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

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

**Cover Sheet**

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

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

Official School Name [Brentsville District High School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [12109 Aden Road]{.underline} (If address is P.O.
Box, also include street address)

[Nokesville VA 20181+2340]{.underline} City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits
total)

Tel. [( 703 ) 594-2161 F]{.underline}ax [( 703 ) 594-2365]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.bdhstigers.org]{.underline} E-mail
[mulgrewm@pwcs.edu]{.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. Edward L. Kelly]{.underline}

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

District Name [Prince William County Public Schools]{.underline} Tel.
[(703) 791-8700]{.underline}

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

Date\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mrs. Lucy
Beauchamp\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

The signatures on the first page of this application certify that each
of the statements below concerning the school\'s eligibility and
compliance with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights
(OCR) requirements is true and correct.

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2003-2004 school
    year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 1998.

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

\*Data is SY 2003-2004 data or as marked. Until June 2002, Brentsville
housed a middle (6-8) and a high school (9-12). As of September 2002,
Brentsville is a high school only.

1\. Number of schools in the district: [47]{.underline} Elementary
schools (K-5)

(SY 2003-2004) [13]{.underline} Middle schools (6-8)

[0]{.underline} Junior high schools

[8]{.underline} High schools (9-12)

> [7]{.underline} Other (Briefly explain): 5 Special Education schools
>
> 1 Alternative Education school
>
> 1 Traditional or Specialty school (K-8)

[74]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: FY 2002 - \$7361; FY 2003 - \$7798;
FY 2004 - \$8,391

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: FY 2002 - \$7836 (FY 2003 data not
available at this time)

**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
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[x\] Small city or town \[unincorporated\] in a rural area. School
> division however is "urban".
>
> \[ \] 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 enrolled at each grade level or its equivalent in
applying school: (2002-03)

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

  **K**                                                     **7**                             

  **1**                                                     **8**                             

  **2**                                                     **9**       139       132         271

  **3**                                                     **10**      118       108         226

  **4**                                                     **11**      106       96          202

  **5**                                                     **12**      86        90          176

  **6**                                                     Other       1                     

                                    **TOTAL                                                   876
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [89.3]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [3.7]{.underline} % Black or African
American

SY 2002-2003 [2.6]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

\% American Indian/Alaskan Native

[2.3]{.underline} % Other

**100% Total**

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

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

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 14
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 39
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        53
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    875
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .06057
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    6.1%
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

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

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

Number of languages represented: [0.0]{.underline}

Specify languages:

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [3.3]{.underline} %

[29]{.underline} Total Number Students Who Qualify

> If this method does not produce a reasonably 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: [6.7]{.underline} %

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

> Indicate below the number of students with disabilities according to
> conditions designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act.

\_\_\_\_Autism \_\_\_\_ Orthopedic Impairment

\_\_\_\_Deafness \_\_\_\_ Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [58]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

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

\_\_\_\_Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_ Traumatic Brain Injury

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_\_\_ Visual Impairment Including
Blindness

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) [5]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [53]{.underline} [2]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [1]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals [7]{.underline}

> Support staff [8]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number [74]{.underline} [2]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  English 23                          Social Studies 25

  Math 20                             Science 21
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

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 discrepancies between the
dropout rate and the drop-off rate. (Only middle and high schools need
to supply dropout rates and only high schools need to supply drop-off
rates.)

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

  Daily student attendance 95.6%       95.3%       94.5%       91.1%       94.4%

  Daily teacher attendance 97%         96%         95%         95.5%       NA

  Teacher turnover rate    18%         10%         39.6%       NA          NA

  Student dropout rate     1.46%       0.86%       1.99%       0.94%       2.00%

  Student drop-off rate    2.4%        2.64%       0.72%       0.65%       0.25%
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

14\. **(*High Schools Only*)** Show what the students who graduated in
Spring 2003 are doing as of September 2003.

+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Graduating class size                               | > [15          |
|                                                     | 0]{.underline} |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university          | > [45          |
|                                                     | ]{.underline}% |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                     | > [35          |
|                                                     | ]{.underline}% |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                     | > [1           |
|                                                     | ]{.underline}% |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Found employment                                    | > [16          |
|                                                     | ]{.underline}% |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Military service                                    | > [3           |
|                                                     | ]{.underline}% |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                  | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| Unknown                                             | > \_\_\_\_\_%  |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+
| **Total**                                           | > 100 %        |
+-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Brentsville District High School (BDHS) is one of eight high schools in
Prince William County. It is located in Nokesville, a census-designated
place (CSP) with a population of 1,236. Brentsville is located in a
rural environment surrounded by suburban growth in an urban county.

Brentsville's student population of 875 is unique among the schools in
Northern Virginia. Most high schools have enrollments exceeding 2000
students. With a thriving economy, Prince William County has seen an
enormous influx of new residents. In 2000, Brentsville began its
conversion from a middle-senior high school to a high school only. This
was a three year process. Each succeeding year, Brentsville lost an
additional middle school grade. Finally, in September 2000, Brentsville
was strictly a high school.

At BDHS, our mission is to meet the educational needs of our student
population through a high quality and comprehensive education. We
believe that

-   each student can reach his/her potential

-   all students can be life-long learners and productive members of
    society

-   high expectations yield high results

-   community involvement is essential to the successful operation of
    the school

-   extracurricular activities are a cornerstone of the educational
    process

-   family is the primary influence in the development of the student

-   communication is essential, and

-   collaboration among staff is critical to success.

Brentsville builds collaborative support for its academic programs
through an active Parent Teacher Activities Council (PTAC) and community
members who have enabled Brentsville to meet challenges and flourish.
This community support helps maintain our outstanding faculty and is one
of the prime ingredients to our success. New teachers are provided
strong curriculum support. Faculty collaborative teams have been a
constant to the continuous improvement of instruction.

Seeking academic rigor, Brentsville signed an affiliation with the
University of Cambridge (U.K) and became an official Cambridge centre in
2000. An international curriculum, Cambridge objectives far exceed our
state's objectives. Advanced students can take IGCSE courses at the
ninth and tenth grade levels or AICE courses at the eleventh and twelfth
grade levels. The addition of the Cambridge Programme has raised
academic expectations throughout the school.

Brentsville boasts impressive academic achievements. In 2000, Governor
Gilmore recognized Brentsville for its academic successes. In 2001,
Governor Warner recognized Brentsville as one of two schools in the
district for its outstanding improvement on Virginia's end-of-course
tests. For three consecutive years, the county school board has named
Brentsville a School of Excellence, and in the past two years,
Brentsville has received a perfect mark in the division's measurement
system. This past year, Brentsville received the prestigious
International Fellowship status from the University of Cambridge. Of the
thousands of Cambridge centres worldwide, only seventeen have achieved
this status and Brentsville is only the second school in the United
States to achieve this status. In 2003, Virginia's General Assembly
dispatched a delegation to determine the best practices of successful
schools. Brentsville was honored to host this delegation and share its
educational philosophy and programs.

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

**1. Brentsville District High School Assessment Results in Reading and
Mathematics**

The Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) were adopted by the state in
1995. These standards were intended to stress the importance of having
curriculum objectives in the core academic areas of English,
mathematics, social studies and science. The assessments of these
standards are designed to inform teachers, students and parents of the
quality of student achievement and to hold schools accountable for the
teaching of certain objectives. All schools are required to teach these
mandated curricular objectives, although schools and school districts
may "exceed" the state requirements by teaching beyond the state
curriculum

Since the onset of Virginia's accountability program, schools measure
student achievement using criterion-referenced tests. The Virginia
Standards of Learning assessments are the criterion-referenced
assessments that are given for high schools at the end of selected core
courses. The SOLs require both the school and the individual student to
demonstrate proficiency in meeting curricular objectives. Students must
pass a minimum of six SOL tests to receive a diploma, and schools must
have 70% of their students pass these tests in all academic areas in
order to receive accreditation.

Virginia's accreditation standards are based on school performance on
these tests in terms of the percentage of students passing these
end-of-year course tests. Each test has a similar assessment system. A
600-point scale is used to determine student proficiency. A 400-499
score indicates that a student is proficient in the curriculum while a
500-600 score indicates that a student is performing at an advanced
level. Passing scores vary from test to test and are established by the
state. At the present time, students are required to pass two English
SOL tests, Reading and Writing, and four other SOL tests in order to
receive a standard diploma. Students desiring an advanced diploma must
pass two English SOL tests and at least two tests from each of the other
core subjects. Again, schools must also show proficiency in order to
achieve accreditation. Schools must have 70% of their students pass SOL
tests in all four academic areas -- Math, Language Arts, Science and
Social Studies -- in order to achieve accreditation.

Students at Brentsville District High School have consistently been
among the top scoring in the state in all academic areas, including
English and Mathematics. Using 2002-03 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) data,
95% of all BDHS students passed their Math SOL test and 96% passed their
Reading/Language Arts SOL test. This is considerably higher than the
state average, which concludes that 78% of all Virginia students passed
their Math SOL test and 79% of all students passed the Reading/Language
Arts SOL test. For particular subgroups within the Brentsville
community, the scores are also impressive. Due to the fact that less
than 10 students (which is the state standard) took the Reading/Language
Arts test in each of the identified subgroups, that data is limited. In
math, there are three separate SOL tests. The number of math students
tested for the identified subgroups do exceed the state standard.
Eighty-nine percent of Brentsville's Black students passed their Math
SOL while only 65% of the Black students across the state passed.
Hispanic students, likewise, scored considerably higher at Brentsville
(92%) than the state average (68%). Over 70% of Brentsville's students
with disabilities passed their math SOL test which is much higher than
the state average of 51%. Obviously, Brentsville District High School is
exceeding the state requirements.

**2. Use of Assessment Data to Improve School Performance**

BDHS proactively uses a wide variety of initiatives to improve both our
students' and school's performance. Data from formative (quizzes) and
summative (tests) assessments as well as formal (SOL and CMS) and
informal (teachers' reflections) evaluations provide a substantive basis
for enhanced academic excellence. In a cooperative effort, our teachers
use the Curriculum Management System (CMS) to periodically assess
student achievement in mastering SOL objectives. We align and
synchronize our curriculums with SOL objectives and monitor student
progress continuously. Through collaboration, our programs maintain
strengths, identify weaknesses, and provide venues to overcome
shortfalls**.** Teachers design, implement, and share successful
instructional strategies. Student remediation efforts, such as
semi-weekly Math Labs assist our students to meet and exceed acceptable
levels of performance in a positive and productive environment.

**3. Communication of Student Performance**

Brentsville District effectively communicates student performance to
students, parents and the community. In addition to report cards, which
are disseminated quarterly, parents are given frequent assessment
information. Brentsville employs the Edulink system, a web based system
where parents can access their student's daily grades online. This
Edulink system, updated every day by the Central Office, provides
parents with invaluable assessment information. Brentsville's
newsletter, [Tiger]{.underline} [Tales,]{.underline} is sent monthly
with important academic information and assessment results. Honor Roll
information and Students of the Month are highlighted in the newsletter.
Brentsville's School Report Card, along with spreadsheets showing
Brentsville's scores against schools across the region are common
highlights in [Tiger]{.underline} [Tales]{.underline}. Recently,
Brentsville initiated a community e-mail system where the principal
sends an e-mail to over 1,000 subscribers on a weekly basis detailing
important academic information and highlights. Interim reports are also
given quarterly and the parents are informed numerous times if their
child is in danger of failing a class. In addition to the Edulink
system, some teachers e-mail progress reports to parents showing each of
the student's assignments and grades. Brentsville has also aligned its
semester exams to serve as a predictor of the student's success on the
SOL given at the end of the year. This assessment information is
communicated to parents. Students who earn an A or B on the semester
exam are very likely to score advanced on the SOL while students with a
C or D can be expected to pass the SOL with a proficient score. Teacher
email addresses, listed in the monthly newsletter, are also available on
the school and county's website. The PTAC, an active parent
organization, holds information nights and breakfasts for parents to
receive transcript and graduation information. Administrators use Test
Talks, private conferences with parents, to explain SOL information for
students in danger of not graduating or failing.

**4. Sharing Successful Strategies**

Brentsville District High School currently shares its successes with
other schools in a number of ways. Teachers not only attend countywide
in-services, but many Brentsville teachers' instructional guides serve
as models for other schools to emulate. Brentsville teachers have been
very active in developing the County's Curriculum Management System that
assists teachers, by using periodic tests, to identify weaknesses in
student learning. There are several teachers who have worked on state
curriculum initiatives as well. Brentsville welcomes visits from other
schools and school divisions to observe teaching techniques and
strategies. Twice, Brentsville hosted Cambridge training for schools and
this year was awarded the prestigious International Fellowship Centre
status by this elite university for our development and sharing of
curriculum plans. Being one of only seventeen International Fellowship
Centres in the world shows our commitment to improving instruction
through collaboration with other schools. The principal has twice
presented at state conferences on how to achieve SOL accreditation and
to meet the requirements of NCLB. Brentsville teachers have presented
successful teaching strategies at local, state and national conferences
as well. Recently, Virginia's General Assembly identified successful
schools and sent delegations to investigate their strategies.
Brentsville proudly hosted this delegation last summer and shared with
these individuals its programs and instructional philosophies. This
year, a neighboring school district invited Brentsville's principal to
speak to their School Board on the concept of small schools and meeting
NCLB requirements. As a result, this School Board decided to use
Brentsville as its model in developing smaller schools in its district.
If Brentsville is selected as a Blue Ribbon school, our school will
continue to share its insight, curriculum designs and philosophy with
other schools.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**1. Outline of Curriculum**

Prince William County's curriculum is derived from Virginia's Standards
of Learning. Curriculum Overviews and Pacing Guides direct classroom
instruction. Daily lessons are designed to meet and exceed the high
standards set by the State.

Teachers are given the standards of each subject area and use them to
direct daily instruction. In addition, Brentsville teachers collaborate
with one another and create instructional guides and programs. These
guides are aligned with state curriculum but often exceed the SOL
standards. By exceeding the standards, Brentsville teachers assure that
students will become lifelong learners. In Cambridge classes, the
curriculum has been aligned to meet both the SOL standards and the
standards set by Cambridge. Brentsville is committed to a rigorous
curriculum where students are expected to excel.

In language arts, the curriculum is based on four specific skills:
reading, writing, speaking and listening. Students are expected to
become proficient in all forms of communication with a heavy emphasis on
evaluating literature. The curriculum builds upon skills taught at the
ninth and tenth grade level and teachers continually refine skills.
Reading and writing, along with research skills, are infused in the
four-year program of study. These skills are introduced in the ninth
grade and developed further through the years.

The history curricula consist of five separate strands: history,
economics, geography, civics, and foreign policy. In the history strand,
students learn about important events and people, and heavy emphasis
placed on contemporary history. Students are expected to understand
geography, political situations and established historical
interpretations throughout the five strands. There is a strong emphasis
on historical skills and information management present in both the
state and county curricula.

In mathematics, students are expected to learn math in a conceptual
manner and understand real life mathematical situations. Discovering
mathematical concepts and patterns are essential to learning. Skills are
built upon through the four-year sequence to insure preparation for
higher-level courses. Students are expected to think mathematically and
use these skills to solve higher-level thinking problems. The Prince
William County curricula expect students to exceed the state standards
as they become independent math learners.

The science curriculum at Brentsville is inquiry based; utilizing a
continuous curriculum organized around the major strands that unify
science. These strands include: scientific reasoning and logic, life
science, environmental science, physical science and earth and space
science. Science is seen as a continuum where the phenomena of
exploration and explanation are achieved through the application of the
scientific process. The curriculum is presented in two formats: subject
specific and as a continuous strand throughout the curriculums.

The foreign language and art curricula are very important at
Brentsville. The curriculum of foreign language study aims to have
students become responsible citizens in the global community. To that
end, the five separate strands students are expected to master are
Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities.
Developing knowledge of other cultures and their communities has been a
constant theme in Prince William County's foreign language curricula for
decades. The art curriculum focuses on the four disciplines of art: art
production, art criticism, art history and aesthetics. Critical thinking
skills, including the ability to analyze works of art, remain central
themes throughout the Prince William County art curricula. Through the
comprehensive study of art the students can understand the historical
and cultural contexts for works of art and develop a better
understanding of art and its place in society.

**2. English Curriculum Including Strategies for Reading Improvement**

Brentsville's English Language Arts Curriculum follows a balanced
literacy model that integrates reading, writing, speaking/listening and
research. These are not individual content areas, but a unified subject
in which one content area supports another and therefore enhances
thinking and learning. Integration of the process and content is also
evident in that the study of literature provides a context for reading
and writing instruction, speaking/listening activities, and research. A
summer reading program, grade level required literature selections, and
an independent reading program where students read a variety of classic
and contemporary literature provide reading content. Applying reading
processes and strategies to increasingly difficult fiction and
non-fiction texts that also include informational and technical material
is an important distinction. Instructors adhere to the philosophy that
reading well promotes good writing, and opportunities to write about
literature and life experiences are offered in each unit of study.
Students learn how to use a writing process to develop different types
of writing products. Small and large group discussion, speech
units---including individual presentations and cooperative learning
activities -- allow students to learn by speaking and listening.
Students define and investigate issues important to them. A required
research writing component where students learn to use a variety of
research tools, including technology, is included at each grade level;
writing of the eleventh grade research paper is emphasized by external
grading.

Advanced studies and elective courses are another aspect of the
curriculum. Cambridge English courses are available to students
interested in pursuing an advanced level of study in literature and
composition. Students read set texts and develop critical
interpretations of these texts. Students study the demands and
techniques of the main prose composition styles: narration, description,
comparison, analysis, and argument. These courses follow the University
of Cambridge model with external exams. Ninth and tenth graders may
enroll in the Cambridge IGCSE classes while the eleventh and twelfth
graders may enroll in the Cambridge AICE program. AP Language and
Composition and AP Literature and Composition are also available to
students wishing to pursue advanced language arts studies. Courses in
photojournalism and creative writing are elective components of the
curriculum.

An integrated language arts curriculum guides instruction, allowing our
students to imagine in the past, articulate the present, and gain needed
skills for the future.

**3. School's Mission Reflected in the Math Curriculum**

The math curriculum, and its subsequent implementation, exemplifies our
school mission. One of the main components of our mission is that all
students can learn. All students are expected to master the algebra and
geometry curriculums, although they may be taught the material in
different ways. Integrated Algebra and Geometry (IAG) students,
typically students who have struggled in math, are taught the curricula
using a hands-on approach. This IAG curriculum, designed by BDHS
teachers, works for the non-abstract learners who may need to physically
measure the perimeter of a rectangle rather than discussing its
properties. The expectation of mastery remains the same; however, the
methodology within our IAG continuum reflects the learning differences.
Another important component of our mission is our belief in high
expectations. All of our math curriculums exceed the requirements of the
Standards of Learning tests. In addition to high expectations, it is our
strong belief that student must become life-long learners. Throughout
the math continuum, students are asked, using facilitative instruction,
to discover the properties of math and think mathematically. Students
being able to work independently and thinking mathematically is an
important component of our math department's philosophy.

**4. Instructional Methods**

While students learn in a variety of ways, teachers must use a variety
of teaching styles to reach these students. BDHS teachers have developed
different teaching styles and use different instructional methods to
improve student performance. Some students need the hands-on approach of
teaching where they touch and use their hands to solve a problem.
Students enrolled in our IAG program use manipulatives and hands-on
teaching techniques to learn the exact same instructional objectives as
other students. By adjusting our teaching methodology, students
experience a greater opportunity for success. In addition to using
hands-on techniques, BDHS teachers use facilitative instruction, where
the students become active learners and discover the objectives.
Throughout the school, students are engaged in solving problems
cooperatively. The Cambridge Programme benefits our school by developing
higher level thinking skills for all of our students. Cambridge
questions are written both at the core (basic) level and at the extended
(advanced) level. This enables our teachers to meet the needs of all our
students. Developing a greater understanding of problem solving enables
students to handle more difficult tasks. Brentsville students are taught
how to theorize, analyze, and evaluate material and the process of
gaining knowledge becomes an active rather than a passive process.
Differentiated instructional strategies result in daily assessments that
far exceed the traditional method of recalling information.

**5. Professional Development Focused on Student Achievement**

Creating a professional learning environment is essential to
Brentsville's mission of providing a high quality education. Each year,
Brentsville develops its own Staff Development Plan devoted to
professional development in all areas. The Staff Development Plan is
designed to meet the instructional needs of our students based on school
wide data. If an instructional deficiency exists, based on the previous
year's instructional data, the Staff Development Plan is immediately
adjusted to meet the identified need. As part of his or her contract,
each staff member must complete 30 staff development hours each year.
The specific types of staff development offered are left to the
individual school. During the last few years, Brentsville has committed
itself to improving the quality of education. In 2000, Brentsville
changed from a 4x4 block scheduling system to a 7 A/B system. The Staff
Development Plan was altered to address this significant change. One
adjustment necessary was the staff's acceptance of the Enhanced
Instructional Process (EIP) as our instructional model. The
instructional components of the EIP were accepted by the staff and still
serve as the standard for effective instruction. The staff received in
services on this instructional method and agreed to implement its
postulates. The EIP allows for teachers to evaluate student mastery of
objectives on a daily basis. New teachers are offered a 30-hour course
on the EIP during their first year. Brentsville teachers have attended
professional conferences, including Cambridge training, in significant
numbers to better both their instructional delivery and their individual
assessment of student work. During the past two years, our staff has
identified three important themes for our staff development:

-   Assisting all teachers in the timely and thorough implementation of
    the Prince William County curriculum

-   Enhancing teachers' understanding of the Enhanced Instructional
    Process

-   Assisting teachers in evaluating student performance and assessing
    data.

**PART VI - PRIVATE SCHOOL ADDENDUM (Non-Applicable)**

# PART VII

## Data Display Table for Reading/English

+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                              | 2002-03    | 2001-02    | 2000-01   |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Testing Month                | May        | May        | May       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| SCHOOL SCORES                |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| TOTAL                        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 51.61%     | 53.42%     | 61.46%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 44.62%     | 34.65%     | 25.47%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Number of students tested    | 186        | 277        | 314       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Percent of total students    | 98.9       | 99.6       | 97.2      |
| tested                       |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Number of students excluded  | 2          | 1          | 9         |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Percent of students excluded | 1.10%      | 0.36%      | 2.79%     |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES              |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 1\. Ethnicity/LEP/FRL        |            |            |           |
| (specific subgroup)          |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| [White]{.underline}          | 167        | 251        | 285       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 51.49%     | 53.38%     | 61.40%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 44.91%     | 35.05%     | 27.01%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 2\. [Black]{.underline}      | 8          | 9          | 12        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At of Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 62.50%     | 55.50%     | 75%       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 37.50%     | 44.40%     | 0%        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 3\. [Hispanic]{.underline}   | 3          | 4          | 12        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 67.60%     | 50.00%     | 41.70%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 0%         | 0%         | 16.70%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 4\. [FRL]{.underline}        | 3          | 9          | 10        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 100.00%    | 33.00%     | 70.00%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 0%         | 0%         | 10.00%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 5\. [Special                 | 11         | 15         | 10        |
| Education]{.underline}       |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Proficient                | 72.72%     | 66.66%     | 40%       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 0%         | 6%         | 0%        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 6\. [LEP]{.underline}        | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
| **\*\***                     |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Proficient                | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ### STATE SCORES             |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| **TOTAL**                    |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  At or Above Basic       |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  State Mean Score        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  At or Above Proficient  |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  State Mean Score        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  At Advanced             |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  State Mean Score        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###                          |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| \*\*Not enough LEP students. |            |            |           |
| They attend a neighboring    |            |            |           |
| school.                      |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+

# PART VII

## Data Display Table for Mathematics

+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
|                              | 2002-03    | 2001-02    | 2000-01   |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Testing Month                | May        | May        | May       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| SCHOOL SCORES                |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| TOTAL                        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 54.17%     | 60.81%     | 67.30%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 42.36%     | 30.86%     | 20.07%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Number of students tested    | 491        | 541        | 523       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Percent of total students    | 99.2       | 97.8       | 97.4      |
| tested                       |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Number of students excluded  | 4          | 12         | 14        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Percent of students excluded | 0.8%       | 2.17%      | 2.61%     |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| SUBGROUP SCORES              |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 1\. Ethnicity/LEP/FRL        |            |            |           |
| (specific subgroup)          |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| [White]{.underline}          | 444        | 495        | 471       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 52.47%     | 60.69%     | 68.80%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 44.59%     | 31.77%     | 19.23%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 2\. [Black]{.underline}      | 18         | 22         | 29        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At of Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 66.68%     | 40.90%     | 55.17%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 22.22%     | 27.27%     | 24.13%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 3\. [Hispanic]{.underline}   | 12         | 7          | 11        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 75%        | 71.42%     | 63.63%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 16.66%     | 14.28%     | 9%        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 4\. [FRL]{.underline}        | 9          | 14         | 15        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 77.77%     | 64.29%     | 53.33     |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 22.22%     | 21.42%     | 0%        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 5\. [Special                 | 18         | 20         | 15        |
| Education]{.underline}       |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | 77.77%     | 40.00%     | 26.67%    |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | 0%         | 6%         | 0%        |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| 6\. [LEP]{.underline}        | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
| **\*\***                     |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Basic            | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At or Above Proficient       | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| At Advanced                  | n/a        | n/a        | n/a       |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ### STATE SCORES             |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| **TOTAL**                    |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  At or Above Basic       |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  State Mean Score        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  At or Above Proficient  |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  State Mean Score        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  At Advanced             |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###  State Mean Score        |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| ###                          |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| \*\*Not enough LEP students. |            |            |           |
| They attend a neighboring    |            |            |           |
| school.                      |            |            |           |
+------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+