**REVISED 05-23-2005**

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

*U.S. Department of Education*

**Cover Sheet** Type of School: \_[x]{.underline}\_ Elementary \_\_
Middle \_\_ High \_\_ K-12

Name of Principal [     Mr. Rick Knisely]{.underline}

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

Official School Name [     Huntley Project Elem K-6]{.underline}

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address[     1477 Ash Street
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

[Worden]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_[     
Montana\_]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_[     59088-2221]{.underline}

City State Zip Code+4 (9 digits total)

County
\_[     Yellowstone]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_School
Code
Number\*\_\_\_\_\_[1296]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Telephone [( 406 ) 967-2540]{.underline} Fax [( 406 )
967-2547]{.underline}

Website/URL [www.huntley.k12.mt.us]{.underline} E-mail
[     rknisely@huntley.k12.mt.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. Dave Mahon]{.underline}

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

District Name [Huntley Project School District #24]{.underline} Tel.
[(406) 967-2540]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board

President/Chairperson      Mr. Larry Peabody

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

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

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

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

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

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

2.  The school has not been in school improvement status or been
    identified by the state as \"persistently dangerous\" within the
    last two years. To meet final eligibility, the school must meet the
    state's adequate yearly progress requirement in the 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: \_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_
Elementary schools

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

\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_ Junior high schools

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

\_\_\_\_\_ Other

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

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$7,037]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$7,578]{.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
>
> \[ \] Suburban
>
> \[√ \] Small city or town in a rural area
>
> \[ \] Rural

4\. [8]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

If fewer than three years, how long was the previous principal at this
school?

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

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

  **PreK**                                                  **7**                             

  **K**       28        20                     **48**       **8**                             

  **1**       23        26                     **49**       **9**                             

  **2**       22        18                     **40**       **10**                            

  **3**       24        29                     **53**       **11**                            

  **4**       25        41                     **66**       **12**                            

  **5**       26        29                     **55**       **Other**                         

  **6**       22        24                     **46**                                         

                                    **TOTAL                                                   357
                                    STUDENTS                                                  
                                    IN THE                                                    
                                    APPLYING                                                  
                                    SCHOOL**                                                  
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [     87]{.underline} % White

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

[     4]{.underline} % Hispanic or Latino

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

[     6]{.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:
\_\_\_30\_%

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

  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------
  **(1)**   Number of students who transferred ***to***  63
            the school after October 1 until the end of  
            the year.                                    

  **(2)**   Number of students who transferred           49
            ***from*** the school after October 1 until  
            the end of the year.                         

  **(3)**   Subtotal of all transferred students \[sum   112
            of rows (1) and (2)\]                        

  **(4)**   Total number of students in the school as of 377
            October 1                                    

  **(5)**   Subtotal in row (3) divided by total in row  0
            (4)                                          

  **(6)**   Amount in row (5) multiplied by 100          30
  --------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------

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

\_\_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_Total Number Limited English Proficient

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

Specify languages: Spanish

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals:
\_\_\_[40]{.underline}\_%

Total number students who qualify: \_\_\_[138]{.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:
\_\_[12\_\_]{.underline}\_%

\_\_[43]{.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.

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Autism \_[0]{.underline}\_\_Orthopedic Impairment

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Deafness \_[0]{.underline}\_\_Other Health Impaired

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Deaf-Blindness \_[17]{.underline}\_Specific
Learning Disability

\_[0]{.underline}\_\_Emotional Disturbance \_[10]{.underline}\_Speech or
Language Impairment

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

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

\_[16]{.underline}\_Multiple Disabilities \_[0\_\_]{.underline}Emotional
Disturbance

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers \_\_[19]{.underline}\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists \_\_[12]{.underline}\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Paraprofessionals \_\_[7]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Support staff \_\_[1]{.underline}\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number \_\_[40\_\_]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_[\_\_\_]{.underline}

12\. Average school student-"classroom teacher" ratio: \_\_[19
\_]{.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   93%         97%         96%         95%         \%

  Daily teacher attendance   97%         97%         96%         98%         \%

  Teacher turnover rate      12%         8%          8%          4%          \%

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

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

**PART III ‑ SUMMARY**

**Narrative Snapshot of Huntley Project Elementary**

Huntley Project Elementary School is a K-6 institution with an
enrollment of approximately 400 students. Kindergarten students attend
all day, every other day. Huntley Project is a consolidated school
district serving the communities of Worden, Ballantine, Pompey's Pillar,
and Huntley. The school is located 18 miles east of Billings, Montana,
in the community of Worden. It shares a campus with the junior high
school and the high school. We are affiliated with a special needs
preschool in a neighboring school district. The Huntley Project
Elementary School as outlined in our Five Year Comprehensive Education
Plan (Five Year Plan) is committed to the goal of all students achieving
proficiency in reading, math, science, language arts and social studies.
More specifically the goal is for all students to demonstrate continuous
improvement in reading and math. 

In partnership with the community and as advocates for learning, our
mission is to provide students with a safe positive environment in which
they can acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to meet
the challenges of the 21^st^ century with confidence and success.

  The elementary classes are self-contained, with all students receiving
instruction in communication arts (oral language, reading, writing,
spelling, penmanship, and grammar), math, science, social studies,
music, art, and health enhancement. There is an emphasis throughout the
curriculum on higher-level thinking skills, writing skills, social
skills, self-esteem, and curriculum integration. Our school has recently
adopted Accelerated Reader (AR) in grades K-6 as a supplement for the
reading curriculum, along with Accelerated Math (AM) in grades 4-6. Many
of our faculty members have been trained in the Montana Behavioral
Initiative (MBI) as well, which is practiced throughout the school in
order to enhance our school climate.

  In addition to the regular education program, we offer many special
programs. The Gifted and Talented Curriculum and Extended Arts Program
are available to identified students in grades 3-6. Our special needs
population served through three certified teachers along with six
paraprofessionals makes up 12% of our enrollment. Our two and one half
Full Time Employees (FTE) serve our at-risk students in both reading and
math. We utilize a balance between the inclusion model, pullout model
and a self-contained learning lab setting for our severely handicapped
students. We have specialists in art, music, library, counseling, and
health enhancement.

  We employ a school psychologist, speech pathologist, physical and
occupational therapist through our special education co-op. Two
school-based counselors are also available as well as a school nurse. We
also utilize many parent volunteers through our local Parent Teacher
Student Association (PTSA). An Intervention Assistance Team is in place
to assist teachers and students. Family Fun Reading Night is very
popular with parents and students!

Students are able to participate in extra-curricular activities at the
5^th^ and 6^th^ grade levels. They have the opportunity to be involved
in football, volleyball, basketball, cross-country, wrestling and track.
There is also a 5^th^ and a 6^th^ grade band program and a 4^th^, 5^th^
& 6^th^ grade Honor Choir. The 5^th^ and 3^rd^ grade students are
instructed in the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program.

Our school was recently awarded the 21^st^ Century Community Learning
Center Grant entitled *Kid Connection*. The program is conducted Monday
through Thursday, 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. Transportation is also provided.

All classrooms are equipped with at least two Internet accessible
computers. In addition to the computers, many classrooms have Alpha
Smarts, and Franklin Spellcheckers. Each classroom has a phone,
television and video/digital disk recorder. A school computer lab is
equipped with eighteen state-of-the-art computers with a computer
projector.

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

**I. Assessment Results in Reading (language arts or English) and
Mathematics**

The goal for all students is to demonstrate continuous improvement in
reading and math. Student performance in attaining this goal is measured
by the Montana Comprehensive Assessment System, (MontCAS), Phase 1 and
Phase 2. The testing is based on Montana Content and Performance
Standards and given in March of each year to every student in grades 4,
8 and grade 11 for Phase 1 and grades 4, 8 and grade 10 for Phase 2.

The two assessment phases are the norm-referenced test, Phase 1 which is
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), and the Criterion Referenced test
(CRT), Phase 2. We have administered the CRT one year, 2003--2004 and
have one year of data. Huntley Project Elementary met the state's
proficiency levels last year with the CRT, and made Adequate Yearly
Progress, (AYP). The scores reflect a 95% confidence interval applied by
the state. We had a 100% participation rate and a 93% attendance rate.
Sixty six percent (66%) of our students were proficient or above in
reading and 59% of our students were proficient or above in Math. The
state mandates for AYP were a 95% participation rate, an 80% attendance
rate, with 55% proficient in reading and 40% proficient in math.

The data from the ITBS, administered for the last 4 years, is
significant for comparison and reporting purposes. Our students have
shown dramatic improvement over the last three years in the all students
group combined as well as the disaggregated group, disadvantaged
(free/reduced) in both Reading and Math. High levels of achievement by
all students were attained in both reading and math for the year 2004,
68 percentile in reading and 73 percentile in math.

The percentile rank of average standard scores in reading for all
students increased from 58 in 2002 to 68 in 2004, a jump of 10
percentile points. In the area of disadvantaged, the percentile scores
increased from 46 in 2002 to 58 in 2004, a jump of 12 percentile points.

The percentile rank of average standard scores in math for all students
increased from 57 in 2002 to 73 in 2004, a jump of 16 percentile points.
In the area of disadvantaged, the percentile scores dramatically
improved from 38 in 2002 to 66 in 2004, a jump of 28 percentile points.
(The disadvantaged students performed at the same percentile score as
the average for the state of Montana for all students in 2004.)

The achievement gap between the disadvantaged disaggregated group and
all of our students combined, in both reading and math, are rapidly
decreasing. The gap in percentile points in Math went from 19 in 2002 to
7 in 2004. In reading, the gap went from 12 points in 2002 to 10 points
in 2004.

There are four categories used for proficiency reporting, novice,
nearing proficient, proficient and advanced, (reported as
proficient/above). The participation rate for our school ranged from 98
to 100%.

The Huntley Project grade 4 results in Reading show that for all
students the performance at proficient/above was consistently at or
above the state level for the last 3 years. The number of students
proficient/above in the disadvantaged group dramatically improved from
60% in 2002 to 70% in 2004. (47% of this 4^th^ grade is in the
disadvantaged group.) This is an increase of 10% of students performing
at proficiency/above.

The Huntley Project grade 4 results in Math show that for all students
the performance at the proficient/above level has steadily increased
over the last three years. The proficient/above level rose from 69% in
2002 to 88% in 2004, an increase of 19%. The number of students in the
disadvantaged group performing at proficient/above dramatically improved
by 32%, in 2002, 52% were proficient/above and in 2004, there were 84%.
(Our sub group score in 2004 was higher than the score for all students
in the state in math, and 48% of our 4^th^ graders were in this sub
group.) In Math, the achievement gap is closing dramatically between all
students and those in the disadvantaged group (17% in 2002 to 4% in
2004).

Website for information: IOWA -- data.opi.state.mt.us/irisreports/, CRT
AYP Report: [www.opi.state.mt.us](http://www.opi.state.mt.us/) - click
on NCLB report card, Report -- AYP-Huntley Project K-6

**II. Uses of Assessment Data**

The Five Year Plan provides the framework for our collection and use of
assessment data. Data collected from a variety of sources is used to
determine our strengths and weakness in student performance of essential
skills as specified in our curriculum. The goals of instruction are for
all students to be proficient or above in reading and math. Thus, the
data is the foundation of our application and adaptation of curricular
materials and programs to meet our students' needs.

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy (DIBELS) identifies children
at risk in basic early literacy skills. The screening function, using
DIBELS, begins in Kindergarten and is conducted in fall, mid-winter and
spring of each year through grade two. The progress-monitoring
components of DIBELS are used selectively with identified at risk
children on a weekly basis. Fox in a Box assessments are used along with
DIBELS. Best practices programs are used to address the areas
identified.

Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) testing is administered to
grades 3 through 10 in the fall and spring in reading, language usage
and math. MWEA testing, a computerized program with immediate feedback,
is used to provide teachers, students and parents an accurate assessment
of student progress in mastering the basic skills. The program is
aligned to Montana State Content and Performance Standards and provides
a continuum of essential skills that identify the instructional level of
the student. This enables our teachers to provide group instruction at
the skill level of the students. This is carried out in the classroom or
specific intervention programs such as Title programs and before or
after school programs.

On-going research based assessment provided by computer technology
includes STAR Math, STAR Reading, AR, AM, Lexia Quick Reading Tests,
Lexia Phonics Based Reading (PBR), Lexia Early Reading (ER), and Lexia
Strategies for Older Students (SOS).

The ITBS and CRT allow us to monitor how are students are progressing
compared to national norms and state standards. Using the resources
provided by the testing companies allow us to determine specific areas
in our curriculum that are weak or below state performance levels and
address those specific needs of our students. Best Practices programs
and curriculum materials are then reviewed by our school and implemented
where needed.

**III. Communication of Student Performance**

Huntley Project Elementary communicates student performance and
assessment data both formally and informally to students, parents and
the community on a regular basis. Through daily tasks, students are kept
informed of their progress. After the DIBELS assessment in the fall, a
formal parent meeting is scheduled to review the results with identified
student's parents. This meeting is scheduled throughout the year on an
as need basis.

Each year, two formal parent teacher conferences are scheduled with the
parents of Kindergarten students. One formal parent teacher conference
is scheduled with parents of students in grades 1 -- 6. During this
conference, ITBS data, NWEA student reports and CRT student reports are
shared with the parent. Report cards are sent home every nine weeks.
Parent reports from STAR Reading and STAR Math, and the Accelerated
Reading Program, are included with the report card. Weekly Teachers
Newsletters are sent home with the students.

Before the school year begins, the parents receive their student's class
placement list, a syllabi from their teacher outlining discipline, major
activities and projects for the school year.

In the fall of each year, we host an Open House for the students,
parents and community. The PTSA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Drug Free
Schools Program, and a host of information about other special programs
are presented at this time.

At the end of every semester the principal hosts an Awards Assembly
honoring student achievements and academic accomplishments for the
students, the parents and the community.

A monthly newsletter is sent to every parent and community member.
Assessment results and AYP Status are reported on State Assessments
after they are released by the Office of Public Instruction (OPI). These
same results are reported formally in the local newspaper.

In the early spring, a Family Fun Reading Night is scheduled for 10
weeks and allows parents to interact with their child in their reading
program. The parents become involved with the goals for AR, their STAR
score and the reading process.

**IV. Shared Successes**

We belong to Alliance for Curriculum Enhancement (ACE), a consortium
involved in collaborating on curriculum development. The consortium goal
is to identify best practices programs that have worked in consortium
schools that will assist in meeting benchmarks at grade level in reading
and math.

Each summer a group of teachers attend the weeklong MBI workshop. Part
of that process is working with other schools with similar demographics
to review our data based climate issues and develop best practice
strategies to address our needs.

Our testing coordinator recently conducted a workshop for a neighboring
school district to introduce the process of aligning the curriculum to
state content and performance standards. The coordinator then trained
the teachers in that school to use the web based data interpretation
program to analyze CRT testing data and how to use that data. The goal
of the workshop was to improve the alignment of their curriculum to
state content and performance standards to improve their students'
performance on state tests. The coordinator is available to help the
school with this project on an as need basis.

At Montana Education Association (MEA) Conferences and at Montana
Conference of Educational Leadership we have many occasions to share our
success stories with other schools as well as learning from others what
their best practice programs are and how they use them in their schools.

We look forward to sharing our success as a Blue Ribbon School with our
neighboring schools The Huntley Project Elementary principal, testing
coordinator and staff, will be available to share our success
information in the form of a Power Point presentation with the schools
that request our information.

**PART V -- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION**

**I. School Curriculum**

We at Huntley Project Elementary School believe that students have
different abilities, needs, interests, and learning styles. We also
believe that all children can learn and meet grade level standards.
Through our membership in the A.C.E. Consortium, we developed grade
level benchmarks and essential skills for each curriculum area. In 2002,
the Montana OPI extended and refined grade level expectations for grades
3-10 and upon graduation for reading and math that meet federal
requirements under NCLB. The essential skills were vertically and
horizontally aligned with Montana's OPI Content and Performance
Standards. Our use of progress monitoring helps evaluate student growth
and determines the need for remediation. Our Five Year Plan provides a
time line for continually reevaluated of our curriculum.

The Huntley Project Elementary School communication arts curriculum
includes reading, literature, media literacy, speaking, listening,
spelling, and writing. Our reading program uses research-based
instruction that centers on phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
comprehension and fluency. We currently use the Harcourt Collections
basal series, Saxon Phonics and Spelling, Lexia computer-assisted
phonics, the AR program and STAR Reader assessment, Houghton Mifflin
English, Houghton Mifflin Spelling, and the 6+1 Traits of Writing
program.

Our mathematics curriculum includes skills, strategies and processes
that allow learners to solve problems, to communicate ideas and
strategies, to apply skills in other disciplines, to understand and
investigate mathematical concepts and to use math to make connections to
real-world situations. We currently use the Saxon Mathematics program
that addresses the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)
standards in problem solving, algebra, geometry, measurement, and
statistics. Grades 4-6 successfully incorporate AM to meet students'
individual needs.

Our science curriculum helps students develop an understanding of the
world and to acquire and apply critical thinking and problem-solving
skills necessary to live in a technological society. Additional
resources like Scholastic News, Time for Kids, and a variety of
nonfiction science books and materials are used to make the standards
more current.

The social studies curriculum is an integrated study of social sciences
and humanities designed to foster citizenship in an interdependent
world. Study of such disciplines as economics, history, geography, and
government allow students to develop knowledge, skills and thinking
processes necessary to become active participants in the democratic
process. Students also develop an understanding of their own unique
cultural and geographic heritage. We use Scholastic News, Time for Kids,
and local newspapers to help students learn to read and interpret
national news and current events.

The library media curriculum allows students to access a variety of
information sources and formats, to evaluate information, to be exposed
to diverse ideas and creative expressions. The technology curriculum
provides access to information and supports learning in all subjects.

Music and art are creative forms of expression and communication. They
contribute to the creative thinking process and to academic success. Our
music curriculum addresses music appreciation, basic theory, and
performance. Our art curriculum includes art appreciation, art history,
and art instruction with the use of a variety of medias.

The health enhancement curriculum provides the essential skills need for
productive citizens to engage in a high quality of life for the well
being of the individual, the community and the nation. It covers both
physical education and health instruction.

**II. Reading Curriculum**

The goal of the reading curriculum at Huntley Project Elementary School
is based on the philosophy that reading and learning are a bridge to the
future for our students and for our nation. During the strategic
development of our Five Year Plan we recognized the need to improve
student reading comprehension, phonetic word analysis, and vocabulary
skills.

Reading instruction is a priority in kindergarten through third grade.
Our belief is that students "learn to read" during these important
years. We use research-based instruction that centers on phonemic
awareness, phonetic analysis, whole word techniques, vocabulary,
comprehension, and fluency. Harcourt Collections is used in kindergarten
through fifth grade. Collections are designed to allow for six weeks of
unit and/or novel study. Lexia Phonics and Saxon Phonics and Spelling
are used to ensure a strong phonetic foundation at the kindergarten
through third grade level.

In fourth through sixth grade the instructional emphasis is placed on
"reading to learn". We use Harcourt Collections and novels from the
Pegasus Reading program. A strong literacy approach focuses on
vocabulary, comprehension, and higher-level thinking skills. Students at
this level need to be able to apply their reading skills and strategies
independently.

The STAR reading assessment is used to determine each student's zone of
proximal reading development. It provides valuable information that
teachers and parents use to guide students' independent reading. We find
that our K-6 Accelerated Reader program is an amazing tool which
motivates student reading and gives the teacher up to the minute data on
how well the students comprehend what they are reading.

In order to meet the needs of the at-risk readers, our Title I teachers
use an assortment of assessment tools and instructional approaches. The
DIBELS program is used for assessment and progress monitoring at the K-2
level. A variety of intervention programs are used which include Road to
the Code, Read Naturally, and the Collections Intervention Program.

**III. Mathematics Curriculum**

The strategy and action plan for our mathematics curriculum is data
driven and outlined in the Five Year Plan. Our goal is to increase the
computation and problem solving skills of our students. Elementary
staffs utilize Saxon Math to meet this goal. Desired goals are to have
all students become proficient or above on state assessments and acquire
the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to meet the challenges of
the 21^st^ century with confidence and success.

Saxon math emphasizes the mastery of basic facts to ensure that students
can complete grade level computation activities more accurately and
efficiently. Concepts are introduced in increments that build on prior
learning. Through direct instruction this explicit, systematic approach
ensures consistency between grade levels. Frequent benchmark assessments
determine student mastery of concepts and skills. In grades K-4 the
program utilizes a hands-on approach through the use of manipulatives.
The students progress from this concrete level of development to an
abstract understanding in the upper grades. The program also includes a
strong parent component through daily homework assignments.

In order to challenge our students, grades 4-6 use the AM program. This
computerized program supplements the Saxon curriculum. Each student
works individually and masters skills at his or her own pace. This
method challenges the advanced students and provides skill review for
those who need additional reinforcement.

**IV. Instructional Methods**

At Huntley Project Elementary we use a variety of instructional methods
to maximize student learning and to ensure academic growth. These
methods incorporate strategies that are teacher-directed,
student-driven, and computer-based.

Direct instructional activities use an explicit approach to learning.
These include whole class and one-on-one instruction, group response,
drill and practice, and cooperative learning. Our phonics, spelling, and
math programs are based on incremental learning. Specific skills, or
increments, are introduced and reviewed to mastery with daily drill and
practice. As new skills are introduced, previously learned skills are
reinforced to mastery and phased out when appropriate. The increments
spiral along the scope and sequence of the continuum.

Implicit instructional practices, as emphasized in the whole language
approach, are still used to encourage independent thinking, creativity,
and higher level thinking skills. Student-driven activities include
cooperative learning, cross-age peer tutoring, and partnering.
Computer-based learning is also an effective tool to engage students in
learning. We use word processing, Internet research, reading skills
practice (Lexia), AR, and AM. In using these instructional methods we
facilitate metacognitive abilities, attention skills, independence, a
strong work ethic, and social skills.

We continue to search for best practices instructional strategies, which
create a learning environment where every child experiences success in
school, and no child is left behind.

**V. Professional Development**

The district developed a professional development plan to achieve the
instructional strategies and ultimately the school goals in math and
reading. Early outs have been regularly scheduled for Wednesdays and
Fridays for the purpose of staff development. The district conducted a
staff development training provided by Brett Walker, the principal of a
Blue Ribbon School in Powell, Wyoming. Brett provided instruction and
methodology of grouping instruction and standards based instruction. He
introduced a proficiency model that was then followed up by the staff
development training.

The best practices testing program we chose to use is the NWEA computer
based testing program. This program is aligned with our Montana State
Content and Performance Standards with a vertically aligned learning
continuum that allows for identifying student instructional levels. This
information allows grouping of students according to their instructional
level. Extensive training is conducted with our teachers for the
implementation of this program.

Regular curriculum development meetings are held to study the data and
address our needs for the school year. Our school district sends staff
members to visit other school systems using best practices programs. Our
teachers also mentor each other in their specific areas of success.
During the summer months, staff attend MBI, providing information on
climate development in our school. Many teachers attended the Reading
First Institute in August of 2004. Summer workshops were attended by
staff on technology, as well as a Sopris West Best Practices Workshop.
Our Title I teacher was trained in the use of the DIBELS assessment
program, and the FOX in a BOX assessment program. In turn the necessary
staff. are trained. We are constantly using our data to determine our
needs and in turn using staff development programs to learn how to
better meet our student's specific needs.

During the 2003--2004 school year, all of the paraprofessionals were
provided training and certification in reading, writing and math. The
IOWA and CRT test results reflect how this process has positively
affected student achievement.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**State Norm Referenced Tests: Reading and Math -- MontCas, Phase 1**

The State of Montana used the ITBS, Iowa Test of Basic Skills, for its
assessment of the mastery of the Montana Content and Performance
Standards. This formal assessment, and its mastery formula, has been in
place for the last 4 years. This particular test was chosen because it
was found to be closely aligned with our state standards

No groups were excluded; all groups were included in taking this
assessment. The state developed an alternate assessment for those
students qualifying. The state along with the testing company developed
an extensive plan for accommodations, which were both allowable and not
allowable. All scores reported on the following tables are valid. If
accommodations were used, they were allowable.

Norm-referenced test are designed to assess student knowledge and skills
commonly taught across the United States. Performance of Montana
students is compared with a sample of students from across the United
States.

**Explanation of the standards for Novice, Nearing Proficiency,
Proficient, and Advanced.**

[Novice count]{.underline}: The number of students tested in the
grouping for which results are requested whose scores correspond to
Stanines 1 through 3.

[Nearing Proficient count]{.underline}: The number of students tested in
the grouping for which results are requested whose scores correspond to
Stanine 4.

[Proficient count]{.underline}: The number of students tested in the
grouping for which results are requested whose scores correspond to
Stanines 5 through 7.

[Advanced count]{.underline}: The number of students tested in the
grouping for which results are requested whose scores correspond to the
Stanines 8 and 9.

[Proficient Percent]{.underline}: A ratio of the Proficient Count to the
Tested Count, expressed as a percent.

[Advanced Percent]{.underline}: A ratio of the Advanced Count to the
Tested Count, expressed as a percent.

In January of 2002, the U.S. Department of Education determined that the
MontCAS, Phase 1, did not meet all the provisions of the federal law:
Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. On April 5, 2002,
The Montana Office of Public Instruction (OPI) entered into a compliance
agreement with the U.S. Department of Education that requires Montana to
implement a number of actions by April 5, 2005, to bring the state into
compliance with the above-referenced statute, as well as provisions of
the federal NCLB.

Montana has received federal appropriations to develop and implement the
required assessment components. This new portion of the states testing
program is know as MontCAS, Phase 2. OPI as well as educators from
across the state in partnership with Measured Progress developed the CRT
test. That test was administered in the 2003 -- 2004-school year and
scores as reported on the AYP report are included in Part V, the meaning
of the schools assessment results. Since we only have one year of data
we did not include that data in our tables. We, however, used the data
extensively in our evaluation of our curriculum and its effect on our 5
Year Comprehensive Educational Plan.

**Table 1**

**[REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS]{.underline}**

Subject[\_\_\_Reading\_\_\_\_ Grade\_\_4\_\_\_ Test\_\_\_Iowa Test of
Basic Skills (ITBS) Form A\_\_]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_2000\_]{.underline}
Publisher\_\_\_\_\_[Riverside Publishing
Company]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month                 | M    | M    | M    | M    |      |
|                                 | arch | arch | arch | arch |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Total Score                   | 68%  | 67%  | 58%  | 67%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 50   | 49   | 58   | 59   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students     | 100% | 100% | 9    | 100% |      |
| > tested                        |      |      | 8.2% |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students            | 1    | 2    | 1    | 0    |      |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students           | 2    | 4    | 1.7  | 0    |      |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1\. Female                    | 68%  | 65%  | 55%  | 67%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 23   | 23   | 22   | 35   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 2\. Male                      | 68%  | 69%  | 60%  | 66%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 26   | 24   | 35   | 24   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 3\. NOT Free and Reduced      | 76%  | 74%  | 65%  | 67%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 26   | 35   | 37   | 32   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 4\. Free and Reduced          | 58%  | 41%  | 46%  | 66%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 23   | 12   | 20   | 27   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**Table 2**

**[REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS]{.underline}**

Subject[\_\_\_Math\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Grade:\_\_4\_\_\_
Test\_\_\_Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Form A\_\_]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year[\_\_2001\_]{.underline}
Publisher\_\_\_\_\_[Riverside Publishing
Company]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Scores are reported here as (check one): NCEs\_\_\_\_ Scaled scores
\_\_\_\_ Percentiles \_[X]{.underline}\_\_

+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                                 | 2    | 2    | 2    | 2    | 1    |
|                                 | 003- | 002- | 001- | 000- | 999- |
|                                 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Testing month                 | M    | M    | M    | M    |      |
|                                 | arch | arch | arch | arch |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > **SCHOOL SCORES**             |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Total Score                   | 73%  | 66%  | 57%  | 69%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 50   | 48   | 59   | 59   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of total students     | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |      |
| > tested                        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students            | 0    | 2    | 1    | 0    |      |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Percent of students           | 0    | 4.1  | 1.6  | 0    |      |
| > alternatively assessed        |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > SUBGROUP SCORES               |      |      |      |      |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 1\. Female                    | 76%  | 69%  | 41%  | 69%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 24   | 23   | 23   | 35   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 2\. Male                      | 71%  | 61%  | 66%  | 68%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 26   | 23   | 35   | 24   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 3\. NOT Free and Reduced      | 80%  | 69%  | 67%  | 71%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 26   | 34   | 37   | 32   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > 4\. Free and Reduced          | 66%  | 52%  | 38%  | 67%  |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| > Number of students tested     | 24   | 12   | 21   | 27   |      |
+---------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

**Table 3**

**[REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS]{.underline}**

Subject:[\_\_\_Reading\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Grade\_\_4\_\_\_
Test:\_\_\_Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Form A\_\_]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year:[\_\_2000\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
Publisher:\_\_\_\_\_[Riverside Publishing
Company]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

  Testing month                   March       March       March       March       March

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                               

  \% Proficient and Advanced      77          83          79          90          

  %Proficient                     55          66          70          71          

  %Advanced                       22          17          9           19          

                                                                                  

  Number of students tested       50          49          58          59          

  Percent of total students       100         100         98.2        100         
  tested                                                                          

  Number of students              1           2           1           0           
  alternatively assessed                                                          

  Percent of students             2           4           1.7         0           
  alternatively assessed                                                          

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                 

  1\. Females                                                                     

  \% Proficient and Advanced      87          87          68          88          

  %Proficient                     74          70          59          71          

  %Advanced                       13          17          9           17          

  Number of Students Tested       23          23          22          35          

  2\. Males                                                                       

  \% Proficient and Advanced      69          80          86          92          

  %Proficient                     38          63          77          71          

  %Advanced                       31          17          9           21          

  Number of Students Tested       26          24          35          24          

  3\. NOT Free and Reduced                                                        

  \% Proficient and Advanced      85          89          89          94          

  %Proficient                     54          66          78          72          

  %Advanced                       31          23          11          22          

  Number of Students Tested       26          35          37          32          

  4\. Free and Reduced                                                            

  \% Proficient and Advanced      70          67          60          85          

  %Proficient                     57          67          55          70          

  %Advanced                       13          0           5           15          

  Number of Students Tested       23          12          20          27          

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                

  \% Proficient and Advanced      78          77          76          79          

  %Proficient                     57          57          57          58          

  %Advanced                       21          20          19          21          
  ------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**Table 4**

**[REFERENCED AGAINST NATIONAL NORMS]{.underline}**

Subject:[\_\_\_Math\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Grade:\_\_4\_\_\_
Test:\_\_\_Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Form A\_\_]{.underline}

Edition/Publication Year:[\_\_2000\_\_\_\_]{.underline}
Publisher:\_\_\_\_\_[Riverside Publishing
Company]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

  Testing month                   March       March       March       March       March

  **SCHOOL SCORES**                                                               

  \% Proficient and Advanced      88          79          69          89          

  %Proficient                     62          70          59          75          

  %Advanced                       26          9           10          19          

                                                                                  

  Number of students tested       50          48          59          59          

  Percent of total students       100         97.9        100         100         
  tested                                                                          

  Number of students              0           2           1           0           
  alternatively assessed                                                          

  Percent of students             0           4           1.7         0           
  alternatively assessed                                                          

  SUBGROUP SCORES                                                                 

  1\. Females                                                                     

  \% Proficient and Advanced      92          87          56          91          

  %Proficient                     63          78          52          77          

  %Advanced                       29          9           4           14          

  Number of Students Tested       24          23          23          35          

  2\. Males                                                                       

  \% Proficient and Advanced      85          70          77          84          

  %Proficient                     62          61          63          71          

  %Advanced                       23          9           14          13          

  Number of Students Tested       26          23          35          24          

  3\. NOT Free and Reduced                                                        

  \% Proficient and Advanced      93          83          78          90          

  %Proficient                     58          71          16          81          

  %Advanced                       35          12          62          9           

  Number of Students Tested       26          34          37          32          

  4\. Free and Reduced                                                            

  \% Proficient and Advanced      84          67          52          86          

  %Proficient                     67          67          52          67          

  %Advanced                       17          0           0           19          

  Number of Students Tested       24          12          21          27          

  **STATE SCORES**                                                                

  \% Proficient and Advanced      78          75          72          73          

  %Proficient                     60          59          58          59          

  %Advanced                       18          16          14          14          
  ------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------