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

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

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Mrs. Maureen Kennedy Berg]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Louisa May Alcott Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [10308 Baltic Road
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

[Cleveland Ohio]{.underline}
\_\_[44102-1631]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [( 216 ) 631-3151]{.underline} Fax [( 216 ) 631-3309
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.cmsdnet.net/schools/elementary/alcott.html]{.underline}
E-mail [bergma01@cmsdnet.net]{.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\* [Ms. Barbara Byrd-Bennett]{.underline}

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

District Name [Cleveland Municipal School District]{.underline} Tel.
[(216 ) 574-8500]{.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 Ms. Margaret Hopkins

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

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [61]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[17]{.underline} Middle schools

[0]{.underline} Junior high schools

[20]{.underline} High schools

[23]{.underline} Other (Briefly explain) (K-8)

[121]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [10,352]{.underline} (FY02#)

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [8,441]{.underline}

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

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

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

4\. [7]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **K**       17        26                     **43**       **7**                             

  **1**       18        13                     **31**       **8**                             

  **2**       17        15                     **32**       **9**                             

  **3**       15        18                     **33**       **10**                            

  **4**       19        11                     **30**       **11**                            

  **5**       12        22                     **34**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   203
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [49.4]{.underline} % White

> the students in the school: [33.2]{.underline}% Black or African
> American
>
> [8.9]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

[8]{.underline}% Other

**100% Total**

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

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

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 18
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 36
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        54
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    208
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .2596
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    25.96%
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

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

[N/A]{.underline} Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [\_N/A\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
[100%]{.underline}Based on universal feeding Federal Government

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

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

10\. Students receiving special education services: [27]{.underline}%

[55]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served (1/5/03)

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

[1]{.underline} Autism [15]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness [10]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [6]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment [9]{.underline} Speech or Language Impairment

[4]{.underline} Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

[3]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment
Including Blindness

[7]{.underline} Kindergarten Children: Preschool Children with

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 [10]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists [7]{.underline} [9]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [4]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff [9]{.underline} [2]{.underline}
>
> Total number [32]{.underline} [11]{.underline}

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

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

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

  Daily student attendance 99.4        99.2        95.3        93.4\*      N/A

  Daily teacher attendance 92          96          87\*        87.7\*      N/A

  Teacher turnover rate    1           0           0           0           0

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

\*Non-official source

official source corrupt.

14\. **(*High Schools Only*)** Show what the students who graduated in
Spring 2003 are doing as of September 2003.

# NA

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Graduating class size                               | > \_\_\_\_\_   |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university          | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                     | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                     | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Found employment                                    | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Military service                                    | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                  | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Unknown                                             | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **Total**                                           | > 100 %        |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

## 

## PART III -- SUMMARY

# 

Louisa May Alcott Elementary School was opened in 1926 as a four-room
schoolhouse of children in grades kindergarten through grade three. In
the mid-1970s, an addition was added to the building that included a
multi-purpose room, library, science room, offices and seven classrooms.
In 1981, under desegregation, the school was converted to an adult
sheltered workshop. With the passing of a levy in 1996, the school was
converted back to an elementary school, reopening in the fall of 1997
for grades kindergarten through grade five with an entirely new staff
and first-year principal. It is an urban school and part of the
Cleveland Municipal School District.

With children assigned from at least ten surrounding schools, many
behavior and academic problems were apparent. The school also became a
special education site for children with orthopedic handicaps (OH),
those who had other health impairments (OHI) and a variety of children
who were developmentally handicapped or learning disabled. During the
first year many procedures, policies and traditions were established.
The energies of the staff went to assessing student needs, which were
great, and achievement, which was low, and planning for future
curriculum and programs to turn things around.

During the first year, however, much progress was made. The mission of
the school to have all of our children achieve at high levels was agreed
to through a planning process involving all stakeholders. Through
collaborative efforts a discipline plan, a dress code and a common
reading curriculum were established.

As a result of this cooperative endeavor, the staff researched,
purchased and implemented Direct Instruction as the core reading
curriculum. A year later, the Saxon Math program was adopted and through
the training of teachers and implementation of these programs we began
our climb. With the use of Title I funds that became available to us our
second year, we established a science laboratory type classroom and
hired a full-time science teacher.

In the course of six years we have created a school library, built a
conference room and two small rooms for specialists, organized an active
parent group, obtained a corporate partner, established a reading
intervention program utilizing 50 tutors and built a playground. We have
also written and received grants totaling almost \$400,000.00.

Louisa May Alcott is now being recognized for its innovations in
curriculum and excellent performance. The superintendent has deemed
Alcott as a "model school" and visitors come daily to observe the
programs and teaching staff. The teachers have overwhelmingly supported
the school programming as evidenced by the fact that there has not been
one transfer over the last five years. The greatest impact and most
rewarding benefit has been in watching the transformation of the
children as they now come to school eager and prepared to learn and
flourishing in the welcoming and peaceful environment that has been
created for them.

Even with success, Louisa May Alcott continues to strive for greater
extension of the curricula and improvement. Most likely our school will
be configured into a K-8 model or K-3 model based on district need. The
school community is ready to meet these challenges, with continued
excellence in shared leadership and teamwork, and strong commitment to
the children of Louisa May Alcott Elementary School.

## 

## PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS

**1. The meaning of the School's Assessment Data in Reading and Math**

The Ohio State Fourth-Grade Proficiency Test is a rigorous and timely
assessment of student strengths and weaknesses in five subject areas:
reading, mathematics, citizenship, writing and science. The test is
given statewide to all 4^th^ graders over a two-week period in March.
Each subject takes up to two-and-one half hours and tests knowledge in a
variety of ways.

Literal interpretation in reading is tested through multiple-choice
questions. Short answer and extended response questions require a
demonstration of higher level thinking skills as students create charts
and tables from information they have read. Through the writing of
longer passages, students demonstrate their ability to understand deeper
meanings in passages and express opinions and draw conclusions about
what they have read. Both fiction and non-fiction material is presented
on the test.

The mathematics test is equally challenging. Students must answer a wide
variety of questions demonstrating knowledge on many levels. There are
basic computation questions in multiple choice form and short answer
questions requiring interpretation of graphs, charts, etc. The most
challenging part of the test requires the students to do multiple-step,
word problems and give written responses to how they arrived at their
answers.

The test is graded by an external company employed by the Ohio State
Department of Education to insure objective results. The tests are
mailed to the state in March and the results reach the schools in June.
For each subject there is a scaled score established by the State Board
of Education, and students are evaluated by how they perform against
this standard. For the reading test, there are four categories of
performance: below basic, basic, proficient and advanced. For
mathematics, students are categorized as not proficient, proficient and
advanced.

The testing data the school receives from the state provides valuable
information for educators to determine areas of strength and weakness in
each subject. Careful utilization of this information has resulted in
continuous refinement of teaching strategies and practices. The changes
have impacted practices in all grades, beginning in kindergarten, so
that students enter fourth grade with a firm foundation to succeed. Thus
we have demonstrated schoolwide improvement in reading and mathematics
over the course of five years.

# 

2.  **How the School Uses Assessment Data To Understand and Improve
    Student and School Performance**

> Louisa May Alcott Elementary uses different forms of assessment on an
> ongoing basis. The assessment information is used to determine student
> progress and quality teacher practice. Our Direct Instruction reading
> program has assessments embedded in lessons to assure quality in
> phonics, word recognition, rate of reading and comprehension. Our
> *Saxon Math* program also has testing embedded within the program and
> includes daily fact drills and unit tests administered every five
> lessons. In addition to these assessments, teachers have been
> inserviced on creating quality teacher-made assessments that align
> with the standards in all core subject areas and grade these
> assessments using rubrics, which the children, grades 1-5, know how to
> read and interpret.
>
> Teachers have access to data bases provided by the district, which can
> be used to interpret result of standardized testing given district and
> statewide. Workshops are held regularly at grade level meetings to
> review data and adjust curriculum to the assessment results.

When a child enters Louisa May Alcott, his reading is assessed
immediately by our in-house

English/Language Arts Developer. The child is then placed in the
appropriate multi-aged reading

group to match his ability level. Students are individually assessed
throughout the year if striking gains or losses are noted, and can be
easily moved from one group to another according to his or her needs.

This flow of continual assessment makes for easily recognizable trends
in groups and individual

students, and teachers can adjust their curricula and teaching
techniques to accommodate the children's needs and achieve optimum
achievement.

3.  **How the School Communicates Student Performance**

Keeping our community informed of student progress has been achieved
using a variety of communication techniques. Our school has established
before and after-school conference times at each report card period so
parents can easily schedule appointments to communicate with teachers
one-on-one. A progress report is sent home every five weeks with a
request for a parent conference, if needed. Our monthly
calendar/newsletter informs parents and the community of our students'
progress and parents are invited to quarterly awards assemblies, which
highlight academic achievement. At every parent meeting, our principal
gives a report of grade level and/or school-wide achievement and honors.
All test scores are accessible for analysis on our district on-line Data
Farm, and graphs and tables of each child's progress can be accessed and
printed by teachers for parents. A quarterly progress report has been
produced for each special education student and is aligned to individual
I.E.P. goals. We are developing Data Folders in which the children are
responsible for graphing their progress, and can compare it to last
year's progress. We also have an open door policy for parents so they
can observe their child in the classroom whenever they wish.

4.  **How the School Will Share Its Successes with Other Schools**

This year Louisa May Alcott was designated by our Superintendent as one
of four "model schools" in a district of 121 schools. Teachers and staff
from other schools visit us regularly to see quality teaching, and our
teachers can be invited to other schools to model teaching in
classrooms. Four staff members presented at a breakout session at the
State Superintendent's Schools of Promise Conference in Columbus, Ohio,
on the topic: *Providing Leadership that Results in Continuous
Improvement of Instruction*. Five staff members have been invited to
present at the OAASFEP Title I/Federal Programs Spring Conference with
the topic: *Everyone Reads! (Overcoming the Odds).*

We had a five-minute piece done on our school by the Ohio Educational TV
Network, and our local NBC newscasters did a piece on our school and its
successes. From these various recognitions we have had calls from within
and outside of district asking for help in a variety areas of academic
school life. Our teachers and staff are models of expertise and are
being recognized and utilized by many.

###### 

###### **PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1.  **Louisa May Alcott Elementary School Curriculum**

The curriculum of Louisa May Alcott is based on content standards
developed by the school district and the Ohio Department of Education.
Our school uses rigorous, specific, measurable, and concise
instructional methods, which promote high expectations for all students.
All standards are broken down by grade level with appropriate benchmarks
and performance indicators for each grade.

The K-5 Reading/Language arts curriculum consists of Reading, Writing,
Speaking, Listening and Viewing skills. Our staff uses a balanced
literacy program. The core of reading instruction is developed through
the use of Direct Instruction, from S.R.A. Publishing. Supplemental
instruction is provided by additional literature materials, Accelerated
Reader, trade books, teacher developed units and assessments, and other
language materials. A full-time Media Specialist teaches lessons at all
grade levels that focus on research, computer, and literacy skills. All
students, including special education students, are grouped according to
their literacy needs (multi-aged grouping) for their reading block
instruction.

Math instruction for K-5 is also driven by the district, state, and NCTM
standards. Grades K-5, including special education, use the Saxon Math
program (Saxon Publishers), which is a direct instruction program for
math. The Saxon program is supplemented by Harcourt Brace Texts,
*Interactive Math with Literacy*, hands on math activities, and teacher
developed units and assessments, which focus on skill reinforcement and
problem solving. An in-house Math Developer coordinates implementation
of math standards into math programming.

Science instruction is also aligned with the district and state
standards. Instruction focuses in the areas of Earth and Space Science,
Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Science and Technology, Inquiry and
Scientific Ways of Knowing. Continuous academic improvement in science
has been achieved by utilizing Title I funds to develop a science
laboratory classroom and to provide a full-time science teacher.
Students participate in a school and district science fair each year.
Science instruction is based on *Pro-Link Science*, a guide provided to
the district. Active exploration and hands on learning is supplemented
by kits obtained through such programs as "Foss," "Science Anytime,"
"Insights," and teacher-made kits, units, and assessments.

The district and state social studies standards are clearly defined by a
balanced program of active citizenship. Instruction in grades K-5
concentrates on the areas of History, People in Societies, Geography,
Economics, Government and Citizenship. Each grade level develops a
yearly theme on which instruction is based. A theme example is "People
Working Together." Instruction utilizes all the resources provided by
the school district and is supplemented by the use of guest
speakers/presentations, field trips, multicultural programs, Junior
Achievement programming, maps, globes, current events/newspaper study,
and leaning centers. Use of Internet access, CD-ROM's, video
conferencing and other technology are also incorporated into the themes.

Opportunities for art, music, drama and dance are essential to our
curriculum to promote creative thinking in our students. Students at
Louisa May Alcott participate in the arts through weekly vocal and
instrumental music classes and choir. Drama and dance are a core part of
our physical education program. Art is incorporated into every area of
the curriculum and is displayed in our end of the year art exhibit,
funded through a grant. Guest speakers from all areas of the arts
regularly make presentations. Students are given many opportunities to
demonstrate talents in the many programs put on by the school, including
a Louisa May Alcott Showcase Night each spring.

> **2. Reading Curriculum**

The first step to our academic improvement was researching and adopting
SRA's Direct Instruction Reading Program as the foundation for our
reading curriculum. The Direct Instruction program provided many
components that were necessary for our students to succeed which
includes a special education student population. The program contains
the key elements for reading instruction, which include phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary instruction, fluency, accuracy and
comprehension. Reading skills are explicitly taught from a script during
the lesson. Specific strategies and techniques, such as signaling
responses and correction procedures are incorporated into the program,
as well as a variety of assessments.

A state grant and our school district provided the funds to adopt the
program. During the implementation stage, the grant enabled the staff to
be trained extensively, to attend several Direct Instruction
Conferences, and to receive mentoring and coaching from an outside
Direct Instruction consultant. Thus, high expectations and standards
were established from the beginning of the program for the staff and
students.

With a common goal and understanding, the teachers have worked
collaboratively to have two reading blocks per day in grades K-5. One
block is for Direct Instruction and the other block is for literacy.
During grade level meetings, the staff works together to plan their
literacy lessons. The staff uses Direct Instruction techniques and
research-based strategies like word building, reciprocal teaching, word
walls, and flexible groups to meet the needs of all of our students. In
addition, we offer a literacy tutoring program with community volunteers
to a targeted group of students. Therefore, our reading curriculum has
evolved into a balanced literacy program.

3.  **School's Curriculum Area of Choice: Mathematics**

After researching many approaches to the effective teaching of math,
Louisa May Alcott unanimously chose Saxon Math as our core mathematics
curriculum for grades K-5, and began its usage our second year as a
school. Saxon Math is another Direct Instruction (DI) program based on
mastery learning. We have found that the consistency of teaching
techniques over grade levels transfers well from grade to grade. We
found that this one mathematics system did not offer all the necessary
components to master every standard required by the state of Ohio.
Therefore, we have supplemented this core piece with Harcourt Brace
materials, teacher adaptations and have recently have added *Interactive
Math with Literacy,* a program created by a Cleveland teacher.

With funding from a grant offered by the State of Ohio, we received
materials and expert training on teaching Saxon Math. When grant money
was depleted, we began tapping into our own teachers' areas of expertise
in mathematics. We have a math developer in the building who models
lessons for teachers and has introduced *Interactive Math with Literacy*
to grades two and three after she successfully implemented the program
with fourth graders two years ago. Higher academic achievement and
higher test scores have been a result. Teachers have also begun to
infuse their math curricula with skills usually taught one grade above
their own, so the children are experienced and prepared for the next
grade.

With our excellent teacher cooperation across grade levels, all these
strategies have worked together in assisting us to achieve our school
mission of high standards and academic growth in math.

4.  **Different Instructional Methods Used to Improve Student Learning**

The school has developed an Academic Achievement Plan (AAP), which is
our outline for programming throughout the year. Within the AAP we list
the strategies below that we have designated as imperative to the
development of our academic achievement. It includes:

-   Formula Writing (developed by a local teacher to make the teaching
    of the writing

process easily adaptable for all grade levels)

-   Balanced literacy program in reading with the use of literacy blocks

-   Literacy-based instruction in all core subject areas with writing
    infused throughout

-   Use of *Direct Instruction* programs for Reading and Math

-   Literacy Grant from Media Specialists that yearly guides all grade
    levels' literacy

program with a schoolwide theme

-   *Accelerated Reader*

-   Cooperative teaching and parallel teaching between classroom
    teachers and special education resource teachers in a full inclusion
    setting

-   Use of assistive technology for special needs students (personal
    laptops and printers, reading pen, talking calculators, spell
    checks)

-   *First in Math:* a computer program sponsored by *McDonald's*
    restaurants

-   Spring Math Carnival through a teacher written grant -- to inspire
    higher achievement and family involvement

-   Usage of computers in classrooms, and using Internet for research
    beginning in Grade 1

-   *Direct Instruction* reading program begun in Kindergarten

-   Beginning the use of Distance Learning and Video Conferencing in all
    classrooms

-   Laboratory Science for all grade levels, with an expert science
    teacher

-   Science Fair participation schoolwide, and in local and national
    fairs

-   Use of community-related experiences on all grade levels to aid in
    teaching of Social Studies

-   Grades 2 and 3 partially departmentalized and grades 4 and 5 fully
    departmentalized to take advantage of individual teacher's expertise

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Before and after-school tutoring for all grade levels by staff,
    including HOSTS, a

nationally recognized program used for literacy intervention

-   Saturday Family Literacy and Math programs to involve families in
    academics

-   After-school homework lab

-   Extensive use of data analysis of assessments and community surveys
    to aid in

choices for curriculum and instruction

-   Homework packets distributed over holiday breaks and the
    "Principal's Reading Challenge" over the summer break, with
    incentives to complete the assignments

5.  **Professional Development and Impact on Student Achievement**

During our second year as a school, all teachers received training
through professional trainers and through a consultant provided by our
3-year Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project (CRSD) grant
awarded by the State of Ohio. Our in-house reading specialist was sent
to Oregon for extensive training in Direct Instruction, and staff
members were sent to Chicago and Oregon for training and extended
development of Direct Instruction techniques. But training did not end
when our grant expired. Teachers began sharing their areas of expertise
through grade-level meetings, in-house workshops and through peer
coaching during classroom lessons.

We have an in-house literacy professional developer and math
professional developer. They offer monthly workshops for staff and
parents to keep our skill level current and sharpened. Our school
district offers professional development opportunities throughout the
year. The majority of teachers have been trained in *Alliance*, a
program developed to augment the use of technology in the classroom. We
fill our two professional development workshop days with district and
non-district trainers who provide services requested by the staff.

Our present Academic Achievement Plan for the building includes a
professional development plan with three goals: use of in-house teacher
expertise; developing staff expertise in using assessment data; to
continue staff development of DI techniques. A school Core Team, which
meets monthly, monitors these goals. The professional development plan
assures us that all students' achievement can be improved through
quality teaching of educational standards accomplished by a well-trained
staff.

## 

## PART VI -- PRIVATE SCHOOL AND ADDENDUM

### NA

######### PART VII -- ASSESSMENT RESULTS

####### STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST

> Grade[\_\_\_4\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} Test [Ohio Fourth-Grade Reading
> Proficiency
> Test]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Edition/publication year\_\_[\_2003]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
> [\_Ohio Department of Education]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Number of students in the grade in which the test was administered
> [36\_\_\_]{.underline}
>
> Number of students who took the test [36\_\_\_]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[None\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Number excluded [0]{.underline}\_\_\_ Percent excluded
> [0%\_\_]{.underline}
>
> For the 2002-2003 school year, Ohio required 4^th^, 6^th^ and 9^th^
> grade proficiency tests in reading, writing, mathematics, citizenship,
> and science. These assessments are based on Ohio's academic content
> standards that delineate what a student should know and be able to do
> at each grade level. The academic content standards are composed of
> standards, benchmarks and grade-level indicators.
>
> For the 2002-2003 school year, reading scores for the fourth-grade
> proficiency test were reported as advanced, proficient, basic or below
> basic. The scaled score standards were:

+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| #### Fourth-Grade Reading |                  |                       |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| #### Category             | #                | #### 2002-2003        |
|                           | ### Scaled Score |                       |
|                           |                  | #### State Percentage |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| At Advanced               | 250 and higher   | 9.3%                  |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| At or above proficient    | 217 and higher   | 66.3%                 |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| At or above basic         | 198 and higher   | 90.6%                 |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| Below basic               | below 198        | 9.4%                  |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+

Performance standards were established by the State Board of Education
based on recommendations of standard-setting committees (comprised
mainly of Ohio teachers at the appropriate grade levels) and reports
from the Testing Steering Committee (comprised of school
administrators), the Fairness/Sensitivity review panel (comprised of
representatives of the diversity in Ohio looking at equity issues), and
the Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of national and state
testing experts and psychometricians looking at technical issues).

**Ohio Fourth-Grade Reading Proficiency Test**

+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                  | 2002- | 2001-  | 2000-  | 1999-  |
|                                  |       |        |        |        |
|                                  | 2003  | 2002   | 2001   | 2000   |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month                    | Oct.  | Oct. & | Oct. & | Oct. & |
|                                  | &     |        |        |        |
|                                  |       | March  | March  | March  |
|                                  | March |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES - **Reading**      |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| # Total                          |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Basic                | 97.3% | Not    | Not    | Not    |
|                                  |       | D      | D      | D      |
|                                  |       | efined | efined | efined |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Proficient           | 86.2% | 66.6%  | 38.3%  | 29.6%  |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At Advanced                      | 14%   | 4%     | 3%     | 0%     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested        | 36    | 24     | 35     | 24     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total students tested | 100%  | 73%    | 97%    | 66.7%  |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students excluded      | 0     | 9      | 1      | 12     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                  |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBSCORES                        |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. **White**                    |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Basic                | 95%   | Not    | Not    | Not    |
|                                  |       | D      | D      | D      |
|                                  |       | efined | efined | efined |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Proficient           | 70%   | 83.3%  | 52.4%  | 25%    |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At Advanced                      | 10%   | 8.5%   | 0%     | 0%     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested        | 20    | 12     | 20     | 16     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                  |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2\. **African American**         |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Basic                | 100%  | Not    | Not    | Not    |
|                                  |       | D      | D      | D      |
|                                  |       | efined | efined | efined |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Proficient           | 88.9% | 57.1%  | 20%    | 50%    |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At Advanced                      | 0%    | 0%     | 0%     | 0%     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested        | 9     | 7      | 10     | 4      |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                  |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 4\. **Economically               |       |        |        |        |
| Disadvantaged**                  |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Basic                | 97.3% | Not    | Not    | Not    |
|                                  |       | D      | D      | D      |
|                                  |       | efined | efined | efined |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Proficient           | 86.2% | 66.6%  | 38.3%  | 29.6%  |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At Advanced                      | 14%   | 4%     | 3%     | 0%     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested        | 36    | 24     | 35     | 24     |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                  |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 5**. Special Education**         |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Basic                | 87.5% | N/A    | N/A    | N/A    |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Proficient           | 62.5% | N/A    | N/A    | N/A    |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At Advanced                      | 12.5% | N/A    | N/A    | N/A    |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested        | 8     | N/A    | N/A    | N/A    |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                  |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| STATE SCORES - **Reading**       |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                  |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Basic                | 90.6% | N/A    | N/A    | N/A    |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| State Mean Score                 |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At or Above Proficient           | 66.6% | 67.7%  | 56.0%  | 58.2%  |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| State or Mean Score              |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| At Advanced                      | 9.3%  | 7.0%   | 7.0%   | 6.0%   |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| State Mean Score                 |       |        |        |        |
+----------------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+

# 

# 

# 

# STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST

> Grade[\_\_\_4\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} Test [Ohio Fourth-Grade
> Mathematics Proficiency
> Test]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Edition/publication year\_\_[\_2003]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ Publisher
> [\_Ohio Department of Education]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Number of students in the grade in which the test was administered
> [36\_\_\_]{.underline}
>
> Number of students who took the test [36\_\_\_]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[None\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Number excluded [0]{.underline} \_\_\_\_ Percent excluded
> [0%\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
>
> For the 2002-2003 school year, Ohio required 4^th^, 6^th^ and 9^th^
> grade proficiency tests in reading, writing, mathematics, citizenship,
> and science. These assessments are based on Ohio's academic content
> standards that delineate what a student should know and be able to do
> at each grade level. The academic content standards are composed of
> standards, benchmarks and grade-level indicators.
>
> For the 2002-2003 school year, mathematics scores for the fourth-grade
> proficiency test were reported as advanced, proficient, basic or below
> basic. The scaled score standards were:

+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| ####                      |                  |                       |
|  Fourth-Grade Mathematics |                  |                       |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| #### Category             | #                | #### 2002-2003        |
|                           | ### Scaled Score |                       |
|                           |                  | #### State Percentage |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| At Advanced               | 250 and higher   | 14.6%                 |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| At or above proficient    | 218 and higher   | 58.6%                 |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| At or above basic         | 208 and higher   | 70.4%                 |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+
| Below basic               | below 208        | 29.6%                 |
+---------------------------+------------------+-----------------------+

Performance standards were established by the State Board of Education
based on recommendations of standard-setting committees (comprised
mainly of Ohio teachers at the appropriate grade levels) and reports
from the Testing Steering Committee (comprised of school
administrators), the Fairness/Sensitivity review panel (comprised of
representatives of the diversity in Ohio looking at equity issues), and
the Technical Advisory Committee (comprised of national and state
testing experts and psychometricians looking at technical issues).

**Ohio Fourth-Grade Math Proficiency Test**

+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|                                   | 2002- | 2001- | 2000-  | 1999- |
|                                   |       |       |        |       |
|                                   | 2003  | 2002  | 2001   | 2000  |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Testing Month                     | Oct.  | Oct.  | Oct. & | Oct.  |
|                                   | &     | &     |        | &     |
|                                   |       |       | March  |       |
|                                   | March | March |        | March |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| SCHOOL SCORES - **Math**          |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Total                             |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Basic                 | 91.7% | 95.7% | 76.1%  | 100%  |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Proficient            | 88.9% | 95.7% | 76.1%  | 44.4% |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At Advanced                       | 25%   | 17.4% | 29.4%  | 0     |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Number of students tested         | 36    | 23    | 36     | 24    |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Percent of total students tested  | 100%  | 72%   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Number of students excluded       | 0     | 9     | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|                                   |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| SUBSCORES                         |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| 1\. **White**                     |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Basic                 | 90%   | 83%   | 94.8%  | 100%  |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Proficient            | 60%   | 75%   | 71%    | 56%   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At Advanced                       | 30%   | 8%    | 23.8%  | 0     |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Number of students tested         | 20    | 10    | 21     | 16    |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|                                   |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| 2\. **African American**          |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Basic                 | 88.9% | 88.9% | 100%   | 100%  |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Proficient            | 77.8% | 77.8% | 40%    | 25%   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At Advanced                       | 11.1% | 11.1% | 0      | 0     |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Number of students tested         | 9     | 8     | 10     | 4     |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|                                   |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| 4\. **Economically                |       |       |        |       |
| Disadvantaged**                   |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Basic                 | 91.7% | N/A   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Proficient            | 88.9% | 95.7% | 76.1%  | 67%   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At Advanced                       | 25%   | N/A   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Number of student tested          | 36    | 23    | 36     | 24    |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|                                   |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| 5\. **Special Education**         |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Basic                 | N/A   | N/A   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Proficient            | 87.5% | N/A   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At Advanced                       | 0%    | N/A   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| Number of students tested         | 8     | N/A   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|                                   |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| STATE SCORES - **Math**           |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
|                                   |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Basic                 | 70.4% | N/A   | N/A    | N/A   |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| State Mean Score                  |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At or Above Proficient            | 58.6% | 62.9% | 59.4%  | 48.9% |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| State or Mean Score               |       |       |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+
| At Advanced                       | 14.6% | 17.0% | 16.0%  | 11.0% |
+-----------------------------------+-------+-------+--------+-------+