##### *2005-2006 No Child Left Behind - Blue Ribbon Schools Program*

*U.S. Department of Education*

Type of School: (Check all that apply) \_\_ Elementary \_\_ Middle
[X]{.underline}\_ High \_\_ K-12 \_\_Charter

Name of Principal [Mr. Bobby D. McClain]{.underline}

Official School Name [Hampton High School]{.underline}

School Mailing Address\_\_ [766 1^st^ Avenue]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[Hampton TN 37658-3218]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County \_\_[Carter]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
State School Code
Number\*\_\_\_\_[030]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone [( 423 ) 725-5200]{.underline} Fax [(423 )
725-5204]{.underline}

Website/URL[:http://carter.k12.tn.us./education/school/school.php?sectionid=6]{.underline}
E-mail [dannymcclain@k12tn.net]{.underline}\_\_

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mr. Dallas Williams]{.underline}

District Name [Carter County Schools]{.underline} Tel. [(423)
547-4000]{.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. Bobby R. McClain

President/Chairperson

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)

**ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school\'s eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office for 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 2005-2006 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 2000 and has not received the 2003, 2004, or 2005
    *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.

**DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

**DISTRICT**

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_\_[10]{.underline}\_ Elementary
schools

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_ Middle schools

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

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

\_\_[2]{.underline}\_\_ Other (1 Adult HS and 1 Alternative School)

\_\_[17]{.underline}\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$ 6,812]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$
6,970]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

**SCHOOL**

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

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

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

5\. Number of students as of October 1 enrolled at each grade level or
its equivalent in applying school only:

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**                                                     **8**                             

  **1**                                                     **9**       67        63          130

  **2**                                                     **10**      80        54          134

  **3**                                                     **11**      53        53          106

  **4**                                                     **12**      52        44          96

  **5**                                                     **Other**                         

  **6**                                                                 252       214         

                                    **TOTAL                                                   466
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [97]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [0]{.underline} % Black or African American

[1]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

(as of Oct. 1, 2005) 1 % Asian/Pacific Islander

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

**100% Total**

(Ethnic composition was not rounded to show the presence of non-white
students).

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year: [18
%]{.underline}

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

  **(2)**        Number of students who transferred          69
                 ***from*** the school after October 1 until 
                 the end of the year.                        

  **(3)**        Total of all transferred students \[sum of  88
                 rows (1) and (2)\]                          

  **(4)**        Total number of students in the school as   466
                 of October 1                                

  **(5)**        Total transferred students in row (3)       .18
                 divided by total students in row (4)        

  **(6)**        Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100         18%
  -------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [0]{.underline}\_
%

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

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

Specify languages: English is the primary language spoken in the homes
of all students.

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [62]{.underline}\_
%

Total number students who qualify: [288]{.underline}\_

10\. Students receiving special education services:
\_\_\_\_[18]{.underline}\_\_\_\_%

\_\_\_\_[82]{.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 \_\_[1]{.underline}\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_[6]{.underline}\_Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[54]{.underline}\_Specific Learning Disability

\_\_[5]{.underline}\_Emotional Disturbance \_\_\_\_Speech or Language
Impairment

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

> \_[16]{.underline}\_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) [2]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
[0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Classroom teachers [26]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

> Support staff [12]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
> [0]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number [51]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_
> [1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:
    \_\_[16:1]{.underline}\_

13\.

  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
                             2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002   2000-2001

  Daily student attendance   91%         90%         90%         92%         92%

  Daily teacher attendance   96%         95%         97%         97%         97%

  Teacher turnover rate      9%          0%          9%          24%         9%

  Student dropout rate       3%          7%          4%          6%          12%
  (middle/high)                                                              

  Student drop-off rate      38%         37%         42%         15%         34%
  (high school)                                                              
  -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

There is a discrepancy between the dropout rate and drop-off rate. The
four high schools in the Carter County School System are not strictly
zoned for school admission and student attendance. Students transfer
both within, as well as from the system. Due to a lack of job
opportunities from declining industry and agricultural occupations,
families leave this area to secure career options. These factors
influence Hampton High's mobility rate (18%).

14\. Show what the students who graduated in Spring 2005 are doing as of
September 2005.

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Graduating class size                                   | >          |
|                                                         | [78]{.unde |
|                                                         | rline}\_\_ |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university              | > \_\_[    |
|                                                         | 18]{.under |
|                                                         | line}\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                         | > \_\_[    |
|                                                         | 23]{.under |
|                                                         | line}\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                         | > \_\_[    |
|                                                         | 10]{.under |
|                                                         | line}\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Found employment                                        | > \_\_[    |
|                                                         | 44]{.under |
|                                                         | line}\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Military service                                        | > \_\_[5   |
|                                                         | ]{.underli |
|                                                         | ne}\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                      | > \_\_     |
|                                                         | [n/a]{.und |
|                                                         | erline}\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Unknown                                                 | > \_\_     |
|                                                         | [n/a]{.und |
|                                                         | erline}\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| **Total**                                               | > 100 %    |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**SUMMARY**

Hampton High (HHS), a four-year comprehensive high school and an
accredited member of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS), began providing educational services in its current location in
1963. The school, adjacent to Highway 19E, is one of four high schools
in the Carter County, Tennessee school system. Located within the
foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, HHS serves an area of thirty
square miles and a community of 4,300 residents. The area served is
rural and mountainous with little industrial development and declining
farm land. The current facility provides social, athletic, and academic
opportunities for students and is used for community functions. The
twenty-two acre campus includes thirty-two classrooms, a media center,
two computer labs, two vocational buildings, a band facility, two
greenhouses, a gymnasium, as well as football, baseball, and softball
fields. HHS, "Home of the Bulldogs", has traditionally achieved success
in athletics, especially in basketball and football.

The district-wide focus for 2005-06 is "Family Engagement". Planned
activities will promote increased parental involvement in all schools.
One of the defining characteristics of HHS is the "family" atmosphere.
Due to the small student population, a more personalized environment
exists. Sixty percent of the faculty and staff are Hampton graduates and
have returned as teachers, administrators, or support personnel.
Thirty-four faculty members and eighteen support staff members currently
serve the student body and school community. All HHS teachers are
credentialed in their teaching areas and have met the "highly qualified"
criteria as defined by *No Child Left Behind* (NCLB). Ninety-seven
percent of the faculty is tenured, while 41% possess advanced graduate
degrees.

Hampton High serves grades 9-12. The homogeneous population of 466
students is 99% Caucasian. A special education population with diverse
needs comprises 18% of the student body. For the last five years, HHS
has averaged a 70% economically disadvantaged student population, while
less than 1% has been identified as "Limited English Proficient" (LEP).

Vocational programs are an integral part of student learning and adhere
to high standards of excellence with particular emphasis on reading,
writing and math skills. All standards and competency profiles are based
on industry recommendations and are correlated to Gateway and
End-of-Course objectives and requirements. The practical application of
content related knowledge is emphasized.

Technology has made great strides as instructional support in recent
years. The current student to computer ratio is 2.3 : 1. One-hundred
fifteen instructional computers (including classrooms, labs, and media
center) are connected to the Internet. There are multiple opportunities
for instruction to be presented in various multi-media forms.

The faculty and student body actively participate in school and
community projects. They are involved in numerous programs, projects and
competitions related to academics, athletics, clubs, and the community.
Major projects include hurricane relief, blood and food drives, as well
as service and donations to the Ronald McDonald House and various local
charities.

A School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Program (PBS), implemented in
2003, has received local, regional, and national recognition for its
goals and benefits for the school environment. The PBS program focuses
on rewarding students with "Dawg Dollars\" for appropriate behaviors on
campus.

The improvement planning process at Hampton High is ongoing and involves
all programs and departments, including vocational education and special
education. The school's mission is to provide every student the skills,
opportunities, and encouragement to become productive citizens and
life-long learners. The support of the school\'s mission is the shared
responsibility of the teachers, administration, staff, students,
parents, and community. To prepare students for the future, the total
school community supports them in all academic endeavors, mandated
assessments, and targeted areas. The school's vision is a comprehensive
preparation of its students to become contributing, productive members
of the community and society in general. This vision incorporates
literate and proficient readers and writers, as well as functioning
citizens capable of performing necessary mathematical operations in the
workplace.

**INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS**

**1. Assessment Results: Math and Language Arts**

The Tennessee Department of Education has developed and implemented high
school standards and requirements which serve as the foundation for
student learning and performance in mathematics and language arts. The
state department is placing major emphasis on raising student
achievement scores and administering tests that measure a school's
performance in improving these scores. All currently enrolled students
are required to pass state-mandated Gateway exams before receiving a
high school diploma. The Gateway subjects are Algebra I, Biology I and
English II. High school students are also required to take end-of-course
exams in the following subjects: Math Foundations II, English I, and
U.S. History. Upon the completion of each of the related academic
courses, students are tested for understanding and mastery of these
subjects. Exam scores and results, based upon established standards,
classify the students in 3 categories: advanced, proficient, or below
proficient (by percentile). Students who score below proficient are
remediated and allowed to retest. To give students a stake in the
outcome, their grades on these Gateway and end-of-course tests will
count as a percentage of their course grade. Another standardized exam,
the TCAP Writing Assessment, is administered annually to all 11^th^
grade students. Strengths and weaknesses in written communication are
evaluated by the holistic scoring process that also measures critical
thinking processes. Each essay is scored by using a six-point rubric
scale.

Tennessee School Report Cards, TVAAS (value-added) results, as well as
Gateway, End-of-Course, TCAP Writing, and ACT assessments, provide data
to determine degree of success in relation to targeted goals. The
current academic high school benchmarks for Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) are: Reading / Language Arts - 90% Proficient / Advanced; Math --
74% Proficient / Advanced. An explanation of Tennessee's standards and
requirements, as well as reports for these exam results are published on
the state website: http://state.tn.us/education/.

Due to the ongoing demand for accountability and achieving Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) on an annual basis, Gateway areas must remain a
focus for goal selection at Hampton High. Meeting state goals and
benchmarks in Gateway areas are essential elements in meeting AYP.
Algebra I is a major concern, due to the difficulty that the course
poses for many students, including Special Education students who must
take and pass the Gateway exam. Language Arts combines both English II
and 11^th^ grade writing scores to determine AYP.

Federal benchmark summaries show that HHS met standards in all reporting
categories for AYP in 2004-05, including math, language arts,
graduation, and exam participation rates. A three-year analysis of
Hampton High's assessment data and subgroup disaggregation (when
applicable) has been conducted. Comparisons of male and female
performance, as well as socioeconomic factors, have been analyzed.
Minimal data is obtained from a disaggregation of LEP and ethnic
subgroups, since HHS has less than 2% of the student population in these
categories. Analyses and tables presenting Gateway, End-of-Course, and
TCAP Writing exam results are located on pages 15-19 in this document.

**2. Using Assessment Results**

Analyses of formative and summative assessments are an ongoing process.
These assessments are used to monitor the impact of instruction and
student learning. Multiple sources of data are annually reviewed and
analyzed regarding academic and non-academic measures. The intent of
this process is to support the school's efforts for continuous
improvement in student performance, to identify priority target areas,
and to reduce student failure in achieving established benchmarks and
mandates, and to provide valuable data for the allocation of resources
including personnel, professional development, technology, and
instructional media. Annual analyses specifically include: in-depth
examination of student performance levels, patterns, and trends in state
mandated areas; inspection of demographic factors; study of stakeholder
perceptions; review of curriculum alignment; and analysis of the School
Report Card and TVAAS (value-added) profiles. Upon arrival of Gateway
and End-of-Course results (annually in May), as well as TCAP Writing
scores (April or May), test data are analyzed and the skill areas of
strength and deficiencies are identified. A minimum of three years of
collected data (when available) regarding academic and non-academic
issues drive the decision making process and changes in the school
improvement planning process. HHS teachers collaborate regularly with
each other in order to improve upon the previous year's assessment
results. In addition, eighth grade assessments, Terra Nova and EXPLORE,
from HHS feeder schools are combined with value-added reports and
teacher recommendations to determine appropriate placement for entering
freshmen in core classes.

*No Child Left Behind* initiatives mandate data disaggregation, as well
as the ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment of processes and
programs. Disaggregated data allows the identification of academic
skills that need to be targeted to effectively modify instruction. It
also identifies students who need remediation or enrichment. Student
data is disaggregated by gender, socioeconomic factors, and by
disabilities (when applicable). Ethnicity data is not currently
disaggregated due to the small non-white student population (less than
1%). Deficiencies, both specific and general, have been addressed
through individual help, tutoring, test preparation, and PLATO Learning
Network, a computer based program for assessment and accountability
solutions.

**3. Communicating Assessment Results**

Academic progress and student performance levels are communicated in
numerous ways. Each school improvement planning committee is represented
by various stakeholders (administrators, faculty members, parents,
students, and community representatives). Data for the school
improvement plan, including student performance and assessment results,
is annually updated, analyzed, compiled and disseminated to
stakeholders. The existence of shared decision-making focuses on
benefits to the students and school community and provides numerous
opportunities for collaboration and dissemination of information and
data. Additional communication is conducted among high school and feeder
school teachers, as well as school and system level personnel.

Parent -- Teacher Conferences are scheduled after 9-week grading
periods. These meetings are scheduled after school hours to better
accommodate parent attendance. Informal parent- teacher conferences
occur on an ongoing basis (before and after school, as well as during
teacher planning periods). Discussion of individual student progress,
assessment data, and strategies for improvement are common topics for
these conferences. The school maintains a web page that updates
summative test scores for HHS, Carter County and Tennessee. All teachers
have school e-mail that is used to promote communication with parents.

The principal has an "open door" policy and welcomes discussion of
student performance, suggestions for improvement, and "listens" to
issues of concern. He meets with stakeholders (individual or group) as
needed. Vocational personnel communicate with area businesses on a
frequent basis about student skills and performance levels.

Additional vehicles to promote communication regarding assessment
results and other pertinent information include: newsletters; monthly
school calendars; principal memos; personal communication via letters
and telephone calls; school marquee; mid-term student progress reports;
quarterly grade cards (mailed to parents); School Report Card (available
online at state website); system websites; brochures; newspaper
articles; local television media; 9^th^ Grade Orientation; financial aid
workshops; and school-wide celebrations; assemblies, trophies, and
certificates (to recognize student performance and achievements).

**4. Sharing Success**

Periodic meetings are scheduled with system-wide high school and middle
school teachers to share ideas and strategies. Workshops provide a means
for the exchange of information and ideas with educators both inside and
outside the school system. Several faculty members have participated in
SACS reviews in other schools and have exchanged successful ideas and
effective strategies. High school principals in the district meet
monthly to share best practices. HHS was recently featured in a local
newspaper to report the goals and success of the "Dawg Dollar" Program,
a positive behavior initiative. As identified goals are achieved,
successes are celebrated.

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) provided a replication grant
to HHS that has allowed the school counselor to provide school-wide
field trips to employers and to post-secondary institutions. This grant
has been implemented in seven regional schools. A local community
college designates grant funding and oversees its use. Representatives
from each school have shared successful ideas and resources with the
goal of increasing the number of graduates who enroll in college. As a
result of this grant, positive partnerships have been forged with
business and industry to further improve the school's ability to serve
students and instill qualities employers are seeking.

The Joint Career and Technical Advisory Committee of Elizabethton City
and Carter County Schools provides guidance and relevance for the
implementation of educational and career programs within our local,
state, and global economy. Based on results shared, the "Applied
Communication" course was implemented at HHS. The 12^th^ grade English
class allows students pursuing the technical path to gain knowledge of
the use of language in business and industry.

**CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Curriculum**

Multiple processes and practices for curriculum analysis are in place at
Hampton High. All classroom teachers correlate their planning and
instruction to state curriculum frameworks, standards, performance
indicators, and benchmarks. The Tennessee Blueprint guides curriculum
planning in Gateway areas and cross-curricular incorporation. HHS
teachers review and modify the curriculum to meet the changing needs of
the student population. A new secondary lesson plan format (adopted in
2004-05) is used by all classroom teachers to plan weekly lessons and
identify incorporated Gateway indicators. The administration monitors
weekly lesson plans and instructional practices to ensure the state
curriculum frameworks are being followed.

Students may choose one of three pathways of study: Technical,
University, and Combined / Dual Pathway (combination of University and
Technical). Students may change paths during high school. The combined /
dual path provides the most flexibility because it prepares students to
meet both technical and university requirements. The technical path
includes the core curriculum and three units focused in one technical
area with one additional unit in a related technical area. The
university path includes the core curriculum and other courses
(including two units of the same foreign language and one unit of fine
arts) required for admission to Tennessee's public universities. The
largest percentage of students, select a dual pathway of study.

The 2005-06 academic year marked the implementation of a new scheduling
format. A combination of block scheduling with the traditional
six-period school day allows students to earn a total of seven credits
per year. Benefits of the new schedule include: larger student
enrollment in vocational classes; ability to have more concentrators for
technical path; raise the graduation rate of students in the technical
path; and the opportunity to offer a more advanced curriculum. This new
format will benefit students by allowing them to take additional credits
for remediation, if needed, or for expanding their elective program.

The probability of satisfying requirements of course sequencing,
pre-requisite completion, and Gateway preparations are all enhanced by
the availability of additional opportunities to take more courses.

Mathematics: Three mathematics credits are required for graduation.
Algebra I is mandatory for graduation. Current course offerings are:
Foundations I / II; Algebra I / II; Unified Geometry; and Pre-Calculus.
Math curriculum goals focus on the student's ability to apply math
techniques to solve problems, to reason mathematically, and to analyze
real-world problem situations.

Language Arts: Four English credits (English I / II / III / IV) are
required for graduation and are taken in sequence. Honors classes,
College Prep English I / II / III / IV, as well as Advanced Placement
English IV, satisfy graduation requirements. Another course option is
Applied Communication. (An additional explanation of the English
curriculum is explained on page 11).

Science: Three credits of science are required for graduation. Biology I
is mandatory for graduation. The primary focus of the science curriculum
is to prepare students to apply scientific principles and processes in
making decisions and in understanding matters of scientific and
technological concerns.

Social Studies: Three credits of social studies are required for
graduation. US History (1 credit), Economics (1/2 credit), and U. S.
Government (1/2 credit) are mandatory. The major emphasis of the
curriculum is to enable students to have the knowledge and skills to act
responsibly and to make a positive contribution in all phases of
society.

Fine Arts: One credit in fine arts is required for University Path
students. Current course offerings are Instrumental Music (Band),
General Music, Visual Art, and Theater Art. Standards based curricular
goals actively involve students and support their acquisition of skills
for personal expression through selected mediums and for the enjoyment
of artistic expression.

Foreign Language: Two credits in the same foreign language is required
for University Path students. Currently, Spanish is the only foreign
language offered at HHS. The primary focus for students is to develop
the capability to communicate in another language with linguistic
accuracy and cultural understanding. The teacher employs a
research-based storytelling approach (TPRS) during instruction.

Lifetime Wellness: One credit of Lifetime Wellness is required for
graduation. The course emphasizes a positive lifestyle management that
integrates the emotional, social, intellectual, and physical dimensions
for a longer, more productive, and higher quality of life.

Special Education: The special education curriculum offers resource
classes in math and language arts, as well as a behavior management
class. The curriculum is based on individualized special needs and
collaboration with regular education instructors. Gateway benchmarks are
instrumental in determining Individual Education Plan goals.

Vocational Education: The primary goal is to prepare students for future
livelihood with programs of sufficient scope and quality. Citizenship,
leadership, and teamwork are emphasized for success in school, the
community, and the workplace. Students in the technical pathway must
acquire 4 credits in a Career Technical Program. HHS students are
provided the opportunity to earn credits through Northeast State
Community College and Tennessee Technology Center. These students
receive both college and high school credit. On and off campus
vocational classes are available in Trade and Industrial Education,
Vocational Agriculture, and Information Technology.

**2. English**

The English curriculum is designed to integrate the standards of
reading, writing, viewing, representing, speaking, and listening.
Reading and writing are life-long processes. All English courses
emphasize communication and critical thinking skills necessary for
students to become life-long learners. Throughout each unit of study,
Gateway standards/indicators are taught and tested. The majority of
these units have cross-curricular correlation to several subjects,
including history, art, and keyboarding.

Freshmen engage in a thorough study of grammar, language structure, and
selected world literature. They must participate in the English I "End
of Course" exam. Sophomores concentrate on literary elements by
surveying a variety of authors, appropriately using elements of the
writing process, and applying advanced technological skills. The
sophomore curriculum also correlates to Gateway standards and
performance indicators. Sophomores must pass the Gateway English II exam
to graduate with a regular diploma. Juniors study American literature
and focus on the 11^th^ grade TCAP Persuasive Writing Test. Senior
English concentrates on British literature and focuses on a more
structured instruction and application of the writing process. Students
experiencing success during this chronology are better prepared for the
ACT test, college admission, and entrance into the work force.

HHS has increased the focus on reading and writing proficiency which
directly effects student performance and test scores in all academic
areas. The entire faculty strives to improve and enhance their students'
reading and writing skills through vocabulary development and
cross-curricular activities.

In addition to reading across the curriculum and school-wide vocabulary
development, strategies to improve the reading skills of students below
grade level include: assignments based on appropriate reading level; use
of low level / high interest books; modifications for special needs and
reluctant readers; peer tutors; and computer software targeting specific
reading skills. The reading and writing elements of the storytelling
approach (TPRS) in the foreign language curriculum strengthens these
skills in all academic areas.

**3. Mathematics**

The school's mission focuses on providing students with the skills,
opportunities, and encouragement to become productive citizens and
life-long learners. The mathematics department strives to instill a love
for learning and to provide students with skills, opportunities, and
encouragement far beyond the scope of Gateway Algebra test objectives.
Math courses offer life skills content and college preparation. Teachers
make great efforts to cultivate students who will become good consumers,
competent members of the work force, and positive contributors in their
communities. Student objectives emphasize critical thinking skills
needed for taking measurements, as well as for making financial
decisions, consumer choices, and connections regarding the importance of
mathematics in their daily lives. Common concepts throughout the math
curriculum include: integers, equations, graphing, exponentials, and
factoring.

The core of the math curriculum is directly aligned with Tennessee
Gateway standards. The math department has demonstrated a high degree of
success with test scores by aligning the curriculum with these standards
in regular classroom instruction, supplying students with a wide variety
of supplemental resource materials (study guides, Gateway and
End-of-Course "Coach" books, CD's and interactive notebooks), and
providing access to PLATO tutorials throughout the year. An extensive
effort has been made to focus on math skills in all curricular areas. An
Algebra I instructor team teaches with the special education math
teacher. Student successes are celebrated and encouraged.

**4. Instructional Methods**

Instructional practices are continually reviewed and analyzed by the
administration and teachers. A recent instructional analysis at HHS
revealed the following strengths:

1\) Reflection of the school's mission;

2\) Alignment of instruction to performance standards;

3\) Intervention programs and activities to assist students and support
instruction. Common instructional methods are employed throughout the
school to improve student learning. These strategies include:
discussion; inquiry; individual instruction; small group activities;
cooperative learning; hands-on tasks; visual and auditory modes of
instruction; re-teaching; remediation; peer-tutoring; interactive
lectures; and team teaching.

Teachers in Gateway and "end-of-course" areas employ individual "Coach"
books to review and drill content material throughout the year, as well
as prior to test administrations. They periodically administer practice
tests aligned with Gateway standards to assess student progress. These
instructors voluntarily tutor before and after school.

Research based strategies, such as PLATO, have been implemented to
improve student performance on state mandated assessments. PLATO is a
computer program that covers multiple subject areas and provides
instruction, practice, and tests for students at their ability level.
PLATO affords students the opportunity for credit recovery, Gateway exam
preparation and remediation, ACT preparation and enrichment, as well as
special education instruction.

The Media Center has an open scheduling policy which allows teachers to
better incorporate research as part of the instructional process. In
addition to research, students are encouraged to visit the media center
independently for study, document creation, and personal use. A "hands
on --minds on" approach to learning is applied in the science
curriculum. Basic reading and writing skills are applied in vocational
classes. Special education instructors modify instruction and assessment
as needed to meet the individual needs of students.

Enrichment activities, such as field trips, supplement instruction and
raise cultural awareness. Guest speakers, student productions, and
computer-based, individualized tutorials enrich student learning.

**5. Professional Development**

Professional development directly correlates to the school improvement
plan and provides support for the faculty, educational programs, and
student achievement. Programs and activities are linked to student
performance goals and focus on improving achievement from a variety of
approaches. Opportunities are provided through district and school
programs, staff development sessions, and professional meetings. Faculty
members attend a minimum thirty hours of in-service annually and
participate in various activities to satisfy SACS requirements.

District-wide sessions have targeted performance standards for various
mandated assessments, training for remediation resources (PLATO),
interpretation of the School Report Card and TVAAS (value-added) data,
student scheduling, lesson planning, as well as parent and community
involvement. Workshops regarding technology-based instruction and
software are available at the system's computer lab. "Teachers teaching
teachers" has been a valuable form of professional development at HHS.
Numerous sessions have been presented by trained teachers. Topics have
included: reading and writing "across the curriculum"; writing
assessment rubrics; interpretation of test data; software applications;
appropriate student placement in content areas; positive behavior
support; and crisis intervention.

Math, English, and science teachers have attended multiple phases of
Gateway Institutes. Three math teachers have received Technical Geometry
certification for course introduction to the curriculum and in
preparation for higher math requirements. Two English teachers have
served on the state's TCAP Writing Scoring Committee. All special
education teachers annually attend conferences that focus on testing,
instructional support, curriculum options, as well as academic and
behavioral issues. Vocational teachers attend training sessions that
target reading and writing skills. The Spanish teacher has attended
seminars related to the TPRS (storytelling) approach. The chemistry
teacher has an ongoing partnership with Eastman Corporation.

Collaboration with middle school teachers increases the awareness of
skills needed to better prepare students for the Gateway exams. The ARC
grant, implemented in 2005-06, has provided multiple opportunities for
professional development. The grant emphasizes team strategies,
graduation rate, pursuit of post-secondary education, and employment
options. Grant-related collaboration, materials, and exchange of
information, facilitated by the counselor, directly impact the
curriculum and student achievement.

Collectively, these programs and activities have helped the faculty
become more effective in delivering quality instruction and in preparing
all students for post-secondary life. The effectiveness of related
interventions and strategies on student achievement has been measured,
observed, and documented. Positive impacts include: increased student
proficiency and interest in reading, writing, and math; improved
graduation rate; decreased drop-out rate; and greater student confidence
in test-taking abilities.

**ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

The following analyses and sub-group disaggregation of Gateway and
End-of-Course exams indicate student performance levels, as well as
annual progress. No subgroup analysis was conducted for special
education or LEP students during this 3-year period. An analysis for
economically disadvantaged students was not conducted in 2002-03.
Analyses are not provided for ACT since less than 90% of the student
population take the exam.

Gateway Math (Algebra I)

A 3-year analysis revealed annual improvement in the scores for Gateway
Math (Algebra I). AYP for was met in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Proficiency /
Advanced levels for Algebra I students increased 19% in three years. In
2003, 78% of HHS students scored proficient or advanced. This
proficiency level exceeded the state benchmark (65%) by 13%. 82% of
males and 74% of females were proficient or above. HHS exceeded the
state's score by 3%. In 2004, 94% of HHS students were proficient or
above. The state's 65% benchmark was exceeded by 29%. 92% of the males,
96% of the females, and 94% of economically disadvantaged students
demonstrated proficiency or above. HHS exceeded the state's score by
18%. In 2005, 97% of HHS students were proficient or above. HHS's
proficiency level exceeded the state's 74% benchmark by 23%. 98% of both
males and females, as well as 95% of economically disadvantaged students
were proficient or above. HHS was 21% above the state's score.

Gateway Language Arts (English II)

A 3-year analysis showed annual improvement in the scores for Gateway
Language Arts (English II). AYP was met in 2004 and 2005. Proficiency /
Advanced levels for English II students increased 19% in three years. In
2003, 81% of HHS students scored proficient or advanced. This
proficiency level was below the state benchmark (86%) by 5%. 76% of
males and 85% of females were proficient or above. In 2004, 95% of HHS
students were proficient or above. The state's 86% benchmark was
exceeded by 9%. 98% of the males, 92% of the females, and 94% of
economically disadvantaged students demonstrated proficiency or above.
HHS exceeded the state's score by 8%. In 2005, 100% of HHS students were
proficient or above. HHS's proficiency level exceeded the state's 90%
benchmark by 10%. 100% of all tested subgroups were proficient or above.
HHS was 10% above the state's score.

TCAP Writing

Hampton High School has maintained a 3-year "B" average (above average /
competent) writing score on a holistic scale (1-6). In 2002-03, scores
were primarily analyzed by holistic scores and corresponding letter
grades. A 2-year analysis of proficiency levels revealed stability in
writing performance. In 2004, 99% of HHS students were proficient or
above. 98% of males, 100% of females, and 98% of economically
disadvantaged students demonstrated proficiency or above. In 2005, 95%
of HHS students were proficient or above. 91% of males, 100% of females,
and 92% of economically disadvantaged students were proficient or above.
Comparisons were not made to state scores. The state writing scores are
not solely disaggregated by writing exam results. Proficiency levels are
based on a combination of reading/language plus writing

End-of-Course (EOC) Math :Foundations II

A 3-year analysis showed annual progress in the observed scores for HHS'
EOC Math since 2003. Proficiency / Advanced levels for EOC Math students
increased 34% in three years. In 2003, 63% of HHS students were
proficient or advanced. 62% of males and 65% of females were proficient
or above. HHS was below the state's proficiency/advanced level (73%) by
10%. In 2004, 82% of HHS students were proficient or advanced. 88% of
the male students, 87% of the females, and 89% of the economically
disadvantaged students were proficient or advanced. HHS exceeded the
state's score by 6%. In 2005, 97% of HHS students were proficient or
above. 100% of males, 96% of females, and 98% of economically
disadvantaged students were proficient or above. HHS was 12% above the
state's score.

End-of-Course (EOC) English I

A 3-year analysis showed minor changes in HHS' EOC English I scores from
2003 to 2004, but a proficiency improvement of 14% from 2004 to 2005. In
2003, 86% of HHS students were proficient or advanced. 93% of males and
91% of females were proficient or above. HHS was above the state's
proficiency/advanced level (82%) by 4%. In 2004, 85% of HHS students
were proficient or advanced. 95% of the male students, 92% of the
females, and 93% of the economically disadvantaged students were
proficient or advanced. HHS exceeded the state's score by 2%. In 2005,
99% of HHS students were proficient or above. 100% of males, 98% of
females, and 100% of economically disadvantaged students were proficient
or above. HHS was 11% above the state's score.

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_\_[Algebra I]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade\_\_[9-12]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ Test\_\_\_\_\_[Gateway]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Years\_[2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}\_\_
Publisher\_\_\_\_\_[McGraw-Hill]{.underline}\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003

  Testing month                        May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                            

  \% "Below Proficient"                3%          6%          22%

  \% "Proficient"                      42%         49%         28%

  \% "Advanced"                        55%         45%         50%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           97%         94%         78%

  Number of students tested            78          65          72

  Percent of total students tested     100%        96%         97%

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0
  assessed                                                     

  Percent of students alternatively    0%          0%          0%
  assessed                                                     

                                                               

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                          

  1 **Economically Disadvantaged**                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                5%          6%          \*

  \% "Proficient"                      53%         58%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        42%         36%         \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           95%         94%         \*

  Number of students tested            36          33          \*

                                                               

  2 **Gender : Male**                                          

  \% "Below Proficient"                2%          8%          18%

  \% "Proficient"                      32%         47%         30%

  \% "Advanced"                        66%         45%         52%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           98%         92%         82%

  Number of students tested            38          38          33

                                                               

  3 **Gender : Female**                                        

  \% "Below Proficient"                2%          4%          26%

  \% "Proficient"                      53%         52%         23%

  \% "Advanced"                        45%         44%         51%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           98%         96%         74%

  Number of students tested            40          27          39

                                                               

  **STATE SCORES**                                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                24%         24%         25%

  \% "Proficient"                      33%         33%         30%

  \% "Advanced"                        43%         43%         45%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           76%         76%         75%
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

Table data was derived from annual Tennessee School Report Card and
TVAAS (value-added) reports and analyses.

\* Socioeconomic disaggregation was not conducted in 2002-03

Disaggregation of data was not performed for Special Education,
Ethnicity, or for LEP. For an analysis of student performance levels and
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to be conducted in these subgroups,
Tennessee has mandated a minimum of 45 students be tested. There were
insufficient numbers in these subgroups to do an analysis in Algebra I.

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_\_[English II]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade\_\_[10]{.underline} \_\_\_\_ Test\_\_\_\_\_[Gateway]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Years\_[2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}\_\_
Publisher\_\_\_\_\_[McGraw-Hill]{.underline}\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003

  Testing month                        May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                            

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          5%          19%

  \% "Proficient"                      29%         37%         51%

  \% "Advanced"                        71%         58%         30%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        95%         81%

  Number of students tested            82          102         122

  Percent of total students tested     98%         97%         98%

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0
  assessed                                                     

  Percent of students alternatively    0%          0%          0%
  assessed                                                     

                                                               

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                          

  1 **Economically Disadvantaged**                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          6%          \*

  \% "Proficient"                      38%         31%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        62%         63%         \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        94%         \*

  Number of students tested            45          48          \*

                                                               

  2 **Gender : Male**                                          

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          2%          24%

  \% "Proficient"                      34%         44%         48%

  \% "Advanced"                        66%         54%         28%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        98%         76%

  Number of students tested            32          52          62

                                                               

  3 **Gender : Female**                                        

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          8%          15%

  \% "Proficient"                      26%         30%         53%

  \% "Advanced"                        74%         62%         32%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        92%         85%

  Number of students tested            50          50          60

                                                               

  **STATE SCORES**                                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                10%         13%         13%

  \% "Proficient"                      30%         34%         35%

  \% "Advanced"                        60%         53%         52%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           90%         87%         87%
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

Table data was derived from annual Tennessee School Report Card and
TVAAS (value-added) analyses.

\* Socioeconomic disaggregation was not conducted in 2002-03.

Data disaggregation was not performed for Special Ed., Ethnicity, or for
LEP. For an analysis of student performance levels and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) to be conducted in subgroups, Tennessee has mandated a
minimum of 45 students be tested. There were insufficient numbers in
these subgroups to do an analysis in English II.

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_\_[Writing]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade\_\_[11]{.underline} Test\_\_\_\_\_[TCAP Writing
Assessment]{.underline} \_\_\_

Edition/Publication Years[2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}\_
Publisher\_\_[Measurement Incorporated]{.underline}\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003

  Testing month                        Feb.        Feb.        Feb.

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                            

  \% "Below Proficient"                5%          1%          \*

  \% "Proficient"                      88%         92%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        7%          7%          \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           95%         99%         \*

  Number of students tested            100         104         61

  Percent of total students tested     97%         98%         96%

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           \*
  assessed                                                     

  Percent of students alternatively    0%          0%          \*
  assessed                                                     

                                                               

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                          

  1 **Economically Disadvantaged**                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                8%          2%          \*

  \% "Proficient"                      90%         93%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        2%          5%          \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           92%         98%         \*

  Number of students tested            49          59          \*

                                                               

  2 **Gender : Male**                                          

  \% "Below Proficient"                9%          2%          \*

  \% "Proficient"                      85%         93%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        6%          5%          \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           91%         98%         \*

  Number of students tested            55          56          \*

                                                               

  3 **Gender : Female**                                        

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          0%          \*

  \% "Proficient"                      91%         92%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        9%          8%          \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        100%        \*

  Number of students tested            45          48          \*

                                                               

  **STATE SCORES**                                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                \*\*        \*\*        \*\*

  \% "Proficient"                      \*\*        \*\*        \*\*

  \% "Advanced"                        \*\*        \*\*        \*\*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           \*\*        \*\*        \*\*
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

Table data was derived from annual Tennessee School Report Card and
TVAAS (value-added) analyses.

\*In 2002-03, TCAP Writing results were not disaggregated according to
proficiency levels. They were analyzed by holistic scores (1-6).

\*\* The state writing scores are not solely disaggregated by writing
exam results. Proficiency levels are based on a combination of
reading/language plus writing.

Data disaggregation was not performed for Special Ed., Ethnicity, or for
LEP. For an analysis of student performance levels and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) to be conducted in subgroups, Tennessee has mandated a
minimum of 45 students be tested. There were insufficient numbers to do
an analysis for TCAP Writing.

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_\_[Math Foundations II]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ Grade\_[9 -
10]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ Test [End-of-Course]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Years\_[2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}\_\_
Publisher\_\_\_\_\_[McGraw-Hill]{.underline}\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003

  Testing month                        May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                            

  \% "Below Proficient"                3%          18%         37%

  \% "Proficient"                      29%         54%         38%

  \% "Advanced"                        68%         28%         25%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           97%         82%         63%

  Number of students tested            76%         110%        98%

  Percent of total students tested     99%         97%         95%

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0
  assessed                                                     

  Percent of students alternatively    0%          0%          0%
  assessed                                                     

                                                               

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                          

  1 **Economically Disadvantaged**                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                2%          11%         \*

  \% "Proficient"                      30%         66%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        68%         23%         \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           98%         89%         \*

  Number of students tested            43          74          \*

                                                               

  2 **Gender : Male**                                          

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          12%         38%

  \% "Proficient"                      20%         63%         36%

  \% "Advanced"                        80%         25%         26%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        88%         62%

  Number of students tested            30          48          55

                                                               

  3 **Gender : Female**                                        

  \% "Below Proficient"                4%          13%         35%

  \% "Proficient"                      35%         66%         42%

  \% "Advanced"                        61%         21%         23%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           96%         87%         65%

  Number of students tested            46          62          43

                                                               

  **STATE SCORES**                                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                15%         24%         27%

  \% "Proficient"                      37%         45%         42%

  \% "Advanced"                        48%         31%         31%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           85%         76%         73%
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

Table data was derived from annual Tennessee School Report Card and
TVAAS (value-added) reports and analyses.

\* Socioeconomic disaggregation was not conducted in 2002-03

Disaggregation of data was not performed for Special Education,
Ethnicity, or for LEP. For an analysis of student performance levels and
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to be conducted in these subgroups,
Tennessee has mandated a minimum of 45 students be tested. There were
insufficient numbers in these subgroups to do an analysis for Math
Foundations II.

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject\_\_\_[English
I]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Grade\_\_[9]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ Test
[End-of-Course]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Years\_[2003, 2004, 2005]{.underline}\_\_
Publisher\_\_\_\_\_[McGraw-Hill]{.underline}\_\_\_

  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
                                       2004-2005   2003-2004   2002-2003

  Testing month                        May         May         May

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                            

  \% "Below Proficient"                1%          15%         14%

  \% "Proficient"                      51%         63%         54%

  \% "Advanced"                        48%         22%         32%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           99%         85%         86%

  Number of students tested            87          88          93

  Percent of total students tested     95%         96%         95%

  Number of students alternatively     0           0           0
  assessed                                                     

  Percent of students alternatively    0%          0%          0%
  assessed                                                     

                                                               

  **SUBGROUP SCORES**                                          

  1 **Economically Disadvantaged**                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          7%          \*

  \% "Proficient"                      66%         84%         \*

  \% "Advanced"                        34%         9%          \*

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        93%         \*

  Number of students tested            38          56          \*

                                                               

  2 **Gender : Male**                                          

  \% "Below Proficient"                0%          5%          7%

  \% "Proficient"                      49%         78%         61%

  \% "Advanced"                        51%         17%         32%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           100%        95%         93%

  Number of students tested            43          36          44

                                                               

  3 **Gender : Female**                                        

  \% "Below Proficient"                2%          8%          9%

  \% "Proficient"                      52%         77%         64%

  \% "Advanced"                        46%         15%         27%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           98%         92%         91%

  Number of students tested            44          52          49

                                                               

  **STATE SCORES**                                             

  \% "Below Proficient"                12%         17%         18%

  \% "Proficient"                      45%         51%         51%

  \% "Advanced"                        43%         32%         31%

  \% "Proficient / Advanced"           88%         83%         82%
  ------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

Table data was derived from annual Tennessee School Report Card and
TVAAS (value-added) reports and analyses.

\* Socioeconomic disaggregation was not conducted in 2002-03.

Disaggregation of data was not performed for Special Education,
Ethnicity, or for LEP. For an analysis of student performance levels and
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to be conducted in these subgroups,
Tennessee has mandated a minimum of 45 students be tested. There were
insufficient numbers in these subgroups to do an analysis for English I.