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

*U.S. Department of Education*

Type of School: Elementary \_\_ Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12

Name of Principal [Mr. Brad Herling .]{.underline}

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

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

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [12041 Route 108 .]{.underline}

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

[Clarksville]{.underline} [Maryland]{.underline} [21029-1232
.]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Howard]{.underline} School Code Number\* [5052 .]{.underline}

Telephone [(410) 313-7050]{.underline} Fax [(410) 313-7054
.]{.underline}

Website/URL <http://www.howard.k12.md.us/ces/> E-mail
[Brad_Herling@hcpss.org](http://www.hcpss.org/ces) [..]{.underline}

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Dr. Sydney Cousin .]{.underline}

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

District Name [Howard County]{.underline} Tel. [(410) 313-7050
.]{.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 [Ms. Courtney Watson .]{.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 I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION

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

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2004-2005 school
    year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 1999 and has not received the 2003 or 2004 *No
    Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [37]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[18]{.underline} Middle schools

[NA]{.underline} Junior high schools

[11]{.underline} High schools

> [3]{.underline} Other (1-- K-8 School, 1 Special Ed School,
>
> 1 Special Ed/Alternative Ed School)

[69]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$8,731.00]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$8,765.00]{.underline}

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

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

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

4\. [7]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

5\. Number of students 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**       48        35                     83           **8**                             

  **1**       55        60                     115          **9**                             

  **2**       62        41                     103          **10**                            

  **3**       65        59                     124          **11**                            

  **4**       64        59                     123          **12**                            

  **5**       63        55                     118          **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   666
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [68]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [7]{.underline} % Black or African American

[\< 1]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

[\< 1]{.underline} % Unidentified

**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:
[5]{.underline} %

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      16
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      14
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

  **(3)**                   Subtotal of all transferred 30
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 666
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Subtotal in row (3) divided .05
                            by total in row (4)         

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

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

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

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

Specify languages: Korean, Chinese, Farsi, Russian

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [\< 1]{.underline}
%

Total number students who qualify: [4]{.underline}

If this method does not produce an accurate estimate of the percentage
of students from low‑income families or the school does not participate
in the federally‑supported lunch program, specify a more accurate
estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it arrived at
this estimate.

10\. Students receiving special education services: [7]{.underline} %

[50]{.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.

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

[. 0]{.underline} Deafness [. 7]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

[. 0]{.underline} Deaf-Blindness [. 9]{.underline} Specific Learning
Disability

[. 0]{.underline} Emotional Disturbance [. 29]{.underline} Speech or
Language Impairment

[. 0]{.underline} Hearing Impairment [. 0]{.underline} Traumatic Brain
Injury

[. 0]{.underline} Mental Retardation [. 0]{.underline} Visual Impairment
Including Blindness

[. 1]{.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) [2]{.underline} [0]{.underline} .

Classroom teachers [29]{.underline} [0]{.underline} .

Special resource teachers/specialists [12]{.underline} [0]{.underline} .

Paraprofessionals [21]{.underline} [0]{.underline} .

> Support staff [1]{.underline} [1]{.underline}
>
> Total number [65]{.underline} [6]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: [23:1
.]{.underline}

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

  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                            2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000

  Daily student attendance  97 %        97 %        96 %        97%         98%

  Daily teacher attendance  96%         98%         98%         97%         98%

  Teacher turnover rate     12%         0%          2%          1%          1%

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

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

##  PART III-SUMMARY

The staff, students and parents of Clarksville Elementary School are
proud of our 40-year tradition of academic excellence amidst a family
atmosphere. Academic success is reflected in our ongoing assessment
data, CTBS/5, Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) and
Maryland School Assessment (MSA) scores. Substantial progress on
Maryland School Performance Program (MSPP) assessments earned
Clarksville Elementary Maryland Performance Recognition Awards in 1998,
1999 and 2000. CTBS/5 scores for second grade have been in the top 10%
of Howard County scores over the past four years.

We have a reflective staff and have built into the culture of our school
the examination of instructional practices based on student performance
data. We meet quarterly, as grade-level teams, to examine the results of
reading and math assessments and report card instructional levels,
against our School Improvement Plan milestones. In the process, we seek
to establish instructional direction for the upcoming quarter.

Teachers, as well as our parent community, set high standards for
students. Past performances tell us that our students are capable of
meeting these rigorous academic challenges. We use a combination of both
heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings to achieve these results. Our
enrichment resource teachers provide math instruction two years above
grade level for 39% of our student population in grades four and five.
These teachers also provide 25% of our grades one through five students
with quarterly curriculum extension units.

Our special education teachers co-teach with regular educators to
provide differentiated instruction to better meet the needs of our
special education students. This inclusion model has kept our special
education students connected to their grade-level curriculum. MSA data
have shown significant achievement from this subgroup population.

Our PTA provides us with tremendous support. The most visible expression
of this support is the daily cadre of volunteers who work in our school.
Over 300 parents volunteer in our classrooms each year. PTA-sponsored
after school programs enrich students in many artistic, athletic and
intellectual areas. Parents provide support for school-wide staff
development by working in classrooms for one day per quarter, allowing
teachers time to conduct action research.

Staff development, through Critical Friends Groups, is focused on
developing strategies and techniques to meet the specific needs of all
students. Over the past three years, we have aligned our staff
development directly with our school improvement goals, teacher annual
objectives, as well as teacher evaluation. The Critical Friends Groups
meet quarterly to share progress on action research projects, which are
conducted in individual classrooms. End-of-the-year presentations by
each group provide the full staff with the results of the action
research and how they relate to the initial group hypothesis.

Students are provided with many opportunities to showcase their talents
beyond their math and reading achievement. Each year we access the
Howard County Artists-in-Education grant program to provide students
with enrichment in art and poetry. Our school choir has received honors
for performances at locations in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Clarksville Elementary School's achievements are the result of a
focused, hard-working staff, a dedicated group of students and a parent
community that values education with support for the school. We are
proud of efforts to provide a well-rounded education without
compromising high academic standards. Our staff adheres to the adage,
"When you get to the top of the hill, just keep climbing."

**PART IV- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS**

1\. Assessment results in reading and math

From 1993 to 2002, Maryland used the Maryland School Performance
Assessment Program (MSPAP) to assess and monitor student and school
progress. This program included performance tasks that assessed grades
3, 5 and 8 Maryland Learning Outcomes in reading, writing, language
arts, mathematics, science and social studies. School achievement was
measured on three proficiency levels: Excellent, Satisfactory and Not
Met.

At Clarksville, our School Performance Index, a measure assessing both
third and fifth grades across the curriculum, rose gradually from 1993,
with 2002 being the only bump in a steady climb. The 2002 results listed
on pages 13-16 are not indicative of our high level of achievement
during the nine years of this program. Despite the drop in our scores
from earlier years, we approached the state standard of Satisfactory (70
% of students scoring at this level) in reading with 59 % of third
graders and 64 % of fifth graders achieving that level. Math
Satisfactory percentages were 47 % and 65 %.

Statewide concerns with the validity of this last administration of the
test were our only solace in the 2002 performance. Our school had
previously received state recognition awards for our achievement.

In March 2003, Maryland introduced the Maryland School Assessment (MSA).
The MSA was administered to students in grades 3, 5 and 8 in mathematics
and 3, 5 and 8 in reading. Student, school, district and state
achievement is measured on three proficiency levels: Advanced,
Proficient and Basic. MSA scores are criterion-referenced scores
depicting student performance against the Maryland Voluntary State
Curriculum (VSC) in reading and mathematics.

At Clarksville Elementary School we are extremely proud of our students'
performance during these first two years of the MSA test. The very small
percentage of students scoring Basic in 2004 (less than 7 % in either
reading or math at any grade) reinforces our belief that our instruction
is on target and students are learning. Not only have our overall scores
been exceptional, but also the subgroups of African-American students
and special education students, two groups scoring below the standard in
many other schools, have done remarkably well.

In Maryland, the School Performance Index used with MSPAP has been
replaced with Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a measure of whether
schools are meeting annual performance targets. All school subgroups at
Clarksville met AYP for 2004. Data tables show that on the 2004 MSA 100
% of African American students were Proficient in reading and math
except for grade 5 math, where 80 % were Proficient. Special education
students ranged from 60 % to 80 % Proficient on the 2004 test. Our data
tables also indicate that our third listed subgroup, Asian students,
performed no lower than 96 % Proficient in reading and math across
grades.

We feel confident in continuing with challenging curriculum and
encouraging a differentiated approach to instruction, which allows
students to progress to their ability levels. Our high percentage of
students scoring Advanced in both reading and math in 2004 ranged from
33 % to a high of 58 %, which confirms that students instructed with
above level curriculum will perform at that level on state testing.

Additional information on Maryland's assessment system can be found on:
[www.mdreportcard.org](http://www.mdreportcard.org/) and
[www.mdk12.org](http://www.mdk12.org/).

2\. Using assessment data

Various data tools play a significant role in making us aware of our
school and classroom performance to better aide us in targeting our
strengths and weaknesses and measuring our progress. Quarterly
throughout the year, each team meets with administration to have data
conversations. These conversations center on student performance data
generated by the Howard County math and reading assessments. Students
are expected to score at a Satisfactory or Excellent level. Very
specific data are generated within these broad standards, informing
teachers of student strengths and weaknesses by math and reading
objectives. When appropriate, Maryland School Assessment (MSA) and
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS/5) scores are also incorporated
into these discussions. We discuss the specific strengths and weaknesses
and pinpoint intervention strategies to target students not scoring at a
predetermined level or those at risk of falling behind. We also look for
ways to move our Satisfactory students to Excellent performance. By
meeting with teams on this regular basis, administration is able to work
with staff to identify and track any trends within and between grade
levels.

In addition to these team-level discussions, these quarterly data and
annual data such as MSA and CTBS/5 scores are shared at the monthly
School Improvement Team (SIT) meetings. Based on the data collected, our
SIT creates our goals and objectives on the School Improvement Plan
(SIP), which is used as a guiding document for all staff. These SIP
goals, objectives and quarterly milestones are then measured against the
ongoing data being collected to ensure that we are all staff are focused
to continual improvement.

3\. Communication

One of the goals at Clarksville Elementary School is to keep parents,
students and the community informed of our activities and assessment
results on a continual basis. This information is provided through
several vehicles.

For our parents, we provide assessment information through the School
Improvement Team (SIT). This group is comprised of staff, administration
and parent members. This group meets on a monthly basis to review data
and, working as a team, brainstorm ways to build on the results of the
data, with the goal to increase learning to a higher level for all our
students. Another manner of communicating student performance is through
our *Cougar Chatter,* which is the school information newsletter (now
electronically formatted), to update parents on school and student
achievements, as well as general information. Some teams have provided
another method of increasing awareness of student achievement. This is
done through the Grade Pro progress reports that keep parents informed
on a weekly basis of how their child is performing in the various
curricular areas. This information leads to a strong home/school
connection where both parties work on ways to improve student
performance.

Students are also provided with timely feedback on their achievement on
quarterly assessments in order to increase the learning process.
Teachers utilize a portion of class time to model exemplary responses so
students can use these as a means of improving their answers. These
model responses serve as guides for future practice questions.

Finally, the community is kept well informed of student performance. A
general accounting of our student achievements, assessment data, and
specific information regarding our MSA scores are published on the
Howard County Public School System website.

With all these various methods in place, Clarksville Elementary School
is able to provide pertinent information regarding our student
performance to our parents, students, and community on a regular basis.

4\. Sharing success

Clarksville staff members work hard to positively promote our successes
to other schools within our own county as well as expand outside our
immediate community.

In the past, staff members have presented at professional development
meetings and workshops on specific teaching strategies that were used
here that had direct impact on our stellar test scores.

Staff members in resource positions (reading specialists, special
educators, school counselor and speech-language pathologists) are
fortunate to attend monthly meetings with their specific colleagues.
These monthly meetings give those professionals a chance to share
details of specific programs that are having a positive effect on the
performance of Clarksville students. Our reading specialist promotes our
success in the primary grades with Saxon Phonics. Our special educators
and speech-language pathologist promote their role in the success of
team-teaching and differentiated instruction. Our school counselor
promotes the success of our school-wide character education program. As
these staff members venture out into their professional groups and share
the successes of their Clarksville students and staff, our school
happily becomes a role model to other schools that want to initiate
similar programs and strategies.

Various Clarksville staff members also participate each summer in
professional workshops at the county level. Topics in the past have
included: Instructional Intervention Team Planning and Training,
Curriculum Writing and New Teacher Training. Participation at this level
allows staff members to bring information about Clarksville's success to
very specific groups.

As we look to the future, we want to extend our successful experiences
with schools beyond Howard County's borders. Clarksville has begun to
partner with a Baltimore City school to share our School Improvement
Team Plan.

**PART V- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1\. School curriculum.

Clarksville Elementary School delivers a core curriculum of reading,
language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, health and related
arts. In designing curriculum in these areas, we take our lead from the
Howard County Public School System, which has developed an Elementary
Essential Curriculum. This Curriculum clearly defines what content and
skills all students must know and be able to do. The Curriculum is based
on the Maryland Content Standards and the Voluntary State Curriculum.
Technology and Character Education goals and objectives are infused
throughout the Curriculum.

Our Reading and Language Arts curricula and instruction are linked, and
at Clarksville we strive for all teams to create a two-hour block of
time for this instruction. Students are taught to read strategically to
construct, extend and examine meaning from a variety of texts. Students
are taught to write for various audiences---to inform, to persuade and
to express personal ideas.

In Mathematics we teach the process standards of problem solving,
communication, representation, reasoning and connections as they relate
to the various objectives in a spiraling curriculum. We use a variety of
manipulatives and technology throughout our math instruction. Our
instructional groups are homogeneous, and students rotate out of
homeroom into math class.

Social Studies topics share a common theme across grades: people
relating to and interacting with other people in their environments.
Social Studies classes are a heterogeneous mix of students so that all
students benefit from the prior knowledge and experiences of their
classmates.

Science is taught in an experiential format, valuing students' thinking,
curiosity and questioning. Units fall under three general headings: Life
and Environment, Earth and Space and Physical Science. Cooperative
grouping is our preferred structure for science instruction.

The Health curriculum focuses students to the areas of safety, first aid
and injury protection, mental health, violence, tobacco, alcohol and
drugs and, finally, family life and human sexuality. While students are
taught all other areas of curriculum mentioned above for one hour per
day, health instruction occurs one hour per week.

Related Arts instruction consists of physical education for 90 minutes
per week, art and music for one hour each per week and media for 30
minutes per week. Residencies, performance opportunities, displays and
projects help students to extend their instruction in the related arts.

Teachers are encouraged to create interdisciplinary units at all grade
levels. Integration with the related arts team is a common practice
extending the interdisciplinary model. Two mobile computer labs and one
stationary lab provide multiple opportunities for teachers to utilize
technology with their students. Monthly cultural arts assemblies and
curricular-based field trips are also used to extend the grade-level
curriculum.

2\. Reading curriculum

Clarksville Elementary School's comprehensive reading program is based
on forming relationships with children to encourage them to love
reading. Teachers follow Howard County's Essential Curriculum Guidelines
to create a pattern of effective instruction, thus providing a
literacy-rich environment to promote success in all children.

Children are grouped into homerooms by their reading ability to create
heterogeneous classrooms with two or three reading levels in each.
Instruction is focused on strategic reading to construct, extend and
examine meaning from a variety of texts. Reading is integrated into all
content areas so that students become proficient at reading for
information and reading to perform a task. To support these goals, each
grade-level team is permitted to select appropriate reading materials to
meet the needs of their students.

Primary students are given explicit instruction in phonics through the
Saxon Phonics program. This program has demonstrated its effectiveness
on the early spelling and writing skills of our kindergarten,
first-grade and second-grade students. In the intermediate grades,
students' reading progress is measured by their ability to understand
text and respond both orally and in written form to a variety of
comprehension questions. This tight link between reading and language
arts has directed us to find a two-hour block for this instruction in
most grades.

Through monitoring of student progress by county and standardized
assessments, we are able to identify gaps in student learning.
Interventions are developed and individualized to accelerate the
performance of struggling students. Student Support Plans are written
for below-grade-level readers. Weekly grade-level meetings are used to
design and monitor these interventions.

For students excelling in reading and language arts, our Enrichment
Resource teachers offer quarterly enrichment units at each grade. All
students benefit from the classroom instructional strategies listed in
our School Improvement Plan: differentiation, cooperative learning,
technology prewriting supports and vocabulary instruction.

3\. Technology Curriculum

Clarksville Elementary School has embraced the area of technology on a
school-wide basis. In recognition that competence in technology is
essential for the future, we have endeavored to include a myriad of
opportunities in both computer technology and engineering technology,
while integrating these areas into the regular curriculum.

Utilizing classroom computers, several mobile computer labs and a
classroom computer lab, staff members have infused computer technology
into all curriculum areas. Using computer-based graphic organizers,
teachers have addressed the writing process through technology. Internet
research has become the basis for long-term projects in several grades.
Mathematics instruction has benefited from the use of online
manipulatives. Students have accessed primary source materials in social
studies classes and observed actual science demonstrations. Students are
designing iMovies to present content in social studies and language
arts.

In addition to the extension of computer technology, we have gone one
step further by providing units in engineering technology at every grade
level. These units consist of engineering challenges at every grade
level, which enables all students to apply skills in reading, language
arts and mathematics into real-life situations. As a result, the
students at Clarksville Elementary School have the opportunity to
exercise both creative abilities in the design stages and
problem-solving skills when they are testing and revising the
engineering products they produce.

4\. Instructional methods

Clarksville Elementary School is committed to continual improvement of
student performance. Instructional practices are a component of our
School Improvement Plan and are implemented across all grades. The key
to all instructional practice is differentiation of instruction. By
understanding the learner and differentiating instruction to meet the
needs of each student, we address not only student weaknesses, but,
student strengths. Special education students and English Language
Learners are included in regular classrooms for the majority of their
instruction. For these students to benefit from grade-level instruction,
special educators and regular educators meet regularly to plan
differentiated instruction.

Cooperative grouping is another preferred strategy, and our experiences
have shown us that both heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings are
effective. For struggling learners, we utilize Learner Profile packets
to generate information on students. With this information in hand, we
address the multiple intelligences of these students to find ways to
connect them with the curriculum.

We encourage and value interdisciplinary units across the curriculum.
Related arts teachers have worked with grade-level teams to incorporate
curriculum objectives. The results have been plays and projects, which
the students find very meaningful. Our end-of-the-year engineering units
are the ultimate interdisciplinary projects where student utilize the
skills learned throughout the year to design and test boats, planes,
bridges, and so on.

Grade-to-grade articulation, which takes the form of written
documentation and face-to-face collaboration, provides our teachers with
information on the strengths and weaknesses of incoming students. As a
result, a teacher in the upcoming grade notes instructional strategies,
which have been successful in a prior year. Once the year begins, weekly
Kidtalk meetings provide teams with the opportunity to discuss
appropriate strategies for students.

5\. Professional development program

The staff development model in place at Clarksville Elementary School is
self-directed, action oriented, ongoing throughout the year and aligned
with School Improvement Plan goals. The framework for delivering this
model is Critical Friends Groups (CFG). These groups bring together
staff with common interests on topics related to School Improvement Plan
goals. Each group creates a hypothesis around their topic, which they
will, throughout the year, inform with action research conducted in
their own classroom. Each quarter during the year, CFGs are provided
with blocks of time to meet and discuss the data they are generating. At
school's end, each group presents its results to the entire faculty.
Hard copies of their work are kept in a resource binder, and salient
conclusions from their research are considered for inclusion in the
School Improvement Plan for the upcoming year.

Three years of research through CFGs have provided many strategies and
practices that make an impact on student performance. Some topics that
have been studied are reading and writing achievement of male students,
brain research and its implication for math instruction, integrating
technology into the curriculum, cooperative learning strategies, finding
the authentic audience for student writing and the effectiveness of a
character education program.

Individual teacher annual objectives are linked to their CFG topics. If
teachers are in an evaluation year, they have the option of being
evaluated through a Cooperative Program Review, which is a group-focused
project. In these ways, all staff development efforts are aligned.

**PART VII- ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Maryland
School Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2002]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Maryland
School Performance Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2001]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000

  Testing month                        March       March       May                     

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic                 120         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            98          87          59                      

  \% At Advanced                       37          18          10                      

  Number of students tested            127         114         69                      

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         95                      

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_ Asian                                                                           

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            100         89          67                      

  \% At Advanced                       54          21          0                       

  Number of students tested            35          27          6                       

  2.\_ African-American                                                                

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         NA                      

  \% At or Above Proficient            100         63          NA                      

  \% At Advanced                       0           25          NA                      

  Number of students tested            6           8           \<5                     

  3.\_ Special Ed                                                                      

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            80          75          20                      

  \% At Advanced                       20          25          0                       

  Number of students tested            10          8           7                       

                                                                                       

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            71          58          31                      

  \% At Advanced                       13          09          04                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Maryland
School Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2002]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Maryland
School Performance Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2001]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000

  Testing month                        March       March       May                     

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            94          93          64                      

  \% At Advanced                       58          63          30                      

  Number of students tested            119         123         86                      

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         97                      

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_ Asian                                                                           

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            96          95          83                      

  \% At Advanced                       77          55          42                      

  Number of students tested            22          21          6                       

  2.\_ African-American                                                                

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            100         100         86                      

  \% At Advanced                       40          29          29                      

  Number of students tested            10          7           9                       

  3.\_ Special Ed                                                                      

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            60          57          33                      

  \% At Advanced                       20          0           17                      

  Number of students tested            10          7           8                       

                                                                                       

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            68          66          42                      

  \% At Advanced                       29          26          11                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Maryland School
Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2002]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Maryland School
Performance Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2001]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000

  Testing month                        March       March       May                     

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            98          89          47                      

  \% At Advanced                       48          26          3                       

  Number of students tested            127         114         72                      

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         95                      

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_ Asian                                                                           

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            100         96          33                      

  \% At Advanced                       60          28          0                       

  Number of students tested            35          29          6                       

  2.\_ African-American                                                                

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            100         63          20                      

  \% At Advanced                       33          13          0                       

  Number of students tested            6           8           6                       

  3.\_ Special Ed                                                                      

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            70          75          13                      

  \% At Advanced                       20          50          0                       

  Number of students tested            10          8           7                       

                                                                                       

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            72          65          29                      

  \% At Advanced                       20          15          02                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Maryland School
Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2002]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Maryland School
Performance Assessment .]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2001]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
.]{.underline}

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000

  Testing month                        March       March       May                     

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            93          89          65                      

  \% At Advanced                       33          31          19                      

  Number of students tested            119         123         86                      

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         97                      

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0                       
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1.\_ Asian                                                                           

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            96          100         75                      

  \% At Advanced                       59          32          17                      

  Number of students tested            22          22          6                       

  2.\_ African-American                                                                

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            80          86          43                      

  \% At Advanced                       0           0           14                      

  Number of students tested            10          7           9                       

  3.\_ Special Ed                                                                      

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            60          43          25                      

  \% At Advanced                       10          0           0                       

  Number of students tested            10          7           8                       

                                                                                       

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% At or Above Basic                 100         100         100                     

  \% At or Above Proficient            63          55          40                      

  \% At Advanced                       13          10          10                      
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------