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

*U.S. Department of Education*

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

Name of Principal [Mr. Peter Davis]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [Hill Classical Middle School]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address \_\_\_\_\_[1100 Iroquois
Avenue]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}\_\_

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

[Long
Beach\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_California\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_90815-4649\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County \_\_\_\_[Los
Angeles]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ State School Code
Number\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[626]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone [( 562 )598-7611]{.underline} Fax [( 562
)598-6329]{.underline}

Website/URL [hillgroupfusion.com]{.underline} E-mail
[PDavis@lbusd.k12.ca.us]{.underline}

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Mr. Christopher J. Steinhauser]{.underline}

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

District Name [Long Beach Unified School District]{.underline} Tel. [(
562 )997-8000]{.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 Ms. Suja Lowenthal

President/Chairperson

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

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 2005-2006 school
    year.

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

4.  The school has been in existence for five full years, that is, from
    at least September 2000 and has not received the 2003, 2004, or 2005
    *No Child Left Behind -- Blue Ribbon Schools Award.*

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

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

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

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

**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: \_\_[50]{.underline}\_ Elementary
schools

\_\_[24]{.underline}\_ Middle schools

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

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

\_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_ Other

\_\_[85]{.underline}\_ TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\_\_\$5,729]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: \_\_[\$6,987\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

4\. [2]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

[4]{.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**                                                  **7**       174       186         360

  **K**                                                     **8**       161       213         374

  **1**                                                     **9**                             

  **2**                                                     **10**                            

  **3**                                                     **11**                            

  **4**                                                     **12**                            

  **5**                                                     **Other**                         

  **6**       193       188                    381                                            

                                    **TOTAL                                                   1115
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL →**                                                
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

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

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [12]{.underline} % White

the students in the school: [15]{.underline} % Black or African American

[56]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

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

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
\_\_\_[3]{.underline}\_\_\_%

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

  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**                   Number of students who      12
                            transferred ***to*** the    
                            school after October 1      
                            until the end of the year.  

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

  **(3)**                   Total of all transferred    31
                            students \[sum of rows (1)  
                            and (2)\]                   

  **(4)**                   Total number of students in 1,115
                            the school as of October 1  

  **(5)**                   Total transferred students  .03
                            in row (3) divided by total 
                            students in row (4)         

  **(6)**                   Amount in row (5)           3.0
                            multiplied by 100           
  ------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school:
\_\_\_[9]{.underline}\_\_%

\_ [100\_]{.underline}Total Number Limited English Proficient

Number of languages represented: \_\_\_[7]{.underline}\_\_\_

Specify languages: Spanish, Khmer, Lao, Thai, Vietnamese, Arabic,
Filipino

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[82]{.underline}\_\_\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_[914\_]{.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:
\_\_\_[7\_\_]{.underline}\_\_%

\_\_\_[81]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number of Students Served

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

\_[6]{.underline}\_\_Autism \_[13]{.underline}\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_[2]{.underline}\_\_Deafness \_[2]{.underline}\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[37]{.underline}\_Specific
Learning Disability

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Emotional Disturbance \_[4]{.underline}\_\_Speech
or Language Impairment

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Hearing Impairment \_[1]{.underline}\_\_Traumatic
Brain Injury

> \_[14]{.underline}\_Mental Retardation \_[2]{.underline}\_\_Visual
> Impairment Including Blindness
>
> \_[0]{.underline}\_\_Multiple Disabilities

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

Administrator(s) \_\_\_[4]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_[0]{.underline}\_\_\_

Classroom teachers \_\_\_[48]{.underline}\_\_
\_\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_[14\_]{.underline}\_

> Support staff \_\_\_[13]{.underline}\_\_ \_\_\_\_[5]{.underline}\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_\_[67]{.underline}\_\_ \_\_\_\_[26]{.underline}\_\_

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

students in the school divided by the FTE of classroom teachers:
\_\_[23]{.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.

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

  Daily student attendance  96.56%      95.90%      96.4%       96.2%       95.7%

  Daily teacher attendance  95%         94%         95%         94%         95%

  Teacher turnover rate     14%         14%         9%          17%         16%

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

  Student drop-off rate     N/A%        N/A%        N/A%        N/A%        N/A%
  (high school)                                                             
  ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

Hill Classical Middle School is part of the Long Beach Unified School
District in Long Beach, California.  It is located in a suburban
neighborhood, but serves a predominately urban
[student](http://groupwise.lbusd.k12.ca.us/servlet/webacc/gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3/GWAP/AREF/1?action=Attachment.View&Item.Attachment.id=1&User.context=gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3&Item.drn=44445z6z0&Item.Child.id=#%23)
population who travel from across the city on 13 regular and 6 [special
education](http://groupwise.lbusd.k12.ca.us/servlet/webacc/gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3/GWAP/AREF/1?action=Attachment.View&Item.Attachment.id=1&User.context=gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3&Item.drn=44445z6z0&Item.Child.id=#%23)
busses. Hill was a year-four program improvement school in the year
2000.  However, utilizing the Baldrige Integrated Management Systems
Approach for continuous quality improvement, the school reinvented
itself, creating the "Classical" concept, which governs the school's
program, gives the school its unique structure and focus.  Hill operates
on an eight period block schedule.  This structure allows the school to
offer programs designed to accommodate all of the student populations it
serves.  Students in the school's gifted and talented program (R.I.S.E.)
and students at grade level are given the opportunity to choose from a
wider selection of electives than is offered at most middle schools. 
English Language Learners have room in their schedules to take an
additional period of language development classes, and students with
deficits in reading and/or math are required to take double periods of
those classes.  Hill's special education population has the ability to
receive appropriate interventions, while maintaining full access to
grade level electives and core classes. 

Using the Baldrige Criteria for Quality Performance, student achievement
data, and data from student, parent, and staff surveys as a guide, Hill
staff establishes the vision and goals for the school each year as part
of a series of planning retreats.  Formal goals, written as SMART goals
(Strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, Time-Bound) are
revised for each of the following areas:  Reading, Writing, Math, Social
Responsibility, and Interventions. These goals are shared with parents
by the principal at Back to School Night, and progress toward these
goals is shared on a regular basis at parent and staff meetings.  The
Writing goal encompasses a great deal of the instructional and
professional development focus of the school.

The mission statement of Hill Classical Middle School is, "Hill
Classical Middle School, a school of choice, challenges students to
master the basics and explore unlimited possibilities in
[technology](http://groupwise.lbusd.k12.ca.us/servlet/webacc/gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3/GWAP/AREF/1?action=Attachment.View&Item.Attachment.id=1&User.context=gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3&Item.drn=44445z6z0&Item.Child.id=#%23),
fine arts, and foreign language.  The diverse student community is
empowered to meet higher standards of character and academic performance
in an enriching, supportive environment that prepares them for [high
school](http://groupwise.lbusd.k12.ca.us/servlet/webacc/gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3/GWAP/AREF/1?action=Attachment.View&Item.Attachment.id=1&User.context=gy6pweTd3is5flfMi3&Item.drn=44445z6z0&Item.Child.id=#%23)
and beyond."  The staff articulates their vision through a set of shared
beliefs and expectations.  This vision includes the fusion of the basics
in literacy and math and the curriculum provided in both core and
elective classes.  Hill places a high value on teamwork, high
expectations, data driven action, and the creation of a positive
learning environment.  The school's staff development plan mirrors these
shared values. 

The school operates a federal magnet program which provides resources to
infuse technology into the core curriculum in such a way that it
supports standards-driven learning. Included in the program is a
wireless network throughout the entire school, presentation systems used
to support visual learning and allow teachers the ability to deliver
real-life demonstrations, labs, and provide immediate feedback to
students. Technology resources are used to enhance teachers' ability to
gather data on student performance and afford them the opportunity to
collaborate in aligning standards, assessment and instruction. Three
mobile labs provide all students the opportunity to work on projects at
once.

Hill's facilities are maintained both by school site and district
personnel for safety and cleanliness.  Using the Safe and Civil Schools'
Philosophy and Professional Development Model, there are many
school-wide procedures in place which lay out behavioral and academic
expectations. Hill has created a culture that facilitates learning and
respect throughout the campus.  

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

1.  **Assessment Results:**

The Academic Performance Index (API) is the cornerstone for California's
Public School Accountability Act. It has a numeric index which ranges
from 200 to 1000. To calculate a school's API, individual student scores
on the California Standards Test (CST) and in grade seven, the
norm-reference California Achievement Test, Sixth Edition, (CAT 6) are
combined into a single number to represent the school's performance.
Each school's growth is measured by how well it is moving toward its
state designated API target and whether each numerically significant
subgroup in the school is making the state designated Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) target. The English Language Arts and Mathematics CSTs
are the core of the State Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment and
carry the most weight in the API calculations. During the past five
years Hill's API increased 165 points. Hill's API score for 2005 is 788.
This is a growth of 42 points, exceeding the state designated 5 point
target. 100% of students' scores are reflected in the test results; 1099
were tested on STAR, 21 used the Alternate Performance Assessment. All
numerically significant subgroups met the AYP criteria for the last 5
years.

[2005 California Standards Test]{.underline}

54% of Hill students test at the proficient or advanced proficient level
in Language Arts. In mathematics 43 % of the students are proficient or
advanced proficient in general math, while 46% of students are
proficient or advanced proficient in algebra.

[School-wide Expository Writing]{.underline}

Monthly writing assessments are administered throughout the content
areas. Essays are scored on LBUSD's four-point Expository Rubric. In
September, 466 students scored at or above the Proficient level, in
April 702 scored at or above the Proficient level. Of the students
tested 42% were proficient in September compared to 64% in April.

[Summarization of Expository Reading]{.underline}

Students read expository articles then write academic summaries, which
are scored using a four-point rubric. In October, 9% of 6^th^ graders
scored at the proficient level; 39% of the 7^th^ graders were proficient
and 25% of the 8^th^ grader were proficient. When assessed in April, 66%
of 6^th^ graders, 77% of 7^th^ graders and 66% of 8^th^ graders scored
at the proficient level.

[School-wide Mathematics Assessments]{.underline}

Monthly assessments are administered in math classes in fractions and
integers. In September 20% of the students scored at the proficient
level; in February 78% of the students scored at the proficient level on
the Integers Test resulting in a 58% increase. 27% of the students
answered all questions correctly on the Fractions Assessment in January;
by April, 70% of the students were able to answer all questions
correctly.

2.  **Using Assessment Results:**

The Plan/Do/Study/Act (Baldrige) process is used to link classroom
assessments with instructional planning.  The whole school studies
student achievement in the area of expository writing, and departments
analyze their content area common assessments to continuously improve
their instruction during their department meeting time. The assessment
map for the school is used by departments and individual teachers to
create their content area curriculum maps.  These curriculum maps spell
out exactly what assessment will be given in a specific classroom, when
it will be given, and what standards that assessment will measure. 
After students take specific exams, teachers take a look at how the
students performed, by looking closely at an item analysis report. 
These reports not only provide teachers with those "most missed"
questions, but also highlights the kinds of errors students are making
on those most missed items.  When the data indicates that groups of
students are falling behind, the teachers institute an intervention for
those who are in need, by simply doing some re-teaching for smaller
groups outside of the regular instructional day.  In all cases, if the
student data suggests a need, then the curriculum maps are adjusted
accordingly.

As part of the continuous improvement cycle for the school-wide focus on
expository writing, the Hill staff dedicates almost every faculty
meeting to instruction.  Faculty meetings are held twice each month. 
These meetings are used to examine student writing and to provide staff
development for the whole faculty. The examination of student writing is
planned out on the assessment map.  Students begin the year with a
pre-test in expository writing. The pre-test becomes the first piece of
collaboratively examined student writing that the teachers use to plan
their instruction.  During the rest of the school year, students will
take another 3 writing assessments, which will in turn be analyzed by
the staff and used to improve instruction.  Finally students take a post
test and after analyzing the results, areas of focus are determined for
the next year.

Math and Language Arts have the most comprehensive assessment system,
devised at the district level.  Math students must pass Basic Facts
(6^th^ grade) and Integers (7^th^/8^th^ grade) Tests, and must also pass
Quarterly Exams and their End of Course Exams. In addition, students
must take and pass fractions tests at each grade level. Language Arts
teachers follow district pacing charts and administer cluster tests
after each unit of study. Each of these assessments is used to monitor
program effectiveness, determine needed interventions, and to make team
decisions regarding student placement.

3.  **Communicating Assessment Results:**

Hill Classical Middle School has made great strides in improving its
means of communicating with its stakeholders.  One recent innovation has
been the school's web site.  Rather than making this site merely a
collection of information about the school, the staff has created an
interactive tool to enable parents and students to access the school's
calendar of events, and more importantly, grade information.  A majority
of the staff uses the grading system *Making the Grade* and post grades
online.  Using the school's e-Scholars-site parents and students can
input the student's I.D. number to check grades and missing assignments.
Hill also publishes the School Accountability Report Card as mandated by
the state.

The State of California provides the most detailed comparative data
available regarding standardized test results, sub group trends, and
individual teacher, content area, and student performance.  Each year
Hill receives a detailed breakdown of testing results, and data on each
student's performance. The school is benchmarked against similar schools
and against all middle schools in the state.  This data is available
from the LBUSD research department and Genesis Information System
(lbusd.k12.ca.us/research).  The California State Department of
Education website ([www.cde.ca.gov/ds/](http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/))
allows access to data related to local competitors as well similar
schools statewide. In addition, the Long Beach Unified School District
provides data concerning district assessments such as reading
benchmarks, formal essay writing, and reading fluency measures.  This
information is posted on-line for access by parents and the community.
Additionally, parents receive annual STAR reports and quarterly
information about their students' performance through the mail. In the
area of campus climate, principals are able to compare their schools'
suspension and attendance data from year to year.  Hill also collects
internal data on the implementation of staff development, tardies, and
behavior referrals to the office. 

4.  **Sharing Success:**

At the local level, Hill is already assigned to a cohort of schools.  As
part of this work, Hill Administrators, Literacy Coach, and selected
department chairs can serve as coaches for this cohort.  Cohort work
includes site visits, principal meetings and planning, feedback from
data portfolios, and recommendations for action plans.  The principal of
Hill serves as a district secondary trainer for the Baldrige Integrated
Management Systems Leadership training, and much of what Hill is doing
is shared during these 2-day workshops and coaching that follows.  Hill
also serves as a learning site, receiving visits from the Broad Urban
Superintendents' Residency Program and from aspiring principals from the
UCLA Principals' Institute.  In addition, Hill has presented at the
following national conferences and plans to do so in the future: 
National Staff Development Council Conference; National Baldrige in
Education Conference; Great Cities, Great Schools Conference; Title 1
Achieving Schools Conference; and the Magnet Schools of America
Conference.  Central office support to help coordinate efforts to "get
the word out" about Hill's programs, practices, and procedures has
always been and will continue to be strong, paving the way for more Long
Beach Unified School District middle schools to learn from Hill's
challenges and successes.   

Hill's programs are all tied to Plan/Do/Study/Act cycles, therefore
curriculum, instruction, and staff development continue to evolve, with
anticipated improvements in alignment and student learning results.  As
a Magnet School, Hill has expanded the areas of writing and technology
on campus.  Parental participation and involvement has been enhanced
with more student, staff, and parent training on the school's website,
and development of even tighter means of home/school communication via
the internet.  Visitors come to observe the school's success
implementing the Safe and Civil Schools' program.  Schools within the
district have sent teams of teachers to visit Hill's language arts and
math classes, the Abilities Awareness Program in P.E., and observed the
use of Baldrige strategies and quality tools in classrooms.  Hill has
hosted international visitors from the Philippines and Japan, national
visitors from Arizona and Texas, and state visitors from Los Angeles,
Fresno, and San Diego. Because Hill has been a Program Improvement
school then used a successful systems approach to create a highly
accomplished program, it has valuable resources to offer other
educators. 

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

1.  **Curriculum:**

Hill students are being prepared to enter the most rigorous high school
programs offered through the LBUSD. Students electing to attend Hill
commit to increased rigor by taking an additional semester of 7^th^
grade science, a semester of technology, one year of fine/performing
arts or foreign language; and wearing a school uniform. The alternating
block schedule permits in depth studies and fewer classes each day. Hill
offers a program for GATE and high achievers called R.I.S.E. (Rigorous
Instruction Student Excellence). In the RISE program students agree to
perform 16 hours of community service each year, and engage in
challenging coursework. For students needing additional support in math,
algebra, English Language Development or language arts, students are
"double blocked' meaning they receive 86 minutes of the math and/or
language arts each day. Students whose GPA falls below a 2.0 replace an
elective course with an intervention class, which is a study
skills/tutorial course operating on a reduced class size model. 

Technology is an important part of the Classical Program. It is
integrated throughout the curriculum both as a teaching tool and is
emerging as a student resource. Students apply the skills they learn in
their technology classes to their content courses using digital
photography, desktop publishing, word processing, and internet research.
Through the e-Scholars web-site (hillgroupfusion.com) students and their
parents may enter the school's private learning community. The school's
success is based on its ability to collect data and make informed
decisions, using the Baldrige PDSA cycles to continually improve student
performance. A wide variety of elective classes give Hill a distinction
that most middle schools lack. A dynamic foreign language program has
been strengthened through the addition of technology and foreign
language software. The performing arts program combines dance, drama,
art, and music into a joint production.

Hill's yearly plan includes scheduled quarterly check-in dates to review
the action plans, analyze the data, hear recommendations, and determine
future action.   Hill Classical Middle School strives to create,
evaluate, and adjust key processes in order to maximize student
learning, leading to a calm, orderly campus.  Hill staff members use
multiple measures to assure that students are placed appropriately in
classes and programs.  The staff looks at test scores, GPA's, teacher
and counselor recommendations, and other school-based assessments to
determine appropriate student placement and academic and/or behavioral
interventions if necessary.

Each teacher uses the state adopted curriculum materials, such as the
textbook, and these resources are included on the curriculum maps.  For
teachers who are teaching specific intervention type courses, the
curriculum map will essentially be the one provided by the district.  In
other instances, the curriculum map is created based on the needs of the
students.  Curriculum maps for RISE (GATE/Excel) classes all include how
the teacher is infusing depth and complexity, is compacting, using
tiered lessons, or is using the content imperatives (district defined
differentiation strategies).  The scope and sequence of the curriculum
for all classes is communicated to students and parents in the course
syllabus, which is provided by each teacher, for each course.  This
syllabus outlines how student attainment of standards is linked to the
teacher\'s grading system, and gives students and parents a clear tool
for what to expect for the school year.

2b. **(Secondary Schools)** **English:**

State and district reading/writing data indicated that Hill students
were performing below proficiency.  Well-known researcher and author
Douglas B. Reeves supplied a rationale for focusing on expository
writing across the school campus, as a means to not only improve
students' achievement of the Language Arts standards, but also as a
vehicle to reach proficiency in the core content areas, such as science
and history.  Reeves' research showed that an increase in time spent on
writing in schools led to better student writing and higher standardized
test scores in the content areas.  Hill used Reeves' work as the
framework for devising a school-wide focus on writing, and it has proven
quite effective.  The school's department chairs drafted a SMART goal
for Writing, and devised an action plan to accompany this goal.  Each
department chair worked with their department members to identify key
writing assessments that would be conducted in all classes on campus. 
These assessments were mapped out across the school year, creating an
Assessment Map.  Using author/professor Kate Kinsella's research on
improving reading comprehension through the use of Academic Summaries,
departments committed to practice and teach Academic Summaries. These
summaries are mapped out across the year on an Opportunities-to-Write
(OTW) Map.  A common Academic Summary Rubric was created and is used
school-wide to assess and track students' reading performance. OTW maps
were then used by department members who work with their grade level and
subject partners to create their own Curriculum Maps (based on Heidi
Hayes Jacobs' model).

The Language Arts program is developmental and places students in one of
four levels. Students who score far below basic on the CST are placed
into an "Intensive" class which meets 86 minutes each day and uses the
state adopted textbook *Language!* The emphasis of the program is on
decoding and reading comprehension, but includes components in
listening, speaking, and writing. All other language arts students use
the state adopted text, *Language of Literature*, in a balanced and
comprehensive program taught in an integrated manner. These courses
include rich and varied literature, process writing in all genres,
vocabulary development, spelling and grammar. Students are programmed
into one of three levels; "Strategic" for students scoring basic on CST,
"Benchmark" for students scoring at the proficient level, and "Extended"
for students scoring advanced proficient. In the Strategic course,
students have additional time to complete the curriculum. Strategic
students meet 86 minutes every other day. Extended classes provide more
depth and complexity of the core curriculum to challenge advanced
students. Extended and Benchmark classes meet for 86 minutes every other
day.

3.  **Rich Elective Program, Art, Etc.:**

One of the advantages of the eight-period schedule is that more Hill
students can take rigorous courses that lead to advanced classes in high
school.  Hill students, who are successful in Algebra CD, whether they
are in the single-period or Algebra Development (double-block) program,
can move straight into geometry in ninth grade.  Students who complete
the two-year Spanish or French programs in grades 7 and 8 move into the
second level classes in high school, and earn a year of credit for
foreign language for their college applications.   

Elective courses support the classical model in three major areas:
Fine/Performing Arts which include vocal and instrumental music, visual
arts, dance, drama, and woods; Technology at each grade level; and
Foreign Language, both French and Spanish. These electives are based on
state standards for their subject area when available, and all infuse
expository writing into their curriculum maps.  In addition to the
electives that support the classical model, students also have the
opportunity to take classes that are based on the language arts,
history, and science content standards.  These classes are not the
typical "exploratory" courses seen in the past, but have an academic
focus, such as research skills, critical thinking, and persuasion as
found in the Speech/Debate class.  Other examples include: Journalism,
Yearbook, Mock Trial, Psychology, Economics, Building Healthy
Relationships, AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination), and/or
Forensic Science.

The instructional programs in each of the previously mentioned areas are
based on the state content standards, frameworks, or when non-existent,
district or industry standards for the content area (ex:  Woods). 
Interdisciplinary courses, such as Forensic Science and Drama rely on
standards from at least two subject areas.  Each of the courses offered,
whether core, intervention, or elective has a corresponding course
syllabus. Textbooks for these courses are from the state-adopted list,
and Hill teachers participate on the district textbook selection
committees due to their knowledge and experience.  In the case where no
appropriate textbook exists, (Forensic Science, Advanced Technology,
Mock Trial) community resources at the local university (CSULB) provide
materials and guest speakers are provided to address the content. 
Support materials are monitored closely by the district.

4.  **Instructional Methods:**

Hill staff believes that by sharing a common approach and monitoring
results, instruction will be more cohesive and consistent across
classrooms.  At the beginning of the year, all teachers use a set of
common lesson plans that teach students expectations for behavior and
learning, uniforms, and how to use their school planner to be
successful.  All teachers post standards-based objectives with the
content and proving behavior, or performance measures, for the learning
that day, along with the daily agenda, including homework and
class-work.  This consistency across classrooms allows students to
quickly identify the learning for the day, and to record this in their
planners for parents to see.

The common approach to instruction at Hill also incorporates Shared
Expectations for lesson design.  All teachers have been trained in the
district's *Essential Elements of Effective Instruction*.  These
elements include**:**

-   Anticipatory Set ○ Checking for Understanding

-   Objective ○ Active Participation

-   Purpose ○ Guided Practice

-   Input ○ Closure

-   Modeling ○ Independent Practice

Administrators hold teachers accountable to these elements through the
evaluation process, and department members hold themselves collectively
accountable through data collection portfolios, which involve peers
collecting evidence of agreed upon student performance measures.

The instructional approach for all classes takes into consideration that
young adolescents require a hands-on, interactive, focused approach.
Technology provides a means to keep students actively engaged in their
learning. Teachers frequently use powerpoint to liven up presentations,
use document cameras so that students can share their work in front of
the whole class, and allow students to use mobile labs to conduct
independent research. Active participation comes in many forms.  In math
classes, direct instruction typically includes individual and group
work, and the use of individual student dry-erase boards (response
boards) to continuously check for understanding throughout the lesson. 
By using curriculum compacting with individual projects, students who
demonstrate mastery of the concept on their pre-tests are given
alternative assignments so that teachers are able to further meet their
students' individual needs and ensure engagement on tasks that are
developmentally appropriate. Teachers use Palm Pilots so they can
quickly input student data, upload it to the Intranet, and give students
and parents "real time" data on the e-Scholars online grading site. 

5.  **Professional Development:**

In curriculum, there is a direct and vital link between staff
development and student achievement.  Hill Classical Middle School's
data have shown that when the staff concentrates resources and staff
development in a curricular area, that area shows dramatic improvement. 
Hill's approach is to create teacher leaders in specific skills and
strategies, and to use these experts to provide support and staff
development to their colleagues.  Department chairs are one obvious
source of expertise, but every staff member is afforded the opportunity
to lead.  Hill teachers are recognized in the district as models of
excellence in Baldrige, technology, Safe and Civil Schools, PE, math,
and literacy.  Hill has been acknowledged as a model for school-wide
writing instruction.  Teachers at Hill are challenged to keep up with
the latest and best practices, and are encouraged to provide leadership
in a variety of areas.

**Professional Development by Content Area:**

-   English/Language Arts (includes all teachers except math): 
    Expository Writing, Essay Structure, Academic Summary Writing,
    Prompt Analysis, Use of Technology to Enhance Writing.

-   Math and English/ Language Arts to a great extent:  Data analysis,
    item analysis and use of data on distracters to inform instruction

-   Whole Faculty:  Essential Elements of Effective Instruction (Active
    Participation, Objective Development, Checking for Understanding),
    Technology training, Differentiation, Creating Reward Structures and
    Increasing Positive Interactions in the classroom

-   Baldrige Leadership and Classroom Training:  Through district grant
    from Broad Foundation.

Before the start of each school year, Hill hosts a "Classical Institute"
which varies in length from one to three days, using state buyback
funds.  During the institute, the certificated and classified staff
members revisit key data, the goals for the new school year, and the
action plans to support those goals.  The common lesson plans are part
of this staff development, and this brings the school year to a focused
and energized start.

During monthly grade level meetings, teachers share their data collected
from our Social Responsibility Action Plan, and Counselors, Teachers,
Assistant Principals, and the School Psychologist conduct mini-workshops
on strategies for dealing with student behavior problems, and to
increase positive student/teacher interactions and to infuse reward
systems.

BTSA Coaches provide new teacher support at the classroom level, and
experienced and new teachers alike receive support from the
Literacy/Technology Coach.  Department chairs also take on a coaching
role, as they lead department discussions about evidence of (or lack of
evidence) of key curricular, instructional, and assessment strategies
observed.  Perhaps most importantly, it is the culture of Hill to look
at student achievement and use that to generate those important next
steps for professional development.

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[English/Language
Arts]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_ Grade \_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_

Test \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[California
Standards]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year \_\_\_[2005]{.underline}\_\_\_

Publisher \_\_[ETS Educational Testing Services]{.underline}\_\_

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

  Test Month:                                         May         May         May

                                                                              

  **School Scores**                                                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           53%         46%         35%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           18%         8%          9%

  Number of students tested                           388         403         352

  Percent of total students tested                    98%         98%         98%

  Number of CAPA                                      10          7           5

  Percent of CAPA                                     2%          2%          2%

                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                             

  1\.                                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Asian]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           67%         46%         23%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           26%         8%          2%

  Number of students tested                           51          61          43

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

  \% At or Above Proficient                           43%         46%         28%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           13%         15%         5%

  Number of students tested                           54          55          65

  3\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hispanic]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                          

  \% At or Above Proficient                           51%         39%         35%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           16%         5%          8%

  Number of students tested                           231         225         186

  4\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[White\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           61%         69%         56%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           24%         17%         29%

  Number of students tested                           41          46          45

  5\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_ELL\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           22%         21%         7%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           9%          0%          0%

  Number of students tested                           32          109         54

  6\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_Low SES\_\_]{.underline}                             

  \% At or Above Proficient                           49%         42%         33%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           14%         6%          11%

  Number of students tested                           283         282         260
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Math]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Grade \_\_\_[6]{.underline}\_\_\_

Test \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[California
Standards]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year \_\_\_[2005]{.underline}\_\_\_

Publisher \_\_[ETS Educational Testing Services]{.underline}\_\_

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

  Test Month:                                         May         May         May

                                                                              

  **School Scores**                                                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           54%         39%         33%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           16%         9%          4%

  Number of students tested                           388         403         351

  Percent of total students tested                    98%         98%         98%

  Number of CAPA                                      10          7           5

  Percent of CAPA                                     2%          2%          2%

                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                             

  1\.                                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Asian]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           79%         50%         25%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           18%         12%         2%

  Number of students tested                           51          61          43

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

  \% At or Above Proficient                           39%         30%         28%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           7%          4%          5%

  Number of students tested                           54          55          65

  3\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hispanic]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                          

  \% At or Above Proficient                           50%         35%         34%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           17%         7%          3%

  Number of students tested                           231         225         186

  4\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[White\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           68%         50%         40%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           24%         20%         11%

  Number of students tested                           41          46          45

  5\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_ELL\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           12%         19%         13%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           9%          0%          0%

  Number of students tested                           32          109         54

  6\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_Low SES\_\_]{.underline}                             

  \% At or Above Proficient                           51%         35%         44%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           16%         7%          7%

  Number of students tested                           283         282         260
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject \_\_\_\_\_\_[English/Language Arts]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ Grade
\_\_\_[7]{.underline}\_\_\_

Test \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[California
Standards]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year \_\_\_[2005]{.underline}\_\_\_

Publisher \_\_[ETS Educational Testing Services]{.underline}\_\_

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

  Test Month:                                         May         May         May

                                                                              

  **School Scores**                                                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           64%         45%         40%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           15%         10%         9%

  Number of students tested                           385         355         378

  Percent of total students tested                    98%         99%         99%

  Number of CAPA                                      6           5           3

  Percent of CAPA                                     2%          1%          1%

                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                             

  1\.                                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Asian]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           62%         44%         25%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           18%         2%          4%

  Number of students tested                           57          43          53

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

  \% At or Above Proficient                           66%         28%         27%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           16%         40%         0%

  Number of students tested                           50          71          70

  3\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hispanic]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                          

  \% At or Above Proficient                           58%         45%         37%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           9%          9%          6%

  Number of students tested                           217         183         180

  4\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[White\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           81%         65%         73%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           33%         27%         29%

  Number of students tested                           48          45          66

  5\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_ELL\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           22%         13%         4%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           13%         0%          0%

  Number of students tested                           23          54          74

  6\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_Low SES\_\_]{.underline}                             

  \% At or Above Proficient                           61%         39%         42%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           12%         4%          6%

  Number of students tested                           281         245         275
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Math\_\_\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ Grade
\_\_\_[7]{.underline}\_\_\_

Test \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[California
Standards]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year \_\_\_[2005]{.underline}\_\_\_

Publisher \_\_[ETS Educational Testing Services]{.underline}\_\_

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

  Test Month:                                         May         May         May

                                                                              

  **School Scores**                                                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           47%         32%         22%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           14%         4%          2%

  Number of students tested                           385         355         376

  Percent of total students tested                    98%         99%         99%

  Number of CAPA                                      6           5           3

  Percent of CAPA                                     2%          1%          1%

                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                             

  1\.                                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Asian]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           58%         32%         19%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           19%         9%          6%

  Number of students tested                           57          43          53

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

  \% At or Above Proficient                           36%         19%         13%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           14%         1%          0%

  Number of students tested                           50          71          70

  3\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hispanic]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                          

  \% At or Above Proficient                           43%         32%         16%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           10%         3%          1%

  Number of students tested                           217         183         178

  4\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[White\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           65%         51%         47%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           25%         11%         5%

  Number of students tested                           48          45          66

  5\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_ELL\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           18%         7%          3%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           9%          0%          0%

  Number of students tested                           23          54          73

  6\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_Low SES\_\_]{.underline}                             

  \% At or Above Proficient                           44%         26%         24%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           11%         3%          4%

  Number of students tested                           281         245         275
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject \_\_\_\_\_\_[English/Language Arts\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
Grade \_\_\_[8]{.underline}\_\_\_

Test \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[California
Standards]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year \_\_\_[2005]{.underline}\_\_\_

Publisher \_\_[ETS Educational Testing Services]{.underline}\_\_

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

  Test Month:                                         May         May         May

                                                                              

  **School Scores**                                                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           44%         38%         26%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           14%         10%         4%

  Number of students tested                           326         336         294

  Percent of total students tested                    93%         93%         90%

  Number of CAPA                                      5           5           4

  Percent of CAPA                                     2%          2%          2%

                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                             

  1\.                                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Asian]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           42%         32%         23%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           2%          6%          3%

  Number of students tested                           43          50          79

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

  \% At or Above Proficient                           34%         28%         16%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           7%          5%          2%

  Number of students tested                           55          57          63

  3\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hispanic]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                          

  \% At or Above Proficient                           43%         30%         25%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           12%         6%          3%

  Number of students tested                           174         156         115

  4\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[White\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           62%         68%         57%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           39%         27%         13%

  Number of students tested                           44          64          32

  5\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_ELL\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           14%         8%          1%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           9%          0%          0%

  Number of students tested                           52          65          67

  6\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_Low SES\_\_]{.underline}                             

  \% At or Above Proficient                           40%         28%         17%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           9%          4%          0%

  Number of students tested                           241         231         212
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject \_\_\_\_\_\_[\_\_\_\_Algebra 1\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_
Grade \_\_\_[8]{.underline}\_\_\_

Test \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[California
Standards]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year \_\_\_[2005]{.underline}\_\_\_

Publisher \_\_[ETS Educational Testing Services]{.underline}\_\_

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

  Test Month:                                         May         May         May

                                                                              

  **School Scores**                                                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           46%         57%         56%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           3%          3%          7%

  Number of students tested                           141         99          73

  Percent of total students tested                    93%         92%         89%

  Number of CAPA                                      5           5           4

  Percent of CAPA                                     2%          2%          2%

                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                             

  1\.                                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Asian]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           58%         69%         56%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           5%          6%          8%

  Number of students tested                           19          16          24

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

  \% At or Above Proficient                           47%         23%         54%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           0%          0%          18%

  Number of students tested                           19          13          11

  3\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hispanic]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                          

  \% At or Above Proficient                           35%         55%         57%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           1%          0%          0%

  Number of students tested                           77          29          21

  4\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[White\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           68%         62%         64%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           9%          5%          0%

  Number of students tested                           22          37          14

  5\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_ELL\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           33%         51%         0%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           2%          5%          0%

  Number of students tested                           18          22          0

  6\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_Low SES\_\_]{.underline}                             

  \% At or Above Proficient                           43%         59%         45%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           1%          2%          0%

  Number of students tested                           90          42          11
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS**

Subject \_\_\_\_\_\_[\_\_\_\_General
Math\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_ Grade \_\_\_[8]{.underline}\_\_\_

Test \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[California
Standards]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Edition/Publication Year \_\_\_[2005]{.underline}\_\_\_

Publisher \_\_[ETS Educational Testing Services]{.underline}\_\_

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

  Test Month:                                         May         May         May

                                                                              

  **School Scores**                                                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           29%         25%         17%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           2%          4%          0%

  Number of students tested                           180         233         218

  Percent of total students tested                    93%         92%         89%

  Number of CAPA                                      5           5           4

  Percent of CAPA                                     2%          2%          2%

                                                                              

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                             

  1\.                                                                         
  \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Asian]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                           

  \% At or Above Proficient                           25%         27%         16%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           0%          3%          0%

  Number of students tested                           24          34          55

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

  \% At or Above Proficient                           29%         19%         16%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           0%          5%          0%

  Number of students tested                           35          43          51

  3\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[Hispanic]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                          

  \% At or Above Proficient                           29%         25%         14%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           2%          4%          0%

  Number of students tested                           93          126         93

  4\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[White\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           37%         24%         35%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           5%          4%          0%

  Number of students tested                           22          25          17

  5\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_ELL\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_                         

  \% At or Above Proficient                           6%          11%         6%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           0%          2%          0%

  Number of students tested                           32          64          67

  6\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[\_Low SES\_\_]{.underline}                             

  \% At or Above Proficient                           26%         20%         8%

  \% At Advanced Proficient                           2%          4%          0%

  Number of students tested                           151         189         203
  --------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------