##### *2005-2006 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply)
\_[X]{.underline}\_ Elementary \_\_ Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12
\_\_Charter

Name of Principal [Mrs. Gwendolyn Lee]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Kauluwela Elementary School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [1486 Aala Street \_]{.underline}

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

\_\_[Honolulu]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hawaii]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[96817-3601]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Honolulu]{.underline} State School Code Number\*
[0125]{.underline} \_

Telephone [( 808 ) 587-4450]{.underline} Fax [( 808 ) 587-4453
d]{.underline}

Website/URL [http://kauluwela.k12.hi.us/HOME.NSF]{.underline} E-mail
gwendolyn_lee@notes.k12.hi.us

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. Patricia Hamamoto]{.underline}

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

District Name [Hawaii State Department of Education]{.underline} Tel. [(
808 ) 586-3310]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mr. Randall M.L. Yee]{.underline}

(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 for 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 2005-2006 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 2000 and has not received the 2003, 2004, or 2005
    *No Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

8.  There are no findings of violations of the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act in a U.S. Department of Education
    monitoring report that apply to the school or school district in
    question; or if there are such findings, the state or district has
    corrected, or agreed to correct, the findings.

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_[174]{.underline}\_ Elementary
schools

\_\_[38]{.underline}\_ Middle schools

\_[N/A]{.underline}\_ Junior high schools

\_\_[45]{.underline}\_ High schools

\_\_[26]{.underline}\_ Other

\_[283]{.underline}\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\$9,337.87 \_\_\_]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\$9,337.87]{.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\. [17]{.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:

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

  **PreK**    4         1                      5            **7**                             

  **K**       27        32                     59           **8**                             

  **1**       30        18                     48           **9**                             

  **2**       29        32                     61           **10**                            

  **3**       32        35                     67           **11**                            

  **4**       32        24                     56           **12**                            

  **5**       47        47                     94           **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   390
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

***\[Throughout the document, round numbers to avoid decimals.\]***

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [1]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [0]{.underline} % Black or African American

[1]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

[0]{.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:
[4]{.underline} %

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      4
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      10
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    14
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 389
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  0.036
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           3.6
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [27]{.underline}
%

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

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Specify languages: Mandarin, Korean, Chuukese, Tongan, Samoan,
Marshalese

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [81]{.underline} %

Total number students who qualify: [314]{.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:
\_\_\_\_[7]{.underline}\_\_\_%

[\_\_\_26]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

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

\_[2]{.underline}\_\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_[1]{.underline}\_\_Other Health Impaired

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

\_[3]{.underline}\_\_Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_Speech or Language
Impairment

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

> \_[3]{.underline}\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment
> Including Blindness
>
> \_[1]{.underline}\_\_Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers \_\_[22]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_[8]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[16]{.underline}\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_[16]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_[13]{.underline}\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_[47]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_[29]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers:
\_\_[18:1]{.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.

  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                             2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Daily student attendance   96 %        97 %        96 %        \%          \%

  Daily teacher attendance   97 %        98 %        97 %        \%          \%

  Teacher turnover rate      60 %        33 %        36 %        \%          \%

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

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

**PART III -- SUMMARY**

In 1888, Kauluwela Elementary School was established by King Kamehameha
of the Hawaiian Islands Monarchy. The school\'s mission was to provide
the best education possible for an elite group of students from the
families of the King\'s business and financial advisors. One hundred and
eighteen (118) years later, Kauluwela\'s mission continues to be the
same, but for an enrollment far different from Kauluwela\'s first group
of students.

Today, Kauluwela is an inner city school that educates students residing
in three housing projects for low-income families. Seventy-five percent
of the students are recently arrived immigrants from asian countries:
China, Japan, Korea, Indo-China, and the Phillipines. More recent
immigrants include students from Truk, Samoa, and the Marshall Islands.
All of the above students make up one of the larger ESLL programs in the
State of Hawaii. The remaining 25% of students come from Hawaii\'s local
families (Hawaiians, Part-Hawaiians, and Caucasians). Though both groups
of students have different backgrounds, all share common deficits in
vocabulary and comprehension skills. Seventy eight percent (78%) of
students qualify for free or reduced meals.

Daunting as the data may be, Kauluwela\'s school community members
believe that every child can \"learn and achieve at high levels\". This
vision serves as a guide as the school implements its mission in
planning and providing an effective research-based instructional program
that prepares our students to meet Hawaii\'s standards.

Teamwork between staff members, parents and the School/Community Council
(SCC), our local advisory board has created a shared decision-making
environment that is flexible but focused on improving student
achievement, and providing services to students. All members participate
in analyzing the data, determining needs and working toward agreed
solutions/goals. Staff meetings, quarterly parent literacy meetings, and
staff and parent bulletins help to keep everyone informed. ESL teachers
provide translations at each meeting and translate bulletins to
bilingual parents.

The teaching staff also uses the team approach in providing instruction.
Every teacher, PTT, EAs or Parent Tutor is trained in the school\'s
instructional program and is responsible for an instructional group that
may transcend grade levels. At quarterly Literacy Meetings, parents,
too, learn skills and strategies that they can use to support student
learning at home and during intercessions (vacations).

Frequent review of assessment data for each group has helped the school
to adjust its services or programs or improve instruction on a timely
basis. Weekly Progress Reports, quarterly formative assessments (DIBELS,
Benchmark Tracker, and Kauluwela Writing Tests) and reports from Peer
Coaches all provide data on student progress and the effectiveness of
instructional delivery. The State\'s summative testing (Hawaii State
Assessment) data is also used to validate our instructional programs or
identify areas to improve.

Coupled with the learning community\'s focus on improving student
performance, Kauluwela strives to also develop good character traits,
sound values, positive interpersonal skills and responsibility toward
self and the community. The school\'s character education program (Core
Virtues) requires active participation by all students and successes are
celebrated each month.

Based on the 2005 Hawaii State Assessment data, Kauluwela again met
NCLB\'s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks (44% for Reading and
28% for Math). In 2005, 64% of third and fifth graders Met Proficiency
in Reading; and 35% in Math. Reading Scores in 2005 showed dramatic
improvement over past years. Kauluwela ranks in the top 40% of all
Hawaii public schools and is in Good Standing.

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

**[Reading and Mathematics Assessment Results]{.underline}**

The State of Hawaii administers the Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) to all
third and fifth graders in the spring of each year. The results of the
HSA are used by schools to identify strengths and needs and to guide
improvements of the school\'s curriculum and instruction. The HSA
consists of the norm-referenced SAT Abbreviated Reading and Math Tests
and the criterion-referenced Hawaii Content and Performance
Standards-Based Assessment. Hawaii\'s AYP benchmarks provide the targets
for the NCLB requirements. The HSA has four proficiency levels:

> ***Level 1:* Well Below Proficiency -** Results indicate that the
> student demonstrated little or no knowledge and skills in the content
> standards for this grade.
>
> ***Level 2:* Approaches Proficiency -** Results indicate that the
> student demonstrated some knowledge and skills in the content
> standards for this grade.
>
> ***Level 3:* Meets Proficiency -** Results indicate that the student
> demonstrated knowledge and skills required in the content standards
> for this grade.
>
> ***Level 4:* Exceeds Proficiency -** Results indicate that the student
> demonstrated knowledge and skills in the content standards for this
> grade.

The HSA provides each school with a School Summary, which provides
information of the percentage of students scoring in each of the above
levels, which is used to determine AYP. Besides overall reading and math
proficiency levels, levels of performance are provided for the various
strands in reading and math. The level of student performance for each
strand helps teachers to determine if instructional interventions are
necessary or determine the effectiveness of present instructional
programs. Other data provided by the HSA includes: Scaled Scores,
Summary of Instructional Needs, and a Benchmark Report that links
Hawaii\'s standards with student performance. Individual student test
data is also provided.

Kauluwela\'s staff analyzes each category of HSA data and determines
correlations with the school\'s formative assessment program.
Information derived from the analysis is used to make programmatic
changes or improve instructional delivery. Based on the 2005 HSA test
results, Kauluwela met AYP benchmarks for Reading and Math: 65% of 3rd
graders and 63% of fifth graders exceeded the AYP benchmark of 44% for
reading; and 31% of 3rd graders and 40% of 5th graders exceeded the AYP
benchmark of 28% for math.

Longitudinal data indicates that Kauluwela\'s third and fifth graders
made substantial growth in reading since the 2002-03 school year. Growth
in math has not been as dramatic but still substantial enough to exceed
the AYP benchmark of 28% proficiency.

The website for the Hawaii State Assessment and NCLB requirements may be
found at: **arch.k12.hi.us/pdf/NCLB/2004/AllSch37Cell_110104.pdf**

**[Using Assessment Results]{.underline}**

Several formative assessments tools are administered quarterly or more
frequently for some content areas. The data helps the school to
determine if instructional programs are meeting the needs of all
students.

Students in grades K-5 are tested quarterly using the Dynamic Indicators
of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Results indicate the level of
fluency in phonemic awareness, alphabetic system and oral reading
comprehension. Results are used to determine if additional teaching
personnel are needed to intensify instruction in small groups, one to
one or after school tutoring. The data is shared with parents at
quarterly parent literacy meetings. Parents are also taught strategies
and given materials for providing additional instructional support at
home.

The Benchmark Tracker Test is administered quarterly to students in
grades 2-5. Data provided indicates progress in reading, math and
writing as related to the Hawaii Content and Program Standards. Results
are used to adjust instructional programs. Student papers from the
writing section are rated manually by teachers using Benchmark rubrics.
The test requires concise, well-organized communication using
appropriate but specific vocabulary. Information gained from this
activity provides teachers with concrete information about what and how
their instruction must be re-focused to improve student writing.

The school\'s reading program provides a system to assess both student
performance and the effectiveness of instructional delivery. Progress is
monitored on a weekly basis through Lesson Progress Charts (LPCs), which
are evaluated by the Reading Coordinator and the resource teacher from
the National Institute for Direct Instruction. Data from LPCs help to
determine why student progress is faltering, or if the teacher needs
additional training or support. Results of this system have increased
the number of students reading on grade level by grade 3.

The Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) given each spring provides summative
data. The school analyzes and uses the data to evaluate and improve the
school\'s instructional programs. The data also identifies students who
need extended schooling during the summer intercession.

**[Communicating Assessment Results]{.underline}**

The State of Hawaii publishes the results of the HSA in the State\'s two
daily newspapers each year after schools have been notified of their
results. Because of our large number of bilingual parents, Kauluwela
follows up by scheduling Parent/Teacher and Student Conferences with all
parents to explain HSA data and their relationship with Hawaii\'s
Content and Program Standards (HCPS III), the school\'s instructional
program, and new report card. Translators are used extensively during
the conferences to insure that parents understand how the HSA test data
drives the school\'s instructional program.

The results of formative testing (DIBELS, Benchmark Tracker) are shared
with parents at quarterly Parent Literacy Meetings. The most recent data
is shared to help parents determine the amount of progress their
students have made during each quarter. Teachers then provide strategies
and materials that parents can use to help their students
maintain/increase performance from day to day and especially during long
intercessions.

Weekly meetings are conducted by the ESLL Parent Coordinator to review
test data, clarify information or seek tutoring and other student
services. The ESLL Parent Coordinator also collaborates with a bilingual
resource aide from the district\'s immigrant center to translate school
bulletins, test data and other school documents into Chinese, Korean,
Samoan or Marshallese for parents who do not read or speak English.

**[Sharing Success]{.underline}**

Kauluwela\'s staff has persistently pursued emerging information about
exemplary programs, innovative strategies, technology and instructional
materials that would enable our multi-cultural students to achieve at
high levels. Total staff in-service has also helped the staff to
articulate on the same level and to team with each other to meet student
needs. A three year Title IX Federal Grant, made it possible for
teachers, PTTs, EAs and parents to all receive ESLL training so that the
total staff could use strategies to help bilingual students learn and
achieve. Staff members were surprised to find that ESLL strategies were
also effective with non-ESLL students.

Teachers who represent the school at various workshops during the school
year are charged with a mission to report/in-service other teachers upon
their return. They also implement or try out the new strategies or
materials and share their evaluations. A recent cadre who attended a
Math Conference in California brought back materials and many strategies
that they implemented in their classes and shared with other teachers.

For the past three years, while working with the National Institute for
Direct Instruction, Kauluwela has shared its reading and writing
programs with other schools in the State of Hawaii. Teachers and
administrators from other schools have visited Kauluwela to observe
lessons being taught and learn how teachers team in the classroom and
throughout the school. Follow-up conferences were fruitful for our
teachers and visitors.

Educators from Japan and China have visited Kauluwela to observe how
technology is being integrated with reading and other areas in the
curriculum. Kauluwela has a total school computer education program that
students can learn from or communicate with. Visitors from other
countries were interested in software and strategies used to involve
students in operating and learning from a computer program.

Administrators from other schools have met with Kauluwela\'s principal
and Title I teachers for problem-solving sessions or sharing of
materials and strategies. Both our visitors and our staff came away with
more in-depth knowledge of each others\' situation and different
perspectives in problem solving.

All of the above examples serve to emphasize that finding ways to help
our students \"learn and achieve\" is a never-ending quest especially if
our enrollment continues to evolve. We need to continue to reach out and
continuously seek (or revisit old) new theories, strategies and programs
to help our students learn and achieve.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

Kauluwela\'s curriculum is aligned with the Hawaii Content and Program
Standards but the unique needs of our students are also taken into
consideration. Programs selected provide modeling, student practice and
testing Resources are used to provide small group instruction, extended
school day and school year instruction to insure that every student
learns and achieves.

**[Language Arts:]{.underline}** Kauluwela\'s language arts program
emphasizes reading, writing and oral communication. A research-based
reading program was implemented school-wide in 2003-04 that developed
reading fluency but also included strategies for active student
participation that developed oral communication and writing skills. A
daily 90-minute block of instructional time is dedicated for
uninterrupted instruction for all students in the school. \"Explicit\"
instructional methods are used with heavy emphasis on modeling and
practice.

**[Mathematics:]{.underline}** To provide more unity to the teaching of
the various strands in math, Kauluwela restructured and rescheduled its
math program. As a result, students are better able to grasp math
concepts within each strand. Students are engaged in many hands on
experiences in applying the concepts they learn. They work in groups to
problem solve and write about the strategies they used. Because of
assessed writing deficiencies, the math program is supplemented to
improve student ability to write constructed responses.

**[Social Studies:]{.underline}** The **Core Knowledge Program** is used
to provide students with background information to enable them to better
comprehend what they hear and read. Units are specially designed by
teachers to teach concepts and skills that meet Hawaii\'s Standards.
Subjects address community, state and global issues. Career education,
art and literature are integrated with social studies, science and other
content units.

**[Science:]{.underline}** **[Core Knowledge]{.underline}** units are
designed by teachers to develop student knowledge in the nine areas of
science. FOSS kits are also used to provide hands on experiences. The
process for scientific inquiry is integrated into all units. Students
learn scientific knowledge and gain vocabulary and background knowledge
that build comprehension.

**[Educational Technology:]{.underline}** A school-wide technology
program is integrated with the content areas. The [Near
Star]{.underline} program re-enforces reading skills for grades K-2
while the [Win2000 Orchards]{.underline} program extends writing skills
in grades 2-5. Banks of classroom computers allows for daily access for
students to learn from computers. After school computer classes develop
student capability to use other tech equipment.

**[Character Education:]{.underline}** Kauluwela has merged [The Core
Virtues Program]{.underline} with the State\'s General

Learner Outcomes to help students develop positive character traits and
work ethics. The program helps to bring all cultures together to
recognize and practice positive interpersonal skills. All students
participate in demonstrating the theme for each month. Classes strive
for 100% participation. At an assembly at the end of each month the
school, recognizes classes for reaching their goals.

**[Music:]{.underline}** The music program encompasses all areas of
music: chorus, dance, notation, instrumental and appreciation. Teachers
collaborate with the music teacher to correlate music with social
studies and Hawaiian Studies units. Music classes are extended into
after school hours with chorus, ukulele lessons and hula.

**[Physical Education:]{.underline}** Cooperative teaching is used by
each grade level to implement activities that develop physical fitness
and skills for team sports. Good sportsmanship attitudes and skills are
heavily emphasized to help students develop positive interpersonal
skills.

**[Art:]{.underline}** Art instruction is integrated into content areas
including technology. Students compare and contrast color, patterns,
styles, and structure while studying other cultures. Using art software
students learn to develop thematic illustrations as well as functional
art for communication purposes. After school art classes involve
students working with artists in the community on a variety of hands on
projects.

**[Reading Curriculum]{.underline}**

To address the special needs of our bilingual students, the **[Direct
Instruction Program]{.underline}** was implemented in 2002-03. It is a
researched based program that has been successfully used to help
multicultural enrollments learn to read throughout the United States.
The program\'s success relies on it\'s scripted instructional delivery
and the use of \"Explicit\" strategies that actively involve students in
the learning process. Teachers Model (demonstrate), Lead (prompt) and
Test (students perform task without teacher assistance). To insure
appropriateness of instruction, all students are pre-tested and grouped
according to achievement, which may cut across grade levels. A daily
90-minute period is devoted to uninterrupted reading instruction
involving all teachers in the school.

The [Language for Learning]{.underline} component is used in the early
grades to develop basic language, vocabulary and concepts, which is
critical for academic success for our bilingual students. Development of
thinking skills to discriminate, compare and contrast and make decisions
based on information is integrated into each lesson.

The [Reading Mastery]{.underline} component focuses on developing
phonemic awareness, the alphabetic system and fluency in oral reading.
The goal is for every student to read on grade level by grade 3. At
least 50% of the students meet that goal by first or second grade.
During the instructional period, students use the [Near
Star]{.underline} computer program that reinforces concepts taught
earlier by the teacher. The program has an assessment system that allows
the teacher to monitor each student\'s progress.

At least 75% Title I resources are used to provide trained PTTs and EAs
to team with teachers in the classroom to provide small group
instruction during the reading period. PTTs are also used in the \"After
School Club\" where students are helped with homework or tutoring. The
school year is extended for selected students who are invited to attend
\"Reading Camps\" during the winter, spring and summer intercessions.
Teachers, PTTs and EAs provide targeted instruction in reading, writing
and math. With the increased \"time on task\" student skills are
extended rather than lost during the long school breaks.

**[Curriculum Area - Social Studies, Science]{.underline}**

**[The Core Knowledge Program]{.underline}** (CK) was implemented in
school year 2000 to provide students with basic background knowledge
about the community and world to help them comprehend what they hear and
see on TV or read about in the United States and Hawaii. Many of our
bilingual students came from rural areas in their native country where
global or even local information was not available. In the **[Social
Studies]{.underline}** strand of CK, continuums are provided for each
grade level. Teachers custom design units about a wide range of topics
from the continuum. Students are introduced to geography, foreign
countries, and current issues. First grade students recently compared
Moslem Religions with religions in Hawaii. They learned how religion
influences life styles and ways of thinking. Teachers invite parents to
share customs, clothing, and food with the classes. The units are
exciting for students and parents. Acceptance and understanding of other
cultures are outcomes of many of the units.

**[The Science]{.underline}** strand of CK covers all domains of
science. Teacher designed units and FOSS kits are used to provide hands
on learning experiences. Students learn to use the process for
scientific inquiry that is integrated into all units and FOSS lessons.

Demonstrations by visiting instructors provide added learning. Astronomy
Night brought 4th and 5th grade students out to view the moon and stars
using powerful telescopes that scientists from the Bishop Museum brought
to the school on a cloudless night.

Teachers find that vocabulary, conceptual knowledge and the process for
thinking carry over into other content areas that aid in comprehension.
Both the Social Studies and Science programs have provided a wider base
of background knowledge and skills to help our students better
comprehend the world today.

**[Instructional Methods]{.underline}**

A large number of Kauluwela\'s students come from different cultures and
speak different languages. Sheltered ESLL and Explicit instructional
methods are used to help students learn as well as understand the
relevance and the importance of their learning. Sheltered lessons
provide growth in language, proficiency in basic content, study skills
and growth in positive self-image. Using graphics to organize
information, examples, and pictures are all part of the Sheltered ESLL
methodology.

Explicit methods provide Modeling, Practice and capability to do
independent work. Teachers integrate both methods in working with all
students at Kauluwela. The merging of methodology works well even with
students who are not bilingual.

Grouping students by achievement levels also facilitates instructional
delivery so that pacing can be adapted to the group\'s speed of
learning. Grouping for instruction also allows faster students to move
up or slower students to find an appropriate lower instructional group.

Providing more \"time on task\" through extended school day or
intercession activities has proven the most successful to increase
student basic skills. However, funding for these activities have often
been in short supply.

**[Professional Development]{.underline}**

Professional Development (PD) for all members of the teaching staff has
helped to focus Kauluwela\'s staff efforts toward the same goals.
Everyone shares the same background and language to share or discuss and
problem solve. Assessment data often triggers the need for PD to improve
programs in the school. However, news of emerging programs that can do a
better job of helping students learn and meet Hawaii\'s standards can
also move the school toward PD. For the past five years, Federal grants
have enabled the school to provide in-depth training for its total staff
for the reading, and social studies program.

The Institute for Direct Instruction (NFDI) was contracted to train
teachers for two weeks to implement the program. NFDI also place an RT
in the school to monitor implementation and provide more training if
needed for two years. Today, Peer Coaches trained by the RT continue to
maintain the integrity of the program. They help to train and mentor new
teachers. The Reading Coordinator monitors instructional delivery and
student progress reports.

The national CK Organization sent experienced exemplary teachers of CK
to train our staff in designing units, and using the internet for
research on units that others have written. To learn about new CK
developments and trends, a cadre of teachers attend annual conferences
on the mainland. They are energized by what they learn from other
schools around the country. They share new ideas, materials and
activities with the staff upon their return.

Teachers in the school are committed to improving curriculum and
instruction. They serve on Curriculum Committees and attend conferences
or workshops in their content area on the mainland or in the District.
They report back to the total faculty and share what they have learned.
They work with the principal when PD is feasible for improvement.

Curriculum Committee members also coach other teachers in implementing
new programs or strategies. On the same grade level, they team with each
other to use new programs.

The principal and teachers also work with the District to plan PD in
critical areas of need. District resources and RTs have in-serviced
teachers on the revised State Science Standards and the process for
scientific inquiry and helped the staff to map the science curriculum
using Tech Path. Professional development is an on-going activity as
long as there are needs to be met.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**SAMPLE FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_[READING]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade[\_\_3]{.underline}\_\_\_ Test\_\_[Hawaii State
Assessment]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_[1^st^/2001]{.underline} Publisher\_\_[Hawaii
Department of Education]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  -------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                    SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***              READING     READING     READING     READING     NONE

  \% At or Above Meets State       66%         34%         49%         38%         
  Standards**\***                                                                  

  \% At Exceeds State              0%          0%          0%          2%          
  Standards**\***                                                                  

  Number of students tested        61          96          75          95          

  Percent of total students tested 100%        100%        100%        100%        

  Number of students alternatively 0           0           0           0           
  assessed                                                                         

  Percent of students              0           0           0           0           
  alternatively assessed                                                           

                                                                                   

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                  

  1\. [Disadvantaged]{.underline}                                                  NONE
  (specify subgroup)                                                               

  \% At or Above Meets State       68%         35%         47%         38%         
  Standards                                                                        

  \% At Exceeds State Standards    0%          0%          0%          2%          

  Number of students tested        50          80          59          76          

  2\. [Asian/Pacific                                                               NONE
  Islander]{.underline} (specify                                                   
  subgroup)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Meets State       65%         36%         57%         39%         
  Standards                                                                        

  \% At Exceeds State Standards    0%          0%          0%          2%          

  Number of students tested        60          92          73          92          

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

\* The State used the Stanford Achievement Test 9^th^ Edition (1997)
during school year 1999-2000 for the large-scale assessment. The SAT9 is
not a criterion-referenced test and we cannot psychometrically compare
the SAT9 to the current Standards-based Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)

\*\* There was a statewide teacher strike during the school year
2000-2001 which precluded any administration of the state large-scale
assessment to our students

**SAMPLE FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_[MATH]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_ Test\_\_\_[Hawaii State
Assessment]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_[1^st^/2001]{.underline} Publisher\_\_[Hawaii
Departement of Education]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                      2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                       SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                 MATH        MATH        MATH        MATH        NONE

  \% At or Above Meets State          33%         43%         38%         22%         
  Standards**\***                                                                     

  \% At Exceeds State Standards**\*** 2%          8%          3%          4%          

  Number of students tested           61          96          76          95          

  Percent of total students tested    100%        100%        100%        100%        

  Number of students alternatively    0           0           0           0           
  assessed                                                                            

  Percent of students alternatively   0           0           0           0           
  assessed                                                                            

                                                                                      

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                     

  1\. [Disadvantaged]{.underline}                                                     NONE
  (specify subgroup)                                                                  

  \% At or Above Meets State          34%         43%         35%         24%         
  Standards                                                                           

  \% At Exceeds State Standards       2%          9%          3%          5%          

  Number of students tested           50          80          60          76          

  2\. [Asian/Pac.                                                                     NONE
  Islander]{.underline} (specify                                                      
  subgroup)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Meets State          33%         43%         39%         23%         
  Standards                                                                           

  \% At Exceeds State Standards       2%          9%          3%          4%          

  Number of students tested           60          92          74          92          

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

\* The State used the Stanford Achievement Test 9^th^ Edition (1997)
during school year 1999-2000 for the large-scale assessment. The SAT9 is
not a criterion-referenced test and we cannot psychometrically compare
the SAT9 to the current Standards-based Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)

\*\* There was a statewide teacher strike during the school year
2000-2001 which precluded any administration of the state large-scale
assessment to our students

**SAMPLE FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_[READING]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
Grade\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_ Test\_\_[Hawaii State
Assessment]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_[1^st^/2001]{.underline} Publisher\_\_[Hawaii
Department of Education]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  -------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                    SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***              READING     READING     READING     READING     NONE

  \% At or Above Meets State       63%         44%         33%         37%         
  Standards**\***                                                                  

  \% At Exceeds State              0%          2%          3%          0%          
  Standards**\***                                                                  

  Number of students tested        71          93          73          102         

  Percent of total students tested 100%        100%        100%        100%        

  Number of students alternatively 0           0           0           0           
  assessed                                                                         

  Percent of students              0           0           0           0           
  alternatively assessed                                                           

                                                                                   

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                  

  1\. [Disadvantaged]{.underline}                                                  NONE
  (specify subgroup)                                                               

  \% At or Above Meets State       63%         47%         33%         36%         
  Standards                                                                        

  \% At Exceeds State Standards    0%          3%          3%          0%          

  Number of students tested        56          75          60          83          

  2\. [Asian/Pac.                                                                  NONE
  Islander]{.underline} (specify                                                   
  subgroup)                                                                        

  \% At or Above Meets State       62%         45%         33%         36%         
  Standards                                                                        

  \% At Exceeds State Standards    0%          2%          3%          0%          

  Number of students tested        69          89          70          97          

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

\* The State used the Stanford Achievement Test 9^th^ Edition (1997)
during school year 1999-2000 for the large-scale assessment. The SAT9 is
not a criterion-referenced test and we cannot psychometrically compare
the SAT9 to the current Standards-based Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)

\*\* There was a statewide teacher strike during the school year
2000-2001 which precluded any administration of the state large-scale
assessment to our students

**SAMPLE FORMAT FOR STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_[MATH]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_ Test\_\_[Hawaii State
Assessment]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_[1^st^/2001]{.underline} Publisher\_\_[Hawaii
Department of Education]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                      2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Testing month                       SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      SPRING      

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                 MATH        MATH        MATH        MATH        NONE

  \% At or Above Meets State          43%         29%         26%         19%         
  Standards**\***                                                                     

  \% At Exceeds State Standards**\*** 3%          3%          1%          1%          

  Number of students tested           70          93          74          101         

  Percent of total students tested    100%        100%        100%        100%        

  Number of students alternatively    0           0           0           0           
  assessed                                                                            

  Percent of students alternatively   0           0           0           0           
  assessed                                                                            

                                                                                      

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                     

  1\. [Disadvantaged]{.underline}                                                     NONE
  (specify subgroup)                                                                  

  \% At or Above Meets State          38%         32%         25%         21%         
  Standards                                                                           

  \% At Exceeds State Standards       2%          4%          2%          1%          

  Number of students tested           55          75          61          82          

  2\. [Asian/Pac.                                                                     NONE
  Islander]{.underline} (specify                                                      
  subgroup)                                                                           

  \% At or Above Meets State          44%         30%         27%         19%         
  Standards                                                                           

  \% At Exceeds State Standards       3%          3%          1%          1%          

  Number of students tested           68          89          71          96          

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

\* The State used the Stanford Achievement Test 9^th^ Edition (1997)
during school year 1999-2000 for the large-scale assessment. The SAT9 is
not a criterion-referenced test and we cannot psychometrically compare
the SAT9 to the current Standards-based Hawaii State Assessment (HSA)

\*\* There was a statewide teacher strike during the school year
2000-2001 which precluded any administration of the state large-scale
assessment to our students