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

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

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Ms. Ann D. Conners]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [W.H. CONTACT \_Con-454506331 \\c \\s \\l Keister
Elementary]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [100 Maryland Avenue]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Harrisonburg VA]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[22801-2801]{.underline}\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [(540) 434-6584]{.underline} Fax [(540) 434-4452]{.underline}

Website/URL
[www.harrisonburg.k12.va.us]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ E-mail
[aconners@harrisonburg.k12.va.us]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Dr. Donald J. Ford]{.underline}

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

District Name [Harrisonburg City Public Schools]{.underline} Tel. [(540)
434-9916]{.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. Thomas C.
Mendez]{.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 of Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [4]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[1]{.underline} Middle schools

Junior high schools

[1]{.underline} High schools

Other (Briefly explain)

[6]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure:
[\$9,056.00]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure:
[\$6,316.00]{.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\. [14]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

[     ]{.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**       52        29                     **81**       **7**                             

  **1**       34        38                     **72**       **8**                             

  **2**       44        35                     **79**       **9**                             

  **3**       44        43                     **87**       **10**                            

  **4**       42        24                     **66**       **11**                            

  **5**       46        38                     **84**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   469
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [66.74]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [8.84]{.underline} % Black or African
American

[19.58]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[19]{.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 51
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 33
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        84
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    454
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .19
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    19
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [34]{.underline}
%

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

Number of languages represented: [13]{.underline}

Specify languages: Bosnian, Gujarati, Korean, Kurdish, Mixteca, Otomi,
Pashtu, Russian, Spanish, Tigrigna, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [43.39]{.underline}
%

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

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

10\. Students receiving special education services: [14]{.underline} %

[67]{.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.

[0]{.underline} Autism [0]{.underline} Orthopedic Impairment

[0]{.underline} Deafness [3]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

[0]{.underline} Deaf-Blindness [10]{.underline} Specific Learning
Disability

[1]{.underline} Hearing Impairment [35]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

[0]{.underline} Mental Retardation [0]{.underline} Traumatic Brain
Injury

[0]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities [0]{.underline} Visual Impairment
Including Blindness

[2]{.underline} Emotionally Disturbed

[11]{.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) [2]{.underline} [     ]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [25]{.underline} [     ]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [20]{.underline} [2]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [14]{.underline} [     ]{.underline}

> Support staff [2]{.underline} [     ]{.underline}
>
> Total number [63\_]{.underline} \_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_

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

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

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

  Daily student attendance [96.2%]{.underline}    [94.7%]{.underline}    [92.5%]{.underline}    [95.1%]{.underline}   [96.2%]{.underline}

  Daily teacher attendance [97.11%]{.underline}   [95.35%]{.underline}   [94.13%]{.underline}                         

  Teacher turnover rate    [11.94%]{.underline}   [10.64%]{.underline}   [10.77%]{.underline}                         

  Student dropout rate                                                                                                

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

**[PART III SUMMARY]{.underline}**

W.H. Keister Elementary is one of four public elementary schools in the
city of Harrisonburg, Virginia. Harrisonburg is located in the heart of
the Shenandoah Valley with a population of forty thousand citizens. The
school division also has one middle and one high school and serves
approximately four thousand students. The school, built in 1955, is
named in honor of Dr. William H. Keister, who served Harrisonburg City
Public Schools for more than fifty years as teacher, principal and first
appointed division superintendent.

Keister Elementary is located on seventeen acres in the heart of the
city. The school consists of twenty-five regular classrooms, a media
center, gymnasium, two computer labs and a multipurpose room which
serves as a cafeteria and an auditorium. Four hundred seventy-five
children, grades kindergarten through grade five, are currently
enrolled. There are four sections of each grade with the exception of
third grade where there are five sections. During the fall of 1983,
Harrisonburg annexed part of Rockingham County and the student
population became more diverse. In the 1990's this trend has continued
with an influx of immigrants to the area due to an outpouring of support
from area churches, assistance from the federal government with regard
to affordable housing and a favorable local job market. Currently
thirty-four percent of Keister students speak a language other than
English. The Harrisonburg City Public School Division holds the
distinction in the state of Virginia of having the highest percentage of
English As Second Language students in its population.

In the spring, 1994, the Head Start classroom was opened and serves
seventeen three and four-year-olds annually. During the 1999-2000 school
year, a major renovation project was begun of the original 1955 portion
of the building. Electrical, lighting, plumbing and HVAC systems were
upgraded.

The school's mission is to promote student learning. Students are valued
as unique individuals with different intellectual, social, emotional,
cultural and physical needs. All members of the school community
(teachers, parents, administrators and community members) share the
responsibility to help students reach their maximum potential and become
responsible, productive citizens as well as life-long learners.

The basic beliefs held in the school community are that student learning
needs are the primary focus of all decisions impacting the work of the
school. In addition, students must be provided with appropriate
opportunities for success and a variety of instructional approaches to
support their learning. Teaching strategies, learning activities and
student assessment support the curriculum. Finally it is believed that a
student's self-esteem is enhanced by positive relationships, appropriate
and clearly specified expectations and a mutual respect among and
between students and staff. These beliefs are carried out by a
competent, caring and highly qualified staff consisting of regular
classroom teachers, two fine arts teachers, four special education
teachers, two physical education teachers, an assistant principal,
principal and a number of paraprofessionals.

The school staff also enjoys being in close proximity to Eastern
Mennonite University and James Madison University. Several thousand
volunteer hours are logged each year from members of these two
universities as well as from the general community.

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

[Question 1: Describe The Meaning of School's Assessment
Results]{.underline}

Standards of Learning Tests (SOL) are given in the spring of each year
to third and fifth graders. Reading skills are tested on the English
subtest. Skills tested are grouped into the following reporting
categories: Using Word Analysis and Strategies; Understanding of Printed
and Resource Materials; Understanding Elements of Literature; Editing
Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling; and Planning, Composing and Revising
(writing).

From year to year, school results can be compared to get a sense of how
well the school is matching instruction to what is assessed. Reporting
categories are tracked in order to illustrate trends in student
achievement.

Since 1999, when the SOL results were first recorded, the school has
shown an upward trend in English. This is especially true for third
grade and holds true for the fifth grade with the exception of two
categories: 'plan, compose and revise' and 'editing for grammar,
capitalization and spelling.' Current discussions among our teachers
about these two areas have yielded a plan of action to increase student
achievement even further in these two categories. Overall, an increased
number of students have tested out as proficient in the reporting
categories and more of our students are achieving in the advanced range.
This speaks to the hard work of our teachers and to their shouldering
the responsibility to instruct each child at his or her level using
effective strategies and techniques.

Two minority subgroups, Blacks and Hispanics, have shown an increase in
achievement levels for the two years in which we have data. After
testing in spring, 2004, we will have data to compare for special
education students, English as a Second Language students and students
who are impoverished.

SOL tests are also given each spring to third and fifth graders in
mathematics. Skills that are tested are grouped into the following
reporting categories: Number Sense; Computation/ Estimation;
Measurement/Geometry; Probability/Statistics; and
Patterns/Functions/Algebra.

Keister scores have been well above the state benchmarks since we began
tracking the data. Over the last three years, our fifth graders have
shown steady increases in their math scores. Most notable is the fact
that while State math scores have increased from a 67% pass rate to a
74% pass rate, Keister scores have increased from a 66% pass rate to an
81% pass rate over the same period. This can be attributed to our
teachers who have written appropriate math assessments and who have
participated in an array of staff development activities.

> **[PART IV INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS]{.underline}**
>
> [Question 2: How School Uses Assessment Data To Improve Student
> Performance]{.underline}
>
> Assessment results have been tracked and analyzed for many years
> giving the school the advantage of longitudinal data that is used to
> drive instructional decision-making. Tables and graphs are updated
> each summer by the principal and disseminated to all school
> stakeholders. A data disaggregator tool is used to analyze data by
> test reporting categories and demographic categories. It is also used
> to compare school scores to sister schools in Harrisonburg as well as
> across the state. Lists of names of students who are in the bottom
> quartile are disseminated to teachers for remediation purposes. It is
> expected that all students on these lists receive remedial help in
> those areas of need as identified by the test results. Students who
> have passed the tests but have shown weaknesses in reported skills are
> also identified for targeted assistance.
>
> Discussions are held in a variety of settings about what trends are
> being noticed and what responses/solutions are necessary to increase
> student success. For example, is more time needed on teaching
> probability and statistics if the data indicates that our students
> need that? Have we interpreted the SOL objectives correctly so that
> students are being taught what is assessed? Other responses to data
> results have included realignment of curriculum, revision of
> curriculum maps, master schedule changes, addition of after school
> tutorial assistance for remedial students and the development of
> training strands for teachers.
>
> [Question 3: How School Communicates Student Performance]{.underline}
>
> After information on given testing results is received, it is reviewed
> by a variety of stakeholders. The first review is done by the
> principal and central office staff, including content area supervisors
> and the Director of Curriculum and Instruction. Individual school data
> is discussed as well as data for the entire division. In this way,
> Harrisonburg City Schools' content supervisors are able to discuss
> kindergarten through grade twelve trends throughout the school
> division.
>
> The test results are then shared with School Board members at their
> meetings. These meetings are televised to the local television
> audience on a public access channel. With that done, results are
> brought to the school level through faculty meetings, grade level
> meetings and instructional leadership team meetings. The results are
> analyzed at those meetings so that faculty and staff are confident in
> explaining what the results mean.
>
> Finally, school and student performance is shared with parents and
> community members through Parent-Teacher Association meetings along
> with school and local newspaper coverage. Results are also posted on
> the school division's website. Each year a school report card is
> disseminated to our patrons and made available to the general public
> in the school office.

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

[Question 4: How School Will Share Its Successes]{.underline}

The community at W.H. Keister Elementary has always been one that has
been willing to share and never territorial about its programs and
practices. The school is open to individuals and groups for the purpose
of observation, discussion and training. Like pen pals, email buddies
could be set up between teachers and principals of various educational
institutions for question and answer sessions and scholarly discourse.

Faculty members will be available to make visits to schools to do
seminars, workshops, peer modeling and co-teaching. The principal is
always willing to share how data is tracked and analyzed and then
communicated with the school's stakeholders. Proposals and presentations
will be developed and made to professional groups, organizations and
associations and at educational conferences. The school principal and
several teachers have, as an example, presented at Virginia State
Reading Association Conferences and the annual Virginia Governor's
Education Conferences.

Practices and policies of the school have already been included in the
book, [Redefining Staff Development,]{.underline} by Laura S. Robb. The
structure of Keister's staff development program was outlined and
discussed in this text which was published by Heinemann (2000).

In [Literacy Links,]{.underline} also by Laura S. Robb, our Headstart
and primary teachers shared examples their teaching strategies. This
"teach the teacher" format has been received most positively by those
seeking more effective methods of instruction.

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

[Question 1: Describe The School Curriculum]{.underline}

W.H. Keister Elementary School's curriculum is based primarily on the
Virginia Standards of Learning for English, Mathematics, Science and
History and Social Science. The Virginia State Board of Education
adopted the Standards of Learning (SOL) "to provide a framework for
instructional programs designed to raise the academic achievement of all
students in Virginia and are an important part of Virginia's efforts to
provide challenging educational programs in the public schools."

In each of the four core content areas listed above, targets and
expectations are set for each grade level. These targets have been
shared with the school's patrons so all stakeholders are aware of what
is being taught, when it is taught and exactly what is expected at each
grade level. The SOL are considered the core curriculum for the school.

In English, they include objectives on the use of word analysis,
understanding of printed and resource materials, understanding of
elements in literature, editing grammar, capitalization, punctuation,
spelling and planning, composing and revising a piece of writing. The
school was also awarded a Reading First grant in the summer, 2003.
Students in kindergarten through third grades use Houghtin-Mifflin's [A
Nation Of Readers]{.underline} as their core reading program. Also
included in the comprehensive reading program are leveled books and a
variety of supplemental materials. In addition to this curriculum, the
school division has elected to go beyond these standards by crafting a
literacy framework in language arts. This curriculum guide includes
philosophical statements and expectations about literate communities and
defines the teacher's roles as model, instructor, manager and
communicator.

In mathematics, skills objectives include number sense, computation and
estimation, measurement and geometry, probability and statistics and
patterns, functions and algebra. This curriculum is spiraled throughout
the kindergarten through fifth grade years so that children have the
opportunity to master content developmentally as well as to build upon
what has been previously presented. The mathematics curriculum guide
includes a mission statement which states that, "Our mission is to
prepare every student to succeed and to contribute to a better world. We
will strive to do this in an academically challenging, safe, and
nurturing environment where all students, parents and community members
are active participants." A textbook series that closely matched that
mission and was aligned with the SOL was adopted.

The science curriculum has four components: scientific investigation;
force, motion, energy and matter; life processes and living systems; and
earth, space systems and cycles. Again the curriculum includes
objectives by grade level.

The fourth content area of the core curriculum is history and social
sciences. Students are exposed to a wide variety of topics including
civics, geography, economics and history.

Reading and mathematics are subjects that are integrated into the total
curriculum throughout the day. It is not unusual for students to use
their literacy and math skills in the art room, music room and in
physical education. These resource teachers are very committed to
collaboration with regular classroom teachers.

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

[Question 2: School Reading Program]{.underline}

The reading curriculum followed by Keister Elementary is a comprehensive
research-based program which enhances what is required by Virginia
Standards of Learning (SOL). The purchase of leveled books, classroom
libraries, and the establishment of a school book room have been a high
priority in the school over the last several years.

The Houghtin-Mifflin series, [A Nation of Readers]{.underline}, is used.
This series was adopted by the school as part of it Reading First grant
and was one of several approved by the Virginia State Department of
Education. In addition to this anthology, a new program developed by
Dorothy Donat called [Reading Their Way]{.underline} is used. Leveled
books play a major role daily as reading is integrated into all content
areas throughout the day.

As assessment data is collected and analyzed, teachers group their
students according to their instructional reading levels. Lessons are
framed around the five components of reading: phonemic awareness;
phonics; fluency; vocabulary and comprehension. Instruction takes place
individually, in small groups and in the whole group and is delivered by
classroom teachers, reading specialists, special education specialists
and paraprofessionals. The computer lab is used as one facet of the
small group rotation process.

The aforementioned Houghtin-Mifflin series will be used by grades two
through five beginning in the fall, 2004. Currently in those grades
there is a strong emphasis on the use of leveled books and other
materials that have proven effective. Small and whole group instruction
is used with these materials and the format is a modified tutorial
approach based upon Darryl Morris' [Howard Street Tutorial
Model.]{.underline} Students reread books, study phonics, read new
stories and write about what they have read in these small group
sessions.

In addition to these components of the curriculum, teachers read aloud
each day. There is also sustained silent reading time whenever possible
to increase the time of students' eyes on print.

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

[Question 3: Describe One Other Curriculum Area]{.underline}

Science is one of our core content areas which incorporates essential
life knowledge and skills. The school's mission is to make sure that
student learning needs are the primary focus of instruction and the
science curriculum is filled with goals that speak to student learning.
Students are actively engaged in science from the moment they begin
their school careers. Primary teachers begin by putting items such as
rocks, shells, leaves, etc. out on tables with magnifying glasses
nearby. Students are encouraged to notice these collections and to
discuss their findings with their peers. Life processes are studied when
caterpillars emerge into butterflies and seeds are sown and grow into
small plants. Because of the focus on active learning, the school
undertook a major project several years ago by creating a nature trail.
Plants and trees were identified and the trail is a combination of
hardwood forest and grassland. Children are periodically taken on the
trail when its use dovetails with goals and objectives. Students have
been caving and have studied astronomy during an overnight camping trip
at a local camp. The students at the local high school have traveled to
our school to present assemblies for our students and have hosted our
fifth graders for a day of science. Because the school is located near
two universities, many of their resources have been mined. How lucky to
have two planetariums in the City, a geology department, etc. along with
professors who are willing to share their expertise with elementary
children. The Merck Corporation has given our students a 'Fun With
Science' assembly on alternate years. The experiments they share always
have a positive influence on our students not to mention their 'big
bang' of a finale when a small amount of material is ignited. Our
teachers have worked with the Virginia Cooperative Extension to test
soil samples and to plan a Virginia garden. A local environmentalist is
funding a rain garden on site. A stream which flows near the boundary of
the school's property, Blacks' Run, is used for taking water samples. A
community group dedicated to cleaning up this stream and creating a
greenway is applying for a grant and incorporating the use of our
elementary school students for a variety of projects. As you can see,
students at Keister Elementary School experience science not just read
about it.

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

[Question 4: Different Instructional Methods]{.underline}

The list of methods used by our instructional personnel is as wide and
as varied as the teachers we employ. Teachers use a
diagnostic/prescriptive method of instruction. The information that
assessments reveal is used to formulate goals and objectives for
individuals as well as groups of children. Once goals are identified
then instructional techniques and activities are planned. The primary
focus of instruction has been to teach children strategies that they can
use to apply, extend, and add to the skills and knowledge initially
taught by teachers. It is in the learning of strategies then, that
children learn how to problem solve and how to use their critical
thinking skills. In reading, that means learning strategies for gleaning
knowledge from a variety of non-fiction materials. Through modeling and
talking it out loud, teachers pass along strategies that good readers
use to be successful at the task at hand. Teachers also use the book
room to share lots of good literature to unlock the features that good
writers and readers use to successfully interact with text. For example,
to retell a story, many examples of story openings of quality literature
are used to show students the breadth and depth that writers employ when
engaging readers in their stories. Typically teachers begin lessons with
reminders about what good readers do and in this way our teachers
activate prior knowledge and send a clear expectation of what strategies
children are to use. Literate conversations are also a big part of
instructional methodology. Teachers listen to children who discuss with
pairs and in small groups to determine the thought processes in motion.
In this way, teachers can assess informally how well students are
interacting with the text. Readers' workshops, guided reading, choral
and echo reading are used in conjunction with read-alouds and directed
reading thinking activities to engage and motivate students in reading.
Our teachers are always looking at current research information and
trying out new techniques in order to meet all of our children's needs.

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

[Question 5: Professional Development Program]{.underline}

Keister Elementary has always had a very strong staff development
program. Each year the principal in concert with staff members
identifies the needs of the instructional staff and plans for in-service
for the following school year. Since the inception of the Virginia
Standards of Learning (SOL) the focus of most of the staff development
program has been on what the test data is telling us. Conversations
about student performance by test item and individual student
performance on each of the four core areas are followed by discussions
of trends over the course of the five year testing program. In the first
years of the testing program, teachers made sure that they were aligning
the curriculum to state expectations under the SOL. Grade levels
adjusted their pacing of lessons as well as their emphasis on certain
test reporting categories due to this analysis of data results. Grade
level and faculty meetings were used to introduce teachers to specific
test vocabulary and data analysis skills. In addition to these meetings,
there are professional study groups during the second semester of each
year. These seminars are designed to meet individual teacher needs by
offering a cafeteria approach to staff development. Teachers on the
literacy and technology committees plan for on-going themes of
development in addition to topics identified earlier in the school's
staff development plan. Facilitators are in-house teachers, content area
supervisors, division-level personnel and consultants. As an example,
the principal led a book talk for interested kindergarten through fifth
grade teachers during the 2002-3 school year on [Classroom Instruction
That Works]{.underline} by Robert Marzano. The staff development process
at Keister Elementary is prominently featured in a book by Laura Robb
entitled [Redefining Staff Development.]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
  Keister Elementary - Grade 3 English                               

                                                                      

                                             2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  *Testing Month*                            May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                   

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   31          35          38

  \% At or Above Meeting Standards           68          65          62
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standards           27          16          5
  (Advanced)                                                         

  Number of students tested                  70          71          83

  Percent of total students tested           94.6        100         95.4

  Number of students excluded                4           0           4

  Percent of students excluded               5           0           5

                                                                      

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                 

  1\. Black                                                           

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   46          80          75

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            54          20          25
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standards           9           0           0
  (Advanced)                                                         

  Number of students tested                  11          10          8

  2\. Hispanic                                                        

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   50          86          50

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            50          14          50
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standards           20          0           0
  (Advanced)                                                         

  Number of students tested                  10          7           8

  3\. Low Income - Free/Reduced Lunch                                 
  students                                                           

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   52          76          35

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            48          24          NA
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standards           13          0           NA
  (Advanced)                                                         

  Number of students tested                  23          25          NA

                                                                      

  **STATE SCORES**                                                    

  Total - Percent of Students                                         

  Below Standards (Fail)                     28          28          35

  At or Above Meeting Standard (Proficient)  72          72          65

  At or Above Exceeds Standards (Advanced)   19          NA          NA
  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
  Keister Elementary - Grade 3 Math                                  

                                                                     

                                             2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  *Testing Month*                            May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                   

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   18          19          19

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            82          81          81
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 56          36          48

  Number of students tested                  70          73          91

  Percent of total students tested           94.6        86.9        94.8

  Number of students excluded                4           11          5

  Percent of students excluded               5           13          5

                                                                      

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                 

  1\. Black                                                           

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   55          45          32

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            45          55          68
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 27          9           34

  Number of students tested                  11          11          9

  2\. Hispanic                                                        

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   30          57          25

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            70          43          75
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 50          0           25

  Number of students tested                  10          7           8

                                                                      

  3\. Free/Reduced Lunch students                                     

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   26          46          NA

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            74          54          NA
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 26          2           NA

  Number of students tested                  23          23          NA

                                                                      

  **STATE SCORES**                                                    

  Total - Percent of Students                                         

  Below Standards (Fail)                     17          20          23

  At or Above Meeting Standard (Proficient)  83          80          77

  At or Above Exceeds Standards (Advanced)   48          NA          NA
  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
  Keister Elementary - Grade 5 English                               

                                                                     

                                             2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  *Testing Month*                            May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                   

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   12          17          33

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            88          83          67
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At 0r Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 28          37          11

  Number of students tested                  89          81          80

  Percent of total students tested           96.7        96.4        94.1

  Number of students excluded                3           3           5

  Percent of students excluded               3           4           6

                                                                      

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                 

  1\. Black                                                           

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   0           25          25

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            100         75          75
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 0           0           0

  Number of students tested                  9           4           4

  2\. Hispanic                                                        

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   34          87          58

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            66          13          42
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 5           0           0

  Number of students tested                  18          8           12

  3\. Free/Reduced Lunch students                                     

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   19          45          NA

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            81          55          NA
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Adanced)  16          11          NA

  Number of students tested                  31          18          NA

                                                                      

  **STATE SCORES - % Passing**                                        

  Total - Percent of Students                                         

  Below Standards (Fail)                     18          22          25

  At or Above Meeting Standard (Proficient)  82          78          73

  At or Above Exceeds Standards (Advanced)   19          NA          NA
  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
  Keister Elementary - Grade 5 Math                                  

                                                                     

                                             2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  *Testing Month*                            May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                   

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   19          31          33

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            81          69          67
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 23          20          24

  Number of students tested                  89          84          80

  Percent of total students tested           96.7        100         94.1

  Number of students excluded                3           0           5

  Percent of students excluded               3           0           6

                                                                      

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                 

  1\. Black                                                           

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   0           50          40

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            100         50          60
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 12          0           0

  Number of students tested                  8           4           5

  2\. Hispanic                                                        

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   0           62          58

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            100         38          42
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 8           0           17

  Number of students tested                  12          8           12

  3\. Free/Reduced Lunch students                                     

  \% Below Standard (Fail)                   32          57          NA

  \% At or Above Meeting Standard            68          43          NA
  (Proficient)                                                       

  \% At or Above Exceeds Standard (Advanced) 16          0           NA

  Number of students tested                  31          21          NA

                                                                      

  **STATE SCORES - % Passing**                                        

  Total - Percent of Students                                         

  Below Standards (Fail)                     26          29          33

  At or Above Meeting Standard (Proficient)  74          71          67

  At or Above Exceeds Standards (Advanced)   18          NA          NA
  ------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}

![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.555555555555555in"
height="4.495833333333334in"}