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

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

**Cover Sheet**

Name of Principal: Mrs. Gwendolyn Damiano

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

Official School Name: George Bancroft Elementary School

(As it should appear in the official records)

School Mailing Address: 1002 Albright Avenue

Scranton, PA 18508-2506

Tel. [( 570 ) 348-3667]{.underline} Fax [( 570 ) 348-3376]{.underline}

Website/URL:
[www.scrsd.org/ssd/Ourschools/Bancroft/Bancroft3a.shtm](http://www.scrsd.org/ssd/Ourschools/Bancroft/Bancroft3a.shtm)

E-mail: Bancroft@ssd.org

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

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

(Principal's Signature)

Name of Superintendent\* [Dr. John R. Williams]{.underline}

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

District Name [Scranton]{.underline} Tel. [( 570 ) 348-3465]{.underline}

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

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

Name of School Board Mr. Todd J. O'Malley

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)

**PART I ‑ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**PART II ‑ DEMOGRAPHIC DATA**

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

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

1\. Number of schools in the district: [13]{.underline} Elementary
schools

[3]{.underline} Middle schools

[2]{.underline} High schools

[18]{.underline} TOTAL

2\. District Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$ 9,373.00]{.underline}

Average State Per Pupil Expenditure: [\$ 8,295.00]{.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\. [1.4]{.underline} Number of years the principal has been in her/his
position at this school.

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

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

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

  **K**       15        13                     **28**                                    

  **1**       18        17                     **35**                                    

  **2**       18        15                     **33**                                    

  **3**       21        21                     **42**                                    

  **4**       23        17                     **40**                                    

  **5**       19        23                     **42**                                    

                                                                                         

                                    **TOTAL                                              262\*
                                    STUDENTS                                             
                                    IN THE                                               
                                    APPLYING                                             
                                    SCHOOL**                                             
  ----------- --------- ----------- ---------- --------- -- --------- -------- --------- ---------

\* Bancroft Elementary provides Title I services to 24 preschool
students three years of age

and 18 preschool students four years of age, five days per week.

6\. Racial/ethnic composition of [60%]{.underline} White

the students in the school: [18%]{.underline} Black or African American

[21%]{.underline} Hispanic or Latino

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

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

**100% Total**

7\. Student turnover, or mobility rate, during the past year:
[17%]{.underline}

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

  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------
  **(1)**     Number of students who transferred 20
              ***to*** the school after October  
              1 until the end of the year.       

  **(2)**     Number of students who transferred 21
              ***from*** the school after        
              October 1 until the end of the     
              year.                              

  **(3)**     Subtotal of all transferred        41
              students \[sum of rows (1) and     
              (2)\]                              

  **(4)**     Total number of students in the    247
              school as of October 1             

  **(5)**     Subtotal in row (3) divided by     .17
              total in row (4)                   

  **(6)**     Amount in row (5) multiplied by    17%
              100                                
  ----------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------

8\. Limited English Proficient students in the school: [15%]{.underline}

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

Number of languages represented: [3]{.underline}

Specify languages:

Spanish

Portuguese

Vietnamese

9\. Students eligible for free/reduced-priced meals: [84.1%]{.underline}

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

10\. Students receiving special education services: [22.1%]{.underline}

[58]{.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.

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

\_\_\_\_Deafness [12]{.underline} Other Health Impaired

\_\_\_\_Deaf-Blindness [14]{.underline} Specific Learning Disability

\_\_\_\_Hearing Impairment [8]{.underline} Speech or Language Impairment

[23]{.underline} Mental Retardation \_\_\_\_Traumatic Brain Injury

\_\_\_\_Multiple Disabilities \_\_\_\_Visual Impairment Including
Blindness

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

    **Number of Staff**

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

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

Classroom teachers [12]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Special resource teachers/specialists [8]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

> Support staff [5]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Total number [31]{.underline} \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

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

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

  Daily student attendance 94.8%       93.8%       94.3%       92.8%       93.9%

  Daily teacher attendance NA          94.2%       93.2%       86.2%       92.2%

  Teacher turnover rate    0%          1%          2%          1%          2%

  Student dropout rate     \-\--       \-\--       \-\--       \-\--       \-\--

  Student drop-off rate    \-\--       \-\--       \-\--       \-\--       \-\--
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

**[PART III- SUMMARY]{.underline}**

***Narrative Snapshot***

George Bancroft Elementary School, built in 1928, is located in
Scranton, Pennsylvania. It is one of 13 elementary schools in the
Scranton School District and serves approximately 262 students in
preschool through fifth grade.

Bancroft Elementary has the highest percentage of economically
disadvantaged students in the Scranton School District. For several
years in a row, the test scores indicated many students were performing
at either basic or below basic levels. Many expressed the impossibility
of raising test scores to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress, with the
type of population served by the school. The faculty of Bancroft were
not of the same opinion.

Imagine teachers and staff members believing in their school, students,
and themselves, and refusing to allow mediocrity to infect their school.
Furthermore, visualize the will of a dynamic group of individuals rising
to the challenge and working together to devise a strategic plan to
raise test scores. Finally, consider the type of role models these
teachers represent to their students. The aforementioned as well as many
other exciting changes have occurred throughout this past year,
resulting in Bancroft Elementary doubling their reading scores and
tripling their math scores on the Pennsylvania Systems of School
Assessments.

Picture a brick building in the middle of a small neighborhood,
surrounded only by blacktop. Now, visualize teachers and students
planting butterfly and hummingbird gardens, shrubs and trees around the
school. Upon entering the door, one's eyes are immediately attracted to
a foyer with electric blue steps. On these steps, the children have
painted, "Footsteps to Our Future," along with imprints of their feet.
Once you cross the threshold into the main hallway, colorful little
handprints border the middle of the walls. Every person is greeted by
our mission statement hanging on the wall, which was hand-quilted by the
students. Picture our children painting a "Garden of Polygons," the
alphabet, numbers and sequences on the hallway walls. A math lesson on
measuring, geometry, addition, and estimation, became the center of an
art activity in which the students designed and painted tile for the
lavatories. Imagine what it would be like to read in a library painted
like the inside of a castle. Constant displays of hands-on,
standard's-based activities create an atmosphere of pride and
achievement.

We believe the strength of a school depends on parents, students, and
staff working together to provide the best opportunities and support for
all children. School sponsored programs for parents come alive with
activities that promote reading and math skills.

George Bancroft Elementary School is a true testament that all children,
regardless of cultural, ethnic or socioeconomic differences, can be
guided toward achieving academic excellence. We will continue to provide
all students with equal opportunities to engage in the best
instructional practices that respond to the needs of the citizenry,
while building upon the culturally diverse roots of our community.

**[PART IV- INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS]{.underline}**

***Description of School Assessment Results***

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires each state to create
challenging standards for reading and math. The Pennsylvania Academic
Standards, adopted prior to the passage of this law, state what children
should know and be able to do at specific grade levels. These standards
are the foundation for each curriculum area.

In order to assess and monitor student achievement, the Department of
Education further mandates that schools conduct annual assessments of
these standards at various grade levels. Each spring, students
throughout Pennsylvania in grades 3 and 5 are tested in both reading and
math using a standardized instrument known as the Pennsylvania System of
School Assessment (PSSA).

Several months after the tests are administered, each school receives a
report which compares its' reading and math scores with the scores of
other schools in both the district and in the state of Pennsylvania.
Descriptions of how the school performed on each standard are also
provided. For instance in the standard 'Reading Critically in All
Content Areas,' 73.3% of George Bancroft students achieved proficiency,
whereas the state averaged 71.7%. According to these numbers, Bancroft
scored higher than the state average. This method of describing how the
students scored in each category allows us to identify our strengths and
weaknesses.

The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a specified annual percentage of
students who must meet or exceed proficiency on standardized tests.
Depending upon how many questions the student answers correctly, he or
she is placed into one of four categories: Advanced, Proficient, Basic,
or Below Basic. Currently, 35% of the students taking the test must
score proficient or advanced in math. In reading, 45% of the students
must score proficient or advanced. At specific intervals, the goal
increases, so that by the year 2014, all students will score at
proficient levels.

During the 2001-2002 school year, 28% of the students at George Bancroft
scored proficient or above in math and 32% scored proficient or above in
reading. The scores clearly did not meet the adequate yearly progress
mandate. According to the No Child Left Behind Act, schools that fail to
make adequate yearly progress for two years are subject to consequences.
We at Bancroft knew we had to address our weaknesses as identified on
the assessments and make them our strengths.

After a year of hard work and sacrifice, we could hardly wait to see how
our students had performed. The testing results for the 2003-2003 school
year were reported in August of 2003. Not only did our school meet the
AYP, we exceeded the requirements. A total of 69.3% of our students
scored proficient or advanced in both math and reading.

Our mission is not over. Our student population is extremely diverse,
which presents us with more challenges in the years to come.

***Using Assessment Data to Understand and Improve Student
Performance***

The faculty at George Bancroft employs assessment data to understand and
improve student and school performance in numerous ways. PSSA data from
2002 pointed to the need for a curriculum standards checklist for each
grade level. These checklists allow each teacher to see individual
student's strengths and weaknesses. They provide clear guidelines for
additional instruction of the curriculum.

The 2002 assessment data also indicated a need for linking the PSSA to
daily instruction. The faculty made this adjustment by employing more
authentic texts, performance tasks, phonemic awareness activities,
rubrics, directed and guided reading instruction, open-ended questions,
thinking math activities and computer software. Furthermore, the school
purchased *PSSA Coach Books* in reading and math for the primary level,
grade 3, and grade 5 in order to allow students additional experience in
taking the tests. These books also guide teachers' instruction according
to the student's strengths and weaknesses.

It was apparent that the faculty needed to design appropriate
differentiated instruction for all students. Subsequently, in-services
were conducted on differentiated curriculum design. The faulty used the
material from these in-services to reconstruct their daily lesson plans
to ensure they correlate with the academic standards and that they had
an appropriate means of assessment.

***Communicating Performance and Assessment Data***

The faculty and Bancroft communicates and records student performance in
various forms:

-   Report cards are distributed quarterly.

-   Parent-teacher conferences are held twice a year to discuss specific
    strengths and needs.

-   On a bi-weekly basis, each special education and ESL teacher issues
    monitoring forms to any classroom teacher who has students with
    special needs in their room. These are merely mini-assessments of
    how the student is progressing within an inclusive environment. Not
    only does this format keep the lines of communication open among the
    teachers, it is an effective way to establish anecdotal records.
    This type of documentation is effective when determining the Least
    Restrictive Environment at an IEP meeting. If a teacher notes on
    these forms that a particular child is not doing well either
    academically or behaviorally, a copy is made and sent home to the
    parents. Our student success rate has increased a significant amount
    due to this monitoring method.

-   Many teachers keep portfolios on each child, and review the work
    with them weekly. Often, the students bring home folders containing
    samples of their work.

-   Faculty and administration worked collaboratively to create progress
    reports to meet the specific needs of our school. Although these
    reports may be sent home at any time as needed throughout the school
    year, they are only required for those who do make advancements on
    the curriculum based assessments.

-   The school sponsors parent and community meetings.

-   Newsletters are sent to parents containing updates regarding the
    scores and our intentions as to how we will continue building upon
    our successes.

***Sharing Success with Other Schools***

The faculty and administration of Bancroft Elementary collaboratively
developed a data driven school improvement plan. The teachers evaluated
their teaching strategies and identified areas in which they needed to
improve. The administration provided unlimited in-services within these
areas. Our plan included measurable student achievement goals and an
action plan for their implementation and evaluation. This improvement
plan will be disseminated to all 13 district elementary schools.

All district principals meet every month to discuss progress and share
strategies and activities that have been effective in promoting student
growth. Many of our successful interventions have already been
implemented in several other buildings.

Our district provides after hours professional development sessions for
administrators. Recently, principals who experienced a significant rise
in scores participated on a panel for other district administrators.
Strategies were shared across all grade levels in the belief that school
improvement is both a horizontal and a vertical process.

Several teachers have attended district-sponsored workshops where they
promoted strategies for differentiating instruction and the changes we
have made to our curriculum and learning environment.

**[PART V- CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION]{.underline}**

***Description of School Curriculum***

George Bancroft Elementary School uses a balanced literacy approach to
reading. Anthologies from a basal series, leveled books, and Kidwriting
comprise the program, which is researched based with the report from the
National Reading Panel as its foundation. Program elements include
phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, text comprehension, and
fluency.

A national trainer did staff development for the reading/language arts
program. This individual has not only in-serviced the faculty, but also
provided follow-up visits to ensure understanding and appropriate
student progress on concepts of reading instruction.

Students hear stories from an anthology, as teachers model pre-reading,
during reading and after reading strategies. Guided reading is practiced
daily as part of flexible grouping classroom management. Students can
choose from a classroom library of books on their level. Spelling and
vocabulary are thematically connected to the reading passages. Students
learn Kidwriting as early as kindergarten, and grammar instruction
develops through mini lessons based on error analysis. Reading
assessment is done through a series of measures including, but not
limited to running records and miscue analysis.

The reading curriculum is Pennsylvania Standards-based, as is all
instruction at Bancroft. A scope and sequenced, spiral curriculum
reviews, and then expands on, concepts learning the previous year.

The mathematics curriculum is manipulative-based and includes
instructional strategies from the American Federation of Teachers
nationally accredited program, Thinking Math. Social studies instruction
(history, geography, citizenship) includes reading strategies as its
foundation.

The district is in the process of purchasing a new elementary science
program that is aligned to the newly written elementary science
curriculum. This program, which included science, technology,
environment and ecology, is activity/lab based, where students are
actively engaged in "doing" science.

Students receive health, physical education, computer instruction, music
and art through weekly scheduled classes. Although not mandated by
Chapter 4 of the Pennsylvania School Code, character education is
interwoven in the curriculum at Bancroft. A new theme is introduced each
month and students focus on that character trait for several weeks until
it becomes part of the school culture.

Also not mandated, world languages have become a component of the
Bancroft curriculum, since the school is fortunate to have many students
who represent several countries. This diversity provides a rich forum of
American-born students to lean not only the conversational languages,
but also the cultures, of other lands.

***Description of Reading Curriculum and Why it was Chosen***

Our current Basal Reading Series called *Signatures* is published by
Harcourt School Publishers. A committee of teachers including Reading
Specialists, Special Education teachers, and Administrators adopted it.
This selection practice has been quite successful when choosing
curriculum-based materials.

Philosophically, the Scranton School District embraces a balanced
literacy approach. It emphasizes the importance of combining
research-based skills and strategies with outstanding children's
literature. Our district's focuses on the following individual
principals of reading instruction as fundamental guides:

-   Reading and writing are interrelated and interactive language
    processes and literacy instruction should capitalize on this
    relationship;

-   Literacy instruction should lead children to understand that reading
    is a meaningful, active, and strategic process;

-   The key to successful literacy instruction is the teacher;

-   Teachers must recognize the enormous diversity that exists among
    students, plan appropriate instruction for a wide range of
    individual differences in the classroom, and believe that all
    students can and will be successful in learning to read.

In the Scranton School District, we define reading as the active process
of constructing meaning from the written text in relation to the
experiences and knowledge of the reader. The true reading process is
dynamic and requires active, meaningful communication between the text
and the reader.

***Description of Science Curriculum and how it Pertains to Mission
Statement***

The main objective of our science curriculum is to enhance critical
thinking skills and to stimulate the students' natural curiosity about
themselves and their environment. We believe students should understand
how science affects their everyday lives, and how it can be useful
beyond the classroom.

Our science curriculum is divided into in three areas: content, process
and product. The Pennsylvania Science Standards for each grade level
guides content selection. Instruction of the content is a cooperative
effort of the teaching team, which consists of both a regular education
teacher as well as a special education teacher. Teachers collaborate on
student activities and design innovative units, which integrate other
content areas such as math and reading. Lessons focus on
interdisciplinary skills such as sequencing, interpreting data, writing
and graphing. Students demonstrate problem solving skills by exploring
ideas, posing problems and working toward solutions. Teachers also
incorporate various leaning approaches that meet the needs of diverse
learners.

Finally, the teachers decide how the students will produce the final
product, as well as the means of assessment for these products. The team
uses a choice of the following products: an adapted test for special
needs students, a project that incorporates what was taught and that
meets the criteria of the project rubric, or an oral presentation which
also must meet the criteria of the oral presentation rubric.

***Instructional Methods Used to Improve Student Performance***

Upon perusing the physical plant and playground at Bancroft, one cannot
fail to notice that authentic learning and assessment play an integral
role in the day-to-day education process. Students learn and apply
various skills and knowledge as they plan and participate in planting
gardens, decorating halls and classrooms and quilting the mission
statement.

Teachers combine a variety of methods as they differentiate instruction
to meet the needs of Bancroft's diverse learners. Experiential lessons
provide motivation and background knowledge that we know is essential to
student leaning. Direct instruction provides basic skills while guided
and independent practice encourages that modicum of automaticity
necessary for success in academic endeavors. Students work both
independently and cooperatively on projects that demand application of
problem solving and higher order thinking.

Teachers employ a variety of auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and tactile
strategies to address the preferred learning modalities of individual
students. They include graphic organizers, role play, oral and visual
presentations, questioning, lecture, hands-on experimentation followed
by de-briefing, reciprocal teaching, use of audiovisual equipment, and
field trips.

***Professional Development Program and its Impact on Student
Achievement***

In September of 2002, the teachers at George Bancroft displayed a unique
initiative to improve the overall student performance. All members of
the faculty assisted in the creation of an intensive strategic plan for
staff development. The faculty formed weekly study groups to identify
data-based goals for school reform and to pursue research based methods
for goal achievement and assessment based on specific state standards.
Among completed projects are grade specific checklists in reading,
language and math aligned to PA Educational Standards. The groups
continue to meet weekly with additional professional support and
guidance.

In workshop format, the faculty was presented with multiple Educational
Research and Development programs in topics. Some of the sessions
addressed the following: direct instruction, classroom management,
family involvement, peer learning strategies, and comprehension
strategies in reading and math. In addition, the faculty and staff
participated in workshops on differentiated instruction, ESL practices
for classroom teachers, SRA practices, computer enhanced learning,
reading strategies, phonemic awareness, curriculum based assessment, Kid
Writing, running records, standards-based learning and accommodations
for students with disabilities. Sessions on inclusion of special needs
students provided opportunities for teacher observations in other school
districts.

**PART VII - ASSESSMENT RESULTS**

**Table 1**

**Pennsylvania School System of School Assessment**

**Reading, Math, and Writing**

**Revised editions yearly**

**Published by the Pennsylvania Department of Education**

+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **PSSA Math Results**       | **April    | **April    | **April    |
|                             | 2001**     | 2002**     | 2003**     |
| **Grade 5 (Scaled Scores)** |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Total School Score-       | **1120**   | **1140**   | **1342**   |
| Math**                      |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Basic           | 27%        | 45%        | 84.7%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Proficient      | 4%         | 24%        | 69.3%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At Advanced                 | 0%         | 3%         | 38.5%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Number Tested*             | 26         | 34         | 21\*\*\*   |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Percent Tested*            | 96.3%      | 100%       | 100%       |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Number Excluded*           | 9          | 0          | 0          |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Percent Excluded*          | 25.7%      | 0%         | 0%         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Subgroup Scores**         |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Economically               |            |            |            |
| Disadvantaged*              |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Basic           | \*         | 44%        | 90%        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Proficient      | \*         | 24%        | 60%        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Advanced        | \*         | 4%         | 30%        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Number Tested               | 0\*\*      | 25         | 7\*        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **State Mean Score**        | **1310**   | **1320**   | **1340**   |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Basic           | 79%        | 75%        | 77.3%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Proficient      | 54%        | 53%        | 56.3%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At Advanced                 | 23%        | 26%        | 27.7%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+

**\* In order to protect student confidentiality, the state of
Pennsylvania does not indicate the scores on the school report if fewer
than 10 students were tested in that category. In order to provide a
basis of comparison, research has been conducted strictly for this
application. Individual student information has not been compromised and
remains confidential.**

**\*\* The percent of Economically Disadvantaged students at Bancroft
during the 2000-2001 school year was at 87%. Upon reviewing the data for
this year, an error was found in the school report. According to the
report, 0% of 25 students were classified as Economically Disadvantaged.
This is an obvious recording error. If necessary, the correct figures
can be obtained by researching the district archives.**

**\*\*\* In the state of Pennsylvania, students who are identified as
being severely low functioning, are administered an alternate
assessment. This assessment is called the Pennsylvania Alternate State
Assessment (PASA). A total of two students from the 5^th^ grade class
took the PASA in the spring of 2003.**

**Table 2**

**Pennsylvania School System of School Assessment**

**Reading, Math, and Writing**

**Revised editions yearly**

**Published by the Pennsylvania Department of Education**

+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **PSSA Reading Results**    | **April    | **April    | **April    |
|                             | 2001**     | 2002**     | 2003**     |
| **Grade 5 (Scaled Scores)** |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **School Scores**           | **1160**   | **1200**   | **1317**   |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Basic           | 48%        | 56%        | 92.4%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Proficient      | 16%        | 35%        | 69.3%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At Advanced                 | 0%         | 6%         | 30.8%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Number Tested*             | 25         | 34         | 21\*\*\*   |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Percent Tested*            | 92.6%      | 100%       | 100%       |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Number Excluded*           | 8          | 0          | 0          |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Percent Excluded*          | 24.2%      | 0%         | 0%         |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **Subgroup Scores**         |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| *Economically               |            |            |            |
| Disadvantaged*              |            |            |            |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Basic           | \*         | 52%        | 80%        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Proficient      | \*         | 44%        | 50%        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Advanced        | \*         | 8%         | 20%        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Number Tested               | 0\*\*      | 25         | 7\*        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| **State Mean Score**        | **1310**   | **1320**   | **1330**   |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Basic           | 80%        | 80%        | 78.4%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At or Above Proficient      | 56%        | 57%        | 58%        |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| At Advanced                 | 20%        | 18%        | 27.1%      |
+-----------------------------+------------+------------+------------+

**\* In order to protect student confidentiality, the state of
Pennsylvania does not indicate the scores on the school report if fewer
than 10 students were tested in that category. In order to provide a
basis of comparison, research has been conducted for the 2002-2003
school year strictly for this application. Individual student
information has not been compromised and remains confidential.**

**\*\* The percent of Economically Disadvantaged students at Bancroft
during the 2000-2001 school year was at 87%. Upon reviewing the data for
this year, an error was found in the school report. According to the
report, 0% of 25 students were classified as Economically Disadvantaged.
This is an obvious error. If necessary, the correct figures can be
obtained by researching the district archives.**

**\*\*\* In the state of Pennsylvania, students who are identified as
being severely low functioning, are administered an alternate
assessment. This assessment is called the Pennsylvania Alternate State
Assessment (PASA). A total of two students from the 5^th^ grade class
took the PASA in the spring of 2003.**