##### *2006-2007 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. Brian Aylward]{.underline}

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

School Mailing Address [Rosendale Elementary School, 2445 Rosendale
Road]{.underline} (If address is P.O. Box, also include street address.)

[Niskayuna]{.underline} [NY]{.underline} [12309-1309]{.underline}

County [Schenectady]{.underline} State School Code Number\*
[530301060005]{.underline}

Telephone [( 518 )377-3123]{.underline} Fax [(518)377-1098]{.underline}

Web site/URL
[http://www.nisk.k12.ny.us/rosendale/index.html]{.underline}

E-mail <baylward@niskyschools.org>

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 [Dr. Kevin Baughman]{.underline}

District Name [Niskayuna Central School District]{.underline} Tel. [(
518) 377-4666]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mrs. Barbara Mauro]{.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\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

2.  The school has made adequate yearly progress each year for the past
    two years and has not 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 2006-2007 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 2001 and has not received the No Child Left
    Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools award in the past five years.

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

6.  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
    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**

**DISTRICT**

1\. Number of schools in the district: [5]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[2]{.underline} Middle schools

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

[1]{.underline} High schools

\_\_\_\_ Other

[8]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. 2004-2005 Approved Operating Expense per pupil :
[\$8448]{.underline}

2004-2005 State Average Approved Operating Expense per pupil:
[\$9250]{.underline}

**SCHOOL**

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\. [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**

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**       37        22                     **59**       **8**                             

  **1**       39        43                     **82**       **9**                             

  **2**       27        31                     **58**       **10**                            

  **3**       44        33                     **77**       **11**                            

  **4**       28        33                     **61**       **12**                            

  **5**       30        25                     **55**       **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   392
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [86]{.underline} % White

the school: % Black or African American

[1]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

\% American Indian/Alaskan Native

[100]{.underline} %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:
\_\_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_%

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

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

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      18
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    24
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 392
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  (.00612)
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

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

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [2]{.underline} %

[7]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number

Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: [2]{.underline}

Specify languages: Urdu, Portuguese

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [6 %]{.underline}

Total number students who qualify: [23]{.underline}

10\. Students receiving special education services: [8%]{.underline}

[33]{.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. Do not add additional categories.

[5]{.underline} Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness [13]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [1]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Emotional Disturbance [10]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

> \_\_\_\_Mental Retardation [1]{.underline} Visual Impairment Including
> Blindness
>
> [3]{.underline} Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) [1]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [16]{.underline} [1]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [9]{.underline} [6]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [1]{.underline}

> Support staff [22]{.underline} [1]{.underline}
>
> Total number **49** **8**

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers, e.g.,
22:1 [23:1]{.underline}

13\. Show the attendance patterns of teachers and students as a
percentage.

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                            2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Daily student attendance  96 %        96 %        96 %        96 %        96 %

  Daily teacher attendance  98%         97%         97%         97%         97%

  Teacher turnover rate     6%          14%         8%          0%          4%

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

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

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Rosendale Elementary is located in the town of Niskayuna, New York,
within the county of Schenectady. The student population numbers
approximately 388. Our Social/Economic status is considered upper middle
class with a diverse population of students. Culturally, the percentage
of Hispanics is 1% and the Asian population factors in at approximately
13%. The school structure is kindergarten through fifth grade with a
full inclusion program for special needs students. We have seventeen
main stream teachers along with five full time and one part time special
educator. For therapists, we have three part time teachers. Rosendale
has one full time teacher for each of the special areas; art, music,
library and physical education. Our physical education department also
has one part-time teacher. The teachers are all counted as Highly
Qualified in the state report. Rosendale also has a staff of
twenty-five. The class size is 22 + / - 2.

Rosendale's Mission statement is to stimulate the students' natural
curiosity and creativity to inspire the students to become life-long
learners who believe in their own potential with a mutual respect and
compassion for others.

At Rosendale, we take this mission as a way of life. Students and
teachers are encouraged to try new ways of learning; to incorporate all
their senses; to be creative in their approach to learning. All are
expected to develop into life long learners. The teachers and staff show
by example how to be life-long learners. We are committed to help our
students' progress both academically and socially based on their
developmental levels and their various learning styles.

There is strong home to school connection that is cultivated by the use
of teacher driven WEB pages for each classroom, weekly reporting to
parents through newsletter format or email and one on one conferences as
needed. Rosendale has an active PTO, which also values and supports our
mission of life-long learners. As such, the PTO gives funding for the
teachers to continue to learn and hone skills through conferences. The
PTO also provides funding to bring quality character education programs
and cultural and fine arts presentations to the Rosendale population.
The PTO currently is funding, as a line item, the development of a
leveled trade book library for the building.

As a faculty and staff we have developed a well-rounded curriculum,
kindergarten through grade five, which is integrated and includes hands
on activities and modifications to insure students' progress in all
areas of the curriculum. In order to ensure success at an early age, we
have developed creative early intervention programs that the teachers
and parents embrace. Rosendale also has creative programs that
incorporate learning through multi intelligences for our students in the
upper grades. Both these models of successful intervention programs are
based on testing data, research or best practices and our own district
developed student assessment tools. We use these various forms of data
to develop our curriculum in kindergarten through grade five as well as
to help us, as educators, refine our teaching methods to meet the needs
of all of our students. Examples of our teaching methodologies range
from the use of fluid groups across our curriculum, modification and
differentiation of curriculum when necessary as well as enrichment
programs for our students who score above grade level.

These methods combined throughout the academic year allow us to teach
our students with their learning styles in mind while recognizing their
potential, assets, and areas they need to strengthen. We have found that
by developing a well-rounded curriculum, supported by realistic
expectations; methodologies based on action research, testing, and data
collecting from our various assessments, our students not only respect
their own learning styles, but also respect the learning styles of their
peers. This attitude certainly blends into our building level character
education program and we see our students display, both verbally and by
their actions, mutual respect and compassion for each other and the
various adults in their lives.

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

**1. Assessment Results:** Rosendale Elementary uses an array of
assessments from the State as well as District developed tools to assess
students. These are used to evaluate student progress and plan for
appropriate instruction and intervention. In the area of
English-Language Arts and math our teachers use the district-developed
curriculum based assessment in grades K-4.

The district has developed a K-4 English Language Arts alternative
assessment different from the state assessment that evaluates the five
elements of reading as identified by the National Reading Panel which
include comprehension (understanding of what is read), fluency (accuracy
and rate of reading), vocabulary (word knowledge), phonological
awareness (how sounds work together), and phonics (the ability to use
sounds to read and write). This alternative assessment is primarily
administered in a one to one setting. This allows the teacher to target
the individual student's performance level. The classroom teacher also
uses the reading series benchmark inventories in a group setting to gain
additional information about student need. Recognizing that alternative
assessment is not norm-referenced, Rosendale also uses the
Gates-McGinitie to link to national and local norms thus giving a total
picture of the student.

The district also provides curriculum-based assessments in math. The
teachers K-5 evaluate student math skills by one on one and group
testing of number sense and operations (knowledge and manipulation of
numbers) , algebra (understanding and using symbols and patterns),
geometry (understanding features and properties of shapes), measurement
(time, temperature, weight, volume in non-standard, standard and metric
units), statistics (gathering and interpreting and comparing data),
probability (predicting the likelihood of an event). The teachers use an
inventory and mid year progress assessment. They also use ongoing
chapter and unit tests and quizzes. Informal measures and probes are
gleaned from observation, anecdotal notes and work samples.

New York State English-Language Arts and Math assessments are given in
grades 3-5. Student scores are reported as performance levels. A Level 1
score means that the student is not meeting learning standards. A Level
2 score shows that the student is partially meeting learning standards.
A Level 3 score shows that the student is meeting learning standards. A
Level 4 score indicated that the student is meeting learning standards
with distinction. This information can be found on the New York State
Education Department website at
[www.emsc.nysed.gov/sar/](http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/sar/)

Teachers at Rosendale use the results from the state and the district
assessments to inform instruction and determine need for intervention
and acceleration. From the data, we identify academic subgroups of
students that need additional assessment from our reading specialists,
special educators or our school psychologist. Remedial students are
targeted by the use of multiple indicators such as scoring below a 3 on
the state assessment, below the 36%ile on a Norm referenced test
(Gates-McGinitie) and/or demonstrating classroom performance below grade
level expectations as determined by the alternative assessments.

Children who have exceptional learning needs, whether they are in need
of enrichment or struggling are discussed at our bi-monthly Child Study
Team Meetings. The team brainstorms strategies to maximize potential and
meet instructional needs. Further testing may be indicated at the
meeting such as individual testing by the psychologist/therapists to
tease out students who need an Individualized Education Plan or a 504
through the Committee on Special Education or the 504 committee. We also
provide accelerated groups for those students who demonstrate above
grade-level performance.

**2. Using Assessment Results:** Rosendale uses a team based,
interdisciplinary approach through use of district and state assessments
to plan effective instruction for each child. Teachers use this data to
identify academic subgroups such as accelerated, grade level, remedial,
or special needs. After identifying a subgroup, the teacher(s) perform
further assessment in the subgroups to develop appropriate goals,
objectives and skill specific instruction. Probes are then used on a
continual basis to monitor the effectiveness of the instruction, for new
goal setting, for the restructuring of groups, and refinement of
instructional methods. The students are continually moving between
subgroups to better meet their instructional needs.

At Rosendale we look at assessment data over multiple years to determine
if there are trends in student performance. This may indicate strengths
and needs in our delivery of instruction. For example, one trend noted
was difficulty with encoding. The school addressed this need by
researching and implementing programs such as the Wilson Level One and
Fundations. There is a direct correlation as evidenced from district
assessments between the Fundations Program and the improved writing
abilities of first grade students. Due to the efficacy of this
instructional method, we have expanded the program into kindergarten.

This approach of data analysis is also used to help improve programming
and student instruction for the accelerated population. By looking at
the data from the assessments we also found that there were a high
number of students performing above grade level who were not challenged
by the curriculum and materials. Therefore teachers researched, engaged
in professional development and piloted the Junior Great Books shared
inquiry model of instruction. Teachers, parents and students reported a
higher level of motivation, engagement and excitement about learning.

**3. Communicating Assessment Results:** Rosendale believes in focusing
on the child not the test. We start by explaining that our purpose is to
teach them strategies and skills necessary to become proficient learners
in all areas of the elementary curriculum. We explain that the purpose
of the assessment is to measure their progress and achievement towards
that goal. We use the data to provide individual feedback for each
child. This allows us to modify and refine our goals, and expectations
for each child. When the results come in, we have a one on one dialogue
with each child to highlight their strengths and areas of needs. We then
develop small groups with similar needs and again communicate the
group's focus. To help the child's progress with the goals, we
communicate to the rest of the staff and parents.

Parents and community are informed through a variety of methods. The
community at large receives the Report Card on Education through the
media; the districts' Our Schools is mailed to every home. Parents of
Rosendale students also have the opportunity, through PTO presentations
to learn about on state and local assessments before they occur. After
the tests, parents are notified in writing of their child's performance
level. Individual meeting occur with parents whose children are targeted
for intervention from either the state or local assessments. Phone
conversations further highlight the instructional methods that will be
used to address specific needs. Student goals are written and shared in
writing to other teachers, and parents, and are reviewed with the child.
This informs all of the direction the instruction will take, so all can
support and take a role in the child's success. Parents continue to
receive AIS (Academic Intervention Service) reports, and classroom
report cards. The teachers also continue with face to face and phone
conversations when needed. This allows us to continue to evaluate,
refine and sometimes change instruction as the child progresses.

**4. Sharing Success:** Rosendale teachers have shared a number of
successful programs with other schools, states and communities. On the
state level Rosendale teachers shared the character education program
with other schools in the district and were recognized by the Lieutenant
Governor as an exemplar of integrating Character Ed throughout our
school setting. Teachers have also shared successful health and
nutrition programs, special education programs, and physical education
programs. Rosendale teachers have been invited to be presenters at
international conferences, state conferences and lecturers at local
state and universities.

Rosendale has developed a strong relationship with the local university
community, which involves training a number of interns and student
teachers. The principal and teachers present best practices as well as
successful behavior interventions. Some faculty members are adjunct
professors at private colleges in the area. These opportunities have
allowed the Rosendale faculty to share resources and instructional
practices with undergraduate and graduate students to help them develop
and apply best practices within their own classrooms.

Other school districts have come to Rosendale to observe specific
programs pertaining to meeting students' needs through curriculum and
social programs. Districts looked at Rosendale's model of successfully
integrating special needs students K-5 without the use of self-contained
classrooms. Within the district we regularly share assessment
techniques, the teaching of strategies and skills across the curriculum
as well as models of successful intervention. Rosendale developed a book
of comprehension instructional strategies that can be used to help K-5
teachers strengthen student skills. The reading and special education
teachers shared these materials with other elementary teachers and
administrators in the district. Rosendale teachers also share classroom
successes and strategies of instruction through the use of district
newsletters.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Curriculum:** Rosendale's curriculum is based on New York State
standards, district guidelines, district created scope and sequence
tables, and our school based process of research and professional
development. We modify and extend our curriculum based on current
assessment results and student need.

Literacy is the cornerstone to accessing information and understanding
concepts in all other core areas. Students need to be literate in order
to be successful in the learning process. The language arts curriculum
incorporates four core areas: reading, writing, speaking and listening.
The goal of the curriculum is to enable students to read, write, listen,
and speak for information and understanding; for literary response and
expression; for critical analysis and evaluation; and for social
interaction.

The goals of the math curriculum are for all students to become
proficient in computation and demonstrate an ability to problem solve as
well to communicate their mathematical thinking and reasoning in a
variety of ways. Common threads across our grade levels include number
sense and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and statistics and
probability.

The foundation of the social studies curriculum is to inform students of
economic, social and political concepts and how they relate to
themselves, society, and the world. Students explore and experience such
areas as family, different communities and cultures, history, geography,
government and the interdependence of people and nations.

Inquiry forms the basis for our science curriculum. Students experience
the scientific method through a series of hands on activities from the
Elementary Science Program, a product of the Monroe-Orleans BOCES. We
supplement and extend these units with media, fieldtrips, and visits
from community volunteers.

Our art curriculum is based on the New York State Learning Standards for
the Arts. Major areas include knowing and using art materials and
resources, responding to and analyzing works of art, and understanding
the history and contributions of art. Students create works of art and
share them with others, including the community.

The library/media/technology program promotes a love of reading and
teaches the skills necessary to be effective users of information. The
media center program supports the curricular needs of the classroom
teacher by providing guidance, materials and instruction that is fully
integrated with classroom instruction.

Activities that promote physical, mental, social and emotional
development in children are at the heart of the physical education
curriculum. Students participate in activities that encourage physical
fitness and small and large motor skills. Teamwork and sportsmanship are
woven through units of study.

Our music curriculum is based on Dr. Edwin Gordon's Music Learning
Theory. The movement portion is based on Phyllis Weikart's Education
Through Movement. Students become active participants in class through
singing, dancing, musical games, listening to and playing musical
instruments.

We believe to engage students in content rich curriculum and achieve a
depth and breadth of understanding teachers should integrate the core
areas together and differentiate the curriculum for those students
functioning above or below grade level. We strive to plan activities
that allow students to make connections across curriculum areas. For
example, students might visit a pond and study environmental vocabulary
words in science, use the library to research and take notes on pond
plants and animals, write a research report during language arts,
illustrate the report with accurate drawings, and present some of their
findings in a Power Point presentation. It is through this connected
approach that students consistently demonstrate their understanding of
curriculum concepts.

**2. Reading:** No one reading curriculum fits all students. Students
have varying strengths and weaknesses as well as different learning
styles. We feel the best way to meet those needs is to use a combination
of research-based reading programs and approaches. The faculty has used
several sources of information as a basis for choosing the curriculum
currently implemented including New York State standards and district
guidelines. Teachers have made observations of other districts' current
practices, and have brought back information from conferences. We have
extended our knowledge through reading recent research and publications,
and our own ongoing school-wide professional development. We continually
analyze district and state assessment results to inform and refine our
instructional practices.

It is our belief that an effective reading curriculum needs to address
the five major components of reading: phonological awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. As one tool, the district
selected Scott Foresman basal series which addresses all five
components. To focus on phonological awareness and phonics in the
primary grades, our school uses the Wilson Fundations program and the
Rosendale Encoding and Decoding program. As a result of implementing
these two programs, our students have become stronger and more fluent
readers and writers.

To strengthen our vocabulary and comprehension instruction, our faculty
studied [Strategies That Work]{.underline}, by Stephanie Harvey and Anne
Goudvis, for two years. All teachers use a common vocabulary and
sequence of comprehension skills with their students. To provide direct
instruction teachers work with small and large groups to model and teach
the effective use of comprehension strategies. Read aloud and trade
books are selected to integrate curriculum areas and reinforce reading
skills and strategies. To foster higher order comprehension skills,
grade 2, 3 and 5 use the Junior Great Books Series, a collection of
short stories to use with the shared inquiry model for literature
discussion. Teachers also use literature circles based on Harvey Daniels
model to promote the five components of reading in a small group
differentiated setting.

Upon graduating Rosendale, the majority of our students are able to read
and comprehend material above grade level. Our major goal is to create
life-long readers and writers.

**3. Additional Curriculum Area:** Rosendale's school mission is to
"stimulate the student's natural curiosity and creativity; and to
inspire the students to become life-long learners who believe in their
own potential with a mutual respect and compassion for others". Our
school's social studies curriculum relates to our school's mission
statement in many ways.

In all grade levels students demonstrate their knowledge of key social
studies concepts and essential skills by participating in authentic and
relevant experiences. A major area of study for the kindergarten program
is social living. The students in our kindergarten classes learn about
the Hawaiian culture through reading stories, learning the language and
songs, and movement and dance. This culminates in a luau performance for
the parents and community. First graders learn about family, school and
neighborhood. Through the use of the National Junior Achievement
program, first grade students learn about community members and how they
can be a part of their community. Students establish relationships with
the parent volunteers who participate in the program. In second grade
learning about the three types of communities - rural, urban and
suburban -- is explored through creating a scale model of gingerbread
community. Students follow rules and work together to make decisions to
create the community. Students "travel abroad" in third grade to compare
world communities. They make authentic food, create stories and flags
for that country. Fourth graders learn about the heritage of New York
State through their study of immigration. Students create fictional
passports and simulate some of the activities and feelings of people at
that time. In fifth grade students research famous Americans and
demonstrate their understanding by "becoming" that person in a wax
museum. Rosendale students, faculty, parents, and community members are
invited to the event where each student, dressed as their subject, gives
a short presentation and answers audience questions.

It is through the many integrated activities of our social studies
curriculum that we strive to inspire our students to become life-long
learners.

**4. Instructional Method:** Our teachers hold the common understanding
that no one instructional method meets the needs of every child. As a
result, teachers are adept at delivering instruction in a variety of
ways. All teachers use a multi-sensory approach involving direct
instruction. Across the grade levels, teachers also use small-group
differentiated instruction to tailor the curriculum to individual
students. Many of our teachers have participated in workshops promoting
instruction based on brain research. These teachers have shared their
learning with our faculty and, as a result, all teachers understand the
link between learning and brain function. All students are involved in
hands-on learning to help create authentic connections between the
content and their lives. Scientific inquiry and higher-order questioning
are used in every classroom to help students broaden their understanding
and comprehend at a deeper level. At the intermediate level, students
are engaged in project-based learning across the curriculum. Literature
circles and Junior Great Books are used to foster higher-order thinking
skills for all children.

Center-based instruction is used at the primary level to allow teachers
to differentiate instruction by selecting materials and activities that
meet the needs of a broad spectrum of learners. Our school holds the
belief that early intervention is a powerful tool to accelerate students
learning and prevent future learning difficulties. Classroom teachers
work with students in small groups or individually to target and
maximize reading and math skills. In addition, our reading specialists
provide one-on-one instruction in reading based on Marie Clay, Donna
Scanlon & Frank Vellutinos' work.

One powerful example of how our teachers vary the delivery of
instruction is the study of the Iroquois at the fourth-grade level.
Students are involved in building an actual longhouse in the woods
behind our school. Parents and community members also help in the
building of the longhouse and delivery of lessons. Our custodian
presents a lesson on flint making and the physical education teacher
presents a lesson on Native American sports. All curriculum areas are
involved in the Iroquois study. Students read and create legends, make
wampum belts, grow corn, beans and squash, and cook authentic food.

It is through this multi-sensory instruction that we believe all
children can be successful learners.

**5. Professional Development:** Rosendale has a strong history of
school-based professional development. Teachers decide on a topic for
professional development based on class assessment results and student
need. A group of teachers study research and make a plan for the faculty
to commit to an in-depth study.

In our two-year study on comprehension, a group of teachers chose the
book [Strategies that Work]{.underline} by Stephanie Harvey and Anne
Goudvis. Eight faculty meetings were devoted solely to the study and
discussion of the book. Prior to each meeting, teachers read a portion
of the book and reflected on discussion questions. Teachers then
discussed the specific comprehension strategy and how it could be used
at each grade level. As a follow up to the study of each strategy,
teachers developed a lesson to implement in their classrooms. Upon
reflection, they summarized their lesson and shared it with their
colleagues. During the second year we observed the strategies in action
by watching the companion video series. We also developed a scope and
sequence for instruction, a common vocabulary to use school-wide, and a
teacher resource binder. We then shared the resource binder with other
buildings in our district. As we listen to our children's thoughts when
reading we are surprised and delighted by their insights and
connections.

This year teachers decided they wanted to learn more about technology
and its use in the classroom. We are using one faculty meeting a month
to learn about various components of technology. The homework assignment
is to practice and extend that skill with their students. So far we have
learned about taking digital pictures, using our new email system, and
creating a website. One short term outcome of our study has been that
each teacher in our school has created their own webpage which parents
and students can access and which has improved our home to school
communication. As teachers become more familiar with technology it will
allow them to have more options to present material and students more
opportunities to become proficient in their skills.

We believe that Rosendale's unique professional development has helped
to build a community of learners among our teachers. Because it is
teacher initiated and led, we feel a stronger connection and commitment
to our common goal. As we model the process of self reflection and
growth, our students feel empowered to self reflect and grow as well.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**Rosendale Elementary School**

Subject [Language Arts]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline}

Test [New York State English Language Arts Exam]{.underline}

Publisher [CTBMcGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ----------------------------------------------------- -----------------
                                                        2005-2006

  Testing Month                                         January

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                     

  \% Level 3 & Level 4                                  95

  \% Level 4                                            14

  Number of students tested                             57

  Percent of total students tested                      100

  Number of students alternatively assessed             0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed            0
  ----------------------------------------------------- -----------------

**LEVEL 1,** Not Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 2,** Partially Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 3**, Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 4,** Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction

**Rosendale Elementary School**

Subject [Language Arts]{.underline}\_\_ Grade [\_4\_]{.underline}

Test [New York State English Language Arts Exam]{.underline}

Publisher [CTBMcGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ----------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                 January     January     January     January     January

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                             

  \% Level 3 & Level 4          84          87          96          87          94

  \% Level 4                    20          37          32          30          47

  Number of students tested     56          68          72          69          60

  Percent of total students     100         100         100         97          98
  tested                                                                        

  Number of students            0           0           0           0           0
  alternatively assessed                                                        

  Percent of students           0           0           0           0           0
  alternatively assessed                                                        
  ----------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**LEVEL 1,** Not Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 2,** Partially Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 3**, Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 4,** Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction

**Rosendale Elementary School**

Subject [Language Arts]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline}

Test [New York State English Language Arts Exam]{.underline}

Publisher [CTBMcGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------
                                                 2005-2006

  Testing Month                                  January

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                              

  \% Level 3 & Level 4                           91

  \% Level 4                                     23

  Number of students tested                      69

  Percent of total students tested               100

  Number of students alternatively assessed      0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed     0
  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------

**LEVEL 1,** Not Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 2,** Partially Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 3**, Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 4,** Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction

**Rosendale Elementary School**

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline}

Test [New York State Math Exam]{.underline}

Publisher [CTBMcGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------
                                                       2005-2006

  Testing Month                                        May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                    

  \% Level 3 & Level 4                                 96

  \% Level 4                                           28

  Number of students tested                            57

  Percent of total students tested                     100

  Number of students alternatively assessed            0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed           0
  ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------

**LEVEL 1,** Not Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 2,** Partially Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 3**, Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 4,** Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction

**Rosendale Elementary School**

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline}

Test [New York State Math Exam]{.underline}

Publisher [CTBMcGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                            2005-2006   2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month             May         May         May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                         

  \% Level 3 & Level 4      89          90          97          94          93

  \% Level 4                46          72          54          62          36

  Number of students tested 56          68          72          71          61

  Percent of total students 100         100         100         100         100
  tested                                                                    

  Number of students        0           0           0           0           0
  alternatively assessed                                                    

  Percent of students       0           0           0           0           0
  alternatively assessed                                                    
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**LEVEL 1,** Not Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 2,** Partially Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 3**, Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 4,** Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction

**Rosendale Elementary School**

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline}

Test [New York State Math Exam]{.underline}

Publisher [CTBMcGraw-Hill]{.underline}

  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------
                                                 2005-2006

  Testing Month                                  May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                              

  \% Level 3 & Level 4                           98

  \% Level 4                                     25

  Number of students tested                      69

  Percent of total students tested               100

  Number of students alternatively assessed      0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed     0
  ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------

**LEVEL 1,** Not Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 2,** Partially Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 3**, Meeting Learning Standards

**LEVEL 4,** Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction