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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: X\_ Elementary \_X\_ Middle \_ High \_
K-12

Name of Principal [Sister Mary Broderick, S.H.C.J.]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Rosemont School of The Holy Child]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address [1344 Montgomery
Avenue]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Rosemont PA 19010-1698]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County [Montgomery]{.underline} School Code Number\* [NA]{.underline}

Telephone [( 610) 922-1000]{.underline} Fax [(610)525-7128]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.rosemontschool.org]{.underline} E-mail
[breslinj@rosemontschool.org]{.underline}

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

Date [December 10 , 2004]{.underline}

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [NA]{.underline}

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

District Name [NA]{.underline} Tel. [( ) NA]{.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.

[NA]{.underline} Date [NA]{.underline} (Superintendent's Signature)

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson [Mr. J. Gordon Cooney]{.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 [December 10, 2004]{.underline}

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2004-2005 school
    year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 1999 and has not received the 2003 or 2004 *No
    Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: \_\_\_\_\_ Elementary schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Middle schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Junior high schools

\_\_\_\_\_ High schools

\_\_\_\_\_ Other

[NA]{.underline} TOTAL

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

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [NA]{.underline}

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

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

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

4\. [22]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **PreK**    13        10                     **23**       **7**       14        13          27

  **K**       16        14                     **30**       **8**       12        16          28

  **1**       11        15                     **26**       **9**                             NA

  **2**       12        16                     **28**       **10**                            NA

  **3**       14        15                     **29**       **11**                            NA

  **4**       21        22                     **43**       **12**                            NA

  **5**       14        16                     **30**       **Other**                         

  **6**       15        12                     **27**                                         

                                    **TOTAL                                                   291
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [95]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [2]{.underline} % Black or African American

[2]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

Use only the five standard categories in reporting the racial/ethnic
composition of the school.

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[3.0%]{.underline}

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

+------------------------+--------------------------+------------------+
| **(1)**                | Number of students who   |                  |
|                        | transferred ***to*** the |                  |
| **6**                  | school after October 1   |                  |
|                        | until the end of the     |                  |
|                        | year.                    |                  |
+------------------------+--------------------------+------------------+
| **(2)**                | Number of students who   |                  |
|                        | transferred ***from***   |                  |
| **3**                  | the school after October |                  |
|                        | 1 until the end of the   |                  |
|                        | year.                    |                  |
+------------------------+--------------------------+------------------+
| **(3)**                | Subtotal of all          |                  |
|                        | transferred students     |                  |
| **9**                  | \[sum of rows (1) and    |                  |
|                        | (2)\]                    |                  |
+------------------------+--------------------------+------------------+
| **(4)**                | Total number of students |                  |
|                        | in the school as of      |                  |
| **291**                | October 1 (same as in #5 |                  |
|                        | above)                   |                  |
+------------------------+--------------------------+------------------+
| **(5)**                | Subtotal in row (3)      |                  |
|                        | divided by total in row  |                  |
| **0.03**               | (4)                      |                  |
+------------------------+--------------------------+------------------+
| **(6)**                | Amount in row (5)        |                  |
|                        | multiplied by 100        |                  |
| **3.0**                |                          |                  |
+------------------------+--------------------------+------------------+

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

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

Number of languages represented: [4]{.underline}

Specify languages: English, French, Spanish, Italian

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [1.4 %]{.underline}

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

> If this method does not produce an accurate estimate of the percentage
> of students from low‑income families or the school does not
> participate in the federally‑supported lunch program, specify a more
> accurate estimate, tell why the school chose it, and explain how it
> arrived at this estimate.

10\. Students receiving special education services: [2.5 %]{.underline}

[8]{.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 [1]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [7]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability
**One student**

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment \_\_\_\_Speech or Language Impairment **is
represented**

\_\_\_\_Mental Retardation [1]{.underline} Traumatic Brain Injury
**twice.**

\_\_\_\_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) [3]{.underline} [2]{.underline}

Classroom teachers [30]{.underline} [5]{.underline}

Special resource teachers/specialists [2]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

Paraprofessionals [0]{.underline} [0]{.underline}

> Support staff [15]{.underline} [3]{.underline}
>
> Total number [50]{.underline} [10]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: [8:1]{.underline}

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

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

  Daily student attendance  98 %        97.5 %      98.3 %      97 %        98 %

  Daily teacher attendance  97.5 %      97 %        97.8 %      97.4 %      97 %

  Teacher turnover rate     2 %         6 %         4 %         2 %         4 %

  Student dropout rate      0 %         0 %         0 %         0 %         0 %
  (middle/high)                                                             

  Student drop-off rate     NA          NA          NA          NA          NA
  (high school)                                                             
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

14\. **(*High Schools Only*)** Show what the students who graduated in
Spring 2004 are doing as of September 2004. NA

+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Graduating class size                                   | >          |
|                                                         | \_\_\_\_\_ |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a 4-year college or university              | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in a community college                         | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Enrolled in vocational training                         | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Found employment                                        | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Military service                                        | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Other (travel, staying home, etc.)                      | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| Unknown                                                 | > \        |
|                                                         | _\_\_\_\_% |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+
| **Total**                                               | > 100 %    |
+---------------------------------------------------------+------------+

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Rosemont School of the Holy Child provides an exceptional,
co-educational program for students in nursery through eighth grade.
Based on the belief that each child is a unique individual, the school
combines sound religious training with a vigorous intellectual program
to develop the whole child---body and soul, mind and heart.

Striving for excellence marks all aspects of the school. An academic
program that grows from the rich tradition of the Catholic liberal arts
emphasizes reading, composition, mathematics, science, religion, social
studies, art, music, Spanish, and Latin. Technology enhances the
instructional program in many ways. The *Navigator Program* encourages
problem solving and interaction between the mathematics teacher and
student. Laptops facilitate composition instruction, and language labs
develop foreign language fluency. *SmartBoards* create interactive
classrooms in all subjects while Web postings extend the classroom and
invite collaboration. *Lego Robotics* challenge students' problem
solving skills and test them in real world situations. Web Ways enable
students to enrich their understanding through research.

In being forward looking and responding to the "wants of the age,"
Rosemont School follows the philosophy of Cornelia Connelly, who founded
the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus in 1846. Rosemont School embodies
her belief that students will learn in an environment of knowledge,
nurture, and joy. She saw each child as "God-touched and frail" and
encouraged instructional methods like small group instruction, active
learning, combining the arts with the academic, and providing a
sacramental frame for all subjects so that children maximize their
God-given potential, develop compassion, and contribute to a just
society.

Social justice concerns imbue the curriculum and the philosophy of the
school. Actively contributing to social justice programs also develops
problem-solving strategies, respect for multi-cultural diversity,
real-world application of school learning, and community awareness.
Rosemont School and the Gesu School, an inner-city school in North
Philadelphia, partner to provide on-campus technology instruction for
Gesu students as well as combined liturgies and field trips. Community
service involves both parents and students in twenty, age-appropriate
activities including Give-a-Gift---students send gifts to Presbyterian
Children's Village on their birthdays, Philabundance---seventh and
eighth grade students harvest, sort, and pack food for distribution to
needy Philadelphians, and seasonal activities---Christmas Tidings,
Thanksgiving turkey collection, a winter service day, and a spring
environment project in collaboration with Fresh Fields Markets. In
addition, the school commits resources to achieving a diverse student
body, and the curriculum incorporates a knowledge of other cultures to
encourage global awareness and compassion.

Social justice also requires students to be leaders for good within the
school community. They help out in age-appropriate ways within the
classroom and at school functions. The seventh and eighth grade students
enjoy a special leadership role since they're the "elders" of the school
community. Under the supervision of the faculty, they act as mentors for
younger students in sacramental preparations, in academics, and in
athletics.

Both the arts---music, drama, creative writing, painting, drawing--- and
physical education---games, sports, physical fitness--- play a central
role in the curriculum. Student art lines the school's hallways. All
students participate in vocal and instrumental learning. The school
sponsors art exhibits, a student play, recitals, and an author's
reception. The athletic program focuses on skills, sportsmanship,
leadership, and school spirit. Through soccer, football, field hockey,
basketball, swimming, and track students learn teamwork and individual
excellence.

The school's religious heritage takes center stage not only in the
classroom but in the traditions of school life. Through daily prayer,
sacraments, and class liturgies, students discover their spiritual
nature and their connection to God's love. Their stages of development
are sacramentally affirmed and celebrated as students grow in wisdom and
grace.

The faculty at Rosemont School are excellent teachers and role models,
who envision their daily work as a vocation. They teach
enthusiastically, plan collaboratively, share their expertise with other
professionals, continue their own education, coach sports, direct plays,
and nurture their students as they learn and grow. Because of the
excellent faculty, children come to school happy and ready to learn, and
they respond to life with joy, zeal, and compassion.

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

1\. Rosemont School of the Holy Child meets the standard set for the *No
Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School* program according to national
assessment data. Reading and mathematics scores for the highest grade
tested, grade 7, exceed the 90^th^ national percentile for the last year
tested (addendums 1A & 1B). Moreover national, standardized test results
over a three-year period in reading and mathematics from 4^th^ grade
through 7^th^ show placement above the 90^th^ percentile (addendums 1C
-- 1H). The class of '05 is not unique in its success.

The John Hopkins Talent Search further confirms that the Class of '05
has achieved at very high levels. Approximately 50% of the class
qualified for the John Hopkins Talent Search, whose requirement is
national, standardized test results in reading and/or mathematics at or
above the 97^th^ percentile. Nationally 15% of independent school
students qualify.

For more than two decades RSHC has used the Comprehensive Testing
Program (CTP) from Educational Records Bureau (ERB). Designed by
Educational Testing Service, CTP is the only standardized achievement
test designed for high-achieving schools. A rigorous test, the CTP
relies more on the difficulty of questions than on the speed of
completion to differentiate the performance of students, thus allowing
analysis of students who typically score in the highest percentiles of
national, standardized tests. In 2002, RSHC adopted the optional,
open-ended questions in reading comprehension and mathematics which ERB
added in the 4^th^ edition of the CTP. The mathematics achievement
section is closely aligned with the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics' standards. Students' responses to the open-ended questions
are included in the reported scores.

Although all students starting in 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ grades take the CTP 4,
ERB does not provide national percentiles for those grades. The CTP 4 at
those levels is a criterion-referenced test that provides useful
information for schools and parents about core skills necessary for
academic success. Not providing broader references recognizes the
developmental surges which occur in the lower grades. We are providing
scores for those grades on CTP 3, however (addendums 1I & 1J).

RSHC administers the CTP in the fall rather than in the spring because
the school recognizes that standardized-test results received within the
school year have a more meaningful impact on daily instruction and
student progress than scores received at the end of the school year.
Scores are immediately studied by the instructional leadership at the
school as well as by unit leaders and then classroom teachers to examine
the program in-progress and to make needed adjustments. The school began
fall testing in response to a recommendation from the Pennsylvania
Association of Private Academic Schools.

All RSHC students are represented in the test results except for 2
students whose special needs require non-standard, un-timed
administration of CTP 4. ERB does not include those scores in the school
profiles, but an examination of those students' scores show that they
fall well within the data for their grades.

2\. RSHC takes a two-pronged approach to study and utilize the CTP
results. First, subject-area teachers meet with the testing coordinator
who guides them through the test data and helps them assess the
strengths and weaknesses of various curricular programs. Subject-area
teachers coordinate the CTP scores with other assessment
data---teacher-prepared tests and quizzes, textbook-provided tests and
quizzes, and projects---to chart the strengths and weaknesses of the
program. Changes in the mathematics program resulted from a study of
assessment data. Instructional time was increased, and the school
adopted The University of Chicago Program, which focuses on
problem-solving and mastery of concepts for students who routinely
achieve above the national average.

Teachers also consider individual student achievement. Student folders,
which include all the relevant assessment data, are studied by both
homeroom and specialty teachers. They focus on a comparison of past
results with current results as well as the correlation between
school-based assessment and standardized test results. Teachers
strategize to maintain students' academic strengths and eradicate
weaknesses. Tutoring, an enrichment program, or summer study might be
utilized to maximize a student's achievement.

3\. RSHC and its parents are in regular communication about students'
progress and needs. Any teacher noting that a student is having
difficulty with a subject calls or e-mails a parent immediately and sets
up a remediation plan. All parents receive reports of students' progress
through cachets (the *cachet* is a Holy Child tradition and refers to a
seal or sign of approval.) issued midway through each trimester for
students in grades 1 to 4 and 4 times a year for students in grades 5 to
8. Teachers write narrative summaries for students in the lower grades
and provide appropriate assessment data and teacher comments for older
students. At the end of each trimester (November, March, and June),
formal report cards are issued.

The Director of Testing meets in an individual conference with parents
of students in grades 3, 5, and 7 to interpret and discuss CTP results.
At other grade levels, parents may request a conference to discuss
standardized test results.

RSHC regularly publishes students' achievements through school
publications and in local newspapers. Four annual publications reach
1800 parents, alumni, faculty, parents of graduates, grandparents,
community members, and friends to tell of academic achievement, sports
results, faculty accomplishments, religious events, and school goals. In
addition, the school sends current families 6 issues of "Keeping in
Touch," which highlights religious and extracurricular activities, and
"Education in Action," which presents students' activities connected to
the curriculum. On at least a weekly basis, news of RSHC's students
appears in the *Main Line Times*, *Main Line Life*, and the *Suburban
and Wayne Times*.

4\. RSHC faculty and administrators are leaders in the educational
community. Through workshops, publications, and participation in
professional organizations, they share the successful strategies that
the school employs. Rosemont School is a center for professional
development. The school offers workshops and summer courses taught by
Rosemont teachers and certified by the Montgomery County Intermediate
Unit. In summer 2004, 9 courses were offered, which utilized the
expertise of 5 Rosemont teachers. In the past 4 years, more than 80
teachers from other schools participated in the RSHC professional
development program.

In 2004, Rosemont teachers made presentations to the Pennsylvania School
Library Association and the Pennsylvania Educational Technology
Conference. Two teachers have prepared presentations for the National
Educational Computing Conference slated for summer, 2005. Teachers from
the mathematics department have given workshops in local schools on the
University of Chicago Mathematics Program. An article written by a RSHC
teacher on graphing calculators was recently published in *Middle
Ground,* a magazine about middle school education. A recent issue of
*Learning and Leading with Technology* featured an article by RSHC's
instructional technology specialist and the social studies department
chair.

RSHC teachers and administrators are active in such professional
organizations as the Pennsylvania Association of Private Academic
Schools (PAPAS), the Association of Delaware Valley Independent Schools
(ADVIS), and the Pennsylvania Association of Independent Schools (PAIS).
Faculty and administrators attend meetings, take on committee tasks, and
accept leadership roles. The head of RSHC has acted as president for
each of the named organizations. Each year several teachers serve on
school evaluation teams for PAPAS.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1\. At RSHC all students are involved with significant content based on
high standards as established by the Pennsylvania Association of Private
Academic Schools. Rosemont students are active learners who explore,
pose questions, discover, and demonstrate. Students, faculty, and
parents are focused on the students' success. Although the school
enrolls students who cross a spectrum of ability levels from low-average
to gifted, all students master academic content at least a full year
above their nominal level by 5^th^ grade.

The language arts program enables the students to read with fluency and
understanding, to analyze literature critically and aesthetically, and
to write effectively in different modes, for different audiences, and
for different purposes. Students build a strong vocabulary, master the
standards of correct usage, and utilize a variety of research
techniques.

The social studies program uses an interdisciplinary approach and
emphasizes higher order thinking skills, project-based learning, primary
sources, trade books, and technology integration. Students study the
community, the nation, and the world from the perspective of history,
geography, economics, civics, culture, government, and current events.

The mathematics program focuses on a spiraling approach to the essential
skills of number sense, data analysis, probabilities, algebra sense,
measurement, and geometry. Students develop these skills through a
sequential program that stresses problem solving, the use of different
algorithms for computation, modeling to visualize abstract concepts, and
technology. All students become mathematically competent and complete a
challenging Algebra I course.

The science curriculum, also, uses a spiraling approach to content
knowledge, problem-solving strategies, and lab skills. Beginning in
nursery school, the program stresses an inquiry approach and hands-on
activities that encourage students to use the senses to observe, to ask
questions, to posit solutions, to test through experiment, and to draw
conclusions. Eight graders create culminating projects, many of which
win awards in local and regional science competitions.

Students study Spanish in grades 5 through 8 and Latin in grades 7 and
8. The Spanish program stresses listening, reading, writing, and
speaking as well as cultural awareness. Through an emphasis on grammar
and vocabulary, students develop linguistic competence and often enter
secondary school at advanced levels. Latin fosters logical thinking and
linguistic understanding.

Holy Child education respects art and music as central to children's
development. Students participate in a music program that is
Kodaly-based and Orff-inspired. Younger students learn melodic and
rhythmic notation according to Kodaly principles and transition to
traditional musical notation in 4^th^ grade. In middle school students
learn instrumental music---the recorder, violin, Appalachian lap
dulcimer, and African drums. Art classes stress technique and personal
style as students explore the art elements*.* From nursery to eighth
grade, students work in various media: acrylic paints, oils, clay,
macramé, wood-burning, ceramics, watercolors, weaving, pastels, craypas,
and charcoal.

The religion curriculum focuses on theology, the sacramental nature of
life, and spiritual development. Catholic students prepare for the
sacraments, and all students learn the sacramental nature of the
everyday as they respond to the belief that God is incarnate in each
individual. Behavior formed by correct norms and service to others
informs the curriculum at all levels in response to Cornelia Connelly's
dictum, "Actions, Not Words."

Physical Education classes focus on basic physical skills in a program
that is game-based. Classes emphasize group participation,
sportsmanship, physical fitness, and lifelong learning. Physical
education interfaces with the athletic program in teaching game skills
and conditioning.

2a. The RSHC reading program recognizes that language is the primary
tool of thought and that all aspects of language: reading, writing,
listening, and speaking must be integrated to maximize student learning.

In nursery school, students learn to value reading and to associate
names with words. Learning to read takes center stage in kindergarten,
and teachers harmoniously blend the Wilson Method, a multi-sensory
approach to phonics instruction, with whole language techniques. At all
levels of instruction, the individual learner is the focus, so a variety
of instructional techniques are used including discovery, direct
instruction, small group learning, and remedial assistance. Students
learn multiple strategies for deciphering meaning; they use prior
knowledge to access new texts, and they write to enhance their
comprehension, to experiment with literary forms, and to communicate
their understanding and appreciation.

Student learning is enhanced by multiple opportunities to read for
various purposes in all academic disciplines. Fluency, analysis,
interpretation, comparison, prediction, and synthesis are reinforced by
an interdisciplinary approach that uses trade books and literary texts
that connect to themes studied in social studies, science, the arts, and
mathematics. Students also learn to value oral language through auditory
learning and by memorizing and presenting poetry and famous American
speeches. Students debate, give presentations, perform reenactments, and
role play. Through a curriculum-wide emphasis on persuasive writing,
students learn to be discriminating citizens and consumers as well as to
utilize persuasive techniques in presenting their own points of view.

Grammar and spelling are sequentially taught, and students are
responsible for using the best English they can at their developmental
level. Summer reading programs, a library focused on reading enrichment
and research skills, weekly compositions starting in grade 3, a Writer
of the Month program, publication of student work on the RSHC Web site
and within the school community, and an on-line program with
authors---these approaches reinforce the centrality of the language arts
to the school program. Student success can be seen in such diverse
measures as the school-wide use of reading as a recreational activity,
standardized test scores, first place finish within the state for grades
2, 3, 5, & 8 and first place national finish for grades 5 & 8 in the
National Language Arts Olympiad 2004, and awards in many writing
contests.

3\. At RSHC mathematics classes are dynamic communities in which
students apply concepts to real world situations, problem solve with an
arsenal of strategies, interact with the teacher and each other, and use
multiple resources including physical materials, graphing calculators,
and computers. True to the RSHC mission of intellectually challenging,
creative, and student-centered learning, math classes combine a rigorous
course of study with multiple instructional methods.

Teachers set an intellectual challenge for students by using
instructional materials from the University of Chicago Program,
*Everyday Mathematics*. The program enforces real world learning and
uses a double-spiral approach to raise student performance to
world-class level. All concepts and skills are introduced and then
reinforced over a three year period in five different ways, each
involving considerable practice. Students learn to look at problems from
different perspectives and angles, and they understand that multiple
solutions exist. They extend their math experience through a math club
and competitions. In 2004, the RSHC Math Counts Team won first place in
the regional competition at LaSalle University, and 3 students placed
among the top 5 individual scorers.

All math classes use creative means like modeling, technology, or
physical materials. Students extend knowledge through projects,
discovery learning---collecting data, graphing results, and creating
formula to describe results---research, and interdisciplinary problem
solving.

Students actively engage in math class and take responsibility for their
success. Small class size, added instructional time, quick feedback,
individual tutoring and enrichment, and communicated high expectations
keep students energized and high-achieving.

4\. All instructional methods evolve from RSHC's core beliefs: the
primacy of the individual learner, the mandate to "meet the wants of the
age," the value of an active, student-centered classroom, and the
sacramental nature of education. Responding to best-practice research
and knowledge of their own students, teachers combine whole group
instruction, cooperative learning, and individual time-on-task. Hands-on
investigation and discovery learning frequently culminate in projects
and other types of exhibitions. For instance, students do an in-depth
study of an author in eighth grade, take part in science and history
fairs, and create art---paintings, films, narratives---that enrich
concepts in mathematics, science, literature, and history. Discovery
methods also include learning through play and exploring with the
senses.

The school blends traditional learning strategies with technology in
responding to the "wants of the age" and in maintaining active
classrooms. Teachers use appropriate technology such as *SmartBoards*,
interactive simulations, documentary filmmaking, data bases,
instructional software, design programs, and Internet research in all
grades and subjects. Sixth through eighth grade students perfect their
public speaking skills and offer leadership models to the younger
students through an in-school broadcast program. Students starting in
kindergarten use Web Ways---Web sites chosen and categorized by RSHC
faculty to interface with curriculum units.

A sacramental focus calls the school community to make the everyday holy
and emphasizes the real-world connection to classroom instruction.
Students extend their learning by service within the school and to the
larger community. They use their talents and accomplishments in art,
music, and writing to entertain and help others. School liturgies,
prayer time, and respectful consideration of differences are central to
the curriculum.

5\. RSHC recognizes that teachers must be good learners to maximize
their effectiveness in the classroom and to model the school goal of
lifelong learning. In accordance with research on effective professional
development programs, the school establishes school-wide and individual
goals based on assessment of student achievement. Recent goals include
successful strategies in middle school education, the integration of
technology into the academic program, individualized reading programs,
and curriculum development. The instructional leaders set goals in
consultation with the faculty and after studying data on student
achievement. Teachers engage in study, take workshops, and visit other
schools. They then share their experiences within departments or with
the whole faculty, if appropriate. Because of the focus on goals and
follow-up, all professional development furthers school-wide knowledge
on key goals and directly improves classroom instruction.

Teachers meet regularly in three different forums---department, unit
(Early Childhood, Lower School, Middle School), and whole faculty---to
study student achievement and to integrate instruction with school
standards.

Each teacher has a professional development plan, which is supported by
the school and used as part of the teacher's evaluation. The school
requires all teachers to either have a master's degree or to be
matriculated in a master's program. The school's professional
development budget provides 100% compensation for all professional
development including master's programs. The professional development
program is designed so that each teacher contributes to the academic
goals through formal instruction and collaboration with other faculty.
Classroom observation is part of the evaluation process. The fact that
RSHC has become a center for professional development attests to the
professionalism and accomplishments of its faculty.

**PART VI - PRIVATE SCHOOL ADDENDUM**

1.  Private school association(s): [NAIS, NCEA, PAPAS, PAIS, CSEE,
    ADVIS, CASE, ISM, ERB]{.underline}

> (Identify the religious or independent associations, if any, to which
> the school belongs. List the primary association first.)

2.  Does the school have nonprofit, tax exempt (501(c)(3)) status? Yes
    [X]{.underline} No \_\_\_\_\_\_

3.  What are the 2004-2005 tuition rates, by grade? (Do not include
    room, board, or fees.)

\$[11,800.00]{.underline} \$[12,200.00]{.underline}
\$[12,475.00]{.underline} \$[12,775.00]{.underline}
\$[12,875.00]{.underline} \$[13,025.00]{.underline}

K 1^st^ 2^nd^ 3^rd^ 4^th^ 5^th^

\$[13,350.00]{.underline} \$[13,575.00]{.underline}
\$[13,875.00]{.underline} \$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_

6^th^ 7^th^ 8^th^ 9^th^ 10^th^ 11^th^

\$\_\_\_\_\_\_ \$\_\_\_\_\_\_

12^th^ Other

4.  What is the educational cost per student? \$[12,904]{.underline}

(School budget divided by enrollment)

5.  What is the average financial aid per student? \$[8,531]{.underline}

6.  What percentage of the annual budget is devoted to [7]{.underline} %

scholarship assistance and/or tuition reduction?

7.  What percentage of the student body receives

scholarship assistance, including tuition reduction? [11]{.underline} %

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

RSHC does not, and is not required to, administer state assessment
tests. We annually administer CTP 4 testing from ERB in our 2^nd^
through 7^th^ grades. Our test data tables for reading comprehension and
mathematics over the last three years are attached.

Note that CTP 4 provides no national norms at the 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ grade
levels of its battery.

No disaggregated data is provided for socioeconomic and ethnic/racial
groups since these groups comprise less than 10% of our student body.

One student in 2^nd^ grade and one in 3^rd^ grade was assessed by
alternative methods in 2003 -- 2004 (see addendums 1I & 1J). These
students scored well within the range of our other students but, in
accordance with ERB regulations, their scores are not included in our
school results

**Addendum 1A**

**ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- see pages 23 &
24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 7**                                                 

                                                              

  **Reading Comprehension**           **85%**     **94%**     **90%**

  Number of students tested           28          24          28

  Percent of total students tested    100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

**Addendum 1B**

**ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- see pages 23 &
24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 7**                                                 

                                                              

  **Mathematics**                     **85%**     **84%**     **98%**

  Number of students tested           28          24          28

  Percent of total students tested    100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

**Addendum 1C**

> **ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- see pages 23 &
24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 6**                                                 

                                                              

  **Reading Comprehension**           **83%**     **88%**     **93%**

  Number of students tested           27          27          26

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

**Addendum 1D**

> **ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- see pages 23 &
24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 6**                                                 

                                                              

  **Mathematics**                     **87%**     **89%**     **90%**

  Number of students tested           27          27          26

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

> **Addendum 1E**
>
> **ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- see pages 23 &
24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 5**                                                 

                                                              

  **Reading Comprehension**           **76%**     **74%**     **81%**

  Number of students tested           27          27          28

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

**Addendum 1F**

> **ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- see pages 23 &
24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 5**                                                 

                                                              

  **Mathematics**                     **90%**     **79%**     **88%**

  Number of students tested           27          27          28

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

> **Addendum 1G**
>
> **ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- see pages 23 &
24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 4**                                                 

                                                              

  **Reading Comprehension**           **84%**     **78%**     **86%**

  Number of students tested           29          26          28

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

> **Addendum 1H**

**ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

School percentile for each grade (except grades 2 & 3 -- -- see pages 23
& 24).

No students are excluded from a test.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 4**                                                 

                                                              

  **Mathematics**                     **90%**     **89%**     **78%**

  Number of students tested           29          26          28

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students excluded         0           0           0

  Percent of students excluded        0           0           0
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

**Addendum 1I**

**ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

The testing company **does not have scaled scores or national
percentiles** for the criterion referenced testing for **CTP 4** at the
third grade level.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 3**                                                 

                                                              

  **Reading Comprehension**           **NA**      **NA**      **82%**

                                                              

  **Mathematics**                     **NA**      **NA**      **88%**

                                                              

  Number of students tested           36          28          28

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students alternatively    1           0           0
  assessed                                                    

  Percent of students alternatively   2.8%        0           0
  assessed                                                    
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------

**Addendum 1J**

**ASSESSMENT DATA**

**REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS**

**Rosemont School of the Holy Child**

CTP III & IV

Fall Testing Program

(Educational Records Bureau)

The testing company **does not have scaled scores or national
percentiles** for the criterion referenced testing for **CTP 4** at the
second grade level.

  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------
                                      CTP 4       CTP 4       CTP 3

                                      2003-2004   2002-2003   2001-2002

  Testing Month                       November    November    November

  **Grade 2**                                                 

                                                              

  **Reading Comprehension**           **NA**      **NA**      **85%**

                                                              

  **Mathematics**                     **NA**      **NA**      **95%**

                                                              

  Number of students tested           28          40          28

  Percent of students tested          100         100         100

  Number of students alternatively    1           0           0
  assessed                                                    

  Percent of students alternatively   3.6%        0           0
  assessed                                                    
  ----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------