##### U.S. Department of Education September 2003

**2003-2004 *No Child Left Behind---Blue Ribbon Schools Program***

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal [\_\_\_\_\_Dr. Jeanne C. Jones]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Earl Warren Middle School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [155 Stevens Ave.]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Solana Beach CA]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[92075-2038]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

Tel. [(858) 755-1558]{.underline} Fax [(858) 755-0891]{.underline}

Website/URL [http://www.sduhsd.net/ew/]{.underline} E-mail
[Jeanne.Jones@sduhsd.net]{.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. Peggy Lynch]{.underline}

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

District Name [San Dieguito Union High School District]{.underline} Tel.
[( 760) 753-6491]{.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. Joyce Dalessandro

(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 2003-2004 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 1998.

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**

**DISTRICT**

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_
Elementary schools

\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_ Middle schools

\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_ Junior high schools

\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_ High schools

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_ Other (Briefly explain) - Alternative

\_\_[10]{.underline}\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\_[\$6,767]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_\_[\$6,719]{.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\. [2]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

[4]{.underline} If fewer than three years, how long was the previous
principal at this school?

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

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

  **K**                                        **0**        **7**       169       132         301

  **1**                                        **0**        **8**       177       168         345

  **2**                                        **0**        **9**                             

  **3**                                        **0**        **10**                            

  **4**                                        **0**        **11**                            

  **5**                                        **0**        **12**                            

  **6**                                        **0**        Other                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   646
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [79]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [1]{.underline} % Black or African American

[15]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_[4.23]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_%

> (This rate includes the total number of students who transferred to or
> from different schools between October 1 and the end of the school
> year, divided by the total number of students in the school as of
> October 1, multiplied by 100.)

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 19
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

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

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        27
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    638
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .0423
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    4.23
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

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

\_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_

Specify languages: Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_[12.8]{.underline}\_\_%

\_\_\_[83]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Students Who Qualify

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_[13.6]{.underline}\_\_%

\_\_[88]{.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.

\_[8]{.underline}\_\_Autism \_[4]{.underline}\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Deafness \_[12]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[50]{.underline}\_Specific
Learning Disability

\_[1]{.underline}\_\_Hearing Impairment \_ [9]{.underline}\_Speech or
Language Impairment

\_[3]{.underline}\_\_Mental Retardation \_[0]{.underline}\_\_Traumatic
Brain Injury

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Multiple Disabilities \_[1]{.underline}\_\_Visual
Impairment Including Blindness

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 \_\_[19]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_
[9]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_[11]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_[11]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_[39]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_[27]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
\_[27.62]{.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.)

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                           2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001   1999-2000   1998-1999

  Daily student attendance 96.51%      96.30%      96.18%      95.8%       95.6%

  Daily teacher attendance 96%         95.7%       96%         95.9%       95.6%

  Teacher turnover rate    9%          10.5%       28%         10%         11%

  Student dropout rate     0           0           0           0           0

  Student drop-off rate    0           0           0           0           0
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Student and teacher attendance at Earl Warren Middle School is
consistently high. Teacher turnover rate is consistently low. One
exception to this pattern was in the 2000-01 school year when a new
middle school was opened in our district and some of our students and
staff were transferred to the new school.

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Earl Warren Middle School (EWMS) is located in Solana Beach, California.
The school successfully serves its 646 students and the community by
maintaining the highest standards in curriculum, instruction, and
accountability. Our API (Achievement Performance Index) has consistently
reflected our standing as one of the top ten percent of the schools in
the state, always scoring above the statewide target of 800. We are
particularly proud of the caliber of our teaching staff with 99% of our
staff fully certificated in the subjects they teach. Teachers regularly
collaborate to enhance interdisciplinary instruction and implement a
variety of instructional strategies. A long-standing tradition of
academic excellence is matched with a school culture dedicated to
*Equity and Excellence* for ALL students.

A rich diversity of cultures, interests, abilities, and resources helps
to define our school community. EWMS was designated a Title 1 school for
the first time in our 50 year history. Our Mission Statement challenges
us to "provide a quality educational program in which students may
maximize their individual potential as productive, ethical members of a
global society". The continuing development of the EWMS vision is a
community effort. Staff, students, parents, and community members work
together to continually refine, develop, and assess our learning
community. We carefully consider the unique needs of each student to
create a positive atmosphere of respect and inclusion.

EWMS holds the highest expectations for ALL students. Focus is on
academic standards, physical development, and social and emotional
growth. Continuous inservice and collaboration ensure that All EWMS
students receive a structured curriculum aligned to the California State
Standards. Both academic and emotional support services are available to
all students, and EWMS aggressively seeks to include our
under-represented students in every aspect of school life. Teachers are
active participants in the design and implementation of curriculum,
instructional strategies, evaluation, and the provision of support
services. Their warmth and professionalism provide the real strength of
our school.

All segments of the community collaborate to create and monitor the
academic vision for the school. Every committee and organization on
campus is committed to inclusion of all stakeholder groups. Site Council
includes parents, students representing our diverse population, and
staff. Also, students advise the PTSA, the school technology plan, and
help establish school culture through groups such as the *PTSA Student
Alliance, Human Relations Council* and *Roundtable*. They meet on a
regular basis to review, advise, assess, and update the Earl Warren
vision.

EWMS believes strongly in interactive communication and accountability
to parents and community members through the internet *E-Option*, the
parent newsletter, Principal's Forums, daily bulletin, Spanish Hotline,
and the School Accountability Report Card. Resources exist to make all
information available in both English and Spanish, including bilingual
support staff to translate material, facilitate appointments, answer
questions, and make parents feel welcome.

Examination of assessment data is an on-going process. It is used to
assess need, develop new instructional practices, and redirect
resources. All data is disaggregated by language acquisition, parent
education level, students with special needs (disabilities or
strengths), ethnicity, gender, and participation in programs such as
*Breakfast Club*, *Having a Voice, Counseling Support Group*, and
Title 1. Information is shared with teachers, program designers, and
educational experts in order to maximize the benefits for all students.
EWMS is dedicated to meeting the needs of our entire school community
with the shared goal of maximizing the potential within our students.

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

**1. Assessment results in Language Arts and Mathematics**

EWMS is consistently high-achieving when compared to state and national
norms. We do not rest on our laurels, however, instead seeking constant
improvement through evaluation and analysis of data to develop processes
that drive our continuous improvement plan.

In examining the results of the California Standards Test in English
Language Arts of 2003, 72% of our students met the Language Arts
standards achieving Advanced and Proficient levels, and 18% earned Basic
Proficiency. Almost 80% of our students scored above the national 50^th^
percentile in Reading. However, we recognized that about 10% of our
students scored Below or Far Below Basic. Further evaluation showed us
that females outperformed males in Language Arts.

Our most important finding was that our more affluent students far
outperformed the economically disadvantaged students in Language Arts.
While the number of these students is within relatively low ranges (less
than 100 or 13.3% of the total school population, we are determined to
bridge this achievement gap. The data from 2002 to 2003 shows the
percent of economically disadvantaged students meeting standards
increased from 19% to 30% in grade 7, and 18% to 30% in grade 8. Our
improvement plan calls for a continued effort to bring ALL students to
proficiency.

Review of the California Standards Tests in Mathematics showed that 2/3
of our 7^th^ graders met standards, with greater variability noted in
the scores of our 8^th^ graders. In Math, 78% of our 7^th^ graders and
86% of our 8^th^ graders scored above the 50^th^ percentile. While
higher-level Algebra and Geometry students performed within superior
ranges, 41% of General Math students met standards. It is significant to
note, however, that this is an increase from 21% the previous year.

As in Language Arts, we noted that more affluent students outperformed
economically disadvantaged students in Math (21% of low socio-economic
students scored Advanced and Proficient compared to 68% of non
economically-disadvantaged students). While the number of students in
this sub-group is significantly smaller, we are dedicated to bridging
that gap with tutoring/mentoring programs such as *Breakfast Club, UCSD
5th Dimension, Algebra Institute, Algebra Topics,* and *Math Review.*

In addition to the above data, the California Department of Education
also evaluates Adequate Yearly Progress in the Achievement Performance
Index (API) Report. This report examines schools in a variety of ways,
including the disaggregation of data for ethnic sub-groups. EWMS was
found to have met all 2003 Adequate Yearly Progress criteria. This
included students in our Latino sub-group in both English Language Arts
and Mathematics. Since the vast majority of our economically
disadvantaged students are Latino, we are pleased to see positive
results for our efforts.

On the California Achievement Test (CAT6) in 2003, the typical Earl
Warren student scored well above the state average. While the national
norm is 50, the Earl Warren student averaged the 76^th^ percentile. Even
with this relatively high ranking, we are committed to ongoing
improvement for ALL students and will continue to disaggregate data and
develop action plans based on student need.

# 2. Using assessment data to understand and improve student and school performance

EWMS uses school and statewide assessment data to improve student and
school performance. Although our school consistently demonstrates the
highest standards of academic excellence, we are committed to bridging
the achievement gap for all of our students. Members of the entire
school community contribute regularly to the student assessment process.

Teachers use data to refine curriculum and prepare students for the
California High School Exit Exam. The district provides inservices for
department collaboration, and teachers meet frequently with elementary,
high school and university teachers to plan instruction based on our
diverse needs. These interventions are built on concrete assessment
results. The University of California, San Diego provided monthly
consultation for mathematic teachers and shared effective instructional
strategies. Administrators and teachers meet with elementary feeder
schools to articulate issues such as Gifted and Talented Education
(GATE), Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID), Special
Education and bilingual needs.

To emphasize proficiency and to articulate curriculum goals, EWMS
teachers develop rubrics to assist students and parents in understanding
expectations and assessing work. Departments meet monthly to review
student progress, share student work on the standards, and develop
teaching strategies.

EWMS holds the highest expectations for ALL students, and through the
use of assessment results, we have created several support programs.
*Peer Mentoring, Counseling Support Groups*, *Breakfast Club, UCSD 5^th^
Dimension,* and *Having a Voice* provide tutoring, build communication
skills and enhance self-esteem. Our under-represented populations are
very active participants in these programs. All students meet with their
counselors and homeroom advisors to analyze their progress, identify
personal strengths and areas for growth, and set personal goals.

**3. Communicating student performance and assessment data**

Families receive frequent progress reports and report cards to assess
student's progress toward meeting the state standards. Many teachers
publish grades online for immediate parent feedback. Principal forums,
counselor workshops, and personal meetings help parents understand
grade-level performance standards and access available resources.
California State Standards are published in student, parent, and teacher
agendas.

Counselors and administrators offer group and individual sessions to
assess student performance on a regular basis. Counselor workshops,
entitled *The Road to Success,* explain data and evaluate assessment
tools. Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and 504 plans brings a team
of professionals together with individual families to assess and design
an educational program for students with learning differences.

Bilingual support services provide outreach to our Latino community.
These services include a monthly parent meeting in Spanish, a Spanish
Hotline, the *Parenting Institute,* and electronic real-time translation
for all meetings*.* These programs provide our Spanish-speaking parents
with access to all information. Our school also hosts a rare opportunity
for parents to receive their high school diploma through the Mexican
government, thus supporting our Mexican parents in expanding their own
education and setting a valuable example for their own children.

**4. Sharing our successes with other schools**

EWMS believes in sharing its successes with other schools and in
continuing to learn from our colleagues. Collaboration is fundamental to
our success. Administrators and teacher-leaders are active members of a
wide educational community that work toward student improvement. These
efforts include presentations to the community and the Board of
Trustees, monthly district-wide Leadership Team meetings, weekly middle
school principal meetings, and regular meetings with elementary feeder
schools and high schools. In addition, administrators participate in the
Association for California School Administrators (ACSA) regional
workshops, and in Middle School regional conferences.

EWMS instructional leaders also take an active role in a wide variety of
professional conferences and workshops. They share their successes at
such events as the AVID (Advancement via Individual Determination)
Institute, the California Council for Social Science, the California
Association of Bilingual Education Conference, *Seasand*: The California
Science Project, Casa de Amistad, and the California League of Middle
Schools. Our teachers, counselors, and administrators have presented on
such topics as "Improving Reading Comprehension", "Student Assistance
Services", "Curriculum Development in Social Science", "English as a
Second Language (ESL)", and "Project Write, (our ESL writing program)".
We believe strongly that sharing successful programs is an essential
part of our professional responsibility, and will continue to seek
opportunities to share with our colleagues.

One key example of our efforts to share successes is our *Breakfast
Club* program. Designed to support our low socio-economic students, it
provides a nutritious breakfast, tutoring, mentoring, computer access,
and free school supplies. It has been widely publicized in a variety of
newspapers and newsletters. Numerous school districts and community
organizations visit the program with the intent to replicate it
elsewhere.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. The EWMS curriculum**

All EWMS students receive a structured standards-aligned curriculum.
Teachers collaborate regularly to align instruction to the standards.
Along with the required core classes, students have the option of
selecting from a variety of elective courses. The San Dieguito Union
High School District regularly secures teams of teachers to design
standards-aligned thematic units that go beyond the standards to
encourage critical thinking skills. In order to ensure challenging and
exciting content, EWMS teachers are active participants in these teams.

The math curriculum is aligned to the California State Standards, along
with the additionally rigorous district standards for Pre-Algebra,
Algebra, and Geometry. Enrichment materials carry the honors courses
beyond the standards. Students are engaged through class activities,
individual exploration, and cooperative group learning. Acquisition of
the standards is demonstrated through PowerPoint presentations,
individual practice, and a variety of assessment modalities. Numerous
support programs, including *Algebra Topics, Math Review, Algebra
Institute, GAP (Girls Achieving Powerfully), Breakfast Club, University
of California, San Diego 5^th^ Dimension,* and special education help
ensure success for each student participating in these programs.

The English curriculum is aligned to the California State Standards and
integrates reading, writing, listening and speaking skills. Higher level
thinking skills are enriched through analysis of novels, short stories,
expository text, poetry and technical documents, presentation of new
vocabulary to develop comprehension, study of language conventions, and
the development of writing and communication skills. Writing workshops
provide opportunities for enrichment and include ongoing editing, peer
review, and teacher feedback. Oral presentations, PowerPoints, and
reports develop speaking and listening skills.

The world language curriculum (Spanish and American Sign Language)
promotes student exploration of culture and written and spoken language.
Teaching is done in the target language, with active student
participation in speaking, writing, and reading. Students integrate
structure, grammar, vocabulary, and colloquialisms with verbal and
listening skills. Oral group presentations, dramatic scenarios, and
written reports provide students with the opportunity to grow in the
language. Students achieve a deeper connection to the language through
the study of how culture affects the language. Students explore history,
correspond with students in other countries, read legends, and
participate in cultural celebrations.

The physical education curriculum is also aligned to state standards and
helps students develop a life-long appreciation for healthy physical
activity. A strong personal health curriculum is at the core of the
program.

All EWMS students study science: seventh graders learn Life Science and
eighth graders study Physical Science through the basic concepts of
physics, chemistry, and life science. The scientific method drives the
search for wisdom. Experiential labs for each unit provide the vehicle
for students to use higher-level thinking skills and foster student
access to scientific knowledge articulated in state and district
standards.

Our Social Science curriculum examines World History and US History
through multiple voices and perspectives. The Social Science curriculum
uses a thematic analysis approach that develops deep historical
understanding and helps students identify historical patterns across
time and place. For every era, students examine historical facts and
identify themes and concepts within the historical content. This
approach provides a rich, deep curricular experience for students of all
ability levels through overt and deliberate practice, promoting better
understand of any place, and any era, including their contemporary
world.

The Arts curriculum includes the study of music, drama, and visual arts.
The curriculum includes an experiential approach to the core elements of
each discipline and reflects an historical perspective. Students study
the basic theory of their discipline and develop their own individual
skills as artists, musicians, or actors. Students are engaged through
selections that reflect the state standards and are varied and
challenging. Students learn the importance of art as a way of expressing
their humanity.

**2. The English language curriculum**

The English Language Arts curriculum incorporates the development of
reading, writing, listening and speaking skills as delineated by the
California English Language Arts Standards. Curriculum is an integration
of grade level novels, and the Holt Rinehart Winston Literature Language
Arts textbook. Reading standards are implemented through study and
analysis of significant novels, short stories, expository text, poetry,
and technical documents. Students also study new vocabulary on an
ongoing basis to enrich reading comprehension. Quarterly district-wide
diagnostic and summative assessments are administered to assess
students' reading comprehension, and language conventions. A
district-wide pre and post-test is administered to all students to
assess writing skills. Students of all reading levels are given
opportunities to improve through differentiated instruction. Honors
classes provide opportunities for additional depth and enrichment for
identified students. A special effort has been made to include
under-represented students in this group. Remediation is provided
individually through reading strategy lessons, lower-level practice
reads, and scaffolding. All students are required to read literature
outside of the classroom in order to meet the minimum standard of one
million words per year. A 25-minute period of Sustained Silent Reading
is built into the daily school schedule.

EWMS employs many resources to help all students achieve proficiency of
the state standards in English language. An active core team of
counselors, resource specialists, teachers, school psychologist, and
administrator meet weekly to develop interventions to meet the needs of
students experiencing academic difficulty. Using ongoing assessment of
data, the team recommends specific support programs designed to meet the
needs of that student. Core English and High School Exit Exam
Preparation are available for students qualifying for Special Education.
Other support programs include *Breakfast Club*, a before school program
of tutoring, mentoring, and breakfast, and *Power in Pairs*, offering
one-on-one peer tutoring. EWMS has also entered into partnership with
the University of California, San Diego-entitled *5^th^ Dimension*, a
program providing tutoring and motivation for middle schoolers by
university students.

**3. Essential skills and knowledge in the Social Science curriculum**

*Mission Statement: The mission of EWMS is to provide a quality
educational program for all students to maximize their individual
potential and be productive, ethical members of a global society,
providing them with a challenging education in a positive atmosphere of
high expectations and personal growth.*

In accordance with our school's mission, EWMS's Social Science
curriculum examines World History and US History through multiple voices
and perspectives as an integral part of the historical narrative. For
example, *VISTAS: Perspectives on Latino Culture*, a grant sponsored by
the National Endowment for the Humanities, supports our efforts to
include a Latin American Studies strand within all humanities courses
offered at EWMS. The Social Science curriculum uses a thematic analysis
approach that employs current, well-researched instructional strategies
designed to develop good habits for all students for deep historical
understanding and for identifying historical patterns across time and
place.

For every era, students examine historical facts and issues using three
overt and deliberate practices of historiography. First, the facts are
categorized by *theme*: Political Organization, Economic Development,
and Social/Cultural Development. Second, students analyze the
information at hand to determine what *historical concept* that
information illustrates. For example, if World History students are
studying the gold and salt trade in medieval African empires, they use
that information to develop their understanding of the economic concept
of prosperity and how it affects a civilization. The third practice of
historiography involves making connections to previous learnings in
order to examine *common patterns of history*. US History students use
conceptual connections from era to era to tell a story -- for example,
they connect the more active political voice of the common man during
Jacksonian times to the women's suffrage efforts of the mid-1800's.

This thematic analysis approach employs the notion that there are
powerful big ideas in history that are true over many times and places.
This approach provides a rich, deep curricular experience for students
of all ability levels. The overt and deliberate focus on historical
concepts through the three skills detailed above provides the
low-performing student with multiple opportunities for exposure and
practice, as well as deeper meaning and connection, which is shown to be
necessary for motivation. For the high-achieving student, this approach
provides the foundation for endless inquiry and discovery. All students
discover big ideas and patterns of history in order to better understand
any place, any era, including their contemporary world.

**4. Instructional methods to improve student learning**

EWMS staff uses a variety of instructional methods to meet the unique
needs of each of its students. Instruction incorporates independent and
collaborative work, and is student-centered. EWMS teachers are keenly
aware of varied learning styles, and the use of differentiated
instruction to meet these needs is part of every classroom. *VISTAS,* an
inter-departmental collaboration program, provides thematic experiences
across disciplines that incorporate Latino culture into the curriculum
and offers perspectives on Latino culture. Teachers tap into techniques
that utilize the auditory, visual, or kinesthetic strengths of each
student.

Students with learning differences have an Individualized Education Plan
designed to meet their specific learning needs. All special education
students receive individually tailored schedules, on-going monitoring by
their case carrier, and close parent communication. Our special
education program utilizes team-teaching, and all students in special
day classes have access to alternative materials and pacing while still
learning the standards.

Students who seek additional challenge are encouraged through a variety
of academic opportunities including Honors Algebra and Geometry, U.S.
History, and Honors English. Honors courses are available for students
that meet district-established criteria, and extensive focus is put on
opening honors opportunities to under-represented students. District and
site GATE committees seek out students in the under-represented groups
to join the honors program. Participation of Earl Warren
under-represented students in the honors program has increased by 8 %
this past year. A summer Bridge program linking identified 5^th^ graders
with our teachers and middle school students to mentor and motivate them
is planned for this summer.

**5. The professional development program and its impact on improving
student achievement**

Professional development at EWMS focuses on preparing teachers to help
ALL students consistently achieve beyond the California State Standards.
The district's Strategic Plan calls for staff development that addresses
academic excellence and student well-being. To support students'
academic growth, a comprehensive training plan to address the social and
emotional needs of all students is firmly in place in partnership with
the SD County Office of Education. *Beyond Diversity, Student
Connectedness Training, Facilitator Training,* and *Insight Training*
are a few of the development opportunities that are heavily emphasized
in our district for all teachers, staff, and interested community
members. They develop awareness of the emotional issues that interfere
with learning, develop empathy and communication skills, share
resources, and encourage support of programs that tackle the issues that
impede academic success.

EWMS teachers collaborate on a regular basis. Departments meet monthly,
and Site Council sponsors full-day collaboration opportunities for
departments to reflect on teaching practices of the standards. In
addition *VISTAS*: *Perspectives on Latino Culture* brings teachers
together across the curriculum to collaborate and develop lesson strands
that infuse Latino studies into the curriculum. Teachers of our
under-represented students also collaborate to meet the unique needs of
their students.

Regular collaboration and vertical teaming are an integral part of our
professional development plan. Articulation between EWMS and its feeder
schools, along with vertical alignment to the high schools, is an
integral part of the school's plan. To accommodate a smooth transition
to high school, staff members participate in district-sponsored
inservice to examine vertical-teaming needs.

New teachers are supported by an outstanding Beginning Teacher Support
(BTSA) program throughout their first two years. On-going training and
support is offered by site administrators, department chairs, peer
mentors, and fellow teachers.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Please refer to Attachments I through VIII that show State
Criterion-Referenced Testing results in mathematics and English Language
Arts in both 7^th^ and 8^th^ grades, as well as National Norm-Referenced
Testing results in mathematics for all students and economically
disadvantaged in both the 7^th^ and 8^th^ grades.

**Attachment I**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTING**

**California Standards Test Scores**

**7^th^ Grade**

**[Mathematics]{.underline}**

+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
|                                                 | *       | *       |
|                                                 | *2002** | *2003** |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
|                                                 |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| **All Students**                                |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...                 |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Basic                                           | 91%     | 87%     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Proficient                                      | 73%     | 65%     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Advanced                                        | 28%     | 33%     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Number of Students Tested                       | 295     | 332     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Total enrollment                                | 306     | 332     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Percent of Total Students Tested                | 96%     | 100%    |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
|                                                 |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| ## Economically Disadvantaged                   |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...                 |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Basic                                           | 68%     | \*N/A   |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Proficient                                      | 32%     | 31%     |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| Advanced                                        | 0%      | \*N/A   |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
|                                                 |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
| \* Data not provided by State                   |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+
|                                                 |         |         |
+-------------------------------------------------+---------+---------+

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[Absent during testing window, parent waivers and IEP requirements for
alternate testing prevented "absent or excluded" students from being
assessed.]{.underline}

Test Publisher: California Department of Education

Edition/publication year: 2002 and 2003

**Attachment II**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTING**

**California Standards Test Scores**

**7^th^ Grade**

**[English Language Arts]{.underline}**

+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           | **     | **     | **     |
|                                           | 2001** | 2002** | 2003** |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| **All Students**                          |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Basic                                     | 94%    | 90%    | 91%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Proficient                                | 67%    | 69%    | 72%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Advanced                                  | 26%    | 30%    | 36%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested                 | 309    | 290    | 332    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total enrollment                          | 336    | 306    | 332    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of Total Students Tested          | 92%    | 95%    | 100%   |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number absent or excluded                 | 27     | 16     | 0      |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| ## Economically Disadvantaged             |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Basic                                     | 71%    | 62%    | \*N/A  |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Proficient                                | 24%    | 19%    | 29%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Advanced                                  | 6%     | 0%     | \*N/A  |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested                 | 34     | 21     | 48     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| \* Data not provided by State             |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[Absent during testing window, parent waivers and IEP requirements for
alternate testing prevented "absent or excluded" students from being
assessed.]{.underline}

Test Publisher[: California Department of Education]{.underline}

Edition/publication year: [2001, 2002 and 2003]{.underline}

**Attachment III**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTING**

**California Standards Test Scores**

**8^th^ Grade**

**[2002 Mathematics]{.underline}**

+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     | **Gen.  | **        | **Geo   |
|                                     | Math**  | Algebra** | metry** |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| **All Students**                    |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Basic                               | 75%     | 92%       | 100%    |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Proficient                          | 21%     | 59%       | 100%    |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Advanced                            | 1%      | 12%       | 93%     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Number of Students Tested           | 82      | 217       | 14      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total Number of Students Tested     | 313     |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total Enrollment                    | 324     |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Percent of Total Students Tested    | 97%     |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Number Absent or Excluded           | 11      |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| ## Economically Disadvantaged       |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Basic                               | 51%     | \*N/A     | 0%      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Proficient                          | 13%     | \*N/A     | 0%      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Advanced                            | 0%      | \*N/A     | 0%      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Number of Students Tested           | 24      | \>10      | 0       |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| \* Data not reported for less than  |         |           |         |
| 10 students                         |         |           |         |
|                                     |         |           |         |
| tested                              |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[Absent during testing window, parent waivers and IEP requirements for
alternate testing prevented "absent or excluded" students from being
assessed.]{.underline}

Test Publisher: California Department of Education

Edition/publication year: [2002]{.underline}

**Attachment IV**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTING**

**California Standards Test Scores**

**8^th^ Grade**

**[2003 Mathematics]{.underline}**

+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     | **Gen.  | **        | **Geo   |
|                                     | Math**  | Algebra** | metry** |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| **All Students**                    |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Basic                               | 67%     | 95%       | 100%    |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Proficient                          | 41%     | 72%       | 82%     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Advanced                            | 0%      | 30%       | 18%     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Number of Students Tested           | 66      | 224       | 11      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total Number of Students Tested     | 301     |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total Enrollment                    | 303     |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Percent of Total Students Tested    | 99%     |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Number Absent or Excluded           | 2       |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| ## Economically Disadvantaged       |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Basic                               | \*N/A   | \*N/A     | 0%      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Proficient                          | 29%     | 33%       | 0%      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Advanced                            | \*N/A   | \*N/A     | 0%      |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| Number of Students Tested           | 17      | 12        | 0       |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
|                                     |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+
| \* Data not provided by State.      |         |           |         |
+-------------------------------------+---------+-----------+---------+

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[Absent during testing window, parent waivers and IEP requirements for
alternate testing prevented "absent or excluded" students from being
assessed.]{.underline}

Test Publisher: California Department of Education

Edition/publication year: [2003]{.underline}

**Attachment V**

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTING**

**California Standards Test Scores**

**8^th^ Grade**

**[English Language Arts]{.underline}**

+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           | **     | **     | **     |
|                                           | 2001** | 2002** | 2003** |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| **All Students**                          |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Basic                                     | 92%    | 93%    | 89%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Proficient                                | 78%    | 67%    | 72%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Advanced                                  | 32%    | 29%    | 34%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested                 | 255    | 314    | 303    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Enrollment                          | 284    | 324    | 303    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of Total Students Tested          | 90%    | 97%    | 100%   |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number Absent or Excluded                 | 29     | 10     | 0      |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| ## Economically Disadvantaged             |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total -- Percent of Students...           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Basic                                     | 42%    | 65%    | \*N/A  |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Proficient                                | 16%    | 18%    | 33%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Advanced                                  | 5%     | 3%     | \*N/A  |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of Students Tested                 | 19     | 34     | 30     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| \* Data not provided by State.            |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[Absent during testing window, parent waivers and IEP requirements for
alternate testing prevented "absent or excluded" students from being
assessed.]{.underline}

Test Publisher: California Department of Education

Edition/publication year: 2001, 2002 and 2003

**Attachment VI**

**NATIONAL NORM-REFERENCED TESTING**

**California Standards Test Scores**

**Stanford Achievement Test**

**[Mathematics -- All Students]{.underline}**

+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           | **     | **     | **     |
|                                           | 1999** | 2000** | 2001** |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| **7^th^ Grade**                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| NPR for "Average" for student score       | 89     | 85     | 87     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent scoring at or above 50^th^ NPR    | 89     | 86     | 89     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested                 | 559    | 241    | 289    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total enrollment                          | 581    | 256    | 336    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent of Total Students Tested          | 96%    | 94%    | 86%    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total absent or excluded                  | 22     | 15     | 47     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| ## 8^th^ Grade                            |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| NPR for "Average" for student score       | 90     | 84     | 87     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent scoring at or above 50^th^ NPR    | 91     | 87     | 95     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested                 | 483    | 217    | 227    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total enrollment                          | 524    | 249    | 284    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total absent or excluded                  | 41     | 32     | 57     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[Absent during testing window, parent waivers and IEP requirements for
alternate testing prevented "absent or excluded" students from being
assessed.]{.underline}

Test Publisher[: Harcourt Brace]{.underline}

Edition/publication year: [9^th^ Edition]{.underline}

**Attachment VII**

**NATIONAL NORM-REFERENCED TESTING**

**California Standards Test Scores**

**Stanford Achievement Test**

**[Mathematics -- Economically Disadvantaged]{.underline}**

+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           | **     | **     | **     |
|                                           | 1999** | 2000** | 2001** |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| **7^th^ Grade**                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| NPR for "Average" for student score       | 53     | 45     | 49     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent scoring at or above 50^th^ NPR    | 50     | 39     | 57     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested                 | 28     | 18     | 30     |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| ## 8^th^ Grade                            |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| NPR for "Average" for student score       | 75     | 44     | N/A    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Percent scoring at or above 50^th^ NPR    | 76     | 42     | N/A    |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
| Number of students tested                 | 21     | 12     | \>10   |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+
|                                           |        |        |        |
+-------------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+

What groups were excluded from testing? Why, and how were they assessed?
[Absent during testing window, parent waivers and IEP requirements for
alternate testing prevented "absent or excluded" students from being
assessed.]{.underline}

Test Publisher[: Harcourt Brace]{.underline}

Edition/publication year: [9^th^ Edition]{.underline}