***[2006-2007 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools
Program]{.underline}***

# U.S. Department of Education

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

**Name of Principal:** [Mrs. Sheryl A. Robinson]{.underline}

**Official School Name:** [Jefferson Elementary School]{.underline}

School Mailing Address: [9 Summit Drive]{.underline}

######  Farmington MO 63640-1641 

City State Zip Code

County: [St. Francois]{.underline} State School Code Number:
[4040]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone: [(573-701-1360) Fax: (573-701-1369)]{.underline}

Web site/URL: <http://www.farmington.k12.mo.us/jefferson/>
<srobinsn@farmington.k12.mo.us>

School e-mail Principal's e-mail

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. W. L. Sanders]{.underline}

District Name: [Farmington R-7 School District, 1022 Ste. Genevieve
Ave., Farmington, MO 63640-1641]{.underline}

Telephone: [(573-701-1300)]{.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: [Dr. Dennis D. Robinson]{.underline}

Date:

(School Board President's Signature)

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.

NCLB-BRS (June 1, 2006)

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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: [5]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[1]{.underline} Middle schools

[0]{.underline} Junior high schools

[1]{.underline} High schools

[2]{.underline} Other

[9]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure [\$6,961]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure [\$8,221]{.underline}

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

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

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

4.  [3]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
    position at this school.

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

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

+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| ###  | **\# | **\#   | #     |   | ###  | **\#  | **\#   | ###  |
| ## G | of** | of**   | ####  |   | ## G | of**  | of**   | ## G |
| rade |      |        | Grade |   | rade |       |        | rade |
|      | *    | **Fem  |       |   |      | **Ma  | **Fem  |      |
|      | *Mal | ales** | **To  |   |      | les** | ales** | *    |
|      | es** |        | tal** |   |      |       |        | *Tot |
|      |      |        |       |   |      |       |        | al** |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| ##   |      |        |       |   | *    |       |        |      |
| ###  |      |        |       |   | *7** |       |        |      |
| PreK |      |        |       |   |      |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| ###  |      |        |       |   | *    |       |        |      |
| ## K |      |        |       |   | *8** |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| *    | 41   | 51     | 92    |   | *    |       |        |      |
| *1** |      |        |       |   | *9** |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| *    | 46   | 38     | 84    |   | **   |       |        |      |
| *2** |      |        |       |   | 10** |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| *    | 38   | 52     | 90    |   | **   |       |        |      |
| *3** |      |        |       |   | 11** |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| *    | 38   | 30     | 68    |   | **   |       |        |      |
| *4** |      |        |       |   | 12** |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| *    |      |        |       |   | *    |       |        |      |
| *5** |      |        |       |   | *Oth |       |        |      |
|      |      |        |       |   | er** |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
| *    |      |        |       |   |      |       |        |      |
| *6** |      |        |       |   |      |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+
|      |      |        | ####  |   |      |       |        | 334  |
|      |      |        | # Tot |   |      |       |        |      |
|      |      |        | al St |   |      |       |        |      |
|      |      |        | udent |   |      |       |        |      |
|      |      |        | s In  |   |      |       |        |      |
|      |      |        | The A |   |      |       |        |      |
|      |      |        | pplyi |   |      |       |        |      |
|      |      |        | ng Sc |   |      |       |        |      |
|      |      |        | hool  |   |      |       |        |      |
+------+------+--------+-------+---+------+-------+--------+------+

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [97]{.underline} % White

the school: [1]{.underline} % Black or African American

[0]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

[1]{.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:
[7%]{.underline}

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

+-------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| **(1)**           | Number of students who      | 9                 |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | transferred **to** the      |                   |
|                   | school                      |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | after October 1 until the   |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | end of the year             |                   |
+-------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| **(2)**           | Number of students who      | 13                |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | transferred **from** the    |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | school after October 1      |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | until the end of the year   |                   |
+-------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| **(3)**           | Total of all transferred    | 22                |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | students \[sum of rows      |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | \(1\) and (2)\]             |                   |
+-------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| **(4)**           | Total number of students    | 334               |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | in the school as of         |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | October 1.                  |                   |
+-------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| **(5)**           | Total transferred           | 0.1               |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | students in row (3)         |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | divided by total students   |                   |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | in row (4)                  |                   |
+-------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| **(6)**           | Amount in row (5)           | 7                 |
|                   |                             |                   |
|                   | multiplied by 100           |                   |
+-------------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
[\<1%]{.underline}

Total Number Limited English Proficient: [\_\_2\_\_\_]{.underline}

Number of languages represented: \_\_[2\_\_\_]{.underline}

Specify languages: (Hispanic, Asian)

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_[51%\_]{.underline}

Total number students who qualify: \_[176\_\_]{.underline}

If this method does not produce an 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: [22%]{.underline}

> Total Number of Students Served [73]{.underline}
>
> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> the conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities
> Education Act. Do not add additional categories.
>
> [4]{.underline} Autism [0]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment
>
> [0]{.underline} Deafness [2]{.underline} Other Health Impaired
>
> [0]{.underline} Deaf-Blindness [13]{.underline} Specific Learning
> Disability
>
> [1]{.underline} Emotional Disturbance [43]{.underline} Speech or
> Language Impairment
>
> [0]{.underline} Hearing Impairment [1]{.underline} Traumatic Brain
> Injury
>
> [7]{.underline} Mental retardation [0]{.underline} Visual Impairment
> Including Blindness
>
> [0]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities

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

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

Administrator(s) [1]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Classroom Teachers [15]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [7]{.underline} [4]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [3]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Support Staff [10]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Total number [36]{.underline} [4]{.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 \_\_[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. Also
explain a high teacher turnover rate.

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

  Daily student           95%         99%         97%         99%         97%
  attendance                                                              

  Daily teacher           95%         94%         96%         97%         97%
  attendance                                                              

  Teacher turnover rate   8%          4%          0%          16%         0%

  Student dropout rate    N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  (middle/high)                                                           

  Student drop-off rate   N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  (high school)                                                           
  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

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

Walk in any classroom at Jefferson Elementary and witness a school
family celebrating learning. At every grade, one will find students
reading alone or with a friend and/or students writing and sharing their
masterpieces with friends or family. It is apparent, Jefferson teachers
and staff value and are committed to providing excellent instruction
each day.

Approximately 70 miles south of St. Louis, you will find Farmington,
Missouri, a city of tradition and progress. Jefferson Elementary, one of
the three elementary schools in Farmington, houses first through fourth
grades. Like the city of Farmington, Jefferson Elementary is known for
its strong tradition of educating and supporting all students in their
quest for attaining educational excellence to meet the challenges of the
21^st^ century. Over the years, the Jefferson staff has been on course
uniting shared visions, expectations, and expertise into a cohesive
highly focused, rigorous, standards based curriculum with high
expectations for all students. Effective school leadership has fostered
mutual respect, trust, and risk-taking among staff, students, and
parents. The school administration has valued, supported, and provided
opportunities for collaboration and communication among staff helping
align district curriculum, assessments, and instruction with state
standards. Maximizing our finite resources, grade levels and individual
teachers share resources and materials. The entire staff takes
responsibility for and is committed to supporting the education of all
students.

The Jefferson staff shares common beliefs. Every child can learn and be
successful. Through caring and trusting relationships with families and
the community, a school environment has been created conducive to
optimal learning for all students. Jefferson's progressiveness is
apparent through continuous monitoring of teaching and learning methods
to meet the individual needs of our learning community. Differentiated
instruction within nurturing classrooms has better met the learning
needs of all students. Flexible grouping in reading has provided a more
prescriptive approach to meet the diverse needs of our students. In
addition, curriculum integration has been utilized to increase student
understanding by teaching across disciplines according to natural
connections rather than teaching subject material in isolation.
Supporting best practices of how children learn, is the daily
preparation of real life relevant lessons for Jefferson students,
utilizing higher-level thinking skills and questioning techniques.
Students are assessed frequently using testing results to drive
instruction. Data is disaggregated and shared with the staff across all
grade levels. With this process and the strong belief in each child's
capabilities, Jefferson has continued to experience gains on all MAP
assessments.

Because of the safe, positive, caring and welcoming school environment,
Jefferson students want to be at school. The student attendance rate has
remained high (95% or above). A counselor and social worker are ready at
all times to support students and families. Jefferson's counselor
provides weekly instruction on character building, self-esteem, and
bully prevention. Daily students are recognized for their talents,
successes, and accomplishments. Our media center, a literacy rich
environment, monitored by a highly qualified staff, is open before and
after school for students and parents. After and before school tutoring
is provided by staff for students needing additional support in the
areas of math and reading. Students enjoy music, art, library, and
physical education each week led by highly qualified staff working to
integrate the curriculum to reach district and state standards. A highly
qualified special services and reading specialists team support the
diverse learning needs of Jefferson students.

Our motto: No child will be left behind at Jefferson! Every student --
every day!

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

**1. Assessment Results:**

The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) is the statewide assessment
required under the No Child Left Behind Law. From 1998 to 2005, the MAP
was administered at grade levels 3,7,11 in communication arts and grade
levels 4,8,10 in mathematics. To meet the 2006 federal requirements, the
MAP was given to students at grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics,
grade 10 in mathematics and grade 11 in reading. Achievement levels for
the earlier phase of the test were step one, progressing, nearing
proficiency, proficient, and advanced. Current achievement levels are
aligned with the NAEP levels of below basic, basic, proficient, and
advanced. The MAP achievement level indicates how well a student has
mastered the standards in reading and mathematics. For example, a
student who scores at the advanced level in communication arts can read
above grade level and evaluate complex literature. A student who scores
at the advanced level in mathematics can solve multi-step problems and
demonstrate a mastery of mathematical reasoning. Information about the
MAP can be found at:
http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/index.html.

The MAP test is both a criterion and norm referenced test. The criterion
referenced portion of the test is written by Missouri educators and is
aligned to the Missouri Grade Level Expectations (GLE's) which is based
on the Missouri Show-Me Standards, both of which were developed by
Missouri educators and stakeholders. The nationally norm-referenced
portion of the test is the Terra Nova, developed by CTB/McGraw-Hill and
has also been aligned to the GLE's. The Terra Nova results allow for
parents and educators to compare their students to students across the
nation.

Over the past three years, Jefferson Elementary has shown an upward
trend in the percentages of students in the proficient or advanced
categories for both communication arts and mathematics. MAP data from
2004-2006 indicate that the percentage of students in the proficient or
advanced categories in communication arts rose from 49% to 72%. The
percentage of students in the proficient or advanced categories in
mathematics rose from 57% to 79%. The figures for 2004 and 2005
represent only one grade level, while the 2006 figures reflect grades
three and four.

Data from three subgroups are included in the assessments results for
Jefferson Elementary. The three subgroups include white, free and
reduced lunch, and Individual Education Plan (IEP.) The students in all
three subgroups performed above state standards and meet AYP targets in
all three years of reported data. The IEP subpopulation did not have the
number of students necessary to form an actual subpopulation for AYP
reporting but did, however meet the target. Generally, the trend was
positive over the three year period with one year of decreasing
performance in the IEP subpopulation for 2005. This decrease in
performance was successfully addressed with a strategic intervention
team to establish more inclusion of students into the regular education
curriculum and classrooms.

Jefferson Elementary has a mission to increase student achievement for
all students. Data indicates that Jefferson Elementary is fulfilling its
mission and will continue to do so. The staff at Jefferson Elementary
uses MAP, benchmarking, and formative common assessment data to improve
student achievement through differentiated instruction, after-school
tutoring, and parent contact. The percentage of students in proficient
and advanced indicate the commitment the principal and staff at
Jefferson Elementary have in providing a quality education for all
students.

**2.** **Using Assessment:**

Data from all forms of student assessments are used regularly at
Jefferson Elementary to inform decision-making regarding curriculum and
instruction to enhance student performance and to meet the needs of all
students. The data analysis process includes data from the MAP,
district-wide formatives and district-wide bi-annual benchmark
assessments. The Elementary Level Instructional and Curriculum
Coordinator (ICC) facilitates the analysis of MAP data at Jefferson
Elementary. The principal and entire staff are very involved in the
analysis process and analyze the reports at both the student and
building level. The analysis results are used to strengthen the
curriculum process and to enhance instructional strategies. One report
that teachers use regularly is the item benchmark description report
which provides information on the percentage of students who answered
each item correctly. This information helps teachers determine which
parts of the curriculum needs reinforcement.

District-wide formative assessment results are analyzed by the principal
and all staff at Jefferson Elementary School. Teachers use the data to
determine how well students have mastered specific curricular objectives
and whether or not re-teaching is necessary. Teachers also use the
results of the formatives to group students for differentiated
instruction and for placement in the after school tutoring program.
Revision of the formative assessments occurs annually if the results
from the assessments indicate a need for a change.

The benchmark assessments are developed by the ICC using Classroom
Manager software. These assessments are given in early fall and early
spring. The results are analyzed by the classroom teachers and principal
to help form flexible groupings for remediation, enrichment, and
differentiated instruction. The data results are analyzed also at the
building level to inform the principal regarding overall student
performance. Data-based decision making is an important step taken by
the staff at Jefferson Elementary to improve student performance.

**3. Communicating Assessment Results:**

Jefferson prides itself in active communication among parents, students
and staff. Assessment results are communicated with parents in various
ways. The MAP results, strengths and weaknesses are explained and
reviewed in detail during the parent teacher conference. A video
explaining the MAP process is available to the parents on request. A
district and school website is an active tool in communicating with busy
parents as they search for answers to frequent questions about
assessments. The state also has a website with all assessment
information of the school and district, available at the click of a
mouse. In addition, daily, weekly and monthly newsletters, telephone
calls, emails and student work samples are provided to parents.

Jefferson is in constant communication with the local web master for the
district, our school television producer/director, the local newspapers
and the radio stations. The principal is available with a current email
address and serves as a daily car valet and ambassador to the 150+
students who are dropped off by their parents at Jefferson each morning.

**4. Sharing Success:**

Jefferson Elementary is one of three elementary schools (grades 1 -- 4)
in the Farmington R7 School District. An ICC oversees the coordinating
of the curriculum objectives, formative assessments and benchmarking in
each of the three buildings. Grade level meetings are held regularly to
provide opportunities for teachers to share successes using the best
teaching and learning practices available. The ICC uses teams of
teachers from each of the elementary buildings when sharing, writing or
revising formative assessments and or benchmarks. Several staff members
at Jefferson teach professional development and education curriculum
classes for local colleges and universities.

Jefferson Elementary anticipates and looks forward to sharing all our
proven and successful techniques to other interested districts.
Jefferson Elementary has hosted representatives from districts across
the state to observe teaching, reading practices, and assessment
development. This allows sharing of best practices and innovative
instructional strategies throughout the learning community.

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

**1. Curriculum:**

Jefferson Elementary School implements the district curriculum that has
been closely aligned to the Missouri State Standards and the Grade Level
Expectations (GLE's). The district has aligned the subject areas of
communication arts, math, and science both vertically and horizontally.
Grade levels follow curriculum timelines to assure all students receive
a spiraled curriculum meeting state standards and GLE's. Collaborative
planning of curriculum and instructional strategies for all students is
a vital part of each teacher's week.

Instruction for reading is a balanced literacy approach with the use of
leveled literature books and selections from the basal reader. Reading
instruction includes comprehension, decoding strategies, vocabulary
development, fluency and critical thinking. Flexible grouping for two
and one-half hours a day, in grades two, three and four are initially
based on reading levels, state and national tests, local formatives, and
benchmarks.

In the past three years, writing has become a key component supporting
all content areas at Jefferson Elementary. The reason for writing is to
communicate ideas for authentic meaningful purposes. Jefferson is a
writing community where both teachers and students write. The components
of writing that are emphasized are the writing process, the art, and the
craft. Students are taught the writing process through Writer's Workshop
supported by the Six Traits of Writing. Students understand that writing
requires planning, first draft, revision, editing, and sharing.
Jefferson believes readers are writers and writers are readers.

Problem solving and thinking are the foundation of mathematics for all
Jefferson students. The use of multiple methods and resources strengthen
the communication of mathematical ideas, concepts and application.
Calendar math, math journals, math literature, and math manipulatives
are some of the ways academic achievement is increased in mathematics.
The role of discussion, writing, and active student engagement have
shown to be effective classroom practices. Observing mathematics in the
real world, rather than limited to the pages of a textbook, is crucial.
Students are encouraged to connect and apply their learning to their
home and the community.

The science curriculum has recently been updated to match the GLE's.
Science and social studies curriculum is integrated into the reading and
math subject areas. Science continues to focus on exploring the
student's world through an inquiry based approach using discovery.
Hands-on materials are utilized for conceptual and concrete learning.

The arts curriculum consists of visual arts and music, both taught by
highly qualified teachers. Students are taught the appreciation of the
arts in "their" world as well as an appreciation of the history of
famous artists and musicians. Various performances of musicals
throughout the year are a part of the music curriculum as well as dramas
and reader's theatre in the regular education classroom.

The health/wellness and PE curriculum has implemented the National
Wellness Policy in the areas of weight control, exercise, and healthy
eating. Jefferson has switched the recess period before lunch for all
grades to comply with the federally mandated Wellness Policy.

**2a. Reading:**

Like students across the United States, Jefferson students will face
future challenges requiring proficiency in applying reading and writing
for real-life purposes. Creating and developing lifelong readers and
writers are the goals of the Jefferson faculty. Quality literature is at
the heart of reading and writing at Jefferson. Two to two and a half
hours of uninterrupted time are set aside each day for reading and
writing. Instruction and exposure to high quality literature is
presented in many formats utilizing mini-lessons, read alouds, shared
reading, guided reading, partner reading and lastly independent reading.
The principal and the teachers model reading and writing daily. Students
are encouraged to select and choose what books they read and what
writing they do. High quality instruction is provided through whole
group, small groups, flexible groups, and as needed, provided
individually. Reading and writing activities and lessons are designed to
motivate students to read and write for meaningful purposes. Emphasis in
reading instruction builds reading vocabulary, word recognition and
decoding strategies and most importantly comprehension. As students
read, they are encouraged to make connections to the text.

Early intervention for struggling readers is a team effort. Highly
qualified Title One teachers, special education teachers, special area
teachers, classroom teachers and the principal work to ensure every
student's learning needs are met. Assessment of reading progress is
continuous and informs instruction. Student reading and writing are
monitored through conferences with the teacher as well as peer
conferences. Jefferson uses multiple avenues to collect assessment
information. Teacher observation, running records, Rigby PM, SRI, and
district formatives are but a few assessments. The introduction of the
Reading Wall in the principal's office is a ready reference for all
staff to keep informed at a glance, students who are at risk.
Intervention is immediate and focused. Assessment results indicate the
reading and writing program at Jefferson is highly effective and
reflects academic gains for each Jefferson student.

**3. Additional Curriculum Area: Library**

The library curriculum fully supports the school curriculum and the
outlined educational standards for the state of Missouri and the federal
government. Technology and grade level appropriate literature is a
catalyst to open the world for Jefferson students. Reading Counts, a
networked-based computer generated program, used in the library has
become an invaluable tool for differentiated instruction. Reading Counts
provides intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, encouraging students to
read for aesthetic and efferent purposes. The entire student body of
Jefferson has been challenged to achieve a minimum of 25 points this
year for reading literature. Points are based on the complexity of the
book being read. The Jaguar Trophy Wall, a new addition to encourage
reading based on increments of 25 points, contains trophies with each
student's name. As 25 points are attained, the student actively works to
gain 25 more points to move their trophy on the wall and hopefully end
in the Winner's Circle with 500 points. As of January 2007, a majority
of Jefferson students have met the challenge and have achieved 25 points
or more.

Another curriculum boost for reading is the Patch Club which encourages
students to read different genres of literature. As the goal for each
literature genre is reached, students receive a patch representing the
genre. The patches are placed on vests which have been made by the
teachers. A building wide game, called Super Sleuth encourages students
to locate and research information. The principal announces daily clues
sending students streaming to various resources to make educated
predictions and to quickly find solutions.

Parents and volunteers actively read with students before, during and
after school. The Jefferson Parent Teacher Group continuously supports
the library by having book fairs and fundraisers. Community partnerships
with banks, car dealerships, and businesses adopt a grade level and
provide books, pizza, and field trips. The Jefferson library has
enhanced student's love of reading and serves as the foundation for
supporting and enhancing curriculum.

**4. Instructional Methods:**

Instructional decisions are based upon two components: content decisions
and process decisions which match instruction to the needs of individual
learners. Creativity and flexibility remain important elements of
effective instruction. At times a highly teacher centered- whole class
method is effective. Other times, collaboration and cooperative methods
increase motivation and high levels of cognitive understanding. Some of
the ways Jefferson has found to be effective instructional practices is
by utilizing small groups: think pair share, jigsaw, brainstorming,
guided reading groups, and literature circles. Guided discussion is used
to review information and promote understanding, or to apply learning.
Graphic organizers and journaling have been successful instructional
methods. In addition, mini lessons are designed to help students learn
literacy skills and become more strategic readers and writers. Teachable
moments provide opportunities to apply what students are learning in
authentic reading and writing activities. With all instructional methods
operating at Jefferson, positive student achievement and positive
effects on student self esteem have increased student learning.

**5. Professional Development:**

Opportunities for professional development are ongoing, researched
based, and have provided the faculty with greater resources to make
informed decisions regarding instruction and assessment. The Jefferson
faculty shows active interest and commitment to teaching and learning.
Creativity and flexibility are hallmarks of Jefferson faculty as new
ideas and materials are integrated through differentiated instruction.
Changes are implemented based on reflection as situations arise that
prove ineffective. Collaboration within grade levels, including special
education and special area classes, are across grade levels and have
provided valuable time to discuss, model, and plan strategies to meet
the diverse needs of our learning community. Communication regarding
data collection and feedback are used regularly to improve instruction.
Under the leadership of our administrator, specific collaboration and
communication through professional development have significantly
increased critical thinking skills with an emphasis on problem-solving.
Through professional development, the Jefferson faculty has been
challenged to find ways to make curriculum more challenging, rigorous,
and student centered. Through pro-active professional development, the
Jefferson faculty has been able to respond to educational issues that
improve student learning and increase academic achievement.

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

FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS

\[Data Display Table for Reading (language arts or English) and
Mathematics\]

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Missouri
Assessment Program]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Current Year]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB/McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2005  | 2004  | 2003  | 2002  | 2001  |
|                           | -2006 | -2005 | -2004 | -2003 | -2002 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing Month             | April | April | April | April | April |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| # SCHOOL SCORES\*         |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 78    | 49    | 27    | 34    | 48    |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 35    | 6     | 7     | 5     | 13    |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 81    | 72    | 99    | 77    | 141   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 100   | 100   | 100   | 100   | 100   |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 2     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of students       | 2     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. IEP (specify          |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 68    | 57    | 57    | 35    | 30    |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 32    | 4     | 5     | 0     | 3     |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 28    | 23    | 21    | 17    | 33    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. Free/Reduced (specify |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 66    | 57    | 49    | 23    | 39    |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State Records | 26    | 13    | 7     | 8     | 3     |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 35    | 30    | 45    | 26    | 70    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS

\[Data Display Table for Reading (language arts or English) and
Mathematics\]

Subject [Communication Arts]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test
[Missouri Assessment Program]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Current Year]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB/McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2005  | 2004  | 2003  | 2002  | 2001  |
|                           | -2006 | -2005 | -2004 | -2003 | -2002 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing Month             | April | N/A   | N/A   | N/A   | N/A   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| # SCHOOL SCORES\*         |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 62    |       |       |       |       |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 30    |       |       |       |       |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 81    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 100   |       |       |       |       |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 2     |       |       |       |       |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of students       | 2     |       |       |       |       |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. IEP (specify          |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 61    |       |       |       |       |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 29    |       |       |       |       |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 28    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. Free/Reduced (specify |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 49    |       |       |       |       |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State Records | 23    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 35    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS

\[Data Display Table for Reading (language arts or English) and
Mathematics\]

Subject [Communication Arts]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test
[Missouri Assessment Program]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Current Year]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB/McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2005  | 2004  | 2003  | 2002  | 2001  |
|                           | -2006 | -2005 | -2004 | -2003 | -2002 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing Month             | April | April | April | April | April |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| # SCHOOL SCORES\*         |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 79    | 52    | 51    | 55    | 38    |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 38    | 5     | 2     | 0     | 3     |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 84    | 88    | 70    | 96    | 123   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 99    | 99    | 96    | 99    | 100   |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 4     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of students       | 4     | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. IEP (specify          |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 63    | 42    | 60    | 39    | 36    |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 38    | 4     | 5     | 0     | 3     |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 16    | 23    | 21    | 17    | 33    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. Free/Reduced (specify |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 80    | 57    | 49    | 23    | 39    |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State Records | 40    | 13    | 7     | 8     | 3     |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 40    | 30    | 45    | 26    | 70    |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS

\[Data Display Table for Reading (language arts or English) and
Mathematics\]

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Missouri
Assessment Program]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Current Year]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB/McGraw-Hill]{.underline}

+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           | 2005  | 2004  | 2003  | 2002  | 2001  |
|                           | -2006 | -2005 | -2004 | -2003 | -2002 |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing Month             | April | N/A   | N/A   | N/A   | N/A   |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| # SCHOOL SCORES\*         |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 77    |       |       |       |       |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 36    |       |       |       |       |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 84    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students | 99    |       |       |       |       |
| tested                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students        | 4     |       |       |       |       |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of students       | 1     |       |       |       |       |
| alternatively assessed    |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. IEP (specify          |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 69    |       |       |       |       |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State         | 38    |       |       |       |       |
| Standards                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 16    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. Free/Reduced (specify |       |       |       |       |       |
| subgroup)                 |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Proficient Plus        | 68    |       |       |       |       |
| Advanced                  |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% Advanced State Records | 38    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested | 40    |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                           |       |       |       |       |       |
+---------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+