##### U.S. Department of Education November 2002

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

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Mrs. Rebeccah Green]{.underline}

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

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

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [P.O. Box 239 310 High School St.]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Tupelo Oklahoma]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[74572-0239]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [( 580 ) 845-2802]{.underline} Fax [( 580 ) 845-2565]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.tupelo.k12.ok.us]{.underline} Email
<bgreen@tupelo.k12.ok.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\_\_\_\_\_\_[March 28, 2003]{.underline}

(Principal's Signature)

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

Name of Superintendent [Mr. Anthony Stevens]{.underline}

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

District Name [Tupelo Public Schools]{.underline} Tel.[( 580 )
845-2460]{.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\_\_\_[March 28, 2003]{.underline}

(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mrs. Joyce Sanders]{.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 [March 28, 2003]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

\_\_\_\_\_ Middle schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Junior high schools

\_\_\_\_\_ High schools

\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$5769]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$5930]{.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\. [2]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **K**       8         5                      **13**       **7**       8         2           10

  **1**       7         5                      **12**       **8**       10        12          22

  **2**       9         10                     **19**       **9**                             

  **3**       8         8                      **16**       **10**                            

  **4**       8         6                      **14**       **11**                            

  **5**       9         7                      **16**       **12**                            

  **6**       10        4                      14           Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   136
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [65]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [\>1]{.underline} % Black or African
American

\% Hispanic or Latino

[\>1]{.underline} % Asian/Pacific Islander

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_\_[12]{.underline}\_\_\_%

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

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

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 6
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        16
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    136
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .12
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    12
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

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

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[80]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[115]{.underline}\_\_Total Number Students Who Qualify

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

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_[26%]{.underline}\_\_\_

\_\_\_[36]{.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.

\_\_\_\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_[7]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[16]{.underline}\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_[6]{.underline}\_Speech or Language
Impairment

\_\_[2]{.underline}\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
Blindness

\_\_[4]{.underline}\_Emotionally Disturbed
\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Developmentally Delayed

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers \_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_[9]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_[1]{.underline}\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_[9]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
> \_\_\_[12]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

12\. Student-"classroom teacher" ratio: \_\_[11:1]{.underline}\_\_

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students. 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 and drop-off rates.

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

  Daily student attendance 93%                                             

  Daily teacher attendance 92%                                             

  Teacher turnover rate    8%                                              

  Student dropout rate     NA                                              

  Student drop-off rate    NA                                              
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

#  

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

Tupelo Public Schools is located in Tupelo, Oklahoma. It is a small
community located approximately 100 miles southeast of Oklahoma City.
The school district totals a population of about 1200, but only about a
third of that total live within the town itself. The businesses in the
town consist of one café, two convenient stores, a garage, and a
carwash. There are also five churches and a post office. Farming and
other agricultural pursuits comprise the largest industry in the area.
The school is the largest single employer in the town. Tupelo is a
paradigm of small rural communities throughout the United States, with a
declining and aging population. We are highly dependent on sources
outside the community for employment and resources. The school is not
only the educational focus of the community, but the cultural focus as
well.

The average household income for this district is half of the state
average; consequently the majority of our students, over 80 %, receive
free or reduced lunches. The socioeconomic situation of most of our
students does provide the school with some challenges, but does not
detract from the overall education we try to impart to our students.

Because we are a small school in a small town in a small county we do
not have many of the resources that others may have. But what we lack in
size we more than make up for in cooperation and effort. We have nine
full and part time teachers in our elementary school. We also share
several teachers from the high school. Finally, we have a principal who
teaches two classes per day. Each of these teachers wants the best for
his/her students and tries to help them achieve it.

Although there are some disadvantages to our small size, there are also
some huge advantages. Every adult knows every child by name. We know
their circumstances, and we know what happened at their home last night.
We are able to commiserate with their hurts, and celebrate with their
successes. As trite as it may sound we are a team, and we win together
and lose together. Loss in life is inevitable, but winning is better. We
try to equip our students with what they need to win.

Tupelo's mission statement is as follows: It is the mission of the
school to provide students with opportunities and the guidance necessary
to develop skill for:

-   accessing and processing information

-   dealing with change

-   thinking, reasoning and problem solving

-   developing creativity

-   positive human relationships

in order to serve their community and society and achieve personal
fulfillment. We believe learning is a lifelong process in which students
are expected to take personal responsibility, that there are no limits
on what students can learn, and that learning must take place in a
nurturing, safe environment that recognizes the diversity of individuals
while assuring equity for all.

Our mission statement is truly a reflection about how we feel regarding
the education of our children. Neither income, race, inherent abilities,
nor any other factor determines how we instruct our students. They are
our children; it is our responsibility and our pleasure to educate them.

# [PART IV -- ASSESSMENT DATA]{.underline}

Assessment data, whether it is standardized tests, computerized tests,
teacher generated tests, or any other type of assessment, is vital in
providing a proper education for our children. Assessments show where a
child is, where he/she has been, and where he/she should be. Assessment
data also reveal the strengths and weaknesses in a curriculum or
program. It is very easy to see when reviewing the data whether many
students have not mastered a concept (a reflection on the instruction or
curriculum), or whether a few students have not mastered a concept (a
possible need for remediation for the few).

It is so easy to track the progress of each student if there is
assessment data available. It is particularly helpful when several
sources of data are available to compare as we have here in Tupelo.
There is usually very little discrepancy among the various assessments.
This data helps in communicating to the parents certain areas of
strength or weakness that could determine the placement that would most
benefit the child.

This information can also help a teacher reflect on his/her choices of
methods and materials. It can reveal problem areas to a teacher and
enable him/her to improve in that area. It can also provide the teacher
with a much-needed pat on the back.

# We find it beneficial to review several sets of assessment data for the school to see if there are any gaps or weaknesses in the curriculum as a whole. If such a problem is revealed immediate steps can be and are taken to rectify the situation. A later comparison of the data will show if the problem has been resolved or if other action should be taken.

# 

**Communication**

At Tupelo School we make every effort to keep parents informed in a
timely manner regarding the academic performance of their children. In
addition to quarterly grade reports we set aside four days for
parent-teacher conferences during each school year, scheduling day and
evening sessions to accommodate working parents. Each week students in
grades K-5 take home folders that contain graded papers and assignments.
We also notify parents by mail any time their child's grades fall below
passing. They receive a Notice of Academic Difficulty that details
behaviors possibly leading to unsatisfactory grades. This is done in an
effort to give parents and students an opportunity to address problems
and prevent failure.

Parents receive individual reports of student performance on
standardized achievement tests administered each year. The Oklahoma
State Department of Education prepares an annual "Report Card" for each
school district that includes this assessment data. Copies of this
report are sent to parents of every student in the district and this
information is published in state and local newspapers as well.

We believe assessment and accountability are key elements in school
improvement efforts. To facilitate improvement we are committed to
frequent, effective communication between the school and our students,
parents, and community.

# Sharing Success

Sharing successes and failures with other schools and professionals is
an integral part of education. During the course of Tupelo's
Professional Development activities we have participated in workshops
with teachers from other schools. There we shared experiences and
successful methods and techniques.

We have invited teachers from other schools to Tupelo for cooperative
professional development where we shared what we've done. We would be
willing to conduct workshops for other schools to explain and illustrate
our methods.

Newspaper articles are an easy way to communicate to other schools as
well as to parents and community what is taking place in our classrooms.
We are interviewed by or send articles to newspapers in our vicinity
about our achievements.

Any teacher or staff member in our school would be more than happy to
answer calls or emails from other schools in order to help them, or
advise them, or encourage them. We would also welcome visits to our
classrooms from other professionals so they could see our programs being
put into practice.

Any way we have shared in the past we will continue to do in the future.

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

**Elementary Curriculum**

Tupelo's elementary curriculum is aligned with the Oklahoma Priority
Academic Student Skills. These PASS objectives, developed by the
Oklahoma State Department of Education, are rigorous standards designed
to help our teachers and students attain the highest level of
achievement possible. There is a set of objectives for each grade level
beginning in kindergarten. Each of our teachers is required to turn in
to the principal weekly lesson plans. On each lesson a PASS

objective must be listed. This enables the principal to monitor what is
actually being taught in the classroom and compare that to what should
be taught. This also helps teachers to keep focused on what is
important.

Our kindergarten through fourth grade classes, are self-contained,
having only one primary teacher, while our fifth through eighth grades
are departmentalized. Throughout the elementary years students are
taught the basic subjects of reading, math, science, social studies,
language arts, physical education, and music. They are also introduced
to Spanish and art.

In the lower elementary grades reading and math are the main subjects
stressed. Kindergarten is used to establish a basis on which the later
grades build. In the first, second, and third grades time spent on
science and social studies has been reduced. This time has been devoted
to extra reading practice. These subjects are then taught through hands
on activities and field trips. Each of these grades spends a minimum of
90 minutes on reading activities, and often times more. In grades four
through eight formal reading instruction time is reduced, but content
reading in science and social studies is significantly increased.
Reading for pleasure is strongly encouraged and time is set aside for
this.

Throughout the elementary years math is by no means neglected. We spend
30 minutes per day on math instruction during kindergarten. Grades one,
two, and three are required to spend 60 minutes per day on math related
topics. In grades four through eight, time is reduced to 45-50 minutes
per day. This is in addition to the odd few minutes here and there that
are used to review facts and concepts.

We have an all day kindergarten program. It is designed predominately to
provide both socialization skills and an academic foundation on which to
build. Students have a minimum of 60 minutes each day devoted to reading
or pre-reading instruction. This is, of course, divided into several
smaller segments. Number concepts and counting activities are conducted
for at least 30 minutes each day. They are given the opportunity to work
on their own level in math and reading in our computer lab utilizing our
SuccessMaker computer program. They are given center time to interact
with other students, use their imaginations, and practice their skills
with manipulatives.

Ninety minutes of reading is the required minimum in the first, second,
and third grades.

The first and second grades alternate the days they go to the computer
lab. On the days they are not in the lab they get another 45 minute
reading session. Third graders spend 45 minutes per day in the computer
lab. In the lab students work on math, reading, and language arts on
their own individualized level. Each grade attends physical education
and music classes on alternate days.

Because classes in grades five through eight are departmentalized
students receive the best instruction from the most qualified teachers
we have. In compliance with Oklahoma's stringent standards every teacher
is certified to teach in his/her subject area. This greatly enhances the
enthusiasm and expertise with which the teachers conduct their classes.
Although the basic subjects are still taught, at this level students are
able to see and enjoy the results of the hard work they have been doing.
Science concepts and process skills are reinforced and exhibited at the
annual science fair. History and cultural influences can be understood
and appreciated during field trips. Reading and critiquing the newspaper
increases analytical thinking. Basic skills are used and enlarged to
encompass the whole child.

# Reading Curriculum

At Tupelo School we incorporate materials and methods designed to meet
the needs of a diverse group of students working at varying levels of
ability. A balanced systematic program of instruction for all students
includes [phoneme awareness, phonics, spelling, reading fluency, and
comprehension.]{.underline} The foundation of the reading program is the
Harcourt Trophies series, which was selected because of its correlation
to the objectives of our reading curriculum and the supplemental reading
enrichment and reading intervention resources. We also include an
individualized program of computer-assisted instruction, guided reading,
and self-selected reading activities. Reading instruction is scheduled
for 90 minutes daily for students in grades 1-3 and 60 minutes daily for
kindergarten students.

Students benefit from increased, spiraled practice based on careful
assessment, early identification of students with reading difficulties,
and individualized planning. An individualized program of instruction
requires frequent multiple assessments. We use Gates-McGinite Reading
Tests, STAR Early Literacy and STAR Literacy, and Stanford Achievement
Tests for formal assessment. We also incorporate placement tests and
diagnostic tests that accompany the basal series as well as informal
evaluation techniques.

Because reading is the single most important academic skill and the key
to all academic learning, teaching children to read is the highest
priority. Our reading curriculum has been designed to ensure that
children at all levels of ability have successful reading experiences
and become independent readers.

# Math Curriculum

Tupelo Public Schools' Mission Statement states, " It is the mission of
the school to provide students with opportunities and the guidance
necessary to develop skill for: accessing and processing information,
dealing with change, thinking, reasoning, and problem solving,
developing creativity, positive human relationships in order to serve
their community and society and achieve personal fulfillment. We believe
learning is a lifelong process in which students are expected to take
personal responsibility, that there are no limits on what students can
learn, and that learning must take place in a nurturing, safe
environment that recognizes the diversity of individuals while assuring
equity for all."

Mathematics is taught with the same diligence and care that reading is.
A variety of instructional methods are used to teach the students. Our
computer lab is devoted to providing math instruction that is tailored
to the needs of each student. Ongoing assessments are made of each
child's progress, and instruction is modified based on those
assessments.

Math lends itself to achieving many of the goals set forth in our
mission statement. Math is used to access and process information,
thinking, reasoning, problem solving, and developing creativity. Through
the use of cooperative learning it is of use in dealing with change and
developing positive human relationships.

Proficiency in math empowers individuals after they're left our school.
They are able to function in society in general and apply their skills
in applicable venues. After mastering certain complicated skills in
math, students are more likely not to see limits on what they can learn.
They are also then able to break down difficult problems they face into
smaller pieces so that they can be solved, just as they learned to do in
math.

# Instructional Methods

Tupelo teachers use many methods to instruct their students. The
particular method employed depends on the ability and development of the
child and the concept being taught. Part of the skill of teaching is
deciding which format to use for which lesson. There is no one magic
method, but judicious use of a wide variety gives a student much more
opportunity for success. Manipulatives, one on one tutoring, peer
tutoring, whole class instruction, cooperative learning, and computer
programs are the primary techniques in use.

All children learn faster and easier when they are able to manipulate
items to explore the concept they're learning. While some of these
children could learn abstractly, others could not. Whenever appropriate,
manipulatives are used for all students, but they are especially
valuable for remediation or for those who require more concrete
experiences.

We have one teacher's assistant who is available to all grade levels
when needed. She conducts small group activities and reading circles.
She also tutors children one on one when necessary.

Some activities are conducive to whole class instruction with everyone
interacting with one another.

There are other times when students tutor one another. Many activities
are designed to enable students to engage in cooperative learning. This
is an especially rewarding manner of instruction because of the added
benefits of learning to deal with other people and "discovering"
information in a non-threatening way.

SuccessMaker is a comprehensive instructional system able to deliver
courses to many students individually. Through the use of the computer
lab we've been able to customize a curriculum in reading, math, and
language arts for each child according to his/her level. This program
also provides assessments for teachers to use in tracking the progress
of each student.

# Professional Development

As educators the entire Tupelo School staff uses Professional
Development as a mechanism to improve instructional skills, obtain
professional growth, and stay attuned to updates in all content areas.

Our school provides a wide variety of training activities each year. Our
main areas of emphasis are technology, techniques for reaching all
students, curriculum development, and parental involvement.

Computer literacy for our teachers is a high priority for us. Each
teacher has many opportunities to improve his/her technological skills.
Our school has school wide Title I remediation through the Computer
Curriculum Corporation program and teachers are able to assist students
as well as obtain assessments incorporated in this program. Teachers are
also well versed in using STAR Early Literacy and STAR Literacy,
electronic tests, to track students' reading progress.

Exposing teachers to a variety of techniques that enable them to reach
all children regardless of abilities and needs has been stressed as
well. Teachers learn new strategies and techniques to identify needs,
plan and conduct instruction, and evaluate results.

We work very hard in developing and aligning our curriculum so we can
make the most of our instructional time without needless repetition or
gaps in our program.

Finally, we try to keep our parents informed and involved. Fortunately,
we are such a small school that it is easy to maintain a close line of
communication with parents, so that school and home are working toward
the same goals.

Grade 5 Test Mathematics

Edition/publication year 2000 Publisher CTB McGraw-Hill

2001 CTB McGraw-Hill

2002 Harcourt

What groups were excluded from testing? No groups were excluded from
testing.

Number excluded 0 Percent excluded 0 %

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

  Testing month                      March               March       Feb.                    

  SCHOOL SCORES TOTAL                                                                        

  Unsatisfactory                     [29%]{.underline}   13%         10%                     

  Limited Knowledge                  29%                 40%         10%                     

  Satisfactory                       41%                 33%         67%                     

  Advanced                           0%                  13%         14%                     

  Number of students tested          17                  15          21                      

  Percent of total students tested   100%                100%        100%                    

  Number of students excluded        0                   0           0                       

  Percent of students excluded       0%                  0%          0%                      

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                            

  1\. Non Free/Reduced Lunch                                                                 

  Unsatisfactory                     0%                  0%          17%                     

  Limited Knowledge                  0%                  33%         0%                      

  Satisfactory                       100%                67%         50%                     

  Advanced                           0%                  0%          33%                     

  2\. Free/reduced lunch                                                                     

  Unsatisfactory                     31%                 22%         7%                      

  Limited Knowledge                  31%                 44%         13%                     

  Satisfactory                       38%                 11%         73%                     

  Advanced                           0%                  22%         7%                      

                                                                                             

  REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS                                                                 

  **Tupelo** At or Above             67                  54          93                      
  Satisfactory                                                                               

  **State** At or Above Satisfactory 71                  72          85                      
  ---------------------------------- ------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Grade 5 Test Reading

Edition/publication year 2000 Publisher CTB McGraw-Hill

> 2001 CTB McGraw-Hill

2002 Harcourt

What groups were excluded from testing? No groups were excluded from
testing.

Number excluded 0 Percent excluded 0 %

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

  Testing month                      March       March       Feb.                    

  SCHOOL SCORES TOTAL                                                                

  Unsatisfactory                     29%         13%         5%                      

  Limited Knowledge                  29%         27%         29%                     

  Satisfactory                       41%         53%         48%                     

  Advanced                           0%          7%          19%                     

  Number of students tested          17          15          21                      

  Percent of total students tested   100%        100%        100%                    

  Number of students excluded        0           0           0                       

  Percent of students excluded       0%          0%          0%                      

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                    

  1\. Non Free/Reduced Lunch                                                         

  Unsatisfactory                     0%          0%          17%                     

  Limited Knowledge                  0%          17%         17%                     

  Satisfactory                       100%        83%         33%                     

  Advanced                           0%          0%          33%                     

  2\. Free/reduced lunch                                                             

  Unsatisfactory                     31%         22%         0%                      

  Limited Knowledge                  31%         33%         33%                     

  Satisfactory                       38%         33%         53%                     

  Advanced                           0%          11%         13%                     

                                                                                     

  REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS                                                         

  **Tupelo** At or Above             67          69          79                      
  Satisfactory                                                                       

  **State** At or Above Satisfactory 72          75          76                      
  ---------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Grade 8 Test Mathematics

Edition/publication year 2000 Publisher CTB McGraw-Hill

> 2001 CTB McGraw-Hill

2002 Harcourt

What groups were excluded from testing? No groups were excluded from
testing.

Number excluded 0 Percent excluded 0 %

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

  Testing month                      March       March       Feb.                    

  SCHOOL SCORES TOTAL                                                                

  Unsatisfactory                     0%          0%          20%                     

  Limited Knowledge                  15%         53%         13%                     

  Satisfactory                       69%         32%         60%                     

  Advanced                           15%         16%         7%                      

  Number of students tested          13          19          15                      

  Percent of total students tested   100%        100%        100%                    

  Number of students excluded        0           0           0                       

  Percent of students excluded       0%          0%          0%                      

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                    

  1\. Non Free/Reduced Lunch                                                         

  Unsatisfactory                     0%          0%          0%                      

  Limited Knowledge                  0%          33%         0%                      

  Satisfactory                       0%          33%         0%                      

  Advanced                           0%          33%         0%                      

  2\. Free/reduced lunch                                                             

  Unsatisfactory                     0%          0%          20%                     

  Limited Knowledge                  15%         62%         13%                     

  Satisfactory                       69%         31%         60%                     

  Advanced                           15%         8%          7%                      

                                                                                     

  REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS                                                         

  **Tupelo** At or Above             100         69          91                      
  Satisfactory                                                                       

  **State** At or Above Satisfactory 70          71          71                      
  ---------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Grade 8 Test Reading

Edition/publication year 2000 Publisher CTB McGraw-Hill

> 2001 CTB McGraw-Hill

2002 Harcourt

What groups were excluded from testing? No groups were excluded from
testing.

Number excluded 0 Percent excluded 0 %

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

  Testing month                      March       March       Feb.                    

  SCHOOL SCORES TOTAL                                                                

  Unsatisfactory                     15%         11%         33%                     

  Limited Knowledge                  10%         53%         0%                      

  Satisfactory                       69%         32%         67%                     

  Advanced                           15%         5%          0%                      

  Number of students tested          13          19          15                      

  Percent of total students tested   100%        100%        100%                    

  Number of students excluded        0           0           0                       

  Percent of students excluded       0%          0%          0%                      

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                    

  1\. Non Free/Reduced Lunch                                                         

  Unsatisfactory                     0%          0%          \%                      

  Limited Knowledge                  0%          17%         \%                      

  Satisfactory                       0%          67%         \%                      

  Advanced                           0%          17%         \%                      

  2\. Free/reduced lunch                                                             

  Unsatisfactory                     15%         15%         \%                      

  Limited Knowledge                  0%          69%         \%                      

  Satisfactory                       69%         15%         \%                      

  Advanced                           15%         0%          \%                      

                                                                                     

  REGULAR EDUCATION STUDENTS                                                         

  **Tupelo** At or Above             100         46          91                      
  Satisfactory                                                                       

  **State** At or Above Satisfactory 76          78          77                      
  ---------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Grade 3 Test Mathematics

Edition/publication year 1999 Publisher Riverside

2001 Riverside

2002 Harcourt

What groups were excluded from testing? No groups were excluded from the
tests.

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles_x\_\_

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

  Testing month                      March            March                           March          

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                                  

  Total Score                        65               41                              58             

  Number of students tested          14               14                              14             

  Percent of total students          100%             100%                            100%           
  tested                                                                                             

  Number of students excluded        0                0                               0              

  Percent of students excluded       0%               0%                              0%             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                                    

  1.Non Free/Reduced Lunches    63               44                              72                  

  2.Free/Reduced Lunches        66               38                              49                  
  ----------------------------- ---- ----------- ---- ----------- -- ----------- ---- ----------- -- -----------

Grade 3 Test Reading

Edition/publication year 1999 Publisher Riverside

2001 Riverside

2002 Harcourt

What groups were excluded from testing? No groups were excluded from the
tests.

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles_x\_\_

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

  Testing month                      March            March                           March          

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                                  

  Total Score                        48               49                              48             

  Number of students tested          14               14                              14             

  Percent of total students          100%             100%                            100%           
  tested                                                                                             

  Number of students excluded        0                0                               0              

  Percent of students excluded       0%               0%                              0%             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                                    

  1.Non Free/Reduced Lunches    42               55                              59                  

  2.Free/Reduced Lunches        51               43                              42                  
  ----------------------------- ---- ----------- ---- ----------- -- ----------- ---- ----------- -- -----------

**Assessment Data**

Tupelo School does not have statistically significant numbers of
students needed to report scores for any ethnic/racial groups. We have
reported the test data for all students including those students served
with IEPs ,and in the socioeconomic subgroups as determined by the Free
and Reduced Lunch Program. All students in each class were tested.

A careful review of the results on the state mandated standardized
achievement tests given to Tupelo third graders shows that between 1999
and 2002 scores for all students improved in math from the 58^th^
percentile to the 65^th^ percentile. No tests were given in 2000 due to
proposed changes in Oklahoma's testing requirements. Between 2001 and
2002 the improvement was from 41 to 65. For non free/reduced students
the gains between 2001 and 2002 were from 44 to 63. The scores for those
students declined between 1999 and 2001. Math scores for students on
free/reduced lunches went from the 38^th^ percentile in 2001 to the
66^th^ percentile in 2002.

During the same time frame third grade reading scores remained stable at
the 48^th^ and 49^th^ percentile. Reading scores for the non
free/reduced lunch students declined while scores for free/reduced
students improved from the 42^nd^ percentile to the 51^st^ percentile.

Oklahoma fifth graders are given criterion referenced tests. The
percentages of all students in grade five who received a score of
Satisfactory or Advanced decreased between 2000 and 2002 from 81% to 70
%. Scores for non free/reduced students improved from 83% to 100%.
Scores for students in free/reduced lunch program declined in 2001, but
improved in 2002 from 32% receiving passing scores to 38%.

Reading scores for all fifth grade students during this time frame
decreased from 67% to 41%. Non free/reduced students improved from 66%
to 100% receiving passing scores. Free/reduced students declined from
66% to 38%. (Of the seventeen fifth graders tested in 2002 sixteen are
in the free/reduced lunch program, and eight of sixteen are served with
IEPs.)

Eighth grade students in Oklahoma also are evaluated with a criterion
referenced test. The percentage of all students tested receiving a
passing score on the math test improved from 67% to 84%. All students
tested in 2000 and 2002 received free/reduced lunches. Of those students
in the free/reduced lunch program 67% received passing scores in 2000
improving to 84% in 2002.

On the reading tests administered to eighth graders 67% of all students
tested in 2000 received passing scores. All students tested in 2000 or
2002 were in the free/reduced lunch category. In 2002 84% of those
students passed the reading test. Of those students in the free/reduced
lunch program 67% received passing scores again improving to 84% in
2002.

No groups of students are excluded from taking the state mandated
achievement tests administered to students in grades 3,5, and 8.