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

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

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Dr. David L. Townsend]{.underline}

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

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

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [2705 Avenue E]{.underline}

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

[Kearney Nebraska 68847-3602]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [( 308 ) 698-8270]{.underline} Fax [(308) 698-8273]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.kearneypublicschools.org]{.underline} E-mail
<dtownsen@kearneypublic.org>

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 [Jaunary 29, 2004]{.underline}

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Dr. Kenneth Anderson]{.underline}

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

District Name [Kearney Public Schools]{.underline} Tel[. (308)
698-8000]{.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 [Jaunary 29, 2004]{.underline}

(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mr. David Glover]{.underline}

(S[p]{.underline}ecify: 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 [Jaunary 29, 2004]{.underline}

(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.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  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.

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

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

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  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.

7.  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: \_\_[9]{.underline}\_\_
Elementary schools

\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_ Middle Schools

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

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_ High schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Other (Briefly explain)

\_\_[12]{.underline}\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\_[\$6,620.52]{.underline}\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\_[\$7,497.35]{.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\. [23]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

5\. Number of students 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**       20        25                     **45**       **7**                             

  **1**       20        17                     **37**       **8**                             

  **2**       26        14                     **40**       **9**                             

  **3**       21        14                     **35**       **10**                            

  **4**       23        25                     **48**       **11**                            

  **5**       17        18                     **35**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   240
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [90.0]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [.82]{.underline} % Black or African
American

[6.70]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_[14.8]{.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 25
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 12
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        37
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    250
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .148
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    14.8
              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:
\_\_[58.8]{.underline}\_\_%

\_\_[139]{.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:
\_\_[16.67]{.underline} \_%

\_\_\_[40]{.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.

\_ [1]{.underline} \_Autism \_ [2]{.underline}\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_ [4]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[14]{.underline}\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_[14]{.underline}\_Speech or Language
Impairment

\_ [5]{.underline}\_ Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

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

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers \_\_\_[10]{.underline}\_\_
\_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_[10]{.underline}\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_
> \_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_\_[19]{.underline}\_\_ \_\_\_[15]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

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

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

  Daily student attendance 96%         96.2%       96%         95.6%       95.5%

  Daily teacher attendance 94.2        93.1%       93.75%      93.1%       94.8%

  Teacher turnover rate    13%         9%          9%          17%         9%

  Student dropout rate                                                     

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

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Emerson Elementary School serves neighborhoods in the east central
section of Kearney, Nebraska, which is a community located in South
Central Nebraska along Interstate 80. The city of Kearney has a
population of approximately 28,000 people and serves the home campus for
the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Emerson is one of nine elementary
schools in the Kearney Public Schools system. The current Emerson school
building was rebuilt in 1952 as a K-6, two-unit school to replace the
old two-story facility. In the fall of 1996, Emerson was remodeled
structurally and organizationally to serve students in grades
Kindergarten to fifth grade, with the sixth grade being relocated to the
new Sunrise Middle School in the district. At that time, the physical
space was modified to increase instructional space for computer, special
education services, music, art, and reading programs. Currently, class
sizes range from 15 to 25 students, with total enrollment of 240.

The faculty at Emerson consists of 10 full time and two part-time
classroom teachers, 10.0 part-time specialists including a 1.5 FTE Title
I Reading position, 5.5 FTE paraprofessionals, 4.0 support staff and a
full time principal. Specialists serve Emerson on a part-time basis and
include counselor, resource, speech/language, physical education, music,
orchestra, art, and adaptive P.E. About 75% of the classroom teachers at
Emerson have seven or more years experience and professional training at
the BA+36 or Masters Degree level. Support staff includes a secretary,
nurse, 1.5 FTE custodians, and two food service workers.

Throughout our school's history, teaching methods have changed as well
as the demand for resources to include equipment and technological
hardware and software. Our staff at Emerson has sought to be innovative
and to provide our students with instruction and opportunities that will
enable them to learn as much as possible while being creative,
resourceful, and responsible. Beginning in the school year 1998-1999,
Emerson began to offer the Year Round calendar in addition to the
Conventional calendar program as an option for parents and students. Our
goal has been, and continues to be, to treat ALL of our students as
unique individuals, to demonstrate caring, concern and respect for
students and families in a safe, consistent environment for learning.
The staff is committed to these goals and beliefs. They set high
expectations for students and are committed to helping each child learn
and grow.

We strive to build relationships with our families and to make parents a
critical part of the education process. The successes at our school are
greatly enhanced with the efforts and support of our families. We are
proud of our students, those who are currently here, those who are
continuing their formal education, and those who have moved on to
successful careers as adults.

Emerson is proud of the educational partnerships that have been
established, specifically with our parents and the College of Education
at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Our parents have a tradition
of involvement and support. We utilize parent and community volunteers
to assist in our classrooms on a daily basis. Our Parent Teacher
Organization (PTO) provides a forum to discuss school issues and to
share ideas. In addition, it has been a significant monetary contributor
to enable programs, equipment, and materials for our staff and students.

The University of Nebraska at Kearney is a valued educational partner.
We provide a variety of learning opportunities for pre-service teachers
from UNK to work with our mentor teachers in our classrooms. Recently,
we have served as extended classrooms for students in methods classes to
build solid and relevant teaching experiences for UNK students.

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

1\. Emerson Elementary School assesses all students in several ways
ranging from assessments on daily performance on class work to more
formal and comprehensive measures through the use of
criterion-referenced and nationally normed standardized tests. Teachers
use daily/weekly assessments to provide quick and very useful
information about student performance that helps shape lesson content
from day to day and, in some instances, during the lesson itself. Some
of these can be as simple as asking questions and observing students
work to more deliberate means such as quizzes and tests. Teachers
reflect on these to determine if students are being successful and to
change their lesson structure and activity. Criterion-referenced and
norm-referenced tests are more structured and deliberate in purpose.

Criterion-referenced tests are carefully selected measures to check
student performance directly in relation to what they have been taught.
Emerson teachers use the Nebraska Assessments that are derived directly
from the Nebraska Standards and Benchmarks. It is highly desirable to
have students achieve well on these tests because it is a direct
reflection of their success on the content they have been
directly/immediately taught and expected to achieve. Course objectives
in turn are aligned very closely with state standards and national
goals. In this sense, we can compare students to several sets of
expectations deemed important by our local, state and national
educational leaders. For instance, we will know 1) individually if the
student is achieving what is intended for them to learn at their
appropriate level in the curriculum, 2) collectively if a group of
students is achieving at their appropriate and expected level and 3) if
the individual and/or group is successful when compared to other
individuals and groups who have been taught and expected to achieve the
same performance objectives in Nebraska and in the United States. We use
these to monitor students' performance extensively. Classroom teachers
use this at our building by giving these tests throughout the school
year to make decisions about our success. **[As you will see in the data
section of this application, 79%-90%, of Emerson students have achieved
at proficient/advance levels in language and math at the fourth grade on
the Nebraska standards for the past three years. In the years that state
scores have been available, Emerson scores have exceeded the state
average by 9 to 10 percentage points. Specifically, in 2001-2002 for
math, Emerson had 87% of its students at the proficient/advanced levels.
In 2002-2003, Emerson had 86% of its students score at the
proficient/advanced level. State scores for group averages in those
subjects during those years were of 78% and 76% respectively. In
addition, eight (8) of the specific standard components measured for
language and math those years had 100% of the Emerson group achieving
the proficient/advance levels.]{.underline}**

Norm-referenced tests are standardized measures intended to sort
students into various groups according to performance; however, the
content of these assessments may not be directly related to the content
that the students have been taught. The test items consist of content
questions that are generally within the appropriate grade or age
curriculum for students, but they are not 100% aligned with the
students' actual instructional program. As a result, they may assess
students in content areas ranging from familiar to unfamiliar. In this
manner, we may begin to see differences in student performance emerge
that may be more dependent on student experiences, backgrounds,
educational opportunities, and intellectual abilities rather than their
success based on what they have been deliberately or directly taught. As
these tests are taken by students from all across the country, they do
provide useful information to compare all sectors of our population.
Emerson uses the California Achievement Tests to measure our students
and to provide comparative results. **[As you will see in the data
section of this application, Emerson students, with nearly 59% coming
from disadvantaged backgrounds, scored at or above the 50^th^ percentile
for all three years in which they were assessed. In addition, the
specific subgroup of students for free and reduced scored within
comparable ranges of the group as a whole for each grade of students
measured. In one-third of the scores reported, the score for the free
and reduced subgroup equals or exceeds the score of the entire
group.]{.underline}**

2\. The teachers at Emerson continuously and frequently use assessment
data for the purpose of making decisions about instruction and
curriculum. We have truly moved into the era of assessment driving
instruction. We are no longer in the age of a text driven curriculum and
have not been for quite some time. Teachers administer basic assessments
in reading, writing and math throughout the entire year that are taken
directly from the assessments developed by the Kearney Public Schools
and approved by the state. Results are recorded electronically and
monitored constantly from the first day of school. Teachers use this
information as feedback about student success on a daily basis and in
turn make decisions about instruction. In addition, the student results
are assimilated into group reports for building, district and state use.

The entire school improvement efforts in our building and district are
driven by assessment that is generated from these efforts. We review the
information from these assessments as well as assessment data from
national norm testing (California Achievement Tests) and district-wide
writing assessments. From this information, we have developed student
learning goals in the various areas of curriculum. We meet as a staff a
minimum of four times a year to review the progress on these goals and
to develop or pursue professional development relative to teaching
skills and proficiencies that might be needed to deliver the best
instruction for the goals.

Within the assessment practice at Emerson, we have moved beyond the
basic district requirements to pursue additional information about the
pre-school and kindergarten students. We have used this information to
select materials, plan parent workshops and to develop programs for our
younger students and parent population relative to the needs indicated
by the data.

3\. Student performance information is communicated to parents in many
ways ranging from the traditional bi-annual parent-teacher conferences
and quarterly report cards to less traditional methods such as e-mail.
In the fall of the year, we have parent meetings specific to grade
levels and content areas such as Title I Reading. Parents are asked to
attend these meetings to receive and discuss information concerning our
assessment and student performance expectations. Our specific programs
and efforts to involve them in the process are also a topic of
discussion at our regular Parent Teacher Organization meetings. One of
these meetings each year is used to share results of student performance
data. Standard progress reports are sent home quarterly in the student
report cards, which include assessment information about student
performance on the reading and math standards. We send home written
standardized test results in the spring and offer follow-up individual
conferences with classroom teachers, our counselor and principal.
Individually and collectively we have done "home visits" with parents.
This has been very effective and enlightening for staff and parents, not
to mention very exciting for students.

The teachers publish weekly newsletters in addition to the monthly
building-wide newsletter from the principal that frequently mention
student performance as well as parent strategies to assist with higher
achievement. Student Assistance Team meetings, which are convened for
challenging students, are always inclusive of all available and relevant
student performance data for the individual and group.

Beyond this, we have established a website this year and are in the
process of determining how this can be utilized in a secure manner for
sharing up-to-date student performance data. During the past year, we
have been able to inform parents of the Nebraska Department of
Education's website to review our school and school districts' state
standards results. Individually, we have made information available
directly from the teacher to parents with e-mail. School-wide student
performance information is communicated periodically through our
communications coordinator to the mass media.

4.  Emerson Elementary has been and is very willing to share its student
    performance information with other schools within the district and
    within the state. If we are awarded the Blue Ribbon Award from the
    National Department of Education, we will be looking forward to
    doing the same nationally. First of all, our local efforts and
    performance are most easily shared at the district level by working
    with our district school improvement team. The team is made up of
    representatives, principals and teachers of all buildings in the
    district to review data. The data serves to identify strengths as
    well as areas in need of strengthening for the district as a whole.
    We take advantage of this opportunity to review strategies that seem
    to relate to success of our students as well as strategies that
    others are using to cause the same successes in their buildings.
    This is a very rich experience for all of us. Beyond this, our
    classroom teachers share this information at district grade level
    meetings structured to review curriculum and performance of our
    students on the standards as measured by the assessments. Outside of
    our local efforts, we participate in a periodic review of data with
    an external team made up of educators from all over the state. This
    group reviews our data purposely to assure our efforts are focused
    on improving instruction and student achievement. This information
    in turn is communicated to the community at-large as well as other
    districts in the state and our Department of Education.

Periodically, several of the staff at Emerson have been asked to make
presentations at other schools in the state concerning our "year round"
and "conventional" tracks of program organization within our building.
Student performance is a question that is always asked by those
attending the presentations, which makes it natural to share student
achievement information.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1\. Emerson Elementary School offers a comprehensive instructional
program designed to meet the needs and talents of all students. Our
students develop skills in the core areas of language arts, math,
science, and social studies. Art, media, music, and physical education
are designed to support and align with other areas of the curriculum and
are offered kindergarten through fifth grade (K-5). Special Education,
Title I and High Ability Learner programs are provided for students with
unique learning needs. In addition to the core areas of instruction,
technology is woven into the curriculum. Additional support is provided
with other programs at Emerson inclusive of Guidance and D.A.R.E.
Student planners are completed daily by students and teachers as a means
of connecting the curriculum with parents.

Instruction at Emerson Elementary School is guided by the Kearney Public
Schools' instructional standards. These standards were aligned closely
with the Nebraska State Standards and further developed to exceed those
performance expectations. Our standards and benchmarks clearly state
what students are expected to know and be able to do at each grade
level. Instruction is linked to state and district standards that are
monitored through the use of criterion-referenced assessments in all
classrooms continually throughout the school year.

The language arts curriculum is based on a Balanced Literacy Approach.
The components include guided reading, spelling, shared reading,
read-aloud time, and Scholastic's Reading Counts. The Scholastic Reading
Program was adopted in the 2000-2001 school year. Classroom teachers
were provided with staff development in the Balanced Literacy Approach
and the Write Traits writing process. Support is given in the language
arts area with programs such as Title I Reading, Media Services, America
Reads in cooperation with the Federal Department of Education and
Special Education services. Children write at all grade levels in all
curricular areas for a variety of purposes. Our handwriting curriculum
uses the Zaner-Bloser handwriting methodology.

Our math curriculum consists of Harcourt Brace for kindergarten and
Houghton-Mifflin for grades one through five. Those texts were selected
because of their alignment with the Kearney Public Schools standards and
benchmarks and in turn the Nebraska State Standards. Math instruction
centers on the seven standards of numeration/number sense, computation,
measurement, geometry, data analysis, algebra, and problem solving.
Instruction is delivered in a variety of methods including hands on
manipulatives, cooperative groups and individual student practice.

The science curriculum uses the FOSS program, with additional support
from AIMS, [Weekly Reader]{.underline}, [Scholastic News]{.underline},
[Time for Kids]{.underline}, and units developed by the district.
Standards that are taught across the grade levels include physical
science, science as inquiry, unifying concepts and processes, life
sciences, earth and space science, technology, science in personal and
social perspectives, and the history and nature of science. The
curriculum emphasizes the use of the scientific process.

The Social Studies curriculum has been aligned with the Nebraska State
Standards. Social Studies instruction is based on the strands of
geography, economics, civics, culture/behavior and history.

All of the areas of our curriculum are either assessed currently or are
in the process of having assessments developed for the purpose of
measuring specific student performance. In turn, the performance is
closely monitored and used to determine areas of success and to apply
that information for the planning and implementation of better
curriculum, programs, and resources to assure greater student learning.
At Emerson, we believe that we need to continually reflect on our
programs and resources as measured by student performance indicators to
make our vision a reality - "to create the learning place where all
students can learn and want to be."

**2.** Emerson Elementary School, as part of the Kearney Public School
system, uses a Balanced Literacy Approach for reading instruction. We
adopted the Scholastic Reading Program five years ago to provide our
students with a sequential, consistent reading curriculum. Each day,
students spend time on shared reading with the whole class, guided
reading with a small group of homogeneous readers and independent
reading. In addition, the classroom teacher reads aloud to her students
on a daily basis as part of an active and purposeful literature program.
Writing also plays an integral part in the literacy instruction. It is
viewed as the reciprocal process of reading. Students participate in
shared writing, writer's workshop, and independent writing. Students'
reading is assessed on a regular basis to determine each student's
instructional reading level. On the basis of this assessment, students
are placed in flexible guided reading groups. A "Reading Closet" has
been established at Emerson in the Media Center to house literally
thousands of copies, available in multiple sets of each copy, of leveled
books for teachers to use in working with guided reading groups. At
Emerson, our goal is to provide students with a wide variety of
opportunities to participate in reading so that they will be able to
achieve to the best of their ability. We have support reading programs
such as "Reading Recovery" and Title I to individualize instruction for
those students needing additional support. Parent support and assistance
is made available to parents through daily contact and use of student
planners. Students are able to take home packets of reading materials
each night for parents to read to their children as well as listen to
them read.

Within the past two years, we have actively begun to place emphasis on
assessing pre-school (4 year old) children in language literacy. The
primary purpose of this effort has been to determine student need and to
structure summer preschool opportunities for them. In addition, Emerson
is part of an effort to develop a community learning center, which will
focus on providing services to both students and parents in the hope of
developing better language systems for students and to increase the
students' chance of learning.

3\. Emerson staff, in the 1998-1999 school year, initiated a review of
our organizational structure and curricular offerings within the
traditional setting. As a result, we developed a choice of program
format for our students and parents. In addition to the traditional
calendar, we developed a "year round" track to offer the same curricular
offerings as always, but added "extended learning opportunities" to
those students. Essentially, students who elect to participate in this
program attend school for four nine week intervals and have the choice
to attend three week extended learning opportunities between the
traditional quarters. These "additional" three week learning "workshops"
are designed to extend, enrich or remediate the curriculum taught in the
previous or ensuing quarters. In short, the students who elect this
option have an additional 6 weeks of education in which they
participate. The units offered in this time frame are called "Personal
Achievement Workshops" and/or "Skill Builders." They include curricular
offerings that are closely aligned with all areas of the school
curriculum inclusive of math, writing, reading, social studies science
as well as the arts. While the workshops are curricular focused, they
are purposely formatted to be very much hands-on experiences involving
discovery and participatory activities. Students are able to connect
learning to real experiences and capitalize on the theme of relevance.
We have observed many positive outcomes of this effort, inclusive of
increased parent involvement, better student retention, less time needed
for review, as well as a general positive attitude towards school.

As previously stated, our mission is to create a learning place where
kids can learn and where kids want to be. This particular curricular and
organizational innovation with our parents, students, and staff
definitely makes our vision a reality. Our parents and students have
choices and are active decision-makers in the process.

4\. Emerson Elementary School staff implements the use of many
diversified instructional methods in an effort to maximize student
learning. Our partnership with the University of Nebraska at Kearney's
Professional Teacher Education Department, allows us up-to-date
knowledge as well as opportunities to practice effective school
instructional strategies.

In the area of language, we utilize "Writer's Workshops" as a standard
part of our writing program. We have built partnerships with the Teacher
Education Department at the University of Nebraska-Kearney and UNK
sororities to give us a very rich pool of human resources to accommodate
the individualized learning experiences it takes to make "Writers
Workshops" successful for students. Shared reading experiences also
connect to this concept as well with our "America Reads" program. Daily
Oral Language is also a common practice used by all classroom teachers
to set the focus for students immediately in the morning as they enter
classes. The entire staff is well immersed in the "Write Traits" writing
process and has worked very successfully with students to have our
students place well above the cut score on the Nebraska Writing
Assessment. Guided reading groups represent a routine part of reading
periods during the day. Students participate actively in this process
with teachers closely monitoring and providing feedback to students
during these activity periods.

In the area of math, students are exposed to a great deal of
manipulatives and problem-solving strategies which were adopted four
years ago. Science curriculum is also presented in the inquiry and
discovery modes with the use of hands-on materials.

Relative to the over-all curriculum, students are involved in projects
whenever appropriate. This allows them to gain perspectives and
understandings relative to the concepts they are taught in ways that
make the learning relevant and meaningful.

5\. Professional development is regarded by all of the staff at Emerson
as a critical component of our success with students. It provides them
with the most current information and skills necessary to work with
students and to keep the focus on learning. All staff members
participate in "Learning Teams" within the building that meet regularly
to review current and best practice. In this way teachers are exposed to
what works in a meaningful way. They gain both knowledge and
understandings that result in the implementation of the best
instructional practice. This concept is also extended to the district
level with their participation in similar activities with their grade
level peers.

Every teacher at Emerson regularly attends district and building
professional staff development workshops that give them the information,
materials, and skills required to effectively implement current and new
curriculum. In many instances, Emerson teachers provide the leadership
for these workshops. For example, five of our staff members are
currently serving as Trainers of Trainers in the five metacognitive
areas of reading. They, in turn, help train the entire Kearney Public
School elementary staff. This professional development is intended to
support staff in meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind, which
expects all students to be able to read and comprehend the material they
read at their appropriate grade level. Another clear example is
represented by the training our entire staff participated in to gain
instructional proficiencies with the "Write Traits" strategies. This was
a staff development piece that was initiated to increase student
performance with the writing standards identified by Kearney Public
Schools and the State of Nebraska. In addition to these efforts, all
Emerson staff members have been trained in the use of technology to
record student assessment data relative to the standards.

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

The test results that follow on tables A and B report the performance of
Emerson Elementary School fourth grade students regarding the Nebraska
Standards for Language Arts and Math for the past three years. The
assessments used to measure student achievement were
CRITERION-REFERENCED tests that were developed by the Kearney Public
Schools and independently rated as EXEMPLARY measures in terms of
validity and reliability by the Buros Institute.

The fourth grade is the grade selected by the state of Nebraska for all
school districts to measure and report the success of student learning
regarding the state standards in language and math.(S.T.A.R.S.) The
components that are measured at this grade level reflect standards and
benchmarks that are taught and expected for students to achieve
throughout the entire curriculum at all levels. Please note that in each
and every year of measurement, a minimum of 79% ranging up to a maximum
of 89% of Emerson fourth grade students achieve at the proficient or
advanced levels of performance on the Nebraska State Standards.
Performance of the Emerson students stands out exceptionally well in
tables A and B, where the scores reflect Emerson students in comparison
to the state average levels of performance for fourth grade students. In
the school year 2002-2003, reading scores for Emerson exceeded the state
average by 10 full percentage points. For example, Emerson had 86% of
its fourth grade students achieve proficient to advanced performance
levels compared to 76% for the entire state average. (Refer to Table A)
In the 2001-2002 school year, 87% of Emerson fourth grade students
achieved at the proficient/advanced levels compared to 78% of the state
group measured with Nebraska math standards. (Table B)

The test results that follow in tables C-H represent the achievement
test results of the Emerson students in grades 3-5. These are
NORM-REFERENCED tests that reflect our students' performance in
comparison to other students across the country as measured by the
CAT-5, published by CTB MacMillan/McGraw-Hill.

The data shows Emerson students, with nearly 59% of them coming from
disadvantaged backgrounds, scored at or above the 50^th^ percentile for
all three years in which they were assessed. In addition, the specific
subgroup of students for free and reduced scored within comparable
ranges of the group as a whole for each grade of students measured. In
one-third of the scores reported, the score for the free and reduced
group equals or exceeds the score of the entire group.

In the scores reported for the 2001-2002 school year, due to the large
number of SPED students in those particular classes, they were scored
separately. In the fifth grade scores, it is special to note that the
SPED students' averages equaled or exceeded the score for the fifth
grade group as a whole.

**Table A.**

**EMERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL**

**Grade 4 Reading -- NEBRASKA READING STANDARDS**

+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                              | **20  | **2   | **2   |
|                                              | 02-** | 001-2 | 000-2 |
|                                              |       | 002** | 001** |
|                                              | **2   |       |       |
|                                              | 003** |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing Month                                | April | April | April |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| # SCHOOL SCORES                              |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total -- Percent of students...              |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Beginning Level on the Standards | 100   | 100   | 100   |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Progressing Level on the         | 100   | 100   | 100   |
| Standards                                    |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[At or above Proficient Level on the       | **[86 | **[79 | **[80 |
| Standards]{.underline}**                     | ]{.un | ]{.un | ]{.un |
|                                              | derli | derli | derli |
|                                              | ne}** | ne}** | ne}** |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Advanced Standards               | 59    | 44    | 31    |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested                    | 35    | 35    | 30    |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| 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\. **Low Income**                           |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Beginning Level on the Standards | 100   | 100   | 100   |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Progressing Level on the         | 100   | 100   | 100   |
| Standards                                    |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[At or above Proficient Level on the       | **[86 | **[78 | **[80 |
| Standards]{.underline}**                     | ]{.un | ]{.un | ]{.un |
|                                              | derli | derli | derli |
|                                              | ne}** | ne}** | ne}** |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Advanced Standards               | 60    | 43    | 31    |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                              |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| State Scores                                 |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% of Nebraska Students Below the Standards  | 24    | \*\*  | 26    |
|                                              |       | See   |       |
| (Beginning or Progressing Levels)            |       |       |       |
|                                              |       | Below |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[% of Nebraska Students Meeting or         | **[76 | \*\*  | **[74 |
| Exceeding the]{.underline}**                 | ]{.un | See   | ]{.un |
|                                              | derli |       | derli |
| **[Standards (Proficient or Advanced         | ne}** | Below | ne}** |
| Levels)]{.underline}**                       |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

\*\* Student Data was not gathered and reported by the Nebraska
Department of Education for this year.

**Table B.**

**EMERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL**

**Grade 4 Reading -- NEBRASKA MATH STANDARDS**

+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                              | **20  | **2   | **2   |
|                                              | 02-** | 001-2 | 000-2 |
|                                              |       | 002** | 001** |
|                                              | **2   |       |       |
|                                              | 003** |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing Month                                | April | April | April |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| # SCHOOL SCORES                              |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| Total -- Percent of students...              |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Beginning Level on the Standards | 100   | 100   | 100   |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Progressing Level on the         | 100   | 100   | 100   |
| Standards                                    |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[At or above Proficient Level on the       | **[89 | **[87 | **[90 |
| Standards]{.underline}**                     | ]{.un | ]{.un | ]{.un |
|                                              | derli | derli | derli |
|                                              | ne}** | ne}** | ne}** |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Advanced Standards               | 56    | 49    | 72    |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested                    | 34    | 35    | 30    |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| 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\. **Low Income**                           |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Beginning Level on the Standards | 100   | 100   | 100   |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Progressing Level on the         | 100   | 100   | 100   |
| Standards                                    |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[At or above Proficient Level on the       | **[89 | **[87 | **[89 |
| Standards]{.underline}**                     | ]{.un | ]{.un | ]{.un |
|                                              | derli | derli | derli |
|                                              | ne}** | ne}** | ne}** |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| At or above Advanced Standards               | 33    | 49    | 72    |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                              |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| State Scores                                 |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% of Nebraska Students Below the Standards  | \*\*  | 22    | \*\*  |
|                                              | See   |       | See   |
| (Beginning or Progressing Levels)            |       |       |       |
|                                              | Below |       | Below |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+
| **[% of Nebraska Students Meeting or         | \*\*  | **[78 | \*\*  |
| Exceeding the]{.underline}**                 | See   | ]{.un | See   |
|                                              |       | derli |       |
| **[Standards (Proficient or Advanced         | Below | ne}** | Below |
| Levels)]{.underline}**                       |       |       |       |
+----------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+

\*\* Student Data was not gathered and reported by the Nebraska
Department of Education for this year.

**Table C.**

**[Assessments Against National Norms]{.underline}**

Grade[\_\_3\_\_]{.underline} Test [Reading]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_1992/2000\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB MacMillan/McGraw-Hill (CAT-5)]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were excluded from this testing battery]{.underline}

Scores are reported as: NCES­­­­\_\_\_\_\_\_ Scaled Scores\_\_\_\_\_\_
Percentiles\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

**[2002-2003]{.underline} [2001-2002]{.underline}
[1999-2000]{.underline}**

**Testing Month April March March**

**SCHOOL SCORES**

> Total Score 53.5 77.3 58.5
>
> Number of students tested 44 27 32
>
> Percent of total students tested 100 96 97
>
> Number of students excluded 0 1 1

**SUBGROUP SCORES**

> **1.** Free/Reduced 60 62 54

**Table D.**

**[Assessments Against National Norms]{.underline}**

Grade[\_\_3\_\_]{.underline} Test [Math]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_1992/2000\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB MacMillan/McGraw-Hill (CAT-5)]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were excluded from this testing battery]{.underline}

Scores are reported as: NCES­­­­\_\_\_\_\_\_ Scaled Scores\_\_\_\_\_\_
Percentiles\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

**[2002-2003]{.underline} [2001-2002]{.underline}
[1999-2000]{.underline}**

**Testing Month April March March**

**SCHOOL SCORES**

> Total Score 57 78.5 59
>
> Number of students tested 44 28 31
>
> Percent of total students tested 100 100 1
>
> Number of students excluded 0 0 97

**SUBGROUP SCORES**

> 1\. Free/Reduced 48 69 59

**Table E.**

**[Assessments Against National Norms]{.underline}**

Grade[\_\_4\_\_]{.underline} Test [Reading]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_1992/2000\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB MacMillan/McGraw-Hill (CAT-5)]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were excluded from this testing battery]{.underline}

Scores are reported as: NCES­­­­\_\_\_\_\_\_ Scaled Scores\_\_\_\_\_\_
Percentiles\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

**[2002-2003]{.underline} [2001-2002]{.underline}
[2000-2001]{.underline}**

**Testing Month April March April**

**SCHOOL SCORES**

> Total Score 58 73.3 49
>
> Number of students tested 35 24 30
>
> Percent of total students tested 100 100 100
>
> Number of students excluded 0 0 0

**SUBGROUP SCORES**

> 1\. Free/Reduced 54 66 48.7
>
> 2\. 7 Additional SPED 36
>
> students tested and
>
> scored separately

**Table F.**

**[Assessments Against National Norms]{.underline}**

Grade[\_\_4\_\_]{.underline} Test [Math]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_1992/2000\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB MacMillan/McGraw-Hill (CAT-5)]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were excluded from this testing battery]{.underline}

Scores are reported as: NCES­­­­\_\_\_\_\_\_ Scaled Scores\_\_\_\_\_\_
Percentiles\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

**[2002-2003]{.underline} [2001-2002]{.underline}
[2000-2001]{.underline}**

**Testing Month April March April**

**SCHOOL SCORES**

> Total Score 68 73.5 65.5
>
> Number of students tested 35 24 30
>
> Percent of total students tested 100 100 100
>
> Number of students excluded 0 0 0

**SUBGROUP SCORES**

> 1\. Free/Reduced 66 65 66
>
> 2\. 7 Additional SPED 29
>
> students tested and
>
> scored separately

**Table G.**

**[Assessments Against National Norms]{.underline}**

Grade[\_\_5\_\_]{.underline} Test [Reading]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_1992/2000\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB MacMillan/McGraw-Hill (CAT-5)]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were excluded from this testing battery]{.underline}

Scores are reported as: NCES­­­­\_\_\_\_\_\_ Scaled Scores\_\_\_\_\_\_
Percentiles\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

**[2002-2003]{.underline} [2001-2002]{.underline}
[2000-2001]{.underline}**

**Testing Month April March April**

**SCHOOL SCORES**

> Total Score 50.7 57 51.5
>
> Number of students tested 41 23 36
>
> Percent of total students tested 100 100 100
>
> Number of students excluded 0 0 0

**SUBGROUP SCORES**

> 1\. Free/Reduced 51.5 45.7 41.8
>
> 2\. 8 Additional SPED 72

students tested and

scored separately

**Table H.**

**[Assessments Against National Norms]{.underline}**

Grade[\_\_5\_\_]{.underline} Test [Math]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_1992/2000\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Publisher [CTB MacMillan/McGraw-Hill (CAT-5)]{.underline}

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were excluded from this testing battery]{.underline}

Scores are reported as: NCES­­­­\_\_\_\_\_\_ Scaled Scores\_\_\_\_\_\_
Percentiles\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

**[2002-2003]{.underline} [2001-2002]{.underline}
[2000-2001]{.underline}**

**Testing Month April March April**

**SCHOOL SCORES**

> Total Score 58 68 50
>
> Number of students tested 41 23 36
>
> Percent of total students tested 100 100 100
>
> Number of students excluded 0 0 0

**SUBGROUP SCORES**

> 1\. Free/Reduced 56.5 65 45
>
> 2\. 8 Additional SPED 65
>
> students tested and
>
> scored separately