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

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

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [Mr. William R. Ritterskamp]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Francis Vigo Elementary]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [1513 Main Street]{.underline}

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

[Vincennes IN 47591]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [(812) 882-5817]{.underline} Fax [(812) 885-1454]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.vcsc.k12.in.us/vigo/vigo.html]{.underline} Email
[ritterskampw@vcsc.k12.in.us]{.underline}

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

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

Name of Superintendent [Mr. Doug Rose]{.underline}

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

District Name [Vincennes Community School]{.underline} Tel. [(812)
882-4844]{.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 [Dr. Alan Stewart]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_\_5\_\_ Elementary schools

\_\_1\_\_\_ Middle schools

\_\_\_0\_\_ Junior high schools

\_\_\_1\_\_ High schools

\_\_7\_\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\$2,956.00\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure:
\_\_\_\$1,824.00\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

4\. [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 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**       26        35                     **61**       **7**                             

  **1**       28        37                     **65**       **8**                             

  **2**       33        22                     **55**       **9**                             

  **3**       27        26                     **53**       **10**                            

  **4**       31        27                     **58**       **11**                            

  **5**       47        22                     **69**       **12**                            

  **6**                                                     Other       2         6           8

                                    **TOTAL                                                   **369**
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [96 \_\_\_]{.underline} % White

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

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

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

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[19]{.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 39
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 30
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        69
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    369
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .19
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    19
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

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

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

Number of languages represented:

Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [59]{.underline} %

[215]{.underline} Total Number Students Who Qualify

> If this method is not a reasonably accurate estimate of the percentage
> of students from low‑income families or the school does not
> participate in the federally‑supported lunch program, specify a more
> accurate estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it
> arrived at this estimate.
>
> 10\. Students receiving special education services: [23 %]{.underline}

[83]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

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

[1]{.underline} Autism Orthopedic Impairment

Deafness [1]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

Deaf-Blindness [44]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

Hearing Impairment [39]{.underline} Speech or Language Impairment

[23]{.underline} Mental Retardation Traumatic Brain Injury

Multiple Disabilities Visual Impairment Including Blindness

1 Emotionally Handicap

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 [\_19\_\_]{.underline} [1]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [9]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [5]{.underline}

> Support staff [14]{.underline}
>
> Total number [48]{.underline} [1]{.underline}

12\. Student-"classroom teacher" ratio: [20:1]{.underline}

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students. 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 and drop-off rates.

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

  Daily student attendance 95.9        95.9        95.4        95.6        95.7

  Daily teacher attendance 89          89          89          89          89

  Teacher turnover rate    11          11          11          11          11

  Student dropout rate                                                     

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

**[III ‑ SUMMARY]{.underline}**

Vigo Elementary School is located in Vincennes, Indiana. Grades
Kindergarten through fifth are housed at this school. Vigo Elementary
School is the largest elementary school by enrollment in the Vincennes
Community School Corporation. The school does not have a great ethnic
diversity. School population is almost 97 percent Caucasian.

The corporation's administrative branch consists of a superintendent, an
assistant superintendent, and a five-member school board. Vigo
Elementary has a principal, (1) home liaison person, (1) MIMH classroom,
(1) LD classroom, (1) Interim room, (4) Kindergarten classes, (3) first
grades, (3) second grades, (3) third grades, (3) fourth grades, (3)
fifth grades, (2) Title One Math and Reading Labs, (3) Reading Recovery
classes, (1) full-time nurse, (5) aides, (1) library aide, (4) cooks,
(4) special classes: Art, Physical Education Primary and Intermediate,
Music, (1) Speech Language Pathologist and (3) custodians.

Students' participate in a traditional academic school day program.
Classrooms are self-contained with special classes in music, art,
computer lab, and physical education. Extra-curricular activities
include: Academic Team, Spell Bowl, Math Pentathlon, Great Books,
Odyssey of the Mind, Future Problem Solvers and the gifted and Talented
Program. Girls' volleyball, girls and boys' basketball, and track are
also offered.

Vigo Elementary School is currently using varied teaching techniques and
concepts. These include, but are not limited to, traditional
instructional techniques, Four Block Literacy instruction,
looping-classrooms, and learning disabilities team teaching in 4^th^ and
5^th^ grades. Vigo Elementary was granted I-READ and Indiana Academic
School Improvement Plan grants. As part of these plans, a literacy coach
has been hired to model Best Practices and a standards-based core
curriculum was developed. Supplemental math and phonics materials are
available for remediation purposes in grades K-3.

To keep abreast of new technology, new equipment has been added to each
classroom. All classrooms have networked computers, a VCR and
television. In the building, staff has access to a scanner, Smart Board,
document camera, color laser printers, digital cameras, digital video
camera and a CD burner. Plans are underway to install Vision Athena in
our media center.

In conclusion, Vigo is an elementary school in a typical small
midwestern community. Although our community has limited finances and
many are satisfied with "status quo", Vigo staff, parents and students
pledge to provide all students with the opportunities to develop their
full academic potential through understanding, a sense of caring,
appreciating themselves and others. We will provide defined goals, a
standards-based curriculum, a safe atmosphere conducive to learning, and
a partnership with home and community.

**[IV ‑ INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS]{.underline}**

The Indiana State Educational Progress tests, commonly referred to as
ISTEP+, is mandated by state law to help determine a child's progress.
The state of Indiana mandates that all third grade students take the
ISTEP+. No students are excluded from the tests. Scores are reported for
all 3^rd^ grade students, including those with IEP's and special needs.
These tests give a percentage of children passing the tests. New cut
scores were created by the Indiana Department of Education for the 2002
fall testing. These new cut scores will be the standard for future
comparisons. Comparisons of scores from previous years are not valid
since new cut scores were implemented. The information also contains a
breakdown by subtests, headings of content being tested and the
percentage of children that are in need of further remediation. Scores
are given for each student, individual classes, and as a group summary.
The tests look at essential skills, as well as, applied skills. The 2002
fall test is the first year that data has been kept in the applied
areas. The applied tests include a student-writing prompt. The students
are expected to use the writing process to create a written piece.
Different genres are given each year. Teachers throughout the state have
been trained to score these pieces using a 6-point rubric for writing
applications. A score is also given in language usage using a 4-point
rubric.

Over the last three school years, ISTEP+ scores have shown significant
improvement. The percentage of students passing has increased 4% per
year. In the area of Language Arts, an increase in the percentage
passing is noticed. A 4% drop was apparent in 1999-2000 year, but a very
significant 9% increase was observed the following year. Math scores
have steadily increased in the last five years, except in 2000-2001 and
2001-2002, when scores remained steady at 83% passing.

Those third grade students who receive free/reduced lunch during the
2001-2002 school year exceeded the state average in both Language Arts
and Math. Of the 27 third grade students tested in 2001-2002, 81% passed
the Language Arts test, while 89% passed the Math test. The state
average in Language Arts was 67% and Math was 71%. No data was available
through the Department of Education for previous years.

Although we do not house the sixth grade classrooms in our building, the
state mandates that ISTEP+ be given to all sixth graders. As we examined
the data, we found that less than half of former Vigo students scored
above state standards in English/Language Arts. Approximately one-half
of the students scored above state standards in Math. These scores will
return to the home school of students in the year 2002-2004. A review of
grades 4 and 5 is forthcoming to determine ways to improve curriculum.

**2**. As we reflected upon our test scores, ISTEP+ scores indicated an
increase in language arts scores at the third grade level. However, upon
closer analysis we saw that our lowest area was in language usage. As we
continued to discuss the data, we recognized that our current
instruction in language usage needs to be refined for each grade level.
A local staff survey indicated that teachers were not as confident
teaching language skills as they were teaching reading and math skills.
Discussions centered around lack of resources available that offer
assistance in language lessons, and a major focus on the home
environment.

The faculty of Vigo Elementary developed lists of common instructional
techniques and staff development opportunities. This compilation allowed
us to observe the variety of teaching methods being used in our school.
The opportunities for staff development are offered through workshops
and in-services. A Four Block Literacy coach has been hired through the
I-READ grant to model Best Practices. The Indiana Reading Assessments
were given for the first time this year in grades 1 and 2. These
assessments will give us further evidence of strengths and weaknesses in
the future.

Students are responsible for communication by writing on the ISTEP+ test
at each level. As children continue through school, there is a need for
verbal skills, also. Correct us of grammar indicated an understanding of
the importance of these communication skills. Communication skills, such
as writing and speaking, are lifelong skills that will influence career
opportunities for our student. We decided that this goal was a worthy
one.

**3.** The staff at Vigo Elementary recognizes the importance of parent
and student participation and support. Parent reports of test data are
sent home with letters from our principal. We encourage parents to
review all data and offer conferences to those who feel it necessary.
Conferences with parents whose student failed any part of the ISTEP+ are
mandatory. Local newspapers print results of ISTEP+ testing data for
public viewing. Test data is also available on the Indiana Department of
Education web site, as well as, a link to this page from our own school
web site.

Classroom celebrations at the end of ISTEP+ testing are common. Students
are rewarded and praised for hard work. Teachers encourage all students
to perform to the best of their abilities and instill the idea that "No
one is a loser, if best efforts are given".

Parent Teacher Organization meetings are also opportunities for
communication between parents, teachers and administration. Parents are
encouraged to ask questions and are kept abreast of any assessment tools
being used within the school.

Family Literacy Nights have been added for grades K-3. These nights also
allow communication between parents and teachers. Topics discussed are
homework help, No Child Left Behind legislation and summer survival
activities for parents and children.

**4.** Vigo Elementary shares its successes with other schools through a
variety of ways. Since we are one of five elementary schools in our
corporation, administrators meet bi-weekly to discuss many different
issues. At these meetings, our administrator has the opportunity to
share the methods and programs we use.

We also collaborate with other teachers in our corporation by inviting
them to attend professional development sessions we host. Other teachers
are invited to watch out literacy coach model different lessons within
our classrooms and ask questions about procedures and methods.

We are planning a Four Block Summer Institute within our building for
teachers in our area. We will invite students of all instructional
levels from our corporation to attend. Trained Four Block Literacy
teachers will instruct students in the morning while other teachers
watch. Then, afternoon sessions will follow for teachers only.
Discussions about methods modeled and classroom practices will allow
more in depth knowledge of Four Block Literacy.

Vision Athena is being installed in our media center. Vision Athena will
allow us to collaborate with schools outside of our city. This will not
only allow for us to broaden our professional development, but also
assist others who may be looking for successful programs and methods.

# [V ‑ CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTUION]{.underline}

**1.** The curriculum at Vigo Elementary school is based upon a school
developed core curriculum, a corporation wide developed curriculum, and
the state adopted standards.

The school developed a core curriculum using funding from an I.S.A.I.P.
grant. This curriculum was designed to meet academic needs of Vigo
students as viewed by parents, staff, and community. After our
development, the corporation followed suit developing a curriculum for
all our elementary schools. The State Department of Education later
developed the Indiana State Academic Standards for each grade level.
These standards are based on minimum skills necessary for educational
success. . A curriculum format has been set up to help in
cross-referencing of grade levels. The curriculum is available for
teachers and parents at each grade level with curriculum at a glance for
previous and proceeding levels. The structure and content spans grades
K-5. Thus our curriculum is based on three sets of curriculum
guidelines.

The standards provide a better picture of the scope and sequences of
student expectations for learning. These standards help form our base
curriculum.

All areas of our curriculum were reviewed. From the review two major
goals have were selected for total school improvement. These goals are
improvement of language usage and process writing. Vigo Elementary
collected data to support our choice of goals. Our focus has been to
improve the curriculum for these goals. A set of benchmarks is available
for each grade level.

Vigo Elementary has developed a set of Benchmarks. Each grade met and
determined what skills need to be introduced, developed, or mastered
during each grading period. Then corresponding grade levels met to
determine the appropriateness of the benchmark based on the standards
provided by the state. Each benchmark scaffolds to the proceeding grade
allowing our curriculum to spiral continuously through each child's
experience at Vigo Elementary.

The curriculum is reviewed and revised yearly. Our goal is to
consistently provide our students with a curriculum to help meet the
challenges of our society.

**2.** The reading curriculum at Vigo Elementary is an integrate part of
our whole curriculum. Through Grade Three reading is the focus of our
curriculum. Science, Social Studies and Health are all taught through
our reading curriculum. In the intermediate classrooms reading is
emphasized in all of the content areas.

The reading curriculum receives extra help in our building. Students
receive services through Title 1 funding, Reading Recovery, R.S.V.P
reading volunteers, I-READ literacy coaches and Reading Renaissance.

The teachers at Vigo Elementary are committed to a balanced literacy
model for their reading curriculum. This model allots 30 minutes or more
daily for guided reading and self-selected reading aligned with best
practice and scientifically based reading research. We are also
committed to provide a print-rich environment for our students, through
the implementation of classroom libraries.

The teachers have chosen the Four Blocks model to meet our curriculum
goals. The Four Block model allows teachers a multi-leveled approach to
implement their reading curriculums. This includes flexible grouping and
individual attention to each student.

Best practices are urged in the achievement of our reading goals. These
practices must be scientifically based and help the students achieve
their goals as stated in our mission

**3**. Process writing has taken on an important role in our curriculum
at Vigo Elementary. Students are taught that writing is a process that
is made up of consecutive stages -- prewriting, rough draft, revising,
editing, and publishing.

Writing is also integrated across the curriculum at Vigo Elementary.
Students write in all of their classes including music, art, and
physical education. Teachers dedicate 40 minutes a day to help achieve
our writing goals. During this time writing workshops are occurring in
all classrooms. The writing workshop includes a mini-lesson and teacher
modeling. Then students conference with the teacher for individualized
instruction.

We also offer a publishing center at Vigo Elementary where students can
go and publish their own stories. Books are published and then showcased
in the school library for check out. Author parties are also held to
celebrate our students' successes in writing.

In our curriculum each grade level is responsible for teaching different
genres of writing. This include, letter writing, persuasive writing,
descriptive writing, informational reports and narratives. All of these
writing styles make up the writing curriculum at Vigo Elementary.

**4.** At Vigo Elementary School teachers participate in a variety of
instructional methods in their classroom. These include but are not
limited to Four Block instruction, looping classrooms and learning
disability team teaching. Through the use of various methods our
students are able to learn based on their learning style.

Our school has created a professional workroom for teacher to share
ideas and methods that have worked in their classroom. Inside the
workroom is also a professional library that stores books for classroom
use. We also have a collection of mathematical manipulatives available
for teacher use.

Instructional strategies that are currently being implemented by Vigo
Elementary faculty are as follows:

-   Whole group Instruction

-   Cooperative learning groups

-   Discussion

-   Role playing

-   Lecture

-   Demonstration

-   Small group instruction

-   Hands on

-   Guest Speakers

-   Panel Discussions

-   Partner Reading

-   Peer groups

-   Individualized Instruction

-   Four Block techniques

-   Modeling

-   Computer Instruction

-   Conferencing

**5**. It is our desire to build a professional learning community
within our school, while ensuring every educator has the skills,
knowledge and attitudes to improve student achievement. All staff
members recognize the need for continuing education in order to stay
abreast of new trends and techniques. The staff participates in monthly
professional development meetings focused upon learning strategies,
effective teaching techniques an assessment designs. Grade level
meetings across the school corporation are offered, as well as,
in-service days. Faculty is encouraged to attend at least one workshop
outside our corporation. Time for sharing knowledge gained at workshops
is allotted. Vigo's professional library continues to be updated an
available for staff use.

Teachers are actively involved in book study programs. These books focus
on best practice strategies and scientifically bases reading research.
We are also involved in grade level and cross grade level collaborative
teams. During these team meetings teachers analyze student work to
determine progress toward standard mastery and to determine weaknesses.
Using Schmoker's model for team meetings, we analyze disaggregated data,
brainstorm and research innovative strategies to correct deficits, and
then try strategies, and bring in more student work

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

##  

## STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS

The Data Display Table is illustrated below.

**Grade:** 3 **TEST:** ISTEP+

**PUBLISHER**: McGraw-Hill Publishers

**What groups were excluded from testing?** No groups were excluded from
testing.

**ISTEP Test Performance**

The \"Percent Meeting State Standard\" is the percent of students, in
the selected school, who passed both the English/Language Arts and Math
parts of ISTEP.

The \"State Average Meeting Standard\" is the percent of students
statewide who passed both the English and Math parts of ISTEP.

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000

  Testing Month                        Oct.        Oct.        Oct.

  SCHOOL SCORES                                                

  TOTAL                                                        

  Percent Meeting State Standard       82.8        69.6        63.5

  Number of Students Tested            58          69          52

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100

  Number of Students Excluded          0           0           0

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                              

  1\. Economically                                             
  disadvantages\--Language Arts                                

  Percent Passing                      81          N/A         N/A

  2\. Economically                                             
  disadvantages\--Math                                         

  Percent Passing                      89          N/A         N/A

  STATE SCORES                                                 

  TOTAL                                                        

  State Average Meeting Standard       74.1        69.6        63.5

  State Mean Score                     57.6        56.9        60.7
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

Disaggregation scores for economically disadvantaged students were only
available for the 2001-2002 school-year from the Indiana Department of
Education.

**[REFERENCED ASSESSMENTS AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS]{.underline}**

Grade: 3 Test: ISTEP+

Publisher: McGraw-Hill

What Groups Were Excluded: No groups were excluded from testing.

Scores are reported here as: Percentiles

  ------------------------------- --------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
                                            **2001-2002**   **2000-2001**   **1999-2000**

  Testing Month                             October         October         October

  **School Scores**                                                         

  Total Score                               82.80%          77.50%          71.20%

  Number of Students Tested                 58              69              52

  Percent of Total Students                 100%            100%            100%
  Tested                                                                    

  Number of Students Excluded               0               0               0

  Percent of Students Excluded              0               0               0

                                                                            

  **Subgroup Scores**                                                       

  Economically Disadvantaged LAN.           81%             NA              NA

  Economically Disadvantaged MATH           89%             NA              NA
  ------------------------------- --------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

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

  **NATIONAL SCORES**                                                                               

  Total Score                       4.6             4.6             5               3.8             3.5

  **STANDARD DEVIATIONS**                                                                           

  Total Standard Deviation          1.9             1.6             1.7             1.4             0.9

                                                                                                    

  **TOTAL READING**                 4.7             4.6             4.6             3.7             4.1

  Total Standard Deviation          2.7             2.2             2.3             1.8             1.8

  **TOTAL LANGUAGE**                5               4.9             5.1             4.1             3.6

  Total Standard Deviation          3.5             2.7             2.9             2.4             1.3

  **TOTAL MATH**                    4.2             4.3             4.7             3.7             3.4

  Total Standard Deviation          1.5             1.2             1.4             1.4             1
  ------------------------- ------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

![](media/image1.wmf)Disaggregation results are not available for years
prior to 2001-2002 through the Indiana Department of Education.
2002-2003 results are reported using the state's new cut scores and
should not be compared to previous years.