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

*U.S. Department of Education Revised 04/28/2006*

Type of School: \_X\_ Elementary \_\_ Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12
\_\_Charter

Name of Principal: Dr. Beverly Borgstrom

Official School Name: Gleason Lake Elementary School

School Mailing Address: 310 North County Road 101

Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4108

County: Hennepin State School Code Number\* 01-0284-811

Telephone (763) 745-5410 Fax (763) 745-5491

Website/URL: www.wayzata.k12.mn.us/gleasonlake Email
<bev.borgstrom@wayzata.k12.mn.us>

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent: Mr. Robert Ostlund

District Name: Wayzata Independent School District #284 Tel. (763)
745-5001

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 Dr. Linda Cohen

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)

**ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school\'s eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2005-2006 school
    year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 2000 and has not received the 2003, 2004, or 2005
    *No Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

**DISTRICT**

1\. Number of schools in the district: 7 Elementary schools

3 Middle schools

0 Junior high schools

1 High schools

[0]{.underline} Other

11 TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \$7834.00

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \$8379.00

**SCHOOL**

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

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

4\. 14 Number of years the principal has been in her/his position at
this school.

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

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**       59        38                     **97**       **8**                             

  **1**       52        53                     **105**      **9**                             

  **2**       56        52                     **108**      **10**                            

  **3**       41        59                     **100**      **11**                            

  **4**       65        58                     **123**      **12**                            

  **5**       52        49                     **101**      **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   634
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of 89 % White

the students in the school: 3 % Black or African American

4 % Hispanic or Latino

4 % Asian/Pacific Islander

0 % American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year: 6%

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      28
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

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

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    40
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 634
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  0.06
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

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

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: 2%

14 Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: 4

Specify languages: Spanish; Bengali/Gujarati;
Cantonese/Chinese/Taiwanese; Russian

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: 7.5%

Total number students who qualify: 48 (only 9 students in grades 3 and 5
subgroup)

10\. Students receiving special education services: 7%

45 Total Number of Students Served

> Numbers of students with disabilities according to conditions
> designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:

5 Autism 0 Orthopedic Impairment

0 Deafness 7 Other Health Impaired

1 Deaf-Blindness 8 Specific Learning Disability

2 Emotional Disturbance 1 Speech or Language Impairment

3 Hearing Impairment 0 Traumatic Brain Injury

> 0 Mental Retardation 0 Visual Impairment Including Blindness
>
> 8 Multiple Disabilities

11. Full-time and part time staff members

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) 1 0

Classroom teachers 22 4

Special resource teachers/specialists 4 6

Paraprofessionals 10 7

> Support staff 2 1
>
> Total number 39 18

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: 24:1

13\. Attendance patterns of teachers and students

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

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

  Daily teacher attendance  93%         93%         94%         96%         96%

  Teacher turnover rate     3%          8%          2%          2%          7%
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**PART III - SUMMARY**

Our Gleason Lake educational community is an exemplary child-centered
environment that strives to meet the needs of all learners. We set high
expectations for our learners to achieve academic excellence and problem
solving techniques necessary to maximize individual potential. We view
all individuals as lifelong learners who are able to function both
independently and cooperatively. We empower all learners to make
choices, accept responsibility and show respect for themselves, others
and the world around them. We promote and enhance self-esteem in a safe,
caring atmosphere where everyone feels a sense of belonging. This vision
statement clearly defines the heart of Gleason Lake. One person cannot
accomplish this alone. It happens because of the exceptional partnership
and trust that exists among our parents, students and staff.

Parents value the education their children receive at Gleason Lake. They
hold high expectations for their children and our staff. There are 465
families that are part of our community, with an attendance rate at
parent teacher conferences of 98%. They support the school through the
passing of levy referendums, PTA sponsored activities, volunteering,
organizing curriculum enhancement programs, supplementing our budget,
and follow through at home. If something needs to get done, we need only
call our parent volunteer coordinator and he will find someone to do it.

Because parents model the value of getting a solid education, students
come to school ready and excited to learn. As I was completing an
observation in a Spanish classroom last week, the teacher remarked that
it was time to put the research projects back in the binders and get
ready to go back to class. The students groaned because they were so
focused on their learning activity they didn't want to stop. Students
want to help each other. Older classes have younger class buddies. Older
students assist in getting kindergarteners on the correct bus. Students
feel safe when they are at school. They know there are adults in the
school they can turn to for questions, concerns or a needed pat on the
back. Student Council members organize various school spirit activities
for the 634 students in our school.

In my 30+ years in education, I have never worked with such a
professional staff. They are hardworking, dedicated, intelligent and
caring. They set high expectations for themselves and the students.
Systems are in place to support the wide spectrum of student needs. We
have teachers and paraprofessionals that provide instructional
enhancement and support. The majority of staff members each mentor a
child who is potentially at risk. They frequently continue that
relationship throughout the child's years at Gleason Lake. They value
the opportunity to have in depth conversations with their colleagues
about their students. Frequently this will occur more formally with our
Teacher Assistance Team but also informally among grade level team
members and/or support staff. Our teachers are lifetime learners. Most
of them hold Masters degrees. There are 64 full and part time staff
members, including custodial and food service staff.

We have a site council that oversees the vision and goals of our school.
This group of 14 parents and staff facilitate the goal setting process
and monitor the progress. The goals set for 2005-07 are to 1) strengthen

critical thinking skills, 2) maximize the effective use of technology to
improve communication in the Gleason Lake community, and 3) maintain,
strengthen and celebrate our learning community, promote responsible
citizenship and foster respect for self, others and the world around us.
Our professional development committee facilitates the learning
activities necessary for our staff and students to achieve these goals.

As our district vision states, we strive to be "a model of excellence
among learning communities".

**PART IV - INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS**

**1. Assessment Results:**

Gleason Lake Elementary, one of seven schools in the Wayzata Public
School District, participates in Minnesota's state testing program. The
state of Minnesota follows the guidelines set forth by the federal
government in relation to No Child Left Behind. [All]{.underline}
enrolled public school students must be accounted for in the Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessment accountability tests.

The purpose of the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments is to measure
student achievement with regard to the Minnesota Academic Standards in
reading and mathematics. The Minnesota Department of Education uses an
adaptation of the six levels of cognitive complexity within Bloom's
Taxonomy to align test items with these standards. For each of the
reading and mathematics tests on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments
(MCA), a score of 1420 indicates proficiency. In order to explain
proficiency, it is helpful to understand that results from each test on
the MCAs are reported at five achievement levels. A student scoring in
level three or above is proficient.

Following are the descriptions that define achievement relative to the
various MCA levels. The numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage
of students at that level in 2005.

\* Level 5 represents superior, advanced performance, well beyond what
is expected at grade level. This is beyond the "advanced" level for NCLB
(3^rd^: rdg-42/math-51; 5^th^: rdg-63/math-63).

\* Level 4 represents successful work with challenging,
above-grade-level material. This corresponds to an "advanced" level for
NCLB (3^rd^: rdg-42/math-37; 5^th^: rdg-30/math-27).

\*Level 3 represents state expectations for all students. Students with
this score are working successfully

on grade-level material. This corresponds to a "proficient" level for
NCLB (3^rd^: rdg-9/math-6;

5^th^: rdg-3/math-3).

\* Level 2 represents partial knowledge and skills required for
successful grade level achievement. This corresponds to a "basic" level
for NCLB (3^rd^: rdg-4/math-6; 5^th^: rdg-3/math-7).

\* Level 1 represents significant gaps in the knowledge and skills
necessary for satisfactory grade level work. This corresponds to "below
basic" level for NCLB (3^rd^: rdg-2/math-0: 5^th^: rdg-1/math-1).

The numbers above show that while students can score a 3, 4 or 5 to be
proficient, most of our students score a Level 4 or 5, the advanced and
superior levels.

In examining the results for Gleason Lake Elementary on the Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) the following trends can be described in
the area of reading:

-   In 2003, 93 % of the grade 3 students and 94 % of the grade 5
    students were proficient

-   In 2004, 92 % of the grade 3 students and 92 % of the grade 5
    students were proficient

-   In 2005, 94 % of the grade 3 students and 96 % of the grade 5
    students were proficient

In examining the results for Gleason Lake Elementary on the Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessment

(MCA) the following trends can be described in the area of math:

-   In 2003, 93 % of the grade 3 students and 92 % of the grade 5
    students were proficient

-   In 2004, 91 % of the grade 3 students and 91 % of the grade 5
    students were proficient

-   In 2005, 94 % of the grade 3 students and 95 % of the grade 5
    students were proficient

The exciting observation about these trends shows that the students who
were third graders in 2003 and fifth graders in 2005, increased their
scores 6 percentage points in reading and 4 percentage points in math
during those two years.

Although we did not have enough disparity among subgroups to report this
data, our school is also looking at our disaggregated data and asking
ourselves how best we can support all of our students.

The website where information on the state assessment system may be
found is [http://education.state.mn.us](http://education.state.mn.us/).

**2. Using Assessment Results:**

Results from curriculum based and standardized assessments are given to
our

Site Council. This group of parents and staff members facilitates our
goal setting process that is

based on student achievement. We request to meet with our district's
Director of Assessment

and Evaluation annually in August or September to review assessment
results from the April/May

testing. In addition to the sharing of results, the director provides us
with trends that can be seen over

the past four or five years.

Based on that information, the council formulates areas of student
achievement that we need to maintain

or strengthen. Teachers in turn discuss, either at grade levels or in
task force groups, research based and differentiated strategies that can
be used to achieve the goal. They use curriculum-based measures
throughout the year to assess for ongoing progress.

This year, for instance, when analyzing our spring assessment results,
we determined the need to strengthen students' critical thinking skills.
Through discussion at staff meetings, it was agreed to focus on three
instructional strategies, listed in rank order of their effectiveness as
measured by average effect size and percentile gain (Marzano, Pickering,
Pollock, 2001). These strategies are1) identifying similarities and
differences, 2) summarizing and note taking, and 3) nonlinguistic
representations that elaborate on knowledge.

The goal is to show a 2.5% increase in the number of students within
each grade level that would move from one level of our Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessment to the next and/or from one quartile to the
next on the Wayzata Achievement Level Test. Progress toward this goal
will be monitored by our site council over the next two years.

**3. Communicating Assessment Results:**

Gleason Lake regularly communicates student performance in all
curricular areas, including assessment data, in a variety of ways to
parents, students and the community. Student progress is formally
reported to parents four times a year, twice during parent-teacher
(student) conferences in the fall and spring and twice through report
cards and portfolios in February and June. Conversations regarding
student performance occur between these times as well. Information may
be discussed via phone conversations, email, notes, and/or scheduled
meetings.

Results of individual scores on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments
are sent to parents from the state department via United States mail.
School results are also published in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune
newspaper. In addition to the state assessments, our district also uses
its own computer based Wayzata Achievement Level Test to assess student
growth from year to year. These results are also mailed to parents.
Results from both these assessments are shared annually with our school
site council that is comprised of parents and staff members, as this
helps guide our goal setting process.

Student achievement and assessment results are also communicated four
times per year to our

25,000+ district residents via our district newsletter, "The
Communicator", and at our district website at
[www.wayzata.k12.mn.us](http://www.wayzata.k12.mn.us/). The district
combines all assessment results from the entire year in the annual
"Report on Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Achievement", which is
published and distributed to the entire community and the State
Department of Education each October.

**4. Sharing Success:**

Gleason Lake staff members willingly share best practice strategies and
successes in a collaborative spirit. They participate on district wide
curriculum committees where they can represent Gleason Lake and a
specific grade level. Here they are able to share strategies and ideas
that they have found to most successfully impact learning. They are
invited to participate and present at local professional development
workshops as well as regional and national conferences such as the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Minnesota Best
Practice organization. Some teachers are hired by other school districts
as consultants for a period of time during the summer. Most recently,
individuals have been asked to present on topics related to mathematics,
reading, differentiated instruction, and technology. One of our teachers
has repeatedly been asked to review math questions for the Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessments. Individuals also serve as officers for their
state organizations. Valuable networking and sharing of information and
best practices are conducted in these settings.

Parents are wonderful ambassadors for sharing our successes as well.
They have broad networks of parents and community members from other
schools within and outside of our district. Occasionally I will receive
a phone call from an educator in another district who, through a chain
of associations, knew our students had been very successful on our state
assessments, and asked if there were specific strategies our teachers
used in order for the students to receive those scores.

**PART V - CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Curriculum:**

The content of the curriculum for Gleason Lake Elementary is a dynamic
blend of content and process. Instruction is provided in
reading/language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, health and
physical education, art, music, Spanish and technology. Our teaching
staff uses the Minnesota Academic Standards as a basic starting point in
designing rigorous, differentiated curriculum that meets a broad range
of academic abilities. We set high expectations for all students to
master core concepts and develop critical thinking skills. This allows
Gleason Lake students to maintain their current level of exemplary
achievement as assessed by the Minnesota Department of Education on the
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments.

The purpose of the science curriculum at Gleason Lake Elementary is to
ensure that all students develop scientific literacy. The program is a
set of units of study that have been collaboratively developed and
appropriately assigned to grade levels to meet the requirements of the
State Science Standards. These standards are broken into four main
areas: history and nature of science; life science; earth science; and
physical science. A unit of study is made up of approximately 10-15
comprehensive activities formatted around the learning cycle components
of focus, explore, reflect and apply. These units support the
development of the scientific thinking skills of observing,
communicating, comparing, organizing, relating, inferring and applying.
Each grade level has a required number of units that must be taught,
with additional ones that can be embedded into other curricular areas.

Social Studies at Gleason Lake is critical to laying the foundation for
global citizenship. Students acquire a greater understanding of the
multiplicity of cultures from around the world as they move from the
study of "the self" to "the community" to "the world". Kindergarteners
study themselves and the world; first graders study their families and
families of the world; second graders study their community and
communities of the world, including an understanding of the past; third
graders study the geography of the United States with emphasis on
immigration and migration; fourth grade learns about world geography,
specifically continents; and fifth graders study Minnesota History and
early explorers to colonial United States. These units of study align
with the strands of United States history, world history, Minnesota
history, geography, economics, government and citizenship that comprise
the Minnesota Academic Standards in History and Social Studies.

The arts program at Gleason Lake includes visual arts and music. The
visual arts introduces our students to the elements of art including
line, color, shape, texture, and form. Students study cultural and
historical forms and traditions of the visual arts, and are given the
opportunity to create works of art that communicate ideas, using at
least three different mediums. General music concepts are introduced to
our students through the vocal music program. Students demonstrate an
understanding of the elements of music such as melody, rhythm, harmony,
dynamics, tone color, texture and form as well as characteristics of
music from a variety of cultures and historic times. Students also
demonstrate the ability to sing a varied repertoire of songs in a group,
improvise and compose and play simple rhythms on classroom instruments,
and read and write music using a system of notation. Assessments for
each are developmentally appropriate according to grade level.

All fourth and fifth grade students at Gleason Lake study the Spanish
language and Latino cultures. The initial experience in second language
learning emphasizes spoken language and vocabulary building. Spanish is
taught in a manner that mimics the way students acquired their first
language by responding with actions, rhymes, songs, storytelling and
games, building the foundation for more advanced language.

A variety of age appropriate themes form the basis for the physical
education/health curriculum at Gleason Lake. Health areas cover such
topics as family, nutrition, development, body systems, injury/safety,
mental/social health, and consumer health. Physical education
establishes activities and learning opportunities around the topics of
fitness, body image, skill development, social and person responsibility
and community integration.

Technology is unique in that it is both a curriculum and a tool. At
Gleason Lake we believe it is critical that students have instruction on
how to use technology. Our students are introduced to basic operations,
keyboarding, word processing, draw/paint capabilities, spreadsheets,
internet usage, research tools and basic multimedia. Once certain skills
have been mastered, the students are then able to use those technology
tools for classroom projects.

The language arts program at Gleason Lake includes reading (addressed
separately), writing, speaking, and listening. Because of the reciprocal
nature of these four, it is critical to keep in mind that each enhances
the other. Students learn to write in the genres of persuasion,
narration, reporting, description, explanation and comparison /contrast.
Six +1 Traits of Writing is frequently used to help define strong
writing. The components of ideas, organization, voice, word choice,
sentence fluency conventions and presentation guide the writer through
any of the genres stated above. Vocabulary is developed as it benefits
all areas of the language arts. Research processes are taught across all
grade levels but students in third, fourth, and fifth grades are
expected to write research reports, using age appropriate references and
technology tools. Students at all levels have opportunities to develop
and refine speaking and listening skills. This is done through informal
sharing in front of the class to formal presentations and speeches
related to curricular areas.

Gleason Lake Elementary staff recognizes that student achievement is
maximized by a strong, articulated curricula that is paired with best
practice instructional strategies.

**2. Reading**:

The Wayzata School District adopted a published reading curriculum,
[Spotlight on Literacy]{.underline} by Macmillan/McGraw-Hill in 2000.
Before choosing our curriculum, we developed a mission statement,
"Literacy for Life", and belief statements based on current research.
These research-based beliefs call for and our curriculum provides for:

1)  a balance between direct basic skill instruction and an immersion in
    literature because both are important to ensure a learner's success.
    We provide time for independent reading because we know that
    students improve their reading by actually reading books of their
    choice in a variety of genre, both fiction and nonfiction, and at
    their reading levels.

2)  instruction in the essential components of reading, i.e. phonemic
    awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. We were
    particularly interested in supporting students in comprehension as
    the ultimate goal of reading instruction and chose a curriculum that
    emphasized it while a foundation of the other components is also
    established.

3)  differentiated instruction. Our curriculum provides a large number
    of learning activities aimed at a wide range of readers as well as
    additional books for use with small groups for targeted instruction.
    It includes formative assessments to determine students' strengths
    and weaknesses. We encourage instruction that pushes all students to
    a higher level of thinking. In addition to the basal materials, our
    school has numerous sets of trade books for use with small groups to
    use for guided reading and literature circles. We have two
    differentiated learning specialists who provide enrichment and
    reinforcement for students in need of such services.

4)  integration of the language arts. Because of the reciprocal nature
    of reading, writing, speaking and listening, we want our students to
    use writing, for example, to increase reading skills. Writing,
    spelling, research, and grammar activities connect to the text being
    read.

5)  meeting standards. We use the curriculum's assessments to measure
    learner progress towards district and Minnesota Academic Standards.

**3. Mathematics:**

Gleason Lake Elementary uses [Everyday Mathematics]{.underline} as a
basis for teaching and learning mathematics. It was developed by the
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. This program is
organized into six mathematical content strands: operations; numeration
and order; patterns; functions and algebra; data and chance; measurement
and references frames; and geometry. Every strand is addressed
throughout all grade levels of the program in a manner that builds and
extends concept understanding, in a spiraling format. Woven throughout
the content strands are several key mathematical themes. They are:
algorithmic and procedural thinking; estimation skills and number sense;
mental arithmetic skills; and problem solving.

The concepts and skills of this program are aligned with the Minnesota
Academic Standards and embody the Wayzata philosophy of mathematics.
Topics are introduced using manipulatives and examined in many ways
including verbal, pictorial, symbolic, and concrete in order to
accommodate students of different ability levels and learning styles.
Skills are practiced using a game format. Group work and cooperative
learning activities are employed. Students are asked to communicate
their ideas both verbally and in writing. Teachers use their
professional judgment to determine if preassessment is necessary and if
certain strands of the program need to be enhanced or modified to meet
students' appropriate levels of learning. Teachers assess progress using
a simple rubric for beginning, developing or secure understanding of the
concepts and skills taught at each grade level. Differentiated learning
specialists support students who need additional enrichment or
reinforcement in mathematics.

Our goal is to broaden students' overall problem solving skills and
teach them the underpinnings of mathematic processes, rather than
encouraging them to memorize formulas. Computation fluency is taught in
a manner that imitates real life mathematical problems. This approach
gives students greater ability to solve a wide variety of math problems
and prepares them for more complex mathematics in everyday life in the
future.

**4. Instructional methods**:

The instructional methods that the teachers use at Gleason Lake
Elementary vary according to the readiness, interest and/or learning
profile of the students. The learning activities can be differentiated
by content, process or product.

In preparation for the submission of this application I asked our
teachers at a staff meeting to write down one or two instructional
methods he/she felt really improved student learning, something that
each was especially proud of. Here are the responses I received:
literature circles; preassessing skills and concepts; think-pair-share;
writer's workshop; guided reading; learning styles inventory; student
sharing of mathematical strategies with their peers; taking time for
reflection at the end of science and math; asking more higher level
questions; preview-clarify-question-summarize; teaching how to take good
notes; use of technology; developed rubrics for student self assessment;
partner editing; using running records, cooperative learning; flexible
grouping; breaking difficult concepts into smaller chunks; brain breaks;
graphic organizers; cognitively guided instruction for math;
multi-sensory approaches; SQ3R; listening to students read every day;
compacting; independent study; jigsaw activities; learning contract.

The teachers have spent many professional development hours learning how
to use various differentiated instructional strategies to improve
student learning. I believe the above list provides evidence to why our
students continue to achieve the scores they do on the Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessments.

**5. Professional Development:**

Gleason Lake has a Professional Development committee that facilitates
and monitors professional development activities and manages the funds
allocated to our school. Professional Development at Gleason Lake
relates directly to our school goals that in turn are tied to student
achievement. Following is one example of what we do. Based on spring
2005 assessment results, we decided that our students needed to
strengthen their critical thinking skills. In order to increase the
probability of this occurring, our Professional Development committee,
with input from teachers, decided to focus on three research-based
instructional strategies from the book [Classroom Strategies That
Work]{.underline} (Marzano, Pickering, Pollock, 2001). Copies of the
book were ordered for all teachers. Time is allocated throughout the
year to read and discuss the chapters specific to the strategies,
implement the designated strategies, and share results of the
implementation.

All staff members have opportunities to participate in a variety of on
site and off site professional development activities by submitting
requests for professional development funds to the committee. The most
frequent models of professional development are that of independent
study, action research, training, professional study teams and
curriculum enhancement.

As part of our performance evaluation process, teachers are expected to
develop at least one professional development goal. Those individual
goals are then tied to our school-wide professional development goal.
Some teachers collaborate amongst themselves and develop a professional
development goal specific to their grade level.

In addition, each school submits an annual report to our district
committee and the State Department of Education, specifying what
professional development has been accomplished, how it relates to
student achievement and if it was successful.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Subject: Math Grade: 3 Test: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment

Edition/Publication Year: revised each year Publisher: Minnesota
Department of Education

Subgroups are too small to report

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       March       March

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% At or Above Meets State           94          91          93          87          92
  Standards**\***                                                                      

  \% At Exceeds State Standards**\***  88          83          77          83          87

  Number of students tested            121         108         114         108         100

  Percent of total students tested     100         99          99          97          99

  Number of students alternatively     0           1\*         1\*         0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           1           1           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

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

\*Special Education team agreed that these students should be
alternatively assessed.

Subject: Reading Grade: 3 Test: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment

Edition/Publication Year: revised each year Publisher: Minnesota
Department of Education

Subgroups are too small to report.

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

  Testing month               April       April       April       March       March

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                         

  \% At or Above Meets State  94          92          93          86          88
  Standards**\***                                                             

  \% At Exceeds State         84          84          77          70          75
  Standards**\***                                                             

  Number of students tested   121         108         114         110         101

  Percent of total students   99          99          99          100         100
  tested                                                                      

  Number of students          0           1\*         1\*         0           0
  alternatively assessed                                                      

  Percent of students         0           1           1           0           0
  alternatively assessed                                                      

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

\*Special Education team agreed these students should be assessed
alternatively.

Subject: Math Grade: 5 Test: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment

Edition/Publication Year: revised each year Publisher: Minnesota
Department of Education

Subgroups are too small to report.

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       March       March

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% At or Above Meets State           95          91          92          91          84
  Standards**\***                                                                      

  \% At Exceeds State Standards**\***  90          86          87          85          73

  Number of students tested            107         114         98          123         102

  Percent of total students tested     98          96          98          99          100

  Number of students alternatively     2\*         3\*         2\*         0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    2           3           2           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

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

\*Special Education team agreed these students should be assessed
alternatively.

Subject: Reading Grade: 5 Test: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment

Edition/Publication Year: revised each year Publisher: Minnesota
Department of Education

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       March       March

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% At or Above Meets State           96          92          94          94          88
  Standards**\***                                                                      

  \% At Exceeds State Standards**\***  93          85          92          91          79

  Number of students tested            106         115         98          124         102

  Percent of total students tested     97          97          98          100         100

  Number of students alternatively     2\*         3\*         2\*         0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    2           3           2           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

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

\*Special Education team agreed these students should be assessed
alternatively.

Subgroups are too small to report.