##### U.S. Department of Education November 2002

**2002-2003 *No Child Left Behind---Blue Ribbon Schools Program***

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Mrs. Beata
Rudloff]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

Official School Name [Creighton Elementary
School]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [1609 Redick Avenue P O Box
10]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Creighton]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Nebraska]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[68729-0010]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Telephone [( 402 ) 358-3348]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Fax [(
402 )
358-3804]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Website/URL [creighton.esu1.org]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Email
[brudloff@esu1.org]{.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 [Mr. Fred
Boelter]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

District Name [Creighton Community
School]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Telephone [( 402 )
358-3663]{.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 [Mrs. Cathy
Laflan]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

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

**[PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA]{.underline}**

**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

\_\_3\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$6,171.97]{.underline}\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$7,126.73]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

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

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

4\. \_\_[10]{.underline}\_\_ Number of years the principal has been in
her/his position at this school.

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

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

  ------------- --- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
  13\.                                                                                                                      

                    [2001-2002]{.underline}   [2000-2001]{.underline}   [1999-2000]{.underline}   [1998-1999]{.underline}   [1997-1998]{.underline}

  Daily Student     96.60%                    96.82%                    97.23%                    96.88%                    96.46%
  Attendance                                                                                                                

  Daily Teacher     94.55%                    94.68%                    95.85%                    96.17%                    96.35%
  Attendance                                                                                                                

  Teacher           0%                        5%                        0%                        0%                        5%
  Turnover Rate                                                                                                             

                                              (1 Teacher)                                                                   (1 Teacher)
  ------------- --- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of \_\_[94]{.underline}\_\_% White

the students in the school: \_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_% Black or African
American

\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_% Hispanic or Latino

\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_% Asian/Pacific Islander

\_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_% American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_\_[4.31]{.underline}\_\_%

> (This rate includes the total number of students who transferred to or
> from different schools between October 1 and the end of the school
> year, divided by the total number of students in the school as of
> October 1, multiplied by 100.)

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 6
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 3
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        9
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    209
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     0.04306
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    4.306
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

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

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

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[46]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[96]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Students Who Qualify

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

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_\_[12]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[26]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

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

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Autism \_\_[0]{.underline}\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deafness \_\_[2]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_Deaf-Blindness \_\_[5]{.underline}\_Specific
Learning Disability

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Hearing Impairment \_[12]{.underline}\_Speech or
Language Impairment

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Mental Retardation \_\_[0]{.underline}\_Traumatic
Brain Injury

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_[1]{.underline}\_Visual
Impairment Including Blindness

\_\_[3]{.underline}\_Developmental 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) \_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_[13]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_[12]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_[34]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. Student-"classroom teacher" ratio: \_\_[16:1]{.underline}\_\_

  ------------- --- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
  13\.                                                                                                                      

                    [2001-2002]{.underline}   [2000-2001]{.underline}   [1999-2000]{.underline}   [1998-1999]{.underline}   [1997-1998]{.underline}

  Daily Student     96.60%                    96.82%                    97.23%                    96.88%                    96.46%
  Attendance                                                                                                                

  Daily Teacher     94.55%                    94.68%                    95.85%                    96.17%                    96.35%
  Attendance                                                                                                                

  Teacher           0%                        5%                        0%                        0%                        5%
  Turnover Rate                                                                                                             

                                              (1 Teacher)                                                                   (1 Teacher)
  ------------- --- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------

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

Creighton Elementary School, located in rural northeast Nebraska, is
part of a K-12 school system currently serving 209 elementary students.
Even though we have a relatively high poverty index of 46%, our students
perform exceptionally well given their circumstances. Our average daily
attendance rate is 96% and our teacher turnover rate is nearly
non-existent. Our school physical plant is in excellent condition and
our support services are exceptional. We are fortunate to be able to
provide smaller classes within a safe and orderly learning environment.

The mission of the Creighton Community School, through the cooperative
efforts of home and community, is to challenge and prepare all students
for their future in a changing society. We believe that all students
should be challenged daily so that they may achieve to their highest
ability. Education should prepare and challenge each student by
providing a solid academic background.

One of our school improvement goals is to improve writing and
communication skills throughout all curricular areas. Our faculty and
administration have researched and studied best practice, aligned
curriculum with Nebraska Standards and prepared assessments to match
standards. We have also selected a variety of reading, writing, phonics
and English materials to meet the needs of our students. The strength of
our program is evidenced by increased achievement in the last five
years. One of the programs that we are most satisfied with is the VOWAC
phonics program. VOWAC has provided the intense phonemic instruction
that was lacking in our former program; students now demonstrate greater
decoding skills and abilities that enable them to be successful readers.
In addition to this, we adopted Accelerated Reader (AR), a program in
which all students read at their individualized reading level. This
program meets the needs of all learners as it creates opportunities for
success, builds self-esteem, eliminates frustration and allows children
of varying abilities to progress at a rate that is appropriate for them.
We have found this program to be particularly successful with lower
ability students, as some students have gained as much as two to three
years growth within one school year. Last, but not least, we added a
Step Up to Writing program. The key to the success of this program has
been the step-by-step approach to writing using colored strips of paper
to write a story. Students and teachers are truly surprised by the
structure, length, quality and details found within students' writing.

Much of our success at Creighton Elementary can be attributed to the
un-wavering support and teamwork that administration, staff, parents,
students and community members offer to each other in order to provide
an excellent education for all of our students. For the past ten years,
students within each classroom have been fortunate to have a parent,
grandparent or community volunteer read within their classroom each
week. Our local policemen and firemen not only protect our community,
they present drug awareness and fire safety programs for our students
each year. Our school playground and basketball court were all
constructed free of charge by community members. On the flip-side,
Creighton Elementary Student Council members actively pursue community
beautification projects, make donations to needy organizations, promote
reading, and demonstrate school spirit, thusly giving back to their
school and community. It has been stated that it takes an entire
community to educate a child. We are truly fortunate that the people of
our community not only know this, but also live it. Hopefully by
providing opportunities for our students to give back to the community,
we train the next generation to value their community and to support
quality education.

### PART IV -- INDICATOR OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS

**1. Assessment Results Currently, norm-referenced achievement tests are
used in combination with locally developed criterion-referenced
assessments to measure student performance on State Standards.** Since
Nebraska's first State Standards reporting began in 2001, we currently
have one year of 4^th^ grade language arts criterion-referenced
assessment results and one year of 4^th^ grade math criterion-referenced
results to indicate and compare with growth indicated on norm-referenced
assessments. If a third year of state criterion-referenced assessment
results is required for this application, these results could be made
available to the U. S. Department of Education after May 30, 2003.

Nebraska has established four assessment levels to rate student
performance on standards: beginning, progressing, proficient and
advanced. Each school district determines its own assessment plan and
criteria for determining each of these levels. Students performing at
proficient and advanced levels demonstrate mastery of State Standards;
students scoring at beginning and progressing levels do not. At
Creighton Elementary, we use the modified borderline group method to
establish cut scores and mastery levels for each criterion-referenced
assessment. We also run a KR 21 reliability measure on each item of each
student's assessment in order to guarantee consistency of scoring or to
determine the reliability of each assessment. Four additional quality
criteria were also put in place by our state to ensure quality teaching
and learning as well as quality assessment.

In the past, norm-referenced tests had been used, almost solely, to
report students' progress to the state. Our norm-referenced testing
company now provides a Nebraska Standards match indicating the
performance of each student on the standards tested. Students performing
between the 75^th^ percentile and the 100^th^ percentile are advanced;
students performing between the 50^th^ percentile and 74^th^ percentile
are proficient; and students performing below the 50^th^ percentile have
not mastered the standards.

**Results of norm-referenced assessments compiled over the past five
years display an upward trend line in reading and math. Results of our
criterion-referenced assessments parallel these assessments**. Student
scores indicate a "compounding growth effect" as an overall increase can
be observed from year to year within a particular classroom as well as
by following a particular class from year to year through grade six.
Overall, this kind of an increase in scores indicates a year or more
growth in achievement each year. Even though we have a high poverty
index, the results of disaggregated data follow a similar upward trend
in overall achievement in both reading and math, within classrooms, and
from year to year.

Providing a quality education for all students is a continuous process
of teaching, learning and evaluating each of the aspects comprising a
child's learning environment. In the best interests of our students, and
due to the severity of the disability and the anxiety the testing
situation created for some Special Education (SPED) students, a total of
six students were tested separately at one time or another throughout
this five year time span. One additional child was excluded from testing
the first three years and is now assessed using functional academic
assessments developed by the Nebraska Department of Education.

Overall, results of all assessments are reassuring as they confirm the
AR, VOWAC and Step Up to Writing program changes made within our school
during the past 5-7 years. The best news of all is that the changes made
have been very beneficial for all of our students as their scores have
increased and they are experiencing greater success.

####### 

##### 2. Using assessment data to improve student/school

Administration and teachers utilize all information gathered from
studying assessment data to assist them in the curriculum development
process. Team effort is spent identifying opportunities for improvement,
establishing goals and formulating new accountability levels. After
completion of the curriculum and early within the assessment process,
data is often used to make revisions to improve the quality of the
assessments. Year-end results of criterion-referenced and
norm-referenced assessments are then studied in order to guide
instruction during the upcoming school year. Classroom teachers and the
principal study the assessments individually. After all teachers have
had an opportunity to peruse their individual classroom scores, the
principal meets with the teachers individually and/or as a group in
order to celebrate successes and to discuss opportunities for
improvements within the entire elementary program as well as within each
classroom. Assessment data is also used to identify and provide students
with additional services, as needed, whether that is Title, SPED or
Gifted instruction.

Currently, Nebraska schools are only required to report
4^th,\ 8th,\ and\ 11th^ grade standards assessment results to the
Nebraska Department of Education; however, all K-6 classroom teachers
are required to prepare year-end standards progress charts indicating
student performance levels on all standards assessments given within
their particular classroom. These results are shared with our local
patrons. The benefits of viewing these materials are many. Year-end
standards progress charts quickly display proficiency and mastery
levels, K-6. All teachers know exactly which skills to focus on for
improved student results; there is no guesswork. Instruction and
assessment are very focused and the students benefit.

The elementary principal charts norm referenced assessment scores and
maintains records of standards assessments over time in order to compare
overall growth across all grade levels. The principal then plans
in-services to enhance the desired outcomes and to fulfill newly
established goals.

###### 3. Communicating assessment data

In order to set the stage for learning with their classroom each year,
classroom teachers share grade level standards, curriculum and
assessment information with parents at parent/teacher conferences held
in early fall. The principal has an open door policy and has taken the
opportunity to share and discuss curriculum and assessment results with
parents when they come to the office.

Teachers share assessment results with the students and inform parents
of students' assessment progress throughout the year. Each parent
receives a copy of his/her child's performance on norm-referenced
assessments. Teachers and administration are available to answer any
questions that parents may have regarding assessment information.
Year-end standards progress information is presented to the
Superintendent of Schools and our local school board as well as
published in our local newspapers and newsletters. Information shared is
compared to state averages.

In addition to this, all students, parents and district patrons are
invited to visit the Nebraska Department of Education's website to
review all Creighton Elementary scores as well as scores from other
schools within the state.

**4.** **Sharing successes with other schools**

Creighton Elementary faculty and administration believe that providing a
quality education should be a cooperative effort between schools, not a
competitive one. We would welcome the opportunity to share ideas and
best practices in the future as we have in the past.

The principal attends workshops and meetings at the national level, as
well as attends local conference and regional principals' meetings
throughout the school year to discuss and share ideas. Ideas gained from
these meetings are shared with other professionals within the
educational arena. Step Up to Writing information, gathered at a
National Association of Elementary Principals' Conference, has been
implemented within our school with great success. Following our success
with the program, we promoted Step Up to Writing to neighboring
educators as well as to Educational Service Unit (ESU) personnel with
the hope that many other students would benefit in the same manner.
Accelerated Reader successes and recommendations have been shared with
principals at local and regional levels. Curriculum and assessment ideas
as well as State Standards expectations have also been shared and
discussed in an attempt to help each other prepare quality programs.

Educators from a neighboring community participated in a curriculum
in-service within our school. Additionally, plans have already been
proposed to organize and prepare in-services with another local school
so that teachers from both schools are able to collaborate, share ideas
and learn from each other.

The elementary principal receives calls for curriculum and State
Standards Assessment Portfolio help from local teachers and
administrators and is always willing to assist. Teachers from our
community who teach in neighboring communities have visited the
principal's home in the evening for informal workshops on curriculum
development and assessment.

Opportunities have been made available for the Creighton Elementary
Principal to speak and share school ideas and successes at the local,
regional and state levels. The principal has presented at a Nebraska
Region III Principals' meeting and is currently scheduled to present
in-service ideas to a group of principals at an ESU meeting in April of
2003. If our school were fortunate enough to receive the Blue Ribbon
Award, we would be honored and delighted to further communicate our
success with other schools.

##### [PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION]{.underline}

###### 1. School Curriculum/Significant Content/High Standards 

Creighton Elementary administration and teachers provide their students
with a highly structured, standards-based curriculum. In addition,
students participate in vocal and instrumental music, art, physical
education and keyboarding. Excellent Title I, SPED and Gifted services
are available.

Since many of the classes taught within an elementary school fall into
the language arts category, it is imperative to provide a very strong
program. One of our greatest strengths at Creighton Elementary School is
that we are able to offer a strong reading and language arts package.
Our reading and language arts program is multi-faceted, yet the pieces
fit together very well for all students. In the 1997-1998 school year,
faculty and administration took steps to improve our phonics curriculum
by adopting the VOWAC phonics and spelling programs, two very
structured, solid programs. Phonics and spelling instruction build on
each other as phonics skills are reinforced within spelling instruction.
In the1999-2000 school year, after observing two years of student
success using the VOWAC programs, we adopted the Accelerated Reader
program to supplement and support our literature-based basals. The
wonderful aspect of this program is that all students are allowed to
progress at a pace that is appropriate for them. The students who are
grade levels behind their classmates demonstrate the most progress.
Students who already enjoy reading and those who need a challenge, are
also able to move ahead at their own rate. In the 2000-2001 school year,
our faculty and administration adopted a Step Up to Writing program to
assist our students with the development of narrative and expository
writing. The structure that this program provides is very basic;
however, the results are tremendous!

In addition to providing a quality language arts program, much attention
is focused on providing quality science, social studies and math
instruction. We concentrate on two main areas within our math program:
basic facts and practical application of relevant material. In addition
to textbook learning, students engage in many hands-on learning
activities as they begin to learn to use the scientific method to
explore science concepts. Literature is used with a variety of other
materials to support the teaching of social studies within our school.

Because of the success within our VOWAC spelling and phonics programs,
our academic bar has been raised. Currently, we are teaching 7^th^ and
8^th^ grade spelling in our 5^th^ and 6^th^ grade classrooms because the
needs of our learners demand it. Special Education IEP's are prepared
from our standards based curriculum. In addition, SPED students receive
the same VOWAC, AR and Step Up to Writing instruction as students within
the regular classroom. In essence, these students are held to high
standards, too.

Our goal is to educate each of our students to their highest potential.
This requires a unified effort between students, teachers,
administration and parents. Administration and teachers are willing and
often dedicate time before and after school to assist children.
Assignment notebooks are utilized to help students record their
assignments as well as to communicate to parents their child's homework
expectations on a daily basis. Not only are our students held
accountable to high standards, teachers are also held to high standards.
Each week, teachers must document in their plans and demonstrate through
their teaching that students have numerous opportunities to learn
content. Year-end standards progress reports are required of teachers in
order to demonstrate group progress on standards.

###### 

###### 2. Reading Curriculum 

Our school's reading curriculum includes a variety of approaches to
accommodate all students' learning styles. We use the Accelerated
Reader, a VOWAC Phonics program, a literature-based basal program and
supplemental skills books to provide a well-rounded, quality reading
program that meets the needs of all students. The greatest strength of
our reading program is that it meets all students at their level of
readiness and allows them the opportunity to read books at their
particular independent reading level. At the beginning of each nine week
period, students, with the help of their parents and teacher, set
reading goals for themselves. Classroom teachers provide students with
one hour of in-school reading time each day. After reading a book on
their level, students take a very short computerized quiz on the book. A
computer printout immediately informs students of their reading progress
and growth. As students become successful at a particular level, they
are allowed to advance to a higher level of reading. This program
fosters a love for reading because students see and understand their
success. Students are individually recognized at the end of each quarter
for achieving their reading goal. As a result of implementing the AR
program, the amount of time that students spend reading at home and at
school has increased. Library usage in our building has increased
dramatically. Before we began the program, students checked out an
average of 13,587 books per year. Two years later, students checked out
an average of 26,543 books. Students were reading so much that we needed
to purchase additional books to meet the reading needs within each
reading level. What a great problem! In addition, to help promote and
support students' reading needs, the librarian at our public library has
obtained a list of AR books from our school librarian. Since obtaining
this list, she has marked all AR books within our community library with
the appropriate AR reading level. The support for this program has been
tremendous!

The VOWAC Program, used in conjunction with our reading program,
provides a strong decoding base for students. This program is used in
kindergarten through grade four, with a strong carry over into grades
five and six. In addition, a literature-based basal program is used in
kindergarten through grade three to accommodate sight readers and to
teach comprehension skills. The use of literature allows for much
cross-curricular studies. Upper level students supplement their AR
Reading Program with basic skills books to reinforce previously taught
skills. The combination of these special programs provides a balanced
approach to meeting the reading needs of all learners.

##  

## 3. Other Curriculum Related to Mission 

Our school's mission is to challenge and to prepare all students for
their future in a changing society. The first step toward achieving our
mission was to determine the driving factors within our changing
society. Technology is changing many aspects of our communication.
E-mail, Internet and word processors are becoming major communication
tools. In order to prepare our students to be successful communicators,
some changes were made within our writing program to facilitate this.
Our goal was to provide a friendly, non-intimidating program to assist
in motivating students to write, while ensuring that students understood
the importance for doing so. We chose to utilize the Step Up To Writing
program because it empowers children of all ages and abilities with the
structure needed to improve writing, listening, and speaking skills.
Students learn to write accordion paragraphs, which provide them with a
non-intimidating, yet highly organized framework for writing success.
One of the most powerful things about accordion writing is the discovery
of the power of color. Each sentence that a student composes is written
on a specific colored strip of paper. First, students are asked to
formulate and write topic sentences and conclusions on green strips of
paper. Next, they determine three reasons, details or facts related to
their topic sentence and write these on yellow strips. When this is
completed, students "pink it up" or tell more about each reason, detail
or fact. This information is written on pink strips. Students may
arrange and rearrange these strips as well as add further information or
details before writing their final draft on paper. The power of this
outline is unbelievable! This program provides students with a concrete
organizational method to use when writing sentences, paragraphs,
reports, and speeches. To complete the total package, we incorporate the
Six-Traits Writing program, which provides sound internal writing
structure. Instruction is centered on six key dimensions of quality:
ideas, word choice, voice, organization, sentence fluency and convention
usage. Our students have experienced great success within their writing
and a strong foundation is being built in preparation for high school,
college and real-world writing experiences.

####### 4. Instructional Methods Used to Improve Student Learning

###### 

###### Each child has a unique learning style; therefore, in order to provide quality instruction, teachers must employ a variety of alternative teaching methods to meet the varied needs of all students. Some methods used within our school include: cooperative group learning, peer teaching and classroom discussion. Repetition is necessary and is used to teach phonetic sounds and math facts. Teacher created songs and pneumonic devices are also introduced to help students remember information. The scientific method is used to explore science concepts and manipulatives are used to help students "put their hands on" abstract ideas. We know that all learning does not happen within the classroom; therefore, we offer our students opportunities to learn outside the classroom. Field trips and the Internet allow students unique opportunities to visit and learn about interesting sites within Nebraska and beyond. 

###### APL, a research-based instructional strategies training, has provided our staff with additional tools to promote quality teaching and behavior management strategies. "Bell ringers" are used at the beginning of class to review essential learning as well as to make positive use of students' time while teachers complete beginning of class housekeeping duties. "On the clock", a time management strategy, is used to hold students accountable for completing work within preset time limits. Students learn to manage time as teachers establish fair time limits and consistently adhere to them. Information on the "interaction sequence" has proven to be particularly effective. Initially, the teacher poses a question and then establishes a time limit wherein students are asked to share and discuss their answer with their neighbor. In the meantime, the teacher walks around to monitor each discussion group, pausing at a table or two to check for understanding and to clarify correct student responses. After the time limit has elapsed, the teacher asks one of the discussion groups he spoke with to share their answer. This strategy allows even the most reluctant learners be successful in front of their peers. 

###### 5. Professional Development and its Impact on Student Achievement 

###### 

###### Providing quality professional development is key to enhancing curriculum and impacting learning. Throughout the past nine years, our staff has received an extensive variety of professional development opportunities. Initially, our in-services centered on establishing a standards-based curriculum. This was quickly followed with in-services, facilitated by ESU 1 personnel and State Department officials, to prepare our staff to produce quality assessments. As we discussed and contemplated our curriculum, we were determined to find the programs or materials to best match our students' learning needs. All faculty and administration participated in a two-day VOWAC phonics and spelling seminar before adopting the VOWAC program in the 1997-1998 school year. Prior to implementing VOWAC, our students were achieving at the 62% on word analysis portions of norm-referenced assessments; however, after four years scores were at the 71%. In the summer of 1999, all faculty and administration participated in a two day Accelerated Reader training at our ESU. The following school year, AR was implemented with much enthusiasm and success. In May of 2002, 89% of our students were reading at or above grade level. Next, two days of Step Up to Writing in-service were provided within our school in January of 2001. An additional two days were scheduled in the fall of 2001 due to popular demand from the teachers. Not only was this in-service popular with the teachers, students commented on their ability to write organized stories that weren't so "blah, blah, blah." Professional development time was well spent as 100% of our 4^th^ grade students performed at proficient and advanced levels on the 2001 state writing assessment and 85% performed at proficient and advanced levels in 2002.

###### The focus then shifted to the importance of creating the most positive learning environment possible within our school. To assist in this quest, the Fish Philosophy was incorporated. Fish Philosophy is centered around four main concepts. If the adults within our school display a positive attitude, focus on making each student's day, play and are truly present for students, student achievement is sure to improve. 

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Reading]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year 1989/1997

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their
class.]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              80          69          63          64          65

  Number of students       24          27          34          31          34
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         100%        100%        100%        100%        97%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       0           0           0           0           1
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      0%          0%          0%          0%          3%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         67          54          54          65          53

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              626         619         664         662         661

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 29          37          37          43          38
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Math]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997\_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their
class]{.underline}.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              66.5        65          50          62          63

  Number of students       24          27          34          31          34
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         100%        100%        100%        100%        97%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       0           0           0           0           1
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      0%          0%          0%          0%          3%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         68          64          43          64          62

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              575         576         614         631         621

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 29          29          44          39          40
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Reading]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997\_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their class. In
1999-2000,\_]{.underline}

[three\_ SPED students were assessed outside the classroom in a separate
group. Two of these\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[students moved\_ and the third student's scores are included in group
scores in the following years]{.underline}.

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              72.5        72          63          71          61

  Number of students       28          30          34          34          31
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         100%        100%        100%        97%         100%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       0           0           0           1           0
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      0%          0%          0%          3%          0%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         56          59          57          58          47

  2\. Three additional                                                     
  SPED                                                                     

  students tested in                                                       
  separate                                                                 

  groups                                           20                      

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              643         648         684         697         698

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 42          30          43          32          40
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_ Test
\_\_[Math]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997\_

##  Publisher \_\_CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[excluded from testing. All students who are capable are assessed with
their class. In 1999-2000,]{.underline}

[three SPED students were assessed outside the classroom in a separate
group. Two of these\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[students moved and third student's scores are included in group scores
in the following years.\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              65          66.5        61          52          83

  Number of students       28          30          34          34          31
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         100%        100%        100%        97%         100%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       0           0           0           1           0
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      0%          0%          0%          3%          0%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         51          62          58          52          69

  2\. Three additional                                                     
  SPED                                                                     

  students tested in                                                       
  separate                                                                 

  groups                                           9                       

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              604         610         677         683         712

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 44          23          45          36          49
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Reading]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997 \_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## 

##  What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed? \_ No groups were\_ excluded from testing. All students who are capable are assessed with their class.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              71          64          62          67          56

  Number of students       33          33          36          32          44
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         100%        100%        97%         100%        98%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       0           0           1           0           1
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      0%          0%          3%          0%          2%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         60          63          59          53          48

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              659         650         717         718         700

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              643         648         684         697         698

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 42          30          43          32          40
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Math]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997 \_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their
class.]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       | 200    | 200    | 199    | 199    | 199    |
|                       | 1-2002 | 0-2001 | 9-2000 | 8-1999 | 7-1998 |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Testing Month         | April  | April  | April  | April  | April  |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SCHOOL SCORES         |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Score           | 69     | 66     | 76.7   | 72     | 63     |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students    | 33     | 33     | 36     | 32     | 44     |
| tested                |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of total      | 100%   | 100%   | 97%    | 100%   | 98%    |
| students tested       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students    | 0      | 0      | 1      | 0      | 1      |
| excluded              |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of students   | 0%     | 0%     | 3%     | 0%     | 2%     |
| excluded              |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1\. Free/Reduced      | 60     | 71     | 63     | 59     | 55     |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       | 200    | 200    | 199    | 199    | 199    |
|                       | 1-2002 | 0-2001 | 9-2000 | 8-1999 | 7-1998 |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                       |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| # NATIONAL SCORES     |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Score           | 643    | 642    | 719    | 722    | 706    |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| STANDARD DEVIATIONS   |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Standard        | 28     | 25     | 44     | 34     | 34     |
| Deviation             |        |        |        |        |        |
+-----------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Reading]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997 \_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their class. In
1999-2000,\_\_]{.underline}

[three SPED students were assessed outside the classroom in a separate
group. In 1997-1998, three SPED students were not tested. (Students'
abilities were several years behind grade level and_the\_ frustration
level for the students would have been too high to serve any purpose for
the students.]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              63          57          61          48          54

  Number of students       35          38          31          44          26
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         100%        97%         100%        100%        88%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       0           1           0           0           3
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      0%          3%          0%          0%          12%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         64          53          39          41          52

  2\. Three additional                                                     
  SPED                                                                     

  students tested in a                                                     

  separate group                                   24                      

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              664         660         728         717         721

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 25          28          34          33          30
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Math]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year_1989/1997\_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their class. In
1999-2000,\_\_]{.underline}

[three]{.underline} [SPED students were assessed outside the classroom
in a separate group. In 1997-1998, three SPED students were not tested.
(Students' abilities were several years behind grade level and the\_\_
frustration level for the students would have been too high to serve any
purpose for the students.)]{.underline}\_\_\_

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              70          69          86          58          70

  Number of students       35          38          31          44          26
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         100%        97%         100%        100%        88%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       0           1           0           0           3
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      0%          3%          0%          0%          12%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         70          58          57          53          60

  2\. Three additional                                                     
  SPED                                                                     

  students tested in a                                                     

  separate group                                   11                      

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              658         653         747         733         741

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 28          42          52          19          33

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

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Reading]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997 \_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their
class.]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              66          72          56          61          64

  Number of students       39          34          46          27          24
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         97%         100%        100%        100%        96%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       1           0           0           0           1
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      3%          0%          0%          0%          4%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         64          50          48          50          54

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              675         683         760         737         750

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 28          32          31          40          29
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

# Assessments Against National Norms

Grade \_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_ Test
\_[Math]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  Edition/Publication Year \_1989/1997 \_

##  Publisher CTB MacMillian/McGraw Hill (1997-1998 to 1999-2000) and\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

##  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_CTB McGraw Hill (2000-2001 to present)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[No groups were]{.underline}\_\_\_ [excluded from testing. All students
who are capable are assessed with their
class.]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  Testing Month            April       April       April       April       April

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                            

  Total Score              66          83          63          57          74

  Number of students       39          34          46          27          24
  tested                                                                   

  Percent of total         97%         100%        100%        100%        96%
  students tested                                                          

  Number of students       1           0           0           0           1
  excluded                                                                 

  Percent of students      3%          0%          0%          0%          4%
  excluded                                                                 

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                          

  1\. Free/Reduced         62          63          58          69          73

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                           2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

                                                                           

  NATIONAL SCORES                                                          

  Total Score              681         698         760         765         771

  STANDARD DEVIATIONS                                                      

  Total Standard Deviation 30          38          31          44          28

                                                                           

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