##### *2004-2005 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

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

Name of Principal [Mr. William Oliver Hoffmann]{.underline}

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

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

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address\_\_\_\_\_[P.O. Box 227 400 Main
Street]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (If
address is P.O. Box, also include street address)

[Gideon MO 63848-0227\_]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County \_\_[New
Madrid]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_School Code
Number\*\_\_\_[072-073]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone [(573 ) 448-3447]{.underline} Fax [( 573 )
448-5197]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.gideon.k12.mo.us]{.underline} E-mail
[bhoffman@gideon.k12.mo.us]{.underline}

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Dr. David F. Hollingshead]{.underline}

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

District Name [Gideon No. 37 School District]{.underline} Tel. [(573)
448-3911]{.underline}

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

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mr. Larry Wiggs

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

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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 2004-2005 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 or 2004 *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** (Questions 1‑2 not applicable to private schools)

1\. Number of schools in the district: [\_\_\_1\_]{.underline}
Elementary schools

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

[\_\_\_1\_]{.underline} Junior high schools

\_[\_\_1\_]{.underline} High schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Other

\_\_[\_3]{.underline}\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_[\$7072]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure:
\_[\$7394]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**SCHOOL** (To be completed by all schools)

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

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

4\. [5]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

5\. Number of students 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**       13        12                     **25**       **8**                             

  **1**       12        10                     **22**       **9**                             

  **2**       22        12                     **34**       **10**                            

  **3**       8         18                     **26**       **11**                            

  **4**       12        7                      **19**       **12**                            

  **5**       16        12                     **28**       **Other**                         

  **6**       17        12                     **29**                                         

                                    **TOTAL                                                   **183**
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

*\[Throughout the document, round numbers to avoid decimals.\]*

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [97]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [2]{.underline} % Black or African American

[1]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

[0]{.underline} % 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:
\_\_\_\_[13]{.underline}\_\_%

> (This rate should be calculated using the grid below. The answer to
> (6) is the mobility rate.)

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      15
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      9
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(3)**                   Subtotal of all transferred 24
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 182
                            the school as of October 1  
                            (same as in #5 above)       

  **(5)**                   Subtotal in row (3) divided .131
                            by total in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           13
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

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

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

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

Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[73\_]{.underline}\_\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_\_[133]{.underline}\_\_

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

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_\_[16]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[29\_]{.underline}\_\_Total Number of Students Served

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

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Autism \_[\_0\_]{.underline}Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deafness \_\_[1]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deaf-Blindness \_[10]{.underline}\_Specific
Learning Disability

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Hearing Impairment \_[14]{.underline}\_Speech or
Language Impairment

\_\_[3]{.underline}\_Mental Retardation \_\_[0\_]{.underline}Traumatic
Brain Injury

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_[0]{.underline}\_Visual
Impairment Including Blindness

\_\_[0\_]{.underline}Emotional Disturbance

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers \_\_\_[12\_\_]{.underline}\_
\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_[\_3\_\_]{.underline}\_
\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

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

> Support staff \_\_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_\_
> \_\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_\_\_[22]{.underline}\_\_
> \_\_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
\_[17/1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

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

  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                             2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000

  Daily student attendance   94 %        92 %        95 %        95 %        96 %

  Daily teacher attendance   93 %        95 %        97 %        92 %        96 %

  Teacher turnover rate      12 %        0 %         24 %        42 %        37 %

  Student dropout rate       \%          \%          \%          \%          \%
  (middle/high)                                                              

  Student drop-off rate      \%          \%          \%          \%          \%
  (high school)                                                              
  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

14\. **(*High Schools Only*)** Show what the students who graduated in
Spring 2004 are doing as of September 2004.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Graduating class size                                   | >          |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university              | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                         | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                         | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Found employment                                        | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Military service                                        | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                      | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Unknown                                                 | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| **Total**                                               | > 100 %    |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

**Provide a brief, coherent narrative snapshot of the school in one page
(approximately 600 words). Include at least a summary of the school's
mission or vision in the statement.**

Gideon Elementary School is located in a small agrarian community
located in the bootheel of Missouri. The nearest large city is St. Louis
approximately 220 to the North and Memphis, TN 200 miles to the
Southeast. The town of Gideon has a population of approximately 1000
with the district student population consisting of approximately 370
students. Of the 370 students in the district 182 are elementary
students. Gideon Elementary and Gideon High School are located on the
same campus in the center of town. The school is the major employer of
the community and is the center of community events and activities.
Community members take great pride in their school system showing
support for student learning through participation and attendance at
student focused events.

Gideon Elementary School is comprised of grades Kindergarten through
sixth grade. The teaching staff is comprised of 12 certified teaching
staff. Flexible grouping is utilized in the primary reading program,
grades kindergarten through third. Grades four through six are
instructed through a departmentalized approach to learning in the core
content areas. All third through sixth grade classrooms are equipped
with up-to-date technology with includes a multimedia teaching station
connected to an electronic whiteboard and a 2:1 student/computer ratio.
All computers are connected to the Internet via a T1 line providing
quick easy access to information. This is a vital aspect of the
teaching/learning environment since many of our students are from
poverty. Many of our students never travel more that a few miles from
home. Therefore, it is essential that we bring the world to them through
technological means.

The mission of Gideon Elementary School is to educate students to become
responsible, productive participants in society and the vision of our
school is to help students acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills
necessary to become healthy, happy, and productive adults who perpetuate
and improve the democratic process through positive impact on their
communities, their country, and their world. Through the use of
technological tools, caring trained teachers committed to student
learning and community support we are able to move toward the
fulfillment of that vision.

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

Data analysis indicates significant gains across all content areas and
grade levels. District data indicates that the percentage of students
scoring on the bottom two levels in Mathematics at grade four has
decreased from 55% of 4^th^ grade students scoring in the bottom two
levels in 2002 to 3.7% of students in the bottom two levels on the state
assessment in 2004. Students scoring in the top two levels on the
mathematics portion of the state assessment have increased significantly
from 15% in 2002 to 66.7% in 2004.

Data analysis in the area of Communication Arts at the third grade level
also show significant improvement in lowering the percentage of students
scoring on the bottom two levels and increasing the percentage of
students scoring on the top two levels. Comparison of 2002 and 2004 MAP
assessment data indicates a drop in the percentage of students scoring
on the bottom two levels from 53% in 2002 to 0% in 2004. A significant
increase was seen in the percentage of students scoring in the top two
levels of proficient and advanced from 14% in 2002 to 61.2% in 2004.

Data analysis of assessment results comparing scores of students
receiving free/reduced price lunches and non-free/reduced lunch students
indicate that in the area of communication arts those free/reduced
students had a greater percentage of students 64.2% in the top two
levels on the state assessments than non-free/reduced at 50%. In
addition, comparison of this same population of students indicates there
were 0% of either group scoring at the bottom two levels.

Among the free/reduced lunch compared to the non-free/reduced population
in 4^th^ grade mathematics indicated both groups had 66.7% of the
population in the top two levels. Analysis of data indicates that 8.3%
of the free/reduced population scored on the bottom two levels compared
to 0% of the non-free/reduced population of students.

Analysis of Annual Yearly Progress data indicates significant
improvement over the past three years among all student populations.
Comparison of data indicates that all students in Communication Arts at
the 3^rd^ grade level increased from 15.6% in 2002 to 60% in 2004 with
greater gains seen among the free/reduced population. In addition on the
2004 administration of the MAP 3^rd^ grade students in Gideon Elementary
exceeded the state target of 20.4% by 39.6%. AYP results in the area of
mathematics indicate the similar increases. Percentages on the AYP grid
for mathematics indicate 15% in 2002 rising to 60.9% in 2004. Again
greater gains were noted among the free/reduced population. The state
goal in 2004 was 10.3, our student population had 60.9% scoring at the
proficient level. Thus, our percentages exceeded the state target by
50.6%.

Gains in student achievement can be directly tied to improved focused
professional development in establishing a successful professional
learning community focused on improved student achievement. Instead of
the "one shot" approach to disjointed professional development an
intense effort has been made to form Professional Learning Community
Teams (PLC), which are data-driven, and results oriented. Teams of
teachers review and analyze student learning on an on-going basis and
adjust teaching/learning practices accordingly. As teachers work
together evaluating student work an internal system of support, in
improving student achievement, among peers is fostered. In addition, new
teaching/learning practices, which are research-based and proven, to be
effective are implemented through the PLC Team environment. This
on-going, job-embedded approach to improving teaching/learning practices
has resulted in improved student achievement. Information of performance
for Gideon Elementary students can be accessed at:

[www.gideon.k12.mo.us/info/report04.htm](http://www.gideon.k12.mo.us/info/report04.htm)
or on the DESE website www.dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/072073.html

***How Gideon Elementary School uses assessment data to understand and
improve student and school performance.***

Data analysis and evaluation drive the development, adjustments and
revisions of all school programs, resource distribution, curriculum and
professional development throughout the district. Data gathering and
analysis is an on-going integral part of providing the best possible
education for our students. As we gather information from state, local
and classroom assessments teachers and administrators work together to
pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of teaching/learning practices and
various programs throughout the district. Results of data analysis
provide essential insight into what is needed in the areas of
professional development, changes in instruction and meeting the needs
of various student populations within the school.

Teachers work together, in their PLC (Professional Learning Community)
Teams, at the beginning of each school term to disaggregate and analyze
data on the most recent state assessment. Results of this analysis
provide essential information the setting of PLC Team goals and
objectives to improve student learning and development of action plans
to reach those goals. Thus, the instructional focus of the building is
"data-driven."

Results of data analysis has led to the implementation of Professional
Learning Communities focused on improved student achievement, a backward
planning approach to curriculum development and implementation, focus on
reflective practice for instructional staff and job-embedded learning
focused on improved student learning.

***How the school communicates student performance, including assessment
data, to parents, students, and the community.***

A variety of methods are utilized to report student performance data to
parents, students and the community. The district maintains a website
and utilizes it as a vehicle to report student performance on the state
assessment. This information is organized to show several years of
disaggregated data to assist members of the school community in
understanding progress toward improved student achievement. In addition
to the website, parents are able to access their child's attendance
records, teacher gradebook information, and discipline reports via
ParentLink, a secure web-based student information system. Parents also
receive on-going feedback on their child's progress through mid-term
progress reports and regular feedback from their child's teacher. Open
house, Parent/Teacher Conferences and meetings held throughout the year
through various activities also serve as another avenue for
dissemination of information and collecting feedback from parents and
the community concerning school improvement issues.

Information to community members is disseminated through newsletters,
newspaper articles and various meetings held throughout the year. In
addition, community members serve on the district-wide advisory council
and represent various groups within the community.

***How the school has shared and will continue to share its successes
with other schools.***

Members of the Gideon Elementary School Community realize the value of
sharing and obtaining knowledge with other educators on improving
teaching/learning practices. Educators from our school have taken
several opportunities to share effective practices with peers in other
districts. We have had several teams from other districts visit our
school to inquire and learn methods we utilized to improve student
achievement. In addition, some of our staff have served as presenters at
conferences and workshops, communicate through listserves their
successes and share ideas with individuals in other districts. Several
members of the elementary school are involved in action research
projects and the results of those projects will be shared through
publishing and sharing of findings through a variety of methods.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

A major shift in curriculum has occurred over the past three years. In
essence, the previous curriculum was based on discreet disconnected
skills focused on the knowledge level of Bloom's Taxonomy. Review of the
curriculum and evaluation of student achievement data on the revised
state assessment resulted in constructing a new curriculum focused on
improving student learning based on goals and objectives which push
toward the higher end of Bloom's Taxonomy. The curriculum has moved from
"knowledge-based" to "process-based". As the state has developed Grade
Level Expectations they have formed the foundation of the new
curriculum.

In the elementary school setting the focus of the curriculum is on
Communication Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. Within
these content areas specific strands are noted and addressed. In
Communication Arts the strands have been identified as follows; Reading,
Writing, Listening & Speaking, and Information Literacy. Students are
engaged and demonstrate their knowledge in each of these specific
strands through active learning focused on concept understanding rather
than rote memorization. Students are taught how to read and write
effectively through expanded reading/writing activities in which they
demonstrate their knowledge through "cold" assessments. Each assessment
provides a "picture" of what the student is able to do and as a result
guides the teacher in effectively addressing individual needs.

In mathematics the strands are identified as; Number and Operations,
Algebraic Relationships, Geometric and Spatial Relationships,
Measurement, Data and Probability. Students are engaged in understanding
and demonstrating their ability to utilize the "process" of mathematics
not just the ability to perform computations. Students are required to
organize, gather, evaluate and report data through a variety of
classroom and assessment activities.

The science curriculum is based on the following strands; Properties and
Principles of Matter and Energy, Properties and Principles of Force and
Motion, Characteristics and Interactions of Living Organisms, Changes in
Ecosystems and Interactions of Organisms With Their Environments,
Process and Interactions of the Earth's Systems, Composition and
Structure of the Universe and the Motion of Objects, Process of
Scientific Inquiry, Impact of Science, Technology and Human Activity. In
order to successfully master a concept, students must engage in active
hands-on learning requiring depth of thought to be able to demonstrate
their knowledge.

The social studies curriculum is based on understanding of broad
concepts and knowledge of the following strands: Principles of
Constitutional Democracy, Missouri, US, and World History, Principles
and Process of Governance Systems, Economic Concepts and Principles,
Elements of Geographical Study and Analysis, Relationships of Individual
and Groups to Institutions and Traditions. Instruction and student
learning is focused on understanding and applying knowledge in the
curriculum. Students are required to demonstrate knowledge through a
variety of methods such as PowerPoint presentations, History Day
Projects and successful completion of summative assessments requiring
"process" knowledge, not rote memorization.

***The school's reading curriculum***

At Gideon Elementary School, the reading curriculum utilized the past
five years is somewhat unique in that a commercial developed basal
series is not the norm. With the previous basal series utilized,
students' reading abilities were steadily declining. With the advent of
the Missouri Assessment Program, the district examined why the students
were not performing well. Isolated, discrete skill instruction,
virtually no writing instruction and an overabundance of worksheet type
activities were determined detrimental to literacy success.
Subsequently, with careful review and study, the district implemented a
reading/writing curriculum that utilizes powerful teaching strategies
for reading and writing to produce readers who understand and evaluate
the printed word and writers who effectively communicate the written
word. The reading instruction is taught within students' zone of
proximal development, focuses on powerful instructional methods, teaches
to both the right-brained and left-brained student and addresses the
specific learning needs of students living in poverty.

Reading materials include trade books, newspaper and magazine articles
that span the genres of literature. Assessments are designed with the
end in mind; instruction is planned to achieve that end.

Writing is an integral part of the literacy program with language arts
mechanics taught simultaneously with the Writing Process.

With the implementation of this philosophy and approach to literacy
instruction, student achievement has escalated evidenced in both local
assessments and state assessments over the past five years.

***Math Curriculum***

Data-driven results have led to a different approach to mathematics
instruction. After review and analysis of several years of mathematics
student achievement data it was determined our students lacked the
understanding of the "process" of mathematics. They were very competent
in computation but did not understand the underlying process of math. If
our mission is to educate students to become productive participants in
society then it is essential they be able to "think" mathematics, not
just "do" mathematics. Therefore, several research-based mathematics
approaches focused on "process" were investigated. After research was
completed Everyday Mathematics from the University of Chicago was
implemented throughout the elementary school. This approach to learning
math was vastly different than the previous approach. Students are
taught to think through the process rather than accept that "you just
have to do it, not understand it." This shift in instruction has yielded
a dramatic increase in student learning as demonstrated in state
achievement results. This approach has been so successful a shift in the
middle and high school mathematics curriculum has occurred based on the
same focus of teaching/learning "process" rather than computation
skills.

**I*nstructional Methods the School Uses to Improve Student Learning***

Analysis of several years of data indicated that our students were
having difficulty in "process skills" not "knowledge skills". Our
students were able to recall information and had the base knowledge for
the most part but were unable to organize their thoughts, evaluate
information and process it in a way to communicate their understanding
to others. It was evident that we had to find a method of teaching those
critical "process skills" to our students. After extensive reading and
research it was decided to focus on the research of Robert Marzano,
*Classroom Instruction That Works.* This research proved if certain
strategies are utilized consistently in the classroom and students are
taught how to organize and process information through use of these
strategies, gains can be expected in student learning. Teachers utilize
these specific strategies on a regular basis district-wide. Students are
taught the "framework" to understand through use of graphic organizers,
charts, webs and other graphic representations to understand concepts.
Since a large population of our students come from impoverished
backgrounds the work of Ruby Payne, *Framework for Understanding
Poverty*, has influenced a different approach to teaching/learning.
Teachers utilize methods outlined in her work as well as Marzao's
reserach. Teachers also utilize technology daily in teaching/learning.
Each teacher has a multimedia computer teaching station connected to an
electronic white-board and LCD projector. In addition, all 3^rd^ through
6^th^ grade instructional rooms have one-computer per every two
students. The use of technology in the classroom setting is the "norm"
rather than the "exception".

***Professional Development Program***

Improvement in student achievement in the district is directly related
to our professional development program. Over the past three years the
district has focused on providing focused professional development to
improve student learning throughout the district utilizing a
job-embedded approach to professional growth. Research has proven that
in order for student learning to improve or be maintained at a high
level teachers must be provided with time for collaboration, training
and resources to support professional growth. Based on research we began
to study and are at the implementation phase of K-12 Professional
Learning Community Teams (PLCs). Through this team environment teachers
are provided release time to work together analyzing student data,
acquiring new teaching/learning practices, receive feedback and support
from their peers and learn together as they work toward improved student
learning in their respective areas. Through PLCs teachers have been
provided training and support in specific research based instructional
strategies that have been proven to be effective in substantially
improving student learning for all students. These Marzano strategies
and writing process strategies have been implemented district-wide. In
addition, the PLC structure allows for teachers to work collaboratively
in creating summative assessments and lesson plans designed to
incorporate these effective strategies. We have seen teachers grow and
change in instructional approaches they utilize in the daily learning of
students through this collaborative process. Three-year data analysis of
MAP scores indicate that this structure and approach to professional
development has resulted in significant improved student achievement.
Significant decreases in the percentage of students scoring on the
bottom two levels and increase at the top two levels have been shown as
a result of this collaborative type of professional development.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

**Gideon Elementary School**

[Subject\_\_\_\_\_Communication Arts\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade[\_3]{.underline} [Test\_ Missouri Assessement]{.underline}
Program\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_[2004]{.underline}\_\_\_
Publisher\_\_\_[CTB/McGraw-Hill\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  --------------------------------- ------------ ----------- -------------
                                    2003-2004    2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month: April                                       

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                          

  \% Advanced                       5.6          0.0         0.0

  \% Proficient                     61.2         33.3        13.9

  \% Nearing Proficiency            100          75          47.2

  \% Progressing                    100          100         94.4

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100

  Number of students tested         18           24          36

  Percent of total students tested  100          100         100

  Number of students alternatively  0            0           0
  assessed                                                   

  Percent of students alternatively 0            0           0
  assessed                                                   

                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                            

  1.\_\_[Eligible Free/Reduced                               
  Lunch\_\_]{.underline}\_ (specify                          
  subgroup)                                                  

  \% Advanced                       7.1          0.0         0.0

  \% Proficient                     57.1         38.5        8.7

  \% Nearing Proficiency            100          77          43.5

  \% Progressing                    100          100         100

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100

  Number of students tested         14           13          23

  2.\_Not [Eligible Free/Reduced                             
  Lunch]{.underline}\_(specify                               
  subgroup)                                                  

  \% Advanced                       0.0          0.0         0.0

  \% Proficient                     50.0         27.3        23.1

  \% Nearing Proficiency            100          72.8        53.9

  \% Progressing                    100          100         100

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100

  Number of students tested         4            11          13

  **STATE SCORES**                                           

  \% Advanced                       1.4          1.4         1.8

  \% Proficient                     34.7         34.1        35.5

  \% Nearing Proficiency            74.5         73.6        73.8

  \% Progressing                    93.6         92.9        93.8

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100
  --------------------------------- ------------ ----------- -------------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

**Gideon Elementary School**

[Subject\_\_\_\_\_Mathematics G]{.underline}rade[\_4]{.underline}
[Test\_ Missouri Assessement]{.underline} Program\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Publisher\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  --------------------------------- ------------ ----------- -------------
                                    2003-2004    2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing month: April                                       

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                          

  \% Advanced                       22.2         0.0         0.0

  \% Proficient                     66.6         25.7        15.0

  \% Nearing Proficiency            96.2         80          45.0

  \% Progressing                    100          100         95.0

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100

  Number of students tested         27           35          20

  Percent of total students tested                           

  Number of students alternatively  0            0           0
  assessed                                                   

  Percent of students alternatively 0            0           0
  assessed                                                   

                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                            

  1.\_\_[Eligible Free/Reduced                               
  Lunch\_\_]{.underline}\_ (specify                          
  subgroup)                                                  

  \% Advanced                       20.0         0.0         0.0

  \% Proficient                     66.7         25.0        6.3

  \% Nearing Proficiency            100          78.6        31.3

  \% Progressing                    100          100         100

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100

  Number of students tested         15           28          16

  2.\_Not [Eligible Free/Reduced                             
  Lunch]{.underline}\_(specify                               
  subgroup)                                                  

  \% Advanced                       25.0         0.0         0.0

  \% Proficient                     66.7         28.6        50.0

  \% Nearing Proficiency            91.7         85.7        100

  \% Progressing                    100          100         100

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100

  Number of students tested         12           7           4

  **STATE SCORES**                                           

  \% Advanced                       7.9          6.6         7.7

  \% Proficient                     40.3         37.2        37.6

  \% Nearing Proficiency            82.3         79.7        78.9

  \% Progressing                    97.9         97.3        97.3

  \% Step 1                         100          100         100
  --------------------------------- ------------ ----------- -------------