### [U. S. Department of Education November 2002]{.underline} 

**2002-2003 *No Child Left Behind---Blue Ribbon Schools Program***

#### Cover Sheet

## Name of Principal: [Mr. William Radulovich]{.underline}

## Official School Name: [Walnut Grove Elementary School]{.underline}

## School Mailing Address: [1999 Harvest Road]{.underline}

[Pleasanton, CA 94566]{.underline}

### Tel: [(925) 426-4253]{.underline} Fax: [( 925 ) 462-8293]{.underline} 

Website:
[www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/walnut_grove/](http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/walnut_grove/)

Email: [bradulovich@pleasanton.k12.ca.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: [Dr. John Casey]{.underline}

District Name: [Pleasanton Unified School District]{.underline} Tel.
[(925)426-4301]{.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: [Mrs. Kris Weaver]{.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.

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

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

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: 9 Elementary schools

3 Middle schools

0 Junior high schools

3 High schools

15 TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \$ 7,267.31

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \$ 7,123.64

**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
>
> \[X \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. **3 =** Number of years the principal has been in her/his position
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**       48        42                     90           **7**                             

  **1**       62        45                     107          **8**                             

  **2**       73        67                     140          **9**                             

  **3**       63        54                     117          **10**                            

  **4**       62        63                     125          **11**                            

  **5**       65        69                     134          **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   713
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [78%]{.underline} White

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

[6%]{.underline} Hispanic or Latino

[13%]{.underline} Asian/Pacific Islander

[1%]{.underline} American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year: 5%

> (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 22
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 15
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        37
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    713
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .050
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    5.0
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school[: 6%]{.underline}

43 Total Number of Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [16]{.underline}

Specify languages: Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean,
Farsi, Hindi, Tagalog, Portuguese, Russian, Hungarian, French, Pashto,
Romanian, Guajarti, Armenian

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals[: 4%]{.underline}

31 Total Number Students Who Qualify

10\. Students receiving special education services[: 13%]{.underline}

92 Total Number of Student Served

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

7 Autism 1 Orthopedic Impaired

Deafness 3 Other Health Impaired

Deaf-Blindness 26 Specific Learning Disability

1 Hearing Impaired 53 Speech or Language Disability

Mental Retardation Tramatic Brain Injury

1 Multiple Disabilities 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 1

Classroom teachers 32 0

Special resource teachers/specialists 1 3

Paraprofessionals 1 6

> Support staff 1 1
>
> Total number 36 11

12\. Student-"classroom teacher" ratio: 23:1

13\. Attendance patterns of teachers and students

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Daily student attendance 95%         94%         96%         94%         95%

  Daily teacher attendance 87%         89%         87%         91%         88%

  Teacher turnover rate    6%          6%          6%          6%          3%

  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
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Note: \*Decline in enrollment is due to boundary changes and
re-districting of attendance areas.

\*\*Decline in staff due to enrollment decreases, note above.

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

One of California's most highly regarded schools, Pleasanton's ***Walnut
Grove School Elementary* *School*** is situated in a scenic coastal
valley just east of the San Francisco Bay. It is one of fifteen public
schools within a middle class suburban hamlet of 60,000. Pleasanton
boasts a rich history, dating back to colonial America. Quality schools,
combined with proximity to Silicon Valley employers, have made
Pleasanton a destination-community for families.

Much like the town in which it thrives, Walnut Grove School enjoys a
proud history - one in which educational innovation has long been
fostered and practiced. Built in 1966 as a progressive "open-space"
school, Walnut Grove has been recognized as a regional locus for
"cutting-edge" educational practices for decades. Since its inception,
"the Grove" has offered options for students and families in the form of
"schools-within-a-school" and progressive program alternatives. As such,
Walnut Grove families have always had options for determining their
children's program placements. Because of these program options and
offerings, the school has historically attracted large student
populations (700-900 students). A *de facto* magnet school, Walnut Grove
has attracted more students through "open enrollment" and intra-district
transfer than surrounding schools for over three decades.

The school has continuously offered two or more program options at all
grade levels. Over the past 16 years, parents have had the option of
enrolling their children in either a traditional-style K-5 program that
offers high quality single-grade classes or in the *Discovery Program*.
Discovery is a K-5 program (280 students/8 teachers) in which children
"loop" through three consecutive multiage classrooms during their six
years of education at Walnut Grove School (K/1,2/3,4/5).

As a consequence of these ongoing efforts, the educational bar has been
raised in several ways: high levels of achievement, continuous
improvement (see data pages) and abundant evidence of parent
satisfaction are byproducts of such efforts. Our vision for students,
however, goes well beyond simply *achievement* and *parental
satisfaction*. It is one that takes inspiration from the words of Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr., *"Intelligence plus character -- that is the
goal of true education*. Our mission is ***To include all stakeholders
in the promotion of community values and achievement, including the
belief that 'school' is a place that attends to the child's soul as well
as his/her mind.*** Toward that end, we offer a comprehensive array of
programs, including instruction in character education and the visual
and performing arts.

Walnut Grove is ranked a "10" on California's ten-point (API) school
rating scale. This ranking is well deserved. Our students enter our
school performing at relatively high levels. They leave, however,
performing within the highest ranges in the nation. With each succeeding
year Walnut Grove students have demonstrated advances in achievement -
continuously improving their ranking within their peerage (see data
tables). Our 2002 graduating class (5^th^ grade), for example, increased
its aggregate median NPR's significantly since the implementation of the
state testing program (STAR) in 1998. Their aggregate median NPR score
(SAT/9) improved from the 65^th^ %ile in reading (2^nd^ grade) to the
84^th^ %ile (5^th^ grade). In math, their aggregate median NPR score
improved from the 75^th^ %ile to the 90^th^ %ile over the same time.
Similar results are noted for all other cohort groups -- and in each
case, the growth curve is evenly distributed into comparable yearly
increments. We are one of few top-ranked schools to have surpassed the
established "*Growth Target*" for the *"Governor's Performance Award"*
every year since the award was established.

While we pride ourselves in these data and empirical indices, we are
similiarly proud of the feedback we get from our students and parents.
It bespeaks our passion for learning and our desire to ensure that all
students succeed within a caring learning community. Corrine Behrendt, a
parent, volunteer (and now aspiring teacher) summed it up well, ***"We
are so enthused by the passion and commitment that the staff gives to
every child, including special children like our daughter."*** At Walnut
Grove, *all* children *are* special.

Community partnerships flourish at the Grove. Last year we enlisted over
600 registered parent volunteers. Parents participate as tutors in a
remedial reading program, in school governance as members of our *School
Site Council*, as classroom volunteers, arts docents or activity
supervisors. We welcome their involvement and view them as full partners
in the learning process. In a letter to the principal, a parent
remarked, ***"I love how the Walnut Grove teachers see me, the parent,
as a complete partner in my child's education, at home and in the
classroom!"*** For these, and many other reasons, we believe that Walnut
Grove's NCLB/BRS nomination is well deserved.

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

Walnut Grove students are *high achievers*! As our assessment data (see
addendum) suggests, our students perform two to four times better than
their peers on state criterion-referenced tests ("at or above
proficient," *[California Standards Test]{.underline}*, CST). On
nationally normed tests (*[Stanford Achievement Test, Edition
9]{.underline}*) they register mean aggregate NPR's between the 83^rd^
percentile (Total Reading) and the 88^th^ percentile (Total Math).

As a California school, we have been involved in a norm-referenced
assessment program since 1999. Please refer to the *"Norm-Referenced
Test Scores"* addendum for this data. Our norm-referenced data suggests
growth trends for all populations. These data clearly reflect growth in
reading and math for all subgroups as well. Particularly significant
progress is noted for special education and socio-economically
disadvantaged students. The data shows that over the three-year period,
disadvantaged students have demonstrated a 36% improvement in math
performance, and a 46% increase in reading. Special Education students
posted gains of 45% and 116% respectively. The only regressive score, a
3%ile drop in reading for Hispanic students, is possibly the result of a
100% increase in our Hispanic population during that period. At least
half of the Hispanic students tested in 2002 had been with us for fewer
than 6 months -- thereby limiting our opportunities for intervention
(Note: this discrepancy may be moot - the standard error of measurement
-- SEM -- for this measure is 3%ile points.). On a related issue, we
made every effort to include all students in the assessment program.
Fewer than 1% were excluded from testing, all by parental request.

Before moving on to a discussion of criterion-referenced test results,
one final point remains germane to the analysis of norm-referenced data:
the data related to these test scores demonstrates a high degree of
*statistical coherence*. Our results show similar (positive!)
year-to-year outcomes for all grades, for all sub-groups and for all
years. This kind of evenly distributed growth over time suggests that
*systemic factors* (i.e., programmatic quality) can be credited for our
success, rather than *external* *factors* or chance.

We have participated in the *[California Standards Test]{.underline}*
(CST) for two years in English-language arts and for one year in
mathematics. The test is a criterion-referenced test in which student
scores are sorted into one of five categories: *far below basic, below
basic, basic, proficient* and *advanced.* This data, along with a
rubric, is provided as an addendum.

Our performance on these assessment instruments speaks to the efficacy
of our program of instruction. This year will mark the second year for
collecting of math data. While California State data is somewhat
limited, Walnut Grove's performance is nevertheless impressive. As an
aggregate, 93% of our students score *above* *basic* in math. This is
nearly 50% higher than the state average (63%). With regard to the
*proficient-or higher* level, we post up percentages that are 100%
higher than the state average. In terms of top-performing students, we
list nearly [three times]{.underline} the state average of students
above the *advanced* level. We do not have data for socio-economically
disadvantaged or for limited English proficient students in this table
because their numbers are not statistically significant. Our data for
special education students is rather remarkable, however: despite their
given disabilities, they outperform their *non-handicapped* peers on a
statewide basis by nearly every measure! (see tables)

The *[California Standards Test for English-Language Arts]{.underline}*
(ELA) has been administered to all California students for two years.
Our results are appended in table form. An analysis of the tables
reveals several important points. The first point suggested by the ELA
results is that there have been uniformly positive results for all
groups over the two years of testing. The second point is that the data
suggests that Walnut Grove students register test results that are
consistently between two and four times better than their peers in the
state. For example, at least twice as many Walnut Grove students score
*above proficient* in ELA as their peers in California in *all* grade
levels tested (2-5). Our students fared even better at the higher
levels. When our students' performance is compared with their statewide
peers at the *advanced* level, our students scored *three to four times
better* than their peers in English-language arts. As for subgroups on
this assessment, we have only one group that is statistically
significant, Special Education. Again, our Special Education students
posted results that were not only superior to their disabled peers --
they were again *higher than their non-handicapped peers* on a statewide
basis!

Test data tells only part of a school's story. To that extent, it is a
source of pride for our entire school community. It also fuels us with
the inspiration to seek even higher levels of achievement. Our vision
for children, however, will always draw inspiration from an even more
global and comprehensive view.

# *[How assessment data is used to understand and improve student and school performance...]{.underline}*

At Walnut Grove School, assessment data is used as an integral part of
instruction. Data is gathered in many forms. In the aggregate, we view
it as a "photo album" of student work, and not as merely high- stakes
"snap shots." We use both formal and informal assessments to develop
formative and summative data.

On the formal level, we administer norm-referenced tests (SAT/9, CAT/6)
yearly. We also administer our own criterion-referenced, standards-based
assessments in reading and math three times yearly. Formal writing
samples are administered grades 2-5 yearly. The [Test of Phonological
Awareness]{.underline} (TOPA) is used to screen all kindergarten
students. Students who demonstrate difficulties in acquiring the content
of the curriculum may also receive diagnostic assessments by our Reading
Specialist, Resource Specialist, Speech & Language Specialist, School
Psychologist or principal (former Reading Specialist). Text-based and
teacher-made assessments are also used as needed.

We strive to balance these evaluative tools with curriculum-embedded
assessments and other informal assessment tools. These
*performance-based assessments* are benchmarked to our content
standards. They include writing, reading fluency, reading comprehension,
running records, portfolio assessments, physical education, problem
solving, student-demonstrations and projects.

These data -- both formal and informal -- are managed through the ARMS
system. ARMS is a relational database that allows us to view data in
various forms. In turn, we use the data in three primary fashions:

-   To evaluate program effectiveness on a grade-by-grade and
    school-wide basis.

-   To make programmatic decisions about the efficacy of curriculum and
    methodological practices that are driven by data.

-   To identify individual student and subgroup weaknesses for purposes
    of corrective and remedial treatment and to guide us in developing
    support systems.

> By effectively culling and organizing useful data from multiple
> assessments, we are able to align instructional programs with
> students' needs. This is a continuous and never-ending process.

**How does the school communicate student performance, including
assessment data, to parents, students and the community?**

We feel that it is very important that our community is kept informed
about student performance levels and assessment results. This commitment
has been very easy for us to live up to for one simple reason: it is
always easy to share good news! As you will note (see data tables), our
scores are high, and they continue to rise for all groups in all areas
tested.

We provide multiple opportunities for our community to stay abreast of
student performance and progress. Most prominently, the following
communication methods are used:

-   School Site Council -- we have elected body of 14
    --seven-parents/community member and seven staff members -- who
    represent their constituents. They receive all data relative to
    student achievement. In collaboration, parents and staff use the
    data to develop school goals, activities and benchmarks for
    achievement.

-   *Principal's Green Sheet* -- this weekly newsletter includes regular
    updates related to student achievement, as well as updates on all
    efforts to increase student performance levels.

-   *Roadrunner* -- this online "e-zine" is sent to more than 300
    households. It includes all relevant information related to
    performance and accountability.

-   Websites -- our "high stakes" test data is posted on both our school
    website, as well as our district website.

-   *[School Accountability Report Card]{.underline}* -- this
    publication is sent to all families. It covers performance data in
    thirteen areas. It is also posted on our websites.

-   PTA Meetings -- monthly reports are always provided to our PTA. They
    include information about student performance levels, accountability
    reports and achievement.

***[How the school will share its success with other
schools?]{.underline}***

The Walnut Grove staff will proudly -- but humbly -- share its successes
with other schools. We already have forums in place to do so at the
district, regional, state and national levels.

At the district level, we can share our successes through our
Principals' Counsel, through the teacher-based Curriculum Council, via
grade-alike collaborations, using district newsletters and by
maintaining an open door to all.

At the regional level, we will offer support to other schools through
the Alameda County Office of

Education. Workshops, site visitations and collaborations with regional
staffs will be made available.

At the state level, we will gladly avail our site to all interested
collaborators. We will welcome visiting teams from throughout the state.
We would be very amenable to providing a team to present statewide
support through state-sponsored conferences as well.

On the national level, we humbly offer our site as a demonstration
school for high-performing schools. We have successfully continued to
move ahead, even though we have been a top-performer for years. The
formula for success -- research-based instruction and collegial
reflection -- is something we are anxious to share with all fellow
educators.

Using our website, we feel that we can offer support to all of America's
schools. We would proudly create a national bulletin board through which
we connect with interested schools. The site could provide more than
just our story -- it could act as a clearinghouse for all like-minded
schools throughout the country.

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

**Describe the school's curriculum and show how all students are engaged
with significant content, based on high standards.**

That Walnut Grove students have posted yearly achievement results that
are well beyond the statistical norm is by no means coincidental. We
have had exceptional results because we provide a curriculum for all
students that is truly exceptional. Ours is a curriculum that is
assessment-based, data-driven and predicated on scientifically supported
pedagogical practices. It is too comprehensive to describe in a single
page, however, a broad-stroke description follows.

Beginning with kindergarten, students receive instruction that is based
on challenging content standards in reading, math, science, PE and
social studies. At the kindergarten level, students begin reading
instruction with phonological awareness screening (Torgesen, Jeul,
Stanovich). Based on screening results, students move on to
differentiated levels of instruction. "Academic language" (Shefebine)
begins at this level in the form of read-aloud literary experiences that
are universal for each grade level ("Core Reading"). Math instruction
begins with extensive pre-algorithmic experiences using concrete,
manipulative tools (Coons, Burns, Alpert). Writing instruction includes
the introduction of the *Six-Traits* writing approach (Spandell) and
constructivist spelling approaches (Tempelton, Gentry). Science
instruction includes both scientific content and process skills. In
social studies and science, the content of instruction is more general,
while the emphasis is on process skills: observation and analysis
(Pearson).

The succeeding primary grades - first and second grades -- follow these
content parameters, adding depth and complexity to each. In reading,
fluency and comprehension gain significance (Kameanui, Goods, Miller,
Harvey), while word recognition skills (phonics and sight word
recognition: SIPPS) are still at the center of instruction. In math, we
add a strong algebra component in second grade (*[Hands-on
Equations]{.underline}*) and we transition students from concrete
operational experiences to more formal operations and abstractions
(applied algorithms, mathematical reasoning). Writing becomes more
formalized, expanding on the *Six-Traits* while using illustrative
literary examples to exemplify each trait and genre. Science
instruction, along with instruction in the social sciences, becomes more
content-oriented, although the cognitive processes of observation and
analysis continue to be emphasized. Physical education begins to
transition during these years from psychomotor development to "personal
growth." By second grade, students begin to view physical education as a
means to improving their individual abilities.

Third grade is a pivotal year. At this point, the shift in reading
instruction moves away from word recognition skills (phonics and sight
words) and the emphasis turns to fluency, comprehension and contextual
analysis. Students begin to develop fluency because they possess strong
word recognition skills. To ensure growth in fluency, we use "*Read
Naturally*," a program that increases fluency, in all third grade
classes.

Comprehension strategies improve as a result of instructional practices
based on the work of PERC (Harvey, Miller and others). "Core Reading"
experiences become more complex and enriching, leading to improved
vocabulary and "academic language." In math, algebra instruction
continues, along with a greater emphasis on complex operations, like
fractions, percentage, decimals, probability and statistical analysis.
Social studies and science content become more specialized, and students
begin their first endeavors in developing research projects in these
areas. Technology-based research techniques are introduced at this
level.

In fourth and fifth grades, students are expected to apply the skills
and strategies that they have acquired in order to become self-directed
learners. At this point their skills are generally strong enough for
them to begin to explore and construct their own understandings through
projects and research assignments. In reading, students are required to
read, interpret, analyze and report on a wider range of texts, including
works of fiction and non-fiction. They will incorporate all six of the
writing "traits" as they compose cogent written works. In mathematics
they use a strong foundation in the basic skills to problem solve and
they use mathematical reasoning to develop solutions to complex
real-world situations. They select areas of interest in science and the
social sciences for in-depth study. These undertakings are presented
formally to peers (e.g., classroom demonstrations) and community (e.g.,
science fair).

As a backdrop to all this, exceptional students at both ends of the
spectrum receive special support. Gifted students participate in
"clustered" classroom units, receiving differentiated instruction that
includes *Independent Learning Plans*. Academically challenged students
receive support from special classroom aides, our Reading Specialist or
our Resource Specialist through IEP's. They also receive intensive small
group instruction before or after school through our "*Intervention
Program*." While we set the academic bar quite high, we provide safety
nets for all so that *truly* no child is left behind.

***[Describe the school's reading curriculum, including a description of
why the school chose this]{.underline}***

***[particular approach to reading.]{.underline}***

Reading instruction at Walnut Grove is well balanced. We recognize that
the reading process is composed of sensory, perceptual, experiential,
linguistic, cognitive and affective components (Adams). With this in
mind, we have developed a reading program that is based on "best
practices."

As the data demonstrates, our students are highly skilled readers
(average composite NPR = 84%ile). They also love to read, as evidenced
by the tremendous volumes of books that are checked out through our
school library - over 16, 000 per year!

Our approach to reading instruction is *eclectic*. We draw from research
on phonological awareness (Stahl, Juel, Stanovich) to begin kindergarten
instruction. Students are assessed ([*Test of Phonological*
*Awareness*]{.underline}) each fall to assay their readiness to begin
formal instruction. Those who demonstrate proficiency with phonological
awareness move on to formal instruction, including explicit phonics
instruction (Chall, Adams). *Zoo phonics, Words Their Way* (Templeton*),
Systematic Instruction in Phonics & Phonological Awareness* (Shefebine),
*Making Words*, *Earobics*, word walls, personal dictionaries, and
guided practice are among the many approaches used to teach both
synthetic and analytical approaches to phonics. Essential "sight words"
are identified and taught both in context and in isolation. The use of
contextual analysis is taught and modeled daily. Daily skill practice,
in context, is built into instruction to help students to develop
fluency and automaticity (Heineman).

The development of automaticity and fluency is associated with
comprehension (Kamaenui, Simmons, Stahl). To promote fluency we have
installed *Read Naturally*, a program designed to promote fluency. It
serves second and third grades as a developmental tool; in fourth and
fifth grades it is a remedial tool. Guided reading is practiced
extensively; recreational reading is expected of all, with recreational
reading practice being assigned to students nightly.

As students move into succeeding grade levels, a greater emphasis is
placed on comprehension and vocabulary development. We teach *Essential
Vocabulary* terms (Marzano) as a core vocabulary and we augment it with
content-specific terms. Extensive instructional time is devoted to
teaching "strategic reading" in all classrooms (Pressley, Brown,
Harvey). Using the methodologies developed by the Denver-*based Public
Education and Business Coalition* ([Strategies that Work]{.underline},
Harvey & Goudvis), we teach students eight specific strategies for
"connecting with text" on deep and meaningful levels. Additionally,
reciprocal teaching methods are used extensively.

A full time Reading Specialist provides corrective instruction on a
pullout basis. She also supports teachers by demonstrating new methods
and techniques on a push-in basis. "Intervention" classes are offered
before and after school for students who are considered "at-risk" for
not mastering standards.

Our reading program yields dramatic results. We attribute this to our
commitment to providing a curriculum that is founded on a balanced
analysis of educational research and best practices.

**Describe one other curriculum area of the school's choice and show how
it relates to essential skills and knowledge based on the school's
mission.**

Our writing curriculum supports the mission of the school in many ways.
While helping

students to become more skilled communicators, it also reinforces
instruction in reading, spelling and

character education.

The writing curriculum is organized around the *Six-Traits Writing*
approach (Spandell). This method focuses on six elements ("traits") that
are essential to quality written composition. Learning to apply rubrics
to unlock the elements of effective composition, students are empowered
with highly effective writing tools. The "traits" integrate written
conventions effectively with rhetorical dynamics.

Our writing program begins in kindergarten. Students are introduced to
the traits through exemplary forms of literature. In turn, they apply
the trait to their own writing. At each succeeding grade level, the
complexity of the trait, the depth of the connected literary piece and
the breadth of rubric is increased.

The writing program is woven into our character education program. We
use literary examples that reinforce our school "character traits"
(e.g., [The Little Engine That Could]{.underline} is used in K-1to teach
the trait of perseverance.") Writing prompts, often used school-wide,
are also keyed to character themes.

Reading instruction is enhanced by promoting the reading/writing
connection (Pearson). It is also promoted by the use of quality works of
literature to demonstrate the traits. Extensive discussion, analysis and
examination help to promote deeper understanding as well *as
self-to-text* connections (Harvey).

Throughout the year our teachers administer various writing assessments.
These assessments are used to evaluate student progress. They provide
valuable data that guides us in making program adjustments and to plan
program enhancements.

**Describe the different instructional methods the school uses to
improve student learning.**

At Walnut Grove we believe that instructional methodology is a seminal
factor for achieving our

vision for children. Realizing that no single approach will meet all
needs, we draw upon many techniques, relying most heavily upon those
considered "best practices" (Lieberman).

Toward that end, we incorporate a full spectrum of techniques and
methods. In the interest of brevity with detail, they are listed by
focus area:

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| -   **[Language Arts --           | -                                |
|     Reading]{.underline}**        |    **[Mathematics]{.underline}** |
|                                   |                                  |
| phonological awareness training   | developmental instruction        |
|                                   |                                  |
| "Earobics"                        | hands-on/concrete instruction    |
|                                   |                                  |
| analytical/synthetics phonics     | early us of manipulatives/realia |
|                                   |                                  |
| "making words" (constructive      | early, concrete algebra          |
| phonics)                          | (Hands-on Equations)             |
|                                   |                                  |
| explicit phonics instruction      | emphasis on writing in math      |
| (SIPPS)                           |                                  |
|                                   | emphasis on mathematical         |
| phonemically embedded controlled  | communication                    |
| readers                           |                                  |
|                                   | extensive use of "applied" math  |
| word sorts/sight words/word walls |                                  |
|                                   | daily problem-solving activities |
| guided reading                    |                                  |
|                                   | timed tests/drill strategically  |
| reader's workshop                 | implemented                      |
|                                   |                                  |
| virtual books                     | technology used for              |
|                                   | reinforcement                    |
| language experience approach      |                                  |
|                                   | technology used for application  |
| reciprocal teaching               |                                  |
|                                   | "Essential Vocabulary" (Marzano) |
| fluency training (Read Naturally) |                                  |
|                                   | math/literature connection       |
| literature circles                | emphasized                       |
|                                   |                                  |
| metacognitive strategies (Harvey, | classroom speakers (engineers,   |
| Costa)                            | scientists)                      |
|                                   |                                  |
| schema analysis                   | -   **[Science/Social            |
|                                   |     Sciences]{.underline}**      |
| -   **[Languag Arts -- Written    |                                  |
|     Expression]{.underline}**     | weekly "lab" experiences         |
|                                   |                                  |
| developmental spelling (Gentry,   | school-wide ecology program (Go  |
| Templeton)                        | Green)                           |
|                                   |                                  |
| d'Nealian scrip/manuscript        | partnership w/business (govt. &  |
|                                   | businesses)                      |
| Bay Area Writing methods (Gray)   |                                  |
|                                   | science fun fair/ field trips    |
| student-made rubrics              |                                  |
|                                   | Individual Learning Plans        |
| writer's workshop                 | (special projects)               |
|                                   |                                  |
| Four-Block Writing (remedial)     | Historical                       |
|                                   | performances/reenactments        |
| Six-Traits Writing                |                                  |
|                                   | # [Other]{.underline}            |
| author's chair (developmental)    |                                  |
|                                   | cooperative learning             |
| student-generated publications    |                                  |
|                                   | learning hats/icons              |
| peer editing                      |                                  |
|                                   | Tribes/Socratic discussions      |
| metacognitive strategies          |                                  |
| (Spandell)                        | Student peer mediation/peer      |
|                                   | tutoring                         |
|                                   |                                  |
|                                   | Brain-based instruction (Caine,  |
|                                   | Sylwester)                       |
|                                   |                                  |
|                                   | Differentiated instruction       |
|                                   |                                  |
|                                   | Integrated arts/character ed     |
|                                   | program                          |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

**5. Describe the school's professional development program and its
impact on improving student achievement*[.]{.underline}***

As the quality of curriculum and instruction improves, so goes
achievement. The Walnut Grove staff fully appreciates the integral
relationship between staff development and student achievement. As a
result, we have developed a three-year plan for staff development. The
plan is written into our *[Consolidated School Plan]{.underline}*, which
is in the second year of a three-year cycle. Our primary efforts are
focused on four areas: 1) content area reading comprehension, 2) writing
strategies, 3) mathematical reasoning and 4) character education.

Each of these goals has a staff development component as well as an
assigned budget. This year's plan, for example, includes \$17,646.00 for
targeted staff development. Some of the activities that have been
conducted include the following:

-   **Book Groups** -- all teachers have read *[Strategies that
    Work]{.underline}* (Harvey) and participated in book discussion
    groups (6 hours total). Embedded in-service training resulted for
    all teachers. Primary (K-2) staff has read *[Reading With
    Meaning]{.underline}* (Miller) and met after school (6 hours total)
    for reflection and discussion. Teachers in grades 3-5 have read and
    discussed *[Nonfiction Counts]{.underline}* (Miller) in the same
    manner. In all cases, teaches implemented teaching strategies
    suggested by the authors and conducted "action research" within
    their classrooms. Results were shared and a number of embedded
    trainings/demonstrations resulted.

-   **Curriculum Auditing** -- primary staff felt the need to evaluate
    the alignment of their curriculums in math and reading with the
    state content standards. They met for a total of 8 hours (after
    school) to use an audit-process to determine their "capacity" for
    bringing all students to the level of mastery. Their discussions,
    analysis and recommendations have led to significant program
    improvements, in terms of both vertical and horizontal articulation.

-   **Six-Trait Writing** -- this year we hired a consultant to spend
    two days on our campus demonstrating the Six-Traits methods and
    holding after school debriefing sessions. Substitutes were hired in
    order to allow all teachers to observe numerous lessons.
    Additionally, we have an on-site lead writing teacher.

-   **Hands-On Algebra** -- all 2^nd^ --5^th^ grade staff members have
    received training and program materials for teaching this program.
    As a result, our children are very facile with algebra.

> Our efforts in the area of staff development go well beyond these
> examples. These are merely highlights. We have had additional
> in-service training in science, social studies, character education
> and P.E.. Our teachers meet every Wednesday morning for one hour to
> collaborate on curriculum issues. Our goal is continue to embed staff
> development into our daily routines, making it more systemic,
> sustainable and dynamic.

**Addendum Pages**

***Walnut Grove Elementary School***

![](media/image1.png){width="2.1631944444444446in"
height="2.2958333333333334in"}

**Norm-Referenced Assessment Data**

**[Stanford Achievement Test, 9^th^ Edition]{.underline} (SAT/9)**

**Criterion-Referenced Assessment Data**

**[California Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}**

**CST Description**

***Proficiency Rubric***

**Norm-Referenced Test Scores:** **[Stanford Achievement Test 9^th^
Edition]{.underline}**

The following tables (2) reflect three years of scores on the SAT/9
section of the STAR program, California's testing and accountability
system. The scores provided are the percentage of students scoring above
the 50^th^ percentile. Boxes marked "N/A" do not have statistically
significant populations.

#### Total Reading

  --------------------------------- -- --------- ----- ----------- ----- ----------- ----- -----------
                                       Grade           2001-2002         2000-2001         1999-2000
                                       Level                                               

  Testing month                        \--             April             April             April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                        

  Total Score (Percent at or Above     Grade 2         88                88                88
  50^th^ Percentile)                                                                       

                                       Grade 3         85                88                85

                                       Grade 4         91                88                85

                                       Grade 5         91                87                85

  Number of students tested                            525               562               603

  Percent of total students tested                     99                99                100

  Number of students excluded                          5                 4                 3

  Percent of students excluded                         1                 1                 0

                                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                      

  1\. Females                                    91                88                89    

  2\. Males                                      87                87                79    

  3\. Asian/Asian America                        87                89                84    

  4\. Hispanic or Latino                         72                82                77    

  5\. White                                      91                89                85    

  6\. Special Education Enrollment               67                N/A               31    

  7\. Gifted and Talented (GATE)                 100               100               100   
  Enrollment                                                                               

  8\. Limited English Profi                      52                N/A               N/A   

  9\. Socio-Economically                         N/A               73                50    
  Disadvantaged                                                                            
  --------------------------------- -- --------- ----- ----------- ----- ----------- ----- -----------

# 

# Walnut Grove Elementary

**Norm-Referenced Test Scores:** **[Stanford Achievement Test, 9^th^
Edition]{.underline}**

**Total Math**

  --------------------------------- -- --------- ----- ----------- ----- ----------- ----- -----------
                                       Grade           2001-2002         2000-2001         1999-2000
                                       Level                                               

  Testing month                        \--             April             April             April

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                        

  Total Score (Percent at or Above     Grade 2         95                86                85
  50^th^ Percentile)                                                                       

                                       Grade 3         88                89                87

                                       Grade 4         94                87                87

                                       Grade 5         91                96                90

  Number of students tested                            525               562               603

  Percent of total students tested                     99                99                100

  Number of students excluded                          5                 4                 3

  Percent of students excluded                         1                 1                 0

                                                                                           

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                      

  1\. Females                                    94                89                86    

  2\. Males                                      89                90                86    

  3\. Asian/Asian America                        94                91                84    

  4\. Hispanic or Latino                         84                83                73    

  5\. White                                      92                91                87    

  6\. Special Education Enrollment               74                N/A               51    

  7\. Gifted and Talented (GATE)                 100               99                100   
  Enrollment                                                                               

  8\. Socio-Economically                         68                64                50    
  Disadvantaged                                                                            

  9\. Limited English Proficiency                N/A               N/A               N/A   
  --------------------------------- -- --------- ----- ----------- ----- ----------- ----- -----------

# Walnut Grove Elementary

**Criterion-Referenced Test Scores**

The following tables contain data from the CST, [California Standards
Test]{.underline}. The test is part of the statewide STAR assessment
system and it has been in place for two years in English-language arts
and one year in math. While the state has not adopted definitions for
*basic, proficient* and *advanced,* we have provided our district rubric
at the end of this section to assist with understanding.

#### California Standards Test English-Language Arts at Grade 2

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

  Testing month                                                  

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                  

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  90          93

  At or Above Proficient                             69          68

  At Advanced                                        27          34

  Number of students tested                          110         119

  Percent of total students tested                   96          98

  Number of students excluded                        5           3

  Percent of students excluded                       4           2

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                

  1\. Females                                        92          91

  At or Above Basic                                  75          63

  At or Above Proficient                             33          34

  At Advanced                                                    

  2\. Males                                                      

  At or Above Basic                                  87          95

  At or Above Proficient                             63          72

  At Advanced                                        22          33

  3\. Limited English Proficiency                                

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  4\. Socio-Economically Disadvantaged                           

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  5\. Special Education Enrollment                               

  At or Above Basic                                  75          N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             67          N/A

  At Advanced                                        17          N/A

  **STATE SCORES**                                               

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  63          61

  At or Above Proficient                             32          32

  At Advanced                                        9           10
  -------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

Walnut Grove Elementary

**Criterion-Referenced Test Scores**

The following tables contain data from the CST, [California Standards
Test]{.underline}. The test is part of the statewide STAR assessment
system and it has been in place for two years in English-language arts
and one year in math. While the state has not adopted definitions for
*basic, proficient* and *advanced,* we have provided our district rubric
at the end of this section to assist with understanding.

#### California Standards Test, English-Language Arts at Grade 3

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

  Testing month                                                  

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                  

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  91          93

  At or Above Proficient                             74          73

  At Advanced                                        35          36

  Number of students tested                          124         123

  Percent of total students tested                   98          96

  Number of students excluded                        3           5

  Percent of students excluded                       2           

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                

  1\. Females                                        95          95

  At or Above Basic                                  77          71

  At or Above Proficient                             36          30

  At Advanced                                                    

  2\. Males                                                      

  At or Above Basic                                  88          90

  At or Above Proficient                             72          75

  At Advanced                                        35          42

  3\. Limited English Proficiency                                

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  4\. Socio-Economically Disadvantaged                           

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  5\. Special Education Enrollment                               

  At or Above Basic                                  82          N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             64          N/A

  At Advanced                                        35          N/A

  **STATE SCORES**                                               

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  62          59

  At or Above Proficient                             32          30

  At Advanced                                        9           9
  -------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

# Walnut Grove Elementary

**Criterion-Referenced Test Scores**

The following tables contain data from the CST, [California Standards
Test]{.underline}. The test is part of the statewide STAR assessment
system and it has been in place for two years in English-language arts
and one year in math. While the state has not adopted definitions for
*basic, proficient* and *advanced,* we have provided our district rubric
at the end of this section to assist with understanding.

#### California Standards Test, English-Language Arts at Grade 4

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

  Testing month                                                  

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                  

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  96          96

  At or Above Proficient                             83          77

  At Advanced                                        49          40

  Number of students tested                          124         151

  Percent of total students tested                   94          97

  Number of students excluded                        8           4

  Percent of students excluded                       6           3

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                

  1\. Females                                        93          98

  At or Above Basic                                  84          76

  At or Above Proficient                             46          42

  At Advanced                                                    

  2\. Males                                                      

  At or Above Basic                                  99          95

  At or Above Proficient                             82          78

  At Advanced                                        53          38

  3\. Limited English Proficiency                                

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  4\. Socio-Economically Disadvantaged                           

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  5\. Special Education Enrollment                               

  At or Above Basic                                  75          N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             60          N/A

  At Advanced                                        10          N/A

  **STATE SCORES**                                               

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  71          66

  At or Above Proficient                             36          33

  At Advanced                                        14          11
  -------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

**Walnut Grove Elementary**

Criterion-Referenced Test Scores

The following tables contain data from the CST, [California Standards
Test]{.underline}. The test is part of the statewide STAR assessment
system and it has been in place for two years in English-language arts
and one year in math. While the state has not adopted definitions for
*basic, proficient* and *advanced,* we have provided our district rubric
at the end of this section to assist with understanding.

#### California Standards Test English-Language Arts at Grade 5

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

  Testing month                                                  

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                  

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  93          93

  At or Above Proficient                             74          67

  At Advanced                                        38          26

  Number of students tested                          154         160

  Percent of total students tested                   99          99

  Number of students excluded                        2           1

  Percent of students excluded                       1           1

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                

  1\. Females                                                    

  At or Above Basic                                  94          97

  At or Above Proficient                             81          71

  At Advanced                                        43          30

  2\. Males                                                      

  At or Above Basic                                  92          90

  At or Above Proficient                             68          65

  At Advanced                                        33          23

  3\. Limited English Proficiency                                

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  4\. Socio-Economically Disadvantaged                           

  At or Above Basic                                  N/A         N/A

  At or Above Proficient                             N/A         N/A

  At Advanced                                        N/A         N/A

  5\. Special Education Enrollment                               

  At or Above Basic                                  48          50

  At or Above Proficient                             24          17

  At Advanced                                        12          0

  **STATE SCORES**                                               

  Total                                                          

  At or Above Basic                                  71          66

  At or Above Proficient                             31          28

  At Advanced                                        9           11
  -------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

# Walnut Grove Elementary

**Criterion-Referenced Test Scores**

The following tables contain data from the CST, [California Standards
Test]{.underline}. The test is part of the statewide STAR assessment
system and it has been in place for two years in English-language arts
and one year in math. While the state has not adopted definitions for
*basic, proficient* and *advanced,* we have provided our district rubric
at the end of this section to assist with understanding.

#### California Standards Test (CST) Mathematics at Grades 2-5

  -------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------
                                         Grade 2  Grade 3  Grade 4  Grade 5

  Testing month                          April                      

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                     

  At or Above Basic                      98       89       93       94

  At or Above Proficient                 84       65       78       74

  At Advanced                            42       18       41       32

  Number of students tested              113      125      129      154

  Percent of total students tested       98       98       98       99

  Number of students excluded            2        2        3        2

  Percent of students excluded           2        2        2        1

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                   

  1\. Females                                                       

  At or Above Basic                      96       90       93       95

  At or Above Proficient                 81       63       73       72

  At Advanced                            38       15       35       26

  2\. Males                                                         

  At or Above Basic                      98       89       95       94

  At or Above Proficient                 85       68       85       76

  At Advanced                            45       22       48       38

  3\. Limited English Proficiency                                   

  At or Above Basic                      N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A

  At or Above Proficient                 N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A

  At Advanced                            N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A

  4\. Socio-Economically Disadvantaged                              

  At or Above Basic                      N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A

  At or Above Proficient                 N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A

  At Advanced                            N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A

  5\. Special Education Enrollment                                  

  At or Above Basic                      93       78       70       71

  At or Above Proficient                 72       50       55       24

  At Advanced                            36       11       15       6

  **STATE SCORES**                                                  

  Total                                                             

  At or Above Basic                      68       65       67       59

  At or Above Proficient                 43       38       37       29

  At Advanced                            16       12       13       7
  -------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------

**Proficiency Rubric**

**CST**

+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| **P        | **Proficiency level description with respect to the     |
| roficiency | California standards**                                  |
| Level**    |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| #          | Distinguished achievement. In-depth understanding of    |
|            | academic knowledge and skills tested and exceeds the    |
| #          | grade level expectation.                                |
|            |                                                         |
| # Advanced |                                                         |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Proficient | Competent level of achievement in the academic          |
|            | knowledge and skills tested and meets the grade level   |
|            | expectation.                                            |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Basic      | Somewhat competent in the academic knowledge and skills |
|            | tested and partially meets the grade level expectation. |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Below      | Limited achievement in the academic knowledge and       |
| Basic      | skills tested and does not meet the grade level         |
|            | expectation.                                            |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Far Below  | Minimal achievement in the academic knowledge and       |
| Basic      | skills tested and does not meet the grade level         |
|            | expectation.                                            |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------------+

###### NOTE

**This table is provided to explain relative distinctions between the
levels of proficiency that are described in the California Standards
Test. It is not an official state document, rather it is a guideline
that we have used to better understand the proficiency designations.**