##### *Revised 4/8/05*

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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: [X]{.underline} Elementary \_\_ Middle
\_\_ High \_\_ K-12

Name of Principal [Mrs. Rhonda Sennaite Stowell Lewis]{.underline}

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

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

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address\_\_[50 Morison
Terrace]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Springfield]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Massachusetts
01104-1004]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County
\_\_\_\_\_[Hampden\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}School
Code Number\* [0065]{.underline}

Telephone [( 413 ) 787-7527]{.underline} Fax [( 413 )
787-7468]{.underline}

District Website: [http://www.sps.springfield.ma.us/]{.underline} E-mail
[stowellr@sps.springfield.ma.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: [February 4, 2005]{.underline}

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Dr. Joseph P. Burke]{.underline}

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

District Name [Springfield Public Schools]{.underline} Tel. [( 413 )
787-7100]{.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. Charles Ryan

(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**

**\[Include this page in the school's application as page 2.\]**

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

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

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: 31 Elementary schools

6 Middle schools

0 Junior high schools

4 High schools

1 Other/K-8

3 Alternative High Schools

45 TOTAL

2\. 2003 District Per Pupil Expenditure: [7,961]{.underline}

2003 Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [8,264]{.underline}

2004 Data Not Available

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

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

> \[ X \] Urban or large central city
>
> \[ \] Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban area
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] 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.

[15]{.underline} 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**    0         0                      **0**        **7**                             

  **K**       25        26                     **51**       **8**                             

  **1**       38        25                     **63**       **9**                             

  **2**       36        25                     **61**       **10**                            

  **3**       37        23                     **60**       **11**                            

  **4**       32        35                     **67**       **12**                            

  **5**       24        34                     **58**       **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   360
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [31]{.underline}% White

the students in the school: [18]{.underline}% Black or African American

[50]{.underline}% Hispanic or Latino

[1]{.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:
[20]{.underline}%

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

  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**   Number of students who transferred ***to***  37
            the school after October 1 until the end of  
            the year.                                    

  **(2)**   Number of students who transferred           36
            ***from*** the school after October 1 until  
            the end of the year.                         

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum   73
            of rows (1) and (2)\]                        

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of 360
            October 1                                    

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row  .20
            (4)                                          

  **(6)**   Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100          20%
  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [18%]{.underline}

[66]{.underline} Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [4]{.underline}

Specify languages: Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Vietnamese

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [72%]{.underline}

Total number students who qualify: [267]{.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: [10%]{.underline}

[37]{.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 Autism 0 Orthopedic Impairment

0 Deafness 5 Other Health Impaired

0 Deaf-Blindness 17 Specific Learning Disability

4 Emotional Disturbance 12 Speech or Language Impairment

2 Hearing Impairment 0 Traumatic Brain Injury

> 5 Mental Retardation 1 Visual Impairment Including Blindness

5 Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) 1 0

Classroom teachers 17 0

Special resource teachers/specialists 8.5 2

Paraprofessionals 7 2

> Support staff 5 1
>
> Total number 38.5 5

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: 21

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   95%         95%         95%         95%         94%

  Daily teacher attendance   95%         94%         96%         95%         95%

  Teacher turnover rate      7%          0%          7%          10%         13%

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

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

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

**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.**

Glenwood School, a Title I School with a 74% poverty rate, has
distinguished itself by dramatically improving the achievement level of
all students. Glenwood School, a K-5 elementary school located in an
urban school district, serves a rather diverse population of
approximately 350 students (49% Hispanic, 31%White, and 18% African
American). Students in the English Language Learners Program account for
18% of our population, and another 10% receive services in our Special
Education Program. Glenwood School's mission is to provide full access
to an excellent curriculum and instruction that will result in a high
level of achievement for all in a safe environment. As a result of the
staff's dedication to this mission, Glenwood has been successful in
improving the performance of students in all our programs and has
recently received two Title I Distinguished School Awards (1999, 2003)
and was named a Commonwealth of Massachusetts Compass School in 2003.

Glenwood School has focused all it efforts on improving instruction and
as a result, improving performance for all of our students. All learners
receive literacy instruction through a balanced literacy program.
Children who have been identified as at-risk receive Language Arts
instruction in inclusion model classrooms where they have many
opportunities to interact with high achieving students. Because Glenwood
School believes in the importance of giving children a strong foundation
in literacy, it was the first school in the district to implement the
Reading Recovery Program for at-risk first grade students. Improvements
in the Mathematics Program include an increased focus on manipulatives
and problem solving using higher order thinking skills. The Mathematics
program is also organized in a way that students have opportunities to
work at their instructional and developmental levels. Intervention and
enrichment programs are offered to those students who would benefit from
additional instruction in both Language Arts and Mathematics. The
implementation of the Sheltered English Model for our English Language
Learners provides the same quality instruction in a small group setting.
Special Education services range from an inclusion model to a 502.4
level pull-out Special Education Program. Many of our students move
along the continuum to less restrictive placements and full
mainstreaming due to the gains they have made. Extensive work has been
done to align the curriculum in our Special Education and English
Language Learners Program with our Regular Education Program.

The success that Glenwood School has experienced is not just a result of
what occurs within these four walls during the course of the school day.
Service Teams meet before school to problem- solve in order to meet both
our students' academic and emotional needs. Glenwood School receives a
tremendous amount of support from parents and the community. Events such
as Parent Information Night and an afternoon and evening devoted to
report card distribution have helped foster a positive relationship
between teachers and parents. Glenwood School is proud of its active
Parent Teacher Organization that works closely with the faculty to
provide additional education opportunities to all students. Our business
partner, United Bank, provides us with volunteers and resources whenever
needed to support our efforts. The Extended Day Program implemented by
the district provides us with many opportunities to meet collaboratively
in grade level teams, analyze assessment data, and engage in
professional development that is carefully planned to meet the needs of
our students. Even though Glenwood School is proud of its
accomplishments, we continue to investigate and explore new ways to help
provide all children with the opportunity to be successful learners.

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

**1.**

Our school has done exceptionally well in the areas of Reading, English
Language Arts and Mathematics according to our state assessment, the
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. The state of
Massachusetts has developed a rating system which uses Performance
Levels called a "Proficiency Index". This Proficiency Index reflects how
the school and their students are moving toward proficiency. In addition
to the Proficiency Index, scaled scores are reported to the school
district, the individual school and lastly the students. These scaled
scores range within four performance levels from 200 to 280 and are
labeled Warning, Needs Improvement, Proficient or Advanced. For further
explanation of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, please
visit *http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/mcaspld.html*. To look at our
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System Data information please
refer to **Directory Profiles-Massachusetts Department of Education**
**Glenwood-Test Results** or the direct link,
<http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/home.asp?mode=so&so=1562-6&ot=5&o-1549&viw=tst>.

In the area of Reading which is administered in Grade 3, students have
demonstrated growth and development in the last three years as well as
in the various subgroups reported. Our students who are determined to be
Limited English Proficient scored 81% Proficient where the state scored
29%. Our racial breakdowns were also very strong. Our African
American/Black students scored 82% Proficiency where the state average
was only 41%. Our Hispanic/Latino population also reached a 74%
Proficiency rating where the state recorded only 33%. With the
continuation of quality instruction in addition to supplemental
materials, we expect to bring our Hispanic/Latino population to a higher
level of Proficiency.

Glenwood's Grade 4 students have demonstrated some exceptional scores in
both English Language Arts and Mathematics. Our school had a significant
number of students who demonstrated strength in both the Proficient and
Advanced ranges on both of these assessments as indicated on our
attached chart.

In the area of Mathematics, our fourth grade students performed
strongly. In this area, 32% of Glenwood students scored in the Advanced
range as compared to 14% of the state. Glenwood had 42% of our students
reaching Proficiency while the state average was 28%. Once again, the
numbers in Needs Improvement and Warning were also lower than the state
average. Only 20% scored in Needs Improvement and 6% scored in Warning
range. The state average was higher at 44% for Needs Improvement and 14%
for Warning.

Looking at the subgroups from the 2004 English Language Arts data, 38%
of Glenwood's African American/Black students scored in the Advanced
range and 54% scored Proficient range while the state had only 3%
reaching Advanced and 29% scoring Proficient. In addition to this, our
Hispanic/Latino subgroup had 20% in the Advanced range and 60% were
Proficient. The state comparably had 2% who were Advanced and 24%
Proficient. In the area of Mathematics, our African-American students
were at 31% Advanced and 54% Proficient. The state had only 3% score in
the Advanced range and only 15% reaching Proficiency. Our
Hispanic/Latino population had 20% in Advanced and 52% at Proficiency.
Once again, the state average was lower with 3% scoring in the Advanced
range and 14% reaching Proficiency. When our data is analyzed, it is
clear that there are minimal discrepancies among our subgroups. We will
continue to work toward Proficiency as well as Advanced scores from all
of our students at Glenwood Elementary School. With all of the recent
research and discussion about the Achievement Gap, there is no evidence
of this at Glenwood Elementary School considering the strong performance
of all the subgroups.

1.  **Show in one-half page (approximately 300 words) how the school
    uses assessment data to understand and improve student and school
    performance.**

Glenwood School uses assessment data to understand and improve student
and school performance in a variety of ways. Once the school receives
the results from the state assessments (MCAS), the principal carefully
reviews the data and prepares a report for the staff. After the staff
has an understanding of the school's major strengths and weaknesses,
teachers meet in grade level groups to do an item analysis of their
grade level assessment. Grade level teams that are not directly involved
in the state assessments (grades K-2) work together familiarizing
themselves with the tests and discussing how their instruction can
impact student performance on these assessments. At the end of these
sessions each grade level (K-5) must formulate an MCAS Action Plan which
indicates the steps they will take to improve student performance. The
School Improvement Plan Committee carefully reviews the MCAS data before
they begin writing the plan. Student performance goals and instructional
change objectives are then formulated in order to raise student
achievement. All professional development is planned around the
objectives and goals that are part of the School Improvement Plan.

Grade level teams have been trained in looking at student work and meet
frequently to score writing assessments and to plan or adjust
instruction based on the results of these assessments. First and second
grade level teams use data from the Developmental Reading Assessment to
inform instruction and make decisions about how they organize for
reading instruction. District assessments are frequently used to assess
students' progress and help determine placements in our intervention and
enrichment programs.

2.  **Describe in one-half page how the school communicates student
    performance, including assessment data, to parents, students, and
    the community.**

An important component of Glenwood's success has been its ability to
communicate its student performance along with the various assessments
and high expectations that accompany it. The stage is set for these
expectations during our Parent Information Night where teachers
introduce parents to their child's curriculum on their specific grade
level. Parents are educated on the state standards for each particular
subject area their children will be instructed in.

Also, in early September we receive our MCAS data from the state. It is
immediately compared to our goals written in our School Improvement
Plan. It is then shared and distributed to the teachers for grade level
item analysis along with creating both long and short term goals.
Individual student data is distributed to parents and children. A formal
presentation on the data is made at the first Parent Teacher
Organization meeting. In addition to MCAS data, the School Improvement
Plan is shared and explained. Another forum where our student
achievement is communicated is our Site Based Decision Making Team. This
team made up of parents, teachers and community partners will also
receive a report on student achievement.

A unique way to communicate student progress is our Report Card
Distribution Night which requires parents to pick up the first report
card. It also provides an opportunity to discuss any questions about
their child's academic progress. Another avenue of communication between
parents and teachers is the on-going use of conferences to monitor
student performance. Through all of these initiatives, Glenwood
Elementary School provides various avenues of communication of our
exemplary student performance and success.

3.  **Describe in one-half page how the school has shared and will
    continue to share its successes with other schools.**

Glenwood has had a history of successfully piloting new and innovative
programs which have in turn been shared freely and adopted by the
district. Glenwood was the first school to pilot the Reading Recovery
Program. After Reading Recovery was successfully implemented, it was
introduced to the other schools in the district. Several educators came
to Glenwood to observe our intensive reading program and as a result, it
became a district based program for all elementary schools. Another
example of this sharing was our English Language Learner Program. Our
ELL program was the first to incorporate all of the same materials used
in the English speaking classrooms. With the same materials, ELL
students could be taught all of the same skills and concepts. Another
component of our ELL program is the organization of the instructional
blocks. Our ELL teachers instruct the same subject matter at the same
time as the non-ELL teachers. By organizing grade level instruction,
teachers benefit from common planning time where they can share
instructional practices and look at student work. It also sets high
expectations for all learners, especially our ELL students. The end
result of our planning and organizing around ELL students has been the
district creating an English Language Learner Plan which explains the
importance of these and other various strategies to help this specific
group of learners. Our Balanced Literacy Block which will be explained
in further detail in the narrative of our Reading curriculum has been
created around the most recent data on successful Reading programs. We
have shared our vision and implementation of the Balanced Literacy Block
and its specific components to other schools and finally to the
district.

Glenwood has been a trend setter for a number of years. Last year as
recipients of the Commonwealth Compass Schools Award Program, we had the
privilege of hosting two days of 'Walk-Throughs' for educators from
various parts of the state. This year alone, we have had three different
schools from within our district come to observe programs and
instructional techniques. The district has recently asked permission to
come to our school to see how we differentiate our instruction in the
area of ELA. We will be hosting an observation for four underperforming
schools and three district administrators who will be helping these
principals find answers to some instructional questions for diverse
learners.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1.  

In the Springfield Public Schools the elementary school curriculum has
been designed around the Massachusetts State Standards with the intent
that curriculum taught in elementary school will lay the foundation for
higher level skills and concepts in middle and high school.

Language Arts instruction is primarily delivered through a two hour
balanced literacy block during which students are engaged in modeled,
shared, guided, and independent reading and writing activities. A word
study component is a crucial part of the literacy block particularly in
grades K-2. The 2003 edition of Harcourt Trophies is the core resource
for the reading program and the First Steps Writing Program (Heinemann
Publishers) is the primary resource for writing instruction. Reading by
the Rules and the literacy closet are just two of the additional
resources available to help teachers deliver literacy instruction.

In the area of Mathematics, the state has emphasized the importance of
higher order thinking skills and problem solving. With high stakes
testing focusing on grade level specific standards, mathematics is now
concept based. All five content strands, Geometry, Number Sense,
Patterns Relations and Algebra, Measurement and Data, Analysis and
Probability are introduced in Kindergarten. The understanding of these
concepts is built throughout the K-5 school curriculum as the students
actively engage in tasks and experiences designed to deepen and connect
their knowledge. With new NCLB legislature in place, grades 3, 4 and 5
will all have to closely focus on the rigorous content and prepare
students for the upcoming state assessments. Through the implementation
of standards based planning and assessment, our school has continued to
be ahead of the learning curve and a leader in student achievement.
Examples of this have been the addition of the Collaborative
Professional Development Teacher in the area of Mathematics along with
grade level specific Professional Development for all educators.

The area of Science has been linked to our district Mathematics plan.
The connections between Mathematics and Science become surprisingly
clearer once students move into the more concentrated areas of both
subject matters. The Science curriculum is based upon the National
Science Education Standards which have been incorporated into our
Massachusetts State Standards and are the core of our curriculum. Our
District has developed a scope and sequence for each grade level for
learners from Kindergarten to 12^th^ grade. The K-5 program is an
inquiry, kit-based Science sequence that emphasizes the use of
investigation to develop student understanding of the physical, earth
and life sciences. There is also a focus on Technology and Engineering
within these scientific concepts. The primary goal of our Science
program is for students to be able to ask, find, or determine the
answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences
and explain and predict natural phenomena.

The Social Studies curriculum is designed to communicate an
understanding of the great discoveries, conflicts, and ideas of the
human past that have shaped who we are and what is happening today.
Specific topics that are covered in the K-5 curriculum include national
holidays, American citizenship, the history of Massachusetts, geography
and the formative years of United States history.

The curriculum described above is the same curriculum used for our
English Language Learner and Special Education students. At Glenwood the
state curriculum is instructed in a manner that is appropriate to these
specific needs. Additional materials are utilized whenever necessary to
further the children's understanding.

In an urban district as large as ours, Art and Music have become subject
mater which must be presented in an interdisciplinary way. Because we do
not have an Art or Music teacher, our educators incorporate the Arts
into their Language Arts and Mathematics program. Other specialists like
our technology teacher utilize music as well as graphic arts to
reinforce content area lessons. With the staff working together as a
team, students are instructed in all areas of the curriculum with
district plans which are in alignment to state standards.

2a. **(Elementary Schools)** **Describe in one-half page the school's
reading curriculum, including a description of why the school chose this
particular approach to reading.**

Reading instruction is delivered daily to all students through a two
hour balanced literacy block during which students participate in
modeled, shared, guided, and independent reading and writing activities.
(All students receive two and a half hours of Language Arts instruction
daily with a small portion of this occurring outside of the literacy
block.) Children who have been identified as at-risk receive literacy
instruction in inclusion model classrooms where they have many
opportunities to interact with high achieving students. Title I staff is
used to lower the student teacher ratio during direct reading
instruction and each child is placed at his instructional level. Both
the balanced literacy block and the inclusion model of instruction at
Glenwood School have evolved over the years as a response to high
failure rates on the Massachusetts Basic Skills Test in 1987. It was
obvious that children were not spending enough time reading and writing
and that we were not meeting the needs of our very diverse population.
Writing became a daily component of the literacy block and the
district's implementation of the First Steps Writing program helped to
strengthen this part of the curriculum. In addition, Glenwood was the
first school in the district to implement the Reading Recovery Program
for at-risk first grade students and has since added a second Reading
Recovery teacher. Intervention and enrichment programs are offered to
students who would benefit from additional reading activities. Reading
instruction is delivered in a consistent manner using the same
curriculum at all grade levels and across all programs including ELL and
Special Education.

3.  **Describe in one-half page one other curriculum area of the
    school's choice and show how it relates to essential skills and
    knowledge based on the school's mission.**

Mathematics has been pushed into the spotlight by the intense demands of
our global economy which requires highly skilled professionals who
possess a range of problem solving and higher order thinking skills. The
state of Massachusetts has created a grade level specific set of
standards based on the five content strands developed by the National
Council of the Teachers of Mathematics. Number Sense, Geometry,
Measurement, Patterns Relations and Algebra, along with Data Analysis
and Statistics are the concepts that are taught in each grade level
through the use of hands-on instruction which later is transferred to
paper and pencil application. The Mathematics Department for the
Springfield Public Schools has developed an extremely helpful tool for
both teachers and administrators. The creation of the Mathematical
Instructional Guide coordinates the five content strands along with five
processing skills that tie into the District Scope and Sequence which
Glenwood teachers follow consistently. This component of the guide
provides a monthly plan book inclusive of the state standards and
district learning outcomes. Another function of the MIG's is the concept
and computation instruction which is taught with the various math
materials used at each grade level. Glenwood has taken the initiative to
purchase and use math manipulative which will help all learners grasp
complex math concepts. In grades K-1 we have used the MathLand program
which teaches concepts with hands on materials. Grades 2-5 utilize a
variety of instructional resources. The Addison Wesley-Scott Foresman
program along with the Terk Investigations program balance the
conceptual as well as computational aspects of the Mathematics program.
Groundworks in Algebra is a wonderful resource with which we have begin
to uncover the "hidden" strand of Algebra and the different ways it is
represented. Teachers have asked for these additional resources in order
to improve their instruction for all students. These MIG's provide an
"all in one" instructional tool that easily navigates educators through
a year of math on their specific grade level. The district has also
provided us with assessments similar to the MCAS for the beginning,
middle and end of the year assessments for each grade level in the
district. The staff at Glenwood uses their extended days to work in
grade level teams correcting their assessments and looking at student
work in order to improve their instruction. Another complement to the
Mathematics program is the Collaborative Professional Development
Teacher. The coaches in the area of Mathematics (CPDT's) are an
additional resource and support system for schools to continue to focus
on Mathematics. With all of the current improvements and an
instructional focus for both students and teachers, we have started to
make a lasting impact on the instruction of Mathematics.

4.  **Describe in one-half page the different instructional methods the
    school uses to improve student learning.**

There are many different instructional methods that Glenwood School uses
to improve student learning. These methods are an integral part of our
Special Education and ELL programs. Instructional strategies used
include modeling so that students will imitate models of effective
writing, speaking, reading, and problem solving, checking comprehension
frequently in order to adjust instruction if necessary, using
cooperative learning strategies, building background knowledge and
contextualizing academic material by having students work with
manipulatives, pictures, videos, and other objects or sources of
information to construct meaning. Teachers also adapt materials
including assessments, carefully choose guided reading books at their
students instructional level, and utilize audiotapes when appropriate.
The instructional methods utilized at Glenwood school make the
curriculum accessible to all our students.

5.  **Describe in one-half page the school's professional development
    program and its impact on improving student achievement.**

We are fortunate in the City of Springfield that our district has
provided an ongoing Professional Development Program since the early
years of Massachusetts Educational Reform. With this plan in place for
both educators as well as paraprofessionals, our district provides our
staff with extended day workshops as well as job embedded professional
development. The first four days of school are Professional Development
workdays where the staff may have a school based PD program as we did
last year, or go to something sponsored by the district in order to keep
up with their state and federal certification requirements. This past
August, nearly all of our staff members participated in a four day,
three school PD program in the area of Mathematics. With the news that
Mathematics state assessments were coming to grades 3 and 5, Glenwood
teachers decided that exploring various materials as well as
instructional and assessment options in the area of mathematics would
improve their instruction. In addition to the four days, on a school
level we provide 15 more hours of PD to teachers during their extended
day program which runs one hour a week after school. The process of
developing extended day PD is generated by MCAS data analysis which in
turn creates our School Improvement Plan. The SIP then provides a
construct for the PD for the entire school year. The assessment of how
well the PD was implemented is then provided by the new MCAS data which
in turn will help create a new SIP and future PD. Last year the district
hired teachers in the area of English Language Arts and Mathematics to
work in the capacity of job embedded Professional Development.
Collaborative Professional Development Teachers serve in three
capacities. They are presenters in either the area of Mathematics or
ELA. They instruct for at least 20% of their day and they also assist
teachers improve the quality of instruction. This is a very unique
position that is a wonderful addition to our school and district
programs. There is a tremendous amount of opportunity in our school as
well as the district in the area of professional development.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**GLENWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL**

**SPRINGFIELD MASSACHUSETTS**

**MASSACHUSETTS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM**

**GRADE 3 READING**

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

  MCAS State Assessment            2004            2003       2002                2001               2000
  Data                                                                                               

                           **G**   **D**   **S**   Glenwood   Glenwood            Glenwood           Glenwood

  Performance Index        92.6    72.6    85.5    91.5       No Data             No Data            No Data
  Percentage                                                                                         

                                                                                                     

  \% At or above           76      40      63      78         89                  85                 No Data
  Proficient                                                                                         

  \% At or above Needs     22      45      30      19         11                  15                 No Data
  Improvement                                                                                        

  \% At or above Warning   2       16      6       3          0                   0                  No Data

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                                                

  **African                                                                                          
  American/Black**                                                                                   

  \% At or above           82      39      41      91         77                  \*                 No Data
  Proficient                                                                                         

  \% At or above Needs     18      48      46      9          23                  \*                 No Data
  Improvement                                                                                        

  \% At or above Warning   0       13      13      0          0                   \*                 No Data

  **Hispanic/Latino**                                                                                

  \% At or above           74      29      33      65         91                  25                 No Data
  Proficient                                                                                         

  \% At or above Needs     24      50      49      27         9                   0                  No Data
  Improvement                                                                                        

  \% At or above Warning   3       21      18      8          0                   0                  No Data

  **Limited English                                                                                  
  Proficient**                                                                                       

  \% At or above           81      26      29      44         \*                  \*                 No Data
  Proficient                                                                                         

  \% At or above Needs     19      50      51      44.5       \*                  \*                 No Data
  Improvement                                                                                        

  \% At or above Warning   0       24      20      11         \*                  \*                 No Data

  **Free/Reduced Lunch**                                                                             

  \% At or above           71      35      40      70         86                  81                 No Data
  Proficient                                                                                         

  \% At or above Needs     27      48      46      25         14                  19                 No Data
  Improvement                                                                                        

  \% At or above Warning   2       17      14      5          0                   0                  No Data

  *\* The state does not                                                                             
  report scores for groups                                                                           
  less than 10 students*.                                                                            

  **\# Tested**            63                      65                    56                  68      No Data

  **% Tested**             100                     97                    89                  88      No Data

  **\# Of Alternative      0                       1                     0                   0       No Data
  Assessments**                                                                                      

  **% Of Alternative       0                       1                     0                   0       No Data
  Assessments**                                                                                      

  **KEY**                                                                                            

  **G=Glenwood**                                                                                     

  **D=District**                                                                                     

  **S=State**                                                                                        
  ------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----------

GLENWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

**SPRINGFIELD MASSACHUSETTS**

**MASSACHUSETTS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM**

**GRADE 4 ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS**

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

  MCAS State Assessment            2004            2003       2002       2001       2000
  Data                                                                              

                           **G**   **D**   **S**   Glenwood   Glenwood   Glenwood   Glenwood

  Performance Index        93.5    69.1    81      92.3       No Data    No Data    No Data
  Percentage                                                                        

  \% At or above Advanced  28      5       11      7          17         8          0

  \% At or above           55      31      45      65         67         53         20
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     16      43      35      23         13         35         80
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   2       21      9       5          3          3          0

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                               

  **African                                                                         
  American/Black**                                                                  

  \% At or above Advanced  38      4       3       0          \*         7          No Data

  \% At or above           54      33      29      45         \*         33         No Data
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     8       44      49      55         \*         60         No Data
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   0       19      19      0          \*         0          No Data

  **Hispanic/Latino**                                                               

  \% At or above Advanced  20      3       2       0          6          6          No Data

  \% At or above           60      25      24      70         74         63         No Data
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     20      46      48      19         15         25         No Data
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   0       26      25      11         6          0          No Data

  **Limited English                                                                 
  Proficient**                                                                      

  \% At or above Advanced  20      2       2       0          \*         6          No Data

  \% At or above           70      17      18      90         \*         63         No Data
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     10      47      48      10         \*         25         No Data
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   0       34      32      0          \*         0          No Data

  **Free/Reduced Lunch**                                                            

  \% At or above Advanced  16      3       3       5          17         3          No Data

  \% At or above           61      29      29      66         64         51         No Data
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     20      46      49      23         15         44         No Data
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   2       22      20      7          4          0          No Data

  *\* The state does not                                                            
  report scores for groups                                                          
  less than 10 students.*                                                           

  **\# Tested**            64                      57         62         61         64

  **% Tested**             91                      98         92         84         77

  **\# Of Alternative      0                       1          1          1          0
  Assessments**                                                                     

  **% Of Alternative       0                       2          2          2          0
  Assessments**                                                                     

  **KEY**                                                                           

  **G=Glenwood**                                                                    

  **D=District**                                                                    

  **S=State**                                                                       
  ------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

# GLENWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

**SPRINGFIELD MASSACHUSETTS**

**MASSACHUSETTS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM**

GRADE 4 MATHEMATICS

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

  MCAS State Assessment            2004            2003       2002       2001       2000
  Data                                                                              

                           **G**   **D**   **S**   Glenwood   Glenwood   Glenwood   Glenwood

  Performance Index        89.5    61.7    74      83.5       No Data    No Data    No Data
  Percentage                                                                        

  \% At or above Advanced  32      6       14      12         12         8          3

  \% At or above           42      20      28      38         47         25         43
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     20      48      44      45         35         55         45
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   6       27      14      5          6          12         9

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                                               

  **African                                                                         
  American/Black**                                                                  

  \% At or above Advanced  31      5       3       0          \*         7          No Data

  \% At or above           54      19      15      33         \*         13         No Data
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     15      49      52      67         \*         60         No Data
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   0       27      30      0          \*         20         No Data

  **Hispanic/Latino**                                                               

  \% At or above Advanced  20      3       3       7          3          4          \*

  \% At or above           52      17      14      39         44         22         \*
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     20      47      49      43         46         59         \*
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   8       33      33      11         8          11         \*

  **Limited English                                                                 
  Proficient**                                                                      

  \% At or above Advanced  10      3       4       0          0          0          0

  \% At or above           60      14      14      27         25         20         40
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     30      42      47      73         75         80         40
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   0       42      35      0          0          0          20

  **Free/Reduced Lunch**                                                            

  \% At or above Advanced  25      4       4       9          10         4          No Data

  \% At or above           41      18      17      36         40         20         No Data
  Proficient                                                                        

  \% At or above Needs     25      49      51      49         42         59         No Data
  Improvement                                                                       

  \% At or above Warning   9       29      28      7          8          14         No Data

  *\* The state does not                                                            
  report scores for groups                                                          
  less than 10 students.*                                                           

  **\# Tested**            65                      58         68         72         No Data

  **% Tested**             93                      100        100        99         No Data

  **\# Of Alternative      0                       0          1          1          No Data
  Assessments**                                                                     

  **% Of Alternative       0                       0          1          1          No Data
  Assessments**                                                                     

  **KEY**                                                                           

  **G=Glenwood**                                                                    

  **D=District**                                                                    

  **S=State**                                                                       
  ------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------