##### *2006-2007 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: (Check all that apply) \[x\] Elementary
\[ \] Middle \[ \] High \[ \] K-12 \[ \] Charter

Name of Principal [Mr. Michael Heidenblut]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Franklin Northeast Elementary]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [7042 E. Adobe Road]{.underline}

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

[Mesa\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Arizona\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_85207-4600\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County
[\_Maricopa\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}State
School Code Number[\*\_4963\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

Telephone [( 480 ) 472-9331]{.underline} Fax [( 480 )
472-9339]{.underline}

Web site/URL [www.mpsaz.org/franke/]{.underline} E-mail
[mgheiden@mpsaz.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\* [Dr. Debra Duvall]{.underline}

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

District Name [Mesa Unified School District #4]{.underline} Tel. [( 480
) 472-0223]{.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 [Mr. Lynn Burnham]{.underline}

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

2.  The school has made adequate yearly progress each year for the past
    two years and has not been identified by the state as "persistently
    dangerous" within the last two years. To meet final eligibility, the
    school must meet the state's adequate yearly progress requirement in
    the 2006-2007 school year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 2001 and has not received the No Child Left
    Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools award in the past five years.

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [57]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[0]{.underline} Middle schools

[13]{.underline} Junior high schools

[7]{.underline} High schools

[9]{.underline} Other

[86]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$8395]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$6864]{.underline}

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

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

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

4\. [4]{.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**    0         0                      **0**        **7**                             

  **K**       52        35                     **87**       **8**                             

  **1**       39        35                     **74**       **9**                             

  **2**       32        44                     **76**       **10**                            

  **3**       36        32                     **68**       **11**                            

  **4**       33        24                     **57**       **12**                            

  **5**       23        33                     **56**       **Other**                         

  **6**       18        33                     51                                             

                                    **TOTAL                                                   469
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

> ***\[Throughout the document, round numbers 1 or higher to the nearest
> whole number.***
>
> ***Use decimals to one place only if the number is below 1.\]***

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [80]{.underline} % White

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

[14]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

[5]{.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:
[3]{.underline} %

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      3
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(2)**                   Number of students who      10
                            transferred ***from*** the  
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year   

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    13
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 469
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  .0277
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           3
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

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

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

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

Specify languages: Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [19]{.underline} %

Total number students who qualify: [87]{.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: [5]{.underline} %

[26]{.underline} Total Number of Students Served

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act. Do not add additional categories.

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

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [9]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Emotional Disturbance [17]{.underline} Speech or Language
Impairment

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

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

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers [18]{.underline} [1]{.underline}

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

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ [14]{.underline}
>
> Total number [19]{.underline} [22]{.underline}

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers, e.g.,
22:1 [25:1]{.underline}

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

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

  Daily student attendance  4 %         4 %         4 %         5 %         5 %

  Daily teacher attendance  91 %        91 %        91 %        90 %        89 %

  Teacher turnover rate     16 %        5 %         11 %        5 %         0 %

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

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

**[PART III ‑ SUMMARY]{.underline}**

Franklin Northeast Elementary School, established in 1997, is one of
four Franklin School campuses within the Mesa Public School system. The
Mesa district is the largest in Arizona, and educates more than 72,000
students. All parents have the opportunity to place their children in
Franklin Northeast, and they elect to enroll their children in this
advanced, fast-paced program on the basis of educational philosophy and
practices. A parental agreement of support is signed at registration.
Franklin Northeast educates approximately 475 K-6 students using an
academic model created in 1978 as the Franklin Back-to-Basics
alternative program within the Mesa Public Schools. It was originally
designed to reflect parental expectations of a highly structured, safe
learning environment focused on teaching basic skills. Interested
parents met on committees as they planned and refined their educational
preferences.

The Franklin academic program uses a phonics based approach to decoding
entitled [The Writing Road to Reading]{.underline} by Ramalda Spalding.
The Spalding method is a complete Language Arts approach providing
explicit integrated instruction in spelling, writing, listening and
reading comprehension. Our reading curriculum further utilizes high
quality literature. Each literature set provides students with the
opportunity to enjoy exciting stories while developing their skills in
oral and silent reading and comprehension. Our year long accelerated
math program uses week-by-week, concept-by-concept overviews that build
in reviews, guide the pace of instruction for teachers, and take into
account the maturational and intellectual differences of students. In
addition, these overviews provide consistency and continuity across the
school and allow teachers to use the best possible instructional
materials and strategies for each concept. The Language program is based
on principles of grammar, and language analysis with the opportunity to
develop precise, clearly understood written thought. Franklin Northeast
students learn traditional understandings of history, geography and
patriotism. In Science, foundational concepts of earth, biological,
chemical and physical science enrich the students' understanding of
their world. Research skills, using technology, are developed starting
in kindergarten. Student learning is further enhanced in art, art
masterpiece, music, music masterpiece, PE, health, safety, character
development, conflict resolution, student government, band, orchestra,
and sports opportunities. The Franklin academic program is rounded out
by a very specific, nightly homework program that includes minimum and
maximum amounts of time spent on homework, delineated by grade level.

Further characteristics of Franklin Northeast center on firm and fair
behavioral expectations, extensive teacher in-service training, and
whole group instruction with small group and individual tutorial support
by the classroom teachers. Parental involvement in planning and
organizing curricular and extracurricular activities is designed to
allow teachers and the principal to concentrate on academics and focus
on student achievement. The program continually monitors foundational
skills and utilizes specifically designed instructional strategies
developed to accommodate a diverse range of student abilities. Teachers
at each grade level work together closely in instructional planning
using detailed curriculum overviews to maintain the highest levels of
instructional continuity and consistency across the campus.

In a caring atmosphere with a positive focus on academic achievement and
progression, respect for others, pride in self and country, Franklin
Northeast strives to fulfill its mission to train the intellect while
complimenting parental efforts and responsibilities. Furthermore our
goal is to guide children toward independence as we endeavor to surpass
district, state, and national standards. Our program prepares children
to be successful learners in future academic pursuits in a manner that
reflects personal responsibility and strength of character as well as
academic confidence and competence. Children thrive at Franklin
Northeast. Parents have confidence in our program. Faculty and staff
find professional and personal satisfaction in their roles as educators.
And finally, Franklin Northeast does all that it can to be an
educational asset to the Mesa Public Schools and the City of Mesa, a
great place to live and learn.

**[PART IV -- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS]{.underline}**

**1. Assessment Results:**

Franklin Northeast Elementary has met the state criteria to be
designated as an "Excelling" school for the past two years, and has
improved from a "Highly Performing" status three years ago. During this
time period we have met the federal Adequate Yearly Progress
requirements in reading and math.

Third through sixth graders are required to take Arizona's Instrument to
Measure Standards Dual Purpose Assessment (AIMS DPA) which contains
standards based and TerraNova norm referenced questions. Students who
score in the categories of "Exceeds the Standard" or "Meets the
Standard" are considered having passed the subject on the AIMS test.
Second graders take only the TerraNova test. The Stanford 9 norm
referenced test was used until the 2003-2004 school year. Further
information on the AIMS DPA and TerraNova can be found on the Arizona
Department of Education website at
[www.ade.az.gov/standards/](http://www.ade.az.gov/standards/).

In 2005-2006, on the TerraNova test, our second and sixth grades tied
for third in the state in math, and sixth grade tied for fourth in the
state in Reading. Second grade scored in the 92^nd^ percentile in math.
On the AIMS test, 94% of the third grade met or exceeded the standard in
math, and 89% met or exceeded the standard in reading. This same year
97% or more of fourth grade students met or exceeded the state standards
in reading and math. Ninety-three percent of the fifth grade met or
exceeded the standard in math, and 85% met or exceeded the standard in
reading. The previous year 100% met or exceeded the state standard in
reading. In 2005-2006 and 2004-2005, at least 94% of the sixth grade
students met or exceeded the state standards in math and reading.

Economically disadvantaged and Hispanic are the only statistically
significant subgroups. If less than ten students are in the group, no
data is listed. In 2005-2006 on the TerraNova math assessment, second
graders in the economically disadvantaged subgroup scored in the 91^st^
percentile. Third graders tested within 1 percentile of the class
average, and sixth graders achieved at the 85^th^ percentile. In
reading, fourth and sixth graders in this subgroup outperformed the
class average the last year that there were enough students for a
subgroup. Fifth grader's lower scores are discussed in the next
paragraph.

On the AIMS in 2005-2006, third graders in the economically
disadvantaged subgroup achieved at a higher level than the class as a
whole by 100% meeting or exceeding the standards in reading and math,
while 90% of fourth grade students achieved at this level. The previous
year 100% of students reached this mark. Fifth graders performed lower
than the class as a whole. In fifth grade during the three previous
years in reading, this subgroup performed at the same level or
outperformed the class while scoring 100% two of the three years. In
math the previous year, students achieved 92% passing. We believe a
teacher being on maternity leave several weeks prior to and during
testing contributed to lower scores.

The Hispanic subgroup at all grades met or exceeded the standard at 80%
or higher in both subject areas. Ninety-one percent of fourth graders
achieved this level. While surpassing the percentage of the overall
class, 100% of the sixth graders in this subgroup met or exceeded the
standard in reading. On the TerraNova sixth graders scored at the 88^th^
percentile. Fourth graders in the subgroup scored within 2 percentiles
of the class average in reading.

Being new to our program may be a factor for lower scores in either
subgroup. Due to the small number of students, each student's score
carried a stronger weighting when computing the subgroup's average.
Lower performing students in both subgroups are being carefully
monitored. Teachers are providing tutoring, one-to-one instruction, and
working closely with parents.

**2. Using Assessment Results:**

Assessment data provide our staff with valuable information that helps
provide optimal instruction at the classroom level, and more
importantly, the individual student level. Teachers are given analysis
sheets to list concepts and performance objectives from the state
standards that show a need for improvement. From this information,
strategies that will help improve instruction are developed. At the
beginning of the school year, the district's research and evaluation
department provides reconfigured data sheets listing the AIMS scores for
the teacher's current students. The data is detailed by concept.
Teachers especially focus on students who score in the falls far below
or approaches categories. These students receive one-on-one assistance
during the day for short periods of time, and tutoring before or after
school. Weekly assessments are given on items that include state
performance objectives. Re-teaching is provided for students who do not
master the given objective. Teachers plan together weekly and share
ideas for better meeting the instructional needs of their grade level
and individual students. Additionally, topics for in-services come from
the Franklin Principals' Council sessions that discuss state assessment
data.

The principal receives monthly scores in the foundational areas of
phonics, spelling, reading comprehension, and mathematics from each
classroom. These scores become part of each student's academic profile.
Teachers and the principal use monthly and weekly assessment data to
determine areas of emphasis and instructional strategies to address
individual needs. Plans for providing students with tutorial or small
group assistance are developed, and if necessary, accompanying
assistance from parents is detailed.

**3. Communicating Assessment Results:**

Students' individual state assessment data is provided to parents at the
beginning of the school year with a cover letter from the district
superintendent. These reports show how each child performed in
comparison to district and state norms. A summary of results by grade
level is published in the school newsletter. Prior to the publishing of
the newsletter and in keeping with the deep involvement of parents in
the Franklin program, the data is discussed with the Franklin Northeast
Parent Council at their monthly meeting. For all schools, the Arizona
Department of Education helps convey test data by compiling a state
report card that contains very detailed assessment results. Each member
of the parent council receives a hard copy of this document, and parents
can access this online at the ADE website. The test data from the
Franklin schools is shared with the Spalding Foundation who uses the
results to compare schools with similar programs. The local newspaper
also publishes grade level results by school along with district and
state averages. These public results are motivating to teachers to
perfect their instructional skills and to do everything within their
power to assist children in improving their abilities.

Student performance is also communicated to students and parents using
weekly folders containing assignments and assessments. Grades are given
every six weeks on a report card. Parent-teacher conferences are held
after the first and fourth, six-week sessions. Progress is conveyed
every three weeks prior to the issuing of report cards. Parents are kept
better informed of student achievement, and students have more
opportunities to improve grades. A daily homework note is sent home
which parents are required to sign. Teachers communicate progress to
parents with a personal call when necessary to work together for the
student's benefit.

**4. Sharing Success:**

Franklin Northeast has shared its approach with many schools throughout
the Phoenix metropolitan area through conferences and by allowing
on-sight visitations. As a member of the Spalding International
educational organization, the opportunity to provide administrative and
instructional strategies associated with our language arts program to
others occurs regularly. Each year the Spalding Foundation hosts a
conference in Phoenix. At this conference we share and gather ideas with
administrators and teachers from school districts in Arizona. Other
participants are from schools in any of the fifty states or nine
countries that use the Spalding method.

On the national level, a curriculum similar to the Franklin program has
been developed for a charter school in Logan, Utah. Several teachers and
their administrator visited our site as they were establishing their
traditional program. This current year an administrator and a teacher
from Boise, Idaho visited our campus to observe our Spalding program. On
the state level many charter, private, and public schools have used
Franklin Northeast and its sister campuses as a model for bringing
educational excellence to their students.

Franklin Northeast works very closely with three other traditional
schools within Mesa Public Schools. Our teachers communicate regularly
between sites sharing information, ideas and curriculum in order to
develop instructional remedies for educational concerns. At monthly
meetings, we share our ideas with other administrators within our
district.

Future sharing will occur as we further interact with The Spalding
Foundation, enhance our school's website, and work with the district
community relations department to communicate our successful approaches
to educating children.

**[PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION]{.underline}**

**1. Curriculum:**

Phonics or Decoding, Spelling and Handwriting are combined subjects
taught in all grade levels as one subject with three components using
Ramalda Spalding's [The Writing Road to Reading]{.underline}. Students
are assessed with monthly phonogram tests that evaluate mastery of the
70 foundational phonemes, monthly tests that measure a student's ability
to apply the rules that govern the use of the phonograms as they spell
words, and a writing rubric for determining the quality of penmanship.

Reading or Literature is taught primarily using literature sets with
varying vocabulary and content. In kindergarten and first grade,
teachers choose from over 180 titles for children to read at the rate of
one book each day. Books are grouped according to difficulty, and all
titles are used as children's reading ability progresses. In fourth
through sixth grade, students read two books concurrently during
literature time. One book is read orally, and the class, under the
direction of the teacher constructs a written summary of the book by
significant event. That summary serves as an instructional tool to teach
summarizing and comprehension skills. The second book is read silently,
and each child composes their own summary that the teacher evaluates for
the child's degree of comprehension. Children are tested monthly to
measure reading comprehension gains using the McCall-Crabbs Tests for
Reading Comprehension, and their score is recorded on their student
profile sheet.

The Franklin Northeast mathematics program uses a four pronged weekly
overview to guide the pacing of instruction. Utilizing HBJ [Mathematics
Today]{.underline} as a primary source for concept development, teachers
allocate time each day for foundational skill development, review of
previously learned concepts, numeration concepts and computational
instruction and practice. The overviews contain a built-in system of
review insuring the number of instructional repetitions meets the
learning needs of average and slightly below average students.
Instruction occurs in a whole group setting with tutorial assistance
provided by the teacher for students needing additional help. In sixth
grade, students are separated into ability groups to accommodate the
disparity among student abilities. The accelerated nature of the
over-all program insures that higher performing students are well
prepared to progress on an advanced learning track in junior high.

English, Writing, and Spelling are three subjects that are taught as one
using the McMillan English program. Grammar, punctuation, and usage
skills are presented using traditional methods in a whole group setting.
Beginning with kindergarten all students develop a writing portfolio
that shows their individual growth for each grade. Easy Grammar and Six
Trait Writing programs supplement the textbook.

History, Geography, and Science instruction occur in a whole group
setting using textbooks. Science kits and computer software supplement
these subjects. Exposure to US and world history, earth, chemical,
biological and physical science concepts prepare students for further
study.

Library and Computers are separate classes taught by specialists using
concepts in science, health, safety, history, geography and literature
to help children develop research skills. Basic skills in math and
language are also reinforced. Separate specialists provide instruction
in PE and Music for 50 minutes each week. PE follows the Pangrazzi
elementary PE developmental program. In Music, general music skills
including rhythm, note reading, pitch, instrument identification and
masterpiece recognition are sequentially provided. Various age
appropriate Health topics are presented by the school nurse.

Students are given exposure to Spanish by their classroom teacher. The
district has developed curriculum and materials for this subject. Art is
taught for 60 minutes each week by the classroom teacher and by parents
who have been trained in the district Art Masterpiece program.

Each week teachers present all subject areas for a specified number of
instructional minutes. Using math as an example, the time allocation for
kindergarten is 100 minutes and increases to 325 minutes for sixth
grade.

**2. Reading**

Students learn to decode words using [The Writing Road to
Reading]{.underline} by Ramalda Spalding. Opportunities to develop
fluency in oral and silent reading come from the daily reading of
parent-approved literature sets and classical selections found in the
Open Court texts. Each student has their own copy of the literature set.
Reading comprehension is developed through an analysis of selections
that focus on the comprehension components of main idea, detail,
cause-effect, author's purpose, sequencing and inference skills, using
the McCall-Crabbs Test Lessons in Comprehension and other supplemental
materials. Students in fourth through sixth grade learn to summarize
events from the literature sets. Decoding skills are monitored by
monthly assessments that reveal the students' knowledge of the 70
phonograms. Assessing students' ability to apply the rules of spelling,
which help students decode in reading, occurs through the use of the
Morrison-McCall Spelling Scale. In grades two through six, a pre and
post test using Skills Mastery exams provide further insight into each
child's ability to read for understanding, and determine areas of
emphasis during the instructional year.

This multisensory approach to reading is used in the Franklin schools
because it is systematic and allows the skills developed each year to be
consistently reinforced in succeeding years. The program is simple,
straightforward, and cost effective. It was chosen and partially
developed by parents, thereby increasing parental shareholding in the
school. The selection of 375 literature sets with a variety of authors
increases student vocabulary. Students are motivated by the complete
story lines of good literature, further creating a desire to read. This
program exposes children to different types of writing and writing
styles, and assists in leading students to become proficient, creative
writers. Success is evident by the students' performance on all
assessment tools and is motivational to teachers and children alike.

**3. Math:**

The mathematics program at Franklin Northeast reflects our mission to
train the intellect of children in such a way that they will have
greater choice, be competitive, and be well prepared for success when
they enter junior high school programs. The curriculum is foundational
in nature. The HBJ [Mathematics Today]{.underline} is the primary
instruction text and is complemented with a teacher compiled, grade
level binder. Using these resources teachers draw from the best
materials available by concept to assure student success. Yearly
overviews outline week-by-week instructional concept expectations at
each grade level, kindergarten through sixth. In addition to detailing
what to teach and how much time should be spent teaching it, overviews
insure that teachers will include instructional time each day for
foundational practice, systematic review, numeration skills, and
computational skill development. These curriculum guides also provide
continuity and consistency from grade level to grade level creating a
secure learning system that benefits the average and below average
student. The rigorous content keeps the above average student
challenged. Whole group instruction with a tutorial component allows
teachers to maximize the use of time allocated to mathematics. The
program has a system of foundational monitoring. Teachers track their
students' progress with monthly multiplication and subtraction timed
tests. Pre and post testing on the Skills Mastery exams help teachers
identify specific areas of need. These assessments allow teachers to
build on students' successes each year as well as providing valuable
data. This curriculum was also chosen by parents because of its simple,
straightforward approach. The program reflects a strong logic
development and application component. The 29 year history of this
program has produced a myriad of successful mathematicians, teachers,
doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, accountants, researchers and
scientists that attribute their love of mathematics to their elementary
experience.

**4. Instructional Methods:**

The overall instructional plan at Franklin Northeast is a Pre-teach /
Teach / Re-teach strategy. A whole group instructional approach is the
primary instructional method. However, students requiring additional
instruction receive tutorial and small group assistance. Our staff
tutors students twice a week for thirty minutes before or after school.
Direct instruction is accomplished through The Seven Steps of
Instruction. These seven steps include: Teacher Introduction, Teacher
Explanation, Teacher Demonstration, Student Explanation with Teacher
Demonstration, Student Explanation with other Student Demonstration,
Student Independent Practice with Teacher Check, and Homework. The
Essential Elements of Instruction are incorporated into the seven steps.
Teachers are able to easily determine if students understand the
objective before they begin completing their independent practice. Grade
level and subject matter specific, instructional strategies are used and
monitored to achieve maximum student growth. Towards the end of each
school year teachers rank each child in their classroom based on their
perception of the student's overall academic strength. These rankings
are used to create academically balanced classrooms at each grade level.
This balancing approach allows the principal to compare classroom
academic performances in meaningful ways, and provide instructional
assistance where it is most needed. Yearly overviews guide the teachers
at each grade level in each subject. These instructional overviews help
make sure that the instruction of each identified concept is given
adequate time, and that the number of instructional repetitions is
appropriate for the majority of the students. Overviews simplify and
reduce planning time, as well as provide for increased continuity and
consistency for students in all grade levels and in all classrooms of
each grade level. While homework, with specific minimum and maximum
times, is a major characteristic of Franklin Northeast, the primary
benefit for students is the development of lifelong time management and
personal responsibility skills.

**5. Professional Development:**

Teacher prior to teaching at Franklin Northeast are required to be
trained in The Spalding Integrated Language Arts program. This 45 hour
in-service class is a condition of employment. During the summer between
the first and second year of teaching, staff member repeats the initial
Spalding course to solidify their understanding of the program. New
teachers are assigned a mentor who assists them in understanding all
aspects of the Franklin program. Between the second and third year of
employment teachers attend the Spalding II course. This 45 hour class
provides training in reading comprehension strategies and writing while
continuing to reinforce the Spalding method. Each year Franklin teachers
receive in-service instruction on our required instructional strategies,
the use of the curriculum overviews, writing, and other topics.
Consistency and continuity of instruction are also key areas of focus.
Throughout the school year, the principal and basic skills teacher
provide training at faculty meetings on in-service topics. The principal
and veteran staff present new teachers with more detailed training in
instructional methods. Additional in-service efforts occur through the
use of our Faculty Curriculum Committee (FCC). The FCC meetings allow
the principal to address grade level specific instructional needs and
areas of emphasis. Mesa Public Schools Professional Development
department provides training for many areas of education such as
curriculum, instructional delivery, and current cognitive research.
Seminars such as "21 Keys for High Performance Teaching and Learning"
are made available. The majority of teachers at our site have taken
courses on Six Trait writing and Positive or Conscious Discipline. Our
district also provides detailed training for the use of science kits.
Franklin faculty have recently completed or are in the process of
completing two courses in Structured English Immersion required by the
state of Arizona.

**[PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS]{.underline}**

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [2]{.underline} Test
[TerraNova]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [2]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

2003--2004 was the last year Arizona used the Stanford 9 assessment

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [2]{.underline} Test
[TerraNova]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [2]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  89          89          91          91          97
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       28          24          42          35          47

  Number of students tested            64          66          65          69          64

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100         100         98

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  100         71          88          92          100
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       8           8           19          33          33

  Number of students tested            12          13          16          12          18

  2\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State              82                                  
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                   18                                  

  Number of students tested            \*          11          \*          \*          \*

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  67          65          64          68          69
  Standards                                                                            
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\* less than 10 students in subgroup

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test
[TerraNova]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  94          92          91          90          91
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       39          39          46          52          53

  Number of students tested            64          66          65          69          64

  Percent of total students tested     100         100         100         100         98

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  100         85          88          92          83
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       25          15          25          42          50

  Number of students tested            12          13          16          12          18

  2\. Hispanic                                                                         

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State              82                                  
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                   18                                  

  Number of students tested            \*          11          \*          \*          \*

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  72          71          58          60          59
  Standards                                                                            
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

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

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [3]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
                                                      2005-2006   2004-2005

  Testing month                                       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                             

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       97          87

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      17          18

  Number of students tested                           60          61

  Percent of total students tested                    100         100

  Number of students alternatively assessed           0           0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed          0           0

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                 

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       90          71

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      20          0

  Number of students tested                           10          14

  2\. Hispanic                                                    

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       91          

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      9           

  Number of students tested                           11          \*

  **STATE SCORES**                                                

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       65          64
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

2004-2005 was the first year fourth graders were assessed on the AIMS

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test
[TerraNova]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
                                                      2005-2006   2004-2005

  Testing month                                       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                             

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       98          95

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      43          31

  Number of students tested                           60          61

  Percent of total students tested                    100         100

  Number of students alternatively assessed           0           0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed          0           0

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                 

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       90          79

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      30          14

  Number of students tested                           10          14

  2\. Hispanic                                                    

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       91          

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      27          

  Number of students tested                           11          \*

  **STATE SCORES**                                                

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       73          70
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

2004-2005 was the first year fourth graders were assessed on the AIMS

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

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > 2\. Hispanic                                 | 65       |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Number of students tested                    | 11       | \*       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > **STATE SCORES**                             |          |          |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+
| > Total Score                                  | 56       | 56       |
+------------------------------------------------+----------+----------+

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [4]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  85          100         77          88          87
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       13          44          26          23          39

  Number of students tested            53          54          57          57          46

  Percent of total students tested     100         98          98          98          96

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  50          100         87          100         78
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       8           17          13          27          44

  Number of students tested            12          12          15          11          19

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  67          67          48          53          55
  Standards                                                                            
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test
[TerraNova]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

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

  Testing month                        April       April       April       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  93          96          86          77          83
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       23          67          68          58          70

  Number of students tested            53          54          57          57          46

  Percent of total students tested     100         98          98          98          96

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  Percent of students alternatively    0           0           0           0           0
  assessed                                                                             

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                      

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                                       

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  67          92          80          82          
  Standards                                                                            

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards       17          42          60          55          

  Number of students tested            12          12          15          11          \*

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                     

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State  68          68          55          46          73
  Standards                                                                            
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

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

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [5]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
                                                      2005-2006   2004-2005

  Testing month                                       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                             

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       96          96

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      19          6

  Number of students tested                           48          48

  Percent of total students tested                    100         100

  Number of students alternatively assessed           0           0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed          0           0

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                 

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       100         100

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                                  0

  Number of students tested                           \*          11

  2\. Hispanic                                                    

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       100         

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      10          

  Number of students tested                           10          \*

  **STATE SCORES**                                                

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       64          64
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

2004-2005 was the first year sixth graders were assessed on the AIMS

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test
[TerraNova]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Reading]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [Arizona's
Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [Revised Yearly]{.underline} Publisher [AZ
Dept. of Education / CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------
                                                      2005-2006   2004-2005

  Testing month                                       April       April

  **SCHOOL SCORES\***                                             

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       94          100

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      54          42

  Number of students tested                           48          48

  Percent of total students tested                    100         100

  Number of students alternatively assessed           0           0

  Percent of students alternatively assessed          0           0

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                 

  1\. Economically Disadvantaged                                  

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards                   100

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                                  36

  Number of students tested                           \*          11

  2\. Hispanic                                                    

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       80          

  \% "Exceeding" State Standards                      50          

  Number of students tested                           10          \*

  **STATE SCORES**                                                

  \% "Meeting" plus "Exceeding" State Standards       62          62
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- -----------

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

2004-2005 was the first year sixth graders were assessed on the AIMS

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test
[TerraNova]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [2^nd^ Edition / 2001]{.underline} Publisher
[CTB McGraw -- Hill]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

\* less than 10 students in the subgroup

Subject [Math]{.underline} Grade [6]{.underline} Test [Stanford
9]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year [1996]{.underline} Publisher [Harcourt
Brace]{.underline}

Scores are reported here as Percentiles

**\*** less than 10 students in the subgroup