1. Introduction and Background

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 School Community

The Ulla F. Muller Elementary School is located at 101 Contant, St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands. The school is comprised of sixteen regular classrooms in addition to two Gifted and Talented classes, two transitional classes, and two modified instructional classes.Ý Our school presently serves a population of 424 students from kindergarten through the sixth grade.Ý One hundred percent of our students qualify for the free lunch program and the ethnic breakdown is 93.8% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 1% Middle Eastern, and 2% Caucasian.

School Strengths:

… Committed staffÝ

Our staff extends the teaching/learning environment beyond the scope of the school day.Ý They report early, work through lunch hours, and work after school to help those students who need assistance.Ý To support learning in reading and math, our teachers are active in after school clubs such as Math Counts and Family Reading Nights.ÝÝ Twenty-five percent of our faculty are also leaders in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

… Staff Qualification and Stability

Our staff is highly qualified:Ý 93% have a B.A degree or higher and only one teacher works outside his/her field.ÝÝ Sixty-seven percent of our teachers have been working at the school for over five years.Ý

Reading SupportÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝÝ

The Remedial Reading teacher provides development reading for a group for 7 students in the primary Transitional class.Ý She also provides remedial instruction for students in grades one, two, and the primary Transitional class.Ý Additionally, we participate in 2 programs that extend reading beyond the classroom:Ý Reading is Fundamental (RIF) in which students receive three free books per year, and Family Reading Nights for eight weeks where students receive one free book per visit.Ý Research has shown that home reading is important in assisting children in becoming good readers. (Henderson,1987)

… Technology

In our computer lab and/or in the classrooms, students use computers in the content areas in math (Leap Frog Math), as a problem-solving tool (spreadsheets, puzzles, Inspiration) and in reading comprehension (Top Hat Tales and AstroWord). ÝOur Technology Committee trains other teachers to use technology in support of reading and math.Ý This provides teachers with additional strategies to individualize instruction and meet the needs of students with alternative learning styles.

Science and Math Lab

Our Science and Math Lab is equipped with a variety of math manipulatives for hands-on learning as well as equipment and materials to perform science experiments.Ý In addition, the television, VCR, and DVD player are used to show educational programs.ÝÝ The equipment in the Lab supports alternative learning styles by providing visual and kinesthetic learning tools.

… After School Program

In order to provide assistance to students who have shown a weakness in core academic subjects, particularly reading and math, we have conducted an After School Program at Muller for the last 6 years.

Challenges:

… Very low scores on standardized testÝÝÝ

Based on Spring 2003 scores on the WRAT standardized test, over 66% of our students scored below the 50^th percentile in reading and in math.

Low Parental Involvement

Many parents have more than one job; many of our students come from one-parent families; the education of some of our parents is minimal, and some of our parents are grounded in a culture that believes that the school is in charge of their childís education. These factors result in reduced parental involvement as confirmed by an average PTA attendance rate of 25%.Ý Research indicates that parental involvement significantly increases student achievement (1987). Ý

Technology ÝAs per our technology plan, we should have 3 computers in each classroom.Ý We only have 1.1 which is not enough to significantly support reading and math.

1.2 School Improvement Team

As in the past years, faculty and staff members volunteered to be on the 2003-2004 School Improvement Team.Ý Additional persons were recruited to represent various groups in the school and community.Ý (See below.)Ý The Team Leader was elected by the group members.Ý Each year, faculty and staff sign up for various committees and decide how many years he/she will serve.ÝÝ

Table 1: School Improvement Team

Team Member	Position	RoleÝÝÝ (COMMITTEES)	Length of Service
Mrs. O. Shillingford	Principal	Assessment Committee, (chair)	1990-
Mrs. C. Sarauw	Assistant Principal	Assessment Committee	2003-
Mrs. A. Carty	Librarian	Team Leader, Reading & Math Com.	1989-92, 1995-
Mrs. C. Tyson	Computer Teacher	Technology Committee, (chair)	1989-
Mrs. E. Stephen	K- teacher	Assessment, Reading Committee	2000-
Mrs. L. Lettsome	5^th grade teacher	Technology, Math Committee	1998-
Mrs. J. Norford	Transitional teacher	Math (chair) and Parental Committees	2003-
Ms. A. Callwood	GAT teacher	Technology, Reading	1994-
Mrs. D. Thomas	GAT teacher	Technology, Reading (chair) Com.	2001-
Miss E. Peters	1^st grade teacher	Member	1998-
Ms. D. Milliner	5th grade teacher	Parental Committee	1999-
Ms. E. Mills	Transitional teacher	Reading, Math	1998-
Miss W. Christmas	MIS teacher	Assessment Committee	2003-
Ms. K. Hendrickson	Paraprofessional	Parental Committee	2003-
Ms. U. JnBaptiste	Custodian	Parental Committee	2000-
Ms. L. Browne	Kitchen manager	Parental Committee	2000-
Mr. R. Creque	Parent	Parental Committee	2003-
Ms. A. Francis	Parent	Community Member	2003-
Mrs. J. Chesterfield	Parent	Parental Committee, recorder	2003-
Mrs. M. Thomas	Counselor	Parental Committee, (chair)	1998 -

2.Ý Data Collection, Organization and Patterns

2.1Ý Data Collection Methods

Recorded student achievement/assessment data in Reading and Mathematics for the last 3 years, were collected on all current 4^th grade students in regular, Gifted and Talented, MIS, and Transitional classes.Ý These include year-end grades, WRAT and Brigance Test results. Within our current 4^th grade, we have 1 LEP student, no students with limiting physical disabilities, and no statistically significant racial/ethnic subgroups beyond that of Afro-Americans.Ý We have opted to break the 4^th grade students into 2 subgroups:Ý (1) Students in the regular and Gifted and Talented classesÝ (2) Students in the Transition and MIS classes.Ý Our data are based on student achievement scores in the current 4^th grade; we have used and reported some summary data on students currently in the 6^th grade. Documents on demographics, educator, professional, and curriculum data were collected from District, the Board of Education, school and PTA records, and from the February 2004 Technology survey.

Table 2: Data Collection MethodsÝ

TYPE	Description (e.g., number, title, timeframe, response rate)
Survey/Interview	1.Ý Parent Survey at end of the 2002-3 school year.ÝÝ 86%, response rate 2.ÝÝ Teacher Surveyñ School Organization, Curriculum, Instructional Practices, ÝÝÝÝÝ and Assessment in March, of 2003.Ý 95% response rateÝ 3.Ý Teacher survey ñÝ ELA/Math. Dec.2003.Ý 86% response rate 4.Ý Student SurveyóJanuary 2004ÝÝ Random sample of 30 students ñ ÝÝÝÝÝ 100 % response rate 5.Ý Technology survey, February 2004, (response rate 61%)
Observations	1.Ý Year end grades in Reading and Mathematics for school years ending in 2001, 2002, and 2003 for 100% of students currently assigned to a 4^th grade level.
Documents	1. Teachers and paraprofessionalsí academic profile form, January 2004 2. Planning Research & Evaluation document submitted monthly to the Superintendentís office which includes demographics, attendance, record of infractions 2001, 2002, 2003 3. SASI data - updated weeklyÝ

Formal Assessments

1. ÝReading and Math scores on the WRAT test administered to 100 % of 3^rd grade and 5^th grade students in the Spring of 2003.Ý

2. ÝReading and Math scores on the Brigance test administered to 3^rd grade MIS

ÝÝÝÝÝÝ students in the Spring of 2003

3.ÝÝÝ Star Math, January, 2004Ý 100% of 6^th grade students.

Subgroups	# Tested	School Year	Reading	Math
Regular and G&T 3^rd grade students	38	2002 to 2003	34%	5%
Third grade MIS and Transitional students	7	2002 to 2003	0%	0%
5^th Grade - all	64	2002 to 2003	27%	34%

2.2Ý Assessment Data

Table 3:Ý District Data Results:Ý Percent of Muller Students in 3^rd/ 5^th grades and the MIS/Transitional students who performed at the 50^th percentile or above on the WRAT test administered in the Spring of 2003.Ý

Chart 1

Trends for Table 3 and Graph 1

… Trend 1:Ý Across all tested grade levels and subgroups tested, a high percent performed below the 50^th percentile.

… Trend 2:Ý More students in 5^th grade performed at the 50^th percentile or higher in math than the students in 3^rd.

… Trend 3:Ý More students in 3^rd grade performed at the 50^th percentile or higher in reading than the students in 5^th.

… Trend 4:Ý None of the students in our MIS or Transitional Classes tested at or above the 50^th percentile in Reading and Mathematics on the WRAT Test.

School Assessment Data

4A: School Data Results:Ý Classroom Performance Data based on year-end report card grades in Reading and Mathematics 2000-2003.

Percent of current 4^th Grade Muller Students at a Proficiency Level of 70%

GradeÝ 4 students

School Year

Reading grades

Math grades

Students in Regular and G&T classes

2000 to 2001

2001 to 2002

2002 to 2003

87%

84%

82%

85%

88%

Students in MIS and Transitional class

2000 to 2001

2001 to 2002

2002 to 2003

92%

75%

64%

92%

83%

57%

…

Trend 1:Ý In the last three years, at least 80% of the Regular and G&T are working above the district proficiency level of 70% or above, in both reading and math.

… Trend 2:Ý Year-end average grades in Reading for this sample of students have shown a downward trend over the last 3 years.

… Trend 3: There was a significant decrease in the percent of students performing at the district proficiency level of 70% or above, in both subjects, by the MIS and transitional students.

Table 4B: School Data Results:Ý Percent of 6^th grade and Transitional students performing at the 50^th Percentile or above on the Star Math assessment/placement test administered in 2004.

Grade	# Tested	School Year	% > 50^thpercentile
6ÝÝÝ	61	Jan. 2004	5%
1^st/2^nd TransitionalÝÝ	14	Feb. 2004	4%
3^rd/4^th Transitional	11	Feb. 2004	0%

*Note:Ý Recently, we acquired the Star Math assessment/placement program.Ý Our 6^th grade and 3^rd/4^th grade Transitional students took the assessment test in January 2004.Ý We are using it to confirm our conclusions from the WRAT scores that the majority of our students are below the 50^th percentile.

Table 4C: School Data Results:

Percent of MIS and Transitional Students Proficient* (at grade level) in Reading and

Math as Measured by the Brigance Test results, Administered in the Spring of 2003

Grade 4

# Tested

School Year

Reading

Math

Third grade MIS/Transitional students

2002 to 2003

25%

*Note:Ý Proficiency on the Brigance test is based on a score that is commensurate with the studentsí grade level.Ý These students were tested when they were in 3^rd grade, close to the mid year; hence a score of 3.5 or above would indicate proficiency

2.3Ý Demographic Data

Table 5: General School Data from SASI and School Records

	School Year 2001ñ2002		School Year 2002ñ2003		School Year 2003ñ2004
Attendance rate (#/%)	422/436=/97%		407/448=/91%		429//432=99%
Suspension rate (#/%)	21/5%		21/5%		pending
Expulsion rate (#/%)	0		0		pending
Transfers/Withdrawals (#/%)	69/16%		19/4.2%		pending
Promotion rate (#/%) (K-6)	431/99%		426/95%		pending
Retention rate (#/%) (K-6)	3/1%		13/3%		pending
6^th grade promotion rate (#/%) (if applicable)	68/100%		67/97%		pending
Gender (#/% males/females)	M 238/55%	F 198/45%	M 222/51%	F 226/49%	M 230/53%	F 202/47%
Caucasian (#/%)	N/A		1/ .22%		2/ .46%
Afro-American (#/%)	N/A		421/93.97%		409/94.67%
Hispanic (#/%)	N/A		23/5.13%		19/4.41%
Asian (#/%)	N/A		0		0
Middle Eastern (#/%)	N/A		3/.67%		2/.46%

… Trend 1:Ý There has been no significant change in the ethnicity of students over the past 3 years.

… Trend 2:Ý The high attendance rate and low expulsion/suspension rate indicate that the greatÝ majority of students are at school each day.

… Trend 3:Ý LessÝ than 5% of our population is of a non Afro-American ethnicity.

Table 6: Enrollment Data

Grade levels in the school, K-6	School Year 2001ñ2002	School Year 2002ñ2003	School Year 2003ñ2004
School population Total (#)	436	448	432
Grade K (#)	38	50	46
Grade 1 (#)	53	42	57
Grade 2 (#)	44	51	47
Grade 3 (#)	62	47	48
Grade 4 (#)	71	58	49
Grade 5 (#)	76	66	56
Grade 6(#)	63	72	61
MISÝ and SIS*	37	34	29
Transitional	11	21	26
Gifted and Talented	0	19	22

… Trend 1:Ý Overall student population is generally greatest on the primary level.

… Trend 2:Ý Number of Transitional/MIS students increased yearly.

… Trend 3:Ý There are more MIS and Transitional students than Gifted and Talented.

Table 7: Student Subgroups

	School Year 2001ñ2002		School Year 2002ñ2003		School Year 2003ñ2004
	#	%	#	%	#	%
Total Limited English Proficient (LEP)***	5	1.1 %	7	1.5%	12	2.8%
Spanish	5	1.1 %	5	1.1%	11	2.5%
Arabic	0	0%	2	0%	1	0%
French	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Total Gifted	41**	10%	19	4.2	22	5%
Total Special Education Population *	37	8.4%	34	7.3%	29	7.1%
ÝSpeech/Language	15	3.4%	24	5.3%	21	4.8%
Learning Disability	36	8.4%	34	7.3%	29	7.1%
Physical Disability	1	0 %	0	0%	0	0%
Full student attendance days (#)	436		448		432

*Students with IEPs

** In school year 2001-2002, there was no self-contained Gifted and Talented program.Ý Rather, there was a pull out enrichment program for gifted students.Ý Of the 42 students involved in this program, 10 were 6^th graders who worked in an accelerated math program.

*** In the geographic area around Muller School, elementary students with a significant, limited English language proficiency are sent to a neighboring school that has an LEP program.Ý Although 12 LEP students are enrolled at Muller this year, all but four function adequately in the English language.Ý There is only one LEP student in the data set of current 4^th grade students.

… Trend 1:Ý The number of LEP students (particularly Hispanic) has increased slightly over the 3 years, but remains less than 10%

… Trend 2: Number of Special Education students decreased over the last 3 years.

1.4 Program Data

Table 8: Educator Data from Human Resources Document and School Records

	School Year 2001-2002			School Year 2002-2003			School Year 2003-2004
	School	District	Territory	School	District	Territory	School	District	Territory
Total Full-Time Classroom Teachers	33			33	682		34	660	1462
Average Years Teaching	15.7			16	13.7		16	13.2	13.6
% Teachers New to Building	6%			0	4%		12%	1%	2%
% First-Year Teachers	6%			0	4%		2	1%	2%
% with B.A. Degree	70%			71%	65%		73%	65%	64%
% with M.A. & Above	21%			24%	31%		20%	33%	31%
% with Emergency or Provisional Credentials				84%	90%		70%	68%	71%
Teachers working out of field (#)*	1			1	216		1	144	325
Classroom Teacher Attendance	97%			93%			95%
% Caucasian Teachers	12%			15%	12%		12%	12%	9%
% Afro-Am. Teachers	88%			85%	84%		8%	84%	83%
% Hispanic Teachers	0			0	4%		0	3%	7%
% Male Teachers	15%			15%	24%		15%	22%	22%
% Female Teachers	85%			85%	76%		85%	78%	78%
Total Paraprofessionals	8			7	115		7	123	292
Total Under-qualified paraprofessionals**	8			7	111		7	119	274
Total Counselors	2			2	40		2	39	77
Total Librarians	1			1	14		1	12	28
Total Social Workers/Psychologists	0			0			0
Total Other Staff	15			15	260		14	249	546

**Note:ÝÝ Paraprofessionals with less than 2 years of training and/or education degree.

… Trend 1:Ý 90% of our teachers have Bachelorís degrees or higher, and have more than 10 years experience.

… Trend 2:Ý Over 86 % of the teachers are African/American with few Hispanic and Caucasians.

… Trend 3:Ý All reading and math teachers are teaching in their field except the computer teacher.

Table 9: Professional Growth Data:Ý School Records, Teacher Surveys (100% in 2003) and interviews

TOPIC	Mo/Year	Grade Levels	# Participants	School wide Y/N	Format
AFT-Miniquest	Oct. 2001ÝÝÝ -02, -03	K ñ6	All teachers & Paras	Yes	Forum and workshops
Direct Instruction	Aug 2002	K-6	All teachers & Paras	Yes	Workshop
National Kindergarten workshop	JulyÝ 2002	K	One teacher	No	Workshop
Improving outcomes for students with disabilities	Apr.Ý 2002	Transi- tional	3 teachers 1 Ad	No	Workshop
Challenging the Gifted Learner	Apr & Oct, 2002	GAT	2 GAT teachers	No	Conference
Make sense strategies - Math	Apr. 2002	K-3	3 teachers	No	Workshop
NCTM	2001, 02,03	K-6	5 teachers	No	Workshops
Thinking Math	Apr. 2003	K-6	1 teacher	No	Workshop
Family Math	Feb. 2003	K-6	1 teacher	No	Workshop
Renaissance Math	Jan. 2003 Feb. 2004	6	1 teacher, 1 A 5 teachers	No	Workshop Workshop
University courses	2001 -02. -03	all	6 teachers 4 paras	No	Adm/MA Courses BA Courses
Riverdeep	Aug. ñ Nov. 2003	1-6	8 teachers	No	Technology course, On line.
National Educational Computing Conference (NECC)	July 2002 July 2003	All	2 teachers 1 teacher	No	Conference workshops, sessions and seminars
Monthly meetings for MIS instructors	2001, 02, 03	MIS	2 teachers	No	Meetings/ workshops

… Trend 1:Ý Most professional development has been a one shot approach with little follow up, has not focused on specific problems in Reading and Math, and has targeted a few teachers.

… Trend 2:Ý Only Direct Instruction workshops were school wide and focused on Reading.

… Trend 3:Ý Transitional class teachers have had no professional training.

… Trend 4:Ý Teachers have not had professional development in literal and inferential comprehension and contextual vocabulary, the areas in which our students scored poorly on the WRAT test.

Curriculum Implementation Data

The programs below are generally based upon standard textbooks that are closely aligned to the VI Content Standards. Before the 2001 school year, the basal reader used for instruction was Literature Works, a thematic approach using literature.Ý It was supplemented by Scholastic and SRA Phonics, Remedial Reading, and RIF.Ý In 2001, Direct Instruction, a scientific based program, was implemented in Kindergarten and over the subsequent years has been phased in up to 5^th grade.ÝÝ As it is phased in, Literature Works is phased out. As yet, we have no formal assessment of the program though our teachers unanimously agree that those students who have used Direct Instruction come into their class better prepared. Focus was developed for students with poor reading skills.Ý For this reason, and its high interest level, Focus is used in our special education classes.ÝÝÝ In order to extend reading beyond the school walls, a Family Reading program was instituted this year.Ý Renaissance Math, with its extensive diagnostics, is being phased into 3^rd and 6^th grades this year, and within 2 years, all grade levels will use this scientific based program.Ý In all of the other promotional subjects, the textbooks were adopted several years before the 2001 school year and are still in use.Ý The arrows in the columns below indicate the program was continued in that year.

Table 10:Ý Curriculum Implementation Data

School Years prior to 2001

School Year
2001-2002

School Year
2002-2003

School Year
2003-2004

Reading

Reading is Fundamental

Literature Works

Remedial Reading (1-2)

Direction Instruction (K)

Scholastic Phonics (K-2)

SRA Phonics (3)

Direct InstructionÝ (K-1)

ý(3-6)

Direct Instruction

ý(5-6)

Direct Inst.Ý (K-4)

SRA (K-2)

Family Reading

Mathematics

Exploring Mathematics

Renaissance Math (3 & 6)

Science

Discovery Works

Science Horizons

Writing

The Write Source

Gifted &

Talented/

Enrichment

Literature Works

Exploring Mathematics

Literary Reflections

Special Education

Focus

Exploring Math

SRA Phonics

Direct Instruction

Transitional

Literature Works