/Gifted and Talented]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------
                                     2002-2003    2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                      May          April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                           

  TOTAL                              83.2         70.8        53.8

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             83%          76%         54%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     55%          39%         20%

  Number of students tested          75           108         110

  Percent of total students tested   14%          19%         19%

  Number of students excluded        0            0           0

  Percent of students excluded       0%           0%          0%

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Special Education                                       

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             75%          46%         20%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     75%          31%         0%

  2\. Gifted and Talented                                     

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             100%         96%         83%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     86%          73%         36%

                                                              

  **STATE SCORES**                                            

  TOTAL                              67.6         66          63.9

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             69%          67%         65%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     38%          36%         34%

  State Mean Score                   558          561         558

                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                             

  1\. Special Education                                       

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             39%          36%         31%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     16%          14%         10%

  2\. Gifted and Talented                                     

  At or Above Novice                 100%         100%        100%

  At or Above Apprentice             95%          95%         94%

  At Proficient or Distinguished     77%          77%         75%
  ---------------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------

#  [Table 5]{.underline} 

#  [Third Grade Reading]{.underline}

## [Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills]{.underline}

### 

+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
|                                 | 2002-2003 | 2        | 2000-2001 |
|                                 |           | 001-2002 |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Testing month                   | May       | April    | April     |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
|                                 |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
|                                 |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Cognitive Skills Index (CSI)    |           |          |           |
|                                 |           |          |           |
| 85 & Below                      |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Mean Obtained                   | 621.0     | 601.5    | \*        |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Mean Anticipated                | 595.8     | 583.3    | \*        |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Difference                      | 25.2      | 18.2     | \*        |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+

#  

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

#  [Table 6]{.underline}

#  [Third Grade Math]{.underline}

## [Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills]{.underline}

### 

+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
|                                 | 2002-2003 | 2        | 2000-2001 |
|                                 |           | 001-2002 |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Testing month                   | May       | April    | April     |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
|                                 |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**               |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
|                                 |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Cognitive Skills Index (CSI)    |           |          |           |
|                                 |           |          |           |
| 85 & Below                      |           |          |           |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Mean Obtained                   | 597.9     | 583.3    | \*        |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Mean Anticipated                | 573.4     | 561.2    | \*        |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Difference                      | 24.5      | 22.1     | \*        |
+---------------------------------+-----------+----------+-----------+