##### REVISED 3-15-06

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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply) X Elementary \_\_
Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12 \_\_Charter

Name of Principal: Mr. Maurice Veilleux

Official School Name: Clayton Elementary School

School Mailing Address: P. O. Box 130, 221 Prentice Street South

Clayton Wisconsin 54004-0130

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County: Polk State School Code Number\* 1120

Telephone: (715) 948-2163 Fax: (715) 948-2362

Website/URL: [www.claytonsd.k12.wi.us](http://www.claytonsd.k12.wi.us/)
E-mail: <veilleux@claytonsd.k12.wi.us>

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. Maurice Veilleux

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

District Name: Clayton School District Tel. (715 ) 948-2163

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson Mrs. Mary A. Smith

(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 for Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2005-2006 school
    year.

3.  If the school includes grades 7 or higher, it has foreign language
    as a part of its core curriculum.

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 2000 and has not received the 2003, 2004, or 2005
    *No Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

**DISTRICT** (Questions 1‑2 not applicable to private schools)

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

**1** Middle schools

**0** Junior high schools

**1** High schools

**0** Other

**3** TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: **\$10,117**

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: **\$[10,590]{.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
>
> \[ **X** \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. **[15]{.underline}** Number of years the principal has been in
her/his position at this school.

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

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

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

  **PK**      17        13                     **30**       **7**                             

  **K**       17        14                     **31**       **8**                             

  **1**       22        12                     **34**       **9**                             

  **2**       16        13                     **29**       **10**                            

  **3**       11        20                     **31**       **11**                            

  **4**       11        20                     **31**       **12**                            

  **5**       16        14                     **30**       **Other**                         

                                                                                              

                                    **TOTAL                                                   216
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [**92**]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [**3**]{.underline} % Black or African
American

[**0**]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

[**4**]{.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: **7%**

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1) 4**                 Number of students who      
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

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

  **(3) 12**                Total of all transferred    
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4) 195**               Total number of students in 
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5) .06**               Total transferred students  
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

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

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: **N/A**

**0** Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: **0**

Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: **46%**

Total number students who qualify: **99**

> 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: **15%**

**33** Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act. Do not add additional categories.

**[2]{.underline}** Autism Orthopedic Impairment

Deafness **[3]{.underline}** Other Health Impaired

Deaf-Blindness **[6]{.underline}** Specific Learning Disability

**[1]{.underline}** Emotional Disturbance **[20]{.underline}** Speech or
Language Impairment

**[1]{.underline}** Hearing Impairment Traumatic Brain Injury

> **[0]{.underline}** Mental Retardation Visual Impairment Including
> Blindness
>
> Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) **2** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers **13** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists **6** **3**

Paraprofessionals **3** **5**

> Support staff **[6]{.underline}** **[9]{.underline}**
>
> Total number **27 17**

12. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio, that is, the
    number of

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers:
**14:1**

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.

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

  Daily student attendance  97%         97%         96 %        95%         95%

  Daily teacher attendance  95%         95%         95%         95%         95%

  Teacher turnover rate     0%          6%          0%          0%          0%
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**PART III. SUMMARY**

The teachers at Clayton Elementary School want you to know that
something special goes on in their school and district. Located between
farm fields and uninhabited woods in northwestern Wisconsin, the Clayton
School District serves 430 students in a single building with 216 in
grades PK-5. In an age and culture where bigger is better and size often
garners more attention and funding, Clayton staff have become experts at
maximizing finite resources to help students achieve high expectations.
Their secret to success: building long-term relationships and a
cohesiveness among school stakeholders.

The Clayton School District groups its 216 pk-5 students in an
elementary wing with the middle and high school wings in adjoining
sections of the building. This configuration of pk-12 in a single
building symbolizes a core value the local community passes on to its
youth in the district's educational philosophy document: *Students are
supported by all members of our rural community who contribute to an
educational system that will help students develop " initiative,
self-determination and accountability for your own lives, actions and
decisions as mature members of a democratic society".*

Teachers collaborate not just across grade levels and content areas, but
also across that great divide between administration and faculty. The
superintendent and teachers share administrative tasks and
responsibilities to keep the school smoothly operating. Many staff
members are double stakeholders in a system where they both work and
send their children to school. In this dual role they value the support
of their neighbors who serve on the school board, sit on committees and
whose taxes pay teachers' salaries.

For their part, parents, community and school board members have
financially supported facility improvements as well as a long term plan
to encourage 100% of the teaching staff to participate in professional
development through a professional development plan process. Students
willingly come to school ready to work because the learning environment
gives them a sense of security and trust.

The Clayton school community has expressed its collective educational
philosophy in a statement adopted by the school board in 2003. The
community believes the primary purpose of their local educational
institution is to "teach children to become functional citizens of a
democratic society and to provide an educational program with roots that
establish a small, rural school district with a strong commitment shared
by faculty and family to educational excellence". The document further
articulates the community's strong commitment to develop students as
well rounded human beings who not only posses basic knowledge, but also
acquire initiative and practice self-determination to the betterment of
society.

The local school board underscores the importance of shared decision
making regarding school issues by documenting an official stance on
community and staff involvement in the local decision making processes
which encourages and solicits broad input from both groups of
stakeholders.

The Clayton school community is proud of their mutual efforts to create
a unique school system that holds high expectations for students.
Teachers treat their work as a vocation requiring life-time dedication.
They see themselves as progressives who are willing to take risks,
innovate and stay on the cutting edge of education if it will benefit
their students.

**PART IV. INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS**

**1. Assessment Results**

Clayton Elementary School participates fully in the assessment framework
developed by the State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Knowledge and
Concepts Exam (WKCE) evaluates student achievement in reading, language,
mathematics, science, and social studies at grades 4, 8 and 10.
Beginning in November, 2005 the test was expanded to include evaluation
of student achievement in reading and mathematics additionally at grades
3, 5, 6 and 7. WKCE results are reported in four categories of
achievement: minimal, basic, proficient and advanced. Wisconsin Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) for 2004-2007 requires 47.5% of a tested
population score in the proficient or advanced categories in mathematics
and 67.5% of a tested population score in the proficient or advanced
categories in reading. More information on the Wisconsin assessment
system may be found at <http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sig/index.html> .

Clayton student achievement data is reported by grade level; data is
also disaggregated for the economically disadvantaged. Within its small
population of students, Clayton Elementary School has achieved
consistent results on the WKCE tests. Clayton's 4^th^ grade test results
are attached.

At the 4^th^ grade level, the Clayton Elementary School tested 100% of
its students in each of the past three years in both reading and
mathematics. The percentage of students who scored proficient or
advanced in reading rose from 84% in November 2002 to 100% in November
2003 and back to 96% in November 2004. Similar growth was achieved in
mathematics by 4^th^ graders beginning with 63% at the
proficient/advanced range in November 2002 to an increase of 100% in
November 2003 and back to 94% in November 2004.

The only subgroup for which data is publicly disaggregated and reported
is for the economically disadvantaged who make up approximately 35-40%
of the school district's population. The results for this subgroup are
strikingly similar to the whole school results. The vast majority of the
economically disadvantaged students are proficient or advanced readers
over the past three years: 88% in 2002, 100% in 2003 and 94% in 2004. In
mathematics, a comparable 75% in 2002, 100% in 2003 and 94% in 2004 were
proficient or advanced.

**2. Using Assessment Results**

Clayton Elementary School began examining student achievement data in
the late 1990's with the onset of state testing. For the past five years
the school has conducted annual data analysis activities attended by
100% of the administration and teaching staff. Participants analyze data
in four areas: student performance, professional development, school
programs/services, & family/community connections.

The school system has realized three major benefits through these annual
data analysis retreats. First, data analysis has focused attention on
student learning -- both the individual student and the collective
results achieved throughout the school. Student needs drive discussions
about curriculum, teaching methods and multiple ways to assess student
learning. Another benefit derived from data analysis is that the needs
determined through data analysis become the foundation for the school
improvement plan. Each data retreat begins with a review of the prior
year's improvement plan and its accomplishments. Those results begin to
shape the improvement plan for the upcoming year in terms of goals,
evaluation strategies, activities to accomplish goals and timelines.
Finally, examination of school data on a regular basis has led to the
creation of faculty study or focus groups that in essence form a school-
wide community of learners. It is this professional model of
collaboration and inquiry that sparked interest in school-wide
improvement through a Comprehensive School Reform grant initiative.
Clayton adopted the Onward to Excellence II Model (OTE) and continues to
utilize faculty focus groups to study and pilot research-based teaching
practices.

**3. Communicating Assessment Results**

The Onward to Excellence model established a School Leadership Team with
representatives from administrators and teachers whose job it is to make
recommendations and, at times, decisions regarding school improvement
plans. The team is a conduit for communication among the school
district's stakeholders of teachers, parents, community, school board,
and students. Under the direction of the School Leadership Team, an
External Study Team comprised of community members and educators from
other systems (neighboring school districts, a university, and the
regional Cooperative Educational Service Agency #11 office) collected
and examined assessment data and prepared a summary report for the
Leadership Team and Board of Education. The Leadership Team disseminated
information about student achievement during an evening open house and
at parent-teacher conferences throughout the year. The school system has
also utilized a technology software program as a communication tool
between school and home. Additionally, the district provides exceptional
access to the use of computer technology with a student-computer ratio
of approximately 2 to 1. A large number of families have the capacity to
access from their homes the assessment information (both specific to
their individual children and collective class/district-wide results).
Students reference assessment data to prepare for student-led
conferences with their parents and teachers. More teachers are guiding
students in how to track their own learning progress in the standards
benchmarked for a particular grade level and content area by teaching
students to use rubrics to evaluate elements of learning. Students are
able to track their progress over time and compare results along a
continuum of achievement. Additionally, the school schedules three
parent/teacher conferences during the course of the school year which
results in an 85% average attendance rate by parents over the course of
the school year.

**4. Sharing Success**

Clayton's superintendent recently proposed forming a regional
partnership, the Prairie Lake School Consortium, with three small
neighboring rural schools. The consortium's first efforts focused on
bringing teachers together to share expertise on professional
development needs in curriculum design, instructional methodology, and
assessment techniques. Clayton's teachers shared their professional
development experiences with Onward To Excellence in consortium
gatherings and eloquently reported on how the changes they have made in
teaching techniques have positively impacted student achievement. The
Clayton superintendent and the school board encourage district teachers
to participate in regional professional development activities such as
those hosted through CESA 11 where Clayton teachers have attended
workshops and seminars, not only as participants, but also as trainers
and co-facilitators. Some of the networking opportunities include the
following:

-   STAR Academy offering 2 credit graduate courses and workshops for
    teachers

-   Facilitating the Future Conference offering 2, 4, and 6 graduate
    credits for summer courses and follow up sessions throughout the
    school year

-   Title 1 consortium activities in reading and math

-   Title 4 Safe and Drug Free Schools consortium

-   Monthly meetings for reading specialists

-   Monthly meetings for curriculum coordinators

-   Monthly meetings for assessment coordinators

**PART V. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Curriculum**

**English (reading & language)** Every PK-5 teacher in the school agrees
that using reading, writing and speaking as tools for communicating
effectively is the core component of the local English-language arts
curriculum. For the past four years, the entire PK-5 staff have focused
on enriching the vocabularies of students at all grade levels and on
integrating writing into every aspect of the PK-5 curriculum in all
content areas. Students regularly use writing as a tool for
demonstrating understanding of content in other classes.

**Mathematics** The Clayton mathematics curriculum is based on the six
content standards outlined in the WI Model Academic Standards and on the
performance standards that measure student abilities to construct
personal meaning and to creatively and collaboratively solve realistic
problems with mathematics. The K-12 math curriculum committee which
consisted of one-third of the districts 38 teachers adopted new math
materials approved by the National Science Foundation: a blended
approach to Scott Foresman & Investigations in K-5 followed by
complementary approaches in middle and high school. One of the big
shifts teachers will make with these new materials is that students must
be able to explain the "why" of mathematics concepts using math
vocabulary both orally and in writing.

**Science** Several years ago the Clayton staff adopted an inquiry
approach to science which places emphasis on how scientists use an
inquiry model to understand the world. This type of curriculum approach
requires Clayton students to pose questions and construct investigations
to answer problems. This hands-on, constructivist approach meets our
state standards in science.

**Social Studies** The core of the social studies curriculum centers on
helping students develop an awareness of the importance the past and the
part it has played in shaping the present and the future. Social studies
lessons and learning activities prepare students for their roles as
family members, productive workers and contributing citizens in an ever
changing global society by requiring students to think critically to
analyze, reflect, make predictions and solve problems. Again, writing
and vocabulary enrichment figure prominently in social studies lessons.

**Fine and Applied Arts** Through the arts Clayton students find
opportunities to develop self-expression

and grow intellectually and creatively through performance, production
or research. Art and music teachers stress the specialized vocabulary
used by artists and performers.

**Health and Physical Education** Classes in this field introduce
students to life-long activities and teach information based decision
making strategies that can be applied in real life situations. Students
engage in physical activities and chart the impact -- both physically
and mentally. Students also become familiar with health research and its
impact on their lives.

**2. Elementary reading**

This program is a balanced mix of research-based teaching approaches
used with a variety of material resources that provide students with
choices in reading materials. Providing such choices allows teachers to
individualize the curriculum to meet specific learner needs. Materials
are drawn from literature trade books, novel studies, and basal reader
selections. This array of reading materials is supported with a variety
of instruction in phonics, other word decoding strategies and
comprehension strategies. Vocabulary enrichment is always embedded into
content area studies as is writing. Process writing practices
incorporate the "6 Traits of Writing" and focus on helping students
develop as competent and engaging writers. Teachers have chosen this
eclectic approach because they know that no single program or approach
exists that is the perfect fit for every reader. Teacher study groups
investigated six research based practices and determined that students
are best served when an array of choices and strategies are used.

**3. Mathematics**

Following three years of study in faculty focus groups, math teachers
elected to adopt new materials that redefined how math is taught in
Clayton. In the words of teachers, the new integrated curriculum was
chosen because it promoted connections among math concepts, it built on
a constructivist approach that requires students to explore strategies
and become life-long learners who can use mathematical thinking to solve
problems, it provided ample opportunities for teachers to use a variety
of instructional methods to meet varied student needs, and it had the
best correlation to the academic standards. In its first year of
implementation teachers at all levels report students expressing deeper
understanding of math concepts and connections through their written
reflections and explanations of processes to solve problems. Materials
selected at all levels earned the approval of the National Science
Foundation. At the K-5 level, teachers find the strategies that promote
exploration of concepts in teams or small groups to be highly effective
in building conceptual understanding.

**4. Instructional Methods**

One of the benefits of receiving a school improvement grant was that
Clayton's faculty had a three year window of opportunity to study, pilot
and select research based instructional strategies that aided students
in learning. Teachers explored more than twenty different instructional
strategies. Most were based on the research supporting brain compatible
learning and Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligence. Teachers
identified four strategies as highly effective across all grade levels
and content areas.

-   Teaching to visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles in a
    lesson

-   Using choral responses as an aid to memory

-   Using attention getting devices to initially capturing the attention
    of students and hold their attention throughout a lesson and onto
    the next day and even week

-   Motivating students with music & incorporating rhythmical activities
    as well as sound (pitch, tones, etc.) into learning tasks to help
    students connect new learning to what they already know

Other strategies teachers found useful included
"turn-and-tell-your-neighbor", Ab=Mf , an acronym that reminded teachers
to chunk lessons into manageable chunks based on the age (A) of the
brain (b) being taught and matching the minutes (M) of instructional
focus (f) to the numerical age of the student. Each month at faculty
in-service meetings, staff took turns sharing most successful practices
with one another and teaching new strategies to peers.

**5. Professional development**

Clayton's professional development plan for teachers grew out of its
work with the Comprehensive School Reform grant initiative. The
district's goal, supported by the superintendent and Board of Education,
was to support 100% of its teachers in their pursuit of professional
growth. When asked about the elements of the district professional
development program that had the greatest impact on them, teachers named
four key practices.

1)  Identifying professional goals and reflecting on annual progress
    with those goals through the district's required PDP or Professional
    Development Plan which required each teacher to keep an updated file
    of professional evidence related to selected goals and the Wisconsin
    Teaching Standards

2)  Participating in sustained professional development that spanned a
    number of monthly in-service sessions (focusing on brain compatible
    teaching techniques)

3)  Collaborating with colleagues to improve practices targeted at
    making gains in student learning

4)  Taking graduate classes in instructional methodologies (the CSR
    grant provided incentive stipends to take graduate level classes).

> In practical terms, these four key practices have impacted student
> learning in the following ways. First, the emphasis on developing
> vocabulary across all content areas has resulted in students using
> richer vocabulary and more appropriate word choices in both writing
> and speaking. Local criterion referenced reading tests show
> improvement in vocabulary as measured in subtests on vocabulary
> acquisition, meaning and use. Local assessments of student writing
> using the 6 Trait Writing model also show slight improvement in
> student scores in the trait of "word choice".
>
> Secondly, focused use of brain compatible teaching techniques (see #4,
> page 11 for examples of strategies) has resulted in greater levels of
> attentiveness and participation among students as measured by
> administrative observations of teaching. Local assessment results over
> time show students retain more information for longer periods of time
> and, more importantly, apply learned skills to new situations.
> Teachers design local assessments that deliberately require students
> to demonstrate their abilities to apply skills to new situations and
> problems.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**[Wisconsin 2006 Blue Ribbon School Nominee Proficiency Information -
REVISED]{.underline}**

School and District Name: **Clayton Elementary, Clayton School
District**

Subject: **Mathematics**

Tested Grade(s): 4

Test: Wisconsin Knowledge & Concepts Examination (WKCE)

Publisher: State of Wisconsin and CTB/McGraw-Hill

**[Note 1]{.underline}**: No performance data are reported for student
subgroups with fewer than 10 full academic year (FAY) students. In
addition, performance data for some subgroups larger than 10 are not
reported in order to avoid indirect disclosure of confidential
information; these are noted with an asterisk (\*).

**[Note 2]{.underline}**: Performance data for 2004-05 and 2003-04
include students scoring in each of Wisconsin's four proficiency
categories on the WKCE + the Wisconsin alternate assessments for
students with disabilities (WAA-SwD) and English Language Learners
(WAA-ELL). Data for 2002-03 are for the WKCE + the WAA-SwD only, due to
a change in the way WAA-ELL results were reported beginning in 2003-04.

**[Note 3]{.underline}**: Totals for the four proficiency categories may
not add to 100% due to some combination of (a) rounding, (b) the
exclusion of WAA-ELL results for 2002-03 (see Note 2), (c) the
suppression of certain data to protect student privacy (see Note 1),
and/or (d) student non-participation in testing.

  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
                                            **2004-2005**   **2003-2004**   **2002-2003**

  Testing month                             November        November        November

  **[SCHOOL SCORES (Full Academic Year                                      
  Students)]{.underline}:**                                                 

  \% Proficient + Advanced (meeting state   94%             100%            63%
  standards)                                                                

  \% Advanced                               39%             52%             27%

  Number of students (full academic year)   31              25              33

  Percent tested                            100%            100%            100%

  Number of students alternatively assessed 1               0               1

  Percent of students alternatively         3%              0%              3%
  assessed                                                                  

  **[SUBGROUP SCORES (Full Academic Year                                    
  Students)]{.underline}:**                                                 

  1\. White, non-Hispanic                                                   

  \% Proficient + Advanced (meeting state   94%             \*              \*
  standards)                                                                

  \% Advanced                               39%             \*              \*

  Number of students tested                 31              24              31

  2\. Economically Disadvantaged                                            

  \% Proficient + Advanced (meeting state   94%                             
  standards)                                                                

  \% Advanced                               20%                             

  Number of students tested                 15              8               8
  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

**[Wisconsin 2006 Blue Ribbon School Nominee Proficiency Information -
REVISED]{.underline}**

School and District Name: **Clayton Elementary, Clayton School
District**

Subject: **Reading**

Tested Grade(s): 4

Test: Wisconsin Knowledge & Concepts Examination (WKCE)

Publisher: State of Wisconsin and CTB/McGraw-Hill

**[Note 1]{.underline}**: No performance data are reported for student
subgroups with fewer than 10 full academic year (FAY) students. In
addition, performance data for some subgroups larger than 10 are not
reported in order to avoid indirect disclosure of confidential
information; these are noted with an asterisk (\*).

**[Note 2]{.underline}**: Performance data for 2004-05 and 2003-04
include students scoring in each of Wisconsin's four proficiency
categories on the WKCE + the Wisconsin alternate assessments for
students with disabilities (WAA-SwD) and English Language Learners
(WAA-ELL). Data for 2002-03 are for the WKCE + the WAA-SwD only, due to
a change in the way WAA-ELL results were reported beginning in 2003-04.

**[Note 3]{.underline}**: Totals for the four proficiency categories may
not add to 100% due to some combination of (a) rounding, (b) the
exclusion of WAA-ELL results for 2002-03 (see Note 2), (c) the
suppression of certain data to protect student privacy (see Note 1),
and/or (d) student non-participation in testing.

  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
                                            **2004-2005**   **2003-2004**   **2002-2003**

  Testing month                             November        November        November

  **[SCHOOL SCORES (Full Academic Year                                      
  Students)]{.underline}:**                                                 

  \% Proficient + Advanced (meeting state   96%             100%            84%
  standards)                                                                

  \% Advanced                               48%             60%             33%

  Number of students (full academic year)   31              25              33

  Percent tested                            100%            100%            100%

  Number of students alternatively assessed 1               0               1

  Percent of students alternatively         3%              0%              3%
  assessed                                                                  

  **[SUBGROUP SCORES (Full Academic Year                                    
  Students)]{.underline}:**                                                 

  1\. White, non-Hispanic                                                   

  \% Proficient + Advanced (meeting state   96%             \*              \*
  standards)                                                                

  \% Advanced                               48%             \*              \*

  Number of students tested                 31              24              31

  2\. Economically Disadvantaged                                            

  \% Proficient + Advanced (meeting state   94%                             
  standards)                                                                

  \% Advanced                               40%                             

  Number of students tested                 15              8               8
  ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------