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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: \_**[X]{.underline}** Elementary \_\_
Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12

Name of Principal [**Mrs. Sharon Stenersen**]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [**Camelot Elementary School**]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address\_\_\_\_\_**[4041 South 298th
Street]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

\_**[Auburn]{.underline}**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_**[Washington]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[98001-1581]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**[KING]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**School
Code Number\*\_[**N/A**]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone [**( 253 ) 945-2504**]{.underline} Fax [**( 253 )
945-2525**]{.underline}

Website/URL [**http://schools.fwps.org/cam/**]{.underline} E-mail
[**sstenersen@fwps.org**]{.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\* [**Mr. Thomas Murphy**]{.underline}

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

District Name [**Federal Way Public Schools**]{.underline} Tel. [(
**253** ) **945-2010**]{.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 **Mr. Charles Hoff**

President/Chairperson

(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)

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

**\[Include this page in the school's application as page 2.\]**

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: \_[23]{.underline}\_\_ Elementary
schools

\_ [6 \_]{.underline} Middle schools

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

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

\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_ Other

\_[35]{.underline}\_\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure:
\_\_\_[\$7,436]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure:
\_\_\_[\$6,795]{.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
>
> \[ X \] Suburban school with characteristics typical of an urban area
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [8]{.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**    12        4                      **16**       **7**                             

  **K**       18        27                     **45**       **8**                             

  **1**       28        28                     **56**       **9**                             

  **2**       19        21                     **40**       **10**                            

  **3**       31        17                     **48**       **11**                            

  **4**       31        28                     **59**       **12**                            

  **5**       34        18                     **52**       **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                                       

                                    **TOTAL                                                   316
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

*\[Throughout the document, round numbers to avoid decimals.\]*

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [70]{.underline}% White

the students in the school: [9]{.underline}% Black or African American

[7]{.underline}% Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**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:
\_\_\_[18]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

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

  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**   Number of students who transferred ***to***  36
            the school after October 1 until the end of  
            the year.                                    

  **(2)**   Number of students who transferred           20
            ***from*** the school after October 1 until  
            the end of the year.                         

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum   56
            of rows (1) and (2)\]                        

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of 303
            October 1                                    

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row  .1848
            (4)                                          

  **(6)**   Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100          18.48
  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_\_\_[18]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

\_\_\_[56]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_[9]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Specify languages: Russian, Punjabi, Spanish, Ukrainian, Polish,
Swahili, Samoan, Tagalog, Philipino

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_\_\_\_[60]{.underline}\_\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_\_\_\_[183]{.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:
\_\_\_\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_%

\_\_\_\_\_[10]{.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.

\_\_\_\_Autism \_\_\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_[5]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_\_[2]{.underline}\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_Speech or Language Impairment

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

> \_\_\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
> Blindness

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities [2]{.underline} Developmental Delays

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) \_\_ [1]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_[14\_\_\_]{.underline} [\_\_\_
1]{.underline}\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists [\_\_ 7]{.underline}\_\_\_ [\_\_\_
5]{.underline}\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals [\_\_ 3]{.underline}\_\_\_ [\_\_\_
6]{.underline}\_\_\_

> Support staff [\_\_ 4]{.underline}\_\_\_ [\_\_\_ 4]{.underline}\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_[29]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_[16]{.underline}\_\_\_

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
\_\_[22]{.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  95.2%       95.4%       95.4%       95.4%       95.2%

  Daily teacher attendance  95.8%       93.2%       \%          \%          \%

  Teacher turnover rate     25%         23%         17%         \%          \%

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

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

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

At Camelot Elementary, we believe in high achievement and focus our
decisions on that goal. Although we work hard, Camelot is also a magical
place: school children enter their classrooms through doors with
medieval designs and visit the Tower (office), Great Hall (gym, lunch
room), and Librarium; teachers meet in the Round Table; and the
principal's office is Merlin's chamber. At monthly celebration
assemblies, exemplary student citizens are ceremonially \"knighted\".
The hard work and wonder intertwine.

This environment has a child-friendly base, but we are grounded in a
purposeful, proven learning approach. Our focus is on the whole
child---not just curriculum, important as it is, but also on life
skills, such as responsibility, respect, and integrity. With this
foundation, students are prepared to be independent thinkers and life
learners who can and do understand standards and set goals to meet them.
We believe that learners will be motivated---and successful---when they
can experience a sense of achievement, treating people with and
receiving respect, as well as learning to use their freedom to make
appropriate choices for success.

How do we make this happen? One way is by constantly anchoring ourselves
to words and actions that emphasize this focus in new ways. Each year,
we select a child-centered theme that focuses on our common beliefs.
These themes start with the love we have for children and reinforce ways
to build their self-esteem and empower them to confidently improve their
own lives, minds, and sense of community. Some years ago, for example,
staff shared the story of how geese fly in a V with the leader changing
and each member's job being to encourage the leader and one another;
geese collaborate for the good of all and so should we. A few years
later the compass was the symbol of our theme to keep our destination in
mind for student success and not to waiver far from the path, which
could be easy when there is so much to do. This year our symbol is a jar
with large rocks inside, then small pebbles added, and finally sand; in
the demonstration with children the message came to life as they
realized that the big rocks had to be first or they would never fit. The
big rocks stand for our most important traits to develop: integrity,
trustworthiness, respect, responsibility and self-esteem. These themes
serve as memorable anchors for our efforts to connect with one another
for high achievement in academics and behaviors.

A second way we make this happen is through our building on
relationships, attitudes, and learning. There is a quote you will hear
often at Camelot: "You must reach a child to teach a child." The entire
faculty has participated in days of workshops designed to instill "high
trust" throughout the school so that we build the relationship that
allows the child, and all of us, to be successful.

Finally, we have a coordinated network of programs driven by student
academic needs. Our classroom approach is differentiated instruction;
accelerated learning programs supplement the offerings. For example,
Camelot has before-school and after-school extended learning in reading
and math, a homework club, and several sections of summer school.

Camelot has a rich tapestry of cultures and backgrounds: many are
immigrants who may not speak English at home, and 60% are from families
of limited economic means. We are responsible for ensuring that they all
are successful. Camelot strives to be a \"most congenial spot\" within
the community. We are connected with our hearts for children and a
passion for learning.

# 

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

**1. Meaning of Assessment Results**

Camelot Elementary students have performed at high levels on the state
assessment in reading and math for the past few years. The Washington
Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) requires students in grade 4, 7,
and 10 to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding in each
of the identified essential academic learning requirements (EALRs). The
format of the assessment includes multiple-choice and short answer
questions as well as extended response, essay, and problem-solving
tasks. It is frequently described as testing "what you know and are able
to do." The staff focuses on the EALRs in the daily instruction and uses
formative assessment data to guide the next steps for students in grades
K-5 -- always working to help students across the grades and across the
curriculum to build towards success. The WASL is an assessment that we
believe measures the real world of how the student can perform for life
learning, so it also serves as an instructional program that has meaning
for the students in their every-day life.

Research reports that students who are in families of poverty are
consistently lower performers; Camelot students do not fit that profile.
As our poverty rate has increased (38.4 % in 2000-01 to 59.0% in
2003-04) our scores in reading and math have been more successful. In
fact, in those four years we experienced a 20% gain in poverty. At the
end of the period, reading was at 91.8 % meeting standard (14% gain) and
math was at 69.4% meeting standard (22% gain).

Investigating the disaggregated data on reading assessment over time, we
have noted some areas that needed to be addressed. In the past few
years\' comprehension in literary text and informational text is a
relative weakness. By using the data from assessments and professional
observation, we determined that as a school with a high ELL (English
language learners) population and a high poverty level, vocabulary and
fluency are the two areas that have the biggest influence on success in
comprehension.

In math our data indicated that our students needed to improve in the
content areas of math such as number sense and measurement. Increasing
computational fluency is one of the ways we have adapted to address this
deficit. Games of all kinds as well as hands-on strategies and movement
activities with rhythm and different thinking methods are all being
employed to improve computational fluency. In the ELL population we find
that numbers are a common language and our fun with math is universal in
that sense. We have annual events in the evenings for families with both
reading and math; the turnout for these is quite good (34%); math is the
favorite for the ELL families.

The Iowa Test for Basic Skills (ITBS) has been administered to students
in grades 3 and 6. This assessment breaks down the information for
reading by vocabulary and comprehension and highlighted the need for us
to focus in these areas. In math we generally have students in the
50^th^ percentile range. Both norm referenced and criterion referenced
assessments are used to provide us information about student weaknesses
and strengths as we plan instruction for improvement in these core
academic skills. The teacher-designed performance assessments are also
considered for day-by-day instruction. Collaboration of staff across the
grades with assessment data supports the continuity of skill
development. For example, a diagnostic tool was developed to test every
student's level of reading fluency; the DIBELS program is now used for
the assessment, and individual teachers can also use the monitoring
prompts in between for on-going data after using interventions and thus
check for effectiveness.

National, state, district and building assessments, both formal and
informal, supplement the teacher's classroom assessments identifying the
success of instruction and practice. The assessment results may be found
at http://schools.fwps.org/cam/ as well as the state education

website: www.k12.wa.us. In all programs -- general education, gifted
education, and special education -- assessment data is what drives
instruction at Camelot.

**2. Using Assessment Results**

Camelot teachers and staff take many steps to help ensure that
assessment data are an integral part of all aspects of instruction.
District-wide assessment tools include the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS) in grade 3, the Gates-McGinitie for grades 2-5, district grade
level assessments K-5, the Diagnostic Reading Assessment for grades K-2,
and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) in grade 4.
This collection of data is used as indicators to reveal individual,
group, or whole class needs. This initial data is the basis for design
of instruction developed by teams during grade-level meetings and whole
staff "data focus" days.

At Camelot there are many improvement opportunities for students not
meeting standards. Teachers are trained in differentiated instruction to
ensure that students receive appropriate instruction within the
classroom. When needs for additional support are identified, programs
such as our extended learning opportunity (ELO) and Title programs
provide focused instruction both in pull-out sessions during the student
day, as well as sessions before and after school. These programs involve
certificated staff and para-professionals working with small groups and
in individual tutoring sessions. Some students in grades 3-5 demonstrate
that they are highly capable in academics, leadership, or the arts; they
receive supplemental opportunities to thrive within the school's gifted
education program.

Using the data regarding our needs for increasing fluency and vocabulary
development, the staff has studied professional publications such as
*Strategies That Work* and *Words Their Way* to discover techniques to
develop vocabulary and ways of organizing thinking in students. Teachers
focus attention on specific vocabulary used most commonly in the state
test, basic sight words, and grade level lists through word-walls,
spelling drills, and classroom instruction/practice. *Read Naturally*
and *Accelerated Reader* are used to motivate reading. The high interest
and active participation builds the fluency. Parents support the
improvement by having their children read for 20 minutes each evening;
the collaboration related to these specific needs works for success.

# 3. Communicating Student Performance

Camelot's practice is to communicate information about student
performance with three key audiences: students, their parents, and the
community at large. Each of these audiences requires its own approaches.
With the expectation that students are responsible for their own
learning, teachers train students to lead the student/parent/teacher
conference. Students describe their progress, including what they need
to do if they are not performing to standards. Any staff member may
issue "I was caught doing something good" awards, which are often
included as part of morning announcements. Students who have
demonstrated reliable behaviors of responsibility in the many arenas of
the school program are \"knighted\" at school-wide celebration
assemblies, which are monthly events showcasing the students in reading,
writing, and the arts. Student work is displayed in common areas of the
school; at times classes will go on walks to \"read the walls\".

Parents receive information about student performance in many ways. At
orientation on the first day of school, they receive specific
information about the standards students will be expected to meet at
each grade level. Specific evening events are set up, such as regular
PTA meetings, a \"WASL night\" which explains the fourth grade state
test, and several reading and math nights. Teacher notes, phone calls
and e-mails provide real-time feedback. Since about one-quarter of
Camelot's parents may speak little or no English, Camelot has
para-educators who interpret and translate information (Russian,
Ukrainian, and Spanish). The school also has a web site and a monthly
newsletter for on-going information with the parents and community.

Camelot's emphasis on communicating with the community goes beyond those
who have children in school. A special effort is made to notify the news
media, and within the past year; stories about Camelot students have
appeared in Seattle, Tacoma, and Federal Way newspapers. Besides using
the news media, Camelot students take messages about their success
directly to members of the public. For example, one intermediate level
class each year takes on a special citizenry project called "We the
People." After learning about the decision-making processes in this
country's three-part governmental system, they research topics and make
presentations to local members of the State Legislature, the judiciary,
and various government agencies.

# 4. Sharing Successes 

The staff at Camelot is enthusiastic about education and about students.
We strive to seek opportunities to share and to exchange ideas,
strategies, and thinking. Frequently in the past few years district
training and presentations were implemented by our staff with expertise
in reading (training para-educators and teachers), technology (teaching
technology as a tool for learning and supplementing curriculum with
integration of software programs), union representatives (on
collaboration and practical leadership tips that bring student success),
and math (leaders in grade level groups across the District). Staff are
frequently the master teachers or mentors for high school students
interested in the profession, pre-service college students, and graduate
interns in principal and psychologist programs.

Sharing of successes continues quite naturally as the District brings
those with similar roles together for training, information, and
collaboration (for example, principals, reading specialists, special
education staff, etc.) We have engaged in deeper collaboration with
others in two different areas where we study the impact of practices for
success: 1) oral fluency assessment K-5 and 2) "high trust" psychology
practiced in common ways throughout the building. With oral fluency, we
have worked with 4 schools for 4 years to aggregate assessment data,
share ideas, and celebrate successes. In trust psychology, our
enthusiasm has grown over three years with the success it brings. We
have influenced whole school staffs to embrace it and included a host of
others who have afterward found that this approach changes attitudes,
actions and language, bringing greater success for adults and students
alike.

The sharing with educators outside our district has included phone
conversations and visitations. We receive numerous requests for
information about academic successes, instructional strategies,
management of students, and successful team collaboration of staff.
Recently a visit of 12 staff from a school in a neighboring district
allowed both schools to benefit. The Camelot community believes that we
are ambassadors for our school and for public education.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

#  1. School Curriculum and Student Engagement 

Guiding Camelot's curriculum are the state's Grade Level Expectations
(GLEs) and district standards. These expectations and standards
encompass all areas of the curriculum and dictate the content,
understandings, processes, and skills needed for student achievement at
every grade level. They are an integral part of decisions made by every
teacher about what to teach and how to teach it.

Camelot's motto, "Every Student a Reader," emblazons the staff t-shirts,
captures the atmosphere of the school, and reflects what we hold dear.
Reading instruction is integrated throughout the curriculum and is
conducted every day using a five-component model for instruction.
Programs which motivate students to read include "reading buddies," a
series of family reading nights, reading competitions called Battle of
the Books, motivated read-a-thons called Read and Lead, reading clubs,
and visits by authors of children's literature. All of these programs
build skills and motivate students to become life-long learners; they
are necessary for our population of highly diverse language learners.

In math we follow a combination of programs implemented by the District.
Scott Foresman and *Investigations* programs provide students with a
balanced approach of mastery of skills and a hands-on exploration of
mathematical concepts that promotes self-discovery and higher-order
thinking. To further support growth many of our staff link math
instruction with kinesthetic expression and music to reach all learners.
Camelot also has after-school and pull-out small group instruction based
on student need to ensure that every student is mastering mathematical
thinking in grades 3-5. This year the staff created a scope and sequence
math vocabulary by grade-level according to state standards and
assessments.

Camelot uses the program *Step Up to Writing* as its main instructional
tool for writing. Our state assessment, WASL, not only requires that
students have the ability to apply proper grammar and mechanics, but
also requires that they demonstrate the ability to synthesize
information and write coherently. Camelot's writing curriculum includes
teaching organization, drafting, and revising skills as well as
components of quality text. Students learn to write for authentic
purposes such as personal and professional letters, summaries,
narratives, and report writing, which are integrated into all aspects of
the curriculum.

Science and health curriculum is focused on hands-on discovery. Science
kits, which expose children to grade-level appropriate scientific
information, and a program called *The Great Body Shop* are the main
components of our program. These allow for exploration, a foundation for
an understanding of the physical world, and learning of techniques of
scientific observation to apply in the world at large.

Social studies, the arts, and physical education are also valuable parts
of the curriculum and are integrated with other instruction in a variety
of ways. Specialists in physical education and music incorporate high
levels of goal setting and skill standards into the curriculum including
extra-curricular activities that deepen student learning (i.e. Honor
Choir, Minstrel Choir, and a walking fitness program called Mileage Club
at lunch recesses). Our social studies curriculum combines both a
traditional sequence of instruction and integration with a large variety
of other programs to provide students with an understanding of history,
its relevance, and our social world. Building on our tradition of
Camelot, each year our school carnival is called a "Renaissance Faire,"
and students learn about the art, music, and drama of the period as a
prelude to carnival activities. Student assemblies have focused on such
related topics as the life of Leonardo Da Vinci. Similarly, art is
integrated in a cross-curricular approach designed to develop deeper
understandings in literature, social studies, and science.

**2. Reading Curriculum**

Camelot's students read every day using an approach that has five
different instructional modes. They are: 1) guided reading, which is
generally small group instruction, 2) whole class instruction, 3) read
aloud, 4) independent reading, and 5) 1:1 reading with the teacher.
Houghton Mifflin is the adopted core curriculum for grades 1 through 5.
It was chosen because it provides a focus both in fiction and
non-fiction, which we believe motivates more reading in Camelot's
diverse population of students. Our demographics and our experience with
Camelot kids led us to adopt The *Letter People* as our Kindergarten
core curriculum. So many of our students have little access to letters,
words, books (and even English) before age 5 years; the letter people
(inflatable characters representing one letter of the alphabet) are
embraced literally and figuratively into their school experience. This
curriculum engages the young child in song, rhyme, story and imagination
and has phonemic awareness, explicit phonics, vocabulary, and great
literature. For students K-2 who have needs with acceleration in
phonemic awareness and explicit phonics, we supplement our instruction
with Open Court, a basic phonemic and phonics program for the early
reader.

The teacher is the most critical component in reading instruction. The
knowledge of reading instruction and strategies, a complete knowledge of
every student, and an enthusiasm are key in integrating reading
instruction across the curriculum. Research-based supplemental reading
materials include *Soar to Success, 9 Good Habits, Language!, Read
Well,* Big 6 Information Processing Skills, *Read Naturally,* tutorial
based on *Reading Recovery,* *Accelerated Reader*, and selected book
sets for literature circles. English as a second language, speech,
special education, AmeriCorps, and Title I teachers all use these
supplemental materials. These programs and staff all work together
across grade levels to ensure that students have the skills to learn how
to read and read to learn.

**3. Math Curriculum**

It is fundamental to use a complete and well-rounded math program. We
find it important to build curiosity, have relevance to the learner,
allow for empowerment through goal setting, involve a high level of
challenge and rigor, be developmentally appropriate, and address
differing learning styles.

With these goals and beliefs our school enthusiastically supported the
district adoption of a traditional Scott Foresman math text and the
*Investigations* program developed by TERC (formerly known as Technical
Education Research Centers)*.* We believe that by using the Scott
Foresman text and *Investigations* in unison, we are able to provide a
well-balanced approach to the learning of concepts and application of
skills. The Scott Foresman text is designed to support students with
understanding and spiraled practice of fact mastery and comprehension of
concepts. The *Investigations* program allows students to learn and
practice the tools needed to analyze, synthesize, apply, and evaluate
ideas using mathematics.

Considering the different needs of students, supplemental programs are
added or designed to meet developmental stages of all students. We have
aligned our programs K-5, focused on math vocabulary and computational
fluency at all grade levels, provided support classes during and after
school, and added daily and/or monthly routines that integrate and
reinforce instruction. Using these strategies throughout the grade
levels allows students familiarity and consistency and provides them
resources for recall of facts needed in higher-level mathematical
problem solving. As a result we have seen a growth in math curiosity, a
higher ability to compose and decompose numbers, and the ability to
provide written explanations of the strategies used to solve problems.
These programs used together allow students to experience hands-on
exploration of mathematical concepts that have relevance to the learner,
promote self-discovery, and develop higher-order thinking and
application to the \"real world.\"

**4. Instructional Methods**

Camelot teachers and support staff are masters at designing instruction
which addresses the multiple needs, intelligences, and styles of the
students. Students are highly engaged whether in whole class, flexible
groups or individual instruction. Research-proven materials and best
practices are used to improve comprehension and retention of learned
skills.

Data provides a starting point for assessing our students' prior
knowledge and provides a base to identify the specific needs and
individualized approach needed for students to succeed.

The collaboration of teachers and specialists in reading, math and
special education provide instruction, support, and encouragement.
Supplemental programs used for those who are struggling learners include
*Soar to Success,* Open Court*, Language!, Read Well, and Read
Naturally* for reading. Hands-on activities, use of manipulatives, links
to music and kinesthetic expression are methods enhancing the learning
in math and reading. Teaching students learning protocols, graphic
organizers and simple rubrics provides a sound structure and continuity
for learning weather they are at school or elsewhere. Technology is also
used across all subject areas. With these tools and skills the students
are building life-learning skills, which apply outside of the campus.

Teachers encourage parents to volunteer, tutor, and act as partners in
instruction. Workshops are offered by staff to build the skills of the
parent in the teaching and supporting role for their children at home.
These have included the making/playing of reading and math games,
read-aloud techniques, and reading and math drill techniques. Students
at risk are offered summer school classes, which focus solely on reading
and math. Support for students who are having difficulty in social and
emotional domains is available during the day. The development of
cultural competence is a focus for our school community. The English
language learners (ELL) program has teaching staff for those identified,
but we believe all of us need support for greater understanding and
appreciation of the world cultures represented on our campus.

**5. Professional Development**

Professional development for the staff is critical in order to build
student success. Our focus is aligned with the district and the state
expectations. Therefore, our staff development is designed after
assessing student needs and determining the capacity of the staff to
bring students to the high level of those expectations.

The District curriculum department determines the focus for staff
development, specifying a common level of skills and understandings.
This involves using best practices in reading and math instruction which
include extensive training in newly adopted curriculum (the past two
years it has been in math), an understanding of the impact of poverty on
our students, and clarity about the standards. Staff identified two
specific needs of our learning community for additional focus: 1) an
emphasis on vocabulary, oral language and print for our students who
come with limited access, and 2) building the individual\--empowering
each student to take responsibility for learning and to know he/she is
capable.

The district expectations and the needs of our student population are
then coupled with the skills, attitudes, and gifts of staff serving
those students. Differentiated instruction is one of the strategies
employed to help [all]{.underline} students meet the standards. Our
focus on thinking skills, intelligent behaviors, and learning styles
engages all students towards the goals. Collaborative studies in best
practice have included *Mosaic of Thought, Words Their Way, Strategies
that Work ,*and *Differentiated Instruction*. Guest experts have
enhanced our skills (this year: Ruby Payne research taught by Paul
Slocumb and math ways of thinking we learned from University of
Washington Professor Elham Kazemi).

We use staff meetings and grade level meeting times to continue our
learning together. This is a dynamic profession; our students challenge
us each day with their needs and gifts, making our work with them
stimulating as we strive for the success of [every]{.underline} student.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

Subject: **[Reading]{.underline}** Grade: **[3]{.underline}** Test:
**[Iowa Test of Basic Skills - (ITBS)]{.underline}**

Edition/Publication Year: **[1996]{.underline}** Publisher: **[The
Riverside Publishing Co.]{.underline}**

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_**[X]{.underline}** \_

\*At this time Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) does not disaggregate individual student scores for
low income, but rater defers to the school wide Title I report of all
students.

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Total Score                   | 49   | 59   | 44   | 54   | 45   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 56   | 53   | 55   | 53   | 62   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students     | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   |
| > tested                        | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students            | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students           | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.Economically                |      |      |      |      |      |
| > Disadvantaged\*               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 2.White                       | 54   | 58   | 51   | 55   | 48   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 41   | 37   | 34   | 42   | 46   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 3.American Indian             | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 4.African American            | 24   | 48   | 22   | 47   | 19   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 5    | 5    | 10   | 5    | 3    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 5.Hispanic                    | 21   | 81   | 18   | 51   | 35   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 1    | 4    | 2    | 2    | 5    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 6.Asian/Pacific Island        | 48   | 57   | 50   | 58   | 47   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 8    | 7    | 9    | 4    | 8    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 7.Unknown                     | 12   | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 1    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Subject: **[Math]{.underline}** Grade: **[3]{.underline}** Test: **[Iowa
Test of Basic Skills - (ITBS)]{.underline}**

Edition/Publication Year: **[1996]{.underline}** Publisher: **[The
Riverside Publishing Co.]{.underline}**

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_**[X]{.underline}** \_

\*At this time Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) does not disaggregate individual student scores for
low income, but rater defers to the school wide Title I report of all
students.

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Total Score                   | 51   | 77   | 59   | 55   | 55   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 54   | 53   | 54   | 52   | 62   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students     | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   |
| > tested                        | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students            | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students           | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.Economically                |      |      |      |      |      |
| > Disadvantaged\*               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 2.White                       | 56   | 76   | 62   | 54   | 56   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 40   | 37   | 34   | 41   | 46   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 3.American Indian             | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 4.African American            | 21   | 64   | 29   | 33   | 42   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 4    | 4    | 9    | 5    | 3    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 5.Hispanic                    | 28   | 97   | 60   | 53   | 44   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 1    | 4    | 2    | 2    | 5    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 6.Asian/Pacific Island        | 50   | 68   | 76   | 82   | 64   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 8    | 8    | 9    | 4    | 8    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 7.Unknown                     | 30   | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 1    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Subject: **[Reading]{.underline}** Grade: **[6]{.underline}** Test:
**[Iowa Test of Basic Skills - (ITBS)]{.underline}**

Edition/Publication Year: **[1996]{.underline}** Publisher: **[The
Riverside Publishing Co.]{.underline}**

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_**[X]{.underline}** \_

\*At this time Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) does not disaggregate individual student scores for
low income, but rater defers to the school wide Title I report of all
students.

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Total Score                   |      | 56   | 44   | 57   | 51   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 74   | 55   | 51   | 55   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students     |      | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   |
| > tested                        |      | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students            |      | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students           |      | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.Economically                |      |      |      |      |      |
| > Disadvantaged\*               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 2.White                       |      | 59   | 51   | 62   | 58   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 50   | 34   | 36   | 42   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 3.American Indian             |      | \-   | \-   | 70   | 34   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 0    | 0    | 2    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 4.African American            |      | 53   | 22   | 28   | 41   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 5    | 10   | 5    | 1    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 5.Hispanic                    |      | 40   | 18   | 48   | 25   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 8    | 2    | 3    | 3    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 6.Asian/Pacific Island        |      | 50   | 50   | 56   | 28   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 11   | 9    | 5    | 7    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 7.Unknown                     |      | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Subject: **[Math]{.underline}** Grade: **[6]{.underline}** Test: **[Iowa
Test of Basic Skills - (ITBS)]{.underline}**

Edition/Publication Year: **[1996]{.underline}** Publisher: **[The
Riverside Publishing Co.]{.underline}**

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles\_\_**[X]{.underline}** \_

\*At this time Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) does not disaggregate individual student scores for
low income, but rater defers to the school wide Title I report of all
students.

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month                 |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Total Score                   |      | 59   | 59   | 56   | 54   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 74   | 54   | 51   | 49   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students     |      | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   |
| > tested                        |      | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students            |      | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students           |      | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1.Economically                |      |      |      |      |      |
| > Disadvantaged\*               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 2.White                       |      | 60   | 62   | 58   | 59   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 50   | 34   | 36   | 38   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 3.American Indian             |      | \-   | \-   | 71   | 20   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 0    | 0    | 2    | 2    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 4.African American            |      | 57   | 29   | 28   | 46   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 5    | 9    | 5    | 1    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 5.Hispanic                    |      | 49   | 60   | 32   | 9    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 8    | 2    | 3    | 1    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 6.Asian/Pacific Island        |      | 60   | 76   | 69   | 43   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 11   | 9    | 5    | 7    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 7.Unknown                     |      | \-   | \-   | \-   | \-   |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     |      | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

Subject: **[Reading]{.underline}** Grade: **[4]{.underline}** Test:
**[Washington Assessment of Student Learning - (WASL)]{.underline}**

Edition/Publication Year: **[Revised Annually]{.underline}** Publisher[:
**The Riverside Publishing Co. **]{.underline}

On the Washington Assessment of Student Learning students are reported
by Level of Proficiency:

Level 1 is \"below standard\" (this equates to below basic). Level 2 is
\"approaching standard\" (this equates to basic). Level 3 is
\"standard\" (this equates to proficient). Level 4 is \"exceeds
standard\" (this equates to advanced).

\*At this time Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) does not disaggregate individual student scores for
low income, but rater defers to the school wide Title I report of all
students.

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

  Testing month **May**                                                                

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic                 97.9%       100.0%      98.2%       98.4%       95.8%

  \% At or Above Proficient            91.8%       85.4%       87.3%       77.8%       66.0%

  \% At Advanced                       55.1%       33.3%       47.3%       15.9%       17.0%

  Number of students tested            49          48          55          63          47

  Percent of total students tested     100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%
  assessed                                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged\*                                                     

  \% At or Above Basic                 97.0%       100.0%      98.2%                   

  \% At or Above Proficient            90.9%       85.4%       87.3%                   

  \% At Advanced                       45.5%       33.3%       49.1%                   

  Number of students tested            33          48          55                      

                                                                                       

  2\. White % At or Above Basic        96.7%       100.0%      97.7%       100.0%      100.0%

  \% At or Above Proficient            93.5%       93.5%       88.4%       80.4%       72.2%

  \% At Advanced                       58.1%       29.0%       51.2%       15.2%       22.2%

  Number of students tested            31          31          43          46          36

  3\. American Indian % At or Above    100.0%      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%
  Basic                                                                                

  \% At or Above Proficient            100.0%      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%

  \% At Advanced                       100.0%      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%

  Number of students tested            1           0           0           0           0

  4\. African American % At or Above   100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      75.0%       66.7%
  Basic                                                                                

  \% At or Above Proficient            87.5%       40.0%       100.0%      25.0%       33.3%

  \% At Advanced                       37.5%       20.0%       50.0%       0.0%        0.0%

  Number of students tested            8           5           4           4           3

  5\. Hispanic % At or Above Basic     100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%

  \% At or Above Proficient            100.0%      66.7%       80.0%       100.0%      0.0%

  \% At Advanced                       66.7%       33.3%       20.0%       20.0%       0.0%

  Number of students tested            3           3           5           5           1

  6\. Asian/Pacific Island % At or     100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%
  Above Basic                                                                          

  \% At or Above Proficient            83.3%       88.9%       66.7%       75.0%       75.0%

  \% At Advanced                       50.0%       55.6%       33.3%       25.0%       0.0%

  Number of students tested            6           9           3           8           4

  7\. Unknown % At or Above Basic      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        66.7%

  \% At or Above Proficient            0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        33.3%

  \% At Advanced                       0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%

  Number of students tested            0           0           0           0           3

  **STATE SCORES\*\***                                                                 

  \% At or Above Basic                             92.0%       93.9%       93.5%       92.8%

  \% At or Above Proficient            74.4%       66.7%       65.6%       66.1%       65.8%

  \% At Advanced                                   25.3%       27.0%       27.4%       27.0%
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\*\*2004 grade 4 reading and math scores for the state are not yet
available except at proficient level.

Subject: **[Math]{.underline}** Grade **[4]{.underline}** Test:
**[Washington Assessment of Student Learning - (WASL)]{.underline}**

Edition/Publication Year: **[Revised Annually]{.underline}** Publisher:
**[The Riverside Publishing Co.]{.underline}**

On the Washington Assessment of Student Learning students are reported
by Level of Proficiency:

Level 1 is \"below standard\" (this equates to below basic). Level 2 is
\"approaching standard\" (this equates to basic). Level 3 is
\"standard\" (this equates to proficient). Level 4 is \"exceeds
standard\" (this equates to advanced).

\*At this time Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) does not disaggregate individual student scores for
low income, but rater defers to the school wide Title I report of all
students.

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

  Testing month **May**                                                                

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                                    

  \% At or Above Basic                 87.8%       91.6%       96.3%       77.3%       76.6%

  \% At or Above Proficient            69.4%       70.8%       63.6%       47.6%       44.7%

  \% At Advanced                       51.0%       25.0%       29.1%       17.2%       6.4%

  Number of students tested            49          48          55          64          47

  Percent of total students tested     100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%      100.0%

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%
  assessed                                                                             

                                                                                       

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged\*                                                     

  \% At or Above Basic                 84.9%       91.6%       96.3%                   

  \% At or Above Proficient            66.7%       70.8%       63.6%                   

  \% At Advanced                       45.5%       25.0%       29.1%                   

  Number of students tested            33          48          55                      

                                                                                       

  2\. White % At or Above Basic        87.0%       96.8%       95.4%       78.3%       77.8%

  \% At or Above Proficient            71.0%       74.2%       60.5%       50.0%       52.8%

  \% At Advanced                       58.1%       22.6%       30.2%       21.7%       2.8%

  Number of students tested            31          31          43          46          36

  3\. American Indian % At or Above    100.0%      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%
  Basic                                                                                

  \% At or Above Proficient            100.0%      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%

  \% At Advanced                       100.0%      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%

  Number of students tested            1           0           0           0           0

  4\. African American % At or Above   87.5%       80.0%       100.0%      25.0%       33.3%
  Basic                                                                                

  \% At or Above Proficient            50.0%       40.0%       100.0%      25.0%       0.0%

  \% At Advanced                       25.0%       0.0%        50.0%       0.0%        0.0%

  Number of students tested            8           5           4           4           3

  5\. Hispanic % At or Above Basic     66.7%       66.7%       100.0%      100.0%      100.0%

  \% At or Above Proficient            66.7%       33.3%       40.0%       60.0%       100.0%

  \% At Advanced                       66.7%       0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        100.0%

  Number of students tested            3           3           5           5           1

  6\. Asian/Pacific Island % At or     100.0%      88.9%       100.0%      87.5%       100.0%
  Above Basic                                                                          

  \% At or Above Proficient            83.3%       88.9%       100.0%      37.5%       0.0%

  \% At Advanced                       33.3%       55.6%       33.3%       12.5%       0.0%

  Number of students tested            6           9           3           8           4

  7\. Unknown % At or Above Basic      0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        66.7%

  \% At or Above Proficient            0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        33.3%

  \% At Advanced                       0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        0.0%        33.3%

  Number of students tested            0           0           0           0           3

  **STATE SCORES\*\***                                                                 

  \% At or Above Basic                             79.2%       78.6%       71.8%       66.7%

  \% At or Above Proficient            59.5%       55.2%       51.8%       43.7%       41.8%

  \% At Advanced                                   24.0%       24.8%       28.4%       29.9%
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\*\*2004 grade 4 reading and math scores for the state are not yet
available except at proficient level.