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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: \_\_\_ Elementary \_\_\_ Middle \_\_\_
High \_\_\_ K-12

Name of Principal

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

Official School Name

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing
Address\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_School
Code Number\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Fax
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_­
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Website/URL\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ E-mail
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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\*
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

District Name Tel.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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)

**PART I ‑ 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 of Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 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 1999 and has not received the 2003, 2004 or 2005
    *No Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

**DISTRICT**

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

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

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

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

\_\_\_\_\_ Other

\_\_\_\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**SCHOOL**

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
>
> \[ x \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

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

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

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

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                                    

  **K**       39        41                     **80**       **8**                                    

  **1**       36        46                     **82**       **9**                                    

  **2**       48        48                     **96**       **10**                                   

  **3**       34        44                     **78**       **11**                                   

  **4**       40        43                     **83**       **12**                                   

  **5**                                                     **Other:           4         2           6
                                                            Multi-handicap**                         

  **6**                                                                                              

                                    **TOTAL                                                          425
                                    STUDENTS                                                         
                                    IN THE                                                           
                                    APPLYING                                                         
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                       
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ------------------ --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of % White

the students in the school: % Black or African American

\% Hispanic or Latino

\% Asian/Pacific Islander![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.175in"
height="8.75e-2in"}![](media/image1.wmf){width="0.175in"
height="8.75e-2in"}

\% American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

Use only the five standard categories in reporting the racial/ethnic
composition of the school.

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      5
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      8
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(3)**                   Subtotal of all transferred 13
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 418
                            the school as of October 1. 

  **(5)**                   Subtotal in row (3) divided .031
                            by total in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           3
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

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

\_\_\_\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Specify languages: Russian, Chinese, Korean, Cambodian

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

Total number students who qualify: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

10\. Students receiving special education services: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_%

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act.

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

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_\_\_\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_Speech or Language Impairment

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

\_\_\_ Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including Blindness

\_\_\_ Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.2701388888888889in" height="0.175in"}

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_

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

13\.

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

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

  Daily teacher attendance  95%         97%         96%         96%         97%

  Teacher turnover rate     9%          14%         12%         14%         8%

  Student dropout rate      N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  (middle/high)                                                             

  Student drop-off rate     N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A         N/A
  (high school)                                                             
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**PART III -- SUMMARY**

Dorothy E. Lewis Elementary School is one of four kindergarten through
fourth grade elementary schools in the Solon City School District,
located in the city of Solon about 30 minutes southeast of Cleveland,
Ohio. The school's total enrollment, for the 2005-2006 school year, is
418 students representing and embracing a variety of diverse cultural
backgrounds.

The entire staff of Dorothy Lewis School is committed to achieving our
mission of providing a success-oriented learning environment for all
students. Our student body represents all levels of the learning
community from multi-handicapped, special needs students to those who
are identified as cognitively gifted. Each and every student is
considered an important part of the total learning environment of
Dorothy Lewis School, and all are treated with respect and dignity.

Each school day begins with students leading the school in the Pledge of
Allegiance. Throughout the school year, every student in every grade
level has an opportunity to be the leader. Students who are unable to
speak use communication devices when their turn arises because each
student's contribution and participation is important.

Student recognition occurs during the year in various ways, and all
students are recognized for their talents and supported in this
atmosphere of learning. Once a month, Dorothy Lewis School celebrates
Spirit Day. Students wear shirts with the school's logo and are treated
to popcorn by members of the PTA. Every month during the school year,
one student from each of the third and fourth grade classes is
recognized as the "Student of the Month" and is treated to lunch at a
local Pizza Hut by the building principal and the school guidance
counselor. Teachers share their reasons for student selection with the
students and in turn, each student chosen shares these reasons with the
group at the pizza lunch. "Student of the Month" pictures are posted in
the hallway until the next month's students are chosen.

The staff at Dorothy Lewis School, through grade level professional
learning communities, is continually challenged to set S.M.A.R.T. goals.
Coined by researcher Mike Schmoker, this acronym reflects goals that are
strategic, measurable, attainable, results oriented, timely and focused
on student achievement. These goals stem directly from both formative
and summative student assessments. As each goal is attained, new goals
and action plans are set, thus propelling both students and staff
forward in all aspects of the curriculum. Because the Solon City Schools
places a high priority on staff development, the Lewis staff is skilled
in differentiating instruction, formative assessment, and the use of a
Standards-Based Report Card. Teachers are keenly aware of student
progress and they communicate it to parents formally through quarterly
report cards and informally through on-going communication with parents.

Dorothy Lewis School's mission is to work in partnership with families.
This partnership takes the form of parents volunteering in classrooms,
serving as tutors, helping their children at home using teacher-directed
instructional strategies, and working on a variety of committees with
the sole purpose of providing assistance and support for our student
achievement goals. Dorothy Lewis School reflects the goals of No Child
Left Behind through its incessant focus on success for all students.

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

**1. Assessment Results**

Ohio has utilized criterion-referenced "Proficiency" tests in reading,
math, citizenship, science, and writing since the mid-1990s at the
fourth grade level. Now the state has changed to standards-based
"achievement" tests in grades three through eight. The percentage of
students in all of the Solon City Schools, including Dorothy E. Lewis
Elementary, that pass these tests, is reported to parents and the
community in the form of yearly District Report Cards issued by the Ohio
Department of Education and posted on the department's web site.
Individual student scores reported directly to parents rank students
according to performance. For 2004-2005, fourth grade students
participated in state achievement tests in writing and reading, and
proficiency tests in math, science and citizenship. For proficiency
tests, students were ranked as follows: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient
or Advanced, with the latter two categories as an acceptable goal. In
the 2005-2006 school year, fourth grade students will be assessed using
only achievement tests in reading and writing, and math. Third grade
students are assessed using state-mandated achievement tests in reading
and math. For these achievement tests, there are five rankings: Limited,
Basic, Proficient, Accelerated and Advanced, with the latter three
rankings preferred. Data is also disaggregated to give more information
regarding program success across all subcategories of children,
including those with learning disabilities. More information about
Ohio's assessment is available at:
<http://www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/technical_data/StatSumm_AchievementTests.asp>
(for Third Grade Achievement Tests) and
[www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/standards.asp](http://www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/standards.asp)
(for Fourth Grade Proficiency Tests).

The data from state test results illustrate the benefits for reading
instruction reforms for Dorothy E. Lewis School students. In 2001-2002,
88% of fourth grade students at Dorothy Lewis School were proficient in
reading. In the last three years of data collection from state tests,
many signs of marked growth in student achievement are noticeable in the
table below:

+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Sc   | Third Grade Reading           | Fourth Grade Reading         |
| hool | Achievement                   | Proficiency                  |
| Year |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 2    | Not yet implemented           | > 92% of all students passed |
| 002- |                               |                              |
| 2003 |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 2    | > 97% of all 3^rd^ grade      | > 96% of all students passed |
| 003- | > students passed             |                              |
| 2004 |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 2    | > 99% of all 3^rd^ grade      | > 97% of all 4^th^ grade     |
| 004- | > students passed             | > students passed            |
| 2005 |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+

Source: Ohio Department of Education School Report Cards.

Data trends from the past five years at Dorothy Lewis School demonstrate
a consistent pattern of positive performance on state-mandated tests,
surpassing the state goals by significant margins. On its individual
school building report cards, the State of Ohio uses a performance index
that measures student passage rates, but assigns weighted scores
according to the level of passage. Thus, an "Advanced" or an
"Accelerated" score on the test is weighted higher than a "Basic"
passage score. Over the last three academic years, Dorothy Lewis School
has increased from a total performance index score of 102 in 2002-2003,
to a score of 106 in 2003-2004, and finally to a performance index score
of 110 in 2004-2005. These gains clearly demonstrate a positive trend in
student learning with higher percentages of Lewis School students
scoring at the advanced and accelerated levels on state achievement
tests. These gains rank our students in the top 10% of all schools in
the State of Ohio.

Reading Recovery, the 20-week intervention program Dorothy Lewis School
teachers use to address reading gaps for the lowest achieving first
graders, is showing success as well, helping students close reading gaps
and maintain those gains over time. Specifically, 100% of Reading
Recovery students maintained gains and passed the third grade
achievement test and 92% passed the fourth grade test in 2003-2004.
These data show remarkable increases in student achievement and
underscore the efforts and resources of the school's staff, parents and
children.

In mathematics, Dorothy Lewis School's fourth grade students have
continually scored above the standard in math proficiency. In the
2002-2003 school year, Lewis School students achieved a passing rate of
90%. Subsequently, Dorothy Lewis School fourth grade student scores
improved during the 2004-2005 school year, with 95% of students
achieving a passing score. In analyzing the results, staff attribute
these improved results to greater classroom focus on the math benchmarks
and indicators, which provided a stronger balance between content and
process. The proficiency results were further evaluated to determine
strengths and weaknesses. This information helps to guide classroom
instruction and improve on student learning in target areas for the
future.

+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Sc   | Third Grade Math Achievement  | Fourth Grade Math            |
| hool |                               | Proficiency/Achievement      |
| Year |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 2    | Not yet implemented           | > 90% of all students passed |
| 002- |                               |                              |
| 2003 |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 2    | Not yet implemented           | > 92% of all students passed |
| 003- |                               |                              |
| 2004 |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+
| 2    | > 98% of all 3^rd^ grade      | > 95% of all 4^th^ grade     |
| 004- | > students passed             | > students passed            |
| 2005 |                               |                              |
+------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+

Source: Ohio Department of Education School Report Cards.

**2**. **Using Assessment Results**

Dorothy E. Lewis School uses a variety of formative and summative
assessment data daily to drive instruction and improve student and
school performance. Before the start of the school year, teachers
utilize the district-constructed, web-based, student information system.
This system allows teachers to access summative data about individual
student performance in the areas of reading, writing, spelling, math,
science and social studies. Additionally, the principal shares hard
copies of standardized test data, such as achievement or proficiency
results with teachers. The teachers use this information to plan
instruction for individual student needs. Through a collaborative
learning process, teachers also engage in conversations about student
data and achievement. At weekly grade level meetings, teachers discuss
strategies for ensuring that all students are making progress toward
grade level indicators. To facilitate this progress, student data is
analyzed and grade level S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Attainable,
Results-Oriented, Time-Bound) goals are set for the coming school year.

Within the first month of a new school year, teachers utilize diagnostic
tools to assess all children in the areas of reading, writing and
spelling to determine the best instructional placement for students
within differentiated learning groups. Daily, teachers are involved in
providing specific, immediate feedback to students in content areas
(assessment "for" learning versus assessment "of" learning) to ensure
understanding and to improve academic performance. For example, in the
*Trailblazers* math program, assessments "for" learning are embedded
throughout each unit. This allows the teacher to intervene or accelerate
students as needed throughout the unit, rather than waiting until the
end of the unit. Weekly, teachers continue the grade level team meetings
initiated at the beginning of the year with a refined focus, discussing
students who are having difficulty in the classroom. Teachers bring
current data to the meeting to assist in determining the students'
strengths and weaknesses. These meetings provide a collaborative
framework through which staff can identify effective solutions for
students who may need interventions of some kind to bolster their
mastery of academic content.

Throughout the year, teachers reflect on their S.M.A.R.T. goal data and
as the school year ends, they share their data results with one another
to extend their learning professionally. In addition, students are
formally assessed with diagnostic tools in reading, writing, spelling
and math to ensure that they have completed the school year achieving
adequate yearly progress as well as to lay the ground work for guiding
individualized instruction for the next school year. With the provision
of diagnostic mathematics tests for students in kindergarten through
second grade last year, the Lewis staff was able to more completely
evaluate how the primary students were progressing toward meeting state
indicators in mathematics. Children identified as not meeting the
designated "on-track" status were targeted early in their next school
year for intervention to close their achievement gaps.

# 3. Communicating Assessment Results

The academic success of Dorothy Lewis Elementary School students is a
reflection of the commitment to excellence and partnership among the
students, staff and parents. The key to the effectiveness of this
educational partnership is adherence to a philosophy based on continuous
and open communication with the district's target audiences, including
students, staff, parents, community members, legislators and elected
officials at the local, state and federal levels, as well as the media.
The focus of this ongoing communication is the creation of dialogue
regarding educational goals and initiatives, namely student achievement
as measured by assessment results.

Specifically, parents of Dorothy Lewis School students receive
information about upcoming state assessments through letters from the
principal. Subsequent to receiving the results, the school mails the
State of Ohio assessment scores to parents with each student's year-end
report card. As district report cards are issued by the State of Ohio
each year, the Solon City Schools then disseminates information about
those results in a variety of ways. Parents receive information through
the PTA, and reports on student achievement are routinely included in
press releases issued to the media and posted on the district's web
site. In addition, a new district program established a group called the
Key Communicators that includes representatives of Dorothy Lewis School
staff, parents, and community members. At the end of 2005, this visible
community committee learned about the school district's educational
initiatives directly linked to accountability and student achievement
data. A critical component of the district's communications efforts
revolve around the development and nurturing of ongoing media contacts
to ensure coverage about standards, assessment results and
accountability that is accurate and better understood by the public.

The district relies heavily on email communication with families and
sends releases of information that deals with student achievement
(Internet connection among Solon families is well over 95%). Articles
detailing assessment results and student achievement are regularly
included in the district's community-wide newsletter, *Know Your
Schools*. Reports related to assessment data are also made regularly
during district Board of Education meetings, which are broadcast on
Solon Education Television, a cable access station for the Solon Schools
funded by the city of Solon's cable franchise fees.

Together, these coordinated communications assist students, parents and
the community in more clearly understanding today's standards-based
educational arena.

# 

# 4. Sharing Success 

The Dorothy Lewis School learning community has readily embraced the
infusion of accountability and public reporting of assessment results
into education. However, at the same time, they do not consider
proprietary the methods they use to impact student success. Unlike the
business world where "secrets to success" are closely guarded to benefit
only that corporation's clients, the Dorothy Lewis School staff believes
strongly that as educators they have the responsibility to share
educational best practices with all colleagues to fully meet the vision
of No Child Left Behind.

In doing so, the staff collaborates regularly with colleagues at the
three other Solon elementary school buildings, refining and enhancing
instructional strategies and assessment data analysis. The district's
philosophy is that individual teachers do not bear sole responsibility
for student success; instead all professionals have a collective
responsibility to ensure each and every student meets his or her
academic goals.

Similarly, the staff collaborates and models best teaching practices for
teachers and administrators in other school districts as well. Educators
from other districts visit Lewis School to observe the effective
practices implemented by our staff, particularly with regard to the
staff's implementation of the components of comprehensive literacy --
reading and writing workshops and word study. In addition, Dorothy Lewis
School teachers willingly take time to present at professional
conferences such as the state Reading Recovery conference, in order to
share their teaching strategies with colleagues in other school
districts.

Dorothy Lewis School staff members eagerly participate in research
studies to help demonstrate the effectiveness of teaching strategies
that impact student achievement. For example, a recent article published
in the journal, *Reading Teacher,* was written by teachers, many who are
on the Dorothy Lewis School staff. The report on the results of their
research illustrates the benefits of the district's word study
instruction.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Curriculum**

The curriculum at Dorothy Lewis School and the Solon City Schools is
aligned with all of Ohio's Academic Content Standards, including the
core curricular areas of English/language arts, math, science and social
studies. Teachers from Dorothy Lewis School in each grade level have
served on a number of district-wide curriculum committees in the past
few years to ensure that the core curriculum is aligned with the state
standards as soon as they were adopted by the State of Ohio.

The language arts program is centered on research-based practices in
comprehensive literacy. The five components of reading (phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension) are taught in
a variety of ways through a reading workshop approach. All children
receive direct reading strategy instruction through whole group reading
instruction; students read independently to sustain time for individual
practice; and all students receive regular instruction from classroom
teachers in needs-based, guided reading groups. Decision-making in the
reading program is based on regular, on-going assessment. The writing
program, too, is taught through a workshop approach. Instruction at
Dorothy Lewis School includes direct strategy instruction on the craft
and conventions of writing and includes ample opportunities for small
group interaction and individual practice on teacher- and child-selected
topics. Children receive regular feedback on their abilities as well as
instruction that attempts to nurture writing development toward district
standards and benchmarks. District-developed rubrics are utilized as a
tool to provide descriptive feedback to students on an on-going basis.
Dorothy Lewis School takes a developmental word study approach to
spelling, as teachers view this as the "cement" between the two
processes of reading and writing. Teachers at Dorothy Lewis School meet
regularly and systematically with students in small groups to provide
instruction along a developmentally sequenced course in word study.

The math support materials adopted by the Solon City Schools for
students in kindergarten through fifth grade and used at Dorothy Lewis
School Elementary School is *Trailblazers*. Math content is centered on
the Ohio Academic Content Standards that are derived from the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics' standards. The core content in math
includes number sense and operations; measurement, geometry and spatial
sense; patterns, functions and algebra; data analysis and probability;
and mathematical processes. Through careful analysis, teachers have also
determined the areas of *Trailblazers* less aligned with the standards
and have developed supplements to ensure student learning for all
content standards. Consequently, Dorothy Lewis School math students are
party to a rich experience based on collaborative learning and idea
sharing, deep problem-solving and reasoning, and the application and
analyzing of the concepts they are studying. By working in small groups
using manipulatives and other math tools, and communicating their
mathematical thinking with one another, students are better able to
connect math concepts with real-life experiences and other areas of
study, a critical skill for using math throughout their lifetime.

The science and social studies curricula reflect a hands-on,
inquiry-based approach to learning. Modeled after the Ohio Academic
Content Standards, teachers at Dorothy Lewis School have used a backward
design approach to unit development. Teachers utilize the course of
study to understand the big ideas, create proposition statements to
understand the core content and write essential questions that will
guide instruction. Common assessments are developed after teachers have
a clear understanding of the content. Hands-on, inquiry-based learning
activities are then chosen based on the academic content standards and
the assessment. Science curriculum includes earth and space sciences,
life sciences, physical sciences, science and technology, scientific
inquiry and scientific ways of knowing. Social studies curriculum
includes history, people in societies, geography, government,
citizenship, rights and responsibilities and economics.

Technology is integrated within all of the core subject areas. Dorothy
Lewis School has a computer lab as well as five computers in each
classroom to meet district-adopted technology competencies and state
standards at each grade level.

The arts education program at Dorothy Lewis School is taught by a
licensed, art education specialist and is offered to all students in
grades kindergarten through four. Our art curriculum moves students
beyond the minimum state-mandated curriculum with a strong focus on
integrating the arts with core academic subjects. The art specialist
meets regularly with classroom teachers in order to ensure integration
of core subject areas within art instruction. On-going student
assessment in art helps to maintain a high level of performance for all
students in the area of art.

**2a. Reading**

Before the recommendations of the National Reading Panel and before the
inception of No Child Left Behind, Dorothy Lewis School Elementary and
the Solon City Schools were pursuing a research-based literacy
curriculum. Understanding the critical importance of literacy,
particularly reading, the district began studying the research to
identify approaches, materials and interventions that would result in
student success. As a result of consulting the research, Solon teachers
chose not to adopt any commercial programs; instead, they implemented a
comprehensive literacy approach for all kindergarten through sixth grade
classrooms, relying heavily on small-group guided instruction as the
mainstay of daily instruction. As a staff, the teachers engaged in small
study groups and larger in-service groups and utilized a literacy coach
to model best teaching practices in classrooms to increase the staff's
knowledge base about high-quality literacy instruction. Guided by the
philosophy of making the classroom teacher the first line of
intervention, all children receive differentiated instruction in
reading, writing and spelling to meet the unique needs of the school's
diverse student population. The research about reading instruction
compelled the staff to transform its practice from a "one-size-fits-all"
approach to a more differentiated and diagnostic approach to reading in
which the best teaching is based on assessment of student strengths and
weaknesses. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual
children, teachers implement classroom-based formative assessment by
using individually administered assessments to assess fluency,
processing and decoding, strategy use and comprehension to identify
appropriate text levels and needs for instruction. Using all components
of comprehensive literacy---read aloud, shared reading, guided reading
and independent reading---teachers design instruction based upon student
needs in relation to Ohio English Language Arts Content Standards.

For the majority of children, the classroom teacher *is* the
intervention---he or she diagnostically determines strengths and
weaknesses and then appropriately selects reading materials and
research-based strategies to instruct in small, guided reading groups,
resulting in increased student learning. As a safety net to this
high-quality diagnostic teaching, the staff also consulted research
about reading intervention. Teachers determined that *early*
intervention is best and those interventions should match classroom
practices and be based on current research. In the 2000-2001 school
year, the Solon Schools, including Dorothy Lewis School, implemented
Reading Recovery in the first grade because it provides early,
intensive, research-based intervention and because its success is
well-documented. Additionally, the school's special education teachers
were trained in research-based techniques and interventions and are
required to utilize the same assessments, materials and approaches used
by classroom teachers. This combination of high-quality diagnostic
teaching, solid research-based early intervention and special education
that matches classroom practices has resulted in increased student
achievement in reading for all students.

# 3. Mathematics 

Dorothy Lewis School teachers are committed to the concept that math is
best learned in an environment that encourages students to share and
communicate their thinking so they may learn from one another and deepen
their understanding. Students often work with a partner or in groups.
They know that their teachers routinely ask them to solve a problem
using more than one strategy. Developing a math classroom culture has
helped children to feel comfortable sharing their solutions and focus on
learning from each other as well as their teacher.

The Solon City Schools adopted *Math Trailblazers* at the beginning of
the 2003-04 school year to provide the core resource for mathematics
instruction that is directly aligned to state standards. This textbook
series provides the balance of instruction between content and process
that the staff desires. It also involves students in many hands-on,
concrete lessons to provide the scaffold to learning new concepts.
Classrooms are stocked with a variety of math manipulatives to which
children have easy access. Learning math with such materials helps all
children to develop deep, conceptual understanding that scaffolds them
to abstract learning at their own pace.

Dorothy Lewis School teachers typically use 80 minutes of daily
instructional time for math. This includes 20 minutes for calendar time
or daily problem-solving along with a 60-minute, teacher-directed math
lesson. There are also opportunities within a week for students to use
classroom or lab computers to create spreadsheets, solve math problems
or practice basic facts.

Dorothy Lewis School teachers strive to help every child achieve in
mathematics. They use data from state assessments as well as information
from formative assessments. Classroom observations are recorded and
plans are made to assist every child in reaching every indicator. The
strength of the school's math curriculum lies in the continual emphasis
on students viewing themselves as mathematicians and understanding that
math exists all around them in their daily lives. Teachers clearly
outline a specific learning target for the students to make clear
correlations between the math concepts they are studying and real-life
examples. Additionally, students spend quite a bit of time communicating
their thoughts and answers to their peers and discussing alternate ways
to solve the problems they are considering. In this way, teachers are
better able to guide students in achieving the school's mission of
creating a collaborative learning environment built on mutual respect
and developing the skills and knowledge they need to reach their full
potential.

**4. Instructional methods**

The Dorothy Lewis School staff differentiates curriculum instruction to
meet the diverse needs of all learners. Teachers differentiate
instruction in the areas of reading, writing and word study through a
comprehensive literacy approach. Diagnostic assessment data is collected
on every student at Dorothy Lewis School at the beginning of the year in
language arts. Instructional methods are then tailored to meet the needs
of each child in the classroom.

In the curricular areas of science and social studies, Dorothy Lewis
School teachers use an inquiry-based model to explore key science and
social studies concepts. Students are presented with guiding questions,
which lend to exploration through experimentation. Consistent use of the
scientific process is embraced in science to challenge students to
"think like a scientist."

Math instructional methods are constructivist in nature. Students are
challenged to solve problems using methods that make sense to them. As
they develop deep conceptual understanding using methods that are
developmentally appropriate for them, other methods are then introduced
to help learners become more efficient and advanced in their
problem-solving abilities. *First in Math* is a web-based computer
program Dorothy Lewis School students use to supplement their study of
math facts. As students practice math facts at home through the use of
this program, their ability to manipulate numbers increases and their
mastery of the facts becomes more fluid, leaving more instructional time
at school to solve problems and explore math concepts at increasingly
higher levels of cognitive complexity.

Consistent, daily collaboration occurs between regular education
teachers and support (special education and gifted education) teachers
to ensure that all students are being challenged to reach their full
potential.

**5. Professional Development**

The Solon City Schools and Dorothy Lewis School consider professional
development a critical component of ensuring student achievement and
have made considerable commitments of time and resources to furthering
the education of staff members through professional development. The
return on this investment clearly impacts the bottom line of student
achievement and the Dorothy Lewis School staff understands the
implications for the research demonstrating that improvements in student
learning can only occur in the presence of continual, job-embedded
teacher learning.

Dorothy Lewis School's professional development plan is based on a
combination of teacher learning with the assistance of content area
consultants as well as in-depth collaborative learning in groups with
content area experts within the district. The Solon City Schools employs
full-time literacy and technology resource teachers, who work
collaboratively with teachers in the classroom setting. Additionally,
these content area experts provide numerous opportunities for
professional development within the school system. Dorothy Lewis School
also has a full-time curriculum resource teacher who collaborates,
co-teaches and provides additional support materials to teachers on a
flexible, as-needed basis. Dorothy Lewis School teachers are also
engaged in directly aligning lessons within *Math Trailblazers* to the
Ohio Academic Content Standards. Pacing guides have been developed to
ensure that teachers are on track in teaching mathematics to ensure
students have the knowledge and skills to demonstrate their
understanding for state outcome measures as required by state standards.
Science and social studies committee members are working to develop new
units based on the content standards as well. At monthly staff meetings,
in-service programs are provided to all teachers to share the work that
committee members have undertaken. Lastly, administrators and teacher
leaders are currently engaged in the study and deeper implementation of
assessment literacy to fully embed teacher learning about the impact of
formative assessment and teacher reflection on student learning.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST**

Subject **Reading** Grade **3** Test **Ohio Achievement Test**

Edition/Publication Year **2003-2005** Publisher **Ohio Department of
Education**

  --------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------
                                    **2004-2005**   **2003-2004**   **The Third-Grade
                                                                    Reading
                                                                    Achievement Test
                                                                    was not
                                                                    administered prior
                                                                    to 2003-2004.**

  Testing month                     March           March           

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                 

  \% At or Above Below Basic        100%            100%            

  \% At or Above Basic              100%            99%             

  \% At or Above Proficient         99%             97%             

  \% At or Above Accelerated        91%             87%             

  \% At Advanced                    67%             71%             

  Number of students tested         86              94              

  Percent of total students tested  100%            100%            

  Number alternatively assessed     1               2               

  Percent alternatively assessed    1%              2%              

                                                                    

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                   

  1\. White (specify subgroup)                                      

  \% At or Above Below Basic        100%            99%             

  \% At or Above Basic              100%            98 %            

  \% At or Above Proficient         99%             96%             

  \% At or Above Accelerated        92%             89%             

  \% At Advanced                    73%             71%             

  Number of students tested         64              84              

  2\. African American (specify                                     
  subgroup)                                                         

  \% At or Above Below Basic        100%            N/C             

  \% At or Above Basic              100%            N/C             

  \% At or Above Proficient         100%            N/C             

  \% At or Above Accelerated        93%             N/C             

  \% At Advanced                    57%             N/C             

  Number of students tested         14              N/C             

                                                                    

  **STATE SCORES**                                                  

  \% At or Above Below Basic        100%            100%            

  \% At or Above Basic              89%             90%             

  \% At or Above Proficient         77%             78%             

  \% At or Above Accelerated        56%             59%             

  \% At Advanced                    31%             33%             
  --------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------

**The table above reflects Ohio's assessment categories and
terminology.**

**N/C in the Part VII -- Assessment Results tables represents "not
calculated" due to fewer than 10 students in the subgroup. With fewer
than 10 students, the subgroups of Limited English Proficient, IEP,
American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Multi-Racial, do
not comprise sufficient numbers to be included in the state assessment
report.**

### STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST

Subject **Mathematics** Grade **3** Test **Ohio Achievement Test**

Edition/Publication Year **2004-2005** Publisher **Ohio Department of
Education**

  ------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------
                                       **2004-2005**   **The Third-Grade
                                                       Mathematics Achievement
                                                       Test was not
                                                       administered prior to
                                                       2004-2005.**

  Testing month                        March           

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                    

  \% At or Above Below Basic           100%            

  \% At or Above Basic                 100%            

  \% At or Above Proficient            98%             

  \% At or Above Accelerated           84%             

  \% At Advanced                       56%             

  Number of students tested            86              

  Percent of total students tested     100%            

  Number alternatively assessed        1               

  Percent alternatively assessed       1%              

                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                      

  1\. White                                            

  \% At or Above Below Basic           100%            

  \% At or Above Basic                 100%            

  \% At or Above Proficient            97%             

  \% At or Above Accelerated           89%             

  \% At Advanced                       59%             

  Number of students tested            64              

  2\. African American                                 

  \% At or Above Below Basic           100%            

  \% At or Above Basic                 100%            

  \% At or Above Proficient            100%            

  \% At or Above Accelerated           50%             

  \% At Advanced                       36%             

  Number of students tested            14              

  **STATE SCORES**                                     

  \% At or Above Below Basic           100%            

  \% At or Above Basic                 89%             

  \% At or Above Proficient            70%             

  \% At or Above Accelerated           34%             

  \% At Advanced                       14%             
  ------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------

**The table above reflects Ohio's assessment categories and
terminology.**

**N/C in the Part VII -- Assessment Results tables represents "not
calculated" due to fewer than 10 students in the subgroup. With fewer
than 10 students, the subgroups of Limited English Proficient, IEP,
American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Multi-Racial, do
not comprise sufficient numbers to be included in the state assessment
report.**

## STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST

Subject **Reading** Grade **4** Test **Ohio Achievement Test**

Edition/Publication Year **2004-2005** Publisher **Ohio Department of
Education**

+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Testing month                           | March       |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
|                                         | **2004-2005 | #####       |
|                                         | SCHOOL      | 2004-2005 S |
|                                         | SCORES**    | TATE SCORES |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic              | 100%        | 100%        |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Basic                    | 99%         | 89%         |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Proficient               | 97%         | 77%         |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Accelerated                       | 76%         | 36%         |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Advanced                          | 14%         | 6%          |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of students tested               | 103         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Percent of total students tested        | 100%        |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number alternatively assessed           | 4           |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Percent alternatively assessed          | 4%          |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                         |             |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1\. White                               |             |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic              | 100%        |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Basic                    | 100%        |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Proficient               | 100%        |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Accelerated                       | 80%         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Advanced                          | 13%         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of students tested               | 90          |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| 2\. African American                    |             |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic              | N/C         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Basic                    | N/C         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Proficient               | N/C         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Accelerated                       | N/C         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Advanced                          | N/C         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of students tested               | N/C         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| 3\. Students with Disabilities          |             |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic              | 100%        |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Basic                    | 92%         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At or Above Proficient               | 78%         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Accelerated                       | 57%         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| \% At Advanced                          | 21%         |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Number of students tested               | 14          |             |
+-----------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+

**The table above reflects Ohio's assessment categories and
terminology.**

**N/C in the Part VII -- Assessment Results tables represents "not
calculated" due to fewer than 10 students in the subgroup. With fewer
than 10 students, the subgroups of Limited English Proficient, IEP,
American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Multi-Racial, do
not comprise sufficient numbers to be included in the state assessment
report.**

## STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST

Subject **Reading** Grade **4** Test **Ohio Proficiency Test**

Edition/Publication Year **2000-2004** Publisher **Ohio Department of
Education**

+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     | **20  | **20  | **20  | **20  |
|                                     | 03-** | 02-** | 01-** | 00-** |
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
|                                     | **2   | **2   | **2   | **2   |
|                                     | 004** | 003** | 002** | 001** |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Testing month                       | March | March | March | March |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**                   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic          | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Basic                | 100%  | 100%  | 99%   | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Proficient           | 96%   | 92%   | 88%   | 90%   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At Advanced                      | 36%   | 18%   | 21%   | 21%   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested           | 88    | 88    | 90    | 102   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent of total students tested    | 100%  | 100%  | N/A   | N/A   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number alternatively assessed       | 0     | 0     | 0     | 0     |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Percent alternatively assessed      | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    | 0%    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES                     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. White                           |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic          | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Basic                | 100%  | 100%  | 99%   | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Proficient           | 97%   | 95%   | 90%   | 91%   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At Advanced                      | 36%   | 19%   | 21%   | 20%   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested           | 74    | 74    | 80    | 92    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. African American                |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic          | N/C   | 100%  | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Basic                | N/C   | 100%  | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Proficient           | N/C   | 75%   | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At Advanced                      | N/C   | 8%    | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested           | N/C   | 12    | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 3\. Students with Disabilities      |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic          | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Basic                | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Proficient           | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At Advanced                      | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Number of students tested           | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   | N/C   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **STATE SCORES**                    |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic          | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  | 100%  |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Basic                | 92%   | 91%   | 90%   | 87%   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At or Above Proficient           | 71%   | 66%   | 65%   | 54%   |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| \% At Advanced                      | 15%   | 9%    | 6%    | 6%    |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**The table above reflects Ohio's assessment categories and
terminology.**

**N/C in the Part VII -- Assessment Results tables represents "not
calculated" due to fewer than 10 students in the subgroup. With fewer
than 10 students, the subgroups of Limited English Proficient, IEP,
American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Multi-Racial, do
not comprise sufficient numbers to be included in the state assessment
report.**

#### STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST

Subject **Mathematics** Grade **4** Test **Ohio Proficiency Test**

Edition/Publication Year **2000-2005** Publisher **Ohio Department of
Education**

+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                               | *    | *    | *    | *    | *    |
|                               | *200 | *200 | *200 | *200 | *200 |
|                               | 4-** | 3-** | 2-** | 1-** | 0-** |
|                               |      |      |      |      |      |
|                               | **20 | **20 | **20 | **20 | **20 |
|                               | 05** | 04** | 03** | 02** | 01** |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Testing month                 | M    | M    | M    | M    | M    |
|                               | arch | arch | arch | arch | arch |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **SCHOOL SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic    | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Basic          | 97%  | 95%  | 97%  | 98%  | 98%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Proficient     | 95%  | 92%  | 90%  | 94%  | 92%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At Advanced                | 55%  | 57%  | 30%  | 48%  | 52%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested     | 103  | 88   | 87   | 89   | 98   |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of total students     | 100% | 100% | 99%  | N/A  | N/A  |
| tested                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number alternatively assessed | 4    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent alternatively         | 4%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   | 0%   |
| assessed                      |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES               |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 1\. White                     |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic    | 100% | 99%  | 99%  | 99%  | 100% |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Basic          | 98%  | 95%  | 98%  | 99%  | 100% |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Proficient     | 96%  | 91%  | 93%  | 98%  | 93%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At Advanced                | 56%  | 55%  | 34%  | 49%  | 56%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested     | 90   | 74   | 74   | 79   | 89   |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 2\. African American          |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic    | N/C  | N/C  | 100% | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Basic          | N/C  | N/C  | 82%  | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Proficient     | N/C  | N/C  | 64%  | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At Advanced                | N/C  | N/C  | 0%   | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested     | N/C  | N/C  | 11   | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 3\. Students with             |      |      |      |      |      |
| Disabilities                  |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic    | 100% | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Basic          | 79%  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Proficient     | 72%  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At Advanced                | 43%  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students tested     | 14   | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  | N/C  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **STATE SCORES**              |      |      |      |      |      |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Below Basic    | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Basic          | 74%  | 77%  | 70%  | 73%  | 70%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At or Above Proficient     | 65%  | 66%  | 59%  | 60%  | 57%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% At Advanced                | 26%  | 26%  | 15%  | 16%  | 16%  |
+-------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**The table above reflects Ohio's assessment categories and
terminology.**

**N/C in the Part VII -- Assessment Results tables represents "not
calculated" due to fewer than 10 students in the subgroup. With fewer
than 10 students, the subgroups of Limited English Proficient, IEP,
American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Multi-Racial, do
not comprise sufficient numbers to be included in the state assessment
report.**