# [U.S. Department of Education September 2003]{.underline}

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

# Cover Sheet

Name of Principal [Mr. W. Darrell Hansel]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Jefferson-Craig Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [1002 West Main St.]{.underline}

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

# [Vevay Indiana 47043-9193]{.underline} 

City State Zip Code+4(9 digits total)

Tel. [(812) 427-2170]{.underline} Fax. [(812) 427-3260]{.underline}

Website/URL.
[192.168.3.200/Schools/jeff-craig_elementary_school.htm]{.underline}

E-mail. [dhansel@switzerland.k12.in.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.

(Principal's Signature)

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

Name of Superintendent [Mr. Tracy Caddell]{.underline}

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

District Name[. Switzerland County School District]{.underline} Tel.
[(812) 427-2611]{.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.

(Superintendent's Signature)

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mr. John S. Ranz]{.underline}

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.

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

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

[PART I -- ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION]{.underline}

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: [2]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[1]{.underline} Middle schools

[0]{.underline} Junior high schools

[1]{.underline} High schools

[0]{.underline} Other (Briefly explain)

[4]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$ 7,982 s]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$ 8,676 s]{.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
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area

\[X \] Rural

4\. [3]{.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:

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Grade</strong></td>
<td><strong># of Males</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong># of Females</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Grade</strong></p>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>Grade</strong></td>
<td><strong># of Males</strong></td>
<td><strong># of Females</strong></td>
<td><strong>Grade Total</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Pre K</strong></td>
<td>5</td>
<td colspan="2">1</td>
<td>6</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>6</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>K</strong></td>
<td>17</td>
<td colspan="2">19</td>
<td>36</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>7</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>1</strong></td>
<td>20</td>
<td colspan="2">19</td>
<td>39</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td>33</td>
<td colspan="2">25</td>
<td>58</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>9</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>3</strong></td>
<td>27</td>
<td colspan="2">25</td>
<td>52</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>10</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td>30</td>
<td colspan="2">22</td>
<td>52</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>11</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>5</strong></td>
<td>27</td>
<td colspan="2">32</td>
<td>59</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>12</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="6"><blockquote>
<p><strong>TOTAL STUDENTS IN THE APPLYING SCHOOL</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td>311</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [97.7]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [2.0]{.underline} % Multiracial

[0]{.underline} % Black or African American

[0]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

100. **% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[22]{.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 36
                   to the school after October 1      
                   until the end of the year          

  **(2)**          Number of students who transferred 32
                   from the school after October 1    
                   until the end of the year.         

  **(3)**          Subtotal of all transferred        68
                   students \[sum of rows (1) and     
                   (2)\]                              

  **(4)**          Total number of students in the    311
                   school as of October 1             

  **(5)**          Subtotal in row (3) divided by     0.218
                   total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**          Amount in row (5) multiplied by    21.8%
                   100                                
  ---------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [0%]{.underline}

Total Number Limited English Proficient: [0 s]{.underline}

> Number of languages represented: [0 s]{.underline}
>
> Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [43]{.underline} %

Total Number Students Who Qualify [130]{.underline}

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: [17]{.underline} %

Total Number of Students Served [53 s]{.underline}

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act.
>
> [1]{.underline} Autism [0]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment
>
> [0]{.underline} Deafness [0]{.underline} Other Health Impaired
>
> [5]{.underline} Emotional Disabilities [12]{.underline} Specific
> Learning Disability
>
> [1]{.underline} Hearing Impairment [27]{.underline} Speech or Language
> Impairment
>
> [5]{.underline} Mental Retardation [0]{.underline} Traumatic Brain
> Injury
>
> [2]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities [0]{.underline} Visual
> Impairment Including Blindness

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) [1]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Classroom teachers [15]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Special resource teachers/specialists [4]{.underline} [8
> s]{.underline}
>
> Paraprofessionals [11]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Support staff [5]{.underline} [1 s]{.underline}
>
> Total Number [36]{.underline} [9 s]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: [20 :
1]{.underline} s

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 rate and only
    high schools need to supply drop-off rates.)

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

  Daily student        97.7 %     95.0 %     95.4 %     95.4 %     96.1 %
  attendance                                                       

  Daily classroom      97.2 %     96.6 %     94.1 %     97.0 %     95.8 %
  teacher attendance                                               

  Classroom Teacher    0 %        5 %        5 %        0 %        5 %
  turnover rate                                                    

  Student dropout rate 0 %        0 %        0 %        0 %        0 %

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

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

**Jefferson-Craig Elementary, Vevay, Indiana---A School Where No Child
Is Left Behind**

Jefferson-Craig Elementary, a rural school in Vevay, Indiana, is a
supportive, child-centered learning community educating children in
pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. A dedicated, qualified staff
provides an educational program to suit the needs of every child. Our
belief is that all children can achieve academic success if given the
support, opportunities, and materials. Our mission is to enable students
to become responsible, independent, educated citizens. We aim to
accomplish our mission with the combined efforts of staff, family, and
community. Ensuring that *No Child Is Left Behind*, a systemic school
improvement plan was developed and implemented, with a focus of three
main goals: (1) Students will be able to read with understanding, (2) Be
able to write and speak well, and (3) Be able to use mathematics to
solve problems and consider information.

Jefferson-Craig Elementary serves 311 students. Forty-two percent of our
children are disadvantaged with a twenty-two percent mobility rate.
Curriculum, aligned to state and national standards, instruction,
after-school programs, and assessment provide support so that all
children may succeed.

Curriculum is focused on our three school goals: reading, writing, and
math. Instruction is data-driven based on the needs of the students and
incorporates Robert Marzano's nine instructional strategies: Identifying
similarities and differences, summarizing and note taking, reinforcing
effort and providing recognition, homework and practice, nonlinguistic
representations, cooperative learning, setting objectives and providing
feedback, generating and testing hypotheses, and cues, questions, and
advance organizers.

A researched-based professional development plan correlated to the
school improvement plan, supports teachers' needs as they monitor
student progress. For the last three years, Jefferson Craig faculty
members have been privileged to be a part of the Indiana Top Hat
Consortium, which is supported by Mid-continent Research for Education
and Learning (McRel) in Colorado. McRel has been invaluable in providing
research and practical guidance in Robert Marzano's *Classroom
Instruction That Works*, early literacy, and researched-based vocabulary
in elementary schools. The Indiana Writing Initiative, designed after
The National Writing Project, has provided valuable support in
establishing training for writing centers for our students. Training for
technology integration is an on-going process.

For the last six years, we have assessed academic success of our
students. Scores on the State ISTEP+ test are among the highest in the
state of Indiana. One of our strongest assets for student success is the
correlation of the Title I program and the regular classroom. Assessment
and communication occur on a daily basis.

Jefferson-Craig Elementary is proud of its accomplishments and shares it
success. We welcome visitations from other schools. Teachers gave a
presentation at the Indiana Small and Rural Schools Conference, Showcase
of the Best in Indiana, recently. Our Title I teacher has been invited
to do a distance learning program via the State network, Vision Athena,
on ISTEP+ preparation. We must all work together to ensure that no child
is left behind.

**[PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS]{.underline}**

1.  **Assessment Results**

Jefferson-Craig Elementary makes use of data from various kinds of
assessments in order to

understand and improve student and school performance. The Indiana State
Educational Progress tests, known as ISTEP+, is mandated by state law to
help determine each pupil's progress in the areas of language arts and
mathematics. Each third grade pupil must participate in this testing
process. All scores are reported, including children with IEP's and
other academic restrictions.

For the last six years, we have assessed the academic success of our
students. Scores on the State ISTEP+ test are among the highest in the
state of Indiana and have ranged from 85 percent to 97 percent passing
in language arts, while math results have ranged from 89 percent to 95
percent passing.

Due to standards testing that was implemented in 2002-2003, test
comparison has been modified. It is difficult to compare the testing in
previous years and the current testing program due to the fact that the
test itself was different. Therefore, results will be reported for
basically two different testing formats.

Our specific results for each year are as follows: In 1998,
[97%]{.underline} of our pupils passed the ISTEP Language Arts portion
of the testing. [92%]{.underline} passed the ISTEP Mathematics portion.
These scores ranked us third in our state school league. In 1999 scores
showed [88%]{.underline} of our pupils passing Language Arts and
[95%]{.underline} passing Mathematics. Jefferson-Craig was compared to
all school in 1999 and we ranked sixth. The 2000 scores indicated an
[85%]{.underline} passing rate in Language Arts and [89%]{.underline}
passing rate in Math. Our 2000 ranking was thirty-ninth in the state. In
2001 scores indicated an [89%]{.underline} passing rate in Language Arts
and [95%]{.underline} passing rate in Mathematics. Our state ranking
that year was thirtieth. Our standards based ISTEP+ began in 2002 and it
showed a [93%]{.underline} passing rate in Language Arts and a
[91%]{.underline} passing rate in Math. Our state ranking was tenth for
2002. Continuing with the standards testing, our results for 2003 were
[92%]{.underline} with a passing score in Language Arts and
[94%]{.underline} passing in Mathematics. No state ranking is available
for 2003 at this juncture.

Another assessment offered in our school is the Indiana Reading
Assessment for kindergarten, first and second grades. It is administered
three times each year and gives invaluable diagnostic information to our
primary teachers.

We are beginning the Standards Master Program this spring. This computer
program will test pupils in the specific standards in grades 3-5 on a
daily basis. Those areas are Language Arts and Mathematics. Future plans
include the Plato Reading and Math program that is a standards based
diagnostic computer learning tool.

The Jefferson-Craig staff makes a concerted effort to individually
diagnose each pupil's skill areas. This could be from running records,
pre-testing and post-testing, observation checklists, pupil journals,
charts, calendars, pupil self-evaluations, and teacher conferencing. All
of these assessment tools aid Jefferson-Craig teachers in immediately
identifying areas and children needing improvement.

2.  **Use of Assessment Data**

We believe the primary use for assessment data is to improve teaching
and student learning. Jefferson-Craig has meticulous ISTEP+ data
analysis reports that disaggregate scores and trends from 1997. A gap
analysis sheet is used for every sub group for the grade level and
between grade level scores. The scores of sub-groups assist us in
modification of instruction. The use of data is critical when working
with our forty-two percent of disadvantaged children and our mobility
rate of twenty-two percent.

Individual performance indicator graphs and item analysis data target
ISTEP+ skills that are used to differentiate instruction of students in
the classroom, Jumpstart (summer program), Title I, or after-school
enhancement. Targeted areas are communicated to parents for additional
support.

Jefferson-Craig Elementary works closely with the middle school and its
assessment results. A reading and math gap analysis sheet was
immediately prepared and used for diagnostic purposes between both
schools when grade six results were available this fall. In addition,
several analysis reports for each skill were prepared to analyze the
potential learning gaps between grade three and six ISTEP+. We also use
data for school corporation analysis for grades K-12. Last year the
State recommended the teaching of algebra at grade nine. At a committee
meeting, we looked at data to see where Jefferson-Craig Elementary
should introduce algebraic thinking.

Tracking standards' mastery is an integral part of our school planning.
The usage of a standards checklist to reinforce Jefferson-Craig lesson
plans aids in aligning our instruction to provide standards mastery.
Many informal assessments, including those from the textbooks, are
integral in the assessment of standards' mastery. Jefferson-Craig
teachers consistently provide communication between grade levels to
insure that pupils are receiving the needed instruction to have success
in the standards of future grades.

Jefferson-Craig uses assessment data to update the professional
development plan. For example, last year we looked at trends of our
writing scores. Even though most of our students were passing the
writing section of the ISTEP+ exam, there were few students in the top
level of mastery. In the summer of 2003, staff was trained in the
Indiana Writing Initiative. Jefferson-Craig staff realizes that
modification of instruction will continue with increased data analysis.

3.  **Communication of Student Performance**

Jefferson-Craig Elementary regularly communicates its students'
performance, including assessment data, through the use of a variety of
media.

Jefferson-Craig report cards are based on a nine-week system. Progress
reports are sent home every four weeks. Some pupils may require daily or
weekly progress reports. Jefferson-Craig pupils who have ISTEP+
difficulties can expect to have a learning contract that includes
parents and teachers who work jointly to address weaknesses.
Additionally, we also honor those students with outstanding progress
with a Principal's Club activities program.

Jefferson-Craig sends home a handbook that explains expectations for the
pupils. Parent conferences are held in the fall in conjunction with a
standards' family night activity program where parents can try an
Indiana standards activity. Student reading and math standards' mastery
checklists are shared with the parents.

Finally, Jefferson-Craig sends the assessment data from ISTEP+ directly
to the homes. We encourage parents to set up a parent conference if
there are any questions about the results. The principal prepares
presentations for teacher's meetings, PTA meetings, administrative
meetings, and school board meetings to share student achievement results
on ISTEP+ testing and goals for the future. The community and regional
newspapers publish assessment results.

Results are shared with community groups who provide resources for
programs for improvement. Funds and personal participation from
community organizations are invaluable to our pupils and certainly
facilitate our pupil's success in the classroom.

4.  **Sharing Success**

Jefferson-Craig Elementary is proud of its accomplishments and shares
its success with other schools. The teachers are committed to work as
leaders and collaborators in the professional community to improve
programs and practices so that no child is left behind.

Our Title I teacher gave a presentation for the Indiana Small and Rural
Schools Association, Showcase of the Best in Indiana, highlighting best
practices for ISTEP+ preparation, recently.

Our Title I teacher has been invited to do a distance learning program
via the State network, Vision Athena, on ISTEP+ preparation. A
question/answer session will follow after the initial presentation.

In the event Jefferson-Craig Elementary wins this prestigious award, we
will continue to share our success with other schools and educators.
Important components in our action plan to implement this initiative
would include:

-   Update the information on our school website highlighting the Blue
    Ribbon Award with specific details to allow other schools to model
    our success. Possible examples will include informal assessment
    techniques, such as standards' mastery checklists and gap analysis
    forms; techniques for teaching researched-based vocabulary; and the
    use of good trade books for teaching the craft of writing.

-   Work with colleges and universities in their teacher education
    programs on good educational practices.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Invite other educators to visit our classrooms to see our programs
    in action.

-   Continue to participate in distance learning opportunities.

-   Present at local, regional, state, and national conferences,
    highlighting our programs, instructional techniques, intervention
    activities, and assessment strategies.

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

In the past six years, Jefferson-Craig Elementary has revised the
curriculum in language arts, math, science and social studies to
implement a comprehensive approach to improving student learning.
Jefferson-Craig staff joined forces with our "Top Hats" consultants to
design our approach. Our consultant assisted us in reviewing our
standards and benchmarks for clarity, coherence, and content; helped us
translate our curriculum into grade-level standards and benchmarks;
design developmentally appropriate, challenging, standards-based
activities; and advised us on how we could collect, study, and
effectively use assessment data.

Jefferson-Craig Elementary School's curriculum is totally aligned to
state and national standards. Each teacher has standards' checklists
that are rigorously adhered to and monitored by the building principal.
This curriculum framework assures all staff that they are following the
same guidelines.

Jefferson-Craig subject areas include English/Language Arts,
Mathematics, Health and Science, and Social Studies. We accommodate our
special needs pupils with a standards-based individualized program.
Students also have classes scheduled in Art, Music, Physical Education,
and technology. On numerous occasions, these lessons are aligned with
classroom activities as well as state language arts and math standards.

Jefferson-Craig has a literacy curriculum framework that involves the
skill areas of vocabulary development, systematic word analysis, reading
comprehension, literary response and analysis, writing process, writing
applications, spoken and written English, and listening skills.
Vocabulary is researched-based and aligned to the standards. McRel
developed two vocabulary lists; one is correlated with the standards and
the other list is a basic cultural literacy list that every child should
know by the time they are in the sixth grade in order to be literate.
For our writing applications, The Indiana Writing Initiative, tailored
after the National Writing Project, has provided teachers
researched-based ways to teach writing with the use of children's
literature.

Language Arts is certainly an area that one could see many diverse
activities in this school. Word walls, guided reading lessons, learning
centers, 'smart chart' phonics, Shurley English, trade book lessons,
sustained silent reading, teachers reading picture and trade books
aloud, and writing embedded in instructional activities are typically
part of this school and its push for literate pupils.

The Math Curriculum focuses on problem solving, measurement,
computation, algebra and functions, geometry, number sense and
computation. Jefferson-Craig pupils are presented with numerous hands-on
experiences in math and science. Math manipulatives are frequently used
at all grade levels. Classes are accommodating more advanced learners
with "Math Superstars" or reviewing with daily problems that pupils can
solve and not forget previously learned concepts. Our ISTEP+ success has
undoubtedly been a direct result of the above emphasis in these areas.

Social Studies includes a wide range of study areas. These areas include
state history, United States history, cultural areas, current events,
communities, and family connections. Many project-based learning
activities, guest speakers, and field trips such as the "Lewis and
Clark" reenactment, make history something the students can experience.

Science focuses on earth, physical, and life sciences. Health programs
consistently reiterate ways that pupils can live healthy lifestyles. Our
Gifted/Talented program was conducted this summer with grades four and
five and continues during the school year with a science and problem
solving emphasis. Jefferson-Craig continually expands its numerous
extra-curricular activities that are offered during and after school.

Jefferson-Craig Elementary School has a part-time counselor and
elementary attendance officer who are vital to our students as they
monitor pupils carefully with home-visits and parent connections. Our
poverty rate does signify numerous troubled home situations making it
essential to have a vehicle to monitor our pupil's welfare and
attendance. The Jefferson-Craig Title I program is essentially designed
to supplement the classroom teachers' lessons so that this intervention
will make pupils successful at grade level as quickly as possible.

According to our data analysis, the curriculum is revised and reviewed
each year. We are continually striving to meet the needs of each
individual child. The school must monitor carefully what research-based
practices are working. Then, modifications to the curriculum and
instruction are made accordingly.

**2. Reading**

Our reading curriculum creates a unique learning environment, providing
for the

many variables in learning to read. Our philosophy at Jefferson-Craig is
that no *single* program design could cover the needs of all children in
reading instruction. Therefore, we are consistently evaluating our
reading curriculum with innovative research based ideas.

The district's reading curriculum was chosen after intensive scrutiny
from teachers, parents, and other interested community members. Scott
Foresman reading curriculum was chosen for grades K-2. The phonics
instruction is systematic and stories cover a wide range of subjects
including language, spelling, social studies, science, and a correlating
writing prompt.

Houghton-Mifflin is our adopted series for grades 3-5. This series
provides oral language direction, decoding skills, vocabulary
development, strategic reading concepts, prior knowledge, independent
reading of trade books, writing prompts that connect with story content,
and home connection ideas. McRel's researched-based vocabulary lists are
integrated with the instruction. Accelerated Reader is used in grades
2-5 to motivate more extensive reading beyond the basal series. Also,
the "100 minutes" reading program has been implemented in grades three
and four as a way of getting students to read 100 minutes each week at
home.

The Indiana Writing Initiative, modeled after the National Writing
Project, has provided teachers researched-based ways to teach writing
with the use of excellent children's literature. Good books serve as
examples for children to develop voice, put tension in their writing,
establish good characters, develop time and provide a sense of place.
Most staff members took the summer intensive training to use Indiana
Writing Initiative techniques to enhance their writing programs. This
was instrumental in the improvement that was analyzed in our 2003-2004
ISTEP+ writing results.

Our school has conducted jump-start programs in the summer and
enhancement classes for one hour after school. Many of these programs
from K-4 have included "Readers Are Leaders" Guided Reading Club, ISTEP+
reading and writing preparation, Art and Reading connected activities,
and other classes too numerous to mention. Also included are drama and
Spanish programs, which are contingent upon funding. Data analysis is
the key to success of our reading program. One of the buildings greatest
strengths is that teachers monitor for continuous progress. Teachers use
running records, checklists aligned to Indiana Academic Standards,
student self evaluations, teacher conferencing with pupils for reading
comprehension of trade books, systematic writing development and pupil
journals. We are also very fortunate to have a former Reading Recovery
instructor who is consulted in our efforts to accurately monitor pupil
progress.

2.  **Math**

Jefferson-Craig uses Silver Burdett Ginn math curriculum in grades K-5.
The Silver Burdett Ginn series provides direct instruction and is
supplemented by usage of manipulatives, cooperative learning groups,
diagnostic skill testing, primary calendar corners, and daily review
problems that stress problem solving.

Accelerated Math has been implemented in grades four and five. Pupils
work at their own pace and teachers can monitor skill levels very
precisely with the record keeping that accompanies this program.

Jefferson-Craig is continually striving to improve problem solving and
computational skill areas. Higher level thinking skills are imperative
for success on ISTEP+ and future academic endeavors. We attempt to
diversify the curriculum to meet the needs of each pupil. We review
concepts continually while introducing new ideas too. These concepts are
reviewed not only in the classroom but also in computer lab software
programs and after school enhancement. Our jumpstart programs in the
summer offer *all* students an opportunity to review weak math areas and
strengthen their skills before a new school year begins.

3.  **Instructional Methods**

Jefferson-Craig Elementary School adheres to the researched-based nine
instructional strategies of Robert Marzano. These include: identifying
similarities and differences, summarizing and note taking, reinforcing
effort and providing recognition, homework and practice, nonlinguistic
representations, cooperative learning, setting objectives and providing
feedback, generating and testing hypotheses, and questions with advance
organizers. These strategies are incorporated into all areas of the
curriculum.

We also have an extensive professional library that we can utilize for
new ideas.

Jefferson-Craig has scheduled common planning time, which facilitates
communication between grade level staff members. Instructional methods
are planned and implemented with this scheduling.

Learning contracts are devised for the ISTEP+ pupil who is not
successful in the testing situation. This is an important connection
between the parent and child for responsibility in learning skill
deficiencies. Jefferson-Craig Elementary teachers make an intense effort
to identify the differing learning modalities that match successful
pupil learning.

It is important that Jefferson-Craig has a plethora of guest speakers
disseminate invaluable information to our students. This is essential
particularly in a community with a high poverty rate and children with
limited experiential backgrounds.

4.  **Professional Development**

Jefferson-Craig Elementary has a professional development plan that
correlates with the school improvement plan. The goal of our
professional development plan is to improve student achievement in
reading, writing, and problem solving. Data analysis and research
provide an overall view of student learning needs.

Jefferson-Craig has been fortunate to be a member of the Top Hat
Consortium since the summer of 2000. This is a representative group of
seven school corporations from the state of Indiana who meet in
Indianapolis six times a year and collaborate on numerous instructional
ideas to support our school improvement plans. Representatives meet with
the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning staff who
continually inform schools on "best" practice/strategies. This
information is disseminated to the staff through job-embedded workshop
training at the school level.

The Top Hat consortium has been invaluable in providing our building
with ideas that follow Marzano's nine instructional strategies. Study
groups have intensively dealt with the relationship of these strategies
and successful teaching in the classroom. Alignment of curriculum,
unpacking benchmarks, and the teaching of vocabulary are other important
topics studied.

The Indiana Writing Initiative taught teachers how to teach the craft of
writing using good children's literature. The Shurley Language Method
training facilitates the teaching of grammar and the process of writing.
The writing rubric workshops were coordinated to the rubric used on the
State ISTEP+ Writing Exam. Teachers across the curriculum learned to use
this rubric to provide a consistent way of determining improvement in
writing.

Technology training is used to integrate technology into the curriculum
on an ongoing basis. Grade level meetings are an integral part of our
professional development plan. Teachers analyze work to determine
progress toward standard mastery and target weaknesses so that they can
modify instruction.

Faculty is also encouraged to attend workshops outside the corporation
or visit other schools for insight into best practices. Sharing
information from these workshops among the four schools is also a common
practice. Coaching, study groups, and collaboration are other techniques
used. The professional development plan is evaluated at the end of each
school year to ensure that we will continue to meet student and faculty
needs.

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

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Grade: [3]{.underline} Test: [Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational
Progress (ISTEP+)]{.underline}

Edition/publication year: [Same year as administration]{.underline}
Publisher: [CTB/McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

Number of students in the grade in which the test was administered:
[50]{.underline}

Number of students who took the test: [50]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why and how were they assessed?
[No groups were excluded from testing.]{.underline}

Number excluded: [0]{.underline} Percent excluded: [0%]{.underline}

ISTEP+ stands for Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational
Progress-Plus. ISTEP+ is Indiana's statewide assessment administered to
students at Grades 3, 6, 8, and 10. At the Grade 10 level, ISTEP+
includes the High School Graduation Qualifying Exam.

ISTEP+ measures student achievement in English/language arts and
mathematics. Grade 3 ISTEP+ assesses Indiana Proficiency Content
Standards, testing students on the skills that they have built in
Kindergarten through Grade 2.

The test was written to reflect the Indiana Proficiency Content
Standards in English/language arts and mathematics in order to ensure a
match between what is taught and what is tested.

The student population of Jefferson--Craig is overwhelmingly white. We
have a 40% (20 pupils) free/reduced lunch statistic for grade three. Due
to a cell size of ten for the other groups, our classes do not qualify
for any analysis beyond free/reduced lunch.

Our 2000--2001 testing year indicated 1 pupil who was undetermined in
scoring. That was due to the onset of severe seizures during the testing
process.

Jefferson--Craig ranks well above the state averages when analyzing the
following chart:

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **School Year** | **Language Arts | **Language      | **Percentage    |
|                 | Indiana State   | Arts**          | Difference**    |
|                 | Average**       |                 |                 |
|                 |                 | **Jeff-Craig    |                 |
|                 |                 | Average**       |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **1999**        | 69%             | 88%             | +19%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2000**        | 65%             | 85%             | +20%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2001**        | 67%             | 89%             | +22%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2002**        | 73%             | 93%             | +20%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2003**        | 75%             | 92%             | +17%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **School Year** | **Mathematics** | **Mathematics** | **Percentage    |
|                 |                 |                 | Difference**    |
|                 | **Indiana State | **Jeff-Craig    |                 |
|                 | Average**       | Average**       |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **1999**        | 73%             | 95%             | +22%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2000**        | 71%             | 89%             | +18%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2001**        | 71%             | 95%             | +24%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2002**        | 67%             | 91%             | +24%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **2003**        | 72%             | 94%             | +22%            |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

The true picture of these scores appear to be stability. There are
[no]{.underline} extremes from year to year. Jefferson-Craig attempts to
maintain their status as a consistently high scoring school.

**Percentage of Students Passing English/Language Arts**

  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  **Year**                **2003-2004**   **2002-2003**   **2001-2002**   **2000-2001**   **1999-2000**

  Testing Month           Sept.           Sept.           Sept.           Sept.           Sept.

  **School Scores**                                                                       

  \% At or above standard 92%             93%             89%             85%             88%
  (proficient)                                                                            

  \% Pass Plus            32%             14%             N/A             N/A             N/A

  Number of students      50              43              55              47              43
  tested                                                                                  

  Percent of total        100             100             100             98              100
  students tested                                                                         

  Number of students      0               0               0               1               0
  excluded                                                                                

  Percent of students     0               0               0               2               0
  excluded                                                                                

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                     

  **Free/reduced lunch**                                                                  

  \% At or above standard 80%             92%             N/A             N/A             N/A
  (proficient                                                                             

  \% Pass Plus            20%             15%             N/A             N/A             N/A

  Number of students      20              13              N/A             N/A             N/A
  tested                                                                                  

  Percent of total        100             100             N/A             N/A             N/A
  students tested                                                                         

  Number of students      0               0               N/A             N/A             N/A
  excluded                                                                                

  Percent of students     0               0               N/A             N/A             N/A
  excluded                                                                                

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                        

  \% At or above standard 75%             73%             67%             65%             69%
  (proficient)                                                                            

  \% Pass Plus            13%             10%             N/A             N/A             N/A
  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

**Percentage of Students Passing Mathematics**

  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  **Year**                **2003-2004**   **2002-2003**   **2001-2002**   **2000-2001**   **1999-2000**

  Testing Month           Sept.           Sept.           Sept.           Sept.           Sept.

  **School Scores**                                                                       

  \% At or above standard 94%             91%             95%             89%             95%
  (proficient)                                                                            

  \% Pass Plus            48%             14%             N/A             N/A             N/A

  Number of students      50              43              55              47              43
  tested                                                                                  

  Percent of total        100             100             100             98              100
  students tested                                                                         

  Number of students      0               0               0               1               0
  excluded                                                                                

  Percent of students     0               0               0               2               0
  excluded                                                                                

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                     

  **Free/reduced lunch**                                                                  

  \% At or above standard 85%             85%             N/A             N/A             N/A
  (proficient                                                                             

  \% Pass Plus            30%             0%              N/A             N/A             N/A

  Number of students      20              13              N/A             N/A             N/A
  tested                                                                                  

  Percent of total        100             100             N/A             N/A             N/A
  students tested                                                                         

  Number of students      0               0               N/A             N/A             N/A
  excluded                                                                                

  Percent of students     0               0               N/A             N/A             N/A
  excluded                                                                                

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                        

  \% At or above standard 72%             67%             71%             71%             73%
  (proficient)                                                                            

  \% Pass Plus            13%             9%              N/A             N/A             N/A
  ----------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------