##### *2006-2007 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply) \[ X \]
Elementary \[ \] Middle \[ \] High \[ \] K-12 \[ \] Charter

Name of Principal [Ms. Kathleen McKeown]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Deerfield Elementary]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [2 Deerfield
Avenue]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(If address is P.O. Box, also include street address.)

[Irvine California 92604-3048]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Orange]{.underline} State School Code Number\*[30 73650
6096184]{.underline}\_

Telephone [( 949) 936-5655]{.underline} Fax [( 949)
936-5659]{.underline}

Web site/URL [http://www.iusd.org/de/]{.underline} E-mail
[kmckeown@iusd.org]{.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. Gwen Gross]{.underline}

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

District Name [Irvine Unified]{.underline} Tel. [( 949)
936-5000]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mr. Mike Parham

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

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\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

2.  The school has made adequate yearly progress each year for the past
    two years and has not 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 2006-2007 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 2001 and has not received the No Child Left
    Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools award in the past five years.

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

6.  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
    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**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [22]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[5]{.underline} Middle schools

[0]{.underline} Junior high schools

[5]{.underline} High schools

[1]{.underline} Other

[33]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$7,480]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$8,288]{.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
>
> \[ X \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [1]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

[2]{.underline} If fewer than three years, how long was the previous
principal at this school?

5\. Number of students as of October 1 enrolled at each grade level or
its equivalent in applying school only:

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**       41        16                     **57**       **8**                             

  **1**       32        28                     **60**       **9**                             

  **2**       22        38                     **60**       **10**                            

  **3**       38        39                     **77**       **11**                            

  **4**       51        40                     **91**       **12**                            

  **5**       52        49                     **101**      **Other**                         

  **6**       59        41                     **100**                                        

                                    **TOTAL                                                   **546**
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

> ***\[Throughout the document, round numbers 1 or higher to the nearest
> whole number.***
>
> ***Use decimals to one place only if the number is below 1.\]***

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [35]{.underline} % White

the school: [5]{.underline} % Black or African American

[8]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

Use only the five standard categories in reporting the racial/ethnic
composition of the school.

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

> \[This rate should be calculated using the grid below. The answer to
> (6) is the mobility rate.\]

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      48
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      22
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    70
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 546
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  .128
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           12.8
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [14]{.underline}
%

[76]{.underline} Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [28]{.underline}

Specify languages: African dialects, American Sign Language, Arabic,
Armenian, Bengali, Cantonese, Farsi, French, Gujarati, Hebrew, Hindi,
Indonesian, Japanese, Kannada, Korean, Malayam, Mandarin, Marathi, other
Indian dialects, Portugese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish,
Taiwanese, Tamil, Urdu and Vietnamese.

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

Total number students who qualify: [48]{.underline}

10\. Students receiving special education services: [8%]{.underline}

[44]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act. Do not add additional categories.

[4]{.underline} Autism [1]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness [5]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [4]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Emotional Disturbance [29]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

[1]{.underline} Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

> \_\_\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
> Blindness
>
> \_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities

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 [18]{.underline} [14]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ [2]{.underline}

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

> Support staff [2]{.underline} [7]{.underline}
>
> Total number [21]{.underline} [36]{.underline}

12. Average school student-classroom teacher ratio, that is, the number
    of

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers, e.g.,
22:1 [26:1]{.underline}

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

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                            2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Daily student attendance  97 %        97 %        97 %        97 %        97 %

  Daily teacher attendance  94%         96%         96%         91%         93%

  Teacher turnover rate     9%          9%          9%          4%          9%

  Student dropout rate      \-          \-          \-          \-          \-
  (middle/high)                                                             

  Student drop-off rate     \-          \-          \-          \-          \-
  (high school)                                                             
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Deerfield Elementary is a K-6 neighborhood school in the heart of
Irvine, California. Serving students since 1976 when Irvine was still
steeped in its agricultural past, Deerfield has evolved into a unique
educational experience that successfully achieves a top-quality
education while addressing the challenges and benefits of teaching a
substantial number of recent-immigrant students. Deerfield's children
hail from countries as varied as Korea, Russia, India, China, Iran,
Mexico, and several African nations. Gather all Deerfield families
together in one place and you\'ll hear 29 different languages spoken.
Open a classroom door and you\'ll see students of all skin and hair
colors working together, unaware of terms such as \"racial tension\" and
\"clashing cultures.\"

*Our Mission is that Deerfield students will attain high levels of
achievement within a safe school environment that is staffed by
highly-qualified individuals.* Our vision is to foster success through
meeting the academic needs of students with regard to individual
learning styles and instructional levels. All students engage in a
thinking, meaning-centered curriculum that is challenging, purposeful
and promotes active student participation. We focus on state standards
and enrich the curriculum through depth, complexity, and differentiation
to ensure each student reaches his or her full potential.

While 40% of the student population comes from families where English is
not the home language, Deerfield continues to produce Annual Program
Improvement (API) test scores above the state, county and even district
averages. In the past two years API scores have risen 50 points. The
school\'s Alternative Program for Academically Accelerated Students
(APAAS) currently includes students formerly identified as Title I. A
well-rounded education encompassing academics, physical education, art
lessons, vocal and instrumental music education, and civic duties allows
each student to find his or her strengths in a \"safe to try\"
environment. Programs available to assist individual needs include READ
180, Early Intervention Reading Model (EIRM), Title I, Gifted and
Talented Education (GATE), a Speech/Language Program, and a Resource
Specialist Program (RSP).

Classrooms clustered in pods allow for team teaching and make for
comfortable surroundings that can never be called sterile and
uninspiring and support another tenet of our vision, that all Deerfield
students engage in a thinking, meaning-centered curriculum that is
challenging, purposeful and promotes active student participation. The
very look of the school\'s interior is that of a beehive of learning.
Student artwork adorns the corridor walls, and the vibrant,
high-circulation library and state-of-the-art computer lab are nestled
smack dab in the school\'s center, incorporating both the past and the
future in child education.

At Deerfield we recognize the changing nature of education and society,
and we can witness a way of life where \"diversity\" evolves into a word
with only positive connotations. One can discover how seeing to an
individual\'s needs and ensuring that indeed no child gets left behind
produces astounding results\--even when that individual doesn\'t
initially speak the same language or have access to all of the
advantages society has to offer.

Every student who graduates from Deerfield Elementary is prepared to
meet the increasingly multicultural, ever-changing world. The Deerfield
family takes tremendous pride in allowing its children to start their
lives with such a remarkable experience.

**PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS**

1.  **Assessment Results:**

Deerfield participates in the state assessment system. The Academic
Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone of that system, measuring the
academic performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index that
ranges from 200 to 1000, with a statewide performance target of 800. The
testing component of the assessment system is the California
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. The STAR program
includes California Standards Tests (CST), which are norm-referenced
tests, the California Achievement Test - 6 (CAT- 6), a standardized test
given only at grade 3, and the CAPA, an alternative assessment for
severely handicapped students. At Deerfield all students in grades 2-6
are tested annually through the STAR program. No students at Deerfield
have taken the CAPA in the past three years.

The CST tests assess mathematics and English language arts (ELA) in
grades 2-6. Student scores are reported as performance levels. The five
performance levels are Advanced (exceeds state standards), Proficient
(meets state standards), Basic (approaches state standards), Below Basic
(below state standards), and Far Below Basic (well below state
standards). Students scoring at the Proficient or Advanced level meet
state standards in that content area. Detailed information regarding CST
results for each grade and proficiency level can be found at the
California Department of Education Web site at
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

CST results are used to measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as well
as to determine the California API. In 2005-2006 Deerfield once again
met its AYP goals in ELA and math, school wide as well as in our two
"numerically significant subgroups"---Asian and White (not of Hispanic
origin) (hereafter called "White"). High student achievement is also
reflected in the school's API score. For 2005 -- 2006, Deerfield's API
score of 907 demonstrates strong student achievement and reflects an
astonishing 50 point growth over the past two years (2003-2004 = 857;
2005-2006 = 907). Both Asian and White students easily met improvement
targets. Although students in both subgroups exceeded the 800 benchmark,
Asian students at Deerfield have historically tested higher than White
students, their high scores driven in particular by our Alternative
Program for Academically Accelerated Students (APAAS) classes (grades 4,
5 and 6), which are heavily Asian. The gap between the two subgroups,
however, is narrowing. In 2003-2004 Asian students scored 919 to White
students 848---a 71 point gap. In current testing, Asian students
improved to 945 and White students to 915, reducing the gap to 30
points.

Analysis of CST scores by subject and grade level shows equally
impressive results. Comparing 2003-2004 vs. 2005-2006 grade level data
in ELA, all of our grades have shown an increase in the percentage of
students scoring Proficient plus Advanced (Proficient +). Increases
ranged from five to 23 percentage points, depending on the grade level.
Our Asian students continued to make gains (from 2 to 10 points), while
our White students gains ranged from four to 26 points. The percentage
of students scoring at the Advanced level in ELA has also jumped in the
past two years. A remarkable 60% of our 4^th^ grade students scored at
the Advanced level, with grades two (58%), six (54%) and five (49%)
close behind.

With the exception of third grade, math scores on the CSTs have also
shown tremendous growth for all students, with nine to eighteen
percentage point increases in the number of students scoring at
Proficient +. Our Asian students continue to achieve high scores,
ranging from 88% to 96% Proficient +. Our White students have made
impressive gains, ranging from a seven point to a whopping 30 point
improvement in math. The percentage of students at the Advanced level in
math is even more astounding than in ELA. A full 76% of our second grade
students scored at the Advanced level, followed by grades four (60%),
five (57%), six (54%) and three (36%).

2.  **Using Assessment Results:**

Deerfield teachers know the importance of applying the principles of
professional learning communities in using in-depth analysis of STAR
(CST), California English Language Development Test (CELDT), AYP and API
data, as well as district and classroom data, to drive curriculum,
instruction and programs that ensure individual students' success. Data
analysis and teacher collaboration are a continuous practice throughout
each school year. We begin the year meeting in grade level teams,
including special education support staff and site facilitators for
specific programs (e.g., Early Intervention Reading Model (EIRM), Read
180, English Language Development (ELD), Title I) to analyze assessment
data to identify the learning needs of students, to determine program
needs, and to plan instruction and interventions. Grade level teams
articulate between grade levels to evaluate student progress toward
proficiency in the standards and ensure continuity across grade levels.
Grade level teams and specialists then write specific goals and action
plans to best address the varied needs and achievement levels of their
students. At the same time, these professionals also establish school
wide goals. The principal then meets with district curriculum
coordinators and the assistant superintendent of curriculum and
instruction to share perspectives on data analysis and to target areas
of instruction and program needs. As a part of this process, IUSD
disaggregates CST results by intervention type, and program
modifications are made based on that analysis to determine the
effectiveness of interventions.

Our plan for analyzing district data (described below) is very similar
to our plan for state data, with the same personnel examining data each
trimester and making recommendations for student, classroom, grade
level, or program alterations and staff development needs.

Scores for English Learners (ELs) re-designated as fluent are subject to
additional scrutiny. State, district

and classroom data is analyzed at 12-, 24-, and 36-month post
redesignation intervals, with additional

services offered as appropriate.

District EIRM, CORE+, and Read 180 mentors monitor student scores and
program trends to determine teacher coaching and program adjustments.
The principal reports this information to the School Site Council,
English Learner Advisory Committee, and PTA and on the Deerfield website
(iusd.k12.ca.us/de/). Teachers inform parents with progress reports and
conferencing.

3.  **Communicating Assessment Results:**

CST scores are annually mailed to parents and include an explanation of
their child's results. Local newspapers publish school assessment
information and provide school rankings by counties. Throughout the
school year, Deerfield uses multiple communication methods to inform our
students, families, and community about student progress. School wide
CST and district assessment results are communicated to parents through
Deerfield's School Accountability Report Card, and the Single Plan for
Student Achievement and are shared at School Site Council (SSC), English
Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC), and Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
meetings, as well as to the community through local newspaper articles
and the Deerfield website. Standards based report cards indicate student
progress each trimester and include content standards for each grade
level. Rubric scores indicate progress toward each standard on all K-3
report cards, while upper-grade report cards reflect student achievement
on standards based curriculum. A parent may also access his or her own
child's district assessment scores and report cards online. In addition,
phone calls, emails, personal notes home, and work folders provide
on-going informal feedback on student progress and achievement. At
parent conferencing in November, teachers report progress toward
proficiency (based on state, district, and ongoing testing) and develop
student goals. An additional parent conference in March is designed to
review progress and adjust goals. Interpreters are provided for our
non-English-speaking families at all conferences as needed. The
principal uses our automated telephone message system frequently to keep
all of our families informed of school information and events.

4.  **Sharing Success:**

The Deerfield community welcomes opportunities to participate in
professional dialogue and collaboration, to share best practices and new
insights regarding student achievement, and to maintain relationships
with the community. Our principal shares new insights into student
achievement at bi-monthly principal's meetings and Deerfield teachers
dialog at the district level by serving on committees in all curricular
areas. Teachers also share effective instructional practices at district
level meetings for our specialized reading programs, i.e., Read 180,
CORE +, EIRM, as well as for targeted populations, i.e., English
Learners, GATE, APAAS, Special Education, and Title I. Our kindergarten
teachers meet with local preschool teachers and administrators to
facilitate best practices at the preschool level and the transition to
kindergarten, and sixth grade teachers hold articulation meetings with
teachers from our local middle school. Teachers act as mentors for new
teachers through the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
program.

Deerfield maintains strong relationships with the community. Teachers
share best practices as they mentor student teachers from five local
universities. All community members are encouraged to attend PTA
sponsored programs, such as our recent presentation by Jim Trelease. We
use various media to publish our successes, innovations, and new
learning. Our newsletters, which include ideas to support learning as
well as essential information on school events, are published monthly
for all students and are also available on our website. Our local weekly
paper, the Irvine World News, regularly publishes articles about test
scores, school honors and school programs.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Curriculum:**

In keeping with Deerfield's quest for each child to reach his/her full
potential, teachers provide every one of their students with a
comprehensive, appropriately challenging curriculum that has been
aligned with the California Content Standards and the IUSD Essential
Standards. State-adopted, research-based standards-aligned instructional
materials, class assignments, homework, and culminating
activities/projects are all designed to incorporate these core standards
so that all children at all grade levels have equal access in every
academic area.

The Houghton-Mifflin language arts series forms the nucleus of our
language arts program. This series was selected because it is state
approved, research-based, meets the core standards for language arts,
includes a substantial number of assessment opportunities, reflects our
diverse student population, and provides supplementary materials for
high achieving students, students not yet proficient (SNYP), and EL
students.

McGraw-Hill Mathematics is our district-wide math adoption in grades
K-6. This selection is fully aligned to the state standards for
mathematics, is state approved, research-based and provides teachers
with both a comprehensive program and supplemental materials and
strategies for high achieving, SNYP, and EL students. In addition to the
McGraw-Hill materials, students have access to math games, activities,
and lessons in class, in Title I extended day/year programs, and at home
through the McGraw Hill website
([www.mhschool.com](http://www.mhschool.com/) ).

Classroom teachers teach science standards for grades K-3, while grades
4-6 have two additional 60-minute weekly lessons with the district
science specialist. Hands-on, developmentally appropriate experiments
are emphasized, such as collecting and observing earthworms (1st),
analyzing "mystery powder" to determine the different properties of
matter (5th), and a wilderness hike to study ecological and survival
skills in the San Bernardino Mountains (6th). Furthermore, students are
encouraged to participate in scientific explorations such as the
district-sponsored Ask a Scientist Night, Science Fair, and the
Astounding Inventions Program.

Deerfield has adopted The Great Body Shop health curriculum for
addressing health, substance/sexual abuse, and violence prevention
issues. Research has shown that this curriculum has a positive impact on
health attitudes, knowledge, and behavior. The program includes monthly
bulletins for parents and family homework to reinforce concepts taught
in the classroom. Month-long topics range from "Keeping Healthy and
Clean" (kindergarten) to "I Like Your Attitude" (third grade) and "Eat
Smart, Look Great" (sixth). As part of our focus on the whole child,
healthy food choices such as salad and fruit bars are offered at
school-sponsored activities.

All students receive physical education. Our district adaptive physical
education specialist provides services to special education students as
needed. To learn the importance of exercise and physical fitness,
students are also invited to participate in our bi-weekly Lunch Time
Activities Program and in after-school activities such as the Harvest
Cup Soccer Tournament, the Irvine Hoops Classic, Irvine Junior Games,
and in the curriculum-related the Fitness Club.

Please see Part V, \# 2, Reading, for a discussion of how curriculum is
chosen at Deerfield.

Please see Part V, \# 3, Additional Curriculum Area, for a discussion of
the arts curriculum at Deerfield.

**2. Elementary Schools** **Reading:**

During the school year, representatives of the Deerfield staff actively
participate in district-level K-6 curriculum committees, pilot potential
textbook adoptions, and participate in the textbook selection process.
To be selected textbooks must be state approved, research-based,
comprehensive, appropriately challenging, meet the core standards for
the curricular area, include a substantial number of assessment
opportunities, reflects our diverse student population, and provides
supplementary materials for high achieving students, students not yet
proficient (SNYP), and EL students. Deerfield selected the
Houghton-Mifflin language arts series as the basis of our language arts
program because it met all of the above criteria. However, Deerfield
teachers greatly enrich reading instruction at all levels through a
variety of reading instructional strategies.

The Early Intervention Reading Model (EIRM) is key to our young readers'
success. Struggling readers become far more successful when carefully
taught the same fundamental reading skills as all successful readers but
with more instructional time, more precisely sequenced teaching, and
immediate feedback during learning (Simmons and Kame'enui, 1998). All of
these strategies are incorporated in EIRM. Kindergarten and first-grade
SNYP (including students with disabilities and ELs) receive an extra
30-minute "dose" of small group systematic and explicit instruction in
phonemic awareness, connection to print, pattern recognition, and
phonics. Evidence of EIRM success is reflected in 90% of our
kindergarten and 93% of our first grade students meeting benchmarks in
ELA last June.

In grades two and three teachers implement the strategies of the
district's CORE+ program, which include analysis of data, very targeted
differentiated instruction, additional teaching strategies, and district
mentor coaching.

The READ 180 program, which is taught by our 50% Title I teacher, is a
comprehensive research-based reading intervention program designed to
meet the needs of upper-grade students who are not yet proficient in
ELA. Read 180 utilizes teacher-directed instruction, computer software,
audio books, and paperbacks. Software that provides assessment and
differentiated instruction at every level was one of the key factors in
adopting this program. As students progress, the content level changes
accordingly, and the software checks comprehension continuously.

English Learners are an integral part of Deerfield's student population.
Teachers utilize specialized instructional materials (provided by the
publishers) and strategies to work with students. For example, reading
comprehension for a second-grade student at a Beginning ELD level would
be to listen to a story and respond with a few words, while a student at
the Early Intermediate level would read the story and respond in simple
sentences.

**3. Additional Curriculum Area:**

Deerfield's accomplishment of its mission is not confined to traditional
"academic" subjects. One particularly impressive example of Deerfield's
breath is the fine arts program in which classroom teachers and highly
trained specialists in music and art provide students with the
foundations for lifelong enjoyment, involvement, and leadership. Music
instruction is delivered by grade level, focusing on music appreciation
and skill development and is fully aligned with the National Standards
and California Content Standards. Above and beyond weekly music by
classroom teachers, third grade students receive thirty minutes of music
instruction every other week by a district music specialist. In grades
4-6, music specialists provide twice-a-week, 40-minute sessions and
students may select to be in the vocal, orchestra, strings, or winds
classes. Fifteen to twenty of the orchestra students qualify annually
for the IUSD Honor Orchestra, and several others participate in the
district's esteemed Honor Chorus and Honor Chamber Strings. Deerfield's
talented art specialist provides eight 60-minute lessons each year to
all grades, teaching the styles of such artists as Picasso, O'Keeffe,
Matisse, and Van Gogh. The children's masterpieces adorn the
multipurpose room and hallways, with selected pieces put on display at
the district office, Irvine City Hall, and the Junior Art Gallery of the
Laguna Beach Festival of Arts. Deerfield students are also found engaged
in architectural renderings, art history lessons, and grade-level stage
productions. In the unique Page-to-Stage Program, local high school
students perform our students' creative writing stories.

**4.** **Instructional Methods:**

A comprehensive standards-based curriculum is implemented using the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession as a blueprint.
Teachers utilize a myriad of instructional methods to facilitate student
achievement and mastery of the California Content Standards. Balancing
direct with inquiry-based instruction and independent with collaborative
work, students experience one on one, small group, whole group, and
cooperative group instruction. Our focus is on building strong basic,
foundational skills while developing high level, critical thinking
skills. Striving to ensure successful learning and growth for all
students, we implement researched based classroom instruction and
intervention strategies, sufficient practice, and purposeful assessment.
Teachers regularly differentiate and modify instruction based on
students' needs to provide learning opportunities for all students
including our students with disabilities, SNYP, ELs, Title I and GATE
students. In addition, all of our upper grade teachers have received
training on meeting the needs of GATE students, who receive
differentiated instruction across the curriculum through the strategies
of acceleration, depth and complexity and novelty. All teachers have a
Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (CLAD) or SB395
certification and use Specially Designed Academic Instruction In English
(SDAIE) strategies and publisher materials to give standards-based
instruction to EL students. ELD instruction is based on the California
English Language Development and English-Language Arts Standards for
English Learners. They utilize EL support materials that accompany ELA
resources to develop English language skills, while supporting the ELA
curriculum. Teachers modify classroom assignments and assessments based
on the English fluency of each child.

The use of technology as an instructional tool permeates every aspect of
the school. This year all students, K-6, are enjoying our new computer
lab where, on a weekly basis, our media technician and classroom teacher
work collaboratively to teach word processing, research, technology
presentation, and problem solving skills. The computer lab is an
extension of the library, fulfilling the IUSD mission statement's quest
"for students to use technology as a communication and information tool
that supports thinking\...problem-solving, academic achievement, and
their transition to college and career...." Technology is used to deepen
the curriculum and access information outside of class. Having computers
connected to mounted televisions and Internet access in every classroom,
teachers readily use these resources to enhance the curriculum, making
it come alive for students. In the spring, our upper grade teachers will
have the opportunity to incorporate new mounted LCD projectors into
their instructional repertoire.

5.  **Professional Development:**

Deerfield's state, district and grade level student assessment data is
analyzed at both site and district levels in the fall of each new school
year. Areas of improvement and strength are identified and shared with
parents serving on our ELAC and SSC so that they can provide input
regarding program needs and then individual, grade level and school wide
goals and action plans are established. This process results in the
Single Plan for Student Achievement and is our blueprint for staff
development needs.

Deerfield dedicates funds from site level Title I, English Language
Development, School Improvement Program, and special education and
combines those with district offerings to support our staff development
needs. Staff members attend only research and standards based staff
development and are required to formally share new information with
colleagues.

Whenever possible, staff members attend professional development
activities as teams to encourage collaboration and peer coaching. Our
teams may include grade-level teachers, paraprofessionals, the
principal, specialists, and yard duty supervisors. In addition, all
Deerfield paraprofessionals meet weekly with the Title I Coordinator-ELD
Site Representative to broaden their understanding of curriculum,
student disorders, school programs, processes, and procedures. They, in
turn, share information learned in college courses and program-specific
in-services.

Some of the District-sponsored staff development activities in which we
have participated in the past two years include best practices in
instructional strategies, reading (Strategic Reading Intervention, EIRM,
CORE+), writing, math, differentiated instruction (Differentiation GATE
), health (The Great Body Shop), character education (Project Citizen),
and analysis of data with technology (IOLA Assessments, PLATO database,
ABI Gradebook).

Professional development at Deerfield is equipping a highly skilled
staff, which is reflected in our stellar student performance. For 2005
-- 2006, Deerfield's API score of 907 demonstrates strong student
achievement and reflects an astonishing 50 point growth over the past
two years (2003-2004 = 857; 2005-2006 = 907).

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**Public Schools**

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [ELA]{.underline} Grade [2]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 91          73          68
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           58          30          41

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               67          60          66

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 93          83          91
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           63          48          50

  Number of Students Tested               27          23          32

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 88          75          62
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           64          21          43

  Number of Students Tested               25          28          21

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [ELA]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 59          58          51
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           22          33          23

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               67          75          79

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 70          90          66
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           33          48          36

  Number of Students Tested               27          31          33

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 61          45          57
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           21          31          20

  Number of Students Tested               28          29          30

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [ELA]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 84          83          68
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           60          58          42

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               103         95          69

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 91          93          81
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           79          71          52

  Number of Students Tested               47          42          21

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 85          82          69
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           55          56          45

  Number of Students Tested               33          34          29

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [ELA]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 71          74          66
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           49          42          30

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               100         96          74

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

                                                                  

  Asian                                   82          78          79

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 61          65          46
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           49          40          24

  Number of Students Tested                                       

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 76          84          61
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           55          30          28

  Number of Students Tested               29          37          36

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [ELA]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 78          69          65
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           54          45          24

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               103         102         74

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         98

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 79          88          69
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           63          60          25

  Number of Students Tested               52          40          32

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 86          64          67
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           54          38          30

  Number of Students Tested               35          45          30

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [2]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 92          85          81
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           76          50          52

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               67          60          65

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 96          100         100
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           89          65          72

  Number of Students Tested               27          23          32

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 92          82          85
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           72          50          50

  Number of Students Tested               25          28          20

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 63          69          64
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           36          41          38

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               67          75          80

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 70          90          85
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           56          68          59

  Number of Students Tested               21          31          34

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 64          66          56
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           32          28          33

  Number of Students Tested               28          29          30

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 82          75          64
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           60          49          41

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               103         96          69

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 96          88          90
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           81          69          76

  Number of Students Tested               47          42          21

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 88          68          62
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           55          41          34

  Number of Students Tested               33          34          29

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 74          62          65
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           57          41          30

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               100         96          74

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         100

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 88          83          88
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           78          58          50

  Number of Students Tested               49          40          24

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 76          57          64
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           55          32          28

  Number of Students Tested               29          37          36

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

State Criterion Referenced Tests

State Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [California
Standards Test (CST)]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                          2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004

  Testing Month                           May         May         May

  **School Scores**                                               

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 80          77          68
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           54          49          36

                                                                  

  Number of Students Tested               103         102         74

  Percent of Total Students Tested        100         100         98

  Number of Students Alternatively        0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

  Percent of Students Alternatively       0           0           0
  Assessed                                                        

                                                                  

  **Subgroup Scores**                                             

  Asian                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 94          98          85
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           67          73          47

  Number of Students Tested               52          40          32

                                                                  

  White                                                           

  \% Proficient plus Advanced performance 86          71          56
  level                                                           

  \% Advanced performance level           49          38          33

  Number of Students Tested               35          45          30

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