#####  U.S. Department of Education September 2003

**2003-2004 *No Child Left Behind---Blue Ribbon Schools Program***

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Ms. Mary Jelinek]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Thomas Lake Elementary]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [4350 Thomas Lake Road]{.underline} \_\_

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

[Eagan MN]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_[55122-1840]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [( 651 ) 683-6890]{.underline} Fax [( 651 ) 683-6884]{.underline}

Website/URL [http://district196.org/tl/]{.underline} E-mail
[Mary.Jelinek@district196.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. John Currie]{.underline}

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

District Name [Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan (ISD #196)]{.underline}
Tel. [( 651 ) 423-7700]{.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. Mike
Roseen\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.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)

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2003-2004 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 1998.

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: \_[18]{.underline} \_ Elementary
schools

\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_ Middle schools

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

\_\_[4]{.underline} \_ High schools

\_[\*2]{.underline} \_ Other (Briefly explain)

\_[30]{.underline}\_\_ TOTAL

\*School of Environmental Studies: Special interest school for 11^th^ &
12^th^ graders. It is not a

comprehensive high school.

Area Learning Center: Year round program for 14-21 year old students who
want to earn a high school

diploma.

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$6,601]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$7,664]{.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
>
> \[ X \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [7]{.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:

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

  **K**       30        35                     **65**       **7**                             

  **1**       36        28                     **64**       **8**                             

  **2**       54        47                     **101**      **9**                             

  **3**       44        41                     **85**       **10**                            

  **4**       50        40                     **90**       **11**                            

  **5**       47        49                     **96**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   501
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [87.46]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [4.24]{.underline} % Black or African
American

[2.58]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

[0.00]{.underline} % American Indian/Alaskan Native

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_\_[4.2]{.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 12
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 11
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        23
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    542
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .042
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    4.2
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_[15]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Specify languages:

Hindi, Hmong, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[23]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Students Who Qualify

> If this method does not produce 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:
\_\_\_[17]{.underline}\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[84]{.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.

\_[30]{.underline}\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_[6]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[16]{.underline}\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_[32]{.underline}\_Speech or Language
Impairment

\_\_\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
Blindness

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 \_\_[23]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_[18]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_[16]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_[11]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_[35]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_[46]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
\_\_[21.3]{.underline}\_\_

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

  ------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
                           2002-2003            2001-2002            2000-2001            1999-2000            1998-1999

  Daily student attendance [96.6]{.underline}   [96.8]{.underline}   [96.6]{.underline}   [96.8]{.underline}   [96.7]{.underline}

  Daily teacher attendance [92.6]{.underline}   [94.0]{.underline}   [92.7]{.underline}   [93.8]{.underline}   [94.1]{.underline}

  Teacher turnover rate    [.05]{.underline}    [0]{.underline}      [.05]{.underline}    [0]{.underline}      [0]{.underline}

  Student dropout rate                                                                                         

  Student drop-off rate                                                                                        
  ------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Images of Thomas Lake Elementary School vary with the seasons. In spring
and summer, beautiful gardens created by students and parents grace the
school entrance. Fall finds the nearby pond and nature trails being used
for science experiments and an inspirational setting for student
writing. Snowshoes and sleds wait for the first winter snow cover so
students can hike along the trails and slide down the hills at recess.
Throughout the year, students work on a variety of community service
projects, learn economic principles while operating their school store,
and practice journalism skills when writing and broadcasting the daily
news. Teachers collaborate on best instructional practices, align the
curriculum, and use assessment results to guide their teaching.

Evidence of the Thomas Lake mission statement, "We will foster a
positive, stimulating environment where individuals are encouraged to
reach their full potential," is clearly visible in the school. Framed
student art work fills the halls, small groups of students work with an
adult, and parent volunteers are visible throughout the school. A tour
of the instructional area reveals district wide autism and early
childhood special education rooms in addition to mainstream classrooms,
space for the arts, specialized learning areas, and instructional
technology. The Media Center houses more than14,000 books and a reading
resource room contains over 10,000 books for teaching students at all
ability levels.

Student learning is at the heart of Thomas Lake Elementary. Teachers
have developed instructional schedules for students that emphasize
continuity in learning. Each grade level is assigned a time when
students leave for special services. Gifted and special education
students receive inclusion services in the mainstream classroom whenever
possible. Remedial and enrichment classes are offered before and after
school to extend student learning.

The educational program at Thomas Lake balances academics with the arts
and physical fitness. The variety of learning opportunities is designed
to give all children an opportunity to excel in an interest area.
Evening concerts and activity nights give students an opportunity to
perform and share their successes with families and the larger
community.

Parental involvement is an integral part of the school. Parents help
with school projects, tutor students and coordinate fund raising
efforts. The dedication of volunteers and generosity of the community
have provided students with creative experiences and updated equipment.
Recent fundraising dollars have purchased musical instruments,
playground equipment, computers, additional tutorial services, a variety
of books, theatrical productions and author visits.

Another strength of the school is the dedication and experience of the
teaching staff. Over 70% of the teachers have 15 or more years of
teaching experience at Thomas Lake. The relationships the staff have
developed with one another and the Thomas Lake families make it easy to
demonstrate our belief, "We will take time to enjoy each other, develop
friendships and celebrate successes."

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

[Part IV, Question 1]{.underline}

Thomas Lake Elementary's assessment results are derived from the
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs). These assessments were
developed for the state of Minnesota to evaluate district, school and
individual student progress on the state high standards in mathematics,
reading and writing. The tests are administered to all students in grade
3 and grade 5 in public schools throughout Minnesota. Grade 3 students
are tested in reading and mathematics. Grade 5 students are tested in
reading, mathematics and writing. The reading and mathematics tests are
made up of both multiple choice and open-response items. The writing
test has no multiple choice questions; the students are asked to respond
to one of four types of writing prompts. There are no passing scores
assigned to the MCAs. Scores on the reading, mathematics and writing
tests can be used to gauge an individual student's progress; however
they are not used for decisions on grade promotion.

The scoring levels are described as follows:

Level 1 Students at this level have gaps in the knowledge and skills
necessary for satisfactory work. Student performance at Level 1 is
unsatisfactory.

Level 2a Students at this level typically are working on slightly below
grade level material in one or

more areas. Student performance at Level 2a is slightly below
satisfactory.

Level 2b Students at this level are working on grade level material.
Student performance at Level 2b is satisfactory.

Level 3 Students at this level are working above grade level. Student
performance at Level 3 is well above satisfactory. Many Level 3 students
are proficient with challenging subject matter.

Level 4 Students at this level demonstrate superior performance. Level 4
students are performing well beyond what is expected at the grade level.

The assessment results for the 2002-2003 school year at Thomas Lake show
the following:

-   84.1% of the grade three students are achieving above grade level in
    reading,

> 4.5% are at grade level, and 11.3% are below grade level.

-   83.9% of the grade three students are achieving above grade level in
    mathematics,

> 11.5% are at grade level, and 4.5% are below grade level.

-   92% of the grade five students are achieving above grade level in
    reading,

> 5.4% are at grade level, and 2.7% are below grade level.

-   87.6% of the grade five students are achieving above grade level in
    mathematics,

> 7.1% are at grade level, and 5.4% are below grade level.

[Part IV, Question 2]{.underline}

The entire Thomas Lake teaching staff meets throughout the school year
in assigned teams to review the results of nationally normed
standardized tests and the MCAs. Each team includes representation from
every grade level, special education and a discipline specialist to
ensure a broad analysis of the data and schoolwide ownership of the
plan. Team leaders meet to prioritize the identified areas and develop
improvement plans. Grade level teams and specialists work together to
implement the plans.

When the results of the first MCA test in 1998 were released, teams met
and identified reading comprehension and mathematical problem solving as
areas to improve. Grade level teams examined their curriculum and
writing instruction to help students clarify their reading and explain
their mathematical responses. Analysis of the 2000 MCA data resulted in
the addition of extended learning classes and the purchase of
supplementary materials in mathematics and reading.

The MCA data is only one assessment measure, and the Thomas Lake
teachers are committed to a comprehensive analysis of data to improve
student and school performance. All teachers give students a variety of
ongoing classroom assessments to monitor student progress and plan
future instruction.

[Part IV, Question 3]{.underline}

Student performance results from Thomas Lake are described in the
principal's newsletters and weekly parent e-mail bulletins. Detailed
discussion of assessment data occur at school advisory council meetings
and parent-teacher conferences. Classroom teachers review performance
data with individual students and parents receive a detailed assessment
report. A copy of student assessment reports is placed in cum files so
it can be reviewed at any time.

District level communications report the test scores of all district
schools in community newsletters and the yearly report on curriculum and
instruction. The superintendent writes a regular column for local
newspapers and features test scores when they are available. Test data
from all district schools and a link to the Minnesota Department of
Education website containing statewide data can be found on the District
196 website. The Minneapolis and St. Paul newspapers frequently print
test data and feature educational programs from schools.

The District 196 Assessment Department prepares comprehensive reports
with data on nationally normed standardized tests and the MCAs. After
the report is presented to the School Board and Curriculum and
Instruction Advisory Council, it is distributed to the schools and
available for community review.

[Part IV, Question 4]{.underline}

Every elementary school in District 196 has a representative on
curriculum and professional development committees. Each committee
meeting includes time to highlight successes in the buildings and the
Thomas Lake representatives are vocal, supportive members. As a
curriculum area examines best practices, the Thomas Lake member is eager
to share practices that have been effective in the school. When the
professional development committee reviews site plans and building
testing goals, the Thomas Lake representative outlines the processes
used at the school to achieve the desired goals.

District Literacy Trainers work closely with the Thomas Lake teachers,
and they share successful school practices with district teachers and
others in the metropolitan area. The trainers have invited teachers from
a variety of school districts to observe language arts instruction at
Thomas Lake. Educational visitors are always welcome at Thomas Lake.

Special Education teachers at Thomas Lake are involved in state
organizations. They share instructional practices, curriculum materials,
scheduling, strategies, and inclusionary services with other members of
their organization. The principal discusses school practices with
colleagues at meetings of the state principals association.

Several Thomas Lake teachers offer district graduate courses that
highlight school successes. Teachers taking graduate courses share
effective practices in their classes.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

[Part V, Question 1]{.underline}

The curriculum at Thomas Lake emphasizes high standards and is built on
the District 196 and State of Minnesota frameworks for student learning.
Curriculum at each grade level is tailored to meet the needs of each
student based on the results of individual assessment data. Enrichment
and remedial services support the classroom curriculum. Instructional
technology and research skills are used in all content areas.

Beginning in kindergarten, students learn to write in meaningful ways
and publish their works. The Thomas Lake Writing Project, developed by
the teaching staff, includes spiraling skills and lessons designed for a
variety of skill levels. Students practice narrative, descriptive,
expository, and persuasive writing. Poetry is woven throughout the
grades providing another avenue for creative expression.

The spelling program teaches high frequency words, word patterns, and
word parts. Students take a weekly pre-test to determine their words to
study. Primary classrooms display word walls, and intermediate students
create dictionaries as tools to assist with correct spelling in daily
work.

The social studies curriculum begins with a study of self, family, and
neighborhoods. Intermediate students learn about communities, explore
geography, and investigate ancient civilizations. Students are
encouraged to use a variety of oral, written, and visual presentations
when demonstrating their work. This variety allows all learners creative
opportunities to express their ideas.

The science curriculum is hands-on and inquiry based. Students of all
ability levels employ scientific techniques to learn about the natural
world. Many activities are collaborative, and students learn from one
another.

Music classes provide students with frequent opportunities to sing songs
from around the world, learn ethnic games, play instruments and move
creatively to music. Students also learn to read notes, listen, discuss,
and evaluate music. All special needs students are mainstreamed in music
classes, and teachers adapt written materials and instrument parts to
accommodate the unique needs of each child.

In art classes, students learn to create art and understand how adult
artists create art. Instruction in the elements of art gives students a
foundation for individual expression. Paraprofessionals assist special
needs students with using art materials and modifying products. The Art
Adventure program brings replicas of artwork from the Minneapolis
Institute of Art to students to help them develop an informed
appreciation of art and a lifelong interest in learning art.

The emphasis of the physical education program is on character
education, team building, fitness and successful lifetime recreation.
All special needs students are mainstreamed in physical education, and
lessons are modified to maximize every child's opportunities to
participate and succeed.

[Part V, Question 2]{.underline}

Thomas Lake believes in a balanced approach to teaching reading. The
belief is based on research in the reading process, recommendations from
experts, and the desire to help students acquire a love of reading.

Teachers frequently assess student reading skills and adjust instruction
to improve student learning.

Teachers provide all students opportunities to share in read alouds,
shared reading, guided reading, and independent reading. Read alouds
expose students to books that are usually above their reading level.
Through read alouds, teachers model strategies of good readers. Read
alouds provide opportunities for teachers to share their passion for
books with kids.

Shared reading of the Houghton Mifflin text invites each student to
actively participate. It reinforces the way good readers apply
comprehension strategies while gaining an enjoyment of literature.
Students of all ability levels benefit from shared reading.

In guided reading, a small group of students at the same reading level
receive direct instruction in their specific reading needs. The reading
resource room contains over 10,000 leveled books teachers use for guided
reading. Guided reading is the focus of instruction when students are
learning to read. With fluent readers, guided reading is used to help
students expand their reading strategies.

Independent reading becomes the focus for fluent readers. Students learn
to choose books at their reading level, analyze a variety of genre,
write responses regarding their reading, and apply comprehension
strategies. Each teacher has developed an extensive classroom collection
of fiction and non-fiction books to support students' independent
reading.

All Thomas Lake students are encouraged to read at home with their
families. This practice strengthens the home-school connection,
emphasizes the importance of reading, and helps develop lifelong
readers. A schoolwide celebration or reading every February invites the
community to experience the benefits of reading good literature.

[Part V, Question 3]{.underline}

Scott-Foresman Addison Wesley [Mathematics]{.underline} and
[Investigations in Number, Data and Space]{.underline} are the
foundation of the mathematics curriculum because of their alignment with
the state standards, their academic rigor, and high expectations for
students of all ability levels. The dual adoption provides students
multiple opportunities to explore, develop, describe, and apply
mathematics. Mathematics becomes an active, collaborative process that
balances computation, procedures, and problem solving.

The [Mathematics]{.underline} text outlines a year long program designed
to teach students grade level skills. Teams of teachers meet to
incorporate enrichment and remedial lessons that address a variety of
student learning needs.

[Investigations]{.underline} involves students in active exploration of
mathematical ideas. It builds on each student's knowledge of mathematics
as they work to solve a problem. The stimulating, open-ended nature of
[Investigations]{.underline} provides each student an opportunity to
succeed at their own level.

Thomas Lake has added Math Olympiad and a math resource center to the
mathematics curriculum. The entire fourth and fifth grade accelerated
math classes participate in Math Olympiad. Student scores are
consistently near the top of the region.

Teachers created a math resource center filled with student kits on a
variety of topics and levels of complexity. These interactive kits
contain additional manipulatives and activities designed to reinforce
skills and concepts. By housing the kits in a resource center, teachers
can choose appropriate materials for students whose needs do not match
their grade level curriculum.

[Part V, Question 4]{.underline}

Thomas Lake has a goal that all students will meet the high standards
developed by the State of Minnesota. Teachers use a variety of measures
including written work, oral re-tellings, and individual conferences to
assess student performance and monitor their progress. This assessment
data drives the teacher's instruction.

Teachers use a variety of flexible grouping strategies to meet
individual needs. Cooperative groups give students opportunities to
learn from one another. When the focus of instruction is delivery of new
information, teachers use whole group instruction. Small group
instruction is effective in teaching and reinforcing strategies.
Individual instruction helps a student learn and apply specific skills.

When there is a cluster of identified students in a class, the gifted
resource and special education teachers work with students in the
mainstream classroom. The specialists can expand the information,
provide additional explanation, or offer a different form of
instruction. All students in class benefit from extra support in a
co-taught model.

The special needs students benefit from visual strategies, working in
stations, and sensory breaks throughout the day. Social stories and
cartooning help students understand social issues. Meeting the unique
needs of these students is critical for their progress on IEP goals.

[Part V, Question 5]{.underline}

Professional development is strong at Thomas Lake due to the leadership
and dedication of the teaching staff. Teachers are eager to study
research, work with specialists, and implement best practices. The open
structure of the school promotes sharing of ideas within teams and
throughout the building. Everyone shares the vision of Thomas Lake as a
place where all students can achieve high standards and reach their
potential.

When the teachers analyzed the 2000 MCA scores, they felt student
reading achievement needed to improve. Building literacy leaders and the
principal drafted a plan and presented it to the entire teaching staff.
Plan modifications resulted from staff feedback and all teachers were
eager to proceed.

During the next three school years, classroom and support teachers read
recommended reading texts and discussed ways they could strengthen their
reading instruction. Based on recommendations from the collegial groups,
the Advisory Council funded additional leveled books to enhance guided
reading and classroom book collections to expand independent reading.
Special education and support teachers participated in a district
phonics pilot program to learn additional strategies for struggling
readers.

The increase in the 2003 MCA scores demonstrated the benefit
professional development had on student achievement. Thomas Lake
teachers wanted to continue learning more about literacy, so they formed
voluntary collegial groups for the 2003-04 school year. Every teacher
chose to participate and demonstrate a continued commitment to learning.

**PART VI - PRIVATE SCHOOL ADDENDUM**

*Not Applicable.*

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Grade [3]{.underline}

Test [Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment -- Reading]{.underline}

Edition/publication year [1998 - 2003]{.underline}

Publisher [Minnesota Department of Education]{.underline}

  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------
                               2003    2002    2001    2000   1999   1998

  Number of students in the    92      91      114     104    106    95
  grade                                                              

  Number of students tested    88      90      114     102    106    95

  Number excluded from testing 4       1       0       0      0      0

  Percent excluded from        4.3     1       0       0      0      0
  testing                                                            
  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------

Groups excluded from testing:

2003 -- The four students excluded from testing were all very low
cognitive ability and part of a Center Based Special Education program.
They were all assessed using the state of Minnesota Alternate
Assessment. (All four students were scored "proficient" on the Alternate
Assessment in reading.) 2003 was the first year the center based program
included third grade students at Thomas Lake.

2002 -- The one student excluded from testing was an English Language
Learner who had been in the United States for less than 1 year.

All other students not tested were absent.

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments have cut scores for the following
levels:

Level I -- Gaps in the knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory
work. Students are working significantly below grade level.

Level IIa -- Partial knowledge and some of the skills necessary for
satisfactory work. Students are working at or slightly below grade
level.

Level IIb -- Students are working successfully on grade-level material.

Level III -- Students are working above grade level.

Level IV -- Students at this level demonstrate superior performance,
well beyond what is expected at the grade level.

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.

Grade [3]{.underline}

Test [Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment -- Mathematics]{.underline}

Edition/publication year [1998 - 2003]{.underline}

Publisher [Minnesota Department of Education]{.underline}

  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------
                               2003    2002    2001    2000   1999   1998

  Number of students in the    92      91      114     104    106    95
  grade                                                              

  Number of students tested    87      89      107     99     105    95

  Number excluded from testing 4       1       0       0      0      0

  Percent excluded from        4.3     1       0       0      0      0
  testing                                                            
  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------

Groups excluded from testing:

2003 -- The four students excluded from testing were all very low
cognitive ability and part of a Center Based Special Education program.
They were all assessed using the state of Minnesota Alternate
Assessment. (Three of the four students were scored "proficient" on the
Alternate Assessment in reading.) 2003 was the first year the center
based program included third grade students at Thomas Lake.

2002 -- The one student excluded from testing was an English Language
Learner who had been in the United States for less than 1 year.

All other students not tested were absent.

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments have cut scores for the following
levels:

Level I -- Gaps in the knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory
work. Students are working significantly below grade level.

Level IIa -- Partial knowledge and some of the skills necessary for
satisfactory work. Students are working at or slightly below grade
level.

Level IIb -- Students are working successfully on grade-level material.

Level III -- Students are working above grade level.

Level IV -- Students at this level demonstrate superior performance,
well beyond what is expected at the grade level.

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.

Grade [5]{.underline}

Test [Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment -- Reading]{.underline}

Edition/publication year [1998 - 2003]{.underline}

Publisher [Minnesota Department of Education]{.underline}

  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------
                               2003    2002    2001    2000   1999   1998

  Number of students in the    112     103     116     102    110    102
  grade                                                              

  Number of students tested    112     102     115     102    110    102

  Number excluded from testing 0       0       1       0      0      0

  Percent excluded from        0       0       1       0      0      0
  testing                                                            
  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------

Groups excluded from testing:

2002 -- The one student excluded from testing was an English Language
Learner who had been in the United States for less than 1 year.

All other students not tested were absent.

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments have cut scores for the following
levels:

Level I -- Gaps in the knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory
work. Students are working significantly below grade level.

Level IIa -- Partial knowledge and some of the skills necessary for
satisfactory work. Students are working at or slightly below grade
level.

Level IIb -- Students are working successfully on grade-level material.

Level III -- Students are working above grade level.

Level IV -- Students at this level demonstrate superior performance,
well beyond what is expected at the grade level.

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.

Grade [5]{.underline}

Test [Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment -- Math]{.underline}

Edition/publication year [1998 - 2003]{.underline}

Publisher [Minnesota Department of Education]{.underline}

  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------
                               2003    2002    2001    2000   1999   1998

  Number of students in the    112     103     116     102    110    102
  grade                                                              

  Number of students tested    112     102     111     101    109    102

  Number excluded from testing 0       0       1       0      0      0

  Percent excluded from        0       0       1       0      0      0
  testing                                                            
  ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------

Groups excluded from testing:

2002 -- The one student excluded from testing was an English Language
Learner who had been in the United States for less than 1 year.

All other students not tested were absent.

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments have cut scores for the following
levels:

Level I -- Gaps in the knowledge and skills necessary for satisfactory
work. Students are working significantly below grade level.

Level IIa -- Partial knowledge and some of the skills necessary for
satisfactory work. Students are working at or slightly below grade
level.

Level IIb -- Students are working successfully on grade-level material.

Level III -- Students are working above grade level.

Level IV -- Students at this level demonstrate superior performance,
well beyond what is expected at the grade level.

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.

The data display tables on the following pages show the results for
students at Thomas Lake Elementary on the Minnesota Comprehensive
Assessments from 1998 through 2003. Results are also shown for those
students who receive services under Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (identified in the tables as "special
education"). Results for this subgroup are only shown for the years 2000
through 2003 because records for the prior years were not kept well
enough to ensure accurate data.

Although Thomas Lake Elementary consistently has between 11% and 20%
students who are of an ethnic group other than white, no one group
comprises a statistically significant proportion for any given year.
Therefore, ethnic subgroups are not disaggregated.

The tables on the following pages also show the results for the state of
Minnesota during the same time period. Percent of students at Basic,
Proficient and Advanced levels are shown, as well as the mean scale
score for each year, with the exception of 1998, in which the mean scale
score was not available.

**Data Display Table -- Grade 3 Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                          2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Testing Month --                                                                    
  **March/April**                                                                     

  **School Scores**                                                                   

  \% At or Above Basic    95.5        94          98          88          97          97

  \% At or Above          88.6        85          87          81          87          72
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 84.1        76          72          67          74          57

                                                                                      

  Number of students      88          90          114         102         106         95
  tested                                                                              

  Percent of total        95.6        99          100         98          100         100
  students tested                                                                     

  Number of students      4           1           0           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

  Percent of students     4.3         1           0           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

                                                                                      

  Subgroup scores                                                                     

  **Special Education**                                                               

  \% At or Above Basic    75.0        90.0        90.0        33.3                    

  \% At or Above          56.3        80.0        80.0        33.3                    
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 56.3        60.0        80.0        11.1                    

  Number of students      16          10          10          9                       
  tested                                                                              

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

  **State Scores**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic    89          84          84          82          79          77

  \% At or Above          76          67          67          61          56          52
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 59          49          49          44          40          36

  State mean score        1517.1      1486.2      1486.6      1460.7      1427.9      \*
  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\*State mean scaled score is not available for 1998

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.

**Data Display Table -- Grade 3 Mathematics**

  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                          2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Testing Month --                                                                    
  **March/April**                                                                     

  **School Scores**                                                                   

  \% At or Above Basic    96.6        99          97          94          99          93

  \% At or Above          95.4        89          85          75          86          80
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 83.9        74          79          58          68          71

                                                                                      

  Number of students      87          89          107         99          105         95
  tested                                                                              

  Percent of total        94.6        98          94          95          99          100
  students tested                                                                     

  Number of students      4           1           0           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

  Percent of students     4.3         1           0           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

                                                                                      

  Subgroup scores                                                                     

  **Special Education**                                                               

  \% At or Above Basic    81.3        100.0       80.0        66.7                    

  \% At or Above          75.0        80.0        60.0        11.1                    
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 56.3        70.0        40.0        11.1                    

  Number of students      16          10          10          9                       
  tested                                                                              

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

  **State Scores**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic    94          90          90          90          88          82

  \% At or Above          75          65          65          65          59          51
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 56          48          53          47          42          35

  State mean score        1541.1      1486.0      1494.3      1478.3      1460.4      \*
  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\*State mean scaled score is not available for 1998

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.

**Data Display Table -- Grade 5 Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                          2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Testing Month --                                                                    
  **March/April**                                                                     

  **School Scores**                                                                   

  \% At or Above Basic    98.2        91          100         96          96          96

  \% At or Above          97.3        83          97          87          81          76
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 92.0        76          91          76          64          63

                                                                                      

  Number of students      112         102         115         102         110         102
  tested                                                                              

  Percent of total        100.0       99          99          100         100         100
  students tested                                                                     

  Number of students      0           0           1           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

  Percent of students     0           0           1           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

                                                                                      

  Subgroup scores                                                                     

  **Special Education**                                                               

  \% At or Above Basic    84.6        50.0        100.0       55.6                    

  \% At or Above          76.9        37.5        92.9        33.3                    
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 76.9        31.25       78.6        22.2                    

  Number of students      13          16          14          9                       
  tested                                                                              

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

  **State Scores**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic    93          89          89          86          82          79

  \% At or Above          80          74          74          67          59          53
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 67          64          63          50          45          38

  State mean score        1566.4      1552.4      1545.2      1493.2      1451.4      \*
  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\*State mean scaled score is not available for 1998

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.

**Data Display Table -- Grade 5 Mathematics**

  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                          2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999   1997-1998

  Testing Month **--                                                                  
  March/April**                                                                       

  **School Scores**                                                                   

  \% At or Above Basic    97.3        95          100         95          94          94

  \% At or Above          94.6        88          96          86          70          75
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 87.5        76          89          80          57          60

                                                                                      

  Number of students      112         102         111         101         109         102
  tested                                                                              

  Percent of total        100.0       99          96          99          99          100
  students tested                                                                     

  Number of students      0           0           1           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

  Percent of students     0           0           1           0           0           0
  excluded                                                                            

                                                                                      

  Subgroup scores                                                                     

  **Special Education**                                                               

  \% At or Above Basic    84.6        75.0        100.0       55.6                    

  \% At or Above          76.9        43.8        91.7        33.3                    
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 76.9        37.5        75.0        33.3                    

  Number of students      13          16          12          9                       
  tested                                                                              

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

                                                                                      

  **State Scores**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic    93.9        90          89          86          72          79

  \% At or Above          76.8        70          67          61          52          45
  Proficient                                                                          

  \% At or Above Advanced 57.0        53          50          45          37          31

  State mean score        1532.5      1502.6      1492.4      1469.8      1416.8      \*
  ----------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\*State mean scaled score is not available for 1998

The Minnesota Department of Education defines performance as follows:

Advanced are students scoring at Level III or Level IV (above grade
level).

Proficient are the students at Level IIb or higher.

Basic are the students at Level IIa or higher.